Talk:2017 Catalan independence referendum/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Level of detail on the lead

As discussed before by few users the lead was too long. I have removed information that was not crucial leaving only what I consider to be the mayor issues of the event. I have also removed the "lead to long" tag accordingly. Comments are very welcome. We can use this section to discuss and reach a consensus on the appropriate level of detail on the lead. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

The result seems very good. I just made this little edit. Are you agree? --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 09:54, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, the lead's first sentence as it is now is conspicuously charged to influence the reader's view, so I do not see how it can be kept: "it is illegally", "suspended",... Keep the objective data (date, place) and any other relevant detail. Just take "illegally" somewhere else in the corpus as far as I am concerned. Iñaki LL (talk) 10:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

That was suspended and held illegally are objective data. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 11:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

But that it was suspended and held illegally because, as you added, "the Constitution affirms the indissoluble unity of the Spanish nation" (and with the only source provided being the Constitution itself) is not. In fact, it would be a clear case of WP:SYNTH, because you're connecting two separate facts not connected by any of the sources. The referendum, for example, would be illegal just because of the fact that the central government did not authorize it (article 149.1.32 of the Constitution). Maybe we should wait until the Constitutional Court actually rules on why it was illegal... Impru20 (talk) 12:09, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

<<EDIT CONFLICT>>Hello @Iñaki LL: Wouldn't you agree that the fact that the referendum was celebrated illegally in violation of Spanish law because it was suspended by the Court is important enough for the lead?. We have already discussed this, and I fully agree to avoid overusing the term "illegal referendum" instead of referendum, but I can't see how this fact covered by multiple sources, supported by national and Catalan courts and confirmed by EU could be considered to be subjective. I don't think the argument of influencing the reader is a valid one, as it could also be used to argue the need to remove other relevant information from the lead like the violence, injured, or the request for the probe of violence by the UN. The most important and relevant facts that received coverage from multiple reliable sources seem to be present in the lead, I think that the reader has the right to make his or her own mind about them. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

It is not about "it is true" or is not, that comes across as fact picking, it may be illegal according to that Spanish tribunal, but this is not an article on the legal aspects of the referendum. The referendum was passed by the majority of the parliament, the representative organ of popular sovereignty, that is for example a relevant information missing in the lead, so we can go for ever about where authority lies. Objective data could do the first sentence, with the next one adding data referring to the referendum's inception and the Spanish tribunal sentence on it. That would be balanced. Iñaki LL (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

It is not fact picking, as I said before, the same could be said about other relevant information in the lead. That it was held illegally is a crucial fact of vital importance to the article. Trying to remove or negate such an objective and sourced fact could be regarded as a lack of neutrality. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Crystallizedcarbon: Excuse me, excuse me, what are you talking about? First of all, there is no consensus whatsoever, so be short in your edit summaries instead of adding irrelevant noise. I have seen that others have raised their concerns that the lead is violating NPOV by insistingly adding 'illegal'. You have removed sourced, reliable information that contained relevant data, plus I have removed an opinion article as a source that you have reverted. I had to remove previously misrepresentation of sources and unsubstantiated statements, which is a matter of big concern for the WP community, I did not check who added it, but that undermines the trust on this article or WP altogether.

It is clear that the version you are trying to add in the edit comes across for many as controversial. First of all, one of the sources is an opinion article. Secondly, you are trying to make a specific piece of information (EU Commission "called the referendum illegal") that has been cited by now below a categorical statement that suits your view, this is a clear case of POV-pushing that does not add more information (since immediately it is stated that the Spanish Constitutional Tribunal suspended it), but conditions the colour in which the reader will look at the article. Iñaki LL (talk) 17:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Iñaki LL: Again, please review other sections like the one titled Request for Comment, where it was established that the use of the term illegal in the article was correct, clarifying only that in previous versions it had been abusively used as an adverb. You yourself added "Definitely support removing "illegal" except for its first appearance making reference to the ruling by the relevant Spanish or other tribunal exclusively for informative purposes, repetion sounds like lecturing, an emphasis on the Spanish government's position". Now it is only mentioned once in the lead, and with this edit you tried to remove even that. In my humble opinion that would be a better definition of POV pushing. If you check the recent edits you would see that I shortened the lead where the word illegal was mentioned 3 times and reduced it to just once also eliminating a subsequent edit were it was added again to reflect the fact that the European Commission declared it so, it was not incorrect, but I did it as suggested by Impru20 and in an effort to try to avoid any possible bias. The WSJ is clearly a reliable source, subject to editorial control, when the WSJ article states that the European Commission Calls the Catalonia Vote Illegal, that has been checked, but if you want I can provide you with as many reliable sources as you need including an official statement from the European Commission itself and you know that it is not just the EU declaring it, but also both national and regional courts. If why it is illegal is not explained in greater detail in the lead as some other editors like Ballena Blanca tried to do with their edits that were also backed by reliable sources is as a result of what has been agreed here. The length of my edit summaries is because I assume good faith in your edits, and I would like to continue doing so by resolving our different points of views regarding content or ways to improve the article here.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Crystallizedcarbon:I am pointing to specific problems, sorry but you are not. I do not see any comments referring to the lead, yes I do see a section pointing to its biased pro-Spanish governmental nature. As it is tagged above, the whole lead needs a good clean-up, and I pointed problems related to the statements not reflecting the source, which is a misrepresentation of sources, I think I commented that before. It is not my intention to refute the EU Commission, in the slightest, the problem lies with using sources for whatever may suit your view. The source says the EU Commission "called the referendum illegal", that is the information, right?

Please do not keep IDHTing, the matter is not about the use of 'illegal' or not throughout the article, that is not the question, but its use at all costs in the lead. In fact that is implied in the next sentence declaring that it was suspended by the Spanish Tribunal, it is a redundancy that does not add any new information but slant. The idea of illegality is further repeated in other sections when it is appropriate, by specifying who is saying what in its context, not in the lead no matter how, taking the point made by Calthinius. The problem is twofold: 'illegal' is irrelevant information where you want to add it since the concrete fact is revealed next, suspended by the Spanish Tribunal, the highest court in Spain; secondly, the source does not state such thing. I should add, you have reverted an opinion article as a source for a statement, which can not consider acceptable. Lastly, you have removed a fully valid source with relevant information (diff specified above).

Hello @Impru20: There are a multitude of sources that state that objective fact and two of them are currently used as references in the lead itself. That itself is reason enough to justify inclusion and renders the WP:SYNTH argument moot. But to answer to your reasoning, regardless of what the future ruling of the Constitutional Court may be, the fact is that it was suspended so celebrating the referendum before that suspension was lifted was unquestionably illegal as was notified to the Catalan government beforehand. The Catalan courts also advised of the illegality of celebrating it while explicitly suspended and ordered the close of voting centers and confiscation of material. As you probably know the electoral commission resigned after been notified that they could be prosecuted. Even the EU officially confirmed the illegality of the act on 1 October. I hope that helped clear the matter. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I just noticed that you used the above comment to remove the contents of the Constitution as the reason for the illegality of holding the referendum. Since I was just answering Iñaki on why Illegal should be in the lead, I completely misunderstood the final motivation of your argument. I can agree with that edit. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Crystallizedcarbon: Hi. I absolutely know that the Constitution does indeed acknowledge the indissoluble unity of Spain, and that there are sources showing this. My protest came because such a fact was used to justify the illegality of the vote, which is by no means what the sources say nor the reason of the vote being illegal (indeed, a regionwide referendum needs the Spanish government's consent. The lack of it (such as in this case) means the vote is illegal without any further explanation. This has nothing to do with the "indissoluble unity of Spain"). On the "illegality" issue, my edit just complained that it was used too many times in so little space. It's fine right now. Impru20 (talk) 12:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I recovered the sentence about the indissolubility of Spain (and the Constitution ref) thinking that had been erased by mistake in previous edits (it was not my original contribution). But you're right, Impru20, that was WP:SYNTH so I also agree to withdraw it.

Iñaki LL, you're not right. Please listen and cooperate with the other editors. As Crystallizedcarbon are saying to you, it is a subject already discussed and a consensus was reached. The only reason to question illegality is from a biased and non-neutral point of view and that can be considered a clear POV pushing. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 19:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Iñaki LL please don't do edits like this [[1]]. Labeling the intervention as "violent", in the lede of all places, does the opposite of make the page more balanced. It's completely your right to see it as such but not to make Wikipedia say so. I've been ranting about this forever now. All the unnecessary adjectives/adverbs by either side aggravate issues between editors and also make the page crappy regarding both NPOV and overall quality. With the exception of "illegal", the other side so to speak has stopped adding these to the page. Please don't do it again yourself either.

Regarding the illegality, I have made it clear that I don't want to see that used in Wikipedia's voice, and only as attributed to sources as I explained in my last post in the Request for Comment section. Our job isn't to discuss whether it the referendum was legal. Our job is to discuss what reliable sources on the matter say. That is what Wikipedia is. --Calthinus (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Calthinus, thanks for your comment, I have taken my latest concerns here (above) if you want to participate. I am not dwelling on the word 'violent' since it was reverted some time ago and I actually let it go in search for a consensus if you noticed. I actually fully agree with your point of view, getting down to the details, forget adjectives, only when they are necessary and relevant to the description. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Iñaki LL Okay, that's great, and sorry for harping on that; I saw that before and was a bit irked and didn't have a chance to respond to it at the time.--Calthinus (talk) 21:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Iñaki LL although one might interpret my criticism of that one edit of yours as cherrypicking (wasn't my intention and I hope it didn't come off that way) personally I prefer not to engage in convos where both sides are accusing each other of POV pushing, IDHT etc despite admitted hypocrisy on my part on this page (lol). So let's focus on the article. Are you in agreement with this? [[2]] --Calthinus (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Calthinus O, no worries, it took me by surprise, but peanuts. Your attitude is appreciated, only that sometimes things appear no to add up. Now comming to the subject, that is an inprovement, but for a more comprehensive picture I should defend the inclusion of the its passing by the Catalan parliament, the wording flows naturally. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

What the lead is no longer reflecting, is the very important fact supported by multiple RS, that celebrating the referendum after it was (suspended/deemed illegal/etc) by the Constitutional Court and by the Catalan courts is what is unquestionably illegal. The distinction I am trying to make is that while one notable thing is that the courts state that doing something is against the law another more serious thing (legally speaking) is doing it after having been warned of its illegality. So it needs to be in the lead because according to today's news it's already having legal repercussions and most likely more will follow. Iñaki reverted my last edit once more, I suggest going to the previous version or working from my proposed new wording, but if we don't address that concern the article will be clearly biased. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

(EDIT CONFLICT) ... Hello. This is becoming a bit of a deaf dialogue. You refuse to make technically valid points, but insist on categorical statements like X is Y, and patronize the reader as if s/he was not aware of what s/he is reading on the lead and the rest of the article... What I propose is to add also the passing of the law by the Catalan parliament, as basically it is an article on the clash of two authorities, and it is relevant to cite the inception of the law, as phrased here. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Crystallizedcarbon is right. The order of events must be clear in order to put into context all subsequent events. I support his latest edit. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 22:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Surely there is a way to cover that without having wikipedia appear to be arbitrating law. I.e. "[the referendum], having gone ahead in contravention of the earlier ruling of [X constitutional court] which declared it to be illegal/contrary to hte constitution" or something along those lines, no? It makes it clear that the court order is being held in contempt by the organizers of the referendum (i.e. the Catalan government). --Calthinus (talk) 22:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is becoming a deaf dialogue, the timing thing at this moment is irrelevant, that was not an issue and I do not know why is should be raised now, it really feels a way to push through 'illegal' at any cost. Also, it is pretty unconstructive to keep adding information to the lead, to emphasize a specific view, it should be pointed, when the article has a clear tag calling to shorten it. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Calthinus:Readers not familiar with the topic may not know that both the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Justice Court of Catalonia are indeed the competent courts where the referendum was held and that the organizers decided to hold it anyhow ignoring even the Catalan justice system. That is notable and can not be hidden. I thought we had agreed that there is nothing wrong with using the word Illegal specially since it is sourced by multiple reliable sources and it accurately describes what happened. Wikipedia should not take sides, it should just reflect what the reliable sources say respecting due weight. I reduced the mentions of the word Illegal from 3 to one in the lead, but I must insist that we should not hide or mask the decision of the judiciary power. We have to avoid leaving room for misinterpretation. Under current Spanish law celebrating the vote on that day was indeed illegal. @Iñaki LL: Rather than defending your arguments here you seem to have chosen to go back to reverting. If you want a short version we can go back to this version or we can work on the proposed new wording, but such a relevant fact should not be hidden or masked.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 23:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Calthinus: Today my brain is already fried. If you don't think the new proposed wording reverted by Iñaki is OK, I will try to come up with a new version by adding some text after the phrase on the suspension by the constitutional court in line with the wording you proposed in your last comment and also mentioning the TSJC, it may be just a bit longer, but it is a concept that I feel needs to be covered one way or another. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Crystallizedcarbon: Okay, the material concerning the courts can similarly certainly be incorporated in some way without making Wikipedia the one to say "illegal". I'm not arguing to mask the decision, in fact I'm arguing to include it. We just can't have illegal used as unattributed adjective/adverb (while using quotes around it here would come off to me as POV in the other direction...). My stance has not changed, rather the page has, as Sangdeboeuf was the first to point out. You can see that since we had that conversation, the word "illegally" as an unattributed adverb found its way into the lede [[3]] (or it was before the latest revert). I'll wait for your proposal. Personally I think NPOV and V take precedence over MOS for the lede on a contentious page like this. Have a good night,--Calthinus (talk) 23:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Crystallizedcarbon: Alternatively -- what do you think of this version ["held in contravention of the Spanish justice system"]? --Calthinus (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Good Morning @Calthinus: I do appreciate your efforts to reach an inclusive consensus, but we really should not censor the term illegal. It has been used in one way or another in reference to the referendum by the great majority of sources. Here are just some examples:

International:

• Reuters: Spain, Catalonia clash over policing as illegal independence vote nears: "the regional government pressed ahead with plans to hold an illegal vote next weekend".
• Bloomberg: How to Stage an Illegal Referendum: "activists have hidden the ballot boxes they plan to deploy in an illegal referendum on independence next month".

Spanish:

• El País: La justicia desmonta la organización del referéndum ilegal de Cataluña: "El mayor golpe al referéndum ilegal de independencia del 1 de octubre no lo han asestado ni el Gobierno ni la fiscalía, sino un juez de instrucción de Barcelona".
• ABC (newspaper): Las numerosas irregularidades (constatadas) del referéndum ilegal: "El referéndum ilegalizado por el Tribunal Constitucional está incumpliendo todas las garantías mínimas".

Catalan:

• La Vanguardia: 1-O.- Comisión y Eurocámara censuran el referéndum "ilegal" y alertan del peligro de una declaración unilateral: "El Parlamento Europeo y la Comisión Europea han censurado este miércoles el referéndum de independencia "ilegal" celebrado el pasado domingo en Cataluña".
• El Periódico de Catalunya: ¿Qué es el referéndum de independencia de Catalunya? Fecha y 5 claves: "La consulta de autodeterminación sobre la independencia de Catalunya es ilegal según el ordenamiento constitucional que en su momento una mayoría de catalanes respaldó en referéndum".

There are countless more. Please do a search both in English and in Spanish and you will see that the term is widely used by reliable sources also and even in oficial documents of the EU. There is no reason to censor it. There is a difference between saying "illegal referendum" to stating that it was illegally held. But again, if that is the problem, we can find alternative wording, what I feel we should not do is censor a relevant and sourced term if it is backed by reliable sources. Two courts have already ruled on this matter, so I do not see how including it could go against any of our policies on the other hand I consider that not including it would be a violation of WP:NPOV as it states:

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it.

¿Do you agree?. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

You seem to have a lot of time, right? I urge you to please stop POV pushing, it comes across as disruptive. It has been repeated time and again, the word illegal is in the body, and its suspension by the Spanish tribunal is right in the first paragraph, the specific action informing of its illegality according to Spanish tribunals. X is Y feels as and is judgemental and patronizing. Remember that we are talking about two authorities, the Catalan parliament's authority, and that of the Spanish tribunals, and that is relevant to the understanding of the reader. Iñaki LL (talk) 08:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I propose the first paragraph along these lines. Iñaki LL (talk) 08:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, It is a lot easier to revert than to defend arguments in talk but I think this matter to be important for the article and even if it takes longer I want to avoid been drawn into an unproductive edit war. I am trying very hard to assume good faith, but I do not appreciate accusations of POV pushing from a user that has a "This user opposes the policies and views of Mariano Rajoy." userbox in his page. There is nothing wrong with stating your political views, but since you are repeatedly reverting and arguing to eliminate any mention of the term illegal from the lead you should probably refrain from accusing other editors based on neutrality. The edit you propose is clearly biased: It fully removes the term illegal from the lead. It replaces a reference from the WSJ used to source a term widely used by other RS, on claims that it is an opinion article. It introduces the issue of the approval of a law by the parliament of Catalonia without clarifying that it was also deemed illegal by the competent courts and that it did not even meet the precepts of the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia by being passed by less than 2/3. All that information was removed before by me, along with another two previously accepted uses of the term illegal on the lead and information on the indisoluble nature of Spain when I shortened it. You however seem to be adding only what suits your point of view and removing what does not. Please be open to the contributions from other editors and to wider points of view and try to reach consensus before insisting on changes. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I have finally restored the article to eliminate such clear bias. Iñaki, before eliminating the only mention left in the lead of the fact that holding the referendum on that date was illegal under Spanish law, please present sources or arguments as to why you think it violates our current policy or try to reach a consensus but please stop reverting. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

(EDIT CONFLICT) Bla-bla-bla, and keep insisting on leaving your trace, which speaks volumes of your not very humble attitude. Your ideology is not my concern, building the article properly is. Stop the tantrum and POV pushing, the last imposition of a lede has not even integrated my input in previous comments and summary line, has removed the source added, which is pretty revealing of the alianating behaviour shown by you here. Stop the tantrum, details are given later, this is about a balanded lead, not about an accumulation of data to demonstrate how right your position is. Iñaki LL (talk) 13:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Iñaki LL, you are doing unilateral editions. Please stop reverting and respect the consensus and Wikipedia policies.

You are pawned on mentioning the (irregular) approval of the Catalan Parliament ("The vote, passed by majority in the Catalan parliament"), when both the law and the referendum violated the Constitution [4] . They both have no value. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 13:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I left a comment on your talk page. It is a matter of big concern the use of rollback rights to impose a political view, the one you are showing above, it is clearly disruptive. Iñaki LL (talk) 13:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Iñaki LL: if your concern is to build a proper article, then use reliable sources or policy based arguments and not the revert button. I have left a warning on your page, I hope we can have a constructive discussion here, I am open to anything that is reasonable. We can discuss including the law passed by the Parliament of Catalonia, but if we do so then we should also include that it had been suspended and it now has been canceled as illegal and the issue about not meeting the 2/3 of the vote. I think is too much detail for the lead but if enough editors would like to see it back I would have no problem with it. If you on the other hand insist in reverting I will have no choice but make a request in the noticeboard so an experienced admin can clarify things for us. I really would prefer not to have to do that, so please try to be constructive and give your arguments here. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Do it, remember that you will also be scrutinized and that will actually shed some light. Iñaki LL (talk) 14:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Iñaki LL please, cooperate and listen to the other editors and refrain from commenting on other editors, remember "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page" and remember WP:TPNO.

You are also wrong about my "rollback rights", in English Wikpedia I do not have rollback rights. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 14:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Listen, stop mirroring my comments, BallenaBlanca / Criztallizedcarbon, that is old news. I do not see any difference actually. Iñaki LL (talk) 14:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Iñaki LL I don't understand what you mean by old news, are you referring to the law passed by the Parliament of Catalonia?. Here you can see that in the last stable version of the document before I shortened the lead it was included along with its suspension and the 2/3 issue. I removed all of it as it seemed excessive for the lead, but as I said I am open to discussing it. I do appreciate the fact that you have stopped reverting. Thank you. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Crystallizedcarbon regarding "illegal" and the news, that's a strong point but I'm not quite convinced (also one of the sources you used has the word in quotes so that doesn't quite count). Wikipedia has to be held to a higher standard than the news, especially on contentious topics. Flat earth doesn't apply as the flatness or roundness of the earth is strictly factual whereas legality or illegality are subject to varying interpretations of the law (hence why there are whole professions that people must train for years to enter, which concern the interpretation of law). What still does apply is that we should say that the referendum is considered illegal-- and attribute. I did not hear complaints a week ago when the word "illegal" was not used as an adjective in the lede. Could you tell me what exactly is the problem with replacing it with "held in contravention of the Spanish justice system"? Not only does this cover the same semantics but it does so in a way that avoids making the voice of Wiki take a stance on "legality", and it is also more informative, illuminating the point you yourself made earlier about the fact that the referendum was prepared and then held after the ruling. I thought this would be a good compromise -- perhaps you could explain why it isn't so? I disagree that it's "censoring" the word illegal; it's not, what it's doing is avoiding LABEL-esque adjectives that don't constitute a detached voice and avoiding making Wikipedia present itself as an authority on Spanish law. On the other hand, I do think the current version is more neutral than the version that existed at the start of this discussion, so that is good.--Calthinus (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Calthinus: You raised many points so I will try to answer to all of them in order:

• As far as the observation that one of the Catalan sources has the word illegal in quotes so that doesn't quite count: There are countless other Reliable Sources that use that term. If that happens to be the issue I can easily provide as many as may be needed. Here is another example for your reference from that same source (La Vanguardia) that does not use quotes around illegal: Unas 700 empresas han abandonado Cataluña desde el referéndum de 1 de octubre: "...desde la celebración del referéndum ilegal del pasado 1 de octubre..."
• I agree with you that Wikipedia has to be held to a higher standard than news. We have both policies like Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not or guidelines like WP:CRIME to cite two examples that make clear that there is content that may be suitable for the news but not for Wikipedia but my current understanding of our policies is that contentious topics is not one of them, and I can not find any justification to exclude the term illegal on that basis when two courts have already ruled on the matter. Legality and illegality is indeed subject to varying interpretations but that I understand that that is so until the legislative branch makes a decision through the courts. They indeed are the legal authority. As editors our job should be easier. We do not need to, and should not interpret what the sources say. Wikipedia can not take a stance on its legality or illegality, we just have to reflect in the article what the majority of the sources say. that was the point of citing our policy on neutrality. if there would happen to be two versions with similar weight over its illegality both should be presented and if one of them is just marginal it should be excluded.
• About not hearing a complain a week ago when the word illegal was not used as an adjetive in the lede: Yes, there were no complains at that time, but please note that the document at that time mentioned the term illegal 4 times in the lede. I opened this section after shortening the lead and leaving just a single use. You argued about using it as an adverb in "illegally held" so as you can see, following your advice, in the current version the only mention of the term has been changed to "was illegal under Spanish law". How can that be worse than the four times("declared illegal", "The law is illegal", " referendum itself is also illegal" and "deeming it illegal") it was used one week ago and that without any complains (as you point out) I myself reduced to just one "was illegal under Spanish law"?
• The main problem with changing it to "held in contravention of the Spanish justice system" is that that is not the wording used by the majority of the sources including oficial statements by supranational bodies like the European Commission and also because illegal is much easier to understand to and uninformed reader and finally because it seems less ambiguous and again I don't see any reason based on our policies to censor the term used by so many sources.
• I am glad that you think that the current version is more neutral, I also agree. I feel that it is a good compromise and I hope that my arguments may have convinced you that current version may be an acceptable compromise. If not please let me know why. Best regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I should completely disagree, and I should take this again as sheer pointview bulldozing, by WP:IDHT and by sheer repetion. It is not only about what the sources are saying, it is where you put it. Saying that "it is illegal", fits perfectly with BallenaBlanca's argument that since it is 'illegal', the passing of the referendum law by majority in the Catalan parliament I added can not be cited, a political statement in itself, full-blown POV. I should remind that the United States Declaration of Independence was illegal, right? Do you understand that? You might as well go there and put illegal.

I fully support Calthinus' edit "in contravention" as more balanced and precise to say basically the same, if the source supports the same concept, this is about informing, not shaping the opinion of anyone. I should disagree though with Calthinus that the present lede is more neutral, furthermore it is 'dirtier', both in shape and content. Let me illustrate what I said: after defining the objective data in the first sentence, we find the following: "the referendum (...) was illegal", "previously suspended", "who declared it a breach", ·had issued orders to the police (...) to prevent it", "including detention", "due to the many irregularities", "failed to meet the minimum", is this really 'neutral'? All in the first paragraph, is this a proper WP entry? (...) I propose a revert to Calthinus compromise ("in contravention with") plus adding a short phrase on the passing of the law by the Catalan parliament. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I will not repeat my arguments to you Iñaki. I guess we will have to agree to disagree, because I do think that yes, it is about what the sources say. once again the issue with the referendum law is not that you included it, it is that you failed to also include, along with it, the other associated key aspects that were present in the previous version of the lead, and that you deleted the last "illegal" in that same edit. It may seem like you only want to see one side of things. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Iñaki LL, sorry, it is clear that I have not explained myself well. I meant to mention the approval of a law by the parliament of Catalonia out of context (without explaining the irregularities and that was suspended), which is a bias. If all this is explained adequately, I have no problem in mentioning it. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 22:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Carbon, I've explained at length why I think the current wording in the lede is unacceptable, whereas the version where it existed 4 times in more attributed ways in the body was acceptable. I appreciate your efforts to compromise here but I'm not convinced. It is about the voice of Wikipedia taking a stance on "legality" (attribution to usable actors/sources fixes that problem). I'm a bit busy at the moment so I can't play a huge role here. I'm thinking of asking an uninvolved editor senior to me for a 3O on this. --Calthinus (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Calthinus: That reasoning I can understand and also share, The motivation of my argument was the full removal of the term while adding partial information that was done by another editor. I have restored the wording of the version from a week ago we were discussing, adding the word "declared", as you suggested, but I have kept the part about it been done at instance of the Spanish government that was also changed from that version. This was tedious, but I'm glad we could find a solution and I want to thank you, Ballena and Iñaki for doing so using arguments. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

As a final note, I just want to reiterate that holding it after it was declared illegal is clearly illegal under Spanish law but as I said unless there is strong opposition from Ballena or other editors and as a way to contribute to reach a consensus I can be OK with not including that fact in the lede, as it is now in the current version, since the reader could also draw that same conclusion and that way we can avoid the issue you raised. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

As I enumarated above about the lede, I can not take the first paragraph as balanced, there were many other sides to the referendum other than legal procedures that are not being included, but it is not my intention to drag this on for ever, so I take onboard BallenaBlanca's comment above and re-add the phrase lost in the removal sequences, and that's it. Iñaki LL (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

We are having a communication problem here. Both Ballena and I have said that if you want the information about the law included in the lede that is fine, but only as long as you also add the fact that the law was declared illegal and that it did not obtained the 2/3 majority of the Parliament required by the Statutes of Autonomy of Catalonia, otherwise it is biased. If you want I can make the edit. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Alright, great that we reached a solution on this and I appreciate the cooperation.--Calthinus (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Crystallizedcarbon, it seems that we are having a communication problem here. Iñaki LL, remember this, please do not misunderstand our words. Thanks. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 21:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes..., you are not understanding anything I am afraid, but you are keeping confrontational, therefore I reverted your edit. I made my point above, the lede is charged with negative legality references, inequivocally unbalanced, I thought this could have brought to an end the dispute. Still you, Crystallizedcarbon/BallenaBlanca, keep bulldozing your POV. You are portraying yourself, please stop WP:DISRUPTing. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Please, Calthinus or Crystallizedcarbon, can you make a summary of this content (from previous versions) for the lead, to balance the edits of Iñaki LL?

The referendum was approved by the Catalan parliament in a session on 6 September 2017 along with a law which states that independence would be binding with a simple majority, without requiring a minimum turnout. Opposition parties refused to participate in the session and called on their voters to boycott the vote, except Catalunya Sí que es Pot who abstained but supports participation. The law is illegal according to the Catalan Statutes of Autonomy which require a two third majority in the Catalan parliament for any change to Catalonia's status. The referendum itself is also illegal according to the Spanish constitution. It was suspended by the Constitutional Court on 7 September 2017, with the Catalan government stating the court order was not valid for Catalonia and proceeding to gather the support of 712 of 948 municipalities of Catalonia, including a partial support by Barcelona.

Thank. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 22:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

BallenaBlanca/Criztallizedcarbon, stop overwhelming users with random data that do not add anything to this specific problem. We are in the summary, first paragraph of an article, you have loaded with negative legal and not legal comments the lede. I think that is enough, stop the tantrum. Thank you Iñaki LL (talk) 22:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Gonna be a bit blunt here: on the one hand, it appears to me, looking at the edit history, that the only one of Inyaki's edits to the lede left standing is effectively this one [[5]] which is not exactly what I would call a major change as most of its text is in citation and it adds only 9 words to the actual text. I'm a bit confused about how those few words require a group effort to be "balanced". The other bigger deletion that he did [[6]] was mostly undone by myself [[7]] and appears to have stayed this way [[8]].

On the other hand, Inyaki, please do not refer to Ballena's comments as "tantrums". You're better than this. I've seen your work elsewhere, I know. And please don't take this to be patronizing, I mean every single word I said: you're better than that. Anyhow, I have to take a break from wiki for awhile, but I wish you all the best of luck.--Calthinus (talk) 02:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

The talk page is meant to discuss how to improve the article, not to be constantly making personal attacks on other editors. I want to write only about content here, so I am sorry but I must protest for this continuous level of unwarranted attacks. Referring to BallenaBlanca and myself as one person in "Still you, Crystallizedcarbon/BallenaBlanca, keep bulldozing your POV" and repeating "BallenaBlanca/Criztallizedcarbon" again in the next comment, is not acceptable as it implies a serious violations of our policies, so I ask Iñaki to clarify exactly what he means.

Iñaki LL Before accusing others of POV pushing or Bulldozing, please look yourself in the mirror, the userbox from your page (copied here on the left) with a crossed ballot box seems to indicate that you have a strong POV on this matter. At this point I have to assume that your behavior is a due to a case of editing under a (conflict of interestbiased POV). Iñaki you have proven to be very useful to the project, and I thank you for your contributions in other articles, but your personal attacks here are not helping so I ask you once more to please be civil and keep your contributions here centered on content. Please don´t take this suggestion as being patronizing either, but don't be afraid of basing your arguments just on sources and policy, good reasoning will take you much further than personal attacks.

Now back to content. @Calthinus: I think we have to try to avoid keeping score of who was right or wrong or who got/didn't get their way. That in my opinion is not important, what is important is improving the article. If we decide that this 9 words edit improves the article, it should be kept. But If we decide that it introduces bias to the article it should not be included or it should be neutraliced. I agree, it is short and it is backed by a RS, it does not need to be changed (other than including the word law) but adding it just by itself is clearly biased because it is missing two very important pieces of information that both Ballena and myself insisted should be included along with it if he chose to add it. One is that the law was suspended (and recently annulled: Spain’s Constitutional Court strikes down Catalan referendum law) so it has no legal value and two that it was approved by only a simple majority (72 out of 135) violating also the Statue of Autonomy of Catalonia that required two thirds of the vote (incidentally those 72 representatives represent 47% of the votes: Catalan pro-independence parties win majority in regional election). That annulled law along with the referendum have been used to declare (and temporarily suspend) the independence of Catalonia, I think it is very relevant to include those 2 very relevant facts (suspended and annulled by CC and simple majority instead of 2/3). Otherwise it could be argued that by not mentioning this in the lead we could be using Wikipedia to give validity to an annulled law. What we repeated many times in the past to Iñaki was for him to feel free to add it as long as he also included those needed details. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@Iñaki LL: Feel free to add the suspension and annulment by the C.C. and the two thirds issue to the lead yourself or give your arguments why you feel it does not need to be mentioned together, alternatively you could also return the article to the version before of your edit it if you think it would be too much information for the lead. If no changes are made and no valid arguments are given, I will add it this afternoon, as it provides the needed context for your edit to be neutral. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Crystallizedcarbon. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 10:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

That is funny Crystallizedcarbon, you are actually commenting on me, and breaching WP:AGF, that is serious, so refrain from doing it, while I have commented on more than dubious actions you have taken to reinstate your point of view, so I urge you not to add noise. Editing walls instead of coming straight down to the point is WP:LISTEN, and pushes away productive editors. The fact that I add a userbox being honest on my political stand, does not make you less political in your own actions, the difference is I am stating clearly my personal views on my personal page. My drive is to build a better WP, just in case you did not understand. I do not need lecturing me on contents, so you are welcome to comment on WP:LEDE and MOS:BEGIN.

The lede is still very long, but I am not sure this is going to be worked out now. Quick answer to you comment on second sentence information: the legal concerns (C.C.S.) you are citing are included by now in the second line, so what are you talking about? (...) Please do not waste may time. MOS:BEGIN states clearly this is an overview, I see you are eager to add all your detailed legal points, but they do not belong here. I brought up above my point on the negative enumeration in the first paragraph that does not bring a full picture. It is not even answering one of the important Ws, WHO. Who organized it? Secondly, there is not even HOW. The stubborn inclusion of references to laws that prohibit and tribunals that suspend has make it impossible to see the forest, they stand there like stumbling logs that prevent from advancing (since it so bad...). I should be fine if these problems are addressed. It is not my intention to let the tediousness continue. By the way, do not ping me, I have the article on my mind, thanks. Iñaki LL (talk) 13:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I see no reason not to mention objective facts, such as the framework in which the law was passed in the Parliament of Catalonia. They are included among the most important points and must appear in the lead. Is necessary to mention them in order to put everything in context. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 15:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I am glad to see that we are getting somewhere, that is welcome. I hope we agree that it is a key information WHO, and HOW, and that they are fine in the second line. And we can get to another thing once and for all. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

<<EDIT CONFLICT WITH BallenaBlanca>>It's not funny to me Iñaki, I'm really trying to assume good faith on your part, but repeatedly accusing Ballena and me of POV pushing when you have what seems to be a ( clear WP:COI clearly biased POV) does not help. I insist. I do not want to be drawn into this kind of personal argument, I am sorry I was forced to post my previous comment, but it was motivated from your serious accusation when you referred to Ballena and me as one which would be a case of sock puppetry. I want to think it is a misunderstanding, but I ask you to please confirm it so we can move on and refrain from any further personal attacks and I guarantee you that you will not get any from me if you stop using the revert button(intended for vandalism) and use arguments instead.

To answer your comment I will again assume good faith on your part and assume then that you do not realize that the referendum and the law of the referendum are two separate things, both of them suspended by the C.C. and one of the (the law) also annulled. Being that the case our problem has an easy solution, The answer to the WHO is that the referendum was organized by the Generalitat, it was the law that was approved by the parliament. I will change your edit accordingly and I hope that will finally settle the issue. If you also want to include information about the law then the fact that it was suspended/annulled and that it did not meet the 2/3 requirements should also be included. Please answer my question and let me know if this is finally acceptable. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

^Please stop commenting on me and making up things WP:NPAWP:TEND I have decided to take my response to your conduct problems to your talk page, personal matters do not belong here WP:TALK.

As for the content, this is an article on the referendum, its inception, development and conclusion. I hope you understood what the lede is about, as well as its first paragraph, it is about the referendum. Then come objections that others made and development issues, yes? For secondary details, like the 2/3, I should be fine adding it somewhere in the lede, since it is pretty large, but not going to engage in further tediousness for that, clear. It must be concise for the reader to get an overview, yes? The C.C.S. decision is more relevant than 2/3 in that it totally conditioned the normal development of the referendum. I hope that ends the talk we both want to finish. However, should I see a conspiculously charged first paragraoph again, the discussion will not subside I am afraid... Iñaki LL (talk) 21:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Sigh... had to revert your revert, it was a misrepresentation of sources, which is a serious concern in the WP, I had to clean up myself sources that did not support statements. Plus the WHO or HOW if you want is the Parliament, the one who gave the mandate to the Generalitat, the defining moment that called the referendum, info supported by the source. Please do not keep modifying it, and let's give it a rest. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

About the personal attacks I am glad you finally decided to take them off this page. That is a start. My pointing out of your possible violations of policy are not personal attacks and were done only in response to your actions, but since I agree with you about WP:TALK, this is the last I will say about that here.

About the content, I have restored the wording from the stable version from a week ago. Now it is clear that it was called for by the Generalitat and approved by the parliament and added references to source it. I agree that if we include info about the parliament the 2/3 should be elsewhere in the lead so I have included it along with the most basic info about the law on the next paragraph.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Confiscated ballots

Catalan government claim 770,000 votes were in boxes confiscated by police, mentioned by The Guardian ( https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2017/oct/01/catalan-independence-referendum-spain-catalonia-vote-live). Culloty82 (talk) 08:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

As a prodindependentist that was there must say this is false to be fair. I heard in real time the official account. What they said, with a bit of ambiguous language, is that >400 ballot boxes were substracted, which potentially represented a census of 770k people. But we have to be fair and admit that we need to substract from these 770 all the people that would not have voted anyways, would have voted blank/null, or ended up voting in other schools. We need to account, if I understood it correctly, the app allowed to vote twice with a digital registry, so they probably cleared the registry after each los ballot box and these votes were accounted in other schools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.77.111.111 (talk) 00:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Estimates of the number of confiscated ballots ought to be included in the results section. 24.50.161.64 (talk) 14:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Is there any way to put "seized votes" in the infobox? --Auledas (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

There's a "notes" field, which currently has "Provisional results" and a source. In theory "seized votes" could be added. I'm not sure if it ought to be, though. Scolaire (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

It would be more relevant to say the illegal referendum was forbidden and that the (illegal) result is not representative. (See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

That´s quite reductionist. It was a legal referendum by the catalan law (binding indeed !!), which in turn was being turned down by the constitutional spanish court in express time. Expressing opinion is also a fundamental right by the UN. But I am agree the result cannot be considered representative because of the whole spoiled thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.77.111.111 (talk) 00:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The infobox is incomplete because there is no information about 1. missing ballots, 2. Conditions under which the referendum was held. I hope someone with authorisation fixes it. Izitpajn (talk) 07:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Izitpajn I've done some stuff to handle this, with a lot of sources. There must be some way to integrate the fact that ~14.5% of the votes were estimated lost (admittedly according to the Catalonian government) into the box without breaking the template.--Yalens (talk) 08:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

The intro paras state "The referendum question, which voters answered with "Yes" or "No" [...] on a turnout of 43.03%. The Catalan government estimated that up to 770,000 votes were not cast due to polling stations being closed off during the police crackdown". This is not accurate - the 770,000 figure relates to the votes that *were cast* and were then seized by Spanish police. In addition to this there would have been many people who wanted to vote but were prevented from doing so, but there is no way to arrive at a figure for that. The 770,000 figure needs to be clearly stated as the votes seized by the Spanish Civil Guard, could someone with some seniority please make this change? Especially as this brings the vote to about 60%, which makes a big difference to the impression the article is currently making.

Thank you kindly. Violet. 220.245.138.58 (talk) 03:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

"The Guardian" about fake news of violence

Hi, I think it would be interesting to add this article of the The Guardian, that says all news that appeared on 1 October were published without any check or investigation. Asturkian (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 15:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it is an opinion, so I would not add it. Like the very fake news it mentions, it is extremely inespecific, mixing fake news of miners with others that seem to come from the referendum day... That is my take. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Disagree with adding this. Is is an extremely short piece, even by opinion piece standards, and both The Guardian and this writer are known to have strong bias on this issue. Also, as the contributor Inaki states above, the writer (who appears to be politically motivated/non-NPV) is attempting to conflate the dodgy footage used in the miners' strike with the Catalonian independence footage. Also, he puts up no evidence to support his conflated insinuation. Dodgy article and should not be included, in my opinion. 220.245.138.58 (talk) 04:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

the question of the referendum in the three languages is apparently not identical (!?)

The main article contains the following phrases:

"The question of the referendum is "Do you want Catalonia to become an independent state in the form of a republic?"." "Ballot paper that the Catalan government intends to use in the referendum, in Catalan, Castilian Spanish and Aranese Occitan, the three official languages of Catalonia."

Looking at the ballot paper and knowing several Roman languages, it seems to me that the question in the three languages is itself not identical (as in the third version), or at least has different connotations (as in the first two versions). More specifically, my own translations would be the following (emphasis added for clarity):

"Do you want Catalonia to STAY an independent state in the form of a republic?". (Catalan, "sigui" resembling the word "seguir" to stay/to follow) "Do you want Catalonia to BE an independent state in the form of a republic?". (Castilian Spanish, "sea" as in the subjuntivo form of ser/to be) "Do you want Catalonia to BECOME an independent state in the form of a republic?". (Aranese Occitan, "vengue" as in "venir"/come or become)

2A02:908:5C8:63C0:7173:DD4F:CCA5:DF4F (talk) 12:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

It takes a simple google search to answer your own question by yourself. https://www.verbs.cat/es/conjugacion/37-ser.html You should work on your romance (not roman) languages.Gaditano23 (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Unless there's a reference showing different meanings in each of the languages this looks like original research. FOARP (talk) 19:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

No source is going to talk about translation errors, but it's also wrong to assume that languages use the same verbs with the same meanings. And as pointed out, "sigui" is a form of the verb "to be". --92.75.208.20 (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

So, aside from possibly being OR due to it not being referenced, the claim that no source is going to talk on this means this is not notable enough to merit inclusion in the article, then. Impru20 (talk) 21:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Edgarmm81 (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)Wikipedia, is that for real? That is enough!! "The catalan verb "sigui" means "would be".. "Sigui" is the form corresponding to the verb "Ser" (to be), in the Subjunctive -->Present--> for the 1st and 3rd person singular. On he other hand, the correct form for the verb "seguir" would have been "segueixi", not "sigui".

It is pretty ashaming that you keep allowing unionist attacks for delegitmating any issue regarding the catalan referendum.