Talk:¡Democracia Real YA!

Note

Hiya. This article should be completed with the spanish edition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.225.29.19 (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

A mess

"Controversy over a possible socialist agenda of the platform and left-wing activism.

Through media research [no citation whatsoever here or anywhere]... blah blah blah..."

Great, everything you have put here MAY BE true or it MAY BE complete fabrication and nonsense. The point is, this is an ENGLISH ENCYCLOPEDIA. Want to use Spanish language sources and citations? Fine, but please translate the material for us English speakers. Don't just copy and paste whole phrases in Spanish from some Spanish source into the English Wikipedia without a proper translation and citation. This whole section is a mess, and I am going to do my best to clean it up to Wikipedia's standards. Who ever made this mess is welcome to help me clean it up by translating with clear citation and WITHOUT weasel words. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CyberRobynHood2 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC) CyberRobynHood2 (talk) 01:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Absolute fabrication

"Having communist flags in the camping and showing some other signs related to the communist labour union are the main cause of this gossiping."

This will just be removed altogether until legitimate evidence (non-fabricated photos) can be provided. There is absolutely no evidence to be found anywhere support this, whatsoever. All flags (communist, Spanish/monarchist, anarchist, labour unionist, falangist, etc.) were rejected entirely by this movement, as can be clearly seen by all the footage of the movement, all over the web, print, and TV media. Additionally, none of the sources found on this page present evidence of this false accusation.CyberRobynHood2 (talk) 01:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Major cleanup

Since those responsible for the mess made on this page have not shown up in two weeks to help me clean it up; their incomprehensibly cited Spanglish smear campaign will be cleaned. Anyone interested in helping improve this article (especially bi-lingual Spanish-English speakers) who have read up on how to cite in Wikipedia, have credible sources at hand and who are interested in politically balanced Wikipedia articles is welcome to join me. Thanks.CyberRobynHood2 (talk) 01:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Political positioning of the platform

We shouldn't be opposed to trying to define the political positions of the DRY platform, however the postmodern nature of this movement makes it very hard to place on the traditional one-dimensional left-right political scale. Anyone who reads anything they write or hears what they say knows that they have clearly rejected time and again the traditional one-dimensional labels "liberal and conservative". While DRY may incorporate some anti-capitalist positions, they reject cooperation with the Spanish anti-capitalist political party IU. While DRY may incorporate some assembliary methodologies in their organizational structure, they reject allying themselves with any assembly organized union. Reading their statements, and honest interpretations of the movement, it appears to be more populist than anything, if we must put a label. In any case, interpretations of the position of DRY are welcome so long as they appear in English (this is the English Wikipedia after all) and they are clearly cited by credible sources. I will therefore temporarily remove unsourced/poorly-sourced texts, untranslated Spanish texts, and non-neutral language. Until clearly sourced English text can be found to be placed here I propose using the DRY's manifesto as a guide to politically positioning their platform. Anyone willing to help me is welcome to join in. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CyberRobynHood2 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC) CyberRobynHood2 (talk) 01:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

General claims of the platform

This whole section is unsourced. It should be aligned with translated proposals from the following page: http://www.democraciarealya.es/documento-transversal/ I'll work on this section when I get a chance. In the meantime, whoever wants to can help get some citations in here. Thanks. CyberRobynHood2 (talk) 01:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. There are many unsourced sections on the article that are either poorly written or just flat-out propagandic in tone. This article should be an encyclopedic article about movement, not a political platform. I've made a variety of edits to the article and will continue to do so to get this type of language tightened, or, if necessary, removed completely. Donna Spencer^{talk-to-me⛅} 01:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 14 January 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Sources use "¡Democracia Real YA!". Question on whether or not YA should be capitalized can be made in another RM. (closed by non-admin page mover) – LuniZunie_(talk) 23:10, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

---

¡Democracia Real YA! → Real Democracy NOW!Real Democracy NOW! – I think the article title needs to be changed in order to follow the Wikipedia:FELU rule of having an article title in English as long as the topic/subject of the article has an agreed upon translation. ~2026-23598-8 (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Oppose the all-caps of "NOW" (and "YA"). We should avoid all-caps per WP:ALLCAPS / WP:TITLETM / MOS:TM. Other than that, do we have evidence of what sources written in English generally use? WP:USEENGLISH and WP:FELU do not actually say to prefer English-language names. They say to prefer what English-language sources use, which is slightly different. In some cases, English-language reliable sources use names that are not in English. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Current status

The current content of the organization's website seems unrelated to this article's content. I suspect the domain name has simply been repurchased by someone who replaced its content with something else. This may indicate that the organization no longer exists (and the article should refer to it in the past tense). The most recent information in the Wikipedia article seems to be from 2012, which was 14 years ago. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2026 (UTC)