Talk:Proposed 2008 Basque referendum

Edits

I made some edits I think are necessary and clarify several points, other believe that my edits are jingoistic.

In the intro I added that the referendum is a two question non-binding one, what is just the reality as described by all the parties involved.

The referendum is not about Basque self-determination, both questions are translated doen in the article and anyone can see that. Maybe the use of loosely is the problem, I don't get why. but I'm open to any edit that makes clear that the referendum is not directly about self-determination.

I clarified what a Lehendakari is (president of government of the Basque Autonomous Community in Spain),because this is a Wikipedia for English language and I don't think most readers will know what Lehendakari means.

Also included the clarification that Eventually in his plans, if his party still hold government, another referendum in 2010 would then decide the final status of the Basque Country. because before that date there are elections in the Basque Autonomous community and all the other major parties have said they will not conduct that referendum, so it depends of his party (PNV) winning the elections again.

My direct translation of both questions was erased, I restated. I can discuss the translation, although I think is nearly spot on. Anyhow primary sources are always better than an interpretation of them.--Neveryou (talk) 13:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the Spanish original should not be displayed in the text, only the translation, while the original should be in a footnote to be checked if necessary.Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 02:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with that as long as it is a direct translation and not a summary/explanation of the questions, although rather have there the original we are not in the need for space in this article. --Neveryou (talk) 11:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

clean up

the article needs to be cleaned. the lead is too long and some currently out-of-date. i dont have so much time now, but i left the tag so someone can get to it.

Also, the PSOE part was taken out from edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Basque_referendum,_2008&diff=238001655&oldid=237991124). Should it be in the article? Lihaas (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't understand your point. Here [1] you argued for removing repeated information. That is what I did by merging (not taking out) "the PSOE part". PSOE=Spanish government at this point, so I merged both subjects in one, to avoid repeated parts.

As for cleaning up, there are thousands of articles needing much more cleaning up that this one. Actually it looks pretty good and well referenced. If you dont have time enough, I may work out a different structure to reduce the lead length, but just tagging it and saying 'ciao' is not the way it should be. Mountolive _{deny, deflect, detonate} 23:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

No, no, I was talking about references to so. But i get your point, no need

clean up is generally a big process. also, discussion, so tagging it shows others it can use help. Lihaas (talk) 23:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. In any case I guess that the tag you placed was the kick I needed to overhaul structure and else, so I guess it is alright...but next time you can also give a helping hand, ok? ;) Mountolive _{deny, deflect, detonate} 00:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

yep, we've done it before. (forget which article) Lihaas (talk) 03:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Given that the referendum was not actually held, I move that the page be moved (no pun intended ^^) to some alternative title along the lines of "Basque self-determination referendum X, 2008", with X being "initiative", "proposal" or whatever fits better. Thus, I've put the move template in this talk page. Any thoughts on this? Habbit: just shy, not antisocial - you can talk to me! 15:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the move to a better title. I am not very enthusiastic, though, about those suggested.

To keep it simple, what about "Proposed Basque referendum, 2008", I know, I know...it is not such a great title either. MOUNTOLIVE _{fedeli alla linea} 02:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion, "proposed" does not convey the right meaning, since the referendum was more than proposed, it was legally approved by the Basque Parliament and it would have been held if the Constitutional Court hadn't intervened. Thus, I think that a word like "initiative" is actually a better fit. Habbit: just shy, not antisocial - you can talk to me! 22:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Mmmmhh, I guess you're right. I still find "initiative" a kinda odd choice, but I guess is more exact than, say, "draft" or other alternatives. As far as I'm concerned, I'm ok with your "proposal" ;) MOUNTOLIVE _{fedeli alla linea} 01:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Basque referendum, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090714185005/http://www.pr-inside.com:80/basque-leader-unveils-questions-for-r612424.htm to http://www.pr-inside.com/basque-leader-unveils-questions-for-r612424.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Dead links

Well, I did some digging, but couldn't find anything to fix the dead links in the references. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 11:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)