Jump to content

Talk:Societat Civil Catalana/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Unsubstantiated deletion of additional information including other Wikipedia articles

Not clear why information aimed at providing a balanced description of the topic (a civic society) supported by links including Wikipedia pages is deleted without any explanation. Importantly all of them are factual. Claims for it to be controversial have not even been substantiated. Please provide here. Happy to wait for comments to make progress with this as improductive and confusing to Wikipedia users to go back and forth with reversing changes. But will do if this is not justified in the interest of users. Articles should rather have more information than less. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.173.43.21 (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Demonstration support

Only 65,000 people attended to the demonstration on october 2017 as per the Barcelona city police. Source. The past March 18th 2018 only 7,000 people attended to another demonstration as per the Barcelona city Police. source. To put it into perspective, on March 17th 2018 there was a call for demonstration by pensioners. 30,000 people went as per Barcelona city Police source. As a further comparison, at successive instances of "Diada de Catalunya", every single time until 2016 the number of people attending to the demonstration was around 1,000,000 source, as per Barcelona city police. I am modifying the statement saying "hundreds of thousands" because it is false and adding the corresponding non-biased sources. Filiprino (talk) 19:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Organization politics and ideology

People belonging to SCC is linked to far right. This organization is not plural nor has people belonging to the left wing of political ideologies. There is people coming from parties self classified as left parties, but that does not mean those members are from the left or were aligned with the left at the moment of entering SCC. source, source, source. Additionally, SCC is funded by right wing parties like PP. SCC has been favored by the government of Spain during the PP mandate source. Filiprino (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Filiprino edits

It appears there is a crazed pro-Catalan independence editor here who is editing in borderline vandal fashion. I suggest his edits are automatically reverted and this is brought up with Admins so that he is banned from Catalan conflict related topics. 79.159.80.28 (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

manlorsen: I agree with this point. The edition of Filiprino is total biased towards independentism. The fact that members of the organisation "sociedad civil catalana" (SCC) could have some political tendency, what it is not demostrated in this article with non relevant citations, it does not mean that the organisation has the same political tendency. That is the idea of the adjective "transversal". Sociedad civil catalana tends to join all (from left to right) political tendencies that are in favour of democracy and respect the constitution and laws in Spain.

Opinion, not a fact, used as a source

The latest edit by anonymous user with IP 79.159.80.28 uses the opinion of a member of political party PCE to add to the article (after reverting the whole previous state of it without saying anything) that catalan independentism is supremacist. Filiprino (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Filiprino you are calling this organization far-right, while introducing factoids to slander it and deleting sourced facts you dislike. You are edit warring and introducing propaganda. Please desist from editing this article, or at least editing this article in this fashion without consensus. Until such consensus is reached the article should be reverted to stable version by all editors here. There is no place for such behavior on Wikipedia.79.159.80.28 (talk) 10:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

You are breaking WP:NOFORUM. But to my defense I will had I have not deleted any source nor information of the article. I have added new information. Article properly sectioned with verificable information. Filiprino (talk) 10:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
You have characterized this organization as a far-right organization, which it is not. On Wikipedia, just as we don't characterize the pro-independence movement as racist Nazis we don't characterize those which oppose independence as fascists. Both camps are accused of both by their opponents. Please keep political propaganda to your blog. Wikipedia has to be neutral and editing has to be constructive and attempt to reach consensus, even with those we disagree with. 79.159.80.28 (talk) 10:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Excuse me sir, but I think you should check the information added to the article. Anyways, if your only problem are the far-right relationship facts, then you have no right to revert the whole article to a state previous to the Status quo ante bellum. Use the talk page, mark the problems you have with the article and then we can discuss them. Otherwise you are doing vandalism. Edit: See policies WP:DONTREVERT and WP:MASSR. Filiprino (talk) 10:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Overzealous deletion

...and of course you had to delete the information and links I had added. Your right-wing bias and overzealous deletion tactics are a serious threat to the reliability of Wikipedia. Kilgore T (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Does the article on Catalan nationalism or Catalan independence movement mention that it is accused from both left and right of being a supremacist, ethnic identitarian racist movement? No. Exactly. Wikipedia is not a POV soapbox.Sonrisas1 (talk) 04:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Blanking of parts of the article are based allegedly because catalan nationalism has been accused of being a nazi supremacist movement. The paragraph is rightfully referenced in TV information and books, and has nothing in common with the edit summary, so is being reverted. --Panotxa (talk) 08:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
If you want to add sections to the article, discuss here and come to an agreement. Your edits are undue and fall under Propaganda soapbox. Jordi Borras' opinion is not relevant to the article at this stage. We should expand basic information on the movement's goals, membership, awards etc.Sonrisas1 (talk) 12:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree that citing Jordi Borras alone may give undue weight to one particular voice, and that SCC should not be described as a "far-right" organization as though that were a fact. That said: I do find several sources that discuss (but don't endorse) accusations of right-wing and fascist affiliations, including many outside Catalonia: El Mundo, El Pais, and Publico all mention accusations of right-wing ties. [1][2][3] SCC itself and its leaders have also issued responses to these accusations. [4][5][6]. This doesn't mean that the claim should take over the article - but one or two sentences describing the conflict could be reasonable: "critics of the SCC such as --- and --- have accused the group of having ties to extremist groups such as the Francisco Franco foundation", and the rebuttal can also be mentioned, e.g: "Joaquim Coll, writing in El Pais, countered that these accusations were 'political McCarthyism'". The Catalan Nationalism discussion is really more appropriate for that page, but a discussion in accordance WP:DUE and using in-text attribution is usually acceptable. Nblund talk 22:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
For now, we can translate from Spanish version. Enough material there, where such accusations are mentioned. This should be done once the article has been properly expanded and it is clear who its members are and what its objectives are. Sonrisas1 (talk) 06:30, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if you can read catalan, but here are some more refs just as a sample, trying to avoid Jordi Borras's work, everyone from different medias and journalists, from different moments in time, just because isn't need to repeat:
* Ara, (Roger Mateos) Un excandidat falangista fa equip amb Societat Civil Catalana (falangist excandidate teams up with SCC)
* Vilaweb, La ultradreta s'uneix al PP i Ciutadans per al 12-O (far-right unites to PP and Ciutadans for 12-O)
* El Periódico (Xavier Rius) La ultradreta troba el seu espai (Far-right finds its place)
* El Mon L'entitat espanyolista addueix "raons personals" sense esmentar que un jutjat ha obert diligències per amenaçar diverses personalitats independentistes, així com per difondre propaganda nazi i feixista (The Spanish nationalist association adduces "personal reasons" without mentioning that a court has opened diligences to threaten several independentist personalities, as well as to spread Nazi and fascist propaganda)
* Nació Digital (Quico Sallés/Bernat Ferrer), ICV vol que el Parlament elevi una queixa a Brussel·les pel premi a SCC (ICV wants Parliament to raise a complaint in Brussels for the award to SCC)
* Publico (Nacho Valverde) Quién está detrás de las asociaciones que han sacado a la calle a miles de ciudadanos por España y por Catalunya (Who is behind the associations that have taken thousands of citizens into the street through Spain and through Catalonia)
I don't think is needed to add them to the paragraph, only one is needed to prove the point. --Panotxa (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
All this is political propaganda and mud-slinging. Not required at this stage just as Junts x Catalunya does not require a dozen sources accusing them of being racists/nazis, which are just as easy to find. Sonrisas1 (talk) 18:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
This is not Junts x Catalunya talk page. Whatever info you have of them, please in its article, there is no point to talk about it here. I have added many uncontested sources to prove my point.
Both last entries make the article enough NPOV: transversal (your POV, no refs) and connecionts with FR (4 refs: 3 media, 3 reporters, one book) --Panotxa (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
The far-right links are an extremely controversial accusation. For now it is undue until we expand article.Sonrisas1 (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Sonrisas1 has been banned because he was a sockpuppet. I would add the far right qualification in light of with who SCC and its members relates. But of course, you have to read catalan sources because spanish sources do not publish this information as it is not one of their main topics, except Público with little detail. Filiprino (talk) 11:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
The sentence Societat Civil Catalana is a plural organization with members from the right, left and centre of the political spectrum opposed to Catalan nationalism and the Catalan independence movement which they have openly characterized as ethnic supremacism or identitarian racism looks so biased it's really hard not to miss. And it references an article from an anti-independence jounral "El Pais", about what somebody said in a SCC demonstration (it can't really be more biased). You can find other sources (pro-independence) that say completely the opposite: How SCC is filled with nazi/fascist/far-right and how independence movement is transversal, as shown by User:Panotxa. Can we just remove any subjective political interpretation from this article please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.14.197.99 (talk) 08:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Edits on 13 june 2018

This has been removed, the source link does not state those platforms: http://www.lavanguardia.com/politica/20171006/431826418637/scc-llama-a-cataluna-silenciada-a-manifestarse-domingo-a-favor-de-sensatez.html Socialist Agora, Non-nacionalist Left Forum, Plataforma Ahora, Centro Libre Arte y Cultura. This has been removed, no source stating it: of several civil society initiatives, which includes, among others, the Brandemburg Gate non-partisan group of Catalan professors, intellectuals and lawyers (from where it came the second president Rafael Arenas, Law professor at the University of Barcelona, as well as Sonia Sierra and Susana García, currently regional MPs of the centrist non-nationalist party Ciudadanos), the centrist think-tank Impulso Ciudadano (from where it came the SCC vice-president and secretary José Domingo, former MP of Ciudadanos), the Socialist think-tank Socialist Agora' This has been removed, no source stating it: well as professionals, trade-union activists and individuals from a broad ideological spectrum (including members of the Socialists' Party of Catalonia (PSC), center-left, such as Joaquim Coll and Alex Ramos; the People's Party (PP), center-right, such as Sixto Cadenas; or the centrist party Ciudadanos). Beyond the original supporting groups, different personalities from the left (such as Josep Borrell, Spanish Socialist, Manuel Valls, French Socialist of Catalan ascendence and former prime minister in France, Francisco Frutos, Communist and union leader, former secretary-general of the Catalan communist party, PSUC

And etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filiprino (talk • contribs) 10:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The board of directors

The board of directors does not have any member of any political party. On top of that, sources of this diff did not backup the sentence. Filiprino (talk) 12:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Did you bother to read them? (translated from one of the Spanish references using google translate): "The first board of directors of the entity showed that delicate game of counterweights. Josep Ramon Bosch - close to the PP - was the president, and he was accompanied by the first vice president Joaquim Coll -linked to the PSC-, in the second vice-presidency, José Rosiñol -independent but very well connected with Bosch, and who served as interim president in the phase of constitution of SCC-, and in the third, Susana Beltrán -who months later became autonomous deputy of the hand of C's-. The rest of the meeting was completed by José Domingo - ex-deputy of C's in the Parlament and currently in the orbit of the Plataforma Ahora, the social-democratic project promoted by Gorka Maneiro-, Rafael Arenas - independent of the left, who would later be president of the entity- , Juan Arza -linked to the PP-, Ferran Brunet -liberal-, Sixto Cadenas -linked to the PP-, Isabel Fernández Alonso -independent of the left-, Mariano Gomà -independent and current president of SCC-, Juan Mellen -related to Duran i Lleida-, Francesc Moreno -exilitant of the PSC-, Daniel Perales -independent of the left- and Alex Ramos -linked to the PSC-." and "The latest changes made to the SCC board of directors go in line with maintaining the match quotas. Xavier Marín has held organic positions for many years in CCOO, UGT and the PSC - where he has directed the Xavier Soto School and has been national party counselor; Óscar Uceda has been coordinator of C's in Lleida and candidate of the party to the Congress of Deputies, and Irene Álvarez is close to the PP" --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:04, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I read them. And your text cleary states they do not belong to any political party. They are all independents that no longer are from any political party, including far-right Josep Ramon Bosch well connected (as you say) with also independent José Rosiñol, Álex Ramos, Sixto Cadenas, Ferran Brunet, Juan Arza, Daniel Perales, Francesc Moreno, Xavier Marín ... neither of those are part of any political party. They have been always independents, and as independents their past affiliations are not meaningful. On the other hand, the current board of directors is practially the same since the beginning, that is, since SCC inception with people from far-right Somatemps and other 51 associations orbiting the same social environment. José Rosiñol, Mariano Gomà, Miriam Tey, Ferran Brunet ... all are there from the inception. Filiprino (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
I changed "from" to "linked to" in the text to avoid any misinterpretation. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
No, you did a reversion and added your text. You find relevant that they were affiliated to those parties? Well, I find relevant that they share close relationships with the far-right and that SCC has been driven by Jorge Moragas and Miriam Tey. It is not that hard to understand. I am putting that text back to the article. Filiprino (talk) 15:51, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

This is nonsense. There is no standard, widely-recognised classification of Somatemps apart from websites with the same bias of this editor Filiprino — Gargaroi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC).

Oh come one, I am using ElNacional, El Mundo, Huffingtonpost, El País, La Vanguardia, El Periódico, El Temps ... and if you want to claim bias, all those newspapers receive money from the Government of Spain, the Government of Catalonia or the Government of Community/Country of Valencia. See AMI and Filiprino (talk) 12:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism

Some of the edits made by Gargaroi keep modifying the article in order to imply that the sources exposing the far-right relations of SCC and of its senior members are biased. The user has been warned three times but he keeps pushing his biased wording. Filiprino (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

manlorsen: Filiprino does not bring relevant citations to proof his thesis about far right tend of sociedad civil catalana. The citations are not relevant at all because the citations come from biased sources (separatist newspaper or separatist individual). It does not bring much to understand what sociedad civil catalana is. It is not clear what he means about far right inclination. Many of the separatist individuals qualify the people party of the former Spanish president as far right. It is not clear on which criteria he qualifies some organisations as far right. I kindly ask the editors to bring this to an independent editor in order to check the relevance of the sources and afterwards decide if this assumptions like far right can be made because I have the impression that Filiprino makes these statements in order to discredit us. And this is in my oppinion vandalism.

I have not added any text implying Societat Civil Catalana is far-right. I have not qualified anything, the sources are who bring the information to the table. The text in the article states that members from Societat Civil Catalana come from the far-right and that they keep meeting with far-right organisations. If from that you conclude SCC agenda is far-right, that's not what the article says. Filiprino (talk) 12:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Edits on 08 August 2018: Vandalism by Filiprino

Filiprino appear to be counter-editing to protect ungrounded statements and make claims that cannot be verified. He/she refers to comments made by biased sources as evidence. Regretably her/his editing takes for good assertions that should be qualified as quotes or opinions. Filiprino should be blocked from making any edit that is reverting previous edits. He/she should be allowed to only make edit that ADD information or evidence.— Gargaroi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 07:27, 9 August 2018‎ (UTC).

The page has been protected due to your edits/vandalism. Please, could you tell me what are the ungrounded statements? All is correctly sourced. Denying sources because you do not like them is not a valid reason for removing them. I have added your signature with the SPA warning. I recommend you taking a look at the book Desmuntant Societat Civil Catalana i què fan per a impedir la independència de Catalunya. Also, take a look at this Catalunya Ràdio face to face between Jordi Borràs and Josep Alsina: [7]. Then, finally, your problem seems to be related with the statements talking about far-right. Well, that is a fact. The previous references I have put here confirm that. But you can also go and read Somatemps and [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] and Josep Ramon Bosch and Xavier Codorniu and Javier Barraycoa. Instead you keep writing those empty comments. Please, provide concrete statements, not just general slandering which leads to snowballing discussions. This is the nth time you write that comment, either in this talk page or in the edit summaries. This quote from your message "He/she should be allowed to only make edit that ADD information or evidence." is what you should do. I will put it easier for you. Media being used:
* Antena 3
* El País
* El Mundo
* El Periódico
* La Vanguardia
* El Español - Independent donations and subscriptions.
* El Món - Independent donations and subscriptions.
* Vilaweb - Governments of Catalonia and Valencia support. At bottom of its web page has the badges of the Generalitat of Catalonia and Valencia. Independent donations and subscriptions.
* El Nacional Independent donations and subscriptions.
* El Crític - Government of Catalonia support. Creative Commons. At the bottom of its web page has the badge of the Generalitat of Catalonia. Independent donations and subscriptions.
* Nació Digital - Government of Catalonia and Valencia support. At the bottom of its web page has the badge of the Generaliat of Catalonia and Valencia. Independent donations and subscriptions.
* El Temps - Governments of Catalonia and Valencia, and Institut d'Economia i Empresa Ignasi Villalonga and Institut Internacional d'Estudis Borgians support. At the bottom of its web page has the badge of the Generaliat of Catalonia and Valencia, and Institut d'Economia i Empresa Ignasi Villalonga and Institut Internacional d'Estudis Borgians. Independent donations and subscriptions.
* Catalan News. TV3 news agency.
* The Guardian.
* Eldiario.es. Independent donations and subscriptions.
Now, what are those "supports"? It is a subsidy to compensate social media communication in Catalan, but has to comply with some metrics regarding sold units: law which regulates who receives a subsidy from the Catalan government, specifications of the subsidies given by the Government of Catalonia, subsidies given by Government of Catalonia, rules for subsidies given by the Government of Valencia, subsidies given by the Government of Valencia. All links are in Catalan. Of course, they also have subscriptions. They'll stop receving subsidies when they get enough subscriptions. The rest of newspapers have a broader market so they don't get to receive subsidies. Filiprino (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Biased editing

Filiprino appear to be counter-editing to protect statements that are dubious in nature and make claims that cannot be substantiated by any deontological standards of good practice. Regretably its editing is biased as it takes for good assertions that should be qualified as quotes or opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gargaroi (talk • contribs) 15:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Filiprino rejects the salutary usage of terms such as "alleged" or "allegedly" as well as the use the of the qualifier "to claim" when value judgment or opinion is provided. I highly recommend the user to abstain from boycotting reasonable and enriching edits from other contributors simply because the new edits undermine a biased narrative which incorrectly accepts judgment as evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gargaroi (talk • contribs) 15:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The information is confirmed by the investigation made by the publishers of the information. Josep Bosch is from Somatemps, a far-right association[19]. 10 founding members of SCC come from Somatemps. The full aparatus of SCC has built its agenda in conjunction with Somatemps. Additionally to the obvious proof of photographies and meetings from both Somatemps and news reporters, Alsina and Barraycoa insist on them collaborating with SCC and SCC simply says nothing. SCC has not rejected their participation in SCC agenda and co-creation of SCC events. And even if they did reject their participation and co-design, it would be a false statement because there is proof of them having meetings and deciding what directions to take. Also, I inform you that you made more than three reversions, violating the Wikipedia policy of reversions. Filiprino (talk) 15:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Adding clarifications on Somatemps political status. The organization has been investigated by Mossos d'Esquadra. It seems to me that you can not read catalan language and also you can not use an automatic translator. The provided source clearly back up the statements regarding Somatemps. Additionally, internal documents of SCC show that the core members of SCC come from Somatemps. Recently, it has been demonstrated they are still in contact (see Far-right relations section). Bosch, Rosiñol, Coll, Domingo, Barraycoa, Beltrán ... they have constructed SCC agenda in conjuction. And Somatemps states that they have been invited to SCC call demonstrations and SCC does not deny it. Something which PCE did with Francisco Frutos. Filiprino (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
The page is clearly biased. Most of the "Far-right relations and other controversies" should be removed. I find relevant only the last paragraph. The rest of the section is aimed at supporting the original research conclusion that the organization is right wing. Citing the alleged political association of some of its members is clearly biased and makes no sense. For NPOV the many relevant members including its vice-president and other militants of the Socialist party of Catalonia should also be mentioned in the list, and it still would make no sense. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi. The section "far-right ..." is filled with factual information. SCC claims they are diverse but a Wikipedia reader has the right to know the background of those who are in charge of the organisation, no matter what their previous political party affiliations were if any. PSC as political party has refused many times to support SCC. Only recently they went to demonstrations and symbolically added some members to their electoral lists. The section serves really well the purpose of giving background, the same as the section of "actions against catalan separatism". The reader has to extract his own conclusions. I would find useful a section titled "Ideology" to expose better the investigation made by Jordi Borràs which is full of factual information too. In previous versions of the article it was present but has been removed for some reason. In general terms Borràs exposed links with the far-right. It is not contrary to what SCC claims: a diverse political background. Borràs has been investigated by Mossos d'Esquadra, so no suspicions regarding bias against anything sounding pro-union. Hmm... the catalan wikipedia article is well written in this sense. Has a "History" section and the "far-right" section. It also has a section devoted to "Objectives" of SCC. And there are no claims of the promoters of SCC belonging to a political party. The main promoters since the beginning are still in SCC, except for Barraycoa (Somatemps) and Bosch (Somatemps). Rosiñol (Libertad Digital), Tey, Domingo, Ramos, Coll, all were from the beginning planning SCC agenda with Somatemps members. I have to say that I find affiliations are important because the reader might not know and SCC members have no Wiki pages. Affiliations are part of the big picture. 213.143.49.85 (talk) 10:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I am the same user as the one on top of this text. Jordi Borràs has been investigating far-right for a long time and he has been threatened and disqualified by far-right organisations after he exposed them. 213.143.49.74 (talk) 10:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Dear Sirs I manlorsen refer to the entry Societat_Civil_Catalana manlorsen tries to begin with an neutral version and based on this version build a correct version. Filiprino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) tries to link Sociedad Civil Catalana to the far right. He brings only sources of very unknown newspapers of far left tendency to proof his assumptions. I will bring a clear proof that Sociedad Civil Catalana cannot be linked to the far right: How should this organisation receive a prize from the european parlament European Citizen's Prize to Societat Civil Catalana or the socialist foreign minister Joseph Borrell [[20]] participated in several events of the organisation Speech delivered by Josep Borrell on 29th October 2017, Barcelona or Francisco Frutos, the former General Secretary of the Communist Party of Spain participated also in these events [https://voicesfromspain.com/2017/10/30/francisco-frutos-speech-on-29th-october-2017-barcelona/ Francisco Frutos’ Speech on 29th October 2017, Barcelona. Please I would kindly ask to check all this facts and afterwards you will see that the article Societat_Civil_Catalana at the moment is very biased. — manlorsen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC).

I have answered you at the bottom of this talk page. Filiprino (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Is Somatemps far-right?

[21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]

All relevant media take Somatemps as far-right. So please, stop vandalising the article and read sources and wikilinks @BarceloniUK:. Moreover, pointing out members are related with Somatemps is as relevant as pointing out members are related with political parties. Filiprino (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

manlorsen: Could you Filiprion please define what far right is for you? In my oppinion an organisation of far right has either to define itself as such or it has to be clear evidences that it is like this. The articles you show above did not proof with facts that Somatemps is far right. Of course there are fascist and far right movements in Spain but you have to proof what you say with Somatemps. I would be intrested that you proof it please. When I read the manifest of Somatemps https://somatemps.me/ I dont have the impression that they are far right. In fact it is a group founded by historians. Far right is associated with dictatorship and violence, can you please show that somatemps as organisation has "officilly" participated in a extreme right manifestation with violence? is there an statement of Somatemps about his political position, could you please bring it? We have to be carefull here: the fact that you see spanish flags does not mean that it it a far right manifestation, the fact that a member of a group decides to participate in a extreme right manifestation does not mean that the organisation is far right. I agree with you that in this case the organisation should have a talk with this person to know more about his ideas. I think you make too quick conclussions. Another example the left party CUP has been said also to be extreme left and supports the violents CDR but at the moment they are not clues for that otherwise they will be in the court. The same applies for Somatemps and other organisations, if they were violent or not democratic — manlorsen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 06:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC).

I will start stating that you have a conflict of interest in this article and you have already been blocked for that. Next, Somatemps is far-right, all the sources treat it as far-right. Their events are full of far-right people, they go hand in hand with National Democracy, they promote Holocaust negationist publications (Nihil Obstat), they have been into far-right political parties: New Force, PENS, MSR, SyL. If you want to know what is far-right, Wikipedia provides an article for that too: far-right. Media treats Somatemps as far-right because it is far-right. The book "Plus Ultra" by Jordi Borràs depicts all this people perfectly. You can also watch a face to face between Josep Alsina and Jordi Borràs in Catalunya Ràdio: [32]. Somatemps is under surveillance by the far-right group of Mossos d'Esquadra [33]. Filiprino (talk) 12:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
manlorsen Dear Filiprino I appreciate that you make such a big effort to present your ideas. I agree with you that the face to face between Josep Alsina and Jordi Borràs in Catalunya Ràdio: [34] is very good and shows in my oppinion that Somatemps is not far right and they deny in this video this accusation of negationist. I send to the audience a translation of part of the video in english Filiprino. I will bring also a video of Jordi Borràs where he defends the civil insurrection and the break the law https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5tyvhr just to see the political tendency of Jordi Borras. This in my oppinion discredit Jordi Borràs to make any assumtion. This entry in wikipedia [[35]] is mainly based on the assumptions of Jordi Borràs. Moreover there is no declaration of Somatemps saying that are far right. If someone is far right he will declare it without vacilation. I would kindly ask Filiprino to bring proofs that Somatemps declare itself as far right or at least they make some far right declarations (like xenophoby or race discrimination or antidemocratic ideas, etc.) Please bring this information. — manlorsen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC).
The video from Dolça Catalunya that you have put here is made out of random cuts with the word "zasca!" in between. It is a sensationalist video with out of context factoids. In fact, the moment in which Jordi Borràs appears, which is at time 1:50, the video states that Jordi Borràs is a "Catabatasuno y fanático nacionalista", in English: Catabatasunian and nationalist fanatic, and I suppose that Catabatasunian refers to a Catalan version of a member of Batasuna. Now, let's comment on what Jordi Borràs asks: "If the legality which emanates from the Parliament of Catalonia gives you the warranty to commit or not commit determined directives, what would you do?". The Mosso, which is not a director of anything, answers: "Sir, hear me, I think that police ... see, history shows that the mix of police and politics has given results we don't like (we: the police sindicate of Catalonia and by extension the trisindical, not Mossos d'Esquadra as the video states, another error/lie/manipulation)". That's the answer of a member of the sindicate. But he does not actually reply anything to Jordi Borràs, at least in that cut of the video. Additionally, there is no implication whatsoever of Jordi Borràs providing false information. So you have provided an empty video, it does not bring anything. The video I previously put points out the far-right past of Josep Alsina, his membership to different far-right political parties which I have already mentioned. But you have ignored it. Josep Alsina confirms that information. In the following documentary from TV3 you can also see Josep Alsina and Javier Barraycoa going hand in hand with the head of National Democracy (Spain): Arriba España, time 27:26. A few seconds before that he recognises that people in charge of organising things in Terrassa or L'Hospitalet are of low education level and that if you leave them alone things go wrong (one could thing he refers to violence). That means his ideas are akin to people prone to violence and he gives support to them instead of telling them to flee away or not inviting them to their events or whatever is needed to avoid that violence in Somatemps fellows (a "sanitary cord", as Jordi Borràs states at the beginning of the documentary). At time 16:15, Xavier Casals, professor of Facultat de Comunicació Blanquerna states that far-right does not auto-perceive as far-right. At time 16:41 Carles Viñes, professor of Contemporany History at Universitat de Barcelona states the same. "Far-right" is a "tag" with a very negative connotation. It's a "slab" for any organisation. Far-right prefers to call themselves "patriots", "good Spaniards". Esteban Ibarra, of "Movimiento contra la intolerancia" (Movement against intolerance), also provides explanations on how far-right in Spain has evolved during the 1990s into identity racism. He states far-right won't never accept that, they will always call themselves patriots, identitarians and anything which hides or distracts the truth.
The declarations of Somatemps being far-right are in the Wikipedia article of Somatemps. I won't replicate the same contents at every article Somatemps appears, that would be inefficient and a maintenance nightmare. Nevertheless, the sources are already here, in this talk page, at the beginning of this section (Somatemps is far-right). Go an read them. La Vanguardia, The Huffingtonpost, El Periódico, El Mundo ... all of them provide the consensus established by scientists. Nevertheless I will quote this from the article page of far-right: "organizations that feature extreme nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist or reactionary views". Far-right does not need to be racist and xenophobic. Please note the OR conjunction.
Somatemps is extreme nationalist? Yes. Josep Alsina has defined Somatemps as hispanist, not constituionalist.[36]. Quote: Existen ideas y proyectos diferentes sobre España. La versión “constitucionalista”, compartida por PP, C’s y PSOE concibe España como un agregado de individuos “libres e iguales”, unidos por algo tan banal como una constitución. He despises sound legal agreements such as Constitutions or Statutes of autonomy. That is antidemocratic. In fact, he defends the idea of the Spanish Empire, which was not democratic at all. Quote: Para la versión hispanista, que es la que nosotros defendemos, España es una nación política, heredera de una estructura precedente, que fue el Imperio Hispánico, y que debe reafirmar su soberanía, no solamente frente al separatismo, sino también frente al mundialismo y a la globalización. He wants a Spain of a single political nation. He blatantly refuses to acknowledge the Nationalities and regions of Spain and National and regional identity in Spain, which are recognised in the constitution he despises. This is identity racism. Then he continues and says Es una España una y diversa, que rechaza el uniformismo y el centralismo jacobinos como ideas contrarias a la tradición política Hispánica. (It is a one and diverse Spain, which rejects Jacobin uniformism and centralism as ideas contrary to the Hispanic political tradition.), which the constitution he despises already acknowledges in terms for plurinationality (diverse Spain), but Constitution, which is the agreement all citizens of Spain voted 40 years ago, does not say that Spain is one or a single political nation. That statement made by Josep Alsina is similar to what Franco dictatorship claimed: "Una, Grande y Libre".
Somatemps is chauvinist? Yes. They idolatrate the Spanish Empire over the current state of autonomies. They blatantly refuse to acknowledge the Nationalities and regions of Spain and National and regional identity in Spain which are recognised in the Constitution and Statutes of autonomy, basic laws voted in referendum by the citizens. They only want one nation, the Spanish nationality. The other nationalities are relegated by them to regionalisms. Also, Xavier Codorniu wants more centralism, but he does not call it centralism, just "more presence of the central government in the autonomies": Asimismo, se debe terminar con el centralismo distanciador y establecer una mayor presencia del Gobierno central en las autonomías, sobre todo en las más proclives al desgajamiento, mediante reuniones ocasionales del Consejo de Ministros o instalación de oficinas centrales de los servicios estatales en esas mismas autonomías. [37]
Somatemps has reactionary views? Yes. Negation of plurinationalism is a reactionary view in itself. On top of that, Xavier Codorniu, another head of Somatemps has been in rallies yelling the Francoist motto "Una, Grande y Libre".[38] You have a YouTube video of the rally. El Temps always provides links to videos and photographs.
Is Somatemps racist? I don't know. But Josep Alsina, director of Somatemps, is the director of the Magazine Nihil Obstat, whose publisher director, Juan Antonio Llopart was prosecuted and condemned for publishing texts justifying The Holocaust [39], and later on absolved because he did not explicitly state the use of violence nor encourage to exterminate jews. He seems to be very comfortable collaborating with such a magazine ... do you get it?
Is Somatemps xenophobic? I don't know. But it seems they are very comfortable with National Democracy (Spain), New Force (Spain), MSR ... do you get it?
If you want to take this as my opinion and as such despise it, you have the right to do so, but you can't remove content from the article because you think the sources are biased or wrong. Much less when you provide empty content like videos from Dolça Catalunya. Filiprino (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

manlorsen: you (Filiprino, talk) wrote a lot but it does not mean that you are right now. I am sorry but you did not bring anything new. I remember you that I asked you for statements made by Somatemps to qualify them as beeing from far right. Now I will rebate your arguments:

- The video from Dolça Catalunya that you have put here is made out of random cuts with the word "zasca!" in between.

It comes from a radio conversation. I dont know what you mean with random cuts. In the 28 seconds you see in the video that the policeman is David Miquel the speaker of all the policemen in Catalonia. and he says that $2if we believe that the political power can give orders to the police will be the end of the constitutional state" The other guy speaking is Valentín Anadón speaker of the sindicat of policemen in Catalonia. Afterwards Jordi Borras is there and he asked "in the NEW LEGALITY that comes from the new parlament of Catalonia what should the police obey". The second speaker replies "we only have to obey the current legality because the contrary would be a dictatorship and a dictatorship of the minority that changed by decret the laws" That will be more proper of a fascist state than of a constitutional state. Jordi Borras insisted to imagine that there is a self declared state of Catalonia and in this case they would not desobey but the policemen will obey the people of Catalonia. Valentín Anadón explains that "there are no two legalities there is only one and is the same in Catalonia and in the rest of Spain. In this way we could only obey part of the legal code and not other parts." This videos only shows that the way of desobeying or the anarchy is not possible in Spain. Fortunatelly Spain is a constitutional state and the laws are there to be fullfiled. This video discredit Jordi Borras to defend democracy when he highly interested in disobeying.

This video Arriba España does not show anything about Somatemps. Different far right groups are shown, that is true. There is also an interview to some members of somatemps but the declarations of these members are not far right. You know there are separatist and in the video is also alluded that the peoples party PP in Spain, the party of Rajoy, is far right. The origins could be not clear because at the time of the Dictatorship there were inconsequences but afterwards of course no. There are still many separatists in Catalonia saying that PP is a far right party....I think the problem is that you define far right different from me.

- The declarations of Somatemps being far-right are in the Wikipedia article of Somatemps.

We see that the fact that it is in wikipedia does not mean it is correct. I notice for the administrators that the article Somatemps has afirmations without proofs and these are therefore no facts. I was interested in looking for the real background of Somatemps and I dont find in his webpage any clue to say that they are far right. They are all academicians and profesors mainly of history with many published books.

--Somatemps is chauvinist? Yes. They idolatrate the Spanish Empire over the current state of autonomies.

Let us put in other words it is true that they would like a more centralize state but it does not mean that therefore they are fascist. Look Spain is the second more decentrilized country in the world http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198728870.001.0001/acprof-9780198728870 Germany has there a regional authority index of 35.5, France 19, Italy 27.3, Switzerland 26.5, UK 29.5, USA 29.6 and Spain 33.6. That is to say to have propose less autonomy for the regions does not mean to be fascist. There is in the Spanish constitution the autonomy concept and it protects that the regions have autonomy that is to say they will have to change the constitution in order to do that. It is the same that the catalan nationalists have to change the constitution to make a referendum of selfdetermination and there are some legal ways to change the constitution. What you never can do is to break the law and the constitution as the catalan separatists did last year. -Somatemps is extreme nationalist? Yes. Josep Alsina has defined Somatemps as hispanist, not constituionalist. Somatemps has reactionary views? Yes. Negation of plurinationalism is a reactionary view in itself.

- Somatemps has reactionary views? Yes. Negation of plurinationalism is a reactionary view in itself.

This is the same argument again. I have read the whole article here: https://somatemps.me/2017/11/02/entrevista-a-josep-alsina-sueno-con-una-cataluna-hispanica/ All the ideas that you put above are not far right. I repeat France is a much more centralized region than Spain and they are not fascist. Spain was in the past much more centralized and I also think that now is better but I respect that people think that the system is too decentralized and there are many spanish people thinking that and they are not fascist or far right. - Is Somatemps racist? I don't know. But Josep Alsina, director of Somatemps, is the director of the Magazine Nihil Obstat, Watch the video we both mentioned [20] he explains very well that this was a scientific article in his history journal in which an author analysed the holocaust. This is an academic history journal and it does not reflect the oppinions of the organisation Somatemps. I said it before that in Somatemps there are mainly academicians and professors.

- Is Somatemps xenophobic? I don't know. But it seems they are very comfortable with National Democracy (Spain), New Force (Spain), MSR ... do you get it? At least here you admit that you don't know. I agree. And then you say that they are "comfortable" with some far right organisations and this is your proof, ok thanks but it does not proof anything. Suppositions are not facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manlorsen (talk • contribs)

@Manlorsen::Wikipedia goes by what reliable sources say and Somatemps is generally described as a far right organization in reliable sources. We don't write articles based on our own suppositions about what the sources ought to say, and we don't need to provide "proof", we just need to be able to provide citations that directly support a characterization. Also: please sign your comments by adding 4 tildes (this symbol: ~) at the end. Nblund talk 23:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
@Manlorsen:: You are entitled to your opinion, but that does not change sources, as I already said. User Nblund has already answered how Wikipedia is written. Cherry-picking my answers or inventing what the videos you put say, has no meaning at all. Filiprino (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
@Nblund: I am sorry but I dont know the programming language of wikipedia. I am here only because of the entry of sociedad civil catalana SCC and not because of Somatemps. I think that Somatemps is not the objective of this entry but it is used to support the assumption that SCC has links to far right organisations. I wanted to say only that at the moment sociedad civil catalana does not have any link with somatemps. At the beginning yes there was a link. Concerning what you say about the sources I dont agree. I dont think that when you have sources that says that a thesis is true without proofs it is automatically true. I agree that it is better to have sources than nothing but what I am putting into question here is if the assumption that Somatemps is far right is true. I am only asking here for a demostration that somatemps is a far right organisation and the demostration that SCC has links to far right organisations now. I dont think something is true because many people say that. Someone has to analyse the sources. They are many assumptions in the world and are repeated by some groups many times but it does not mean that it is true. I would like to start a dispute in this page because it is not based on facts but in allegations of different not reliable people. Manlorsen (talk) 05:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
@Filiprino: that a video of a person that is far left says that an organisation is far right it does not have any weight at all. You should bring here facts and say Somatemps is far right because that, that and that. What you bring are sources that are not reliable. Manlorsen (talk) 05:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Citations

manlorsen: Many of the citations of this article are not relevant and are biased by political ideology. I kindly ask editors to check the citations. I will check all the citations and will propose the ones are not relevant but an independent check will help to obtain a good entry.— Manlorsen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 06:53, 8 August 2018‎ (UTC).

many does not help to what you are referring to. Please, quote what you are referring to. Otherwise you are slandering. Filiprino (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

--Manlorsen (talk) 11:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC) The citations in the article are oppinions but not facts. In the origins of Sociedad Civil Catalana (SCC) there was a collaboration with Somatemps. Somatemps is not of far right. I will bring you soon a statement of Somatemps taking political position. I repeat otherwise the current foreign minister the socialist catalan J. Borrell would not participate in many events of SCC, neiter the former leader during more than 10 years of the older comunist party in Spain Francisco Frutos or even Manuel Valls former socialist minister in France. They would be carefull about his reputation to participate events of a suppossedly far right organisation, dont you think so? And what about the prize of the european parliament to SCC, do you think the European parlament would give a prize to a far right organisation or to a organisation with far right links?--Manlorsen (talk) 11:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Major edits

Dear Sirs I manlorsen refer to the entry Societat_Civil_Catalana manlorsen tries to begin with an neutral version and based on this version build a correct version. Filiprino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) tries to link Sociedad Civil Catalana to the far right. He brings only sources of very unknown newspapers of far left tendency to proof his assumptions. I will bring a clear proof that Sociedad Civil Catalana cannot be linked to the far right: How should this organisation receive a prize from the european parlament European Citizen's Prize to Societat Civil Catalana or the socialist foreign minister Joseph Borrell [[40]] participated in several events of the organisation [https://voicesfromspain.com/2017/10/30/speech-delivered-by-josep-borrell-on-29th-october-2017-barcelona/ Speech delivered by Josep Borrell on 29th October 2017, Barcelona

or also Francisco Frutos, the former General Secretary of the Communist Party of Spain participated also in these events Francisco Frutos’ Speech on 29th October 2017, Barcelona. Please I would kindly ask to check all this facts and afterwards you will see that the article Societat_Civil_Catalana at the moment is very biased

--Manlorsen (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2018 (UTC) I have being investigating about the history of sociedad civil catalana and the links with far right organisations are not clear. I have read the book of J. Borras cited in the references [41] and I could check that by the fundation of the organisation in a public hall the presentation of the organisation was open to all public and apparently some far right groups appeared what it does not mean that Sociedad Civil Catalana is far right. Somatemps participated at the beginning in the organisation but not anymore. I dont find any link of Somatemps to far right organisations only oppinions of third people. I would like to proof all the citations to analyse the links of sociedad civil catalana wiht far right organisations as defined here [[42]]. Therefore I kindly ask for a reference check:

--Manlorsen (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Question

Why this page is blocked to edit in its current state? It’s written as a difamatory libel rather than a serious enciclopedic article. What is needed to get it unblocked so all users can edit it rather than keep it as a pro-nationalist entry? BarceloniUK (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

BarceloniUK: The article is under extended confirmed protection - meaning that users need to have had accounts for at least 30 days and have made at least 500 edits in order to edit it. The article was placed under extended confirmed protection because of persistent disruptive edit warring by single purpose and/or conflict of interest accounts. Those protections will expire on September 9, but will likely be re-imposed if editors go right back to the same bad behavior. In the mean time, there is nothing that should stop you from proposing changes on the talk page. Nblund talk 21:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Nblund, I'll proceed as you say.

I believe the issue with this entry was created as a result of the edits from user Filiprino as of March 2018. From a simple synthetic description covering all topics, both factual and controversial ones, the page became a list of assertions and annecdotary references with the clear objective of undermining the association's and its members' reputation. Fortunately that user has been blocked so hopefully it will be user to get a better neutral entry. At the moment, the bias and intentional POV comments remain. BarceloniUK (talk) 08:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Jorge Moragas

@BarceloniUK: Jorge Moragas has not been part of SCC but has aided its creation, Moragas has been a driving force along with his sister in law. [45]

@Filiprino: statement is not verifiable. Can you read the Spanish in the referred article? "Con el desafío separatista, las calles de Barcelona se inundan de banderas de España. Los constitucionalistas, que habían permanecido callados hasta la fecha por miedo a la trituradora del aparato independentista, se rebelan contra el establishment. Lo hacen empujados por Sociedad Civil Catalana, asociación impulsada por Moragas y vicepresidida por su cuñada Miriam Tey. Llega la aplicación del 155 con el apoyo de PSOE y Ciudadanos y Moragas fue una pieza clave del ajedrez para lograrlo." It means that Moragas was key to make the 155 happen, not SCC!

@BarceloniUK:. I can read, but I see you can't: Lo hacen empujados por Sociedad Civil Catalana, asociación impulsada por Moragas y vicepresidida por su cuñada Miriam Tey. The article states both things: Moragas has been a driving force in SCC and also for the application of the 155. Filiprino (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

A brief mention of Jorge Moragas promoting the crearion of SCC does appear in this long article. That doesn't mean he has had any relevant role in its crearion. Just a short note on a long bio is not enough supporting evidence to make Jorge Moragas appear as one of the key sponsors right in the introduction of the entry. There's nothing wrong with Mr.Moragas supporting SCC, as other politicians do from the left political spectrum, but I believe your intention was simply to try tie SCC with partisan interests, rather than providing a fair view of the association. BarceloniUK (talk) 08:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 August 2018

That information is already in the article. You have put the paragraph twice. The list of newspapers used in the article are written above. Please, quote what problems do you have with the article. Generic assertions are not enough. I won't answer anything more. Filiprino (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Hello Manlorsen. I am declining this edit request because (a) it doesn't clearly specify changes in the format 'change X to Y', and (b) there is no evidence of consensus in its favor. Manlorsen, see WP:SIGN for how to sign your name at the end of your posts. EdJohnston (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

--Manlorsen (talk) 08:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC) Hello, there are many things that were corrected in the past versions. I kindly ask you to check the controversies between different editors. I apologize for my less knowledge of wikipedia technical format but I think the focus should be here in my knowledge on the content and not in my knowledge of wikipedia that I would like to improve also. One of the problems is the chapter title:

  • "Far-right relations and other controversies"

I would like to change it to "controversies"

  • "Evidence found by Jordi Borràs shows that Societat Civil Catalana shares a close relationship with far-right organizations, with members of SCC coming from Somatemps[23] and other 51 associations." change please to because it is in my oppinion not showed in the book:

"Jordi Borràs claims in his book that Sociedad Civil Catalana shares a close relationship with far-right organizations, with fundational members of SCC coming from Somatemps[23]." It does not bring much the number of associations if there are not specified.

  • "Among others, Josep Ramon Bosch,[22][74][70][71] Xavier Codorniu,[27][75] José Domingo,[72] Ferran Brunet[29][73] and Joaquim Coll[76][77] have been in contact with far-right organisations. SCC board of directors has maintained meetings to plan their agenda in which Somatemps members participated.[78]" please change this sentence and put it as claim but not as truth because it is not demostrated:

"Jordi Borras claims that among others, Josep Ramon Bosch,[22][74][70][71] Xavier Codorniu,[27][75] José Domingo,[72] Ferran Brunet[29][73] and Joaquim Coll[76][77] have been in contact with far-right organisations and that SCC board of directors has maintained meetings to plan their agenda in which Somatemps members participated.[78]"

There are more things that could be changed. There are some claims about the links to far right but this links are only true at the beginning. We see that the wikipedia entry of sociedad civil catalana in spanish and english are totally different. I can live with the spanish version that is there accepted for a long time. There are inconsitencies between the two and it cannot be the objective of wikipedia to have contradictory entries about the same thing in different languages. I would kindly ask you to open here a dispute about this article because otherwise it seems as everything is accepted and it is not the case. I would like to achive an article that it is well balanced and not biased but I dont think at the moment that it is possible. We are all interested in a version that it is as much as possible close to the reality and not only based on the past but also on the present. Is there a process in wikipedia to achive this with a mediator? You can see in the talk page that there are a lot of discussions between the different editors and there are in fact editors that are close to my oppinions. I would kindly ask you to put in the entry of this article that it is under dispute. Thanks and regards. --Manlorsen (talk) 08:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

--Manlorsen (talk) 11:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC) In the origins of Sociedad Civil Catalana (SCC) there was a collaboration with members of Somatemps. Somatemps is not a far right organisation. There are no proofs for that but only oppinions. I will bring you soon a statement of Somatemps taking political position [47] [48] https://www.elcatalan.es/jesus-lainz-xavier-codorniu-augusto-bruyel-y-almudena-paso-inauguran-el-vo-congreso-de-catalanidad-hispanica/. I would like to repeat my argument of the begining: If SCC were extreme or far right the current foreign minister the socialist catalan J. Borrell [49] would not participate in many events of SCC, neiter the former leader during more than 10 years of the older comunist party in Spain the catalan Francisco Frutos https://voicesfromspain.com/2017/10/30/francisco-frutos-speech-on-29th-october-2017-barcelona/ or even the descendant of catalans Manuel Valls former socialist minister in France or even the president of the socialist catalans Miquel Iceta or the writer and nobel of literature Mario Vargas Llosa [50]. They would be carefull about his reputation to participate in events of a suppossedly far right organisation, don't you think so? And what about the prize of the european parliament to SCC, do you think the European parlament would give a prize to a far right organisation or to a organisation with far right links? This is written in the pdf document of the european prize [51]: Sociedad Civil Catalana Association/organisation Spain Gran Via de les Corts Catalanes 583, 8011 Barcelona, Spain josep.bosch@societatcivilcatalana.cat 34934451793 34605858455 Spain at national level Sociedad Civil Catalana is an organisation set up by a group of Catalan men and women anxious to continue and promote the creation of awareness and mobilisation of people in Catalonia who support continued links with the rest of Spain and with Europe. The organisation promotes important values such as concord, coexistence, respect, tolerance and freedom of expression and dialogue. For these reasons and the extremely valuable work which it carries out in Catalonia, I feel that this organisation deserves the European Citizens’ Prize. Santiago FISAS AYXELÀ

I kindly ask you to consider an external review of the article and compare it with the spanish version, thanks.--Manlorsen (talk) 11:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

--Manlorsen (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

  • PLEASE CHANGE THAT

"The board of directors of Societat Civil Catalana is constituted by former members of Catalan political parties and associations that oppose independence: Somatemps, Citizens, People's Party of Catalonia and the Socialists' Party of Catalonia.[9][10][11][12][13][14][15]"

TO:

"The board of directors of Societat Civil Catalana is constituted by former members of Catalan political parties and associations that oppose independence: Citizens, People's Party of Catalonia and the Socialists' Party of Catalonia.[9][10][11][12][13][14][15]" There are no members of Somatemps in the organisation of Sociedad Civil Catalana currently.

  • PLEASE CHANGE THAT

"The first president of the final executive board was Josep Ramon Bosch, former founder and president of the far-right organization Somatemps."

TO:

"The first president of the final executive board was Josep Ramon Bosch, former founder and president of the organization Somatemps." It is disputed by many editors that Somatemps is a far right organisation therefore please delete it.

  • PLEASE CHANGE THAT

"The organization was started by members from far-right Somatemps, including its first president Josep Ramon Bosch, Javier Barraycoa, Josep Alsina and Xavier Codorniu.[26][23][27][22] It also received support from Jorge Moragas and Miram Tey de Salvador." 

TO:

"The organization was started by members of Somatemps, including its first president Josep Ramon Bosch, Javier Barraycoa, Josep Alsina and Xavier Codorniu.[26][23][27][22] It also received support from Jorge Moragas and Miriam Tey de Salvador." as explained before it is nowhere set somatemps as a far right organisation. Please change the name Miram to Miriam.

* PLEASE CHANGE THAT 

"The event also had the presence of affiliates and politicians from PP, Citizens , UPyD, Vox, the Francisco Franco National Foundation, Republican Social Movement and PSC.[22][29][6]"

TO:

delete it please because in the references it is not showed that these organisations were there and it is not so relevant who assisted to the first meeting. In this article it is explained that several political groups accused SSC of having links to far right groups but the european parliment desestimated this accusation granting the citizens prize to sociedad civil catalana as written in the current entry of wikipedia  [52]

* PLEASE CHANGE THAT 

"Catalan Civil Society went to the European Parliament to claim that in Catalonia there is linguistic discrimination and that children rights are being violated. They also claimed the existence negative effects in children academic performance due to using Catalan as tuition language in the Catalan education system. Republican Left of Catalonia MEP Josep Maria Terricabras recalled that PISA report does not show any difference,[64] as is the case of the last PISA report, Spanish regional tests and university admission tests.[65]"

TO:

delete it please the title of the chapter is "Actions in support of Spanish Nationalism" and this paragraph it is linked with education. If you want to keep it you should open a new chapter and please change it as follow:

"Catalan Civil Society went to the European Parliament to claim that in Catalonia there is linguistic discrimination and that children rights are being violated. They also claimed the existence negative effects in children academic performance due to using Catalan as the only tuition language in the Catalan education system." please you have to write "the only" because that is what SSC critiziced that there is one only tuition language. They dont critizice that catalan is a tuition language. The last sentence is just an oppinion and the tests were made in Catalan what does not show the level of Spanish. It is true that they have a good basic level of Spanish but there are also studies that show that the control of the style in the spanish language by the scholars is very poor. 

This is at the moment controversial and there are different oppinions: [53] citation:

"A saber: que la prueba de acceso a la universidad de la asignatura de Lengua Castellana que se realiza en Cataluña se aparta tanto de la prueba que efectúan el resto de comunidades que, en ningún caso, el cotejo de sus resultados arroja información fiable acerca del verdadero dominio de la lengua castellana de los alumnos catalanes."

Please check this source [54] and this statement: 

"En su momento, el coordinador en Cataluña de estas pruebas, Joaquim Prats, admitió que los controles se hacen solo en lengua catalana en Cataluña, lo que no pueden ser un indicador para conocer el nivel de castellano. Las pruebas PISA, además, "solo evalúan la comprensión lectora, las matemáticas y los conocimientos científicos", explica Vilarrubias."


* PLEASE CHANGE THAT 

"Societat Civil Catalana has been accused by Javier Barraycoa, former member of SCC, founder of Somatemps and its current adviser,[66][67] of receiving funds from the central government of Spain in order to organize the demonstrations of the 8th and 12th of October 2017.[68][69] Additionally, it has been confirmed that RENFE subsidized 50% of the cost of 245 train tickets for the Diada public act of SCC in September 11th 2014 in Tarragona.[38] Josep Alsina from Somatemps reported that SCC receives generous donations through Joan Boscà Foundation to which many important businesses give money.[70]"

TO:

"Societat Civil Catalana has been accused by Javier Barraycoa, former member of SCC, founder of Somatemps,[66][67] of receiving funds from the central government of Spain in order to organize the demonstrations of the 8th and 12th of October 2017.[68][69] Additionally, it has been confirmed that RENFE subsidized 50% of the cost of 245 train tickets for the Diada public act of SCC in September 11th 2014 in Tarragona.[38] Josep Alsina from Somatemps reported that SCC receives generous donations through Joan Boscà Foundation to which many important businesses give money.[70]" Javier Barraycoa is not advisor of SCC that cannot be demostrated and it is false. The rest I dont know if it is true. I will research it but you can leave it for the moment.

* PLEASE CHANGE THAT 

"Evidence found by Jordi Borràs, specialized in far-right, notes that the balance sheet presented by SCC lacks transparency. With only 75 members and 4,000 collaborators SCC managed to gather 1 million euros in 2014.[38] The members only account for 1.5% of money contributions. Another 1.5% comes from gathering posts and urns. The rest, 97%, comes from private donations. Félix Revuelta, founder and principal stokeholder of Naturhouse, stated that he and many other businessmen give support to SCC."
 
TO:
"Jordi Borràs, specialized in far-right, claims that the balance sheet presented by SCC lacks transparency and that with only 75 members and 4,000 collaborators SCC managed to gather 1 million euros in 2014.[38] The members only account for 1.5% of money contributions. Another 1.5% comes from gathering posts and urns. The rest, 97%, comes from private donations. Félix Revuelta, founder and principal stokeholder of Naturhouse, stated that he and many other businessmen give support to SCC."
It is a claim but it is not demostrated, found evidence is very tendencious when it is not yet demostrated.


* PLEASE CHANGE THAT 

"Far-right relations and other controversies" 

TO:

I would like to change it to "controversies"

  • PLEASE CHANGE THAT

"Evidence found by Jordi Borràs shows that Societat Civil Catalana shares a close relationship with far-right organizations, with members of SCC coming from Somatemps[23] and other 51 associations."

TO

change please to because it is in my oppinion not showed in the book: "Jordi Borràs claims in his book that Sociedad Civil Catalana shares a close relationship with far-right organizations, with fundational members of SCC coming from Somatemps[23]." It does not bring much the number of associations if there are not specified.

  • PLEASE CHANGE THAT

"Among others, Josep Ramon Bosch,[22][74][70][71] Xavier Codorniu,[27][75] José Domingo,[72] Ferran Brunet[29][73] and Joaquim Coll[76][77] have been in contact with far-right organisations. SCC board of directors has maintained meetings to plan their agenda in which Somatemps members participated.[78]"

TO

"Jordi Borras claims that among others, Josep Ramon Bosch,[22][74][70][71] Xavier Codorniu,[27][75] José Domingo,[72] Ferran Brunet[29][73] and Joaquim Coll[76][77] have been in contact with far-right organisations and that SCC board of directors has maintained meetings to plan their agenda in which Somatemps members participated.[78]" please change this sentence and put it as claim but not as an absolute truth because it is not yet demostrated.

  • PLEASE CHANGE THAT

"ERC, CiU and ICV send a letter to Sylvie Gillaume in 2015, the then vice-president of the European Parliament, because they found giving the European Citizen's Price to Societat Civil Catalana was not legitimate. In that time Josep Ramon Bosch was the president of SCC. They criticized the award noting that Societat Civil Catalana has links with the Catalan far-right and promotes xenophobe and extremist ideas. But the letter was not listened and SCC picked up the award in February 2015. This event triggered another letter from CD, ERC, UD and ICV. Gillaume dismissed this second letter alleging that the award passed two courts: one Spanish and one communitarian in which deputies from PP, PSOE, and UPyD participated. European deputies from PSOE and PP where decisive to oppose accusations. The Catalan Parliament accepted a proposal from ICV to scalate a complaint to the European Parliament. PP, PSC and Citizens voted against the proposal. Votes in favor came from ICV-EUiA, ERC, CUP and CiU.[17][79][80]"

TO 

"ERC, CiU and ICV send two letters to Sylvie Gillaume in 2015, the then vice-president of the European Parliament, because they found giving the European Citizen's Price to Societat Civil Catalana was not adequate. They criticized the award noting that Societat Civil Catalana has links with the Catalan far-right and promotes xenophobe and extremist ideas. But the accusations of the letter did not have success and SCC picked up the award in February 2015. This event triggered another letter from CD, ERC, UD and ICV. Gillaume answer this second letter like the first one alleging that the award passed two courts: one Spanish and one communitarian in which deputies from PP, PSOE, and UPyD participated. European deputies from PSOE and PP where decisive to oppose accusations. The Catalan Parliament accepted a proposal from ICV to scalate a complaint to the European Parliament. PP, PSC and Citizens voted against the proposal. Votes in favor came from ICV-EUiA, ERC, CUP and CiU.[17][79][80]"
who was the president of SCC at that time is not important here it is about the prize. 
Please check this citation to understand why I propose these changes:
[55]
 
Please note that the accusations to avoid SCC to obtain the prize were the same like the accusations set in this article, namely: that SCC has links to the far right movement and the accusations were not considered true by the european parliment. I think that that is an important point to read critically this article.

* PLEASE CHANGE THAT

"Other controversies affect Miriam Tey. She edited a book which makes apology of violation. Miriam Tey alleged the book actually denounces violations by using fiction.[81][82] Mariano Gomà asked for the WhatsApp account of Ona Carbonell, a Catalan swimmer. He also said of Anna Gabriel, a CUP member: "How frustrated that woman lives. Well positioned in the world she would be attractive and beautiful. What a pity!". These messages were published in Twitter, showing a machismo behaviour.[81]"

TO 

"Other controversies affect Miriam Tey. She edited a book about a rapist. Miriam Tey alleged the book actually denounces violations by using fiction.[81][82]. Mariano Gomà said of Anna Gabriel, a CUP member: "How frustrated that woman lives. Well positioned in the world she would be attractive and beautiful. What a pity!". These messages were published in Twitter, showing a machismo behaviour.[81]"

Miriam Tey edited a book about a rapist that is true but the interpretation that she makes apology of violation is an assumption that has to be demostrated. It is not important that "Mariano Gomà asked for the WhatsApp account of Ona Carbonell, a Catalan swimmer"

There are more things that could be changed. There are some claims about the links to far right but this links are only true at the beginning. We see that the wikipedia entry of sociedad civil catalana in spanish and english are totally different. I can live with the spanish version that is there accepted for a long time. There are inconsitencies between the two and it cannot be the objective of wikipedia to have contradictory entries about the same thing in different languages. --Manlorsen (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done CLCStudent (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I brought a list of points concerning changes in the documents. I would expect an answer to these points.--Manlorsen (talk) 08:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Manlorsen, Wikipedia mostly the work of unpaid volunteers. No one is obligated to wade through endless walls of text and offer point-by-point refutations of every complaint you raise. I think you've made yourself a little difficult to take seriously on this topic because you've edited with a clear agenda and you haven't demonstrated much grasp of the basic workings of Wikipedia. Just to hit a couple of points:
  • Several reliable sources document SCC's ties to the far right. Reliable sources might dispute the extent or importance of those links, but there's very little point in pretending that people like Javier Barraycoa aren't right-wing.
  • Reliable sources like the Washington Post also describe Somatemps as a far right organization.
  • The fact that SCC won a prize doesn't tell us anything about far-right ties.
I agree that there are problems with this entry, including grammatical issues and neutrality problems, and it might overemphasize the negative aspects of the organization - that said, I don't think your proposed changes would improve those issues. If you want to influence Wikipedia, you need to familiarize yourself with the basic pillars of editing and you probably need to get some more experience editing non-controversial topics before attempting to edit this one. Nblund talk 18:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Dear Nblund I thank you for your comments. Although I must say I am a little dissapointed after the lot of effort I have invested to clarify my proposed changes. That is also as you said because I am also an unpaid volunteer and use my private time to improve wikipedia. Thanks for your advise and I will try to improve my editing skills but I cannot leave this article as wrong as it is because I am not a master in editing, can I? The first time I requested a new edition of the entry it was rejected and it was said to me (see above) that I did not put the changes in a form "this has to be substituted by that" and so on. This time I made it (see above) it took me a lot of time to point out all the aspects that should be changed. Therefore I am dissapointed because now you say
  • Your point: "No one is obligated to wade through endless walls of text and offer point-by-point refutations of every complaint you raise"
I thought that it is a discussion on the talk page about the things that have to be changed. Nevermind I will try to change the focus again to a general oveview not whithout thinking that we are turning to our initial stage. Nblund I dont have proposed changes with a definitive agenda, which is the basis for such affirmation of you? I remind to you also that you mentioned the pillars of wikipedia basic workings of Wikipedia and specially the second one is here the question of this entry:
Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view
We strive for articles in an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence. We avoid advocacy, and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong.
Is this entry neutral? I don't think so and I will show you why no, answering the general points you brought:
  • Your point: Several reliable sources document SCC's ties to the far right. Reliable sources might dispute the extent or importance of those links, but there's very little point in pretending that people like Javier Barraycoa aren't right-wing.
my refutation: I have read and investigated the sources of the entry specially the book [56] that is astonishingly not included in the sources although the author Borras appears many times in the entry and it should be the most important reference for the people who say that SCC is a far right organisation or has links to far right organisations. After these investigations it is still not clear to me that the organisation Somatemps is far right. I repeat far right because you said above that Javier Barraycoa, who is a very important member of Somatemps, is right-wing. Do you know the difference between far right and right wing? I hope so. I agree with you that he is right wing (Carlist movement is not far right, at least as far as I know) but I don't have any proof at the moment that he is or he is not far right. It is true that Somatemps was at the beginning taking an important part of SCC. Thas is fully true but still at the moment I don't see any proof that Somatemps is far right. The indications of some journalists is not enough for such a heavy affirmation. You need based on the definition of [[57]] to bring elements (i.e. racism, xenophobic, etc.) that show that they are far right, in which case I would agree with this affirmation, no problem. Even in the case that Somatemps "were" far right the entry has to be changed that at the beginning SCC had a link with the far right organisation Somatemps. This is an important point because the discussion is all about it:
Does SCC have links to far right organisations? and if yes when? I could agree if we write that SCC at the beginning has a link with Somatempos until it is clarify by further editors or investigators if Somatemps is far right or not. I remind to you that Somatemps are not anymore since long time ago in the boards of directors of SCC. There are sources like this https://www.lasvocesdelpueblo.com/el-co-fundador-de-scc-javier-barraycoa-confiesa-todo-sobre-la-letra-pequena-de-los-origenes-scc/ that show that the relationship between SCC and Somatemps were long ago broken. Could you please Nblund tell me if you would agree with this proposal?
My answer: That in a article of a journal it is said that somatemps is far right it does not mean that it is true. This is related to my discussion in the point above. I made a research in the web also in wikipedia [[58]] and I agree they are right wing but I did not see either on their webpage [59] or on the web any clear demostration that they are far right.


  • Your point: The fact that SCC won a prize doesn't tell us anything about far-right ties.
My answer: I agree with you that the fact that SCC won the EU prize does not automatically means that they don't have links to far right movements. But at least it is an additional argument that these links are not clear for other people than me, do you think that SCC would have received the prize if the links were so clear? don't forget that the opponents to give this prize to SCC argueed that SCC had links to far right organisations.
I could agree that we can start changing things slowly at the beginning and the first thing should be to make some small changes in the following paragragh:
"Evidence found by Jordi Borràs shows that Societat Civil Catalana shares a close relationship with far-right organizations, with members of SCC coming from Somatemps[23] and other 51 associations.[27] Members of SCC have attended or taken part in events related to organizations and political parties from the far-right like Somatemps, PxC, Vox, National Francisco Franco Foundation, National Democracy and Republican Social Movement."
to be changed to :
Evidence found by Jordi Borràs shows that Societat Civil Catalana shared at the beginning a close relationship with Somatemps [23],[27]. Members of SCC have at the beginning attended or taken part in events related to organizations and political parties from the far-right like Somatemps, PxC, Vox, National Francisco Franco Foundation, National Democracy and Republican Social Movement.[71][72][73]
This is probably the most important error of this entry. Coud you please Nblund and other editor say your oppinion about this change?
Thx,
--Manlorsen (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Additionally to the points exposed above I would like to point out that another reason to open this entry is to adapt the different entries in the different languages. At the moment are completelly different. I think a further discussion is needed here.
--Manlorsen (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Manlorsen: if you want to get better at editing, the best way to do it is by editing articles that you do not feel passionately about. This article will still be here in the future, and you are incredibly unlikely to accomplish anything if you continue to edit non-neutrally in this topic area given your poor grasp of the rules. As I've already explained: Wikipedia requires reliable sources for claims, and we strive for Verifiability, not truth in editing. It is not necessary to "prove" that a group is far right, it is only necessary to prove that reliable sources say that it is far right - that burden has been met here. I'll add that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source, and that there's no requirement that English and Spanish Wikipedia entries line up with one another. Nblund talk 20:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Reworded intro to criticism section and added POV template

This article appears to have been vandalized on multiple occasions by users attempting to remove or alter information seemingly with the intention of "whitewashing" the article. The current version includes several sections written in a style that violates NPOV policy, as well as multiple misleading or inaccurate statements which are not supported by the accompanying sources. As a result, the text contains statements that often contradict other information presented in this article, its sources or other related wikipedia articles. I am introducing the POV template until these problems are addressed and resolved. Kilgore T (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism of Mariano211

An admin should come here and block user @Mariano211. He keeps adding the same edit without any reference. Even more, the account of that user has been registered last week and the only edits he is doing are in this article. That's suspicious. 95.17.250.138 (talk) 13:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

My addition is not vandalism at all. I am just quoting facts which are public: a meeting at the European Parliament, duly referenced. On the contrary, your statements are not supported by any kind of document. Mariano211 (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
@Mariano211 Thank you for providing a source for your edit. However, you have not formatted it correctly: it should use the {{Cite web}} template, with full information such as dates and title (see that link). More information at WP:REFB. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your indications. As requested yesterday I was about using the right template. But I realise you have removed the whole paragraph today, which was put in chronological order by 95.17.250.138 yesterday. Before going ahead with the source for my edit, is there any particular reason for your last change? thanks again Mariano211 (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Please ignore my last message, now I realise where you put the paragraph, sorry! Mariano211 (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
@Mariano211 Yes, I tried to put that section more into chronological order and I removed the direct URL you added since it was just an advert that the meeting was going to happen, not an account of what had actually happened, which 95.17.250.138 had found and helpfully added. I hope you can both now work productively on the article, which still has a lot of problems, including overlinking of things like Spanish political party names. This topic is not in one of my areas of interest/expertise and I'm unlikely to make further additions here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks again for your useful and helpful guidance, most appreciated. In fact the 'advert' you quote does contain at the bottom of the page a video recording (you can click on it) of the whole discussion, with the different interventions at the European Parliament, and that's why I (not 95.17.250.138) chose that link. Can you verify and add it, or you prefer I do it? In any case I am now going to add something else following the meeting at the EP. On the substance of the article and from my point of view, it is biased because of abundant Catalan nationalist input, and that explains the general warning at the beginning on the lack of neutrality. I am looking for a better balanced article beyond nationalistic ideological positions Mariano211 (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
@Mariano211 If you want to refer to the video (which I had not noticed) the better URL would be this one. However, I'm not sure this belongs in the article. I'm worried that the text is now straying from a discussion of the SCC (the article's title) into a much more general discussion of Spanish / Catalan politics, which is arguably beyond its scope. I leave it to you and other editors to resolve this! Meanwhile, I have made a minor edit to fix the access-date in your citation. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
This article is devoted to a Spanish nationalist organisation. Only events in which SCC appears are allowed. Remove the PETI comission link. SCC was not there. It's not activism of SCC. 95.17.250.138 (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
As just written under "Protection of a page": as pointed out by Mike Turnbull from the very first day of the dispute, my edits have nothing to do with "vandalism", which is a blatant insult I have never used to qualify the editor 95.17.250.138. The only and exclusive aim of the latter is to discredit SCC by linking it with extremist nationalist ideology, which is completely unfair and untrue. Under "Activism/8 October 2017" you can read (and nobody disputes that) that Nobel Prize of Literature Mario Vargas Llosa and Catalan Socialist Josep Borrell, current Vice-President of the European Commission, took part in the demonstrations organised by SCC (along with the Catalan Socialist party, which won last elections in Catalonia): who can accept that these personalities, widely recognised internationally, share that ideology? this would not be serious, to say the least, and detrimental to Wikipedia reputation Mariano211 (talk) 09:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
What statements? I have not written anything, I restored the changes you did. The text already had references. Read the sources and you'll find out. 95.17.250.138 (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism of Crystallized Carbon

I swear to @Crystallizedcarbon to stop vandalizing the article and leave the necessary information on the claims of SCC to know better what they are talking about and what their intentions are. A list of points saying they went to X demonstration or organised Y event is not very informative. It's more like an advert or even worse, propaganda. If they have points in common with determined political currents such as Spanish nationalism or right-wing political parties is something basic to know. What is not welcomed is repeating the same information again and again or bring in other political groups unrelated to SCC exceot if they were in the same event. Otherwise it should need an "ideology" section which should talk about their position in the political spectrum. Removing political context because a reliable source does not talk explicitly about SCC but their ideas is just trolling. That's how the article was before Mariano211 made his intervention (a user who registered for doing two edits in this article and disappear) and then you took profit of the situation to remove what you don't like and accuse me of edit warring (actually is the reverse). What a coincidence. Spanish RS are valid but English RS have preference over them. I tend to read even though is difficult to quote whole articles in the Wikipedia's article editor. 95.17.250.138 (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Crystallizedcarbon The source you are trying to remove all the time is Is Catalonia Using Schools as a Political Weapon?, a source which has been reviewed and accepted in the article Catalan language as a source for the sentence "More recently, several Spanish political forces have tried to increase the use of Spanish in the Catalan educational system." SCC is a Spanish political force, the article can be used to add political context to SCC. The article also talks about alleged incidents of indoctrination in schools which SCC is liable for notifying some of them. They even went to the European Parliament to talk about that! Fortunately the article does not comment only on one side and brings independent, peer reviewed studies to the table and testimonials if you like them more, I personally don't. 95.17.250.138 (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Also, Mariano211 says that what he added should be added. The problem is that what he added was the same SCC says. So it's repeating the same again, because PETI was from the same people (Partido Popular, Vox, Cs except AEB in place of SCC) showing the same biased non peer reviewed studies lacking multifactorial analysis. For instance, they show bargraphs stating that children with castilian as mother tongue learning in catalan provides worse academic performance while ignoring the rest of variables like family income and place of birth. As stated in the article, PISA examinations don't show any difference. The catalan school system is already 30 years old. On top of that the source provided for PETI was a primary source which Wikipedia discourages to use. As you see I've read some of Wikipedia rules. Additionally he keeps saying that talking about spanish nationalism is a biased statement when it's just reproducing what the reliable source says. It's a fact that SCC is using many of the arguments of Spanish nationalism to attack the current model of catalan school system. 95.17.250.138 (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
To sum up: I accepted PETI but Crystallized Carbon removed it. No objection with that because it was repeating the same thing about catalan tuition language worsening academic performance but with a different actor: AEB instead of SCC, the rest are the same: PP, Vox, Cs and even the so called "studies" which Mariano211 asks for inclusion, which are already there and mentioned well before this PETI comission ocurred, because it's the same thing year after year. They have been repeating the same for years without success. I reject removing mentions to Spanish nationalism because it's clear that SCC is blaming Catalan school system the same way Spanish nationalists do, the reliable source states Spanish nationalists blame Catalan school system for fostering separatist sentiments, same does SCC. It's a contextualisation. I reject removing the reliable source providing the Spanish nationalism reference and independent studies because they are peer reviewed studies and because it's not a primary source so it can be easily understood and because it's independent, and because it helps providing different points of view from an independent stand point just like PISA examinations, not an interested party like the PETI comission from which many MEPs withdraw stating it was being manipulated by the person in chair, Dolors Montserrat. I think that's all. If there's something you don't understand please explain instead of editing again the article of Societat Civil Catalana. Because from both of you I only see removal of content you don't like, insults and lack of respect or courtesy. 95.17.250.138 (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
First of all, it is really funny that you feel victim of insults and lack of respect: the only person using insults from the very beginning is yourself, against both Crystallized Carbon and myself. Just look at the headings you chose for this section and the previous one: "Vandalism", does it show the courtesy and respect you claim?
You have of course the right to think whatever you want, but you can not transfer your ideology (Catalan nationalist, obviously) into Wikipedia. On Spanish nationalism and the link you want to establish with SCC, please refer to my previous interventions: if you were right, that would mean that Nobel Prize of Literature Vargas Llosa, current vice-president of the European Commission, the Catalan Socialist Josep Borrell, as well as the Catalan Socialist Party (which won last elections in Catalonia), share that extremist ideology... nobody can believe that seriously!
On the educational system, you only give credit and quote the studies (which you qualify as 'independent') in accordance to your own ideology. On this controversial issue and as I said in my last edit of the text yesterday evening, there are many studies with different conclusions: either we refer in a balances way to all of them (including the experts invited by the European Parliament recently, whose conclusions were widely shared by a think tank close to the Catalan Socialist party, as it appears in a quotation I introduced and you deleted), or we quote none of them. Otherwise, we would make a biased and partisan explanation of the matter Mariano211 (talk) 10:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm not translating my ideology, and I'm not catalan nationalist. Are you Spanish nationalist (obviously)? And, what if I was Catalan nationalist and you were Spanish nationalist? Nothing would change because facts are what is being accounted for here. And the fact is that SCC is using the same arguments of Spanish nationalism when they talk about indoctrination in Catalan schools as reliable sources state, reliable sources included in other articles. It doesn't matter who attends to their demonstrations. That's under the responsibility of the attendants if they want to be involved in such events and political discourse. This is not a matter of beliefs. As I said, reliable sources say what they say and you can't change that because you don't like them. Explain me: do reliable sources say that Spanish nationalism say that Catalan School System indoctrinates? Does SCC say that Catalan School System indoctrinates? The answer to both questions is yes[60] "Spanish nationalists have blamed Catalan-language instruction as a sinister force for fostering separatist sentiments. But the question of language and identity is much more complicated, as is Catalonia’s history of using its classrooms to foster unity." and [61] "Societat Civil Catalana denuncia en Bruselas el adoctrinamiento en las escuelas de Cataluña. La organización ha alertado de la instrumentalización política de la enseñanza [...] se transmite a los alumnos el falso concepto de que Cataluña es un país como India o Marruecos [...] muchos ejemplos que en los institutos catalanes se ofrece a los alumnos una visión distorsionada de la historia de nuestro país en los que la palabra España es la gran ignorada, y en la que ya está presente la idea de independencia del pueblo catalán". Hence the sentence in the page of Wikipedia. There's no judgement saying if they're extremist or not, only a statement acknowledging they agree in that point with that political spectrum. Can you demonstrate or provide sources saying otherwise (that Spanish nationalism doesn't believe in indoctrination or that SCC doesn't believe in indoctrination)? If so, then please bring them here.
With respect to the educational system, I don't give credit to anyone. I just restore the reliable sources already there in the article stating what SCC says (indoctrination, worse academic performance because of tuition in Catalan language, all exposed through their own studies in the European Parliament before the latest PETI commission) and what the rest of parties say (PISA examinations, peer reviewed studies) as exposed in reliable sources.
You are free to add the PETI commission if you want, I didn't remove that, I even added more information to that even though it does not belong to SCC activism nor provides context to SCC statements. You seem to forget the fact that the PETI commission was attended only by their proponents. The rest of parties withdrew because in their view it was biased and manipulated by the person in Chair Dolors Montserrat and her group [62] [63] [64], I was trying to respect the information you brought up while you did not respect what was already there, creating a partisan and biased section serving as an advertisement and propaganda. Also, that information you brought up talking about PETI was the same SCC talked about years before. They used the same studies. They are already in the Wikipedia page along with the talk about PISA examinations. So I don't understand why you state biased and partisan explanations when the different parties have their arguments explained. The bias you mention is non-existant. What you propose is remove anything you think doesn't work for SCC objectives and write an advertisement in Wikipedia. What I rejected, as I said, was the paragraph regarding that think tank. Can you explain why is relevant in an article talking about SCC? If they have the same point of view as SCC good for them, maybe we should start a new Wikipedia page talking about organisations who defend that using Catalan as tuition language is bad and that the Catalan School Model indoctrinates children. Something different is contextualising the ideas of SCC, for that you need reliable sources talking about those ideas to say that SCC is a political force belonging to that group of ideas, because you know, this Wikipedia page talks about SCC. 95.17.250.138 (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
See my last intervention under the previous section Mariano211 (talk) 09:34, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
It is simple, the section title is SCC activism. You removed information sourced by a valid RS that supports one view and inserted information that supports the opposite point one with a valid RS and one which was not. you refused to follow WP:BRD and kept edit warring. As I explained WP:NPOV should be respected and either both should be included or neither. If you do want to include both views on that controversial issue you should do it in a different section not in the activism section that just lists the actions of the group. also please remember to never make personal attacks: Wrongly accusing other editors of vandalism or of being paid by an organization is against our policies. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes, it's simple. The problem is that what you say is not true. I mean, I don't understand your reply. I don't know what you are talking about. You removed a paragraph talking about PETI commission, their proponents and detractors. A commission in which SCC was not participating and that did not bring any new view. It talked about the same views there are already in the article: alleged bad performance because of using Catalan as tuition language. That's up to you. You decided to remove that. Do I forget something? Please explain. 95.17.250.138 (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
I fear we will never get to an agreement if you insist on denigratory sentences like "Contrary to the beliefs of Spanish nationalism and related entities such as SCC" (see under Activism/5 December 2017, among your last additions), which is a purely personal conviction detached of any valid source.
Who can demonstrate who is a nationalist? who agrees to be one of them unless one willingly admits it (which by the way is the case of many pro Catalan independence movements, entities and persons)? I think Wikipedia administrators should settle this issue, that is, that personal convictions do not appear on Wikipedia as objective statements, to prevent you from entering the kind of sentences (as quoted) you insist on.
The problem is that establishing this kind of link between SCC and Spanish nationalism (or far right ideologies) is your goal, your only partisan purpose, as it was the case of many previous editors of this page. And that's why this page, well before my intervention, was under the heading "The neutrality of this article is disputed".
To understand your personal statements one must know that Catalan pro-independence entities and persons, always present those opposing such independence (among which SCC, no doubt) as Spanish nationalists, if not directly fascists in order to discredit them from the start. But, obviosusly, not by opposing independence you become a Spanish nationalist. And that's the whole story 95.17.250.138 wants to hide. Mariano211 (talk) 09:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Sorry but the article does not state that SCC is Spanish nationalist nor my intention is that. I insist again: the sentence states that SCC says the same as Spanish nationalism regarding that point (indoctrination). Nowhere is stated that SCC is Spanish nationalist. There's no "establishing a kind of link". Also, you state that Spanish nationalism is something similar to far right, that's your opinion too. Going by your interpretation I could say that you agree with SCC when they say that Catalan school model indoctrinates children on Catalan nationalism or far right ideologies. And that would be a false statement. But you don't have a problem with that, only with Spanish nationalism. Ironically, the reliable source argues that if indoctrination was a thing all spaniards who studied under the Francoist regime would have come out loving Franco and that's false [65] "Under the Franco regime, we were pumped full of information promoting a national spirit. We came out as loathing the Franco regime.". The article says many more things, but for some reason you are not interested in that. It's up to you if you view Spanish nationalism as a bad thing or good thing. The heading is on the page for many reasons. Another heading could be WP:PROMO if you apply your changes. I asked you a simple question based on what reliable sources say and you can't answer it. I asked also questions about why repeat the same content but with different actors which do not belong to SCC. You came here without reliable sources, inventing things that do not appear anywhere. The onus is on you, not me. You are challenging the content, not me. I think that's what WP:BURDEN is about. This is not a forum. Citations are needed. I can't continue this conversation unless you provide sources and explanations about the relevance of organisations you talked about and for stating that some terms are allegedly used only by pro-independence people. Maybe you should talk with Enric Ucelay-Da_Cal, a well known historian with extensive research in Spanish nationalism and Catalan nationalism who states things like the quote I put before about Franco and also that "The Catalan-instruction policy “will be attacked and has been attacked on and on by Spanish nationalists as a totalitarian practice,” the Barcelona-based historian Enric Ucelay-Da Cal told me. “But it’s vastly exaggerated.”" [66]. 95.17.250.138 (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
You are playing with words so as not to recognize the obvious: the link that you constantly want to establish between SCC and Spanish nationalism (whatever its representatives may be), without the slightest proof.
In the same way that someone who disagrees with you on Wikipedia (such as Crystallized Carbon or myself) is labeled a 'vandal', anyone who disagrees with the independence of Catalonia (such as half of its population, or SCC in our case) is automatically qualified as 'Spanish nationalist', without further ado. It is exactly the opposite of the principle of good faith that Wikipedia advocates.
This attitude is as absurd as pretending, for example, that the Quebecois or the Scots who opposed independence were Canadian or British nationalists. Once again, opposing the independence of a territory (in the case of SCC) is not at all equivalent to being a nationalist of the territory from which a part wants to separate.
Instead of always citing Spanish nationalism, why don't you assimilate SCC to the Catalan socialist party, the vice president of the EU or the Nobel Prize winner Vargas Llosa? These last cases of assimilation would be much more true than the one you cite, but you don't do it simply because then you don't achieve your denigratory objective.
Going through your interventions on Wikipedia, practically all of them have the exclusive objective of discrediting the SCC, and for this you present your partisan sources as if they were objective facts, and they are not at all. So, it is not a problem of sources as you pretend to avoid going into the underlying problem, but of the distorted and always partisan way in which you present those sources. If your attitude doesn't change, this will be a never ending story and after March 28 we will have exactly the same problems.
Finally, since I imagine that what really interests you is defending the independence of Catalonia, which is perfectly legitimate, instead of insulting those who oppose it and who are perfectly entitled to it, it would be better if you intervene in the pages of the multitude of entities that defend that independence and that also appear on Wikipedia. Mariano211 (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Maybe I was wrong by saying that you were vandalising the article, but the fact is that an admin has frozen the page and restored it previously to when you introduced your changes. Now, you keep moving the goalposts talking about many things such as the Quebecois. The Catalan socialist party, Vargas Llosa and Josep Borrell are already in the article. Attending a demonstration does not mean to fully support what the organiser says, in this case SCC. Did you find any quotes about them (PSC, Mario, Josep) regarding catalan indoctrination or about using Catalan language as tuition language? If so, put those sources too, nobody is blocking you from doing so. That could be added with a sentence like "they also agree with SCC and Spanish nationalists that there's indoctrination in the catalan school model", for example. Wikipedia, not me, asks for reliable sources for stating things. And this source that you tried to remove the whole time [67] (already included in Wikipedia's article Catalan language) is not a problem neither is Enric Ucelay-Da Cal. You state they're partisan but you can't say why nor provide sources refuting their statements. I'm not discrediting anyone, I'm respecting the reliable sources that you ignore and try to delete. You sound like a list of prejudices. And to finish, you are threatening with edit warring the article again after March 28. This is not a forum: WP:NOFORUM. This conversation leads to nowhere. If you can't read nor want to acknowledge the sources nor provide any source supporting that Enric's and The Atlantic's statements are biased, partisan or whatever (because the statements are not mine but theirs), this does not make any sense. 95.17.250.138 (talk) 13:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
There are multiple problems. For one the neutrality, as various reliable sources claim the opposite and a neutral point of view is part of one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. If that point of view of a disputed issue is included it should have been done with proper attribution and the oposite properly source point of view should also be included with its attribution. That is clearly stated in our policy. Additionally. You removed a reliable source with that opposite view claiming that it did not mention SCC but the one you kept on adding through edit warring did not either. I removed both because of that reason to keep it neutral and to not expand a complex issue on a section dedicated to the activism of the group.
The other major problem with the content you kept adding back is that it is original research and our policy clearly states that it is not allowed. The source does not directly state that studies have shown that national identity is not influenced by the education system. It mentioned the opinion of a lecturer at Yale on the matter "“It’s hard for me to believe that this [Catalonia’s education system] is going to have an effect today on people’s political-identification feelings,” said Hierro" but also that of a professor who said “There is little doubt that education has always been an important instrument at the hands of States to promote national identity among citizens.”. Cherry picking to use the voice of Wikipedia to advocate one side of an issue is against our policies. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Regarding the first point of neutrality, I don't know what reliable sources you are referring to, nor what points of view are you talking about. I did not keep adding anything, I was restoring content which is what an admin has done. I didn't remove any view, only an unrelated announcement from Federalistes d'Esquerres. You removed the PETI thing ([68][69][70]) and the opposing view to alleged indoctrination. As the SCC page is now, there are two points of view: those having the same point of view as SCC and those opposing that view, including academic research.
Regarding original research for some reason you are being ambiguous. Because you talk about studies, I think you refer to this source [71].
First of all, you don't mention the part of Spanish nationalism so I suppose you are ok with that. Secondly, let me quote the source: "Perhaps more important than public schools’ language policy in shaping kids’ political views is their parents’ political views. As María José Hierro, a political-science lecturer at Yale who’s studied national identity in multinational contexts, wrote in a 2015 paper, the more Catalan-oriented mothers felt, the less likely their children were to identify themselves as primarily Spanish. Given significant residential socioeconomic and ethnic segregation, Hierro found that where one lives has a significant impact on youths’ political views, too—children living in neighborhoods with high concentrations of immigrants, for instance, were less likely to say they identified themselves as “more Catalan than Spanish” or as “only Catalan.” What’s more, parents can steer their children into more- or less-Catalan-oriented education settings by, say, sending them to a school in a different neighborhood or opting for a private or public-private school." And it even gives you a link to the paper [72]. It's not an opinion, it's a peer reviewed paper and it clearly states that it's where one lives that has a significant impact on youths' political views. The other professor you quote ends with «But “the data do not seem to support the thesis that intervening Catalan education is an effective solution to defuse the independence movement.”» You forgot that second part. And then you also have the quotes of Enric Ucelay-Da_Cal. So the article was just pointing that out. It directly quotes and links the peer reviewed work of academia, including papers (also called studies). Data does not show that educational systems are effective at changing children's political views, contrary to what SCC, Spanish nationalists and others say.
There's no cherrypicking, no original research, just the view of SCC and those who think alike and the view of peer reviewed academical research. Both are being respected. Removing one would transform Wikipedia in what you say: an advocate of one side of an issue. In the article Spanish nationalism you will find more academical sources regarding changes in school syllabus, in this case the central government of Spain when it was in the hands of PP in the mid to late 90s [73] Page 17 of the PDF. I prefer to focus on the effectiveness of such changes rather than on if states do apply changes to syllabus or when did they do that. Otherwise it would be a lengthy paragraph going far beyond what the article is about. 95.17.250.138 (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
The section is called Activism and it just lists actions taken by the group. The event is:
On 5 December 2017, SCC denounces in Brussels an alleged indoctrination in schools of Catalonia in Catalan nationalism.[41] (Bold mine)
It just states a fact. It does not make any judgement in one way or another. Adding:
Contrary to the beliefs of Spanish nationalism and related entities such as SCC, studies show that the national identity is influenced by parents and neighbours, not the education system.[42]
Is wrong for the reasons I pointed out. It introduced a relation of SCC to "Spanish Nationalism" where that análisis is not made by the source. SCC is not mentioned anywhere in the article. it draws some conclusions not expressly stated in the source. Nowhere in the article does it state that the education system does not influence the national identity. just that it was hard to believe for one person that it would have influence. Not the same. Not by far. In another part of the article it states: “There is little doubt that education has always been an important instrument at the hands of States to promote national identity among citizens.” That is very clear even if the same person says that he feels that intervening the education would not be effective to defuse the independent movement, that does not invalidate his claim. The article does not explicitly state the conclusion that the education system does not influence the national identity so it is a clear case of original research.
The Activism section is not the place to get into a complex and controversial issue with conflicting views. And certainly not to use only one side of the issue to use the voice of Wikipedia to take one side. There are plenty of reliable sources that can be use to reference the opposite view. Just a couple of examples: Catalonia’s Education System: Indoctrination, Victimization, and Linguistic ‘Spies’, Catalan schools accused of indoctrinating children with pro-independence ideas. These are reliable sources and if the issue of indoctrination is included in detail in the article should also be used to be able to reach a neutral point of view that lets the readers make their own opinion. But again, The Activism section is not the place for that so the phrase that you kept adding back violating WP:3RR as is, violates WP:OR and WP:NPOV and must be removed. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for this contribution that only underlines what was obvious from the beginning and that any person of good faith understands.
I am pleased that 95.17.250.138 admits, for the first time and after several weeks, that he was wrong accusing me of being a 'vandal'. If he says it sincerely and not only to curry favor with Wikipedia, all he has to do is correct the title of the two 'headings' he created on this 'Talk page'. As is natural and in the future, I do not plan to discuss anything with 95.17.250.138 on this page under an insulting 'heading', as the Wikipedia administrator perfectly understood.
The 'cherry picking' of 95.17.250.138 seems obvious to me and there are multiple proofs of it. Remembering it every day is extremely tiring.
95.17.250.138 always presents its sources and its preferred authors as if they were the 'oracle of Delphi', the absolute and undisputed truth, which is contrary to the pillars and 'guidelines' of Wikipedia.
It is evident that we have to differentiate between purely objective and verifiable facts, from what are mere opinions, even if the latter appear in newspapers, in more or less independent academic studies, or are defended by more or less recognized professors. And this applies in particular in areas as controversial as language, history, politics, nationalism and many others. As long as 95.17.250.138 deliberately and partisan confuses the facts with the opinions that he simply likes, some of them not even documented (such as when he relates SCC to Spanish nationalism) it will be difficult to agree to contribute calmly and in good faith. Mariano211 (talk) 12:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)


Article protected

Edit warring, and instability of an article content in general, is unacceptable. The article is protected for 10 days while you work it out. Extended-confirmed editors and administrators can make noncontroversial changes via edit requests on this talk page during the duration of protection. All parties, please reaad WP:BURDEN, as it is relevant to any dispute. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Societat_Civil_Catalana/Archive_1&oldid=1151147890"