Talk for Article "Ousted Catalan leader denies asylum quest in Brussels as Spain lays rebellion charges"

Talk about this Article

  1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    I appreciate the “WikiTribune was unable to independently corroborate the information.” at the end of a paragraph.

    I was wondering if it would make sense to have a different text style for statements that could not be confirmed?
    More or less in the same way quotations are surrounded by quotation marks. This way readers can identify it as a quote (or in this case, un-corroborated statements) while their reading it rather than after reading it.

    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      Hi Julian, I think that’s a really interesting idea. I’ll bring it up at the next news meeting. Thanks

      1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)
        DU
        Deleted User

        … Feel free to add to the news agenda — under projects!

        1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)
  2. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    I am not sure about the neutrality of El Confidencial… Maybe find other sources?

    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      Why are you not sure about El Confidencial’s neutrality? What other sources would you suggest?

      1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

        Well… nothing is neutral, that’s why we are making this project 😛

        I think it’s more about how to manage the “proportionality” of facts, some sources emphasize in less relevant things to be more aligned with the political view of their readers.

        When I checked the headlines of El Confidencial today it seemed to me that some of headlines are even making fun of some politicians.

        I’m wondering how WikiTribune can manage this. Do we need side notes for the sources we are mentioning? Like, “This is a conservative newspaper […] which might have this headline for X and Y reasons…”.

        1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

          Your point of signposting the political alignment of different newspapers is very interesting. I sought to balance the piece by having El Confidencial followed by El Periodico de Catalunya.

          In any case, we updated the story today with news from Puigdemont’s speech in Brussels. Many of yesterday’s questions regarding his travel to Brussels were answered in today’s announcement.

          1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

            Having balance between papers of opposed views is a good idea, it actually solves neutrality in a way 🙂

            What about having an explanatory page of each newspaper somewhere in WikiTribune, and linking them from the articles? Could be political views, how are they funded, controversies in the past, etc.

            1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

              Sounds handy. Would you like to give it a go?

  3. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    George, I suggest you include the idea expressed in this article in your in-depth story, it may be important for future judicial repercussions: http://www.publico.es/politica/realmente-aprobo-parlament-viernes-independencia-catalunya.html

    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      Hi Guillermo, thanks for this. Will take it into account.

  4. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    “Many didn’t in order to boycott the referendum.” Where does it say so?

    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      Hi Hector, thanks for your comment. A couple of things. We trimmed the story down given the latest developments so that bit you mentioned isn’t in there anymore.

      However, that line was based off information in these sources:
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29478415
      https://apnews.com/5341651334024917ad52c0cfa96c3cfd
      https://www.reuters.com/article/us-spain-politics-catalonia/catalonia-moves-to-declare-independence-from-spain-on-monday-idUSKCN1C9109

      I am aware that because 57 percent of the electorate didn’t vote, it is impossible to ascertain with precision how many of those didn’t with the express purpose of boycotting the vote.

      But, as I’m sure you’re aware, national political parties boycotted the vote because it lacked legal guarantees and had been suspended by Spain’s Constitutional Court.

      The pro-Spain demonstrations on October 8 and October 29 further support the notion that many Catalans who didn’t vote on October 1 didn’t do so in order to boycott the event.

      Opinion polls in the lead-up to the poll suggested more people were in favour of “No”: http://ceo.gencat.cat/ceop/AppJava/loadFile?fileId=25317&fileType=1.

      While I also understand that some people might have been put off by the police charges of October 1, I think it’s still fair to assert that “many did not vote in order to boycott the referendum.”

      Finally, many Catalans I spoke to while I was reporting from Barcelona last week/weekend told me they didn’t vote because they didn’t want to seem to legitimise the vote on October 1.

    2. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      You are making a lot of fair points there, but the word “boycott” does sound a little disproportionate. Anyway, I was mostly pointing out the lack of supporting source for that claim, regardless whether or not I agree with it. I reviewed the particular article and could not find anything related to “boycotting”. Perhaps, “not deeming the referendum as an official” would be a more fortunate statement. Still, as I’m seeing now, that part has been removed from the article. How come?

      1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

        I must have linked my assertion to the wrong Reuters article. My apologies. Thanks for insisting on more rigorous attribution, it’s one of the reasons why you, and our community, are so important to WikiTribune’s success.

        But I stick by the word “boycott” because it was the word used by many pro-Spain Catalans I interviewed when describing why they hadn’t voted on October 1. It was also the word used by many trustworthy news agencies, including by those I linked in response to your first comment.

        A whole section was removed from the story, including the statement in question, because we had already made many of the same points in other stories throughout the site.

  5. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    The link to “(see our in-depth coverage)” is not working.

    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      Hi Guillermo, you’re right. We haven’t yet published the in-depth story. It should be going live later today. Apologies for the confusion.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Be the first to collaborate on our developing articles

WikiTribune Open menu Close Search Like Back Next Open menu Close menu Play video RSS Feed Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Follow us on Instagram Follow us on Youtube Connect with us on Linkedin Connect with us on Discord Email us