Talk:Societat Civil Catalana

Mayor editions
Dear Sirs I manlorsen refer to the entry Societat_Civil_Catalana manlorsen tries to begin with an neutral version and based on this version build a correct version. tries to link Sociedad Civil Catalana to the far right. He brings only sources of very unknown newspapers of far left tendency to proof his assumptions. I will bring a clear proof that Sociedad Civil Catalana cannot be linked to the far right: How should this organisation receive a prize from the european parlament European Citizen's Prize to Societat Civil Catalana or the socialist foreign minister Joseph Borrell [] participated in several events of the organisation Speech delivered by Josep Borrell on 29th October 2017, Barcelona or Francisco Frutos, the former General Secretary of the Communist Party of Spain participated also in these events [https://voicesfromspain.com/2017/10/30/francisco-frutos-speech-on-29th-october-2017-barcelona/ Francisco Frutos’ Speech on 29th October 2017, Barcelona. Please I would kindly ask to check all this facts and afterwards you will see that the article Societat_Civil_Catalana at the moment is very biased

Minor edits
"transversal" is a noun not an adjective; "both" cannot be applied to a list of three items. Both words have been removed to improve the readibility of the article.

Dear Sirs I manlorsen refer to the entry Societat_Civil_Catalana. I start with the adjectiv transversal in english it is indeed an adjetiv and it is the adjectiv that uses Sociedad civil catalana in its webpage http://www.societatcivilcatalana.cat/ to define itself: http://www.societatcivilcatalana.cat/es/search/node/transversalSociedad Civil Catalana defines itself as a transversal organisation

Last edit
In this diff a phrase correctly referenced in reference 106 was removed alleging OR (I suppose it's Original Research). I won't comment other recent additions as I have not read them entirely. I can say though that PISA does not assess some of the parameters which CCC claims to use PISA as source, for example the comfortability of Spanish-speaking pupils in Catalan schools. 95.17.250.138 (talk) 13:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * ABOUT THE PISA REPORTS
 * On April 16 at 4:42 p.m. you modified the text that I had entered and qualified the reports and sources cited as 'flawed'. As always, you present your sources as indisputable, while those you don't like are 'flawed'.
 * Here you will find a complete report by the professors of the University of Barcelona Jorge Calero and Alvaro Choi (published in the prestigious Educational Research and Evaluation journal, 2022), based on a detailed analysis of the data from the 2015 PISA reports, which reach the conclusions that you try to discredit. FYI there is a whole chapter (pages 23 to 28) that explains the data and the methodology that allow these conclusions to be reached and that rules out that these reports can be classified as 'flawed'.
 * The prof. Calero is the former president of the Higher Council for Evaluation of the Educational System of Catalonia, that is, a true specialist on the subject.
 * In short, there is no reason why the opinion of Mr. Terricabras has to be presented as correct, while that of two authentic specialist professors of the subject from the University of Barcelona has to be disqualified. Obviously, either the two points of view are collected, or neither of the two.
 * Therefore, I propose the following alternatives:
 * - Delete the word 'flawed' from your biased wording, or
 * - Delete the last two sentences of the paragraph (opinions of Terricabras and contrary opinions such as Professor Calero's) from the 'Activism' part and eventually include them, but evenly, in the 'Criticism' part, or
 * - Delete the entire paragraph, since the subject is already covered indirectly in other places on the same page Mariano211 (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Your reply is unrelated to the topic discussed in this section. 95.17.250.138 (talk) 00:45, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not understand what you mean. Your comment of 17 April at 13:36 talks about PISA. I replied to it. And read Professor Calero's report, please, instead of focusing just on the sources you like presenting them as the only and whole truth.
 * And read again what Wikipedia experienced editors said recently:
 * - Crystallizedcarbon dated March 22 against “using only one side of the issue to use the voice of Wikipedia to take one side… if the issue of indoctrination is included in detail in the article should also be used to be able to reach a neutral point of view that lets the readers make their own opinion.” Or dated March 28: “I am of course, not against including opinions in the criticism section provided it is done with due attribution and that opposing opinions are also included with their attribution to maintain a neutral point of view that lets readers make up their own minds”.
 * - Michael D. Turnbull on March 30: “Of course there is more than one valid point of view: there are probably as many points of view as there are people interested in the topic! It is our job as Wikipedia editors to present the views neutrally and with due weight and not to state opinions as facts, especially in "Wikipedia's voice". Mariano211 (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No, my section was about this edit: and a small comment on CCC documents talking about PISA. Whatever are your statements not referring to that, put them in a new section, because they are not about the topic I started. 95.17.250.138 (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Reverts April 23th, 2023
@Mariano211 The work from Calero et al (not only Calero) was already in the article. The word flawed is sourced from the peer reviewed work from Mariano Ruiz Espejo which analyzes the work from Calero et al and found flaws in it. I reverted your last two edits on Societat Civil Catalana as it removed sourced content without reason and overstated the work from Calero et al, going against WP:UNDUE Wikipedia policy. This is already in the edit summary and in your talk page. But you decided to ignore me and revert again. 95.17.250.138 (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Tomorrow I will try to take into consideration your remarks according to my last message as sent to you directly:
 * - 'flawed' can not be presented as a fact, but as the opinion of Mr Ruiz Espejo. No problem with that
 * - Professor Calero was not mentioned at all in the text of my initial edit.
 * In general terms I must say that I have exactly the same impression as you: you ignore my comments and cancel my edits. Unless you want to spend your time on Wikipedia, we must respect each other's opinions. See you tomorrow! Mariano211 (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You have to remove your last edit going against UNDUE.
 * - The work from Mariano Ruiz Espejo is not an opinion, is a fact. And the other people who reviewed his article accepted that work as such before publishing it. It is true that Calero et al made problematic assumptions on their methodology. This is not the only work of Calero et al that has been found to have flaws. You can find another one analysis here: . The problem found is exactly the same. Calero et al make unverifiable assumptions and model the population at their will to fit their beliefs. In words of Ruiz Espejo, "Con esto no decimos que el libro no aporte nada. De hecho, una visión subjetiva para la solución de un problema aporta un punto de vista a tener en cuenta aunque sea limitado o tenga deficiencias.". And there you have why it is in a journal with zero citations (PISA). The PIRLS document has been kept self published, not peer reviewed. Going by VALID and BALANCE presenting both as having equal importance would go against Wikipedia policies. Maths are not debatable. Calero does those things to his analyses. Whether it's useful (for example, for a new research with verifiable data researching voids of that work) or not has to be decided by those who read them from self published articles or those who publish his work.
 * - Calero was not mentioned, it was referenced for a statement in your edit. So his work was already in the article. Your last addition is an overstatement, as already said in the beginning of this reply.
 * In general terms, on top of removing sourced content and your snarky replies, you even confuse me with other IP users in your mission against me. 95.17.250.138 (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding notability, Calero's h-index is 6 as per (1) and Ruiz Espejo's h-index is 12 as per (2). 95.17.250.138 (talk) 03:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)