Talk:2017 Catalan independence referendum: Difference between revisions

October 3 General Strike

The general strike proposal was originally put forward by the anarcho-syndicalist CGT and CNT along with some smaller anarchist groups - not the CCOO who endorsed it just recently, as did the UGT. It was also originally proposed with a neutral view towards independence and primarily as a response to the repression of the Spanish government.

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 Edgarmm81 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 [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] (once again...). Explanations on the edit summaries.

Please, Edgarmm81, do not make us lose more time and apply the Wikipedia policies. Thanks. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (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 🐳 ♂ (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 Edgarmm81 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.

Iñaki LL 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 while 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 Crystallizedcarbon. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 21:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Crystallizedcarbon 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)