Talk:Societat Civil Catalana/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 March 2023

Remove the statement: "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]" from the "Activism" section

• It is WP:OR as it draws conclusions not expressly stated in the source. Nowhere in the article does it state that studies show that the education system does not influence the national identity.
• The Activism section should just list the relevant notable actions of the group without taking sides. Not the place to get into a complex and controversial issue with conflicting views not directly related to the group (the source does not even mention them).
• Violates WP:NPOV as it uses 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.
• I do not make the edit myself as I was a part of the content dispute with the WP:SPA IP that kept edit warring to add it back (please see talk section above where I was accused of vandalism). Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank-you Crystallizedcarbon for making this as an edit request rather than doing the change yourself while the article is EC-protected. I have removed the sentence, although the reference is still present where used in a later section. The source linked here for convenience is quite balanced but, importantly, does not mention the SCC so is not directly relevant to this section detailing their activism in 2017. It covers both points of view on the issue of Catalan-language teaching, since it says inter alia 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. (recognising the complexity) “Catalonia has the dubious honour of being the only place in the Western world where the majority of the population do not even have the option of enrolling their children in schools that teach in their native language” of Spanish, wrote Nacho Martin Blanco (supporting the idea that the SCC might call teaching in Catalan "indoctrination") and Perhaps more important than public schools’ language policy in shaping kids’ political views is their parents’ political views. (weakly supporting the sentence I removed but note no mention of SCC and the word "perhaps"). Finally, the article also says Indeed, the scholars and Catalans I spoke to fervently dismissed the possibility that language was serving as a political dividing force and that the region’s schools are perpetuating pro-secession sentiments. After all, Catalan-language education has been in place for decades, and the immediate origin of the current political crisis arguably dates back only two years which is strong support for retaining the sentence, except a) that is a primary source in this context and b) does not mention the SCC. Thus, on balance I feel the sentence is best removed.

I recommend that further suggestions for development of the article be made here on its Talk Page first, to gain consensus, rather than by direct incorporation. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

You removed a sentence in agreement with Crystallizedcarbon on this page, thanks. I think that, in addition and for exactly the same reasons as explained by Crystallizedcarbon above, and also because the same kind of wrong source is quoted, the following sentence appearing at the end of the chapter 'Activism' should be deleted too and for consistency reasons: 'This belief is aligned with the rhetoric used by Spanish nationalism'. Thanks for your attention Mariano211 (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Mariano211 (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

This is a lengthy reply suggesting a reword of the removed content. It's mostly a series of quotes. I reworded the removed sentence with new references. There's enough literature to state that SCC have points in common with Spanish nationalism, from saying the same regarding the Catalan public education to being directly characterized as Spanish nationalists. I put it in other words and with references:

On 5 December 2017, SCC denounces in Brussels an alleged indoctrination in schools of Catalonia in Catalan nationalism.[1] The alleged instrumentation of public education has been a common argument among Spanish nationalists and related entities such as SCC [2][3][4][5]. However, data shows that the most decisive factor in changing children's political views is their social networking revolving around their own parents, children and neighbors [6][7]. Data suggests that schools can't be the source of the increase of catalan independentism either [8][9]. There has also been a rectification from a local section of the political party Citizens regarding an alleged case of indoctrination [10][11] stated in a report of SCC [12]. Moreover, Catalan public education syllabus depends on the central government of Spain too, whose history syllabus has been modified to accommodate the political views of the elected central government [13]

Page 17 of the PDF linked in the last reference:

"Some of the policies implemented by the conservative PP government have shown the implications behind this concept of nation. Special attention was paid to the promotion of Castilian language in schools, particularly in Catalonia and the Basque Country where regional governments’ linguistic policies of ‘Catalanization’ and ‘Basquization’ were regarded as an attack on Spanish speaker. The teaching of history also became part of the political battleground. By incorporating common topics of Spanish history into the syllabus, the central government reforms of the history curriculum sought to prevent the so-called ‘regional atomization’ of the teaching of history (Pérez et al., 2000)."

Spanish nationalists have changed the syllabus, too. And that is an academic paper. SCC is not mentioned but SCC statements [14] clearly use teaching of history as a political battleground. They argue an alleged lack of neutrality in textbooks and teaching in order to indoctrinate children into Catalan nationalism, ignoring the fact that in Catalonia as it happens in the rest of Spain, the basic syllabus is provided by the Spanish government. Does the Spanish government indoctrinate into Spanish nationalism? These Spanish nationalist arguments are also stated in The Atlantic's article, at the beginning mentioning only Catalan-language instruction, but later also states the curricula or syllabus are also a concern of the then Spanish congress and the Ministry of Education, at that time under the reigns of (PP. This article [15] from El Salto Diario also describes that line of thinking of going from opposing the use of Catalan language as tuition language (instruction in Catalan language) to also include in their arguments alleged indoctrination into Catalan nationalism. Political parties and associations including Societat Civil Catalana use those arguments as per this source. It's like a pack of arguments. Indoctrination and language immersion go hand in hand.

I have used references to Spanish news papers Arainfo and El Mundo characterizing SCC as Spanish nationalist. Quotes from them:

[16] La SCC es algo así como el alterego españolista de la Assemblea Nacional Catalana (ANC), aunque las dos niegan esta relación tienen algo en común, ambas son asociaciones civiles que trabaja por un objetivo político concreto. En el caso de SCC por defender la españolidad de Catalunya.

[17] Y ahora, ¿qué? Es el dilema que afrontan los españolistas. Unos, como SCC, optan por mantener la movilización callejera. Otros, como C's, creen que ha sido un movimiento imprescindible, pero puntual. «Las mayorías se demuestran en las urnas», afirma De Páramo. «No podemos manejar la democracia contando manifestantes, sino votos».

There are more. This from Naiz [18] and these [19][20] from Público in which SCC organizes Spanish nationalist demonstrations. In fact, all of their demonstrations are of Spanish nationalist nature.

The reference from Libertad Digital in the lead paragraph of this Wikipedia page [21] states that SCC is the anti-ANC. They define it as the opposite of anti-ANC, what is the opposite of a Catalan nationalist organization other than a Spanish nationalist organization?

Regarding the alleged indoctrination and the refutation of it from scientific studies, the article from The Atlantic not only talks about teaching in Catalan language but also about the educational system as a whole. Yes, they quote the education inspector telling that indoctrination occurs through catalan language immersion program and put this reference about using Catalan language being key to identify as Catalan [22]. But they also quote Spain's Congress and Ministry of Education concerns about curricula and teachers' messaging, which SCC also states as a problem. The article from The Atlantic also directly quotes academic research stating that the decisive influence comes from where the children live, their parents and their neighborhood, that is, their social network, which may or may not include more Catalan speakers:

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."

This is not a personal opinion, it's a finding obtained from academical research, and the language is not mentioned at all. The abstract of the peer reviewed paper can be read here, linked from The Atlantic: [23]. Quote:

The results, which draw on the analysis of a household survey, suggest that more years of schooling makes more likely that individuals develop a dual identity; however, parents' attachment to Catalonia is key in fostering an exclusive identification with Catalonia. Results also suggest that residence in neighbourhoods in which the proportion of natives and immigrants from other regions of Spain favours contact between children from different identity backgrounds is decisive in promoting a more Catalan-oriented identification between second generations.

More years of schooling means refers to more years of socialization with other children, not indoctrination by teachers or textbooks. To develop an exclusive identification with Catalonia having parents attached to Catalonia is a necessary condition. And to develop a more Catalan-oriented identification it is needed to have children from different identity backgrounds in the same school. Textbooks and teaching are not considered an influential factor to children political views.

From the same article of The Atlantic, there's this quote from Lluís Orriols:

“There is little doubt that education has always been an important instrument at the hands of States to promote national identity among citizens.” But “the data do not seem to support the thesis that intervening Catalan education is an effective solution to defuse the independence movement.”

It's not an opinion, it's not a feeling. It's data from his research. But if you want, you can also access Lluís Orriols article in Spanish, linked from The Atlantic's article with a nice graph [24] which states that

"Los datos permiten afirmar que el movimiento independentista no puede explicarse recurriendo al adoctrinamiento y la inculcación de identidades nacionales por parte de la educación pública catalana".

And also from that same article in Spanish which The Atlantic links,

«Ciertamente, existen pocas dudas de que la educación ha sido, de siempre, un importante instrumento a manos de los Estados para fomentar la identidad nacional entre los ciudadanos. En este sentido, no se trataría de una práctica idiosincrática de las instituciones catalanas, sino que también ocurriría en el conjunto de España y el resto de países que nos rodean. Un buen ejemplo de ello son las declaraciones del exministro de educación José Ignacio Wert en el Congreso de los Diputados acerca de la voluntad del Gobierno Central de intentar " españolizar a los alumnos catalanes"».

And it continues with

«Ciertamente, con estos datos no podemos refutar que la educación pública catalana sea inocua en la construcción de identidades nacionales. Sin embargo, sí podemos afirmar con cierta comodidad que el movimiento independentista no puede explicarse recurriendo al adoctrinamiento y la inculcación de identidades nacionales por parte de la educación pública catalana. Si bien es cierto que los jóvenes son más independentistas que los mayores, el diferencial entre estos dos grupos no ha aumentado en los últimos años. En debate público no siempre impera el rigor y la argumentación basada en la evidencia. Un buen ejemplo de ello son las acusaciones de la educación catalana como motor del independentismo. Quien desee huir de los prejuicios y del argumentario propio de la trinchera política hará bien en intentar buscar culpables en otros lugares más allá de las aulas catalanas. El importante incremento de partidarios de un Estado catalán no se debe a un efecto cohorte, esto es, de reemplazo de nuevas generaciones educadas en el franquismo por otras que lo han hecho bajo las políticas educativas de la Generalitat de Catalunya. Se debe más bien a un efecto de período cuyas causas pueden ser diversas.»

So basically it states that the data tells you to have to look elsewhere out of schools for the causes of the raise of independentism. We also need the meaning of indoctrination:

[25] The process of repeating an idea or belief to someone until they accept it without criticism or question.

Nowhere in the Wikipedia page is stated that States around the world do not want to influence their children. But SCC not only they argue a lack of neutrality in Catalan public school syllabus ignoring the fact that Spanish government also provides contents to that syllabus, but that the syllabus is being used to indoctrinate children into Catalan nationalism (repeating ideas until children accept them). Research refutes that Catalan public education is effective on changing or transforming children's political views to become independentists. It's their social networking what can change their views. And even then it doesn't necessarily mean they become independentists.

Finally, maybe the suggestion at the beginning of this reply should be added at the end of the Activism section instead of the list of events which SCC organized.

Regarding WP:3RR, Mariano211 started it all. 95.17.250.138 (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Michael D. Turnbull: Thank you for your help. I have to disagree with you final statement however. I believe that the RS could reference the statement: "According to some scholars the exclusive use of Catalan language in schools does not contribute to perpetuating pro-secession sentiments" or something similar. It is covering exclusively the language side of the issue which is also as the source admits extremely complex. But many reliable sources do talk about actual indoctrination which was not in the scope of that article. In the two articles I linked in my edic request you can see some of the issues not related to the linguistic model which may relate more to the "indoctrination" claim by SCC than the linguistic model. That is why it would be WP:OR to source form that reference that the education system (as a whole) does not influence the national identity. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@Crystallizedcarbon I was trying to justify removing the particular sentence from where it lay previously. I agree that your new wording (with the same source) would be a valid addition to the article and I suggest putting it in the "Criticism" section rather than the "Activism" section. That should be acceptable to Mariano211, who also dislikes its use to discredit the activism. I hope that the IP editor will also agree that keeping the material (as criticism) is fine. Please continue to work with them both to improve the article, which is what we are all striving to do. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks to both of you for your contributions and for making the article less ideologically partisan due to past interventions by editors whose sole aim is to discredit SCC. I agree with the new wording and its new location because in these conditions it is an objective fact. With the same purpose of seeking objectivity and as Crystallizedcarbon quite rightly said on March 22 at 11:22, "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". It is for this reason that I also insist on deleting the phrase "This belief is aligned with the rhetoric used by Spanish nationalism" found in the last paragraph of the same section. This is a purely ideological and biased statement (like any other of the same style) that should not appear on Wikipedia, neither in this section nor in any other Mariano211 (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull I have replied you above with a new proposal for the paragraph. It has additional sources. 95.17.250.138 (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

IP editor. It is not only me you have to convince. The aim is to achieve WP:CONSENSUS for each change to the article. There is a problem summarised in WP:TLDR: it is much better to make one suggestion at a time and gain agreement (or not) for it, with each proposal discussed in a subsection of its own for everyone's convenience. So I suggest you choose the single item you currently feel it is most important to alter and succinctly (in the form "change X to Y" or "add Z", with sources) create a new Section below to discuss it. This section is already too long. It would also show your good faith to strike out the word vandalism (hence reading as vandalism) in the section headings above. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull: I agree. Thank you again for your contributions. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull: I added a new section below. 95.17.250.138 (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Noted. And thanks for the striking out, as I requested. It may be a while before I can comment further. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

That proposal seems like it's an opinion or self published work when, unless I'm wrong, the works are a manuscript result of peer reviewed research (except in the case of Lluís Orriols) such as the one cited in this work , citation which corresponds to this other work from a publisher ranked in Scholarly Publishers Indicators. . And that wording only mentions the language immersion program (Catalan-instruction). I think it's better to write it as "academic research found that the Catalan school model [...]", because it's not only instruction in Catalan language what they refer to. The journalistic article from The Atlantic mentions curricula and teacher's messaging being a concern for some people. The then education inspector argues that in "large" part indoctrination happens through the language immersion. "Large part" is not all. Then it continues talking about language immersion and changes to "indoctrination" after the perhaps, going from the analysis on what's decisive to conform political views to whether schools have any effect. There's also a link to this article from Orriols (journalistic article, not published in academia) which talks about schools as a whole, not the language immersion program, and concludes that an alleged factor of indoctrination in schools can't explain the increase of catalan independentism.

The work of researchers regarding indoctrination also works on the Catalan school model as a whole, as cited before and as cited in. Citation can be found in Google Scholar as PDF without registering.

So, to put it as I think it's better, the phrase would read

According to some scholar reports and academic research, schooling children in the Catalan public education contributes from hardly nothing to nothing in instilling pro-secession sentiments. In opinion of some scholars, equivalent to the effectiveness of the schooling in any other education system in the rest of Spain or other countries in fostering a national identity attached to that system's country or region.

95.17.250.138 (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

References

2019 sentence about Manifest: La societat civil de Catalunya, per la dignitat

The paragraph regarding the 2019 sentence is wrong. The sentence can be read here [26]. The judge did not assess the relationships of the different members of SCC with extreme right-wing organizations. He argued that what the members do at an individual level does not affect the organization's official acts. He also excluded the journalistic research book "Dismantling Catalan Civil Society" (Desmuntant Societat Civil Catalana) for being published after the manifesto. In no case did the judge doubt the veracity of the documentation provided. The sentence is about SCC making pro-nazi or pro-francoism speeches or having a discourse like that, as depicted in [27] and the reference in the article [28]. For some reason, ABC [29] writes that the sentence denies links with far-right organisations. The sentence has this paragraph:

De lo expuesto en los documentos anteriormente reseñados, cuyo contenido total se da por reproducido, en ninguno de ellos se aprecia por este juzgador que exista prueba alguna que permita afirmar que SCC defiende de los crímenes contra la humanidad del nazismo y el franquismo; o que hace exaltación del nazismo y del franquismo; o apologia del nazismo y el franquismo, que es lo que se le imputa(no se entra aquí a analizar lo relativo a la persona física igualmente objeto de las imputaciones, que no es parte en este procedimiento).

For the judge it's different saying that SCC is a far-right organization from saying it has links with far-right organizations and from saying that some of its members belong to far-right organizations or participate in far-right activities, which by reading the book the judge did not review Desmuntant Societat Civil Catalana you can find plenty of material about the beginnings of SCC and how far-right members collaborated with it. Javier Barraycoa is one example.

The paragraph in Wikipedia does not differentiate between SCC and its members. 95.17.250.138 (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

please see my comments below Mariano211 (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Change Activism section sentence

Change:

On 5 December 2017, SCC denounces in Brussels an alleged indoctrination in schools of Catalonia in Catalan nationalism.

to:

On 5 December 2017, SCC denounces in Brussels an alleged indoctrination in schools of Catalonia in Catalan nationalism.[30] The alleged instrumentation of public education has been a common argument among Spanish nationalists and related entities such as SCC [31][32] (page 17)[33][34][35]. However, data shows that the most decisive factor in changing children's political views is their social networking revolving around their own parents, children and neighbors [36][37]. Data suggests that schools can't be the source of the increase of catalan independentism either [38][39]. There has also been a rectification from a local section of the political party Citizens regarding an alleged case of indoctrination [40][41] stated in a report of SCC [42]. Moreover, Catalan public education syllabus depends on the central government of Spain too, whose history syllabus has been modified to accommodate the political views of the elected central government [43] (page 17)

Or add in Criticism section:

Regarding the alleged instrumentation of public education, this has been a common topic among Spanish nationalists and related entities such as SCC [44][45] (page 17) [46][47][48]. However, data shows that the most decisive factor in changing children's political views is their social networking revolving around their own parents, children and neighbors [49][50]. Data suggests that schools can't be the source of the increase of catalan independentism either [51][52]. There has also been a rectification from a local section of the political party Citizens regarding an alleged case of indoctrination [53][54] stated in a report of SCC [55]. Moreover, Catalan public education syllabus depends on the central government of Spain too, whose history syllabus has been modified to accommodate the political views of the elected central government [56] (page 17)

Users on previous section state that some scholars talk about instruction in Catalan-language. I have to disagree with that. The article from The Atlantic not only talks about concerns of Spanish nationalists and others regarding the language used for instruction. It also says that curricula and syllabus in Catalonia are a problem for them as per the Ministry of Education and the Spanish Congress at the time, under the reigns of PP. The provided research by those scholars is not made in terms of instruction in Catalan-language but in terms of the public education as a whole. Their statements regarding the effects of public education in political views are the conclusions of their research, not an opinion.

The indoctrination which SCC talks about in the Activism section is regarding curricula and behaviour teachers and parent associations. But they also want to end with language immersion [57] El "fin del sistema de inmersión lingüística y del adoctrinamiento escolar" es una de las principales exigencias de la entidad constitucionalista (link not in change proposal).

I have added some sources which characterize SCC as being Spanish nationalist ("españolista") (Arainfo, El Mundo), hence the "related entities such as SCC" and how right-wing media attacks the Catalan public education (language immersion, curricula) some times using unverified reports from SCC.

So from one side, Spanish nationalists want to end with the current public education system in Catalonia which includes both language immersion and syllabus, associations/organizations of parents, teachers (the alleged indoctrination) because they believe that it is a factor for the increase in Catalan nationalism. Then you have data showing that public education is not a factor causing change in political views (that's why a scholar states that if it was effective all people from Spain would love Franco). That's what is what it is being described. 95.17.250.138 (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your proposed change. It's original research, it's the wrong place in the article for such a complex issue and other reliable sources should also be used to achieve a neutral point of view.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:58, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Once again IP takes a purely personal ideological position by linking Spanish nationalism to SCC, with the exclusive and partisan goal of denigrating the latter, which is not admissible. I will be out next days with limited access to internet. I understand the date of 28 March will be postponed until agreement is found on key issues appearing in this section and beyond. Many thanks 2A02:A020:180:77E:F524:3BED:38DE:E698 (talk) 08:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I realise that when using iPhone instead of my usual computer, I will not have access to in the following days, the name 'Mariano' does not appear, but it is the same user Mariano211 (talk) 08:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

It don't find where's the original research. All the statements are backed by sources. Each sentence is followed by the sources which say what is being noted in the sentence. And the sources are reliable sources from left to right of the political spectrum and from academic research. Please note that I suggest two places. Either Activism section or Criticism section. I think you refer to Activism. Then put it in Criticism. 95.17.250.138 (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the alleged indoctrination and the data rebutting it, you can find this additional source [58] (Soler, Sergi, and Steven Forti. "Los relatos del procés: discurso y propaganda en la política catalana (2012-2017)."), pages 56-57 or 55-56 by the numbers in each page: Así mismo, SCC, agrupación cercana al partido, lanzaba en junio de 2015 una campaña en contra del adoctrinamiento en las escuelas donde se anima a la ciudadanía a denunciar practicas que se pudiesen considerar de adoctrinamiento, como por ejemplo carteles políticos o prohibiciones de usar alguna de las lenguas oficiales. Algunos periódicos de ámbito nacional como La Razón se hicieron eco de esta campaña.46Este argumento sobre el adoctrinamiento como culpable del crecimiento independentista que también defendió el ministro Wert en 201247, no obstante, es rebatido con datos por algunos estudiosos como Fernando Molina y Alejandro Quiroga, quienes critican la poca solidez de las acusaciones poniendo de manifiesto el rápido crecimiento del movimiento nacionalista catalán y argumentan que «esta lectura obvia que esas mismas políticas nacionalizadoras estuvieron operando durante tres décadas en las que el respaldo a la independencia estuvo siempre por debajo del 20%. Cuando el secesionismo creció de forma vertiginosa, a partir de 2010, lo hizo en todos los grupos de edad y en todo el espectro ideológico.» (Molina y Quiroga, 2017: 61). Según estos datos aportados por Molina y Quiroga, el adoctrinamiento no tendría influencia en la creación de independentistas en el procés, por lo que este argumento entraría dentro de una de las técnicas de manipulación de masas que describía Timsit referida a la creación de problemas inexistentes para después ofrecer soluciones para éstos. 95.17.250.138 (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The more I read of the article and its Talk Page, the more I realise that both are a mess! Concerning the specific edit suggestion by 95.17.250.138 in this Section, I think that there is a strong case for part of the "criticism" section to be based on one of the suggested references, this one. This article is a detailed secondary source for events in 2017 and includes commentary on how various Spanish media reported the alleged "indoctrination" in Catalan schools. It mentions SCC in several places. My summary of it would be:

In 2017, SCC were accused of being selective in their use of PISA data to promote their views about the "indoctrination" of schoolchildren and of providing biased reports to the media.

References

I make no comment on the rest of 95.17's suggestion as I have not yet analysed its sources. However, the .pdf (p. 17 mentioned) is certainly not relevant as it refers to a time period long before the formation of SCC. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

To me that sentence is ok. Maybe instead of being accused, it was found that they did that. But I prefer to wait for your opinion once you read the rest. 95.17.250.138 (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The article used as a source is a translation from a Catalan article written by Eloi Latorre. According to the publisher directa.cat it is not subject to editorial control and the original was deleted a few months after being published in November 2017 (checked in Archive.org). The author said that El Mundo, a Newspaper from Spain, mentioned as its source the PISA report in an article when it actually used a report by SCC based on PISA that also included their own conclusions. The author implies a bias in the conclusion but I don't see a direct accusation or any indication in the article that the reported percentages were incorrect. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

That Directa.cat editorial system is an assembly it doesn't mean that there's no control. They state they have coordinators for their collaborators and collectively decide what to publish. It's supposed they review what they publish like a professional newspaper would do. El Salto Diario works like a traditional newspaper and it's supposed to review what they publish, even more if it's not in the Opinion section, as is the case of the article being discussed.

The article says that the data provided by SCC and used by El Mundo is biased. It's at the beginning of the paragraph: "El diario El Mundo, el día 16, se esforzaba en vestirlo con datos,". It's different being correct from giving the appearance of being correct. 95.17.250.138 (talk) 23:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The source is a live URL to the website of a Wikipedia-notable publication, El Salto (newspaper), so I see no reason to exclude it. The political leanings of the author are irrelevant, whether pro- or anti-SCC, since our article includes both with due weight. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I am of course, not against including opinions in the criticism section provided it is done with due attribution and that opposing opinions are also included with their attribution to maintain a neutral point of view that lets readers make up their own minds. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I could not agree more with these last considerations, because this position is the one I have defended from the beginning: we must differentiate clearly between opinions (some of them partisan and biased) and verifiable facts. In order to realise the (lack of) neutrality and objectivity of the author Eloi Latorre in this debate, just visit his Instagram page: you will be confronted to several pro-independence Catalan flags, and even from a separatist political party… 188.5.26.87 (talk) 08:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

This is the first and only edit from this IP, so please explain "one I have defended from the beginning" and ensure you are logged in when making future comments Wikipedia can and does use sources that are neither neutral nor objective but summarizes them to our best abilities so articles here comply with policies and guidelines. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

From the beginning means a month ago, when I started my intervention on this page. I had problems with logging in during the past days because I could not use my normal PC. It should be back to normal from now on. Mariano211 (talk) 09:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Following last changes introduced by 95.17.250.138, I created a new section under 'Talk'. Thanks for your attention Mariano211 (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

For my own convenience and to make it easier to refer to the citations, I have rewritten 95.17's suggested edit thus:

Regarding the alleged instrumentation of public education, this has been a common topic among Spanish nationalists and related entities such as SCC. However, data shows that the most decisive factor in changing children's political views is their social networking revolving around their own parents, children and neighbors. Data suggests that schools can't be the source of the increase of catalan independentism either. There has also been a rectification correction from a local section of the political party Citizens regarding an alleged case of indoctrination stated in a report of SCC. Moreover, Catalan public education syllabus depends on the central government of Spain too, whose history syllabus has been modified to accommodate the political views of the elected central government.

References

I have translated all the Spanish articles using Google translate, since my own Spanish is poor. Anyone who wants these versions can request them from me by email: obviously it would be a WP:COPYVIO to link them here. My assessmant of the sources (using author's surname for the named refs) is:

Wong. Good English-language source already in the article.

Hierro. Excellent academic source for background but mainly uses data from 2005, so out-of-date for SCC's concerns, which it does not mention.

Latorre. Politically biased but detailed secondary source for SCC's media statements

Suarez. Useful account of the October 2017 demonstration in Barcelona.

Montalar. Opinion piece politically biased against SCC but interesting as it says "Gone are the days when the visible faces of SCC had a direct relationship with far-right parties.

Orriols. Blog, so less useful than other sources and not making many points not made elsewhere.

Talegon. Brief article noting how one allegation of "indoctrination" was incorrect but not discussing all the rest of SCC's 335-page report.

Albertus. As Talegon

Fernandez. Good secondary source for summary of SCC's report. Do we have a cite for the report itself?

More to follow.... Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

This is likely to be my final contribution to this Talk Page, as others who are more interested than me are now properly engaged in discussion and the page protection has expired. My advice is that the article needs a complete overhaul to focus only on the SCC and in particular its role in the 2017 demonstrations, which is its main claim to notability. The Spanish, Catalan and French versions are useful for more text with sources (I have translations of all of these if anyone is interested). More general political points would be better included in Catalan nationalism [100 pageviews/day], 2017 Catalan independence referendum [270 pageviews/day] or Education in Catalan [6 pageviews/day] than here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your work, I really appreciate. I also agree with your advice pointing to a complete overhaul. However, the Catalan version is fully contaminated by propaganda introduced by Catalan pro-independence authors. As indicated below "Wikipedia must not allow its pages to be used by people whose only interest is to denigrate SCC as another tool to defend their separatist positions. The latter are legitimate but they should be stressed elsewhere" Mariano211 (talk) 09:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

It's also important to note that in the foundation of SCC they were attached to people from the far-right. That's very relevant. Journalist Jordi Borras wrote a book about that. Currently that information is not well written. 95.17.250.138 (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I added the paragraph. The Hierro reference was duplicated, I added Quiroga. 95.17.250.138 (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I added Quiroga because you said it was the outdated reference, although you refer to Hierro in your proposal. Hierro's reference is from 2015. Quiroga's is from 2005. So I suppose you refer to Quiroga. Thank you for your contributions. 95.17.250.138 (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

General comments regarding this discussion

My feeling is that this discussion leads nowhere: one can not honestly pretend that on this controversial issue there is just one valid point of view, namely that of 95.17. For instance, the debate at the European Parliament (I provided even the recording, so everyone can hear what was said), gave the floor to serious experts with completely different ideas. Crystallizedcarbon provided also some articles days ago, among others anyone can find easily, to prove that there are different positions on indoctrination and linguistics in Catalonia in general. We could fill pages and pages with contradictory quotations defending opposite positions. Perhaps the easiest thing would be to simply delete the whole sentence, along with several other controversial ones we could discuss later. Indeed, the starting point should be that no one holds the whole truth in this kind of debates, so absolute statements should be avoided, as the pillars and guidelines of Wikipedia underline. Mariano 109.139.249.28 (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Of course there is more than one valid point of view: there are probably as many points of view as there are people interested in the topic! It is our job as Wikipedia editors to present the views neutrally and with due weight and not to state opinions as facts, especially in "Wikipedia's voice". The core sourcing principle of Wikipedia is WP:Verifiability, not truth Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I fully agree with these considerations. Let's apply them correctly: Wikipedia must not allow its pages to be used by people whose only interest is to denigrate SCC as another tool to defend their separatist positions. The latter are legitimate but they should be stressed elsewhere Mariano211 (talk) 09:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Considerations related to the 'Criticism' chapter

Following the last edits Mariano211 (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

To guide and make the discussion rational, it would be good and very useful to take as a starting point some of the latest considerations of the Wikipedia administrators. For example:

- Crystallizedcarbon dated March 22 against “using only one side of the issue to use the voice of Wikipedia to take one side… 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.” Or dated March 28: “I am of course, not against including opinions in the criticism section provided it is done with due attribution and that opposing opinions are also included with their attribution to maintain a neutral point of view that lets readers make up their own minds”.

- Michael D. Turnbull on March 30: “Of course there is more than one valid point of view: there are probably as many points of view as there are people interested in the topic! It is our job as Wikipedia editors to present the views neutrally and with due weight and not to state opinions as facts, especially in "Wikipedia's voice".

Neither Crystallizedcarbon nor I are administrators, although we are both experienced editors familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I take these quotes as a starting point because, as long as 95.17.250.138 always insists on presenting his personal opinions and the quotes he likes as THE TRUTH, this discussion will become endless. Therefore, expressions such as 'data shows...', 'data suggests...' that appear in its latest edition of April 8 are not neutral because they only reflect and recognize a thesis. The other thesis is also widely documented in numerous texts, such as the recent interventions in the PETI committee of the European Parliament, the articles that Crystallizedcarbon found without any difficulty on the net, or plenty of sources you can find under this link: http://www.sociedadeslibres.com/informe_educacion_independencia.pdf.

This chapter insists again and without any evidence (except for the classic articles by partisan people linked to the Catalan independence movement) in qualifying SCC as "Spanish nationalist" with the sole objective of disqualifying the entity. However, and although 95.17.250.138 does not like it, the ruling of the Supreme Court of Catalonia of January 2019 ruled out such accusations and even sentenced its promoters to a penalty of €15,000, as it appears in the last paragraph of this chapter.

In any case, and since 95.17.250.138 insists on the subject by citing a book by Jordi Borrás as irrefutable 'proof', with the same logic ('reductio ad absurdum') we would also have to conclude without any doubt that there is indeed “School indoctrination in Catalonia”, since there is also a whole book (at least) that defends this thesis:https://www.casadellibro.com.co/libro-el-adoctrinamiento-escolar-en-cataluna/9788494818783/12436535 Mariano211 (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why you bring PETI when it is not talking about SCC claims but AEB/AMES/other claims. You should read this https://revistaseug.ugr.es/index.php/profesorado/article/view/11550 which is from a notable journal, not self published, and shows that the self published article posted on PETI is based on a wrong statistical analysis. But anyways, the real problem I see in your reply is that it fails to understand what criticism is. The section is about criticism of SCC claims, not about indoctrination claims of AEB/AMES nor PETI commissions in which SCC does not appear. 90.167.94.96 (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I refer to PETI, as well as numerous other documents on the same subject, simply because you take advantage of this chapter to present your opinions and your sources as if it were an objective truth ("data shows... data suggests...") , which is contrary to the neutral point of view advocated by Wikipedia and its editors, as can be read a few lines above. But curiously and again, according to you, the contrary points of view are "based on a wrong statistical analysis" (sic). I could say the same of yours, but I never do because I recognize and respect opinions that differ from mine, something that you have not done yet.

Regarding your insistence on classifying SCC as a Spanish nationalist entity, perhaps the explanation is at the bottom of the page under 'See also' (a chapter that would have to be eliminated or reformulated), where you can read: "Spanish nationalism, political ideology asserting the unity of Spain". This is absurd, it is a corruption of language and demonstrates the degree of ideological contamination introduced by pro-independence activist publishers. Indeed, if all the people who are in favor of the unity of their country are considered nationalists, then probably the majority of the people are. And this starting with the Catalans themselves, whose majority opposes the independence of Catalonia from the rest of Spain, and therefore are Spanish nationalists according to that absurd definition.

Since this is an English-speaking page, it would suffice to cite a couple of clear cases to illustrate the situation: Scottish Labour Gordon Brown was opposed to Scottish independence, but that does not make him a British nationalist; Justin Trudeau, the current president of Canada, is against the independence of Quebec, but he is not for that reason a Canadian nationalist. Mariano211 (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

The IP user you are answering wasn't me. 95.17.250.138 (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Last edit

In this diff [59] a phrase correctly referenced in reference 106 was removed alleging OR (I suppose it's Original Research). I won't comment other recent additions as I have not read them entirely. I can say though that PISA does not assess some of the parameters which CCC claims to use PISA as source, for example the comfortability of Spanish-speaking pupils in Catalan schools. 95.17.250.138 (talk) 13:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

ABOUT THE PISA REPORTS

On April 16 at 4:42 p.m. you modified the text that I had entered and qualified the reports and sources cited as 'flawed'. As always, you present your sources as indisputable, while those you don't like are 'flawed'.

Here you will find a complete report by the professors of the University of Barcelona Jorge Calero and Alvaro Choi (published in the prestigious Educational Research and Evaluation journal, 2022), based on a detailed analysis of the data from the 2015 PISA reports, which reach the conclusions that you try to discredit. FYI there is a whole chapter (pages 23 to 28) that explains the data and the methodology that allow these conclusions to be reached and that rules out that these reports can be classified as 'flawed'.

The prof. Calero is the former president of the Higher Council for Evaluation of the Educational System of Catalonia, that is, a true specialist on the subject.

In short, there is no reason why the opinion of Mr. Terricabras has to be presented as correct, while that of two authentic specialist professors of the subject from the University of Barcelona has to be disqualified. Obviously, either the two points of view are collected, or neither of the two.

Therefore, I propose the following alternatives:

- Delete the word 'flawed' from your biased wording, or

- Delete the last two sentences of the paragraph (opinions of Terricabras and contrary opinions such as Professor Calero's) from the 'Activism' part and eventually include them, but evenly, in the 'Criticism' part, or

- Delete the entire paragraph, since the subject is already covered indirectly in other places on the same page Mariano211 (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Your reply is unrelated to the topic discussed in this section. 95.17.250.138 (talk) 00:45, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I do not understand what you mean. Your comment of 17 April at 13:36 talks about PISA. I replied to it. And read Professor Calero's report, please, instead of focusing just on the sources you like presenting them as the only and whole truth.

And read again what Wikipedia experienced editors said recently:

- Crystallizedcarbon dated March 22 against “using only one side of the issue to use the voice of Wikipedia to take one side… 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.” Or dated March 28: “I am of course, not against including opinions in the criticism section provided it is done with due attribution and that opposing opinions are also included with their attribution to maintain a neutral point of view that lets readers make up their own minds”.

- Michael D. Turnbull on March 30: “Of course there is more than one valid point of view: there are probably as many points of view as there are people interested in the topic! It is our job as Wikipedia editors to present the views neutrally and with due weight and not to state opinions as facts, especially in "Wikipedia's voice". Mariano211 (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

No, my section was about this edit: [60] and a small comment on CCC documents talking about PISA. Whatever are your statements not referring to that, put them in a new section, because they are not about the topic I started. 95.17.250.138 (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2023 (UTC)