This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Trial of Catalonia independence leaders article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
A news item involving Trial of Catalonia independence leaders was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 16 October 2019. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The reactions section is completely one-sided in favour of the defendants, this is not neutral. I'm adding an NPOV tag until this issue is fixed, we need reactions form both camps not from one alone. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 19:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
"and numerous other organisations" is not sourced in spite of the claim to the contrary by @ Aljullu: as the sentence said "and numerous other organisations have expressed concerns over human rights violations during the altercations produced in October 2017.". Where's the source? This unsourced material is just piling on the POV pushing, and from someone who is clearly supporting one side in this controversial political issue. We need neutrality and for all claims which are challenged to be sourced. You can't just re-add material which is unsourced and falsely claimed it is sourced. it looks as if we are just POV `pushing the separatist viewpoint, and this is why we have a POV tag already, please desist from making the POV worse and try addressing the issue. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 11:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Who were these people in 2017? Their positions. 82.177.40.11 ( talk) 10:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I do not think the POV tag in this article is justified by wikipedia's NPOV policy. All of the detailed events are both relevant and properly sourced. Any missing and potentially relevant differing views can be just added to the current information. Moreover, the POV tag is potentially misleading as it gives undue weight to any number of possible criticisms of an otherwise verifiable laundry-list of events without stating on which grounds they are criticized nor offering any contrasting facts or information. I believe this is grounds for removal of the template according to point 8 listed here [2], as it is impossible to empirically prove a positive. Kilgore T ( talk) 21:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
The trial proceedings officially ended on 12 June 2019 and the verdict was made public on 14 October 2019.
It looks very odd to state "On 9 November 2014, a non-binding 2014 Catalan self-determination referendum was held." but not give the result of the referendum. It might make someone reading the article think it had been censored. Since that isn't the case, can we report the result as well please? -- The Huhsz ( talk) 12:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Is what I'm saying so hard to understand? my only strongly held opinion is that our policy should be followed. In this case NPOV, as including only the result without the relevant information to put it into context would be in my opinion, clearly misleading. I was just pointing out the elements needed to be taken into account that sources deemed relevant to do just that. I was not asking to include my comment that most people against independence did not vote. I am not sure if any source worded it in that way, since it is a complex issue, probably not. What multiple reliable sources did point out was the low level of participation, the boycott, making public that they would not vote and questions about the validity of the consultation by most political parties against independence and finally the suspension by the constitutional court. I made the comment about allowing minors 16 and older to vote because it related directly to one of the main points discussed which was participation. In regular elections that is not the case. The pro independence parties were using the number of voters from the last general election who voted for pro-independence parties as a target. allowing people 16 and older and resident foreigners to vote helped achieve that target and was noted by multiple reliable sources. Still, the percentage of participation was of roughly one third, much less than in other valid elections. And the total number of yes votes roughly corresponded with the support that pro independence parties get at regular elections with a proper census and democratic guarantees, where their percentage is close to, but does not reach 50%. An inclusive wording reflecting what the reliable sources said is not that easy and it may be too long for this particular article, that is why I personally thought it would be better to maintain the current version, but I don't oppose inclusion if you can come up with a wording that addresses the concerns I have pointed out or if you can argue why they are not relevant. -- Crystallizedcarbon ( talk) 16:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
What is the current status of the six people listed under "High Court of Justice of Catalonia" and the four under "Audiencia Nacional"? Dismissed? Trials not yet completed? Trials not yet begun? 216.255.165.198 ( talk) 13:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I suggest that the article should include a section describing the historical context for modern European separatist movements -- i.e. from Wilson's 14 points during WW 1 to the international recognition of the various SSR states of the former Soviet Union in 1991...forward. Some movements get recognized almost immediately -- others seem to be repressed/ignored. It seems odd -- as a reader -- to read that a separatist movement is illegal or unconstitutional...without reading how such a movement could go forward AND BE legal / constitutional. Example -- Scotland in the UK. Is a Catalonian independence movement even possible under the Spanish constitution -- or are they locked in forever? Chesspride 216.144.161.51 ( talk) 16:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
And a link to his article. An assist: "On 30 October 2017 charges of rebellion, sedition and misuse of public funds were brought against Puigdemont and other members of the Puigdemont Government. Puigdemont, along with others, fled to Belgium and European Arrest Warrants (EAW) were issued against them. Travelling in Germany - he was arrested but then released by the German court, idem in Italy where he was released after spending a night in prison. Carles Puigdemont also has a seat as European Parliamentarian." SvenAERTS ( talk) 11:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Can anyone add what's happened since 2021? They have been pardoned, which I've just added to this and the 9 leaders' articles that didn't have that, but that was in 2021. Can someone with local knowledge add more information? MarkiPoli ( talk) 13:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Trial of Catalonia independence leaders article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
A news item involving Trial of Catalonia independence leaders was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 16 October 2019. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The reactions section is completely one-sided in favour of the defendants, this is not neutral. I'm adding an NPOV tag until this issue is fixed, we need reactions form both camps not from one alone. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 19:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
"and numerous other organisations" is not sourced in spite of the claim to the contrary by @ Aljullu: as the sentence said "and numerous other organisations have expressed concerns over human rights violations during the altercations produced in October 2017.". Where's the source? This unsourced material is just piling on the POV pushing, and from someone who is clearly supporting one side in this controversial political issue. We need neutrality and for all claims which are challenged to be sourced. You can't just re-add material which is unsourced and falsely claimed it is sourced. it looks as if we are just POV `pushing the separatist viewpoint, and this is why we have a POV tag already, please desist from making the POV worse and try addressing the issue. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 11:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Who were these people in 2017? Their positions. 82.177.40.11 ( talk) 10:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I do not think the POV tag in this article is justified by wikipedia's NPOV policy. All of the detailed events are both relevant and properly sourced. Any missing and potentially relevant differing views can be just added to the current information. Moreover, the POV tag is potentially misleading as it gives undue weight to any number of possible criticisms of an otherwise verifiable laundry-list of events without stating on which grounds they are criticized nor offering any contrasting facts or information. I believe this is grounds for removal of the template according to point 8 listed here [2], as it is impossible to empirically prove a positive. Kilgore T ( talk) 21:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
The trial proceedings officially ended on 12 June 2019 and the verdict was made public on 14 October 2019.
It looks very odd to state "On 9 November 2014, a non-binding 2014 Catalan self-determination referendum was held." but not give the result of the referendum. It might make someone reading the article think it had been censored. Since that isn't the case, can we report the result as well please? -- The Huhsz ( talk) 12:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Is what I'm saying so hard to understand? my only strongly held opinion is that our policy should be followed. In this case NPOV, as including only the result without the relevant information to put it into context would be in my opinion, clearly misleading. I was just pointing out the elements needed to be taken into account that sources deemed relevant to do just that. I was not asking to include my comment that most people against independence did not vote. I am not sure if any source worded it in that way, since it is a complex issue, probably not. What multiple reliable sources did point out was the low level of participation, the boycott, making public that they would not vote and questions about the validity of the consultation by most political parties against independence and finally the suspension by the constitutional court. I made the comment about allowing minors 16 and older to vote because it related directly to one of the main points discussed which was participation. In regular elections that is not the case. The pro independence parties were using the number of voters from the last general election who voted for pro-independence parties as a target. allowing people 16 and older and resident foreigners to vote helped achieve that target and was noted by multiple reliable sources. Still, the percentage of participation was of roughly one third, much less than in other valid elections. And the total number of yes votes roughly corresponded with the support that pro independence parties get at regular elections with a proper census and democratic guarantees, where their percentage is close to, but does not reach 50%. An inclusive wording reflecting what the reliable sources said is not that easy and it may be too long for this particular article, that is why I personally thought it would be better to maintain the current version, but I don't oppose inclusion if you can come up with a wording that addresses the concerns I have pointed out or if you can argue why they are not relevant. -- Crystallizedcarbon ( talk) 16:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
What is the current status of the six people listed under "High Court of Justice of Catalonia" and the four under "Audiencia Nacional"? Dismissed? Trials not yet completed? Trials not yet begun? 216.255.165.198 ( talk) 13:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I suggest that the article should include a section describing the historical context for modern European separatist movements -- i.e. from Wilson's 14 points during WW 1 to the international recognition of the various SSR states of the former Soviet Union in 1991...forward. Some movements get recognized almost immediately -- others seem to be repressed/ignored. It seems odd -- as a reader -- to read that a separatist movement is illegal or unconstitutional...without reading how such a movement could go forward AND BE legal / constitutional. Example -- Scotland in the UK. Is a Catalonian independence movement even possible under the Spanish constitution -- or are they locked in forever? Chesspride 216.144.161.51 ( talk) 16:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
And a link to his article. An assist: "On 30 October 2017 charges of rebellion, sedition and misuse of public funds were brought against Puigdemont and other members of the Puigdemont Government. Puigdemont, along with others, fled to Belgium and European Arrest Warrants (EAW) were issued against them. Travelling in Germany - he was arrested but then released by the German court, idem in Italy where he was released after spending a night in prison. Carles Puigdemont also has a seat as European Parliamentarian." SvenAERTS ( talk) 11:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Can anyone add what's happened since 2021? They have been pardoned, which I've just added to this and the 9 leaders' articles that didn't have that, but that was in 2021. Can someone with local knowledge add more information? MarkiPoli ( talk) 13:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)