Talk:2017 Catalan independence referendum/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Anti-independentists

Did anti-independentists boycott the referendum? The turnout suggests it was so. Шурбур (talk) 07:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Most political forces in favor of the Spanish Constitution called not to participate in the referendum, as it was suspended and deemed illegal by the Constitutional Court. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely without a hair of a doubt. Check the results for the non independent parties in the last elections (2015), youll se that at least 700k people did not vote in this referendum in order to abvoid the legitimation of any potential result (especially considering it was binding). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.77.111.111 (talk) 00:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Unless we find a reliable source that says this (and not through WP:SYNTH of course) we shouldn't try to interpret the turnout solely off of one factor. It is also worth noting that the amount of stolen ballots, which while estimated could represent a number as high as 770,000, cannot be confirmed one way or another and thus cannot be added into the turnout rate. If there were upwards of nearly another million votes factored in, the turnout rate could surpass the needed threshold to reach a true majority. Other factors that would result in a low turnout include the Spanish state's opposition to the referendum, which came in many forms, whether through police raids or through reminding people that no matter what the central government will not recognize it. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 11:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

You are right, but it is so difficult to rationalize/dcoument common sense, since I lived the situation I am proindependence and I know very well the half of barcelona that I know and that are not independentist not a single one went to vote as everyone acknowledges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tumbleweed87 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello @BrendonTheWizard: In response to your request, here are some reliable sources that clearly state various calls to not participate in the referendum deemed illegal by Spanish law: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]...

There are many more. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate that you have found RS sources for this. As previously said, we shouldn't phrase mentions of this in the article in such a way that would lead readers to believe that this is the sole reason for a lower turnout. We can mention using these sources that there were calls to not vote as you have found, but mentions of factors that influenced this turnout should not be without stating other known factors as said in the previous reply. This would give readers a more thorough understanding of the complications.

We could fairly mention the following without giving undue weight to any of them:

* There were calls to not participate in the referendum as the referendum was deemed illegal under Spanish law; those opposed to the referendum or to Catalan independence may have not participated as a result of this.

* Spain's Operation Anubis used the Guarda Civil to raid polling stations and stop people from voting, in the process preventing a maximum of 770,000 from voting.

* The Spanish government would not recognize the result regardless of a "yes" result or a "no" result as they have deemed the referendum unconstitutional, reducing the incentive for voters from either side.

It would also be reasonable for editors to deem this speculation and oppose the inclusion of this, but I would support a section elaborating on the turnout so long as it uses reliable sources for several factors as to not make it seem that there was only one or two contributing factors. If we do add this, it would need to be worded better than I have presented it on this talk page, words such as "may have" shouldn't be displayed on Wikipedia because they are weasel words and a better wording would eliminate them.

BrendonTheWizard (talk) 14:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello @BrendonTheWizard: The sources were in answer to the first question. I do agree with you that all three statements are relevant. I would however not add figures to any of them, and if they are added the number would need to have attribution. For the third point I would probably add that it may have been less of a factor for the yes voters as the organizers said that they would carry out the result regardless. It may also be worth mentioning the documented cases of alleged multiple voting, towns with more votes than their registered population or the video of a person that slipped and the ballot box seemed to be pre-stuffed with ballots (see here). This last part is not 100% conclusive as it is not proven if they were going to take them out once in the polling station but since there was no electoral commission there is no way of knowing. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Here ypu have it. Cannot be proven factually, but the missing 700k unionist votes are exactly the amount of people that cheered in the street this morning in barcelona for the first mass-convoked non-nationalistic celebration (though a lot of people came from the rest of the spain). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.77.111.111 (talk) 23:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Edgarmm81 (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)People for the unionist celebration of the 8th of october 2017 came from all over Spain, not just catalans.

Lead is suffering from citation placement.

I understand it needs the citations because it is controversial, but citations in mid sentence make it hard to read. Dysklyver 16:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I think maybe in two years or so when the dust has settled it would be a good time to strip them. Right now the article is a bit fragile tho and without them things would probably be worse. I agree I ledes without tons of cites though.--Calthinus (talk) 01:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Calthinus. Reaching consensus on the lead has been a long and complicated process, so for now, I also recommend not touching them. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Community Sanctions

A proposal has been made to impose community sanctions including possible editing restrictions, on the topic of Catalan independence. Interested editors may join the discussion here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Apparent Misquote in article with no citation for support

I recommend that the Article be changed to eliminate unjustifiable quote marks where italics would be better. [Q] The referendum question, which voters answered with "Yes" or "No", was "Do you want Catalonia to become an independent state in the form of a republic?".[/Q]

A quotation must be exact, otherwise it is not a quotation at all, though it could give the gist. In this case, the language needs to be exact. It seems quite likely that there were no English words at all on the ballot, yet the article quotes English words. The term "state" to USA English is likely to have quite different connotations from whatever was used in the native language(s). For example, the word "you" is used, but if the language were Spanish, you might be tú, vos, vosotros, usted, ustedes (or less likely "su merced.") So IMHO, the actual wording should be given in whatever language(s) was/were used, or a qualifying statement added, like "the ballot question is literally translated as . . . " You may then translate the actual words into English, including comment on the meaning of the translation. Apparently the question on the referendum was asked in 3 different languages, none of which was English. (PeacePeace (talk) 05:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC))

• Support - I agree with PeacePeace arguments, both options seem valid. I personally prefer the first one, changing the quotes to italics. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:39, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per MOS, it is perfectly fine to translate it as long as it is a correct translation, but accompanied with the original in italics. Iñaki LL (talk) 08:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@Iñaki LL: I think that is what PeacePeace seems to be proposing in his second option. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Remove sentence

Hello, since this is a controversial topic, I don't remove the following sentence by myself yet: "and is also 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.". This is wrong: in the reference it says "La reforma del Estatuto de Autonomía exige dos tercios del Parlament, la misma mayoría reforzada que se reclama para elaborar una ley electoral catalana que aún está pendiente o para el nombramiento de determinados cargos.". This means: "two thirds of the Parlament are needed to change the Catalan Statues of Autonomy, to create a still pending electoral legislation or to appoint certain people for certain roles". Common sense would suggest you should need a similar consensus to pass the referendum law, but this would be law-fiction. This law is not illegal according to the Catalan Statutes of Autonomy. --Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 22:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

According to 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.". According to The Daily Star: "Catalan Statutes of Autonomy requires a two-third majority in the parliament for any change to Catalonia's status". I will add both sources to the article. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I insist: both your sources say that the Catalan Statute of Autonomy require two thirds. They didn't change the Statute of Autonomy. They changed the "status", if you want, but they didn't modify the Statute. Therefore, this sentence is wrong.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 17:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

"Catalan Statutes of Autonomy requires a two-third majority in the parliament for any change to Catalonia's status" (I added the bold)

And the bold is wrong. Thats the Catalan Statute. Article 56: you need two thirds for the electoral law. Article 77: you need 3/5 for the Consell de Garanties Estatutàries. Article 79: you need 3/5 for the Síndic de greuges. Article 81: similar. There is nowhere in the text such reference. Correct me if I'm wrong.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 18:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I am not a legal expert and I do not think we should interpret primary sources. I am basing my arguments on what the reliable secondary sources cited in my comment and added to the article (like the quote above) say. Here is another for your reference [6] and another [7]. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry but there is only one source claiming the Catalan Statute says that. Another says "The national government called the move a “constitutional and democratic atrocity” and said it was invalid because it did not have the support of two thirds of the Catalan parliament – the threshold needed to pass laws on constitutional matters." (I added the bold: Catalan Statute not mentioned). ALL the other sources you provided say that to modify the Statute you need 2/3, not to modify the status. So, you base this sentence in only one source and I show you the Statute, where you won't find what you are looking for. Weird? Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 20:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

El País clearly states that those two thirds are also needed for an electoral law. "la misma mayoría reforzada que se reclama para elaborar una ley electoral catalana". I insist, I have not read the whole Statute and we should not be the ones to interpret it according to WP:OR. If there are secondary reliable sources that claim that it was legal according to the Statute please present them. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

El País says "La reforma del Estatuto de Autonomía exige dos tercios del Parlament, la misma mayoría reforzada que se reclama para elaborar una ley electoral catalana". (bold mine). Again, El País does not talk about the status, but the Statute. Do I have to look for sources claiming the Statute does not say something it does not say? If I find a webpage claiming the Spanish constitution explicitly promotes hiking, will you be able to find any source refuting it? To sum up: you only found once source (from Bangladesh!) claiming that the Statute says something it does not say. Honestly, writing such a sentence in this article seems to try to push for some kind of fake news or post-truth. I'm sure you can rewrite this sentence trying to express the same idea but based on facts. Otherwise I think it must be deleted.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 08:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

It clearly states both things "La reforma del Estatuto de Autonomía exige dos tercios del Parliament, la misma mayoría reforzada que se reclama para elaborar una ley electoral catalana" So according to the source quote 2/3 it is needed to change the Statute but also to pass an electoral law. There are references with similar statements in relation to that law by countless reliable sources. Given the level of coverage, if it was false it is natural to assume that it should be easy to find a corrected version or other sources pointing out different interpretations. About your comment on hiking, a webpage with that claim would be ignored unless it is made by a Reliable Source which seems highly unlikely. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:26, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Here is another from the Catalan source La Vanguardia "decreto de convocatoria de un referéndum al aprobar una ley mediante una tramitación exprés y sin el preceptivo acuerdo de dos tercios de la cámara contemplado en el propio Estatut de Cataluña, lo que llevó a la oposición a abandonar el hemiciclo antes de la votación " (bold are mine) it clearly states that the law did not meet the mandatory 2/3 majority required by the Statute. If this is not enough to convince you, please provide secondary reliable sources to back your claim. If not, I propose that we agree to disagree. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

They neither modified the Statute nor passed an electoral law. Hence, what they did has no legal relation with the 2/3 majority. An example showing it is not legally necessary: Si per la reforma de l’Estatut calen dos terços, no tindria lògica que per una cosa tan important com canviar l’estatus polític de Catalunya es pugui fer amb una majoria tan minsa (which means roughly: "to modify the Statute you need 2/3. Hence, it makes no sense that modifying something so important as the Catalan status can be done with such a short majority). This is said by someone against the referendum.

I propose the following: Currently there is:

The referendum was approved by the Catalan parliament in a session on 6 September 2017 along with a law which states that independence would be binding with a simple majority, without requiring a minimum turnout.[17][18] After being suspended, the law was finally declared void on 17 October[19] and is also 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.

I propose:

The referendum was approved by the Catalan parliament in a session on 6 September 2017 along with a law which states that independence would be binding with a simple majority, without requiring a minimum turnout. This law was approved with a simple majority, circumstance that was criticised by the opposition because of not having reached the two third majority required to modify some other important laws such as the Catalan Statute of Autonomy. [references] After being suspended, the law was finally declared void on 17 October[19].

I think this is much more neutral. What do you think? (English should be corrected, I'm not native.)--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 16:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The thing is that the sources do imply that they did pass an electoral law, it is called the law of referendum and it is what the referendum was based on. The source you provided did not cite it as illegal, but it did not contradict the ones I provided. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

No, the sources don't imply they passed an electoral law. This law was not an electoral law. You can check here what an electoral law is, and you'll see there is nothing in common. Actually, the electoral law used for this referendum was the Spanish electoral law. And yes, my source contradicts the one you provided: someone (anti independence) says "it makes no sense that you can pass a law with simple majority when you need 2/3 to modify the Statute". This means it is weird (IMHO, it is, indeed) that you don't need this 2/3. And thats ugly. And that's why he complains. But nowhere in the Statute you'll find it is illegal.

I proposed an alternative. It seems you didn't like it. I ask you to propose another one, because the current one is biased. --Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 20:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@Xtv: Please review WP:OR. As editors we should not interpret legal texts. It's clear in the sources I provided, without the need for any original research, that they are referring to the annulled referendum law (which states no need for minimum turnout and simple majority as requirements for its result to be valid). They also clearly state that that law did not meet the mandatory 2/3 requirements. The source you provided did not state that, but it did not expressly contradict it either. Again you are having to draw a conclusion: (if it did not mention that it is illegal it must be OK). While it is a very reasonable assumption, the problem is that again it is original research. You need to find reliable sources that back your claim directly. It should state directly that the law did meet the precepts of the statute because the 2/3 only applies to changes to the Statute or electoral laws and this one is not... or because any other reason but state that it was legal. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

No, you only found one source from Bangladesh (all my respect for Bangladesh, but it's quite far away from Catalonia) supporting your POV. We've seen recently how newspapers are not always reliable, and Catalan "illegal" referendum is not an exception, either side. None of the other references support the current statement. I agree we don't have to do original research, of course, but I find very inappropriate to push for one option because there is one single source claiming it, even if you can see by yourself that this is not found in the Statute. This seems to me trying to manipulate but, alas, I might be wrong! I am not asking to remove the information, I just ask you make it more neutral. It seems you don't want it, but I just saw your comments in previous discussions and I see there won't be a possibility to find any constructive solution. I'll ask for a neutral third opinion then. Cheers. --Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 21:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The Daily Star is hardly the only source I quoted. El País is from Spain and La Vanguardia is from Catalonia. Check the text in bold, and again, we should not interpret legal texts ourselves according to WP:OR. If you feel my interpretation of our policies is wrong please feel free to consult with more experienced users. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The other sources don't say what you claim they say.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 23:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Remove/summarize Aftermath section

All of this is included in both Catalan Republic (2017) and 2017 Spanish constitutional crisis. This article covers the referendum (which was done by 1 October) and I think the scope of this is becoming too large and clashing with that of the other articles, which are already covering further events resulting from the referendum in a more detailed way. I believe the "Aftermath" section should be vastly summarized to explain just key consequences resulting from the referendum in a summarized way, then redirecting to these other articles for further info. Impru20 (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't see a problem in having an overlap of information with other articles. The same details can be relevant to more than one article. Having said that, I can agree with Impru20 in that summarizing the section seems like a good idea in principle, but it will have to be done making sure that the NPOV is preserved as the current version was agreed upon after a long and hard process. From my point of view your proposal would be welcomed, and in the worst case if there is no consensus over the summarized version we could revert to the current one. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@Crystallizedcarbon: Actually, looking at it again, I think everything up to (and including) the "Economic effects" section could be kept as it is (minor changes could be done to improve all of these, but it's not something I'm actually worried about). But the "Political effect" section should be entirely removed, because:

1. It just reiterates (and in some cases, in a badly-written way) information already present in other articles.
2. It starts covering events right from 16 October (note that the referendum was on 1 October), having no gramatical or thematic connection whatsover to previous sections.
3. It makes absolutely no reference to the referendum, at all (despite it being dubbed "political effects" (supposedly, those the referendum)).
4. The consensus you mention seems to not cover this specific sub-section, which is being manually enlarged as new events emerge and over which talks have seemingly not taken place here.

So, this rather looks like some people keeping adding events from other articles to this one under the "political effects" banner, yet without caring to establish any connection with the article's topical scope and even going as far as creating the already explained overlap of information with other articles, for no reason. Impru20 (talk) 13:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Impru20: I have summarized and removed outdated information from that section. I added a phrase to underline the relevance of the referendum as a trigger of those effects. In the first paragraph it explains how it was used for the first declaration/suspension, the second covers article 155 and the third the detainment pending trial of the organizers. Please let me know if the concerns you raised are addressed with the changes. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I restored the detention adding information and a source that ties it to the referendum. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Under that rule, we may end up covering information here until well into 2018 or 2019 or... 2030? Only because a source makes a mention to the referendum. Sorry, but no direct connection either exists or is made between those events and the referendum, much less in the text, so I've removed these. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and such information must not go off-topic. You may visit the other articles to search on this info, but adding this here vastly exceeds this article's topical scope. You have not one or two but three other articles making mention of this very exact info, so it's not that it is lacking or that there is a need for justifying having that info here. My proposal was for that entire sub-section to be removed and yet I've not protested for the newly-added summary of events relating to the independence declaration and Article 155 despite them going slightly off the article's scope, because they may have some connection. But adding further information here is needless; obviously, we must draw a line as to when to stop adding information belonging to other articles. Impru20 (talk) 20:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

There is no problem with having information repeated in different articles. It is that a source just mentions the referendum. The planning of the referendum and the resistance against the police that was trying to access the voting centers to remove the ballot boxes under a court order and the role of the Mossos at the referendum as one of the key issues of the court order. This is what the source says: "Y el referéndum del 1 de octubre, donde “numerosas personas ofrecieron resistencia” para impedir el acceso de la policía a los colegios electorales. La juez atribuye a los consejeros, además, haber “alentado” las “acciones de rechazo” contra los agentes desplegados en Cataluña. Las palabras más duras se las llevan los Mossos. “En la mayoría de los casos, su actitud fue pasiva”. Incluso “evitaron intervenir en los casos en los que los miembros de la Guardia Civil eran agredidos”. Los Mossos, lamenta, “llegaron a espiar las acciones de la Guardia Civil y la Policía Nacional” para alertar a los ciudadanos de su presencia en los colegios electorales." There are of course many more sources that confirm the relation between both events. Examples El Mundo, La Vanguardia, etc.

Having the key figures of the government that organized the referendum detained is in my opinión a very relevant political effect of the referendum that should not be censored. so in my oppinion both WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:OFFTOPIC are rendered moot. Please restore the edit as it is properly sourced and it does relate to the section and topic of the article. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The planning of the referendum and the resistance against the police that was trying to access the voting centers to remove the ballot boxes under a court order and the role of the Mossos at the referendum as one of the key issues of the court order. Excuse me, but the removed info revolved on the jailing of former Catalan Government members. It did not make any mention at all to what you say here. If you thing such an info is directly related to the referendum according to sources, then write it so that it is directly related to the article's topical scope. Because it's boring that some people just randomly keep copy-pasting content between articles without making a slight attempt at adapting it to the article's actual topic. We've got already three articles which featured the exact same content, written in a very similar way, and this was the fourth one in which this was happening. If there's something relevant in these events you expose related to the article's scope, then by all means show them here; but only in the way in which it relates to the article's main topic. Impru20 (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Please review again the information you deleted yes it is centered on the jailing of the government that organized the referendum and yes it does mention the cause-efect relation between one and the other "under charges of rebellion, sedition and misuse of public funds. The organization and resistance at the referendum were mentioned in the court order." Please feel free to change "were mentioned" for "were mentioned as a determining factor" or improve it however you see fit, but since it is clearly relevant to the topic an properly sourced please restore it. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I've reviewed the information I deleted several times, both before and after deleting it, and I assure you it makes no mention to what you claim it mentioned. Only a minor sentence saying "The organization and resistance at the referendum were mentioned in the court order", everything else being a copy-paste of information from other articles. No, this is obviously not what this article is about. Rewrote the whole sentence to center it on what actually matters for this article. But if everything you may bring about this is that the court order "mentions" the referendum, then indeed this is not the place for this. We could put LOTS of things "mentioning" the referendum, but a mention is not enough to constitute information within the topical scope of the article; it must be related to it. It the section is "political effect", then provide that it is an actual "political effect" and not a mere "mention". Impru20 (talk) 23:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

On the "Irregularities" section

I have been editing the irregularities section in the article, as definitive conclusions are taken from sources based on informations that could be easily forged. My edits have been reverted, though, so I considered discussing them here. Those are:

People allegedly voting more than once. There are sources claiming it was possible and other sources claiming it wasn't. These are both claims and should be given the same value, as presenting one as a fact ("people being able to vote more than once in some places") and the other as a claim ("despite organizers' claims to the contrary") is not NPOV. Also, the second source doesn't come from the organizers but from another media outlet.

Non-Catalans voting. In the source provided, all one can see is a video of someone casting a vote without any proof he is from Madrid, as stated. I consider this sort of proof dubious and propose, as with the others, to include that these are just claims and not facts.

Children voting. Are we seriously considering that some news based on a pic showing a child casting a vote are enough to undoubtedly claim children were allowed to vote? Parents allow their kids to cast their votes in ballot boxes all the time. As before, I would edit the statement to reflect the debatability of whether it actually happened or not.

Ballot boxes placed in the street. La Razon's cited article does not exist. The other video's original source has many people claiming this was a symbolic action undertaken after the police had confiscated the ballot boxes that had been used for the vote. Though in this case I'm not sure if this is enough to put the issue into doubt, I still think informations should be, again, presented as dubious.

Votes surpassing local censuses. I don't think any source is needed to defend this, it's pure logic. If universal census was implemented, local censuses are irrelevant and there isn't any irregularity if they're surpassed. Universal census means 1.000 people could perfectly cast their votes in a town with a census of 200. 77.225.54.74 (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

People allegedly voting more than once You do not seem to have into account that there were more than 2,000 voting centers available. There are proofs that in some, people were able to vote more than once (indeed, some media reporters intentionally tried to do this in several polling stations, with success), whereas in others there were stricter controls. Plus the fact that there are accounts of people voting in several polling stations. So, there's not a "debate" on whether people could vote more than once. In some places they could. In some others, they couldn't. And some people voted in several places. Simple.

Non-Catalans voting The source clearly details the lack of controls on voters. There are other sources reporting on this, so it's not that dubious. Anyway, I would note this together with the fact of peoples voting more than once, as they are both the consequence of the lack of control in polling stations on voter census.

Children voting On this issue, I think you're right. Besides, OKDiario can hardly be considered a reliable source for anything.

Ballot boxes placed in the street There are even more sources of this than just these you added: [8] [9] [10] [11], etc. Impru20 (talk) 14:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Votes surpassing local censuses It may be "pure logic", but I'm sure as hell the whole "universal census" issue is quite weird in any given democracy. So, the fact of votes surpassing local censuses is highly notable by itself (though I'd link it to the universal census, and not show it as proof of an irregularity in itself). Impru20 (talk) 14:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Please try to find English translations or references!

English speakers familiar with common-law or constitutional freedom of speech (and actions similar to speech) are puzzled by the orders of the Constitutional Court of Spain such as sending police to restrain people and seize ballots. In the United States, for instance, a ruling that a process was invalid would simply have made the results meaningless, not sent police to arrest local officials or voters. A court can not make a finding of contempt or order of mandsmus contravening something which is a fundemental right.

In this regard, more information about the legal reasoning of the cited court decisions is needed.

25. "La mitad de los catalanes cree que el Parlament se someterá al TC". La Razón (in Spanish). 12 August 2016.

26. "Baròmetre d'Opinió Política 38. 2a onada 2016" (PDF). CEO (in Catalan). 22 July 2016.

73.81.149.203 (talk) 23:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I must disagree. The police did not go to restrain people, it was ordered by the Catalonian courts to seize the voting material and close the polling centers. The States in the United States were sovereign at one point. That is not the case in Spain at least not as Catalonia is concerned (it was part of the kingdom of Aragon that joined Castile in the XV century). Still I find your assumption quite unreasonable, Lets imagine for example that the Texas secessionist movement gained support among close to 50% of the people in the State but that with less than half of the votes they got over 50% of representative in support of secession, and lets imagine that those representatives tried to hold a referendum to separate from the US and voted state laws to allow it. I think it is safe to assume that The Supreme Court or another national court would declare those laws illegal and order the suspension of such referendum, as all of the citizens of USA should have a say on whether a part of its country should be separated. Most likely the confiscation of voting material of the illegal process would be ordered by a judge, and on the day of the referendum state police would be ordered to confiscate the material to carry the court order and prevent the suspended illegal vote from taking place. If the state police failed to seal of the voting centers, other federal police would be tasked with carrying the judges orders, (confiscating the voting material and closing the voting centers) if citizens were blocking the access to those voting centers due to the failure of state police to do so the federal agents would try to access and if they were being stopped and insulted they would most likely try to remove the citizens obstructing justice as the only way for them to try to carry their orders and confiscate the voting material as ordered by the judge.

The previous was just science fiction. This has been possible in Spain only because of the high degree of autonomy given to Spanish regions and because of a political system that gives a non-proportional and very large representation in the national parliament to the regional political parties.

Edgarmm81 (talk) 23:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)THAT IS YOUR OPINION. PLEASE, PROVIDE FACTS.

Through many years separatist have used this influence (their votes were necessary for the national level political parties to rule) to gain control of many areas that should have remained centralized like education.

Edgarmm81 (talk) 23:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)EDUCATION COMPETENCE WAS NOT GAINED BECAUSE OF ANY HUNG PARLIAMENT, BUT STEMS FROM THE ESTATUT OF CATALONIA, ARTICLE 131.

Some text books for children show Catalonia a a nation and incite separation from Spain.

Edgarmm81 (talk) 23:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC) PLEASE, COULD YOU PROVIDE ANY RELIABLE SOURCE ABOUT THAT INCONSISTENT FACT?

Years of this are obviously having an impact. They even passed and enforced laws preventing business from using Spanish on their store fronts by the use of heavy fines.

Edgarmm81 (talk) 23:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)PLEASE, COULD YOU PROVIDE COURT RULINGS SUPPORTING THIS IDEA???

The main reason given by the separatists is their desire to have their own country as they consider themselves different

Edgarmm81 (talk) 23:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)COULD YOU PROVIDE ANY RELIABLE SOURCE ABOUT CATALANS "Consider themselves different"?

and because according to them they contribute more to Spain than other less buoyant regions like Andalucía or Extremadura.

Edgarmm81 (talk) 23:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)NOTHING TO DO WITH THE POVERTY, BUT IT DOES WITH THE ORDINAL PRINCIPLE OF TAX SETTLEMENT AND SUBSEQUENT ALLOCATION (ARTICLE 206 OF THE ESTATUT OF CATALONIA, NULLED AND VOIDED BY THE SPANISH CONSTITUTONAL COURT.)

The violence has been a very undesirable side effect. It showed lack of planning, there should have been a backup plan to ensure that the Mossos with help of police did closed the centers at 6am. It was very naive to give the task only to them when its Major was appointed by the separatist and a few days before did not give order to aid a group of Guardia Civil that was under siege by a crowd and destroyed their patrol cars. The very unfortunate incidents of 1-O are being used by the separatists, now they have added police repression to their justifications.

The issue is a lot more complex and I am sure there are many other angles, But again, I doubt that USA would ever allow a secession referendum to take place. And there when a civilian stops a policeman from executing a court order they do use force. The issue that is before a judge now in Catalonia is if that violence was proportional and if it was necessary to fulfill the courts order).--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I did not intend to state opionion about Catalonia that one could agree or disagree with- the opinion was about the need for more information in English about the legal reasoning of any orders.

As far as your other points: whether Catalonia was a "state" in 1137 doesn't make any difference to the present population's desires. "With less than half of the votes they got over 50% of representative[s]"- this happens EVERYWHERE now in the United States. It is called Gerrymandering and is a big problem.

"The Supreme Court or [a lower] national court would declare those laws illegal and order the suspension of such referendum". No, that is my point. The court would declare the laws illegal, but would not order any action that would constitute prior restraint. In fact, only the lowest Federal District Court would have jurisdiction, and any injunction that had a direct effect would be appealed and diluted in the Circuit Court of Appeals for months. It would be years, after the vote/demonstration/etc, that the Supreme Court would decide whether the local municipality had the right to endorse or sponsor a vote.

As an example, in the 1960's much of the population (with money) of Huntsville, Alabama (United States) jokingly wanted to succeed from the State of Alabama and join Tennessee, to separate themselves from state policies regarding civil rights. Huntsville was the location of the U.S. Army Redstone Arsenal in WWII, put there for chemical weapons work in a location no one would care about. After the war, the Nazi rocket scientists were sent there, and Redstone Arsenal became an ICBM research site. By the 1960's, much of the population was younger, educated, and from Northern states. If citizens had wanted to raise the money, the City Council and Madison County government could have sponsored a vote as you mention. Quite possibly the state government could have seized any local government funds used in the process, but state police would not have tried to physically stop anything.

In fact, the most famous case of governments trying to stop things was when George Wallace personally tried to stop the university from choosing to follow a Supreme Court order. I can't think of any case where Federal action (as in Arkansas in that time) was used to supress a demonstarton or a local political action.

So, what were the legal arguments for/against that order you mention?

73.81.148.23 (talk) 18:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I still think that the scenario in Catalonia is unthinkable in the USA I remember what I read in history books about the last time that some states from the south tried it. My point was that in the hypothetical scenario that a judge in the USA did instruct the police to confiscate voting material, the police would try to execute that order. If people would block their way and refuse to let them follow those orders they would probably be removed by the police and even using force if necessary. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

You cannot prove its 50% as that was 4 years ago, and still, theres a 50% of votes of the remaining 50% that are nationalistic but more socialist dialogue pro-referendum parties where some of them in a binary yes/no independence would vote yes/null/blank. Come on, even Ada Colau, major of Barcelona, who collaborated on the illegal referendum, is not representing an offitial pro-independence party (neither a clear pro-unionist). There was more than twice as people in the illegal refernedum demonstration (even the fear) than in today´s union demonstration (where a lot of people came from the rest of spain) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.77.111.111 (talk) 00:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

You are right, I can only report what happened then. Now could be more or less than 50%, but my point was the lack of legitimacy for such a profound change that affects all those in Catalonia and all in Spain, when the support in votes in the last election for the separatist political parties was less than 50% of the votes in Catalonia. Puigdemont has vowed to declare independence unilaterally and most think he will do it tomorrow. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Your open question looks like containing several questions in one; so:

• For:«English speakers familiar with common-law or constitutional freedom of speech (and actions similar to speech) are puzzled »
  • For common law, see, for instance Northern Ireland & Bloody sunday
  • For freedom of speech, see for USA for instance McCarthyism
  • And what is direct rule in Northern Ireland?
• For:«by the orders of the Constitutional Court of Spain such as sending police to restrain people and seize ballots»
  • At some point, I assume that each state has its own rules, and while they may similar on some topics, they may be different on other ones (for instance guns or death penalty might be more or less forbidden in Europe, while more or less liberalized in other countries)
  • For the role of police in justice, see Judicial police
  • There may be a question of balance: would such a right be more or less important than such other one right? For instance, right to live vs death penalty? Approach might vary according to the Country... based for instance but not limited to social norms, local history, local religion,
• For «In the United States, for instance, a ruling that a process was invalid would simply have made the results meaningless, »
  • And so, once, such an illegal & forbidden referendum has led to a meaningless result which is used as a basis to declare independence, that is, once independence is decided, and enforced, how do you ensure the meaningless result remains meaningless?
• «not sent police to arrest local officials or voters. »
  • What's about for instance Oregon cow-boys: [12]
  • What's about New_Mexico: New_Mexico#1848_cession_of_land
  • For the role of police in the USA, see Police power (United States constitutional law)
  • Last but not least, For vote + police in the USA, see Police brutality in the United States
• For: «English translations or references!»
  • The Spanish Court Decision That Sparked the Modern Catalan Independence Movement [13]
  • Spain Catalonia: Court blocks independence referendum [14]
  • Spain: Constitutional Court Finds Catalonia Sovereignty Declaration Unconstitutional [15]
  • CONSTITUTION PASSED BY THE CORTES GENERALES IN PLENARY MEETINGS OF THE CONGRESS OF DEPUTIES AND THE SENATE HELD ON OCTOBER 31, 1978 RATIFIED BY REFERENDUM OF THE SPANISH PEOPLE ON DECEMBER 7, 1978 SANCTIONED BY HIS MAJESTY THE KING BEFORE THE CORTES GENERALES ON DECEMBER 27, 1978 [16]
• In Spain, for instance, there is a Spanish constitution rather than an US constitution. This does not remove nothing to US constitution which remains applicable in the USA. But it is slightly different, for instance some Spanish constitution extracts:
  • «The Constitution is based on the indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation, the common and indivisible homeland of all Spaniards; it recognizes and guarantees the right to self-government of the nationalities and regions of which it is composed and the solidarity among them all»
  • «The mission of the Armed Forces, comprising the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, is to guarantee the sovereignty and independence of Spain and to defend its territorial integrity and the constitutional order»
  • «Justice emanates from the people and is administered on behalf of the King by judges and magistrates members of the Judicial Power who shall be independent, shall have fixity of tenure, shall be accountable for their acts and subject only to the rule of law»
  • «Provisions relating to the fundamental rights and liberties recognised by the Constitution shall be construed in conformity with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international treaties and agreements thereon ratified by Spain.»
  • «Freedom of ideology, religion and worship is guaranteed, to individuals and communities with no other restriction on their expression than may be necessary to maintain public order as protected by law.»
  • «The seizure of publications, recordings and other means of information may only be carried out by means of a court order.»
  • «In the case of meetings in public places and of demonstrations, prior notification shall be given to the authorities, who may only forbid them when there are well founded grounds to expect a breach of public order, involving danger to persons or property.»
  • «Secret and paramilitary associations are prohibited.»
  • «Citizens have the right and the duty to defend Spain.»
  • «The President of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the King, on the General Council of the Judicial Powers’ proposal in the manner to be laid down by the law.»
  • «No authority may adopt measures which directly or indirectly hinder freedom of movement and settlement of persons and free movement of goods throughout the Spanish territory.»
  • «The State shall have exclusive competence over the following matters: (...) Authorization of popular consultations through the holding of referendums.»
  • «The Constitutional Court shall consist of twelve members appointed by the King. Of these, four shall be nominated by the Congress by a majority of three-fifths of its members, four shall be nominated by the Senate with the same majority, two shall be nominated by the Government, and two by the General Council of the Judicial Power.» — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I was trying to clarify, but by your answer I am afraid I may have failed. To put it simply, no the police were not ordered to restrain people. Yes they were ordered to seize the ballot boxes because what was being voted is illegal according to our constitution and because a Catalan courts ordered it so. The people that the police used force upon were obstructing justice by preventing the police from accesing those ballot boxes and refused to obey when asked to let them through. You obviously know a lot more about the US legal system. do I understand you correctly? If Texas decided to hold an statewide independence referendum they could vote without it being stopped? I am an engineer, not a lawyer, so a simple answer would be appreciated. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Three answers:

1. Read the future, and you will know.
2. for Caifornia: «If the measure passed, it would then be up to California to convince the federal government to let it leave, a process that isn’t at all clear in the law. Yes California explains their two options this way:»
3. for Texas: «Daniel Farber, a law professor at UC Berkeley, pointed to a Supreme Court decision, Texas v. White, in 1869 that said Texas “entered into an indissoluble relation” when it became part of the United States. The case related to bonds sold by Texas during the Civil War.» «The Supreme Court ruling determined “the Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States.” Texas could only revoke its inclusion in the union “through revolution or through consent of the States,” the court rule.».

In the USA if a judge issued an injunction vs what the judge deemed an illegal activity, I would expect him to send US Marshals out to arrest violators on a charge of contempt of court. And I would not at all be surprised if the federal government federalized and called out the national guard if Texas held an election to secede from the union. (PeacePeace (talk) 06:25, 28 October 2017 (UTC))

Thank you PeacePeace, that was my uninformed interpretation as well. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources

I took the time to go through the sources, and I am quite astonished to see they do not support the statements added. There are still other statements that would be recommended to go through, given the latest edit evidence. Plus please do not keep reverting automatically, be as precise as possible in the edit summary, since they do not hold water in the latest reverts to my clean-up edits. For other concerns with the latest bring them also here. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 09:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Please BallenaBlanca, stop edit warring, you have reverted again when the discussion was open here, which comes across as not very cooperative. First of all, the version you reverted does not stick to content of the source, it is not accurate, the observers are not saying it was not 'valid', as cited in El País, what they are saying is the circumstances overall may not be meeting the necessary conditions for a regular referendum according to international standars. That is the accurate attribution to the observers, as I put it and you have reverted again. If you want to imply anything else, it needs further sourcing, I can see it is delivered by SER, putting together their own wording and jumping to their own conclusions, albait less accurate and more tendencious. So these two sentences need modifying. Iñaki LL (talk) 13:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

If we follow WP:BRD the version before the reverted changes should be kept util a consensus is reached. The "not valid statement" is indeed covered by the second reference published by Cadena SER: "referéndum fallido e inválido, incapaz de cumplimentar las normas internacionales mínimas." "inválido" can be translated as "not valid". Even though I don't agree with your argument I have removed it from the text because I think that we should attempt to reach consensus over our different interpretations here and not by repeatedly reverting in the page. and because in the current version the meaning is not completely lost and we need to shorten the lead, not expand it. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

That is welcome, and I think it is more balanced, it is not in the words of the observers anyway, but SER's conclusion. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 18:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Iñaki LL. Sorry, I did not see your first message. Anyway, it is a bit broad/ambiguous, maybe it helps to be more precise, as you did in the second one. I see that Crystallizedcarbon fixed this particular issue. I agree. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 22:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Loose statement astray

§PEOPLE ATTENDED IN CATALAN HOSPITALS BECAUSE OF THE SPANISH POLICE CHARGES WERE 1,066, INCLUDING 23 ELDERLY PEOPLE OVER 79 AND 2 BOYS UNDER 11. ONLY 12 POLICEMEN (11 SPANISH POLICE OFFICERS + 1 CATALAN OFFICER)Edgarmm81 (talk) 23:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Multiple voting

A source stating that Spanish Interior Ministry asserts that was possible voting more than one time while in the very same source the spokesman for the Catalan government denies it is used only for the first, just some words later. As no proof real multiple votings is given and only part of the info of the (unisgned) article is given, I remove it as biased, at least as references exist. --Panotxa (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

REMOVE INACCURATE POINTS

Edgarmm81 (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Please, proceed to remove the inaccurate points, as I have requested it several times and nobody did it.

1) With reference to the woman who had all the finger broken, one by one, Ms Marta Torrecillas, she took her accusation back on the following day. The concept "investigation" is false.

So, please, remove or re-write the following quotation:

"A Republican Left of Catalonia (ERC) councillor accused the police deliberately breaking her fingers one by one and of sexual abuse during a polling station evacuation, but later investigation disproved these statements.[201][202][199]"

2) Regarding the introduction, the whole paragraph does not make sense:

"On the day of the referendum, the inaction of the autonomous police force of Catalonia, the Mossos d'Esquadra, allowed polling stations to open. The National Police Corps and the Guardia Civil intervened and raided polling stations after they opened.[35][36] 893 civilians and 431 agents of the Nacional Police and the Guardia Civil were reported to have been injured initially.[37][36][38] According to various sources these previously reported figures may have been exaggerated.[39] According to the judge from Barcelona that is currently investigating the accusations of police violence there were 218 persons injured on that day, 20 of which were agents.[40][41] The final official numbers by the Catalan government show that 1066 civilians and 11 agents of the National Police and the Guardia Civil, and 1 from the regional police the Mossos d'Esquadra were injured.[42]"

a) In connection with "The inaction of the autonomous police force of Catalonia, the Mossos d'Esquadra": that is simply false, but the Spanish Government spread that idea. In fact, it is believed Mossos d'Esquadra confiscated twice the amount of ballot boxes that the Spanish Policia Nacional did. . Besides, the Catalan police assured that Spanish police did not honour the coordination agreements and the Public Prosecutor commanded local police to confiscate ballot boxes, too.

b) "893 civilians and 431 agents of the Nacional Police and the Guardia Civil were reported to have been injured initially.[37][36][38] According to various sources these previously reported figures may have been exaggerated.[39] According to the judge from Barcelona that is currently investigating the accusations of police violence there were 218 persons injured on that day, 20 of which were agents.[40][41] The final official numbers by the Catalan government show that 1066 civilians and 11 agents of the National Police and the Guardia Civil, and 1 from the regional police the Mossos d'Esquadra were injured.[42]". According to the only official report (the ones released by the Catalan Health Service), there were 1,066 civilian and 12 policemen wounded (not 431). Furthermore, the idea of 431 policemen wounded is completely flaw because:

• The amount (431) was artifically inflated overnight (from 39, but no extra incident was registered that night) • This amount has never been contrasted. • No clinical report released, except for the Catalan Health Service that indicates just 11 policemen wounded. • Although antiriot police is equipped with GoPro camera, no visual evidence has been released of that extreme violence • There are no amateur videos suggesting wounded antiriot policemen or fierce violence; on the other hand, the videos show peaceful voters • It is unlikely that a ratio 1 policemen wounded out of 2 civilian would not imply a police reinforcement or a modification of the strategy. • No further consequence, no Chief policemen resignation or fired as a result of that allegedly bad planning and/or execution. • Neither army nor extra police reinforcement deployed the following day.

References

Consensus version altered

These edits [17] and [18] are altering a paragraph that was highly discussed until a consensus was reached. In addition, he uses the temporary inaccuracy "Sunday" (what Sunday? What month, what year ...?). That was never mentioned on the page.

This version is the result of consensus after long discussions in a WP:RFC, in which this editor Iñaki LL participated [19]

For all these reasons, I restore (once again) the consensus version. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 17:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Stop misleading edit summaries for a start. Please watch your statements. This ("In addition, he uses the temporary inaccuracy "Sunday" (what Sunday? What month, what year ...?). That was never mentioned on the page." is out of place, and I should take that as disruptive, please check the source. My reference is straight to the source. Extending artificially discussions may be held as disruptive, this thread is a conundrum to discuss a straightforward case, where it should be unproblematic. Mention of police violence is explicit in the source, we have all seen that, facts are not biased, they are what they are. Instead we hear "images were meant to 'magnify'", that is on the verge of OR, clear. Iñaki LL (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)