Talk:2017 Catalan independence referendum/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Request for Comment

There are multiple issues on the page on the Catalan independence referendum. They are mainly regarding POV, relevance and wording. They involve several recent editors: myself (User:Munci), User:BallenaBlanca, User:Crystallizedcarbon, User:Impru20 and User:BrendonTheWizard.

Specific issues include the changing statistics, prominence of the word 'illegal' and the relevance and description of injuries described in different ways by different sources.

The statistics for injuries to Spanish policemen changed dramatically from the 1st October to the 2nd October. The change involved having much wider inclusion criteria: rather than just including those who had received medical treatment, the Spanish government started including those who had just received scratches or bruises. This resulted in the figures being ten times as high as those of the previous day. Some users feel that this information ought to be included whereas others do not.

Prominent inclusion of the word 'illegal' is proposed on the basis of the Spanish government position on the matter, and opposed on the basis of the multiple viewpoints. The fact that the Spanish government is opposed to the idea is already mentioned elsewhere in the same paragraph.

Description of specific violent incidents and injuries are disputed, including an injury to an ERC politician which was described differently in different sources. It is also being discussed to what extent footage from previous demonstrations is relevant (apparently presented as being of the current vote) and to which extent this matter deserves its own independent section.

Also, there are often differing descriptions between Spanish, Catalan and international sources.

And there are other problems which arise also.

Munci (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@Scolaire: is also involved, as am I. For good measure, also notifying Asturkian about this RfC. Comment regarding "illegal" -- I believe the legality or lack thereof of the referendum should only be discussed, in prose, when it is topically relevant. Usage of illegal as an adjective every time the referendum is mentioned outside of this (as I have seen on this page, and removed on one occasion) violates NPOV and also just doesn't look like good, detached and dispassionate, writing. --Calthinus (talk) 17:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC) I just changed my username, sorry for any confusion.

As Calthinus says, the use of the word illegal was absurdingly excessive at times. It should be used when it is topically relevant (i.e. when it comes to explain the Spanish government position), not at every turn the word "referendum" is used in the text, nor the illegal nature of the referendum be mentioned at every opportunity, as it violates NPOV. There were also some wrong statements, such as the Constitutional Court declaring the referendum illegal on 6 September (it didn't; it just suspended the laws allowing for the referendum for a period of five months until it ruled on the issue. It was the Spanish government who declared it illegal). The statistics for wounded Spanish policemen were weirdly explained at times. It is just non-sense to say that there were 39 injured on 1 October, but then these were 431 on 2 October, without offering any explanation as to why this was so (the current text, explaining that "according to the Ministry of the Interior 431 agents were injured, 39 of them required immediate medical treatment and the remaining 392 had injuries by bruises, scrapes, kicks and bites" is ok and in line with sources and with what actually happened). As for the "falsehood" claims, giving them their entire own sub-section would violate UNDUE. International media give these little coverage, with the events on 1 October being mostly reported in English reliable sources because of the actual police violence. Some previous "falsehood" edits were written as if these diminished the impact of the actual violence during 1 October, or as if these had equal relevance. Of course these must be included for the sake of BALANCE, but their weight adjusted to their actual impact. And while the ERC woman controversy may have relevance (since it led to Colau's statements and prompted an action by the Interior Ministry), I'm unsure of the relevance of the "social media fake information" thing (there's only one (not English) international media source referenced to back such claims, the rest being Madrid-based media which can't be argued to be actually neutral on this issue). Impru20 (talk) 17:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

You'd want to think long and hard about the wording of an RfC. There are several threads running on this page at the same time, referring to different sections, or parts of sections. There's no point in asking "do you think the article should be slanted more towards the independentists or more slanted towards the unionists?" On the other hand, "Do you agree or disagree with (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g)?" is going to be mighty complex. It would also be essential that the wording of an RfC should be scrupulously neutral. Finding a neutral wording for an RfC could be just as difficult as finding neutral wording for the article. Possibly it would be better to go straight to the DRN. --Scolaire (talk) 17:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Against removing the word Illegal. Catalonia is a region of Spain one of it's 17 autonomous communities. It is unquestionably under Spanish law. If you want to challenge this please provide reliable sources. The Constitutional court of Spain suspended the referendum and the regional law that supported it and it was the High Court of Justice of Catalonia that ordered the Mossos and police to prevent it as celebrating it was illegal. This is unquestionable and has also been ratified by the European Commission. The separatists whose support was less than 50% by votes and slightly over by representatives on the last regional election want to ignore this simple fact and they are ignoring the separation of powers. They pretend to make their own laws and ignore the judicial power. The Referendum did not even comply with the minimum regulations needed to be valid See here. Ignoring all of this, today the leader of the separatists has vowed to unilaterally declare the independence of Catalonia. Many of the mayor companies of the region have already moved their headquarters out of Catalonia in response and many more have pledge to do so as soon as there is a declaration. Today there was a massive demonstration in Catalonia where hundreds of thousands of people in favor of the constitution and the unity of Spain were also supporting the police and protesting against the division created in Catalonia by the separatists. This is not stopping Puigdemont who is also under investigation for corruption. So yes, the celebration of the referendum was illegal. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

So, when a referendum or election is legal, do you keep repeating all over the article that it is a legal vote each time the word "referendum" or "election" is mentioned? No? Then there is no justification here, either. It may be unquestionably against Spanish law, but there's no point at repeating it is illegal every time the word referendum is mentioned, and that has nothing to do with sources. You may provide a context section so as to why it is illegal, and explain why it is illegal according to sources and Spanish law. But the disproportionate use of an adjective even in sections were the legality of the vote is not warranted or explained at all is excessive and may constitute a clear bias. It is not in question that the vote was illegal, so please, do not violate NPOV. Wikipedia must not take sides in any conflict, and from your comment, one could easily argue you are seeking to favour one side here. I also think this should probably go to DRN. Impru20 (talk) 20:18, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I would also like to note that in the current version of the article the word illegal is not been used "as an adverb" "at every turn the word referendum is used" The words balance and NPOV are been used, but the actions taken don't seem to be coherent. Another example of apparent bias is mentioning that 39 policeman had injuries and the remaning 392 bruises scrapes and kicks but failing to mention that the 893 are not injuries. A Catalan judge brought that figure down to 103 and those also include bruises with only 4 treated, one was the person that exaggerated her finger(s) injuries. Of those 4 only 2 were serious. One being an unrelated heart attack and the other the person hit in the eye by a rubber ball when a group of police was surrounded and was been harassed and driven out by demonstrators. Not mentioning that I feel is against WP:NPOV. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@Impru20: I did not see your previous comment, but I think I answered it as you were writing yours. Please search the document and look at the 9 times the word illegal is mentioned and let me know where you would remove just that word. The word Referendum is mentioned 193 times and "illegal referendum" is not present anywhere in the document. If you are looking for Bias you may want to look elsewhere. DRN sounds fine to me. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit conflict... Hi, definitely support removing "illegal" except for its first appearance making reference to the ruling by the relevant Spanish or other tribunal exclusively for informative purposes, repetion sounds like lecturing, an emphasis on the Spanish government's position. I would reduce all undue weight given to 'fake' news or social media, including it all in a section related to media coverage and/or echoes in social media, not very long, just citing most relevant cases. I will state clearly my position anyway, I consider the Spanish corporate media, heavily subsidized by the Spanish government, to be fully engaged in a propaganda war, so any pieces of information not getting down to details, should be regarded with extreme caution as far as I am concerned. Iñaki LL (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Please provide proof to your claim that all major media from Spain(except some from Catalonia) considered reliable sources up to now are biased. Please share the information used in this article from those sources that you found to be unreliable? --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Pretending to delete the term "illegal" seems like an absurd discussion. Appears seven times in total and correctly employed:

1. but declared illegal on 6 September 2017 and suspended by the Constitutional Court of Spain because it breached the Spanish Constitution of 1978.[4][5]
2. The law is illegal according to the Catalan Statutes of Autonomy which require a two third majority in the Catalan parliament for any change to Catalonia's status.
3. The referendum itself is also illegal according to the Spanish constitution. It was suspended by the Constitutional Court on 7 September 2017,
4. The Government of Spain opposes any Catalan self-determination referendum,[23][24] because the Spanish Constitution does not allow for a vote on the independence of any Spanish region while also deeming it illegal without its consent.[
5. A discussion event in favour of the referendum was organised in a public venue but relocated following the Spanish Conservatives' cancellation demand to the mayor of Madrid Manuela Carmena, on the grounds that it "incites illegal actions", "defies institutions and constitutional legality" and "offends the monarchy"
6. On 2 October, the European Commission released a statement on its webpage declaring the referendum illegal.[118]
7. The King of Spain, Felipe VI, who called the Catalan referendum "illegal", appealed to the union [of Spain] and called the situation in Spain "extremely serious."--BallenaBlanca (Talk) 20:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Clarification -- BallenaBlanca, for the most part I have no issue with the use of illegal where it is topically relevant, as it is in many of the examples above (I'm not engaging at the moment with the more nuanced argument between you and Inyaki on the details of some of these). In the past, it had been other places where it was really not useful -- for example [thousands of people protested against the illegal referendum] removed by myself of course. There the term as an adjective is totally unnecessary, violating not only NPOV but also good writing. Also adverbial use like [it was illegally held on 1 October 2017] looks bad for similar reasons. I (and I believe Impru20 among others) are saying this because it keeps getting removed from the page... and then reappearing in some way. Please do not make this happen again.

In general I also think there has been NPOV breaches regarding especially the use of adjectives on both sides at times in these pages; I and others remove them and then they reappear in other places-- and this has appeared from multiple POVs. Example from one side: "the violent attack" (all attacks are violent) [[1]]; for the pro-separatist version of this sort of bad writing, there has been a section for one notorious example... --Calthinus (talk) 02:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Upon second inspection, it appears that actually most of these adjective issues have been fixed -- my apologies, I didn't mean to derail the RfC with a mostly fixed problem. Of course if they are reinserted the commentary here still applies. --Calthinus (talk) 03:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

"I consider the Spanish corporate media, heavily subsidized by the Spanish government, to be fully engaged in a propaganda war" Please, Iñaki LL refrain to argue based on your own beliefs. You have to do it based on reliable sources. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 21:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

On the statements above, on a quick look, there are at least two not sticking to present-day facts, like "is also illegal according to the Spanish constitution”. Well, no, the Spanish constitution does not state that a Catalan referendum is unconstitutional; however, if I am wrong correct me. The news is "It was suspended by the Constitutional Court", or deemed unconstitutional by that organ. I would put all considerations by parties involved in quote-unquote, news style, especially now that is still all so fresh. Secondly, "the law is illegal according to the Catalan" sounds like a conclusion by the editor, does it mean that the Catalan Statute requires 2/3 of the vote to change Catalonia's status? Well, that sounds much more balanced and precise, any reader can infer what that means.

BallenaBlanca, come on I do not need proof to indulge in a statement to make clear my general position, I have been quite long around and I consider WP’s policy to be flawed when it comes to accept these sources as ‘reliable’ on a critical issue for them like this-would anybody accept Istanbul sources to talk about the Kurds? A foregone conclusion. But listen, I have not got time now to waste in another discussion on WP policies. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

So, looking at the page's section on violence and injuries currently, this is what I found (current version here, for the purpose of accountability [[2]]). Not counting text inside references, reference numbers, or spaces, here is the breakdown of the section's text. I've broken it down not by separatist vs. anti-separatist, but as "potentially pro-Guardia Civil action" versus "potentially anti-Guardia Civil action", henceforth pro-GCA and anti-GCA

1. . 735 characters devoted to the police action. Of these, 183 characters describe the use of force; a non-overlapping 41 characters describe people being hospitalized (it does not say they were hospitalized as a result of these actions; this further doesn't include the text devoted to false injury reports, which is included in a separate category). Thus, I put this in as 224 characters in the "anti" column.
2. . 104 characters devoted to endorsements of the police action. Obviously this goes in the "pro" column.
3. . 174 characters devoted to the prior inaction of the Mossos. Although I think others may put this in the "pro" column I'm leaving it aside for now, but keep this in mind.
4. . 233 characters devoted to a combination of describing what could be called aggression of Catalan civilians on the Guardia Civil, or injuries incurred by the latter. Although this could better be described as anti-protester, it goes in the "pro" column as it illustrates how the Guardia Civil may have had a difficult situation on their hands. Thus the "pro" column now stands at 337 characters, and is in the lead. But wait.
5. . 1016 characters devoted to describing cases where injuries among Catalan civilians were misleadingly reported. This is what is being discussed elsewhere. This is much more than any other section, and obviously this goes in the "pro" column, bringing it up to 1053 characters.
6. . 260 characters criticizing one of the latter reports as misleading-- this of course goes in the "anti" column, bringing it up to 593 characters.

If anyone questions my calculations here, I have it on a word file that I can send by email if necessary. I draw four conclusions from this : first, a very large portion of the section supposedly about "violence and injuries" is actually about the media coverage of them. Second, obviously the section has much more "pro-GCa" material than "anti-GCa" material (I didn't want to equate unionist with pro-, that would seem unfair to me, I suspect many unionists, especially those on the left, opposed some of the things that happened here). Third, too busy to do a detailed media analysis but in my observation at least, this portrayal here on Wikipedia is verrry different from much of the English-language media which falls much more under the anti-GCa column. Fourth, a disclaimer-- despite the apparent lack of balance, I don't think the right thing to do is to simply delete the "pro-GCa" material, as various users have tried to do. In fact, I think having theses things here gives us a more nuanced page- much more so than a lot of the English media which often had the tone of "wtf is happening in Spain". The issue is that they seem to be dominating the section.

So, proposal-- let's expand the parts of the section that are critical of the Guardia Civil action, and/or move parts about social media and media coverage into the press coverage section, until it is not quite as lopsided as 1050 pro - 600 anti (and no more after that point, preferably). That way we can keep informative material here, and maintain NPOV and BALANCE. I don't think doing this should be that hard. I have some thoughts about how it may be done, but first I want to know if its worth it-- namely, would the various people involved here support this? I think it's important to get a feel for people's thoughts before attempting section rewrites on a page like this. --Calthinus (talk) 05:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I do not have more time now, but I want to say one thing. This discussion does not make sense from the basis of "pro-Rajoy" and I refuse to accept that view. Please, modify it so that we can move forward.

We have a Constitution, which all the Spaniards approved in 1978, which is what is being violated. It is the union of Spain against the independentists who have worked outside the law. Those would be the two positions to be valued.

Also, weight is not measured by counting characters only. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 06:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Modified: Pro-Guardia Civil action. However, I don't accept your logic that there are only two positions here. A unionist could theoretically oppose what happened and it's even possible (though unlikely) that a separatist could support it. Agree that pro/anti Rajoy was not the best way to capture the distinction. --Calthinus (talk) 06:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

<<EDIT CONFLICT>> Labeling "Pro-Rajoy" or "Anti-Rajoy" is not accurate. If we need to find labels it would be much more accurate to use "separatists" and "anti-separatists" or "pro-Spanish" or "Constitutionalists" since close to half of the pro-Spanish that defend the territorial integrity of Spain would not identify themselves with label of pro-Rajoy, quite the opposite. I am not too keen on the idea of using just the number of characters as a way to gauge balance or the lack of it, as some powerful concepts can be explained with very few words and others may need more, so I would be against expanding one view just so it has more characters. But having said that, the proposal made by Calthinus about a rewrite, if done correctly, seems reasonable. All notable concepts should be covered we can try to synthesize the contents trying to keep all relevant information so the reader can make up his or her own mind. The information on the use and repercusión of videos and images that were latter proved to be fake by some separatists as a way to use the violence of that day to further their cause is notable. It is also notable that some of those claims had also been echoed by very notable people (that clearly contributed to the international media coverage). If the examples are covered elsewhere in the article and they are linked I think that could be ok. A good idea may be to make a draft on a sandbox and try to reach a consensus. Finally, I beleive that international sources are great, but many lack direct knowledge of relevant details. RS is RS, so it makes perfect sense that RS from Spain at a national or regional level (Catalonia) be the main source for thorough coverage of the event. I do agree that opinion articles however should be used only for facts avoiding oppinion.

If you want we can review the notable material that should be a part of the section to try to reach a consensus. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I should clarify -- I'm not proposing to expand the whatever-we're-calling-it-"Guardia Civil action was bad" (I think many Unionists/Constitutionalists who are totally against Catalan independence may also have been against that, judging from some news reports) for the sake of expanding the view. The section also lacks info about some of the events that was covered in at least some media, and I think a lot of the complaints about the claimed lack of balance in the section ultimately arise from the relative size of the fake news area of the section. If there wasn't a size disparity, the section wouldn't appear to be biased and complaints would be less salient. I've started it in my sandbox here. --Calthinus (talk) 07:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Calthinus: Condensing the fake news and moving its contents to the media section could be an acceptable solution if it is done right. What do you think of what I proposed?

I think you will find this article from the NYT interesting as there is coverage of relevant content for this section: ‘I Am Spanish’: Thousands in Barcelona Protest a Push for Independence at least 350 000 people (more than twice according to organizers) protested in Barcelona against Puigdemont saying that he should represent all Catalans and not just half. They also criticized the apparent refusal to follow orders by the Mossos and showed clear support for the actions taken by the National Police. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Forgive me -- where is this proposal?

As for the nytimes article about the unionist protest in Barca -- yes absolutely that should be included if it isn't already. --Calthinus (talk) 08:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Crystallizedcarbon: the potential rewrite is at an embryonic stage right now, so to speak, in the sandbox link I gave above. I've included a bit more info on the operation, and Puigdemont's statement (placed next to the El Pais report that the GC was ordered to pull out to avoid violence, for contrast and balance), for what I think should bring things into a more equal balance in the section (haven't done a count yet). What remains left to do is tie the sentences of the new format together, move some around, and integrate the stuff that is to be moved into press coverage logically into the section. Since David Alandete makes a lot of the necessary connection points himself, we can rely on his various articles for El Pais to avoid WP:SYN. The only issue left would be a potential POV issue -- which I think is fixed better, if others complain, by including any contrary views that exist in RS (if there isn't any, not much we can do, oh well). Still eager for the thoughts of others as well of course. --Calthinus (talk) 08:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Calthinus: My suggestion was "The information on the use and repercusión of videos and images that were latter proved to be fake by some separatists as a way to use the violence of that day to further their cause is notable. It is also notable that some of those claims had also been echoed by very notable people (that clearly contributed to the international media coverage). If the examples are covered elsewhere in the article and they are linked I think that could be ok." I looked at your first draft. I agree with some of the changes, but I think in its current state is not neutral and has some problems. If you will allow me and others I would like to make some changes to it and insert suggestions. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I agree with that. As I'm sure you've seen elsewhere, I think establishing the notability by the role they've played in disinformation propagation is the way to go -- the request by Scolaire that one has to show how individuals like Ada Colau changed their mind seems like undue burden, although I do have a source on my hand showing how the German paper Deutsch Welle was fooled. The claim is not that all or most of the stuff foreigners saw that led to criticisms was fake -- that's a citation nightmare -- but rather notability is established as this fits into a larger pattern of a new and greater role of disinformation propagation during political crises, making heavy use of the internet and going back at least to 2008. Thankfully this point isn't WP:SYN as El Pais sources make it and now Anglophone sources are picking up the cue on it as well. I think this should all be covered in the Press Coverage section, not the Violence and Injuries section, but a small bit of it should be left in the latter. That way, we don't have a scenario where there is more text devoted to fake news about police action than the actual police action, which I believe was a major source of the complaints about balance by users like Impru20, etc.

As for issues in my rewrite currently, it's not a completed draft, but I've fixed some potential NPOV issues [[3]] (one of which was present there from the original text -- i.e. the unnecessary repetition of the tinged word "force"), and also I've completed the expansion of the police action stuff but I haven't yet incorporated what I want to using Alandete about the recruitment of fake I'm ages and the like by disinformation campaigns (i.e. by some Catalan nationalist actors on the web documented by El Pais, and of course some non-Catalan foreign actors...).

I can see how editors more on "the other side" (can't find a good way to say this) might perceive this as POV-- I ask that they add, not delete, material about fake news on the other side if it occurred, as I at least think given its role in political developments elsewhere over the past three or so years, it should be documented. @Crystallizedcarbon:, Feel free to edit my sandbox page, all I ask is please don't take it personally if I revert at a couple points as I'm trying to get it ready for proposal and sometimes I find it easy to revert and then integrate material elsewhere as an editing technique, and also, if multiple people end up editing it, please (I beg of you all) don't edit war in my sandbox haha. Cheers, and sorry I got long as usually. --Calthinus (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I do not know if I've read all the messages, it's hard to keep up. Thank you very much for your work, Calthinus.

About the firefighters. If we say "The firefighters formed a" human shield "separating Catalan voters from the police." seems to have been a situation throughout Catalonia. But it happened in Sant Julia de Ramis: "A video shows firemen in uniform and helmets standing shoulder to shoulder at the head of a crowd as they march forward in the face of riot police outside a polling station in Sant Julia de Ramis." We have to stick to what the sources say. And there was a reason: this is where the president Puigdemont was expected to vote: [4] and that's why the firefighters were reinforcing.

It is as in the case of rubber bullets: just as it was written the page, it seemed that they had been used throughout Catalonia, when it was only an incident in Barcelona. Look how the page was before my edit: [5] But: “Officers have used batons and - in one incident in Barcelona - rubber bullets to remove people from polling stations across the region, with separate footage showing police seizing ballot boxes and smashing their way in to polling centres.” And we have the video, which shows that the police were escaping harassed by a crowd of demonstrators. I was horrified when I saw the description it had: "Spanish National Police officers shooting rubber bullets indiscriminately at the crowd and hitting a protester in the face on 1 October 2017 in Barcelona."

When I first entered this page, it was plagued with this kind of clearly biased content. That fact was the one that made me start editing outside my comfort zone Medicine. This is the kind of edits I'm making trying to seek neutrality. I may not always have been successful in my writing, I am not native speaker of English and I do not normally edit in these subjects, my specialty is Medicine. I'm glad that there are more editors checking now, I hope we will get balance and neutrality. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 17:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Calthinus. I have added some comments on the edit summaries and on the document itself. @BallenaBlanca: I have recommended that only the first phrase about the firefighters involvement be kept as the second one is repetitive and expreses the view of the source on the intent, but I provided a source in which a few days before they declare their intention would be to prevent police from seizing the ballots or closing the schools as its already mentioned on the current wording: Catalonia referendum: Barcelona firefighters promise to DEFEND polling stations. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:16, 9 October 2017‎ (UTC)

BallenaBlanca, I've edited the draft so that it mentions that it occurred specifically in Sant Julia -----[[6]]; Crystallizedcarbon fair enough although by the way you should avoid using Daily Express, as it is not respectable; it's a tabloid (here's the NYTimes lambasting them, as you can see not only are they unreliable they are also often biased [[7]], and occasionally this anti-European bias can take an anti-Spanish form if you read some of their stuff on the supposed catastrophic rise of anti-British tourist xenophobia in Spain...). If you see in my edit, I've condensed the two sentences about the firefighters into one, and I hope it makes clear that the goal was to block access to the voting process. Ballena, I'm sorry that this page has caused you woe, I agree there has been a lot of POV pushing here, by both sides, and I hope as the situation cools, so will the Wiki page (I think it is already cooling, maybe I'm being wishful). Carbon, as for the rest of your suggestions, these are not as easy to fix quickly-- the one about the King I agree with, so no issue there; I'll consider your thoughts that you left in comments in a bit, for now I gotta take a break from Wiki. Cheers all. --Calthinus (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Calthinus: Yes, it seems it's cooling. :-) I really appreciate your work! You're very kind.

The progress on this page will also serve to review related pages, such as Operation Anubis, Catalonia, Spain, etc... where the content was even more biased than here and still are biased in many of them and biased edits are being made (see for example this section Catalan independence#2017referendum and see for example this recent one...).

Kind regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 20:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Would it be possible now to reword the following sentence from the lede: "893 civilians and 431 agents of the Nacional Police and the Guardia Civil were reported to have been injured" I propose "893 civilians and 39 agents of the Nacional Police and the Guardia Civil received medical attention, while 392 further agents of the Nacional Police and the Guardia Civil were reported to have minor injuries" I think that this way would have more equivalent stats, we can compare apples with apples instead of apples with oranges. Munci (talk) 03:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

The only way to compare apples with apples would be to use a single reliable source. That would have to be 99 civilians vs 20 agents then as confirmed by the judge investigating the claims of police violence: Un juez abre investigación por las cargas: “Hubo afectación de la convivencia ciudadana” The 893 included people with anxiety and minor irritations, even some that came with anxiety from their homes after watching the violence on TV "Contamos como agresiones hasta las ansiedades por ver las cargas por televisión". --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, Munci but it seems you have not read the references on this nor what has already been discussed here on this page. Please, see #Number of injured. In addition, we have a new reference that says that, according to the judge who is investigating the denounces, the majority of the civilians injured had bruises or scrapes."most bruises or scrapes." --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 07:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Calthinus: About the Daily Mail, now that I know it is not RS I will avoid using it. There are plenty of other reliable sources that can be used to reference that information. I don't read that publication. I used it as an example because it was what Google returned when I searched for it in English. Thank you for your work with the draft, It is starting to take shape, I will contribute some more today. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I propose to add a sentence on the lead that says something like "after judicial investigations, the number of injured was reduced to 99 civilians and 20 agents" and expanding it on the corresponding section with these new refs. BallenaBlanca (Talk) 07:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

The judge's figures seem to be more reliable and comparable then. There are also questions of media bias in the context of the referendum. Munci (talk) 09:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Here are sources that claim bias from each side and one that claims bias from both. I personally don't think it is worth mentioning, but if it is included it must be done respecting NPOV: About TVE bias:Truly independent? State TV sorry for burying Catalan sovereignty march, About TV3 bias: Catalan TV Network Reflects Separatist Fervor, About both: Spain's media spin on Catalonia. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Both the Spanish and Catalan nationalist media have been criticized for non-objectivity and I think it is fair to mention this, so long as it doesn't go into cherrypicking against either side.--Calthinus (talk) 19:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Excepting the part about the injury stats -- haven't delved into this yet -- how does the current revision of the sandbox look [[8]]? --Calthinus (talk) 00:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Good morning @Calthinus: I just completed that part adding the judge that opened the investigation into police violence and the latest figures as reported by La Vanguardia this morning. Thank you for all your work. It looks reasonably complete and balanced to me. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Good morning @Calthinus:. I agree as @Crystallizedcarbon:. But perhaps we need to add a clarification saying that Sant Julia de Ramis was the place where the president Puigdemont was expected to vote: [9], that the councilor was a "interventora" (I do not know how to translate this properly) in a polling station [10] and that the Civil Guard has denounced that the Mossos d'Esquadra not only did not help but had a premeditated plan to obstruct their work, and even helped the referendum, such as putting ballot boxes into some polling stations [11] (in another newspaper I saw that there were 30 videos that prove it, but I do not have more time by now). Thank you both for your work! --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 08:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and cooperation! If no one objects to the current version [[12]] I will add it in 12 hours.

BallenaBlanca I think the role of Mossos d'Esquadra seems relevant to the page but I'm not sure it belongs in a "violence and injuries" section, and so it shouldn't be part of this proposal. Perhaps add it to a different section? --Calthinus (talk) 14:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the role of Mossos d'Esquadra could be included in another section.

I made some modifications, look what you think. And for my part, I think it is adjusted. Good work!!

And please, very important: from this draft, we have to review related pages to eliminate bias. There are several ones, as I have already mentioned. Kind regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 17:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done --Calthinus (talk) 02:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I may be late to the party, but I think that the word "illegal" in this case should always be attributed to the source, not stated in Wikipedia's voice. As I understand it, the illegality or not of the referendum is a question of constitutional interpretation by the courts. I'm not an expert on Spanish government, but as far as I know there is no statute explicitly banning independence referenda. On the other hand, international law protects the right of self-determination. So then, according to whom exactly is this particular referendum illegal?

Compare this with some U.S. states fully legalizing cannabis, and even setting up state-run dispensaries. Are those states acting "illegally"? Cannabis is banned at the federal level, so I guess it depends on whom you ask. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The Spanish Constitutional Court expressly suspended it, and it expressly notified authorities that celebrating it went against that order and that it was illegal. This was the same interpretation that the Catalan Supreme Justice Courts took and it was also confirmed by the European Union. There are plenty of sources that you can check in the article itself. As far as the right to self-determination it is meant for de-colonization. It does not apply to regions of democratic countries like Spain. The UN for example refused to send any observers. I hope that helps to clarify. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps this explanation can help, from The Economist: "THE Catalan regional government of Carles Puigdemont is preparing to hold a unilateral referendum on seceding from Spain on October 1st, which it says will be legally binding. Catalans will be asked whether they want to form an independent republic. But there is a problem: Spain’s democratic constitution of 1978, which was approved by more than 90% of Catalan voters, gave wide autonomy to the regions but affirmed “the indissoluble unity of the Spanish nation”. Only the Spanish parliament can change the constitution. Mr Puigdemont’s referendum is therefore illegal". --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 19:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf I agree, but if you check currently on the page, every time the phrase illegal is used outside of quotations, it is in fact attributed to source -- namely Spanish courts, the Spanish King or the EU. --Calthinus (talk) 19:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the lead section currently states, "The referendum itself is also illegal according to the Spanish constitution [...] the Spanish Constitution does not allow for a vote on the independence of any Spanish region while also deeming it illegal without its consent". Unless the Spanish Constitution expressly says, "this here referendum ain't legal" then this is an interpretation that should be properly attributed or directly quoted. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

the Spanish Constitution expressly says: «The State shall have exclusive competence over the following matters: (...) Authorization of popular consultations through the holding of referendums.» So I do not understand how it can be understood as an interpretation...

The Constitutional Court Suspended the celebration of that referendum Before it was celebrated and the Supreme Justice Courts of Catalonia ordered all voting material confiscated and voting centers closed also before it was celebrated. The electoral commission was also informed that it was illegal before it was celebrated and they all resigned to avoid prosecution. The referendum was celebrated without an electoral commission for that reason. Here are a couple of sources that explain it: [13], [14]

The text you mention could be changed to the secession of any region from Spain is also illegal according to the Spanish constitution. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Obviously none of us are experts in constitutional law. However the constitutional court in Spain, which is, said so. It should be attributed to that court. Readers can think or not think what they want about it. --Calthinus (talk) 23:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf my apologies, I checked and you are right, it did find its way back onto the page as an adverb. I changed it to attributing it to the Constitutional Court. Imo this is more inline with WP:VERIFIABILITY as constitutional interpretation is indeed its own profession that I as a wiki editor would not pretend to know, even when things seem obvious. --Calthinus (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

@Calthinus: I restored the fact that the referendum was held illegally. The original complain was that it was been used as an adverb every time that referendum was used, as in "illegal referendum". In that phrase is just reflecting what most sources do confirm, that since the Constitutional Court of Spain suspended it, celebrating it was illegal. The Catalan courts ruled the same way and even the European Commission confirmed this objective and extremely relevant fact. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Crystallizedcarbon: I have discussed this a lot in the past. There are many, many issues with adverbial use of "illegally" in the lede of all places. NPOV is one. V is another. There's others too. Wikipedia itself is not an arbiter of legality. Nor are its editors no matter how obvious it seems (I see some editors have disputed this; I personally don't and my interpretation matches yours but that's not the point), as law is to be interpreted by legal experts. We must quote -- and attribute -- to authorities who rightly or wrongly say so. The policy-correct and conveniently also more NPOV solution is to simply say "Constitutional court X deems it illegal" at an appropriate place, which the page already does. Carbon, I know you're not POV-pushing because if you did, you'd do a lot better of a job than this -- using "illegal" as an adjective/adverb unnecessarily on a neutral encyclopedia doesn't convince readers it is such, all it does is convince them that the page is written badly. This is the same issue as with all the other adjectives I've complained about. --Calthinus (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Also imo given the issues of a lede, adverbial "illegally" is just as much of a POV breach in the first sentence as repeating it 5 or so times adverbially/as-an-adjective elsewhere in the article. Is it really that hard just to say that the court said so?--Calthinus (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I do not see the issue as in that case it was not just a complement to the word referendum, it was trying to convey that the thing that was unequivocally illegal under current law was celebrating the referendum while it was suspended by a competent court. However to try address your concern I have reworded the phrase to make clear that its celebration while suspended by the Constitutional Court and also because the Catalan courts also ruled about its unlawfulness due to the same reason was the cause for the illegality statement. I hope you find the new wording acceptable. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I assume you mean this one [[15]]. In that case the only problem I have is the statement "holding the referendum on that date was illegal" -- this once again has Wikipedia taking the role of arbiter of constitutional law. It doesn't matter whether we think it's disputable or not. We have to say Constitutional court said x. Somewhere not in the lede, if the page doesn't already say so, we can also quote the violated clause, whether it concerns how Spanish territorial integrity cannot be violated or that regional referendums must have the consent of the central government. But we can't make the statement ourselves. That's my take at least. If it's possible to do it succinctly in the lede, we could also put a quoted clause there too (so long as its the one the court referred to, can't violate SYN of course), if that would work for you. --Calthinus (talk) 21:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I may have lost the thread, since it has now come here, so coming here. I will not repeat the points I provided here, I think I have been sufficiently clear and detailed. It is pointless to keep discussing that the word illegal should be there because an editor has a fixation, it does not add new necessary information and makes it more unbalanced. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I am bringing what I added in my comment below, i.e. the passing of the referendum in the lead, see here, making the information more complete and down to detail. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with you Iñaki LL on you edit your removed the word illegal completely from the lead. That in my opinion rendered the lead clearly biased and that is why I reverted it. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a very difficult RfC - normally an RfC would be brief and clearcut. I agree that the word illegal needs to be attributed and not stated in Wikipedia's voice, and that it shouldn't be repeated every time the word "referendum" is mentioned. Note that I was asked about this on my talk page, but this particular issue seems pretty cut and dried. Doug Weller talk 18:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Doug Weller for your input. Just wanted to point out that I made a change to the article before you posted your comment that addressed the first issue in response to to a comment made by Calthinus. The second issue was already taken care of before this RFC was opened. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Doug; Carbon, sorry for any confusion that might have resulted from the fact that a solution was (I hope) reached right after I made the 3O request. --Calthinus (talk) 20:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem, It was really not a factor, your last comment was enough, but more eyes from experienced editors are always welcomed. I am specially happy to have reached an acceptable solution to the “illegal” issue. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)