![]() | A news item involving 2017–2018 Spanish constitutional crisis was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 1 October 2017. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
What do you guys think about explaining the constitutional issue and presenting the arguments in favour or against? Bit weird you are detailing everything that happens in the conflict but not what the conflict is about. -- 85.148.123.77 ( talk) 17:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I suggest you to the change the title of ther article "2017 Spanish constitutional crisis" to "2017 Catalonian Coup d'État" because according to Wikipedia, a coup d'état is "an illegal and overt seizure of a state by the military or other elites within the state apparatus". This is exactly what is happening in Catalonia, where a part of the state (The Generalitat of Catalunya) is illegally assuming power which constitutionally corresponds to the legitimate Government of Spain. The Spanish Constitutional Court has declared the "referendum" as illegal.
Not exactly sure why the US and Serbia should be listed as "supporters" - all that has happened is some officials have made comments. Support usually means military of financial support to on group or another.-- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 15:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
"Amid" is a word and "midst" is a word, but not "amidst".
Thats all.
Is the Catalan independence referendum really part of the 2008–present Spanish financial crisis, as the infobox suggests? power~enwiki ( π, ν) 18:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Not really, it is about Spain refusing to let the Catalonians hold a referendum to determine their own fate. Unlike the UK who let Scotland decide theirs, the Spanish government tried to stop a peaceful vote by force and sent in riot police who acted like General Franco did previously. However the voting on the referendum to a large extent went ahead and of the votes cast an overwhelming majority favoured independence. U
About this by Impru20, the image was uploaded by Discasto who is a license reviewer. There are no license problems. The author of the picture is Robert Bonet, a photographer of eldiario.es. See also this explanation.
I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your work on the page. Best regards. --
BallenaBlanca
(Talk)
23:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Impru20 you're doing a very good job with the page, but I do not agree with this reversion.
IMO there is no reason not to mention the violent demonstrations against the Civil Guard of hundreds of thousands of people, led by pro-independence activists, prior to the October 1 referendum. They are relevant and the content I added is a very brief summary. I will restore it. If you want, you can improve the wording, but do not delete the facts.
Best regards. --
BallenaBlanca
(Talk)
16:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Discuss the contribution, and the reasons for the contribution, on the article's talk page with the person who reverted your contribution. Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverting.That's edit warring. ;) And no, reverting the revert and sending me to the talk page just because you believe you're in the universal possession of the right facts. Once discussion is started, it's nice it is allowed to end before you keep adding the controversial content (that's how BRD works). Impru20 ( talk) 17:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I am sad to see the tone of this conversation. My only intention was to cooperate with you calmly. As proof of goodwill, I will ignore the fact that you have violated WP:3RR with this reversion.
Let's see other users opinions. Best regards. --
BallenaBlanca
(Talk)
18:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Spanish prosecutors formally accused some protesters in Barcelona of sedition, after several Civil Guard patrol cars had been vandalised on Wednesday night.However, this does look appropiate as it hints at another action from one of the sides among the many happening within those days, instead of being randomly put there.
The quality of this section seems to significantly differ from the rest of the article. About half of the references are dubious, as they are from minor (and highly biased) newspapers. Pretty much all the references are in Spanish instead of English. Moreover, the lack of a similar section giving the point of view of Catalan people makes the value of this section unclear, at the very least. Victorjjp ( talk) 22:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
A proposal has been made to impose community sanctions including possible editing restrictions, on the topic of Catalan independence. Interested editors may join the discussion here. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi! i found this information [2], [3], [4], [5] all have in spanish, 7:15, 28 October 2017 (Colombian time)
It reads in infobox that the Catalan police Mossos has changed sides 28.10 to Spanish side. There is no hint on international news that this has yet happened in real life or de facto. Decisions of Spain might not be followed in real life. Tuohirulla puhu 19:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
It looks like the Vall d'aran is also affected by such a crisis:
the law of Catalnuia assumes that Parlament of Catalunya recognize the right of the aranès people to decide of their own future (a Llei d’Aran estableix que “el Parlament de Catalunya reconeix el dret del poble aranès a decidir el seu futurâ€). Read https://cat.elpais.com/cat/2017/10/30/catalunya/1509392179_434490.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 ( talk) 19:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
@ Impru20: Do you know about WP:BRD? When I revert your edit ( [6]), you should not revert it back (as you did), but discuss it and try to reach consensus. WP:Edit warring is not an answer. Can you, please, explain why is it appropriate to illustrate "Spanish constitutional crisis" with a map of "Catalan Republic within Europe"? Vanjagenije (talk) 22:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
there doesn't seem to be any protest against such a change except you yourself saying "ask for (explicit) consensus". That's obviously not true. I didn't revert you just because there was no consensus. I clearly explained both here and in the edit summary the reason why I think it should be reverted, not just because of the lack of consensus, but because the article is about Spanish crisis. Also, your claim that you have
implicit consensusis wrong. You made an edit, and you were reverted (by myself) on the same day. Where is that implicit consensus? See WP:EDITCONSENSUS:
Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. This edit of yours was reverted, so there is obviously no implicit consensus. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:32, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
This article is about SPANISH constitutional crisis. Please, do not make such edits without consensus. I replied to you that, as Puigdemont fled to Brussels, the events are happening in Belgium too (and we have plenty of sources reporting on this), to which you said here that it should be discussed to reach consensus because it was a SPANISH event (so, we would say that the Korean War did not happen in the Sea of Japan because it was KOREAN? Or we should say that Euromaidan can't be said to have happened throughout Ukraine because Maidan Nezalezhnosti is a Kiev place only?). I see no connection between the crisis' origin and where does it actually happen or spillover, and so far, unless you want to actually dispute sources and argue that Puigdemont is in fact not in Brussels, I see little in the face of trying for artificially forcing a consensus over it. This, related to your reasoning on actual content.
Please, do not make such edits without consensus. The previous map and place were not there based on any consensus or discussion but under WP:EDITCONSENSUS. Then, you outrightly asking for "reaching consensus" based just on a nationality trait entirely unrelated to the event at hand was not reasonable at all given that these were based on EDITCONSENSUS only, which is what I've explained to you in my previous comment.
Also Societat Civil Catalana is a party to the conflict, isn't it? 84.221.245.14 ( talk) 00:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Why is the section on suspected foreign influence on social media being removed? Concerns on interference in politics from Russia and elsewhere have been live issues since before the last U.S. presidential election, in the Brexit referendum, and elsewhere. This is relevant, referenced, content. It is directly relevant to the topic and was presented in neutral manner. Bastun Ėġáá¸Î²Ã¡Å›â‚®ÅŃ! 14:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Russia's RT and Sputnik would use Venezuelan social bots that would typically promote the Bolivarian government in Venezuela to attack the Spanish government.. That is stated by a source? Or is an entirely undeniable fact so as to present it as an unambiguous truth? Nor do I can see how "Bolivarian propaganda" constitutes a "central topic" to the Catalan crisis (no sources about such a "fact" being true, either). I can also see no answer whatsover as to why this is the proper article for this information instead of Catalan independence referendum, 2017. Because the presented info relates to events transpiring before or during the referendum with the alledged intention to affect its outcome. Impru20 ( talk) 19:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I can see why the information in the infobox wasn't probably the best edit, but the "International intervention" section was fine. I will place it back for now, but not the infobox.-- ZiaLater ( talk) 21:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Also, in case we are to add Russia into the infobox in the future, take a look at the 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt where the United States is listed as:
This could possibly be used in the future to make it more neutral while addressing allegations of interference.-- ZiaLater ( talk) 22:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Conditional keep It is very obviously relevant but should only be included if people dont try to push their agenda by stating controversial things as facts. Kim song-chi ( talk) 16:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
It looks better. The opinions of most parties have been expressed. Thanks for talking this out.-- ZiaLater ( talk) 01:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
According to [13]: "The authorization has received 214 votes in favor of the PP, PSOE, Ciudadanos, UPN, Coalición Canaria and 47 negatives votes of Unidos Podemos, ERC, PDeCAT, PNV, EH Bildu, CompromÃs and Nueva Canarias."---- Bancki ( talk) 21:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
There is currently no article named "Spanish constitutional crisis" as it simply redirects here. As this is an ongoing event and 2018 begins in only a few days, I propose we change the name back to Spanish constitutional crisis as 2017 has ended but the event has not. We can re-introduce a date once there are conclusive sources that this conflict has been resolved indefinitely, or perhaps "Spanish constitutional crisis (2017-present)" if that name is in compliance with guidelines. Feel free to include other proposals; the only thing I can say with confidence is that this event is not limited to 2017 and we'll need to update the article's name to reflect that. BrendonTheWizard ( talk) 22:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
There are no other "Russian constitutional crisis" articles in Wikipedia, but the year is a useful identifier as constitutional crises reoccur, and other incidents in Russian history could be construed as a constitutional crisis. Also, searching throughout Wikipedia, it looks like except for the Tuvaluan constitutional crisis (which seems like a rogue title anyway), articles for other constitutional crises throughout Wikipedia using the generic "constitutional crisis" denomination do show the year in the title (See Category:Constitutional crises). Impru20 ( talk) 22:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
The article talks of "an analysis by the George Washington University School of Media and Public Affairs" and links to an elpais article, which in turn does *not* link to the actual analysis. It seems that "the analysis" is the elpais article itself, that is, not a peer-reviewed, academic publication (which the George Washington U. affiliation insinuates).
The article itself is laughable:
"To carry out the study, researchers used an advanced software program that makes use of Spanish technology to measure and analyze big data. Its author, Javier Lesaca, is a visiting scholar at the School of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University."
"Researchers" here means this sole Javier. "advanced software program" sounds impressive but there is nothing to substantiate anything scientific/advanced about the analysis.
"One clear example is the fact that RT published a number of news stories about Catalonia, which were then shared via social networks, prompting a conversation with messages and replies"
How is it suspicious that a global news medium like RT published a number of stories about Catalonia in the run up to the 1st of October? And how is it suspicious that the articles were shared and prompted conversations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.46.172 ( talk) 00:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't know where to start. The whole part of the "Russian interference" is complete fake news, promoted by El PaÃs and especially by his then former managing editor, David Alandete, author of the article quoted. About the George Washington study, it is not so, as was pointed out the only author is Javier Lesaca, visiting researcher in the GW School but that is all the relationship between the study and the School. Nobody is here asking about the "raw data of the analysis" but a quote to the original study and not to a newspaper informing about it. The author of the so called study, Javier Lesaca is an Spanish, visiting researcher at the George Washington School, but whose mother university if the conservative and Spanish nationalist Universidad of Navarra. Zkvrev ( talk) 08:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
This paragraph does not state clearly whether skipping legally-required steps is an opinion of the opposition or not. There is no source with the legal discussion either.
Catalan opposition parties accused JxSÃ and CUP of fast-tracking the law through parliament by altering the day's agenda to introduce the issue, violating their parliamentary rights by skipping legally-required steps for bills to go through before being put up to vote. Members from JxSÃ acknowledged it was not their preferred method, but justified it in that it was the only way to get the bill on the floor without being blocked and that it was not "any ordinary law".
Filiprino ( talk) 12:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
As it is no longer 2018, the title is once again outdated (see the above section at Talk:2017–18 Spanish constitutional crisis#Proposal to remove "2017" from article name). Now, of course, we could just extend it to 2017-19, but then if the crisis continues beyond this year, we'll have the exact same discussion come the end of this year and the beginning of next year regarding the title. A better way would be to adopt the suggestion by User:BrendonTheWizard above, to rename this article to Spanish constitutional crisis (2017-present), until when the crisis ends. 216.125.251.26 ( talk) 19:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
![]() | A news item involving 2017–2018 Spanish constitutional crisis was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 1 October 2017. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
What do you guys think about explaining the constitutional issue and presenting the arguments in favour or against? Bit weird you are detailing everything that happens in the conflict but not what the conflict is about. -- 85.148.123.77 ( talk) 17:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I suggest you to the change the title of ther article "2017 Spanish constitutional crisis" to "2017 Catalonian Coup d'État" because according to Wikipedia, a coup d'état is "an illegal and overt seizure of a state by the military or other elites within the state apparatus". This is exactly what is happening in Catalonia, where a part of the state (The Generalitat of Catalunya) is illegally assuming power which constitutionally corresponds to the legitimate Government of Spain. The Spanish Constitutional Court has declared the "referendum" as illegal.
Not exactly sure why the US and Serbia should be listed as "supporters" - all that has happened is some officials have made comments. Support usually means military of financial support to on group or another.-- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 15:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
"Amid" is a word and "midst" is a word, but not "amidst".
Thats all.
Is the Catalan independence referendum really part of the 2008–present Spanish financial crisis, as the infobox suggests? power~enwiki ( π, ν) 18:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Not really, it is about Spain refusing to let the Catalonians hold a referendum to determine their own fate. Unlike the UK who let Scotland decide theirs, the Spanish government tried to stop a peaceful vote by force and sent in riot police who acted like General Franco did previously. However the voting on the referendum to a large extent went ahead and of the votes cast an overwhelming majority favoured independence. U
About this by Impru20, the image was uploaded by Discasto who is a license reviewer. There are no license problems. The author of the picture is Robert Bonet, a photographer of eldiario.es. See also this explanation.
I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your work on the page. Best regards. --
BallenaBlanca
(Talk)
23:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Impru20 you're doing a very good job with the page, but I do not agree with this reversion.
IMO there is no reason not to mention the violent demonstrations against the Civil Guard of hundreds of thousands of people, led by pro-independence activists, prior to the October 1 referendum. They are relevant and the content I added is a very brief summary. I will restore it. If you want, you can improve the wording, but do not delete the facts.
Best regards. --
BallenaBlanca
(Talk)
16:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Discuss the contribution, and the reasons for the contribution, on the article's talk page with the person who reverted your contribution. Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverting.That's edit warring. ;) And no, reverting the revert and sending me to the talk page just because you believe you're in the universal possession of the right facts. Once discussion is started, it's nice it is allowed to end before you keep adding the controversial content (that's how BRD works). Impru20 ( talk) 17:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I am sad to see the tone of this conversation. My only intention was to cooperate with you calmly. As proof of goodwill, I will ignore the fact that you have violated WP:3RR with this reversion.
Let's see other users opinions. Best regards. --
BallenaBlanca
(Talk)
18:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Spanish prosecutors formally accused some protesters in Barcelona of sedition, after several Civil Guard patrol cars had been vandalised on Wednesday night.However, this does look appropiate as it hints at another action from one of the sides among the many happening within those days, instead of being randomly put there.
The quality of this section seems to significantly differ from the rest of the article. About half of the references are dubious, as they are from minor (and highly biased) newspapers. Pretty much all the references are in Spanish instead of English. Moreover, the lack of a similar section giving the point of view of Catalan people makes the value of this section unclear, at the very least. Victorjjp ( talk) 22:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
A proposal has been made to impose community sanctions including possible editing restrictions, on the topic of Catalan independence. Interested editors may join the discussion here. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi! i found this information [2], [3], [4], [5] all have in spanish, 7:15, 28 October 2017 (Colombian time)
It reads in infobox that the Catalan police Mossos has changed sides 28.10 to Spanish side. There is no hint on international news that this has yet happened in real life or de facto. Decisions of Spain might not be followed in real life. Tuohirulla puhu 19:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
It looks like the Vall d'aran is also affected by such a crisis:
the law of Catalnuia assumes that Parlament of Catalunya recognize the right of the aranès people to decide of their own future (a Llei d’Aran estableix que “el Parlament de Catalunya reconeix el dret del poble aranès a decidir el seu futurâ€). Read https://cat.elpais.com/cat/2017/10/30/catalunya/1509392179_434490.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 ( talk) 19:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
@ Impru20: Do you know about WP:BRD? When I revert your edit ( [6]), you should not revert it back (as you did), but discuss it and try to reach consensus. WP:Edit warring is not an answer. Can you, please, explain why is it appropriate to illustrate "Spanish constitutional crisis" with a map of "Catalan Republic within Europe"? Vanjagenije (talk) 22:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
there doesn't seem to be any protest against such a change except you yourself saying "ask for (explicit) consensus". That's obviously not true. I didn't revert you just because there was no consensus. I clearly explained both here and in the edit summary the reason why I think it should be reverted, not just because of the lack of consensus, but because the article is about Spanish crisis. Also, your claim that you have
implicit consensusis wrong. You made an edit, and you were reverted (by myself) on the same day. Where is that implicit consensus? See WP:EDITCONSENSUS:
Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. This edit of yours was reverted, so there is obviously no implicit consensus. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:32, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
This article is about SPANISH constitutional crisis. Please, do not make such edits without consensus. I replied to you that, as Puigdemont fled to Brussels, the events are happening in Belgium too (and we have plenty of sources reporting on this), to which you said here that it should be discussed to reach consensus because it was a SPANISH event (so, we would say that the Korean War did not happen in the Sea of Japan because it was KOREAN? Or we should say that Euromaidan can't be said to have happened throughout Ukraine because Maidan Nezalezhnosti is a Kiev place only?). I see no connection between the crisis' origin and where does it actually happen or spillover, and so far, unless you want to actually dispute sources and argue that Puigdemont is in fact not in Brussels, I see little in the face of trying for artificially forcing a consensus over it. This, related to your reasoning on actual content.
Please, do not make such edits without consensus. The previous map and place were not there based on any consensus or discussion but under WP:EDITCONSENSUS. Then, you outrightly asking for "reaching consensus" based just on a nationality trait entirely unrelated to the event at hand was not reasonable at all given that these were based on EDITCONSENSUS only, which is what I've explained to you in my previous comment.
Also Societat Civil Catalana is a party to the conflict, isn't it? 84.221.245.14 ( talk) 00:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Why is the section on suspected foreign influence on social media being removed? Concerns on interference in politics from Russia and elsewhere have been live issues since before the last U.S. presidential election, in the Brexit referendum, and elsewhere. This is relevant, referenced, content. It is directly relevant to the topic and was presented in neutral manner. Bastun Ėġáá¸Î²Ã¡Å›â‚®ÅŃ! 14:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Russia's RT and Sputnik would use Venezuelan social bots that would typically promote the Bolivarian government in Venezuela to attack the Spanish government.. That is stated by a source? Or is an entirely undeniable fact so as to present it as an unambiguous truth? Nor do I can see how "Bolivarian propaganda" constitutes a "central topic" to the Catalan crisis (no sources about such a "fact" being true, either). I can also see no answer whatsover as to why this is the proper article for this information instead of Catalan independence referendum, 2017. Because the presented info relates to events transpiring before or during the referendum with the alledged intention to affect its outcome. Impru20 ( talk) 19:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I can see why the information in the infobox wasn't probably the best edit, but the "International intervention" section was fine. I will place it back for now, but not the infobox.-- ZiaLater ( talk) 21:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Also, in case we are to add Russia into the infobox in the future, take a look at the 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt where the United States is listed as:
This could possibly be used in the future to make it more neutral while addressing allegations of interference.-- ZiaLater ( talk) 22:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Conditional keep It is very obviously relevant but should only be included if people dont try to push their agenda by stating controversial things as facts. Kim song-chi ( talk) 16:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
It looks better. The opinions of most parties have been expressed. Thanks for talking this out.-- ZiaLater ( talk) 01:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
According to [13]: "The authorization has received 214 votes in favor of the PP, PSOE, Ciudadanos, UPN, Coalición Canaria and 47 negatives votes of Unidos Podemos, ERC, PDeCAT, PNV, EH Bildu, CompromÃs and Nueva Canarias."---- Bancki ( talk) 21:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
There is currently no article named "Spanish constitutional crisis" as it simply redirects here. As this is an ongoing event and 2018 begins in only a few days, I propose we change the name back to Spanish constitutional crisis as 2017 has ended but the event has not. We can re-introduce a date once there are conclusive sources that this conflict has been resolved indefinitely, or perhaps "Spanish constitutional crisis (2017-present)" if that name is in compliance with guidelines. Feel free to include other proposals; the only thing I can say with confidence is that this event is not limited to 2017 and we'll need to update the article's name to reflect that. BrendonTheWizard ( talk) 22:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
There are no other "Russian constitutional crisis" articles in Wikipedia, but the year is a useful identifier as constitutional crises reoccur, and other incidents in Russian history could be construed as a constitutional crisis. Also, searching throughout Wikipedia, it looks like except for the Tuvaluan constitutional crisis (which seems like a rogue title anyway), articles for other constitutional crises throughout Wikipedia using the generic "constitutional crisis" denomination do show the year in the title (See Category:Constitutional crises). Impru20 ( talk) 22:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
The article talks of "an analysis by the George Washington University School of Media and Public Affairs" and links to an elpais article, which in turn does *not* link to the actual analysis. It seems that "the analysis" is the elpais article itself, that is, not a peer-reviewed, academic publication (which the George Washington U. affiliation insinuates).
The article itself is laughable:
"To carry out the study, researchers used an advanced software program that makes use of Spanish technology to measure and analyze big data. Its author, Javier Lesaca, is a visiting scholar at the School of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University."
"Researchers" here means this sole Javier. "advanced software program" sounds impressive but there is nothing to substantiate anything scientific/advanced about the analysis.
"One clear example is the fact that RT published a number of news stories about Catalonia, which were then shared via social networks, prompting a conversation with messages and replies"
How is it suspicious that a global news medium like RT published a number of stories about Catalonia in the run up to the 1st of October? And how is it suspicious that the articles were shared and prompted conversations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.46.172 ( talk) 00:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't know where to start. The whole part of the "Russian interference" is complete fake news, promoted by El PaÃs and especially by his then former managing editor, David Alandete, author of the article quoted. About the George Washington study, it is not so, as was pointed out the only author is Javier Lesaca, visiting researcher in the GW School but that is all the relationship between the study and the School. Nobody is here asking about the "raw data of the analysis" but a quote to the original study and not to a newspaper informing about it. The author of the so called study, Javier Lesaca is an Spanish, visiting researcher at the George Washington School, but whose mother university if the conservative and Spanish nationalist Universidad of Navarra. Zkvrev ( talk) 08:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
This paragraph does not state clearly whether skipping legally-required steps is an opinion of the opposition or not. There is no source with the legal discussion either.
Catalan opposition parties accused JxSÃ and CUP of fast-tracking the law through parliament by altering the day's agenda to introduce the issue, violating their parliamentary rights by skipping legally-required steps for bills to go through before being put up to vote. Members from JxSÃ acknowledged it was not their preferred method, but justified it in that it was the only way to get the bill on the floor without being blocked and that it was not "any ordinary law".
Filiprino ( talk) 12:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
As it is no longer 2018, the title is once again outdated (see the above section at Talk:2017–18 Spanish constitutional crisis#Proposal to remove "2017" from article name). Now, of course, we could just extend it to 2017-19, but then if the crisis continues beyond this year, we'll have the exact same discussion come the end of this year and the beginning of next year regarding the title. A better way would be to adopt the suggestion by User:BrendonTheWizard above, to rename this article to Spanish constitutional crisis (2017-present), until when the crisis ends. 216.125.251.26 ( talk) 19:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)