Talk:2017 Catalan independence referendum/Archive 7

Mass removal of content
I had to revert this edit, a sweeping mass removal of sourced content, which comes across as irregular. Please bring your claims and concerns here. Iñaki LL (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This should have been here in the first place, and not in the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no. A mass removal of sourced information in a highly polarized article does not look very constructive, which is concern enough. If you have doubts, act constructively and point out the exact problems. Iñaki LL (talk) 08:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * To start with, a mass addition of POV text to a highly contentions article does not good, and was predictably reverted. --Ymblanter (talk) 08:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, POV is being added continually, as stated in the tag at the top, so do point to exact problems in this excerpt, I am clueless. Iñaki LL (talk) 08:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * May be you should read WP:BRD--Ymblanter (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I did. Still someone has mass removed sourced information. I should think there are problems w some sources, but not sure about it. You can enlighten me. Iñaki LL (talk) 09:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I hoped that with 1o years tenure and 9K edits you should know better if one can write "Spanish government started a mass propaganda campaign" unattributed. If you do not understand this, I suggest you take the case to a general board.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Although https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ymblanter and other Spanish unionist may feel uncomfortable, the accusation of "Spanish government started a mass propaganda campaign" is well-grounded. Let me show you some evidences: Edgarmm81 (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for signing your post Edgarmm81. For all the sympathies I may have for your claims and information, Wikipedia has its own protocole and rules, please read this, for one. The Spanish govt may have started a campaign you pointed above, but if you do not add sources clearly pointing in that direction, someone may come and dispute it. Do use the relevant statements and references you added within the article's mainspace, in the right place, and present them in a balanced way. They are more likely to remain there. Iñaki LL (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:I%C3%B1aki_LL. I gathered those 25 points after thorough analysis and, also, I attached the references. However, if you need a newspaper saying that, I do not have it as it is a work of me.

Btw, I do not know where I should write now. Here? In the "edit"? Or in the "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents"? I have added another point by editing in "Social media" and I have also written in the latter, in the heading "Edgarmm81"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgarmm81 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I am very amazed that a veteran Wikipedia editor may consider these edits as correct: referenced with Twitter messages, written as original research, etc.; and that refers to my edit as "mass removal of sourced content".
 * The edits by were at least violating WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH (and without going to assess their lack of interest in formatting the references). We have to be continually fixing their mistakes / biased edits. We are having a lot of patience, but It is logical that, after so many edits and so long warning this user, we choose to revert. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid newspaper nor a propaganda platform.
 * In spite of everything, I have taken the trouble to review and preserve part of the content      (once again...). Explanations on the edit summaries.
 * Please, Edgarmm81, do not make us lose more time and apply the Wikipedia policies. Thanks. --BallenaBlanca &#128051; ♂ (Talk)  02:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate a constructive editing by you, which does not come across as such now. First of all, be succint and clear in your edit summaries. This is not, check the source, plus we are talking about the 1 October referendum, Sunday.
 * As for Twitter and Youtube, I am not aware of all the rules, but they link (apparently, I have not checked all) straight to the information described, so I find them unproblematic in origin in the spirit of WP. However, it holds true that it looks an awckward format per the rule WP:RS. I insist, you made a sweeping removal, which I should regard with a lot of attention, given the problems I have pointed other times in the history of this article. Iñaki LL (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your explanations.
 * Well, it's already clear: you did not check the sources and you do not know the basic rule of using verifiable sources.
 * Please take the time to review the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. And be careful before accusing another user of irregularities without reason.
 * Best regards. --BallenaBlanca &#128051; ♂ (Talk)  19:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it is not clear. I am not going to dwell on this because I do not have time for noise. Your statements over these sentence are not specifying anything, just that, noise. For whatever claim you have, please add diffs, and be concise. Mass removal of content, which may include inappropriate sourcing added by a newbie, but also lots of reliable sources is not helpful at all. This and this is straight reactive and unconstructive. Please read for a start what the edit summary is and how it should be used. Thank you Iñaki LL (talk) 10:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

PRESS COVERAGE
On 19 January 2018, Sky News released an unpublished "Behind the Scenes" coverage of Catalan referendum day in October 2017 and the extraordinary scenes of police violence that followed. Edgarmm81 (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Edgarmm81 for your information. You do not need to know all the rules of WP now since you are new, but as of now please add always the signature at the end of your talk page interventions. WP has its protocols and that is one of them. For the rest of statements and references you add, try to be as relevant to the section as possible, so that no one considers them unsuitably located in the section or paragraph, given the (needless) litigation going on in this article. Thank you Iñaki LL (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Cyberattacks and disinformation are not the same thing
Cyberattack refers to various means of malicious acts that either steals, alters, or destroys a specified target by hacking into a susceptible computer systems. Misinformation on the other hand is false or incorrect information that is spread intentionally or unintentionally (i.e. without realizing it is untrue).

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

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

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


 * Agree with . --BallenaBlanca &#128051; ♂ (Talk)  21:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Listen, you seem to be misunderstanding what WP is about, the information is sourced and accurate, no doubt. You have a history of content blanking, etc. Now coming back to the content, this is how my compromise attempt stands: "On 21 Nov 2017, the Spanish National Criptology Center (CCN), subsidiary of the Spanish Intelligence (CNI), dismissed foreign intervention by stating they "did not find any Russian Government nor any other state cyberattack during the Catalan affair"; this is the source, one that anyone can check.


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

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


 * Edgarmm81, please do add indentation. You should understand that WP has its protocoles, and that they are as important as the content you add. That means that raw information may not be valid, Youtube is not a valid source in WP. If you can arrange the rest of information in the right place and according to source, that should be good, otherwise anyone may come and call into question your edits. Iñaki LL (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Iñaki, please stop your personal attacks. The userserbox with the ballot box in you userpage referring to this referendum and to Mariano Rajoy together with you history of edits here indicates your strong bias in this article. Please keep your comments centered on the content and I will do the same.
 * Information may be sourced and accurate, That does not mean that it may also be not relevant for the article or the section, and that as it happens here be misleading and false if placed in the wrong context as it is now.
 * Please tell if you think that any part of this text is making reference to cyberattacks or if you think that it is talking about misinformation:

The Spanish newspaper El País argued that "the network of fake-news producers that Russia has employed to weaken the United States and the European Union is now operating at full speed on Catalonia",[248] involving a network of Russian media outlets and social network bots which, according to the argument, aimed to influence local and global discussion of events. Later investigations by Medium-DFRL found support for some but not all of the arguments made by Spanish outlets.[249] It is argued that the goal wasn't specifically to support Catalan independence but to "foment divisions to gradually undermine Europe’s democracy and institutions"[250] and at discrediting Spanish legal and political authorities,[251] while Russian authorities have denied that Russian actors had any involvement.[251]
 * ¿Do you disagree that the article used as a source clearly stated that they were referring only to cyberattacks and explicitelly mentioned that it was not talking about possible misinformation campaigns?
 * If there are no claims of cyberatacks in the paragraph there is no sense adding a sentence that denies them. The fact that it is verifiable and comes from a reliable source is irrelevant, as not all verifiable content on the subject should be included in the article. Here you are using a true and verifiable statement that is not relevant to the preceding text and you are adding it out of context which implies a different message (in the first version that the misinformation campaign was a "conspiracy theory dismissed by CNI" and in your last version that it "dismissed foreign intervention" without clarifying it is talking about something else)
 * Even if the statement was added outside the paragraph on misinformation, there have been no serious claims of any cyberattacks by Russia or any other states so it would make absolutely no sense to add a section about cyberattacks in the article.
 * If you have any valid argument to keep the statement please share it, if not, I ask you one last time to please remove the content yourself, It is verifiable, but it has no encyclopedic relevance, and the way it was added to the article make it clearly misleading. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * For your behaviour in this article, in your page. I am going to be very short here, I am not going to add anything more to what I said above. With you specially, strictly with diffs and short sentences. This is the relevant paragraph as it stands now. I removed the misrepresentation of source (I would call it an overstatement) you pointed in your edit summary to get consensus, which is accurate. If you think something is incorrect add the nuance where relevant smoothly, and with a short, clear edit summary. As the paragraph stands now, it reads smoothly, naturally and I see no inconsistencies. Iñaki LL (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The information added is not relevant since there is no mention anywhere else of cyberattacks. It is also misplaced as the paragraph talks about misinformation and the source itself says that the quoted information does not. Additionally in that context "dismissed foreign intervention" is misleading. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Strictly on this contribution (La Vanguardia). I decided to remove it, because it refers rather to attacks against Spanish public administration on the application of the article 155, so it belongs in that article, per source. I suggest the editor goes there and adds it there. By contrast, the arrests of Catalan politicians for organizing the referendum would belong here.
 * That should fix this discussion. The article continues to be full of imprecisions, WP:SYNTH, WP:CHERRYPICK and misrepresentation of sources though. A complete disgrace, but I do not feel like running the gauntlet.Iñaki LL (talk) 01:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes Iñaqui, it does. I do appreciate it when you center your arguments on the content. As far as the arrest of Catalan politicians I also think the information is relevant and that it belongs in the "political effects" section. I myself tried to add it various times (see here) but argued at Talk:Catalan_independence_referendum,_2017/Archive_6 that it was not relevant to the article. I still think it should be included, I did not press my arguments at that time to avoid an edit war, but if you want we can try to reach a consensus with impru20 to add it back. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I am Iñaki. On this particular issue, yes it does belong in another place. Crystallizedcarbon, a descriptive and constructive edit summary would have helped a lot (this article has a long history to realize the problems in the Edit summary). Edgarmm81, that was not very helpful. I bring here Edit Summary guidelines for everyone. Iñaki LL (talk) 10:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think my edit summary did and do follow those guidelines. They explained the reasons for the edits and when that was not enough I expanded my arguments here. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Revert of authoritative document
Crystallizedcarbon please stop reverting automatically whatever statement is different from Spanish official versions. Wikipedia is about encouraging people to edit, share and contribute knowledge, no matter how inconvenient the information may be. The statement added by does not state "X is Y", but "X says Y is Z", and that is accurate; the institution cited is relevant enough to have it mentioned, so please stop merely reactive edits, it just alters the regular editing process. Iñaki LL (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There are many reasons to remove this edit you reverted: "UK Parliament 'fake news' committee publishes US expert report showing claims pushed by Spain about Twitter bots & #Catalonia are false and, in fact, a massive 15,000 strong botnet spread anti-#Catalan narratives"
 * First is that the statement that "claims pushed by Spain about Twitter bots & #Catalonia are false" is original research on a primary source as what the document criticized are the alleged methods used but does not make that claim.
 * Second the phrase "UK Parliament 'fake news' committee publishes" is misleading, as this is not an official report. The committee is still ongoing and has opened a site where document submission is open. (see here) it lists all those contributions on that page. Since it is not subject to editorial control, so it would not qualify as a reliable source.
 * Third the term US expert is also misleading. McGrath is just a young hacker and an activist that has developed some software tools for gathering data.
 * Please evaluate if your declared strong bias in this subject may be clouding your judgement. Most contributions for the WP:SPA have been inappropriate. I think that restoring them without checking first if they do indeed violate our policy is not helpful. I agree that a large number of my edits are reactive. I invest a lot of time fighting vandalism and I also try to review all edits of articles in my watchlist. In my opinion, with controversial articles like this one, the content that is added should respect the WP:NPOV and there should be extra care to make sure our policies are respected. I don't think that alters the regular editing process as you put it, I think it helps to keep the standard of the project high.
 * Some secondary sources that received founding from the separatist regional government (see here), or the suspected parties like RT and others have used the report as a source so the text added back by an IP and  addresses the first two concerns as it does not include original research and it is sourced by a WP:RS. It was clearly done in good faith, I have removed it however because it is still misleading as it refers to the software tools "Transparency Toolkit" as a "non-profit organization" when the source is nothing more than a self publication submitted by a hacker/activist to an committee that allows public submissions. Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NPOV even though it has been covered by secondary sources it may be newsworthy, but it's not yet encyclopedic. We should wait until the final conclusions of the committee or to any official reports before adding the information to the article. Once the committee publishes their conclusions if they happen to mention it in any oficial report I will be more than happy to add it myself to the article.  --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Crystallizedcarbon, please, stop manipulating and stating falsehoods:

1) M C McGrath is graduated from Boston University, did research at MIT Media Lab, participated in Google Summer of Code and BUILDS. He is also a Thiel Fellow (selection for the fellowship is through a competitive annual process, with about 20–25 fellows selected annually. It has a selection rate below 1%.). Other Thiel Fellows are the youngest person to produce nuclear fusion, a physicist currently working to mobilize radiography or the co-creator of Ethereum... So, are you serious trying to invalidate him? Dont you think you are a bit arrogant trying to discredit the sources of a British Parliament commission?

And the report is quite clear, though it is against the Spanish official version: 1. Failure to accurately use digital analytics tools 2. Dubious research methodology 3. One-sided analysis that ignores botnets disseminating anti-Catalan independence messages 4. Exaggeration of the influence of bots and trolls 5. Careless analysis of data from questionable sources

2)Do not try to fool them with the financial aids of the newspapers, as those financial aids stem from the use of minority languages and is clearly stated by law: "In Catalonia, the competitive disadvantage of the media in Catalan is the reason that is used to consider the aid to these Catalan-language media relevant. Among the characteristics that a publication must meet to be subsidized by the Generalitat is that it must be "100% edited in Catalan or Aranese, or have editions in these languages, regardless of whether they can include translation to others"

3) The media that published that biased article regarding those inaccurate (or false) financial aids, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Mundo_(Spain), has a flaw history against Catalonia, the catalanism and the Catalan language throughout the History.

4) Besides, it is usual to find flaw journalism in "El Mundo":

a. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Mundo_(Spain) titled: "The 'procés' was born to cover the corruption of the 'case 3%', according to a note by the Mossos", when it should read "unformatted note without letterhead" elaborated not by the Catalan police, but by Villarejo (Head of Policia Nacional). b. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Mundo_(Spain) is very criticed by the publication of false and unsigned news in relation to the case of Pujol's corruption, as can be seen in the documentary "Las Cloacas de Interior." That documentary allowed the creation of a commission of investigation in the Congress that proved the existence of a conspiracy against the Catalan independentism and the creation of a secret unit within the Policia Nacional, which mission was to generate harmful news regarding the Catalan pro-independence leaders c. The radio station France Inter has charged against the way Catalonia is treated by the newspapers El País and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Mundo_(Spain). In a chronicle of the analyst Anthony Bellanger, from the censorship to the exhibition Arco, the station reviews the deterioration of Spanish journalism. "Catalonia makes Spain go crazy, there is not much to say, for all those who know Spain well and who are used to reading their press, now it has almost become a torment to go through the pages of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Mundo_(Spain), a conservative newspaper, and also by the venerable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Pa%C3%ADs", he says. d. The Romanian press accused https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Mundo_(Spain) of inventing an interview with Puigdemont's in-laws. e. Quotations such as "The governments of CiU and the tripartite have carried out a persistent campaign of indoctrination of society" or "nationalism has tried everything to brainwash the population".

So any article of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Mundo_(Spain) or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Pa%C3%ADs should be removed for the objectivity and neutrality of Wikipedia.

5) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:I%C3%B1aki_LL You are right, it says "translator". Sorry for that.

6) Well, in fact, Scots English for Yes is not a political party in itself, just an association, and has nothing to do with Catalonia and the report is quite neutral. Besides, there were just a few international members... If you remove any source for a minimal ideology, you will have to remove the whole political Wikipedia... But, OK, I will accept if you finally remove it. — Edgarmm81 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 23:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC) (UTC).


 * What falsehoods do you claim I stated?
 * To answer your comments, I will refer to them by their number
 * 1) I am not discrediting the source. I am just pointing out that submission of documents is open to anybody through the web page (As you can see in the link in my previous comment). Contents published by sites that allow open submissions without editorial control are not reliable sources. It remains to be seen if the committee will validate or include those conclusions, in any case, the five things you cited are mentioned by McGrath. He criticizes other submitted documents, but it does not directly state that "claims pushed by Spain about Twitter bots & #Catalonia are false" or that "in fact, a massive 15,000 strong botnet spread anti-#Catalan narratives". Making that claim based on this text: "This @marilena_madrid tweet was retweeted over 15,000 times, but 'liked' only 99 times. Researchers working on Twitter bot detection have discovered that bots often have low likes-to-tweets ratios, often below" is also original research.


 * 2) That was passed by the independentist autonomous government in a region where Catalan is no longer a minority language (quite the opposite). Regardless, independentist parties voted to only subsidize those Catalan newspapers that promoted the referendum (even if in Catalan): El Parlamento catalán aprueba que sólo se subvencione a medios privados que hagan campaña del 1-O, El Parlamento catalán niega subvenciones a los medios que no publiciten la consulta.


 * 3) and 4) El mundo is clearly a reliable source, I could find many examples of flawed publications or criticism against other media. if you have doubts you can make a case at the reliable sources noticeboard.


 * 5) Agreed.


 * 6) Whether it is an association or political party does not make much difference, its main objective is the independence of Scotland, and is one of the few groups that recognizes the independence of Catalonia (as posted in their own site). According to one of its members (the translator): "Whilst all of us were personally sympathetic to the cause for independence in Catalonia, the official position of our organisation was to remain neutral". In any case the other reason for removal is that they do not speak for the "observers" as a whole. Still, I do thank you for accepting my arguments in this and the previous point. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * it doesn't make any sense that you want to remove the Transparency Toolkit quote until "until the final conclusions of the committee or to any official reports" but are ok in keeping the articles from El País. You seem to constantly be removing one point of view from the article while keeping the other one. Also, you are constantly claiming every Catalan media is biased but consider Spanish media to be neutral, which is plainly wrong, because Spanish media like El País also received public money (indeed, those are objective subsidies to promote the Catalan language based on the number of articles published and the number of visits, so inevitably all media which publishes in Catalan --as I said, including El País-- will receive these subsidies). You can support or be against those subsidies, but that's not a reason to discredit that media because they are given based on objective data, not based on the ideology of the newspaper (the prove is that La Vanguardia, El Periódico, El País, El Punt Avui and Ara, which all of them have different ideologies, received them). --Aljullu (talk) 07:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it makes perfect sense. El Pais is a reliable source Transparency Toolkit is a software tool. As I said before, I think it is clear that both El País and La Vanguardia have some Bias in this issue, but still both are WP:RS. However you should keep in mind that as far as Catalan subsidies is much harder to defend objectivity when the independentist parties voted to only subsidize those Catalan newspapers that promoted the referendum: El Parlamento catalán aprueba que sólo se subvencione a medios privados que hagan campaña del 1-O, El Parlamento catalán niega subvenciones a los medios que no publiciten la consulta, Cataluña riega medios afines con 7 millones y mantiene una radiotelevisión pública de oro.
 * The document submitted by McGrath is a self publication, one of 55 (or one of 89 including other submissions). Just a piece of the puzzle. That is why we should wait. If it is included in an official report by the committee then of course it will be relevant, if not it is not. I will answer the other questions in the afternoon. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * right, that was my point, both El País and La Vanguardia are biased towards Spanish unity, and you seem ok about that bias, but are constantly blocking any information coming from a newspaper which is not biased towards Spanish unity. That's what several users are complaining in this talk page, you seem to have decided that only sources openly supporting Spanish unity are allowed. By the way, if you want I could post dozens of articles aboute the relation between El País and the current Spanish government, ,.
 * About the second part of your message, I think you understood it wrong, the Catalan Parliament approved that media blocking Catalan government advertisement would not be able to receive subsidies. That can be applied to the referendum advertisement but also to an LGBT-equality campaign, for example. A newspaper can still have their editorial line for/against the referendum and for/against gay marriage, but they will not be able to selectively block some government advertising if they want to keep getting subsidies. But anyway, that's quite irrelevant because all Spanish media that is sold in Catalonia gets advertising from the Catalan government, so applying your way of thinking, El País shouldn't be allowed as a source either because it gets subsidies and advertising from the Catalan government. --Aljullu (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree entirely with User:Aljullu.ApolloCarmb (talk) 18:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Edits go really fast so I should apologize if I missed something new on the above comments. It would always be more helpful to proceed (with everyone, but strictly with due to the reactive nature of his edits and the circumstances of this article) with diffs, "this source says X but it is problematic because Y and Z" or "the source does not state X". It is certainly fine with me to remove statements if informations provided are not accurate. I did not add the statements debated in this section, so I think it is up to  or  or whomever added it to make their point and dispute Crystallizedcarbon if his claim is true (he is perhaps right in some points, e.g. WP:NOTNEWS).


 * However, hiding behind procedural objections to automatically remove all informations that call into question a POV, which you, Crystallizedcarbon, have shown repeatedly, and then add a wall in the discussion page does not belong in the normal editing process and it may violate the very spirit of Wikipedia.


 * Irrespective of the edits talked about above, this for one is a catch-all removal of reliable sources. It included a scribd document uploaded by Público among other reliable sources, still you attempted to remove all of it indiscriminately. This case is also revealing, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catalan_independence_referendum,_2017&diff=823545351&oldid=823537670 still it was removed without compromise (except for an attempt to make the news meaningless and devoid of content).


 * Furthermore bringing El Mundo as a reliable source is almost a joke, a clear-cut partysan nationalist media outlet (especially when dealing with all national issues in Spain), no matter how much it may be still considered a reliable source in the WP, as disclosed in the lack of journalistic ethics in the 11M, for one, and its slogan based articles and headlines, far from down-to-earth and sober information.


 * The conclusion is this article looks absolutely hermetic, it appears to be de facto intervened. Iñaki LL (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Also please everyone WP:INDENT the thread to better follow the discussion. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Are you serious? La Vanguardia is unquestionably aligned with Catalanism, and it is clearly biased against the central government. They are historically aligned with CiU and defend a moderate nationalism they seem to draw the line only at the unilateral declaration of independence:, , . I am also surprised that you interpret "The Catalan Parliament approves that only private media that campaigns for the 1-O will be subsidized" or "The Catalan Parliament denies subsidies to the media that does not advertise the referendum" to mean any thing different than what it clearly states, regardless of whether it can also affect other campaigns promoted by the generalitat. Here are more claims of questionable use of the funds La Generalitat deja a Catalunya Diari sin ayudas por no apoyar claramente el procés. You continue to mistake my words, I did not say that those sources could not be used, I said they do have a bias, and you also claim that I have "decided that only sources openly supporting Spanish unity are allowed" That is completely false, (, etc...) Arguments are based on policy. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * My reactive edits as you call them are to try to protect a neutral point of view. Edits to controversial articles from users with strong bias as yourself (as declared with a userbox on your userpage related directly to this article) or from single purpose accounts should be checked and if controversial, consensus should be reached before changes are introduced. For the two cases you mention: In the first, the problem is the bias, it uses a previous investigation on alleged use of the police for covering political corruption of PP and a previous 9-N consultation. and writes it as if it applied to the 1-O. The investigation took place in 2016. The second edit there was no removal it just changes original research by the actual quote to let the reader interpret by him/herself those words. If you look at the different versions of the article, you will see that it is not at all "hermetic or intervened" as you claim. There have been many changes and many compromises have been reached. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * No, listen, Crystallizedcarbon, I am not buying your ad hominem approach. I may be more honest than you, not more biased. However, it is good you are not hiding your sympathies with the flag in your userpage, which is clearly not a neutral symbol in this issue, but a bone of contention. "I am neutral and you are not" is all too familiar a tune in Spain, and is also a claim addressed in the EN Wikipedia. If you have sth against that account or it is acting irregularly, I suggest you file a report, it is quite obvious that s/he is new and ackward, and has only edited in this article.
 * In the first edit it is a removal of sourced and reliable information relevant directly and indirectly to the topic. If something is not totally right, or could be modulated, do it, do not remove all the statements and its reliable sources. Do not engage in edits like that, other editors may take it as confrontational, or worse, straight WP:battleground.
 * There is no such "OR" in the second edit, it sticks to what the news convey. The alternative, copying literally an excerpt of the article, did not make any sense. The citation of Dastis is not put in the Guardian article as an aesthetic anecdote. Still you showed a complete inability to integrate the news, and removed it altogether.
 * No, clearly this article looks and feels inaccessible and hermetic, with a compulsive and automatic revert by some editors. Please keep it cooperative. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there anything wrong with saying what country you are from? You are from Spain as well are you not? Is there anything wrong with displaying the flag of your country? How does that relate to this article? for your information I added the userbox back in 2014 shortly after creating this account (see here) and it is not related in any way to this article. The crossed ballot box with the message "This user opposes the politics of Mariano Rajoy" leaves no room for interpretation. Still, I am not saying that you can't contribute, but since you have such a strong bias, you should make sure that your contributions are neutral, and since that has not been the case in the past, I invest more time in reviewing your edits. Frankly I would prefer you would ensure our policies are met by yourself instead of automatically reverting many of my edits as this is becoming very tiring. Adding information that includes half truths and misrepresents sources to convey a misleading message is not constructive, if I had more time I could have salvaged some information like the first phrase, in that particular instance I did not have that time. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You know very well many people do not have a Spanish identity at all in Catalonia and the Basque Country, other than the compulsory ID we must have with us as established by the Spanish government, and the Spanish flag is imposed in all the town halls there, no matter if they decided otherwise (a number of town halls are being heavily fined for not having hoisted it). It is a bitter bone of contention in Catalonia and the Basque Country, if you know a bit on the topic. Again, I am not buying your ad hominem approach, I do not judge you, because I respect that you feel "a proud Spanish", but do not try to tell me that your userbox is administrative information. Your edits speak for yourself, and there are yours and mine's for everyone to see. Period. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "Adding information that includes half truths and misrepresents sources to convey a misleading message", for whom is this message? Certainly not for me. The revert drive is yours, not mine, clear. I refer you back to my points above. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely with . --BallenaBlanca &#128051; ♂ (Talk)  17:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course you do, there is this article's talk history for everyone to realize. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well Iñaki, you can look at the tens of thousands of edits after I added the standard userbox for users from Spain upon creation of my account in 2014. You will see no edits related to this or similar subjects until the end of 2017 when I stumbled upon some clearly biased articles and got dragged into all this. Yes the userbox just shows I am form Spain and I like my country. I am sorry if you do not identify yourself with our flag but I can assure you that it is not there to offend you. Even if you don't believe it, the userbox is just standard information.
 * When I mentioned your reverts of my removals of "information that includes half truths and misrepresents sources to convey a misleading message" I am referring to this edits:, , , (I do appreciate that after a long discussion you finally agreed to remove it here: )
 * I really have nothing against you personally I welcome all your constructive contributions, just try not to let your bias cloud your judgement and please check before reverting. This is an encyclopedia, in controversial topics it's better to add less but with consensus, than more but biased, inaccurate or not relevant to an encyclopedic article. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, the first diff is a good one and should be restored, we have been talking about it. I hope you read my comments (see discussion on it above), I do not know what its status is now. The other diffs we discussed, you were right in that case, and we resolved that it was not strictly about the 1-O and would belong in a related but different article.
 * I agree on the bias, the article is very unbalanced towards the Spanish offical version. The problem lies to a large extent with the sources (discussed also above). Iñaki LL (talk) 23:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Iñaki, your answer about the first revert in question, after I gave a point by point explanation of what was wrong with that edit was also constructive. You stated: "It is certainly fine with me to remove statements if information provided are not accurate. I did not add the statements debated in this section, so I think it is up to Aljullu or Edgarmm81 or whomever added it to make their point and dispute Crystallizedcarbon if his claim is true (he is perhaps right in some points, e.g. WP:NOTNEWS" you can check again the three problems with the edit I cited at the beginning of this section. I don't want to drag this any longer, lets please focus on content. I may scrutinize edits from SPAs more carefully, but when I removed those edits it was based exclusively on policy.

I have to disagree with your last statement. You can check WP:RS and take a glance at the 269 references in the article. It seems clear to me that views from both sides are represented. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 00:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)