Talk:2017 Catalan independence referendum/Archive 2

Number of injured
§The final medical report states there were 1.066 civilian attended in Catalan hospitals as well as 12 policemen (including 1 catalan police officer). . Statistically, 7 of them were cathegorised as "severe" and 23 og them were over 79years old, as well as 2 children under 11.

About this edit: (890 civilians and 39 agents received medical treatment (scrapes and bruises are not injuries...))

Of course scrapes and bruises are injuries. Let's see the medical definition: ''An injury is damage to your body. It is a general term that refers to harm caused by accidents, falls, hits, weapons, and more. (...) Wounds are injuries that break the skin or other body tissues. They include cuts, scrapes, scratches, and punctured skin. (...) Other common types of injuries include Animal bites Bruises (...)''

In adition, the references do not specify the type of injuries of civilians, we do not know how many of them have just scrapes and bruises or other types of injuries. We can not, therefore, separate numbers but give the total numbers. Our duty is to adjust to the references.

Also, an injured person is an injured, whether medical care is immediate or not.

I adjusted once and I will adjust again to fit the references.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca   (Talk)  10:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, finally on 2 October, only four of all that injured people were hospitalised. Could this fact be useful for your discussion? Asturkian (talk) 11:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much, . Of course is useful. It reaffirms my argumentation. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca [[Image:BallenaBlanca.jpg|25px]] [[Image:Mars symbol (bold blue).svg|12px]] (Talk)  12:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * This is considered WP:OR and is against Wikipedia's policy to include in the article. Wikipedia must reflect what reliable sources state, not your personal opinions or analysis. 2601:644:1:B7CB:75C2:683E:B7D3:6409 (talk) 07:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Remove "results by county" map in leading section
Now it is three days after the referendum and the map is still blank. I think the map can be temporarily removed until reliable data comes out. Esiymbro (talk) 10:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. No county-by-county results have been made available. FOARP (talk) 12:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Lost votes -- what sources say
Impru has repeatedly deleted info about the lost votes, claiming that the estimate represented electors and not actual votes. While I find this plausible, it is not what the sources are saying. I made this very clear and was transparent, by making inlines in the references (which Impru deleted without explanation [] -- and nowhere in the edit summary was a justification for the deletion of the inline quotes which disputed what they were saying ). Here is what the sources say:

The Guardian : "'Officials said 770,000 votes were lost due to disruption which resulted in polling stations being raided by Spanish police.'"

The Independent : "'...total voting figures remain incomplete and provisional because a much larger number, an estimated 770,000,, are either inaccessible or lost after some polling stations were closed and ballot boxes were seized by police.'"

At Wikipedia we are obligated to state what sources say -- not what we think happened -- and absolutely not to claim in edit summaries, as Impru did, that sources are saying one thing and not another, when there were clearly inlines that show the contrary [].

There is also another issue here -- Turull claims that because of the police action, turnout was driven down -- obviously the Catalan government isn't neutral here, but this is a plausible claim and must be reported (in an NPOV way of course). Impru simply wipes this from the page with the limp edit summary of "Fixing misleading statement on this in the lead + removing duplicate sources". Look, I'm not some pro-separatist edit warrior -- actually the reason I came to the page just now was to add stuff about the allegations of Russian interference, an issue which is certainly not favorable to the separatists which does not have adequate coverage yet and which I have been gathering sources on -- but while I am willing to assume good faith here at least for now, I find this sort of behavior to be incredibly unconstructive and the opposite of good editing practice. --Yalens (talk) 13:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The Catalan government source is very clear on this: "770,000 votes not cast due to polling stations being closed off". When sources say "they were lost", they mean that up to that number of votes did not even had the chance of being cast (this is, electors who could cast a vote. Sources in Spain and Catalonia (provided in the article as well) are much clearer on this. English ones just cover this in a single sentence at most). However, you try to imply that when sources say those votes were lost, they mean that 770,000 votes were actually cast and then lost, which is false (and also, impossible to determine). Then, you also failed to say anything about the "universal census" allowing people to vote even if their polling station was closed (and it's not a minor thing, given that, for example, Puigdemont himself had to resort to voting in another polling place due to his own being raided). Impru20 (talk) 13:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Adding some local sources that provide a much more in-depth coverage of the "770,000 votes" issue. Also note than when speaking of voters", sources may be also referring to "registered voters" (which means the same as "elector" in Spanish/Catalan context where all voters within the national territory are automatically registered, rather than having to apply for voting as happens in the US, the UK or some other countries):, , , (this one is VERY explicit on it, even with charts), . Impru20 (talk) 13:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I said that because that is what the sources I had said (the Guardian literally says lost, you can look in the quote right below), while I didn't know about the "universal census" affair -- I would have added it had I known and had time. While certainly that may be a factor, not everyone has the luxury of hopping to a different voting station and the reported turnout of 42% was much lower than the intended turnout in polls which was 50-70%, with both the largest and most recent poll indicating intention to vote at 62%, 20% higher. It is fine to state the universal census affair, but this cannot justify simply erasing Turull's statement, especially when that's hidden in your edit summary.
 * Thanks for the sources. I will incorporate these to the article if I get a moment and adjust it accordingly. But this does not warrant removal -- the material still warrants mention. And none of this justifies your removal (without stating in the edit summary) of Turull's statement about the effect of the police driving down turnout. --Yalens (talk) 15:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * PS that isn't exactly the definition of "electors" in the American context, far from it. Interestingly, while I dislike using Spanish/Catalan sources if not necessary (both sides' media sounds really emotional right now), the last one [] goes more in depth about Turull's argument in a way that is not represented on the page.:

Els encarregats de donar els resultats des del Centre Internacional de Premsa, el vicepresident, Oriol Junqueras; el conseller de la Presidència, Jordi Turull, i el conseller d'Exteriors, Raül Romeva, han remarcat contínuament que, tot i que els 2.248.000 vots no suposen 'per se' el 50% del cens, els càlculs dels experts apunten que sense pressió policial i tancament de col·legis s'hauria pogut arribar al 55% de participació. -- Google Translate: "Those in charge of giving the results from the International Press Center, Vice President, Oriol Junqueras; The counselor of the Presidency, Jordi Turull, and the foreign minister, Raül Romeva, have remarked continuously that, although the 2,248,000 votes do not suppose "per se" the 50% of the census, the calculations of the experts suggest that Without police pressure and closing of schools it could have reached 55% participation." (bold mine)
 * Obviously this needs to be readded.-Yalens (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC) PPS sorry that I may have bit unpleasant at points here, bit grumpy. --Yalens (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the text is fair enough right now. Agree on your claim about "electors" (in Spain they're called electores, so that would be its translation. I actually think we were meaning the same thing all along; "potential voters" seems a pretty decent compromise). Impru20 (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Demonstrarions
Hi again. About the demonstrations that are mentioned in this article and in the Operation Anubis one, looking to the articles it seems there were only demonstrarions against the police, but I think we must not ignore the demonstrations there were supporting the CNP and the GC in several cities of Spain (Madrid and Barcelona indeed) when they left their headquarters for going to Catalonia (La Vanguardia, Murcia, El Mundo about Castellón, Santander) and also on 30 September "for the unity of Spain" (Diario Levante, El Confidencial about Madrid, with 10,000 people, SER, talking about Barcelona, Alicante).

An actual neutral POV must show the movements in both parts and in this one, it is currently only showing the demonstrarions for the referendum. Asturkian (talk) 07:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree. Mention should also be made of these facts per WP:NPOV, supported by the sources you provide. --BallenaBlanca [[Image:BallenaBlanca.jpg|25px]] [[Image:Mars symbol (bold blue).svg|12px]] (Talk)  09:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Albanian & Luxembourgish position
Following the press conference and the journalists’ enquiry as regards the current events in Spain and the parallelism between Catalonia and Kosovo, Albanian and Luxembourgish Foreign Ministers Bushati and Asselborn voiced that any comparison to Crimea and Catalonia is ungrounded. "The decision of the International Court of Justice on Kosovo has closed any further discussion from the standpoint of international law" - Minister Bushati pointed out. On his part, Minister Asselborn underscored that "In Kosovo, there was a war, while in Catalonia there is no war and this is the main difference between these two cases."

http://www.punetejashtme.gov.al/en/press-office/news/bushati-receives-his-luxembourg-s-counterpart-asselborn-in-tirana-2018-may-be-a-very-good-year-for-albania-to-open-negotiations1507031481 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.171.53.113 (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Economic reactions
FYI, I have added economic reactions about the move of Banco Sabadell and others in the reactions article. I'd like you to help me improving it, thanks. Asturkian (talk) 13:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC).

The cost of the Spanish police for the Government adds up to 31,7 million euros until the 1st of October. . It it expected that this operations lasts until the 2nd of November minimum.

1-0
Why call it that? Needs explanation. 174.17.207.124 (talk) 08:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * 1–O means "1 October." Don't know in English but in Spanish is very common to refer to important dates as this: 11-M, 23-F, 11-S… Asturkian (talk) 08:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I see. I read that as 1-0, score at a soccer match. You should put "also known as 1-O (for October 1) in Spanish and Catalan media" in the intro. 174.17.207.124 (talk) 08:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It is already present in the lead: "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catalan_independence_referendum,_2017&oldid=804033387 The Catalan independence referendum of 2017, also known as 1-O in Spanish and Catalan media"]. --BallenaBlanca [[Image:BallenaBlanca.jpg|25px]] [[Image:Mars symbol (bold blue).svg|12px]] (Talk)  08:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. There is no explanation what 1-O means. You are writing for people who read English, and 1-O has no meaning. Add "(e.g. October 1)" or something like that. 174.17.207.124 (talk) 08:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay, I understand. Perhaps something like this: "The Catalan independence referendum of 2017, also known by the numeronym 1-O (derived from 1 October)? --BallenaBlanca [[Image:BallenaBlanca.jpg|25px]] [[Image:Mars symbol (bold blue).svg|12px]] (Talk)  08:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

"repression and brutalization"
This sub-heading is clearly POV, as well as being bad English ("brutalization" refers to becoming brutal). If this refers to the actions of the Spanish riot police (and other authorities) then lets say that. FOARP (talk) 11:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "repression" and "brutalization" (this actually is an acceptable use of the word) are flagrant POV language-- better just not to use adjectives like that. This page is besot by flagrant POV pushing by both sides, it's pretty frustrating. I've removed it--Yalens (talk) 13:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Edgarmm81 (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)"Unofficial Spanish police apologies, not signed by the senior management"

Medium range Spanish police officers recognize that in the action there were police excesses. They affirm that they could have prevented the vote without necessity of evictions. "We present our most heartfelt apologies for the excesses that may have been produced, reiterating that the very essence of the catastrophically determined service entrusted to us inevitably entails such scenes."

Falsehoods
Why is this section necessary? If some claims are false, why repeat them? It's pretty common for numerous different stories, claims, exaggerations, etc. to be told during a tumultuous event. It seems like the main purpose of this section is to try to discredit the protesters on the basis of a few questionable claims, which violates WP:DUE/WP:NPOV. 2601:644:1:B7CB:75C2:683E:B7D3:6409 (talk) 07:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah I agree. Since there's clearly a dispute here, I'm tagging the section. --Yalens (talk) 08:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * They are documented facts, correctly referenced. Not only is it not a lack of neutrality, but quite the contrary. Wikipedia has to reflect the facts, the reader will come to their own conclusions. The personal interpretations you make about the purpose of the section are just your point of view. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca [[Image:BallenaBlanca.jpg|25px]] [[Image:Mars symbol (bold blue).svg|12px]]  (Talk)  12:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a violation of WP:UNDUE and part of the issue mentioned by many others that this page is written with a tone at many parts that is vastly pro-Spanish government. I would add that there are other sections that are vastly pro-Catalan independence which come ultimately come together to leave a very POV page that also has a POV identity complex.--Yalens (talk) 12:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * This section is repeatedly being removed violating Wikipedia policies, by newly registered users or ip's who have only globally edited once or twice. Remember that WP:UNDUE: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". And also, we must apply WP:NPOVHOW.
 * The sources are perfectly reliable. In particular, this of Le Monde provides very clear evidence for part of the content and events not yet included in the section.
 * Best regards. --BallenaBlanca [[Image:BallenaBlanca.jpg|25px]] [[Image:Mars symbol (bold blue).svg|12px]] (Talk)  15:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject. I disagree with attempts to entirely delete it from the page, especially as the proliferation of interesting stuff on social media regarding the controversy by bots is now discussed by the media (see Russia interference section). But on the other hand this cannot take up this much space and does not deserve its own section unless we have WP:RS saying that the impact of these things is enough to put it on par with the relevance of other sections.--Yalens (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE does not apply in this case, Weather the use of force by the police while carrying out the court order of the High Court of Justice of Catalonia was excessive or not is a key issue. Both sides of the story must be presented. That falsehoods were used to support the claim of excessive use of force is a very relevant issue and its notability is established by the many reliable sources that have sourced it. It should not be removed, as we should not remove the information about the person injured in the eye by a rubber ball or the use of batons by the police etc. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * With little more discussion here, conflictual editing on this section has continued: [] and  [] have tried to remove the section while  and  [] [] have reverted. I think we should discuss more here, rather than revert each other. (sorry for absence) My own view is that, yes, WP:UNDUE still applies (although I prefer the shrinkage of the section and it being subsumed into another, rather than complete removal), as although CrystallizedCarbon makes a reasoned point that falsehoods were used to support the claim of excessive use of force, I would personally much prefer to see outside sources (preferably English speaking ones, the Spanish/Catalan media have been uhh emotional lately, sorry) rather than Wikipedia making this point. Indeed, as far as I could tell, the video that really drew peoples attention (at least my colleagues who talked about it) was the viral one of the Spanish police attacking Catalan firefighters, not any of the ones the section discusses, so the above claim about it being notable because the falsehoods were what buttressed those claims might be not undisputable.--Yalens (talk) 00:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)       EDIT : my bad, I pinged you all to nothing as the section was subsumed by Impru -- thanks for that. I had meant to post this earlier but actually entered it much later.--Yalens (talk) 01:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I also agree that this is WP:UNDUE. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 00:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

--> IT SHOULD SAY: Only 12 police officers (11 Spanish police and 1 Catalan police) were attended in Catalan public hospitals as well as 1.066 civilians.

Spanish unionist media sprang to life the idea that kids were going to be used as a "human shields" during the Referendum: http://www.larazon.es/espana/puigdemont-usara-ninos-como-escudos-humanos-en-los-colegios-KA16344916 https://okdiario.com/espana/cataluna/2017/10/01/utilizacion-ninos-referendum-primero-escudos-humanos-luego-votantes-1374571 http://www.libertaddigital.com/espana/2017-09-19/los-separatistas-usaran-viejos-invalidos-y-ninos-de-pecho-como-escudos-humanos-1276606097/ http://www.eltitular.es/adoctrinando-los-ninos-escudos-humanos-referendum-1-octubre/

Hello Thank you for your analysis. In response to your request here are some English speaking sources that establish the relevance of the information: On the other hand I had not seen the video of the firefighters before now. It seems clear that WP:UNDUE does not apply in this case. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 13:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The Dayly Mail wrote: 'Police broke my fingers one by one and touched my breasts': Horrifying claims of police brutality at poll stations emerge as Spain faces political crisis after Catalonia votes for independence. This is an example of an international article that uses her testimony as a "Horrifiying claim of police brutality". This was echoed by other media, Barcelona's ex-coach Pep Guardiola or the Major of Madrid Manuela Carmena, so it seems clear that it had a relevant impact and weight on public opinion and claims of excessive use of force.
 * Latter it also published: Woman who said Spanish police sexually assaulted her and broke her fingers 'one by one' during Catalan referendum violence admits she 'exaggerated' her injuries so they also found it to be notable.
 * Catalan referendum: Spanish foreign minister claims photos of police brutality are 'fake' another example of an English speaking source that deems the matter notable.
 * This two are published English by El País, is a Spanish reliable source that I think you will find useful: There’s fake news in Catalonia too and How many people were really injured during the Catalan referendum?

Edgarmm81 (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC) Disagree with the idea that "El País" is a Spanish reliable source. "El Pais" used to be a relatively objective newspaper 10 years ago, but not now (as almost all the Spanish and Catalan media). "El Pais" has a clear unionist bias.


 * You are entitled to your opinion, but with all due respect, I have fully disagree you. You are of course free to bring the matter up at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Regarding the Daily Mail, I direct to this article which is about how Wikipedia no longer classes this website as a reliable source: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website Munci (talk) 14:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Here are more sources that viewed the incident as an example of brutality: BEATEN IN THE STREETS Catalonia independence referendum voter accuses Spanish of horrifying brutality as government minister claims photos of referendum violence are ‘fake’, Catalan referendum video: Woman 'dragged from polls, assaulted & had her fingers broken', Pep Guardiola: I Would Not Have Played Barcelona Match Amid Catalonia Referendum... there are many more. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Umm, yeah is absolutely right regarding Daily Mail, and you just linked more similar British tabloids that also aren't reliable. By the way these sorts of tabloids also published stuff "on the other side" about the firefighter affair that is similarly HYSTERICAL IN TONE : [] []. Now, as for El Pais I don't know as much since I speak English not Spanish -- my feeling is that it does not violate WP:RS and although it seems a bit biased its voice is still worth reporting.
 * On the other hand, while as a Spanish speaker you may be unaware, that video of the police beating the firefighters tore through English social media -- and also some other domains. Here's South China Morning Post, [Police vs firefighters: officers clash in defining images of Catalonia referendum] -- so they were the defining images, apparently. And there was lots of Western reporting on this [] [] [Videos from earlier in the day show police hitting people in the crowd with batons while voters hold up their hands, police dragging voters from polling stations by their hair and Spanish police attacking Catalan firefighters] (8:10 post from 5 days ago). Not just British media, but American media published this in headlines too []. Although this is OR, I must also remark that colleagues of mine brought up the video at work and while the narrative had previously been mostly sympathy for Spain ("first austerity and now this mess"), this has changed things a bit more to "what the hell are they doing" (note though that these are people who had never heard of Catalonia before so their opinions are quite fluid). I think if stuff along these lines is added to the section alongside the apparent reports of the fake news and what not (in the violence section), that will show you are supporting proper balance and coverage on the page, and I will support you. Different things have played in media in different domains and this should all be acknowledged inclusively, as long as it doesn't get too long. --Yalens (talk) 17:22, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I of course agree. It is obvious that different places will put the emphasis on different news. And I fully agree that the violence and its repercussions are obviously notable and should be included. It is also natural that there should be a lot more coverage in Spain and that within it some media, still being reliable, may put more emphasis on some facts over others. That does not mean that Spanish sources including those from Catalonia should be excluded. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello I added the information about the firefighters. As for the alleged finger breaking, as I said there are many other sources that covered the story like, , , ,  etc.
 * The Generalitat has sued the police and Guardia Civil for the violence. The judge in charge confirmed that of the 843 people that asked to speak with doctors 130 were actually injured and of those 2 remain hospitalized. I am thinking of the best way of adding the information. I will also add information on the irregularities of the voting process and the report issued by the "unofficial" international observers. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Is true that catalan firefighters protected voters from police action. And there also were fakes, as pictures from the 2013 protests:
 * , you can use this same source for adding information on the irregularities. It clearly documents some of the irregularities committed. Among them, some as serious as that there was no control over the votes, with people who voted up to four times at different polling stations with pictures that prove it. And this other, already present in the page.
 * A proof of the importance of the false claims of the woman with the "broken fingers" is that Mayor of Barcelona Ada Colau used it to accuse the police (I put a reference in English, there are several in Spanish) "Speaking to a local radio station, Colau commented that one of these sexual assaults occurred in Barceloneta, although it would also have to add the case of the young woman who was at the polling station in Pau Claris. Spanish officers had sexually assaulted her and broken her fingers ‘deliberately one by one’ and, as reported in a video, one of the agents who repressed the crowd, allegedly touched her breasts laughing and shouting “I do not like your boobs’.”". --BallenaBlanca [[Image:BallenaBlanca.jpg|25px]] [[Image:Mars symbol (bold blue).svg|12px]] (Talk)  01:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

"Subsequently the European Commission confirmed its illegality."
Since when was the EU an authority on Spanish law? The EU can state that they agree it is illegal, but they cannot "confirm" it as the only people who can confirm what is illegal or illegal in a matter of Spanish law are the Spanish. I suppose "subsequently the EU stated that they also regard the referendum as illegal" might be more accurate. FOARP (talk) 18:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That makes sense to me. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. --BallenaBlanca [[Image:BallenaBlanca.jpg|25px]] [[Image:Mars symbol (bold blue).svg|12px]] (Talk)  08:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * «EU an authority on Spanish law?»: Not sure: I assume the European court of Justice (the EU one, not any other) might have a say if it is questioned on this topic, but I believe that nobody in Catalonia legally disagreed with the justice decision(s) which made the so called referendum illegal.
 * «EU can state that they agree»: Additionally, during the parliamentary EU debate about Catalonya, most leaders of most political groups gave their position on those topics. I would have say that EU leaders consider Spain & rule of law, and have been informed by the people of the illegality, as some european political parties have catalan and so spanish MEP among them.
 * «European Commission»:There is on Internet a video in the strasbourg Europarl of a statement of someone for the European Commission at the closing of the debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 (talk) 10:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Content not explicitly stated by any of the sources
I agree with this, it is evident that is necessary to include for NPOV, but the edit had several irregularities. I have not been able to find where the sources specifically support the added text.

I have made these adjustments, per WP:OR, WP:SYN ("Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.") and WP:CITEKILL.

Please feel free to readd the previous text ("The Spanish government under the guide of Mariano Rajoy has come under international scrutiny over its use of force on civilians to prevent the referendum") if you find verifiable references that specifically support it.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca   (Talk)  12:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Edgarmm81 (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC) Other political parties, groups and sub-national goverments • SCOTLAND: Nicola Sturgeon backs Catalan referendum calls http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-41350999

Press coverage

Like in the "falsehood and photomontages" epigraph, Spanish unionist media sprang to life the idea that kids were going to be used as a "human shields" during the Referendum: http://www.larazon.es/espana/puigdemont-usara-ninos-como-escudos-humanos-en-los-colegios-KA16344916 https://okdiario.com/espana/cataluna/2017/10/01/utilizacion-ninos-referendum-primero-escudos-humanos-luego-votantes-1374571 http://www.libertaddigital.com/espana/2017-09-19/los-separatistas-usaran-viejos-invalidos-y-ninos-de-pecho-como-escudos-humanos-1276606097/ http://www.eltitular.es/adoctrinando-los-ninos-escudos-humanos-referendum-1-octubre/

§The cost of the operation for the Spanish government adds up to 31.7 million euros until the 1st of October. . The operation will last until the 2nd of November minimum.

Reference 6: It is flaw, partial and biased: •	An electronic database system was used. Spanish police could hack it for a couple of hours, but it existed http://www.elperiodico.cat/ca/politica/20171001/govern-cens-electoral-universal-6323219) •	http://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/05/europe/catalonia-referendum-covert-operation/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgarmm81 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC) •	International observers: “We saw numerous and repeated violations of civil and human rights”  http://www.catalannews.com/politics/item/international-observers-we-saw-numerous-and-repeated-violations-of-civil-and-human-rights).

It is ironic that the Spanish institutions actively boycotted the referendum and then argued that the referendum did not have guarantees.

Changing statistics
It seems clear to me that the figures from the Spanish Interior Ministry for injured policemen changed dramatically from the tens on the 1st to the hundreds on the 2nd, apparently because their criteria for inclusion changed (including also bruises and not just interactions with the emergency services, like the figures for the Catalan civilians). I have tried to put in sentences about this but have been removed. They could have probably been better worded. How could it be better worded? Munci (talk) 14:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I think it's a question of due weight. Yes, the Spanish Interior Ministry upgraded its figure from 39 to 431 on the basis of scrapes, bruises "and even bites" – a fact that the Vanguardia article makes quite pointedly. But the fact remains that world media (and even politicians who support the Spanish position) are concerned with the violence of the police towards would-be voters, i.e. hair-pulling, kicking down stairs, swinging batons and firing rubber bullets, and hasn't taken the "on the other hand hundreds of police were kicked in the shins" stance that the Interior Ministry would like them to. Quoting the two figures for civilians and police side by side without comment is giving undue weight to the anti-referendum and pro-police-violence side. Scolaire (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * This article may help to better understand things: How many people were really injured during the Catalan referendum?. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * It's not that I don't understand, it's just a question of due weight. International news media are the only sources we have for a current event, so the article should reflect the weight given in those media. In line with WP:NPOV and WP:DUE, the article should therefore say (1) that police acted with violence at a number of polling stations, and that images of that violence were shown around the world, including young and old people alike streaming with blood; (2) that the Spanish government stated that the police action was proportionate, and that Madrid-based media agreed with it; (3) that the Catalonian authorities said that nearly 900 people were injured, although only four were hospitalised; and (4) that the Spanish Interior Ministry initially said 39 officers were injured, but subsequently increased the figure to 431, including those suffering from "bruises, scratches, kicks and even bites". Any survey of coverage over the last five days will show that (1) should be given more weight than (2), (3) and (4) combined. We can now add that Enric Millo, the government's representative in Catalonia, has apologised to those injured. He hasn't asked Catalans to apologise for hurting the police. Scolaire (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The way you are presenting the information is neither accurate nor is it neutral. In developing stories like this one things change as information is reported and analyzed. There is no point in reporting that the 413 reported injuries were 39 the previous day, as It does not seem to neutral to use the exact figure there and use almost 900 for what the Catalonian authorities reported instead of 844. Also at this point it is clear that the figure reflects the number of people that spoke with a doctor so injured is also not the most neutral word. A Judge investigating the claims of excessive use of force by the police has confirmed that the number of injured people is 130 and only 2 of those remain hospitalized (an unrelated heart attack and the person hit in the eye by a rubber ball): El juez que investiga la actuación policial del 1-O baja el número de heridos a 130. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The figure given by the Catalan authorities was 893, not 844. I don't have a problem with using the exact figure. Neither do I have a problem with saying a judge said it was only 130. What I do have a problem with is this numbers game being strung out to the point where it takes over, and minimises what is the central fact – the violence shown by police in polling stations and on the streets. I also have a major problem with the insinuation in the first sentence in that section that the Mossos were the ones that really caused the trouble by failing to carry out their orders. Scolaire (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with Scolaire. Parts of this article are skewed towards presenting the Madrid view of things.24.50.161.64 (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * There is no such thing as a Madrid view, you probably meant the Spanish government's view. I on the other hand, see a clear effort to skew information towards the independentists side. There was no counterweight and when it was added along with reliable sources it has been deleted. I do agree with one point made by There is no need to get lost on figures. We should use the one that being supported by sources and is the most reliable. There is no point in saying it was 840 then 843 most said 844 and some even 893. as there is no point in doing the same with the injured policeman. It is clearly stated that there were incidents in which the police used force to against citizens blocking their access to the polling centers.
 * As far as the other point made about the Mossos. Consider that their numbers in Catalonia (16.783) are much greater than those of National Police and Guardia Civil. Their instructions given by the courts of Catalonia were to prevent the schools from even opening at 6am and to close any that were open at that time since some people stayed over night on some of them. Their Major, Trapero that is now under court investigation for secession, said on previous days that he would execute the courts order. If the Mossos would have prevented the people from accessing the voting centers there would have been no need to remove them and no need to give orders to do so to National Police or Guardia Civil. But again, it is not our place to do original research, we have to try ensuring that the article reflects what the reliable sources say with due weight. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with.
 * By the way, it is necessary to explain better what were the orders of the Mossos de Esquadra, that had to comply and that they disobeyed.
 * We should also review this recent edit, made on the page Operation Anubis. The Mossos d'Esquadra had specific of the High Court of Justice of Catalonia. Who gave them these last orders early on the day of the referendum? Why were the centers allowed to be open? It is not clear in that wording. --BallenaBlanca [[Image:BallenaBlanca.jpg|25px]] [[Image:Mars symbol (bold blue).svg|12px]] (Talk)  08:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it is very relevant that the statistics have changed, seeing as statistics don't normally jump by an order of magnitude from one day to the next like that and that the criteria for inclusion are not the same. I also suggest we bring this either to WP:DRN or WP:RFC. Munci (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Social media
The whole paragraph beginning "Catalan independentists spread through the social networks..." is unencyclopaedic. Social media abounds with fake news, photoshopped pictures etc. on every conceivable topic. That's hardly a revelation. Unless it can be shown that the images had a significant impact on reporting by news media, the reaction of foreign governments, or something similar, it's a non-story. It looks like just another attempt to get anti-independentist bias into the article through the back door. Scolaire (talk) 12:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. I already had to make a fix to the initial wording which was put as "The Catalan independentists" (refering to the whole of them). For the last days I've seen like if there was some attempts to make up for Spanish police violence by giving too much weight to fake pictures/news/claims (such as repeated attempts to create an entire sub-section for these, or the whole ERC woman paragraph—removed by now—using some biased language). Falsehoods and exaggerations that, while I agree that may have happened, I don't think are relevant enough to deserve so much detail. Indeed, if the whole social media issue is unencyclopaedic (which I'd tend to agree, as fake news and claims happen in social newtworks in a day-to-day basis on a wide variety of issues, not just this one), it should be removed unless it can be proven it has had a significant impact and/or relevance so as to deserve such attention. BALANCE must respect DUE. Impru20 (talk) 13:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed previously. social media impact in this case has received in depth coverage by multiple reliable sources as you can see in the section titled falsehoods. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The consensus in the "Falsehoods" section seems to be that both the falsehoods and the confutation of them should be omitted from the article. I'm not seeing any RS that talks about the impact of social media on e.g. reporting by proper news media or the reaction of foreign governments, as opposed to the fact of fake news on social media, which as I said is a non-story. Scolaire (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * How do you come to the conclusion that the consensus is that it should be omitted? All RS used as examples are reporting on the impact that the videos had. Reactions by notable people to them and even by the Spanish Foreign Minister. What else do you need? Do you think the sources are not WP:RS? It has received in depth coverage is relevant and it has a very direct repercusión on the subject as discussed before. Since it does not violate any of our policies, so it should be included. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * What do they say the impact of the fake pictures on notable people was? How were people's reactions changed by the fake pictures on social media from what they would have been if they'd just watched the television? I can't see that in the sources so you'll have to quote them for me. Scolaire (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Even though it is not a requirement for notability, if you bother to read some of my previous comments or the content of the many sources used as an example you will be able to see that reliable sources did covered the reactions by notable people like Pep Guardiola, Ada Colau, Manuela Carmena and the Spanish Foreign Minister among others and they have even prompted a legal investigation. Please review the section Falsehoods and sources used as examples there. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask for links to Wikipedia articles on notable people, I asked you to quote from your own sources. How did the fake pictures cause Pep Guardiola, Ada Colau, Manuela Carmena or the Spanish Foreign Minister to view the situation differently from how they viewed it when they were watching genuine video from legitimate news media? Just saying you've shown they had an impact doesn't help if you don't say what that impact was. Just saying that this or that person or organisation criticised fake pictures on social media does not demonstrate that they had an impact. Scolaire (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And what I asked from you is to please read the reliable sources used as examples that I posted on the section titled Falsehoods so I don't have to re-post them again here. There you will find different articles from reliable sources with coverage on the impact of the video relating to all four of them. It even includes a request from the Foreign Minister to the prosecutor to investigate a Major over it. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * you asked for a quote-- while a lot of the sources posted were flaky tabloids that  Ithink he didn't know that we don't use, he did also post El Pais' story by David Alandete [] which does some work to fix what I previously thought had been a quasi-WP:SYN issue and does discuss the impact of certain information or rather disinformation propagation. Here are some notable quotes. First, there's the connection to previous disinformation campaigns and the attempts to use these to try to throw tar on Spain's democratic apparatus by spreading the "Franco" narrative. Even if you disagree with Spain not allowing the vote like happen like Britain did (that is in fact my own view too), it seems absurd to portray this as some sort of return of Francoism, wouldn't you say?
 * "The network of social media profiles that helped propel Donald Trump to the US presidency, saw Brexit win through in Britain, and got extremist parties into power in France and Germany have successfully completed their first foray into southern Europe. From this Sunday, with the use of real and fake [emphasis added by Yalens] images and interpretations in line with the international views that prevail in Russia, the Catalan crisis has become a crisis of European democracy in ultra-nationalist and anti-globalization circles on the internet. According to tools from the national security advocacy group Alliance for Securing Democracy, the referendum has become the most-commented-on issue by these profiles... Among the highlighted topics in the tweets from English-speaking pro-Russian accounts were not only words like “Catalonia” and “Catalan,” but also “Franco” and “Francoism.”"
 * .. but, images, both real and fake, are being used to support this narrative, as Alandete explains. Example :
 * "Several anonymous accounts shared a video on Twitter of police officers with riot gear hitting a defenseless young man, captioned “Spanish police attack Catalan voter.” The posts received thousands of retweets[emphasis mine] within hours. But in reality, the incident took place on November 14, 2012. The photo of the injured boy was shared alongside real photos of people who were wounded yesterday. Photos of police during a mining disturbance in July were also passed off as from the day of the referendum."
 * Alandete goes on to explain how the same fake news propagation by twitter is being used to further a narratie that the EU is in some sort of disarray with internal fighting over this. As for more of the fake stuff, here's another good one from El Pais that I found []. Alandete connects this to the story of Russian interference that has a few sentences on the page right now under press coverage-- I'd recommend you take a look there too. This isn't to say that all the stuff that has been exploited by these accounts was fake-- indeed much of it was real and I made this argument earlier, the article must not imply that-- but clearly the fake stuff contributed.
 * Now, Scolaire, there are a number of complaints you have I do agree with. The unencyclopedic one is true but it that is how the text was written, not the content -- in particular, I think there is way too much info about individual incidents, and I would add also that the naming of people involved could cause quasi-WP:BLP issues as of course libel is a crime (oh, the irony), though I think at the moment the naming has been mostly removed. As for El Pais, it's been brought up that it has a Spanish unionist POV (as most people in Spain do, and are entitled to), which is true, but I think it is still high quality reporting from what I can tell.
 * I think the page should have a lot less of the discussion -- which is annoying to readers anyways -- about individual incidents like this finger breaking episode (no one not from Spain cares a bit about this), and more of the analysis done by David Alandete. Additionally, especially as he ties this into the issue of Russian interference, I think it may be appropriate to have a "Press coverage and social media" section, especially as many people use the latter for the former. Thoughts everyone? Also, my apologies that this got very long; I'm quite busy and lack the time to trim --Yalens (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the trouble to post the quotes. They illustrate exactly what I was saying: that people criticised the fake photos because they were bad things, not because they misled people like Pep Guardiola and Ada Colau into thinking that the police action was excessive when they previously believed it was proportionate. So the details of this image on social media being from 2012 or that one being from Turkey are not relevant to the discussion of police violence, which did actually happen in Catalonia in 2017. knows this, which is why he keeps trying to fob me off with his "read what I posted before". The Russian thing is a separate matter, and it's covered in a separate section.  Scolaire (talk) 07:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * What I think is very easy to understand from those reliable sources is that the violence by police has been used by the separatists (Pep Guardiola included) to support their cause. Multiple reliable sources are also putting emphasis in the fact that many knowingly exaggerated the extent of that violence to the level of torture and sexual assault and being echoed by notable people obviously contributed to that effect. The proof of those exaggerations, and their legal repercussions or even claims of Russian meddling to destabilize Spain, have been deemed notable by the multiple reliable sources that covered it. Removing it makes no sense. Here is another article published today in the main page of El Mundo that summarizes and gives a detailed overview of most events as they developed: Marta 'dedos-rotos' y la gran mentira del 1-O. A Catalonian judge is looking at the incidents and will decide if the violence was excessive or proportionate, justified or not. The results of that investigation is what should be reflected here, in the mean time due balance requires that this very relevant information is included to help maintain neutrality. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:45, 8 October 2017‎ (UTC)

False reference, please remove
This sentence: "With the aim of magnifying the intervention of the police, the independentists spread through the social networks images of civilians injured in other events of five years ago and at least there was two reports of injuries that resulted to be false." is followed by a reference that doesn't corroborate it. 1. The reference mentions one case where a woman first claimed her "fingers were broken one by one", while in fact she was "just" thrown on the floor and dragged down the stairs (as clearly seen in the video) 2. In the reference there is no mention whatsoever of the "images of civilians injured in other events of five years ago" This is not only a Point of View issue, it is a direct forgery. (edit: Wow! That was quick!) Izitpajn (talk) 07:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, the reference supports the text. It may be a problem of understanding Spanish.


 * Otro de los heridos es el hombre de unos 70 años que sufrió un paro cardiorrespiratorio cuando la Policía desalojó un colegio electoral en el barrio de La Mariola, en Lérida. Sin embargo, fuentes policiales confirmaron a ABC que esta persona no formaba parte del grupo de personas que protestaban por la ocupación de los centros y que fue la propia Policía quien atendió al anciano al poco de sufrir el infarto.

Edgarmm81 (talk) 00:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Disagree with the above: the 70 year old man is receiving a CPR and, although the Spanish police is helping, the crowd is calling them "Asesinos" ("killers"). At the end of the video, another charge is started in the area.


 * Montajes y mentiras. Tal como denuncia hoy también ABC, el secesionismo difundió el domingo imágenes de heridos en otros eventos de hace cinco años para magnificar la actuación policial del 1-O. (1-0 = Catalan independence referendum, 2017) Sucedió con la fotografía de un chico joven que exhibía una brecha en la cabeza, con la sangre corriéndole por el pelo largo moreno. La imagen del herido, que fue difundida por militantes independentistas en plena jornada, no tuvo nada que ver con el proceso independentista. El chico, de 13 años, fue golpeado precisamente por los Mossos d’Esquadra –la policía autonómica que ayer se abstuvo de impedir la votación ilegal– el 14 de noviembre de 2012, en la huelga general convocada en Cataluña. El entonces consejero de Interior, Felipe Puig, calificó de «fortuito» el incidente del chico, que necesitó cuatro puntos de sutura. La imagen era de Tarragona.


 * But I realize that in fact, point 1 could correspond more with an error, while the woman made false statements.


 * I also recognize that this sentence: With the aim of magnifying the intervention of the police, although it is supported by reference, is not encyclopedic, we must use more neutral language.


 * There are more references about the images that were broadcast but did not correspond with the 1-0 or even montages, as for example this


 * Best regards. --BallenaBlanca [[Image:BallenaBlanca.jpg|25px]] [[Image:Mars symbol (bold blue).svg|12px]] (Talk)  12:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I can confirm, even catalan media acknoledges it: http://www.ara.cat/politica/Policia-escales-avall-coces-marta-torrecillas_0_1879612220.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tumbleweed87 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Edgarmm81 (talk) 11:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)Edgarmm81 (talk) 00:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC) Wikipedia, please be careful with the propaganda and anti-propaganda. Fake news have been created and widely distributed through unionist Spanish media (i.e.: Antena3, El Mundo, El Pais, etc), but Catalan people do not recognize them (except the case of the girl who said her fingers were broken and who retracted the following day). It is anti-propaganda in order to discredit the nearly 900 injured people who had to be checked in public hospitals (and there is an official record of those visits). I am really concerned about the fact that Wikipedia got fooled so easily!
 * So all major reliable sources from Spain are suddenly not reliable? Please note that according to a Catalan judge that is investigating the police actions the number of injured people is down to 103 and mostly minor. Would't you call that propaganda? --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Democratic spirit
I think the artilcle should mention that despite of isolated cases, the resistance was done in the peacefulest manner, applauding policeman that did not want to push too hard (especially regional one), and considering the streets were full of independentists and outnumbered in 1:10 the constitutionalists according to the results (and due to the call for non-voting from the unionist parties) there were memorable scenes of democratic fairness like: http://www.ara.cat/politica/Marcel-Ezquerra_0_1880212090.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.77.111.111 (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Edgarmm81 (talk) 22:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)The Catalan Referendum has been the most significant "legality vs legitimacy" case in the European recent History.

Please, note that:

•	Spanish Constitution accepts the Self-determination right by abiding by the UN Charter's norms and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In its art. 10.2, the Spanish Constitution states "The principles relating to the fundamental rights and liberties recognised by the Constitution shall be interpreted in conformity with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the international treaties and agreements thereon ratified by Spain" However, the conservative party Partido Popular, which is ruling Spain, keeps a passive attitude and says self-determination to be out of the law. •	There is no real separation of powers in Spain. The 12 Constitutional Court members are appointed as follows: 4 members by the Spanish Parliament with a 3/5 majority (unionist hold over 70% of the Parliament); 4 members by the Senate with a 3/5 majority (Unonists hold 80% of the Senate); 2 by the Government (Partido Popular, unionist), and just 2 by the judge's body. •	32 Catalan laws crossed, canceled or in 'standby' by the Constitutional Court in 2016 •	Nationalist parties leave the Senate in protest for the renewal of the Constitutional •	The Constitutional Court chairman says the Constitutional Court cannot sort out the "Catalan issue" and calls for political dialogue •	The Constitutional Court broke the constitutional pact by disavowing the pact between parliaments and ignoring the referendum (Javier Perez Royo, Spanish Constitutional Law Professor at the University of Seville). •	Unionist parties hold the 71.4% of the Spanish Parliament ((134+84+32)/350) but only 38,5% of the Catalan Parliament ((11+25+16)/135). Minority unionist parties in Catalonia used their power in Madrid to veto the referendum. •	Rajoy keeps responding it is "impossible" to negotiate a referendum •	International personalities signed the "Let Catalans Vote" manifesto, including 3 Nobel Peace Prizes. For instance: Desmond Tutu, Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, Dario Fo, Rigoberta Menchú, Ahmed Galai, Mirta Baravalle, Noam Chomsky, Angela Davis, Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht, Yoko Ono or Viggo Mortensen •	Switzerland, Estonia, Ireland and The House of Lords(through the "All-Party Parliamentary Group on Catalonia") requested a political solution: and •	After 6 year-in-a-row rallies in Catalonia, with over 1 million people (20% population) claiming for the independence in each one, the Spanish government keeps refusing to take any action to sort out the situation. •	Over 76% of Catalans support a referendum •	The referendum holds the support of 712 of 948 municipalities of Catalonia. •	Mr Puigdemont, Junqueras and Ms Colau 's letter to Mr Rajoy and the King Felipe VI requesting a legal solution for the referendum •	Barcelona mayor Ada Colau send a letter to 700 mayors to protect the Catalans rights •	Spain’s attempt to block Catalonia’s referendum is a violation of our basic rights •	Catalan leader calls for mediation with Spain over independence after the Referendum •	According to the art. 56 of the Spanish Constitution: "The King is the Head of State, symbol of its unity and permanence, arbitrates and moderates the regular functioning of institutions", but the King Felipe VI did not act as he should have. Catalan president accused Spanish king of being government mouthpiece •	European values, civil rights, freedom of speech, freedom of information and freedom of assembly are being violated by Spain’s central government, which has sent the police to search newspapers, printing companies and private mail services; ban political meetings; seize referendum material; and threaten to imprison democratically elected politicians •	Spain must guarantee respect for fundamental rights in its response to the Catalan referendum

But the own all the law and the media (a.k.a the official voice). How are we gonna prove the evident to the world if our only representative forces are local and obviously positioned for the cause? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.77.111.111 (talk) 23:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)