Jump to content

Talk:Carles Puigdemont/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Exile?

Why exile? He did not go into exile, he is a fugitive who fled Spain to escaped prosecution because of his (alleged) offenses. Is Edward Snowden in Russia because he is a fugitive or he is self-exiled?Karljoos (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Can we find reliable sources to back this claim, in Spanish will do (fugitivo) or Catalan. If we can find such sources we should include this though not necessarily replacing, merely stating both. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 21:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I think we can. 1. BBC News: Catalonia Spain: Fugitive Puigdemont abandons presidency [1] 2. The Independent: Carles Puigdemont: Fugitive former Catalan president arrested in Germany [2] 3.France 24: Fugitive Puigdemont abandons bid to return as Catalan leader [3] 4. NBC News: Fugitive ex-Catalan leader Carles Puigdemont held by police in Germany [4] 5. CBC: Thousands protest as fugitive ex-Catalan president arrested in Germany[5] 6. NY Times: Spain Tries to Foil Re-election of Catalonia’s Fugitive Separatist Leader [6] 7. Irish Times quote: Fugitive former Catalan leader Carles Puigdemont has made a renewed call for Spanish authorities to open negotiations over Catalonia’s secession claim, a day after he was released from a German prison. [7] 8.Aljazeera.[8]. So, fleeing a country to avoid prosecution... when it is from democratic countries like Spain (please see Democracy Index - Spain is ranked ahead of the USA and France) it is not exile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karljoos (talk • contribs) 17:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

We can open this dispute time and again, and continue litigation for ever. This was discussed here 5 months ago. However, the final consensus has been altered recently. And now back again, to alter it further, over the same topic, just at the moment when some are on a campaign over this topic off the WP. Just please give it a rest. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
The point of the discussion is different. I am suggesting that the word 'exile' is not used in the article since it does not convey the reasons for Puigdemont's residence change. This was not brought up 5 months ago.-Karljoos (talk)
The discussion was comprehensive enough, and yes, it is basically the same point, the word exile, although in the case you are bringing up refers to not even using it, so we can go on and on again. Note that it has been changed in a short period from "exile" to "forced to exile", and "self-exile" by now. Iñaki LL (talk) 10:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Puigdemont's Francoist Past

I am really struck by the absence of any reference to Puigdemont's family background in Carlismo, the traditionalist branch of falange that made Franco into such a popular ruler and figurehead in rural Catalan areas - such as Puigdemont's birthplace. The piece notes that two of Puigdemont's close family were local majors, but it fails to mention that this could only have happened under Franco if they were enlisted as part of the "movimiento", or were local falangistas. This is all reasonably neutral information about his family. It does not mean that the man himself is a francoist. So why is all this information so sensitively ommitted? I have tried to introduce some of it with some serious references, but have been barred, and am told I'm a vandal. What's going on wikipedia? Why are you protecting a fugitive from justice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.44.7.41 (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Disputed

The reasoning behind editors being seemingly keen on including a rather disposable/inane element telling little to none about the subject (a mere ordinal to the service of Hobsbawm 's invented tradition) which is actually disputed by sources, evades me. The tacit question cames to me as rather obvious: can't any of you live without that friggin' ordinal in the infobox/the lede (either of them)?--Asqueladd (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I understand your frustration but even if we get rid of the ordinal number some editors will find other excuses to cause disruption. They are maliciously targetting this article because they disagree with Puigdemont's politics. They are not here to create encyclopedic content. The only way to prevent this is to protect, or at least semi-protect, the article indefinitely.--Obi2canibe (talk) 20:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
The Catalan presidents enumeration has been used for a long time by the historiography, since it's a very useful way to understand to evolution of the Generalitat. It has also been widely used by all the international and Spanish media, like the most important Spanish newspaper, which is El País: The socialist José Montilla Aguilera has become this afternoon the new president of the Generalitat of Catalonia, the number 128 (November 2006), or the Spain's state-owned public corporation: Quim Torra has promised his position as 131th Catalan president "with fidelity to the people of Catalonia", from the Saló Verge de Montserrat of the Palau de la Generalitat (May 2018). The enumeration is also an official title of the presidents, as seen in the official Catalan Government website: Presidents of the Generalitat, which is why it's used by both the Spanish and Catalan governments, and also the foreign ones. Nobody has ever complained about it.
But, as @Obi2canibe: correctly pointed, as soon as Carles Puigdemont started going serious about the Catalan independence push, a very small group of people argued that he shouldn't be called the "130th" president. Which doesn't make any sense. Then again, when socialist José Montilla was appointed 128th Catalan president in 2006, more than a decade ago, nobody complained. We can look for instance at the ABC's news piece of that time, which is a Spanish newspaper from Madrid who's political alignment is described as "conservatism, Spanish nationalist, monarchist and right wing" according to this very Wikipedia: In this way, the first secretary of the PSC, born in Iznájar (Córdoba) 51 years ago, has become the 128th Catalan president, a position he will definitely take possession of next Tuesday, after his appointment is communicated to the King by the president of the Parliament. Carles Puigdemont is as much as a president as the previous ones. This is an encyclopedia, not an opinion blog. There's no point in discussing this. --193.153.77.68 (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Do not remove the templates, is not a good practice in Wikipedia. Yes it is a disputed topic. This discussion itself is a proof.
More references:
¿130 o 9 presidentes?
La “mentira” de los 131 presidentes de la Generalitat
La gran mentira histórica de los 131 presidentes de la Generalitat, el nuevo mantra del nacionalismo catalán
The Puigdemont factor
Note that I am respecting the figure of 130h anyway. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 17:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Carles Puigdemont being the 130th president is not a disputed topic. All of the articles that you have shared are opinion pieces where the authors express different opinions. And the last one of your articles says that Puigdemont is "the ninth president since 1931", which is true, but the article is not saying that he isn't the 130th president. The fact that all of your opinion articles were written during or after Puigdemont presidency is revealing by itself, even though this enumeration has been in use for decades. Nobody seemed to complain when Maragall was appointed 127th president in 2003, for instance. WP:NPOV.

Sources in English from all over the world are pretty clear (not opinion pieces): DailyMail, The Australian, Al Jazeera, The Guardian, The Sunday Times, Harvard College, The Indian Express, etc.

There are thousands of sources in Spanish stating that Puigdemont is the 130th president. Including news pieces (not opinion ones) coming from your own sources that you have shared: eldiario.es (your first link), El País (your second link) and ABC (your third link). Which clearly shows that it isn't a disputed topic. --193.153.142.71 (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

193.153.142.71 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) You are edit warring. I have warned you on your TP [9] --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 19:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
193.153.142.71. You may not like who disputes the fact, but it is disputed. In any case, the "need" to hard-code invented tradition in Wikipedia infoboxes just for the sake of it surpasses all understanding. [10][11][12].--Asqueladd (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Asqueladd. IMO, the best option would be to add a brief section on the page itself, explaining the controversies, keeping the sources that already exist and adding the ones you proposed. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 20:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
For what it is POV and what not. Stating Puidgdemont was the 130th President of the Government of Catalonia in the infobox is POV. Stating Puigdemont was 9th President of the Government of Catalonia is also POV. However stating Puigdemont was "President of the Government of Catalonia" is not POV. The solution seems obvious to me.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
BallenaBlanca, I also warned you for edit warring on your TP [13]. Stable version must stay before making any changes, that should first be discussed in talk page. I already answered you here with the explanation about why it isn't disputed. So, at this point I think it's clear enough.
Now Asqueladd, this is an encyclopedia, not a blog or an opinion forum. Sources are very clear about the fact that Carles Puigdemont is the 130th president. The fact that there are a small sample of opinion pages that don't like that Puigdemont is the 130th President, is beyond the point. In ABC's news pieces Carles Puigdemont is indeed called the 130th president, despite what their opinion pages say. About your first link, the "Catalan Historians" is a reference to this minor Spanish nationalist association, which has among its very few members a self-declared minister of Tabarnia (not even a Historian). Your last link is, again, about this association. But I don't think Libertad Digital is even worth considering as reliable source.
Here you have a small sample of Spanish media sources from all kind of ideologies referring to Puigdemont as the 130th president:
Since all the reliable sources, Spanish media, English media and official sources don't dispute this, Wikipedia shouldn't be disputing this either (WP:NPOV). --193.153.142.71 (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
It's revealing that you deem sources that actually delve into the historiographic issue as not reliable, while using a fragmentary corpus of sources that mostly do not deal with it at all as "all the reliable" ones? Jordi Canal, professor of the École des hautes études en sciences sociales de París and an actual historian of Catalonia only counts nine, [14]. The thing is there are sources parroting the selfstyle with no questioning, sources claiming the first was instituted in 1359, sources reporting the list of presidents is a 2003 case of invented tradition (detailing the reason for this assertion), sources reporting it is disputed, and sources disputing it. You can for sure loosely peg every source to a particular ideology. There is no need to have this ruckus in the infobox dealing with something that has nothing to do with Puigdemont, but with historiography.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
That was discussed some time ago here [15] and the consensus was that the previous enumeration was the most common one according to reliable sources. It seems it's only disputed by some minor Spanish media and blogs. BallenaBlanca can you provide any new sources that would challenge the previous consensus? The sources you brought in this discussion don't seem to add anything new to what was already said in Wikidata's discussion. List of Presidents of the Government of Catalonia already explains that some historians don't agree with the enumeration. But in all other articles, Wikipedia should use the one that is common in almost all reliable sources. See WP:FLAT. --Aljullu (talk) 21:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia should not be obliged to order anything and this has nothing to do with WP:FLAT.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Look at these interesting data. The Generalitat de Catalunya itself published this [16] Now it has withdrawn, the link is dead [17].

In the text one can read that until the 120th they are not "presidents" but "ecclesiastic deputies". Nor was it called Generalitat de Catalunya but Deputation of the General of Catalonia:

La relació cronològica adjunta recull, per a les èpoques medieval i moderna, els noms dels diputats que, per raó del seu rang, tingueren preeminència protocol·lària per damunt dels altres diputats, fet que amb freqüència els dugué a presidir els actes i a encapçalar els documents de la Diputació del General. Per aquesta causa es tracta sempre de diputats del Braç Eclesiàstic, a excepció del cas de Joan I d'Empúries —diputat del Braç Militar—, sobre el qual recaigué la preeminència pel fet de pertànyer a la família reial. The accompanying chronological list includes, for the medieval and modern periods, the names of the Members who, due to their rank, had a pre-eminent protocol over the other Members, which often led them to preside over the acts and to lead the documents of the Diputación del General. For this reason, it is always the deputies of the Ecclesiastical Arm, except for the case of John I of Empúries - deputy of the Military Arm -, on which the preeminence fell due to belonging to the royal family.

This source [18] makes a detailed explanation of how the Generalitat "metió la pata", "se les vio el plumero" when they published this document [19] Perhaps this is the reason why the link is now dead ... --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 01:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

BallenaBlanca... I don't think that you are understanding this. This document is not some sort of "secret proof" of anything, but standard information that can be found at any book about Catalonia's history. The medieval Generalitat was officially called "Diputació del General" (Deputation of the General of Catalonia can be an English translation; there are variations). However, this "Diputació del General" was popularly called "Generalitat" at that time, which became the common name. The ecclesiastic deputies were the ones that presided over the meetings with the rest of deputies, which is why they were eventually called "presidents", and through the centuries they evolved gaining more power. This is why, until the abolition of the medieval Generalitat in 1716 by the Nueva Planta decrees, they were also called "presidents of the Generalitat": Pau Claris i Casademunt, 17th century (Spanish Royal Academy of History). This is why when the modern Generalitat was restored (Spanish Second Republic) it adopted this name, following the medieval one. You can find more information about the Diputació del General or Generalitat in the Spanish or Catalan Wikipedia articles. There you will find the exact same thing I'm telling you here. Or at any history book... --193.153.142.71 (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
The document is not a secret, but they do not want to show it. They have upload an English version with different content.
The Spanish version of the list of "presidents" does not agree with the English one [20]
The first Wikipedia English version (2003) contained 5 presidents [21]
Then it was reformed and the deputies were added [22] and later they were removed.
Until October 27, 2017 the version contained the 9 presidents [23]
And "very appropriately", it was reformed on 28 October 2017 [24] (remember that the referendum was held on 1 October 2017)
All the press articles that have been used, and are using, the Wikipedia English version as source (we all know that it is the number one source consulted) have relied, and are relying, on a misleading information. So these sources can not be considered reliable references.
This [25] is the original source (extracted from the original source) and it says that they are eclesiastic deputies, not "presidents", except for nine of them.
The claim that the Generalitat is called popularly so since the Medieval age is still unsourced [26]. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 16:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
No, BallenaBlanca, it isn't some sort of conspiracy... That PDF document is a fragment of a 3 volume book published in 2003 called "Història de la Generalitat de Catalunya i dels seus presidents", which is free access online here, after registration. That PDF wasn't removed "because the Generalitat doesn't want to show something". This document was accessible until some months ago, when the Catalan Government website was updated, and link was lost. It happened with lots of other PDFs and links, meaning you need to look for the new link. For instance, this was the link about the Catalan museums, which worked fine some months ago, and now it doesn't (now it's here, with same content). In any case, that PDF is in no way saying what you seem to have understood.
Now, about Spanish Wikipedia: The Diputación del General of the Principality of Catalonia or Generalitat de Catalunya
Catalan Wikipedia: The name of the Diputation of the General coexisted with the unofficial Generalitat de Catalunya
About the English Wikipedia, I'm sorry, but you are straight lying: the full list of Catalan Presidents has been stable since 2003: 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2014, 2016... until October 2017, very appropriately, during Catalonia's independence referendum, when some editors begun to contest the list without success. This shows how this debate is nothing else but politically motivated. Because there was permanent and stable consensus until then.
All of this was already discussed here, where Leptictidium gave this accurate explanation for this new polemic: It is therefore obvious that the denialist point of view is rooted not in factual arguments, but in a politicised attempt to delegitimise the offices and institutions of "the other side".
At this point, I don't understand what are you trying to do here, BallenaBlanca. But I can only suggest you that if you really want to learn about the history of the Generalitat, you can look for any history book. As a matter of fact, I have right now one in front of me, published in 1992 in Spanish: "Historia de Catalunya" (Grupo Z, El Periódico). Page 95: "To collect the agreed taxes, another fundamental institution emerged: the Generalitat de Catalunya. Born in the Courts of 1289, it ended up becoming a permanent institution" [...] "The Generalitat, also called «Deputation of the General of Catalonia», was initially" [...]. That page also shows an image, with this text: "Founding document of the Generalitat, dated in 1359". Page 110 of the book: "1359. The Generalitat de Catalunya takes definitive form." In this same book, the presidents of the Diputació del General or Generalitat are indeed called "presidents of the Generalitat de Catalunya" (page 160). I don't know what else do you need, honestly. --193.153.142.71 (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

___

Crikey 193.153.142.71's interest in making sure that it is not disputed here that there is continuity between the medieval Generalitat and the present Generalitat (something that historians hotly dispute; I would say in fact the consensus amongst historians if anything is that it is a spurious made up claim, constructed by catalan nationalism in the late 19th century, a claim which certainly does the rounds in the media but lacks any genuine backing in historical fact) is really remarkable. Are you a troll working for the Generalitat? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.44.7.41 (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

___

If this enumeration has been in force since the 19th century and has not been disputed until Puigdemont took power in 2016 —in two or three minor Spanish media and blogs—, then it seems to me that the consensus among historians in favor of this is more than proven. In addition, it turns out that in the sources in English there has been no dispute to begin with. Consequently, I see no reason to change the president's ordinal number for Puigdemont in the English Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.158.38.59 (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

JFYI. That enumeration exists since 2003 and sources disputing it at least trace back to Artur Mas.--Asqueladd (talk) 04:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Not really.

  • Els presidents de la Generalitat de Catalunya. L'Hospitalet de Llobregat. December 1982.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
Yes it does. According to the enumeration used in this entry Jordi Pujol would be 126th president, not 125th as source #2 would try to state. You have shown that by late 20th-century and early 21st-century differents attempts to build a list (with different outcomes) may have predated by some years the 2003 one (ca:Josep Maria Solé i Sabaté's História de la Generalitat de Catalunya i dels seus presidents). So much for tradition, huh?.--Asqueladd (talk) 05:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

In this case, what you're saying is that the 2003 version is the last stable version. Which means that since then it has not changed. But it is not true that the list was created from scratch in 2003, given that the lists of presidents were in use much earlier, with small variations until reaching the 2003 version. As you can see, all these previous lists that I have linked start with the first president, Berenguer de Cruïlles (1359).
I do not understand the question you asked me at the end of your sentence. Does my opinion about this tradition really matter? It is just a number, nothing more than that. But if it turns out that, in addition to a tradition, is also of official use by governments and widely used in the media, then I think that it should be respected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.158.38.59 (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Ip: You said "In talk page that position has not been accepted by anybody" This is not true, here there are supports for both versions. Anyway, the decisions in Wikipedia talk pages are not adopted by voting. I raised that option above, as a way of looking for neutrality, without giving more weight to one option than to another.
One of the fundamental pillars is WP: NPOV and my edit did fit. I agree that the express mention to the association is eliminated, leaving something like "some Catalan historians", or also adding more sources such as this one [27], which identifies some historians with their name. And do not forget this other [28] --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 02:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
And this one from the Financial Times "Mr Puigdemont (...) A relative latecomer to politics, he was elected as a member of the Catalan parliament for Girona in 2006, becoming mayor five years later. It was a shock when he was chosen by Mr Mas to become the president of Catalonia last year, the region’s ninth since 1931." --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 02:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


Your unilateral edit goes against the stable historical version of the article and goes against what has been discussed here and in d:Talk:Q16933549 by consensus. Per WP:UNDUE, you shouldn't be giving such an undue weight to the conclusion of a particular source over the conclusions of a majority of them. Per WP: NPOV, the content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point, without editorial bias, using reliable sources (not minor blogs or opinion pages). You should also take a look at WP:FLAT and false balance.

This is not a dispute between 2 versions. There's the official version, Carles Puigdemont as the 130th President, which is backed by all the Spanish and international media, institutions and governments. Then, there are some minor opinions in blogs or media where some argue that Puigdemont is the 9th or 17th president depending on the source. Those minor opinions are already present at the corresponding article, List of Presidents of the Government of Catalonia, at the section "Controversies" (previously called "Alternative versions"), which is where they belong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.158.38.59 (talk) 02:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

A disputed and disposable historiographical narrative (which it is explicitly disputed) does not belong to the infobox, particularly as it is presented as not disputed. I guess several of the sources have been already posted, but again: ABCPunt AvuiLetras LibresHuffington Post.---Asqueladd (talk) 04:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
"Visto desde el punto de vista de la Historia, Quim Torra es el décimo presidente de la Generalitat, aunque existe una interpretación historiográfica que lo considera el 131º" (Jaume Guillamet (ca:Jaume Guillamet i Lloveras), PhD in Contemporary History and tenured professor of the Universitat Pompeu Fabra.)
"Forma parte de la reinvención de la historia de Cataluña. El nacionalismo ha sabido convencer a los historiadores de que trabajasen en crear esta historia mitológica. Proclamar que hubo una Cataluña como estado y como nación en la Edad Media; y además hacer creer que era algo institucional y democrático. Se buscan continuaciones justificadoras del momento presente»" Jordi Canal (ca:Jordi Canal i Morell) PhD in contemporary history at the University of Barcelona, professor of the École des hautes études en sciences sociales de Paris Also by Canal: "Este organismo iba a tomar el nombre, a propuesta del andaluz Fernando de los Ríos, de Generalitat. El envite, apostando por un Estado para que no se escapara la prometida autonomía acordada en el pacto de San Sebastián, dio buenos resultados. La tarea principal de las nuevas autoridades fue la elaboración de un Estatuto de autonomía. El primero de los presidentes de la Generalidad murió en la Navidad de 1933."
"Por desgracia eso se enseña en el sistema educativo y no pondría la mano en el fuego por lo que se refiere a las universidades catalanas. La bobada de los 129 presidentes está muy enraizada también en ella y ha sido cultivada, a fondo, por “historiadores” mediáticos, algunos con carrera televisiva y otros con carrera política. Déjame señalarte una tergiversación análoga, y ésta muy expandida también en la educación universitaria: en 1936-1939 no hubo una “guerra civil”, sino una “guerra contra Cataluña”; bonita manera de tapar las vergüenzas de los Valls i Taberner y tantos otros." José Luis Martín Ramos (ca:José Luis Martín Ramos), Catalan historian, chair of contemporary history in the Universitat de Barcelona.
"Tot i que l'ordenació dels molt honorables és aparentment tan senzilla i fàcil, queda una primera incògnita per resoldre. Per què, en un discurs sobre el “25è aniversari del restabliment de la Generalitat” (datat el 30 de setembre del 2002, pronunciat solemnement al Palau de la Generalitat i publicat al web del Centre d'Estudis Jordi Pujol, (www.jordipujol.cat), Jordi Pujol afirmava que Josep Tarradellas va pronunciar la frase: “Jo sóc el 115è president de la Generalitat de Catalunya”?"(Punt Avui, 2011)
--Asqueladd (talk) 04:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Summarizing

There are arguments and verifiable sources to support both positions.

Although there are more references that support 130th, a greater number of sources in Google searches is not a valid argument Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages#Google test.

Therefore, and since there is no consensus and clearly never will be, the option is to provide the two data, maintaining in both the template discussed per WP:NPOV. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 03:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

---

Last January, many editors already decided by consensus that the 130th is the ordinal number that should be used (d:Talk:Q16933549). Which is reasonable, since this is the official and legal ordinal, used for many years, and is also the one used by the overwhelming majority of sources.

This is not a debate between two positions. There is the official position, which has overwhelming support and is used by all sources and media. This is data.

Then, there are three or four historians who have proposed alternative enumerations: some have proposed that Puigdemont could be the 17th, others say that the 9th, etc. And there is already a place for these minority proposals (List of Presidents of the Government of Catalonia). But Puigdemont's article is not the place to include these proposals which have neither official support nor daily use nor use in the sources. Therefore, including these proposals here would infringe WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV.

It seems that you are trying to make the case that there is no consensus on an issue in which it is clear that there is already consensus. Trying to create a debate that doesn't really exist in real life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.56.113.44 (talk) 07:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

BallenaBlanca & Asqueladd is there any other source you can provide that backs your position? After reading the entire conversation, it looks like the sources backing the use of 130th are much more relevant than the ones backing the other enumeration, it was the previous consensus and seems to be the official enumeration used both by the Catalan and Spanish government websites. If you don't have any objection or can't provide any other rellevant source, I think we should proceed removing the disputed tags from the article. --Aljullu (talk) 07:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
This is not an English Wikipedia consensus, but a Wikidata consensus, does not apply here.
In any case, consensus are not fixed WP:CCC.
The sources are enough to keep the template disputed.
That there are many sources from internet supporting a version is not enough, due to the problems detected in Wikipedia Reliability of Wikipedia#Information loop and Reliability of Wikipedia#Propagation of misinformation.
The content is disputed, the template is justified. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 19:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Look, Aljullu, I am not prepared to engage into a circular discussion of attrition in a sort of Groundhog Day. Sources have been presented here, and a very clear rationale (a rationale pretty much anyone can easily understand) for discouraging/avoiding the use of ordinals in the infobox put into the table. If it is not enough for you, as far as I am concerned you could appoint Mr. Puigdemont also as 7th King of Aquilonia.--Asqueladd (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Nationalist

@Iñaki LL: That Puigdemont is a Catalan nationalist is a well sourced and undispueted fact. For example the Finantial Times consider him a diehard Catalan nationalist. The fact that is a Catalan nationalist is also very notable as I think that is also undisputed that the independence of Catalonia is his main goal. Being a sourced and notable fact there is no reason to justify the removal of the term from the lead. The reason originally used by Aljullu was: 

I couldn't find any other politician bio where we try to define all its ideology in the lead with one single adjective. Thus, removing 'nationalist' from the lead per WP:NPV and MOS:LEADBIO. If somebody wants to add it again, please, open a discussion in the Talk page and expose some arguments about why you think Puigdemont bio must be different from the bios of all other politicians on Wikipedia.

I reverted and asked to follow WP:BRD the reason in the edit summary was: 

There are countless examples like John Boland (Irish nationalist politician). nationalist carries no bias in any direction. If you feel this politician is different please take it to talk per WP:BRD

You then reverted claiming: 

Not with incumbent politicians or elected government officials in near context (present-day Catalan or Spanish or French politics

I restored the article for the second time showing you that that was not the case by any means: 

Claim was for all politicians, not just of a certain nationality, but there are also Spanish examples that use the term in the lead: Juan José Ibarretxe, Xabier Arzalluz, Artur Mas, Josep Melcior Prat i Colom, etc..

And you reverted for a third time saying "Yes, all of the same kind of political spectrum, see Markedness, take it to talk". How is that a reason to remove it? Why didn't you take it to talk instead of onreverting against WP:BRD? Artur Mas which I cited as an example, was as you well know, the predecesor of Puigdemont. I just don't understand your actions, please restore the edit as the term is not biased is well sourced and is very notable. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Crystallizedcarbon thanks for bringing the discussion here. Could you give some reasons why you think we must describe him as a nationalist in the lead? I'm not sure to understand what's the point or why do you think that improves the article at all. I guess we all agree Puigdemont is more notable for being a Catalan independence supporter and the Catalan referendum his government organized than for being or not a nationalist (which I guess would be a statement challenged by many). My proposal is to avoid trying to describe him with one single adjective in the lead, which is something Wikipedia tries to avoid for most politicians (not all, you were right, but the ones not following this rule seem to be a minority). But, in case we want to add some more background to the lead, I guess something like "is a Catalan pro-independence politician" or "is a Catalan politician known for the Catalan referendum of 2017 organized by his government" would give a better description of why he is notable for. How does it sound? --Aljullu (talk) 12:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Fully agree against defining a person, on the first line, with a single adjective, based on his/her ideology. In fact no one in the near context or similar position is defined as such, except for other 'classical' internal enemies of the Spanish state; I think they all should be defined exactly in the same way as other politicians. The reason for not adding "nationalist" is as simple as this. The MOS discourages so with good criteria in its MOS:LEADBIO. I find Aljullu's proposal, specially "pro-independence" much more detailed and down-to-earth along the lines of Notability. Iñaki LL (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
By the way, for Josep Melcior Prat i Colom, it is a misrepresentation of sources, since he is not cited as such in the source, and I strongly doubt that the other source states anything the like (it would be good if someone could double checks it). Iñaki LL (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
@Iñaki LL: you are saying that "In fact no one in the near context or similar position is defined as such" "I think they all should be defined exactly in the same way as other politicians". Well in this case, let's apply what we do on similar pages. Dozen of Wikipedia pages include the "nationalist politician" definition in the lead: [29] Some examples from this search: David Duke, Colum Eastwood, Babiker Awadalla, Jamal al-Atassi, Joe Stewart (politician), Thomas O'Donnell (Irish nationalist politician), Khan Abdul Ghani Khan, Edward Barry (Irish nationalist politician), Patrick Kennedy (Irish nationalist politician), Daniel O'Leary (Irish nationalist politician), Yuko Tojo, Chiang Kai-shek, Herbert Macaulay, K. O. Mbadiwe, etc.
Also, you said: "The MOS discourages so with good criteria in its MOS:LEADBIO". Please explain where it is discuraging this. It's just the opposite, it asks to summarize what makes a person notable. And an adjective is perfect to summarize. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 17:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
On notability, please read what I added above, and Aljullu's point. Also, the characters depicted above are historical characters. In the present-day time and geographic context, no-one is defined by their ideology, I mean no-one, except for those consider in one manner or the other enemies of the state in the territorial Spanish crisis. Iñaki LL (talk) 20:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Given how the sources concur that Puigdemont is driven by nationalism, it encapsulates his whole political goal, this seems an entirely appropriate adjective to describe him in the opening. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 18:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
There is a point to that. However, Wikipedia has its own MOS and policies, like NPOV, and consensual approach. --Iñaki LL (talk) 20:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Is nationalist a negative term? as far as I understand nationalist and pro-independence have very similar meaning. Nationalist is used by many reliable sources without any negative connotation as far as I can tell. Here are some examples: FT, Oxford or Der Spiegel. Are this reliable sources biased for using the term? are they part of the "enemy of the Spanish state" labeling conspiracy/argument hinted by Iñaki (I did't quite get what you meant)?. When a politician has a clear ideology it shouldn't be removed from the lead. If is cited by sources it needs to be there. It was removed based on an argument that was proven wrong. Once restored it should not have been removed two more times. This discussion should have been open after the first time I restored the article per WP:BRD instead of imposing the change. Having said that, personally I would not object to using either term nationalist or pro-independence as my understanding is that they have the same meaning, but next time Iñaki, please follow BRD and bring it to talk instead of edit warring. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Excuse me? Please do not add noise, the one breaking BRD seems to have been you, since you confused me and Aljullu.
Read Markedness, he is define default per WP:LEADBIO and objective data defined there. "Proven wrong", what are you talking about? "When a politician has a clear ideology": Read WP:LEADBIO, but if you feel so strong about it you might as well go to any politicians in the same context and start defining them by their ideology.
On "nationalist": I understand that any editor engaging in this debate has some understanding of present-day Spanish and European politics. Nigel Farage has been defined as 'nationalist', Marinne Le Pen has been defined as 'nationalist', Viktor Orbán has been defined as 'nationalist', the killer of New Zealand has been defined as 'nationalist', dictators are often defined as "nationalist". What do these examples have to do with the Catalan movement for independence or Puigdemont? The answer is nothing or almost nothing, confusion for the reader on very different realities. "pro-independence" looks much clearer. Iñaki LL (talk) 20:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Talking with you seems to be pointless. I will give it one last try. You have been here long enough to know that it does not matter if the original change was made by another editor, once reverted it should be discussed, not removed again by a different user and by the way I also restored your first edit and you reverted again. If that is not an edit war then what is?. What I proved wrong was the reason in the edit summary used to justify the initial removal of the term, I showed that there are countless examples including his predecesor Artur Mas. If the term was negative as you claim then why would a mayor political party name itself as Basque Nationalist Party? do they share ideology with the people you mentioned? and if it is negative as you claim how do you explain that Puigdemont himself gave a talk on reinventing nationalism? (see here) I leave this up to the rest of editors, its not worth it to me to keep debating with someone with such a strong POV against Spain, its flag, etc. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I am not answering dismisive personal comments, and urge you to stop making personal remarks. if I have something against, it is very especially impositive attitudes. Volumes and more could be talked on your activity in the WP, I am not dwelling on that though. You kept a reverting drive and that is clear for anyone to see in the history, so do not make a storm in a teacup.
The Basque Nationalist Party decided to call itself the Basque National Party in English, so you are wrong, go to the talk page in that article to learn more on the topic. As for "reinventing nationalism", it talks of 'reinvention', so it is a term and concept on discussion. I tried to make a communicative approach as to the term's usage in the present-day political context to advocate for a more accurate and defined notability-based identification. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Please, @Iñaki LL: focus on the subject and provide concrete Wikipedia policies to support your arguments. We have the MOS:LEADBIO that supports the inclusion of the definition and you have not been able to show where it discourages to include the ideology.--BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 23:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

For the neutrality of WP to be kept, then if we use 'nationalist' to describe Carles Puigdemont, then surely, we must also use 'postfascist' or 'unionist' or both to describe Felipe VI of Spain, Mariano Rajoy etc? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 04:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not investing any more time here. Bye. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
@Llywelyn2000:, no because their drive and political aim is not fundamentally to keep thge union in `place where Puigdemont's fundamnetal goal is nationalist in nature. I advise you to take great care in labelling living people as fascist; as neither Rajoy nor the King of Spain have dedicated their lives to fascism your comment is bang out of order and should be retracted. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 09:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Still nobody could explain why it's better to define him as 'nationalist' than 'pro-independence' or 'independence supporter', which are much better to describe why he is notable for, from my point of view. Llywelyn2000's point is also good, if we want to summarize Puigdemont's position on Catalan independence with one single adjective in the lead, should we do the same with all other Catalan and Spanish politicians? If not, why only Puigdemont's bio should be different? --Aljullu (talk) 11:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
RichardWeiss, "Puigdemont's fundamnetal goal is nationalist in nature", you may be right or not, but there are others as nationalist, or more, e.g. Albert Rivera, whose only set value, repeated once and again in emotional and charged speeches are the Spanish flag, the union of Spain, the pride of being Spanish, the suspension of dissident autonomous communities, etc. Still did you check out the entry of EN WP? "is a Spanish lawyer and politician" Well, I did not even know he was a lawyer, not notable for that definitely, but coming back to adjectives, he is not defined by any.
BallenaBlanca, MOS:LEADBIO does not support the inclusion of 'nationalist' (an ideological trait) as a defining biographic or notability feature of a person. The adjective in question may encompass a range of characters as different, or better, as opposed ideologically, as Donald Trump, Marinne Le Pen, Franco, Gerry Adams, or Xabier Arzallus. With NPOV in hand and for the sake of clearness, as well as avoidance of confusion and vagueness related to the adjective in question, I think 'pro-independence' is clear-cut and relevant to his notability, if anything had to be added.
Another point, as important, is that no politician/adversary in the same political context with a different ideology is defined by their ideology, as noted above by Llywelyn and Aljullu, and myself, why should Puigdemont be? What is this defining ideological adjective next almost to his name actually contributing in the first line? ...At best pointless, at worst adding more confusion to the reader. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Unjustified removal

@Iñaki LL: you did this edit [30] with which I agree, this was not the most appropriate way to define the place of birth. This text was added on 10 May 2019.

So I did an edit giving objective data to complement the description because it included the comarca (la Selva), the province (Girona), the geographic location in Catalonia (north-eastern Catalonia) ... but did not include the country, which is a fundamental data [31]

You reverted it [(No, no, no and no, stop adding Spain/Spanish to everything that moves, it is by now on the infobox!).

And now, Iñaki, try to calm down, do not lose your nerves nor scream, and provide a link to a Wikipedia policy or policies that support your argument in the edit summary for the deletion.

  • "No, no, no and no" is not a Wikipedia policy.
  • "stop adding Spain/Spanish to everything that moves" No comment...
  • And "it is by now on the infobox!" neither is an argument for withdrawal, just the opposite. Per WP:MOSLEAD, the data in the lead section is the summary of the content of the article and therefore, they appear duplicated: The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 17:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Scream? Do you really know what scream is on Internet text? Not that. It would be better if you let your obsessions aside, much better service would be made to this article if proper material was inserted, instead of dedicating to insert national labels and ideological points of contention, which is a very sensitive topic as you well know. "Spain" there does not add any information that is not by now in the article, it is redundant since it is in the infobox, and that is fine with me.
Instead it has added noise back again to the article where the friction point is the national issue, do not tell me your are oblivious, because you have been here other times, and you were in a three month discussion last year regarding the national labeling of people (for the same matter, places), based on this article. Does it add anything valuable to the article? Not at all, please give it a rest. I also urge to stop bureaucracy, it is very tedious. Iñaki LL (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment - I'm sincerely astonished as to how this article has become over time a common playground for discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Impru20talk 20:30, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Impru20, every single comma change in this article involves a discussion that lasts for hours and wastes the time of all of us. We should focus on creating an encyclopedia, not on discussing politics. Is Amer a Spanish village? Yes, it is. Do we need to add the adjective 'Spanish' in front of every single location described in this article? My opinion is no. The article gives more than enough context to understand where Amer and Catalonia are. --Aljullu (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I also agree with Impru20. And we have come to edits as absurd as this one (underlined text): in north-eastern Catalonia, (the part of Catalonia which is today claimed by Spain).. I reverted it [32]. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 17:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I do not either understand the statement brought up here above ("the part of Catalonia which is today claimed by Spain"), let us keep it simple. Agree about discussing formal aspects; now I do not see why should anyone be dwelling on contentious political points, as experienced above in this very article: identity related issues, Spanish or Catalan, are a key topic of this article. Any editor intervening here oblivious to that, sorry either he lacks credibility or does not understand the topic.
The editor above was taken to task last year for going to a number of articles just to add "Spanish", often removing Catalan or Basque. And I made my point clear, the birthplace (yes, with "Spain" on it) is by now in the infobox! Also, the information on birthplace does not lie on the lead section, clear, unlike what BallenaBlanca has been claiming (see above). Iñaki LL (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Please leave a reason of removing the MEP status

If you are going to remove the information of Carles Puigdemont's Member of the European Parliament status, you are invited to leave a reason. It can be a reference of other users. --筆和擦膠必有用 (talk) 11:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

The reasons are 1) "he is not an MEP" and 2) "unless there is a change in the turn of events he is not expected to be one anytime soon". In addition votes are allocated to closed lists, not to people.--Asqueladd (talk) 13:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Previous discussions about neutrality

For previous discussions about the {{POV}} tag, see:

I'm placing these links here since the NPOV tag links to the talk page but it's not obvious what exactly the concerns are. The tag is also not supposed to stay for long on articles, and to me as an outsider the points seem fairly minor. --148.63.157.82 (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Mr. Puigdemont never graduated

The current article makes it seem as if Mr. Puigdemont obtained a degree from the University of Girona. This is false, and it has debunked in many places to the point of Mr. Puigdemont himself never claiming to having university studies. He droped out of university, as I explained in my edit. I cannot understand why it is being removed. For more information you can start here, although there are a million sources for this basic fact:

https://elcierredigital.com/investigacion/602806594/engordamiento-curriculum-partidos-nacionalistas-independentistas.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRectificator (talk • contribs) 22:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

TheRectificator, from what, exactly, are you getting the impression that "The current article makes it seem as if Mr. Puigdemont obtained a degree from the University of Girona."? It clearly states "After school Puigdemont joined the University College of Girona to study Catalan philology but dropped out to pursue a career in journalism." I fail to see how "dropped out" might imply that he had a degree, especially as it's linked to an article about leaving school.

Also, new topics on talk pages are added to the bottom of the page. When you post on talk pages, whether they are connected to articles or users, please sign your post with four tildes (~~~~). This adds your username and a timestamp to the post. Thank you. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 06:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Reasons to vote No to Mas

@Crystallizedcarbon: I reverted your edits that re-added a sentence from a WP:SPA account. Per WP:BLP you should be specially cautious when adding this kind of information to person biographies. Crónica Global article is not even from the dates the investiture was being voted, the relation between Llum i taquígrafs and CUP's vote to Mas is original research from the previous user. El Mundo article says "asociado con los recortes y la corrupción", but it doesn't clarify if that was the reason CUP gave or if that's original research from the newspaper. I posted two references in my previous edit, but you can find the primary source here: [33] this is the only official press release CUP did to explain their vote and they don't list any specific reason. Doing some research, I found an interview from Anna Gabriel, CUP's number 2 at the moment and a supporter of the No vote, from November 2015 (three months before the vote). She listed up to 5 different reasons to vote no instead of a single one like the previous edit made seem like: [34] --Aljullu (talk) 08:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Cronica global article is from after the event, and describe how they started monitoring corruption in CDC since almost one year before. Please read WP:OR. Original research does not apply to reliable sources with editorial control, it applies to editors interpreting what the reliable sources say. Regardless, a quick search reveals that there are many more sources that back that same interpretation (el Confidencial, el Pais, etc.). I have added attribution to the text and also clarified the information about the investigation by the CUP into allegations of corruption by CDC. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:17, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
@Crystallizedcarbon: Thanks for posting a link to WP:OR, I read that page several times and I'm aware of what that rule means, but I think you missed my point or I didn't explain myself correctly in the last message. I was not saying the sentence the previous user added had to be removed because El Mundo did OR, but because linking "asociado con los recortes y la corrupción" with CUP's decision was OR from the user. At no moment El Mundo says those words came from somebody from CUP or that it was the reason that lead CUP to vote against Mas.
As I posted in several references already, CUP didn't give any official explanation about their negative vote besides the press conference I linked above, where they mostly explain the methodology of the vote but not what lead each organization to vote for or against. I wonder if you have any source contradicting that.
Even though CUP didn't officially explain the reasons behind the vote, some possible ones were published during the months before: [35] [36] [37] [38]. Those comprise several different topics, not only one like your edit seems to imply.
You added this sentence: "extensive corruption scandal involving various members of the Catalan government", without specifying which case you are referring to neither which source you have that links that specific corruption case with the vote from CUP.
I have to say I'm quite surprised for your edit since nothing of the text you added seems to be backed by the references in the article. Could you explain which other sources did you use to write that? And how those invalidate the ones I posted here and in the article edit history? Otherwise, I would suggest undoing your last edit and bringing the article back to the consensus status it had before a WP:SPA account introduced this unreferenced data. --Aljullu (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
@Aljullu: It seems very clear that the relation to the cuts and the corruption was cited by el Mundo in the context with the request of his resignation by the CUP. The first two sources you provided do agree with that, Corruption is cited as a main reason in both cases even if other reasons like not representing their values, or not being able to get more votes (also attributed indirectly to corruption), etc. were also cited. I changed the wording, and added the austerity cuts as they are also mentioned in your source by eldiario.es. I did not know than an SPA had added the sources, but I think that the reason why the subject of the article replaced Mas is notable enough to justify its inclusion. Please feel free to complement and expand the information or propose alternative wording. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Residency in lead

There has been some recent back-and-forth between editors over the lead sentence concerning where Puigdemont now lives. I'm making an edit to offer compromise wording that I think more accurately reflects the article content, in particular the section Carles Puigdemont #Self-exile. Hopefully my suggested text is sufficiently neutral to gain acceptance by the contributors. --RexxS (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

MEP

It seems from the reference given and subsequently removed, https://www.cope.es/actualidad/espana/noticias/puigdemont-inicia-los-tramites-para-recoger-acta-eurodiputado-parlamento-europeo-20191220_578946 that as of 20 December 2019, Puigdemont has been accepted as a Spanish MEP, representing the Junts per Catalunya alliance. I'm giving a general caution to editors not to remove properly sourced content, and I'll invite Impru20 to explain why they removed the content and the reference, rather than simply amending any perceived errors.

In the UK, MEPs have regional constituencies, but I can't find a source that suggests the same is true in Spain, and therefore it seems likely that Puigdemont may not necessarily represent Catalonia as an MEP. However he clearly is a representative of the alliance that sponsored his candidacy, Junts per Catalunya. To avoid the arguments, I'm going to suggest the addition of Puigdemont's office as MEP to the infobox using the following: 

| office6 = Spanish member of the [[European Parliament]] representing [[Junts per Catalunya]]
| term_start6 = 20 December 2019<ref>{{cite news |title=Puigdemont inicia los trámites para recoger su acta de eurodiputado en el Parlamento Europeo |url=https://www.cope.es/actualidad/espana/noticias/puigdemont-recoge-acta-eurodiputado-parlamento-europeo-20191220_578946 |work=[[Cope]] |date=22 December 2019 |lang=es}}</ref>

I don't know what convention the editors here prefer: either (1) to put the offices in some sort of chronological order; or (2) put current offices at the top, and expired offices beneath. Either way, I'm sure some consensus can be found which simply involves renumbering the office parameters.

I hope that consensus can be found for a suitable wording, as a politician's current office is clearly a key fact in their biography, and should be included per WP:DUE. It is already present in the body of the article. --RexxS (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it's a bit too premature to add that Puigdemont is an MEP. Although the legal ruling has gone his way, we should wait until he's officially taken his place in parliamentary chamber and the European Parliament's website has been updated. As for the infobox, please see Diana Riba as to how it should look like.--Obi2canibe (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Firstly, there is not such a thing as "MEP for Catalonia" as 95.23.197.174 kept adding; if anything, and as per consistency elsewhere in Wikipedia, it would be "Member of the European Parliament for Spain" (which is the electoral constituency, Catalonia is not a constituency for EP elections) or just "Member of the European Parliament" (nothing like "MEP representing [party/alliance]" is done elsewhere, so shouldn't be done here either).
Secondly, Puigdemont is not yet shown as a MEP in the European Parliament page itself, and the COPE source that is being persistently provided says he won't be MEP until, at least, January 2020:
Su objetivo es iniciar los trámites necesarios para recibir las credenciales de eurodiputados, un procedimiento que, según han explicado fuentes parlamentarias a Europa Press "no concluirá este viernes, sino en enero" [...] Los datos serán verificados por la comisión europarlamentaria de Asuntos Jurídicos y si se concluye el proceso en los plazos habituales tendrán su acreditación definitiva en enero, lo que les permitiría ocupar su escaño en el pleno de la Eurocámara que arrancará el 13 de enero en Estrasburgo (Francia).
This only requires for users to have actually read the source, so I'm assuming those who kept re-adding it didn't read it at all.
In conclusion, yes, it would be premature to add him as such right now for the obvious reason that he is not yet a MEP. And obviously, once added, it should be with correct information.
Also it is not logical to keep replacing a previous office such as the one of member of the city council of Girona, which obviously should still stay. Once Puigdemont becomes full MEP, possibly such an office should appear at the top of the infobox, as it'd be his most current office.
Now, I hope 95.23.197.174 knows how to get their facts right before going on to insult people and calling them "subnormal", because you could very well get indeffed for such a reckless behaviour. You were asked for justification and you provided none, not even for a single time (other than your insult, btw), while persistently replacing correct content from the infobox with inaccurate content. Impru20talk 21:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Definitely not a very good introduction to WP to insult editors, like 95.23.197.174 did. As for the content, it is all a matter of time to have the indefinite MEP position. For all the bla-bla-bla of the COPE source above, which elaborates on the idea that he has still paper-work to do, the MEP office is clear, but on a temporary basis. COPE is a source with set partisan views on key national matters in Spain, so no wonder. Check out also here [39]. On the infobox, my view is that hierarchy prevails, so MEP first. This is strictly about constituencies, so I should altogether agree with RexxS' arrangement above. Iñaki LL (talk) 23:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
I know about the possible partisan nature of the COPE source (I only noted that the IP editor seemingly kept trying to assert in the infobox something that the source they themselves provided did not back up). But that is why I brought the source from the European Parliament itself, which does not show Puigdemont as a MEP yet, not even provisionally. Obviously, it must be assumed he won't get the full bit until the entire procedure is over and he gets the definitive acreditation, or at the very least until he is shown as a MEP in the official sources (otherwise, we as an encyclopedia would be giving information that the European Parliament itself does not yet list as such, which seems rather awkward and a violation of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTALBALL). This does not preclude information about him having initiated formal procedures to become a MEP to be described in the text of the article, though. Impru20talk 23:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
There is a point to what you note above on the EP's list. I do not think, however, this is WP:CRYSTALBALL in the slightest, just a matter of nuance. He is elected MEP, and is formally MEP, though administratively on a temporary basis. Further comments here on this may clarify the way forward on this respect. Iñaki LL (talk) 23:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
The date 20 December 2019 is utterly non-notable vis-à-vis the infobox. Puigdemont has been MEP-elect since 26 May, and he is reportedly going to assume as MEP in January 2020 or later. A case could be made for something like inserting the office without date and a "accredited" qualifier or so, but considering the possibility of WP:CRYSTALBALL, I don't see a need to rush and experiment in the infobox regardless of further delving on the whole ruckus in the body of the article. The infobox format proposed by RexxS inserting the electoral list instead of the constituency is absurdwholly unappropiate. Regarding the location of the information, as far as I know, the more recent the office is, the higher the office tends to appear in the infoboxes in English Wikipedia.--Asqueladd (talk) 01:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
@Asqueladd: Please don't call other editors suggestions to move forward "absurd". These issues are "hot button" topics and there is an obligation on everyone's part to remain civil. From the sources I've seen, it looks like Puigdemont's term as an MEP will be backdated to July 2019, so I agree that an authoritative source for the start date needs to be found. It seems to me reasonable to wait for that. On the other hand, there was a General Election in the UK last week, and all of the newly elected MPs' articles were updated within hours of their election; editors did not wait for the MPs to be sworn in, which took place several days later. A confirmed election result was sufficient to update articles on British MPs, and I don't buy the argument that the same does not apply to a confirmed election result for a Spanish MEP. As for the wording, UK MEPs seem to use the more specific {{Infobox MEP}} which produces a display such as "Member of the European Parliament for London". For consistency, I don't have a problem with ""Member of the European Parliament for Spain" if his constituency is all of Spain – although I see no reason why editors have excluded party/alliance affiliations from infoboxes. Perhaps Asqueladd can explain why that convention was adopted? --RexxS (talk) 02:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
@RexxS: if his constituency is all of Spain Indeed it is. The Organic Law 1/1987, 2 April, for the modification of the Organic Law 5/1985, 19 June, for the General Electoral Regime, for the regulation of the elections to the European Parliament establishes the electoral "circunscripción" (constituency) to be the whole Spanish territory. But that is already obvious from the reading of any article about the elections. Perhaps Asqueladd can explain why that convention was adopted? I haven't been here since the dawn of time, I can only speculate: among other reasons possibly because of the haphazard nature of electoral coalitions/electoral lists, often not made to last longer than the electoral process itself. Other reason is possibly because of the fact that the European Parliament operates on a basic level in terms of political groups (akin to parliamentary groups), not parties. Other possible reason is the very notion of imperative mandate, banned in most parliamentary systems and which precludes legislators' vote from having any other due allegiance (in sort of rights) than themselves. Do you think they are already enough reasons?--Asqueladd (talk) 02:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
@Asqueladd: Not really. If those reasons were valid they would apply equally to the text of the article, where we invariably find the party or alliance affiliation of the officeholder prominently stated. I can't find a single politician's biography where that is not the case. Similarly, looking at List of members of the European Parliament, 2014–2019, you'll find that editors have chosen to identify MEPs by their party or affiliation list, not by their constituency. I still fail to see what is so different about MEPs infoboxes that has lead to the exclusion of their affiliation. Of course, you could just say "it's a question of space, so editors have decided to leave affiliation out of the infobox", but that would then undercut your assertion that my suggestion was "absurd", wouldn't it? --RexxS (talk) 03:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
@RexxS: but that would then undercut your assertion that my suggestion was "absurd", wouldn't it? You have begged me not to call other editors suggestions to move forward "absurd"... So, well, unless you are playing some passive-agressive engagement behaviour, don't make me answer that question, because, guess what, I still think it is absurd and lacking of any comprehension of how a parliament operates wholly unappropiate. Another possible reason is the fact that the constituency is something immutable for the whole term. Anyhow, if your question (Perhaps Asqueladd can explain...) rather than to learn about something was a catty way of taking a jibe at someone because they deemed your proposal "absurd" while making a case for the inclusion of the party/whatnot in the infobox, to be honest I think you are wasting your time.--Asqueladd (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Ok, Asqueladd, let's put it another way. I am offended by your assertions that my suggestion was "absurd" and that I lack "any comprehension of how a parliament operates". Those are personal attacks and I'm going to ask you politely to strike them now. Otherwise, I'll simply ask another administrator who is uninvolved to sanction you for your unacceptable behaviour. You need to learn to concentrate on the substance of any disagreement and not make disparaging remarks about other editors.
Moving forward, is there anyone who disagrees with the proposition that we should add, near or at the top of the list, Puigdemont's office as "Member of the European Parliament for Spain" because his constituency is all of Spain? and secondly that we should add the start date for his tenure as soon as we have an authoritative source for that date? --RexxS (talk) 04:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
@RexxS: let's put it another way Certainly a much better way. :) I'll strike that "unacceptable behaviour" worthy of heavy sanctions and I hope you may take valuable information about the convenience of being straightforward. Cheers!--Asqueladd (talk) 04:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I would personally prefer to fill the 'constituency' parametre rather than completing the 'office' parametre with additional information (but that would also depend on re-formatting the parametres regarding his post of Member of the Parliament of Catalonia). It looks cleaner, although it detracts some vertical space. Regarding the date, I am afraid that we are not going to have an authoritative source for that date until that date presents (it should fall after the end of the Christmas stop on 6 January), but, ok. --Asqueladd (talk) 04:33, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Somewhat related. The article is innaccurate/lack of nuance when it states On 20 December 2019, Puigdemont was accredited as a MEP after a ruling from the European Court of Justice said that he was permitted to take on his role as MEP.. The ruling by the ECJ in answer to the query of the Supreme Court of Spain concerned only the issue of the status of Oriol Junqueras (and AFAIK it did not mention Puigdemont nor Comín). The legal services of the EP et. al. just reacted after that regarding the case of the later elected MEPs.--Asqueladd (talk) 04:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Too much legalistic jargon/noise for nothing. It detracts from the basic fact that he was elected by the people as MEP in an official election and he is now administratively recognized as such, although he has still paper-work ahead. I am fine with RexxS's solution: "Member of the European Parliament for Spain". I am not sure whether the latest or the most important position should be stated, but for the matter both coincide. Iñaki LL (talk) 09:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Political prisoner

I don't think this category should be added. He's not obviously described (except by himself) as such in reliable sources, and he's not even called apolitical prisoner at any point in this article. Unbh (talk) 11:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Whoop whoop pull up: Political prisonship is a controversy in case of Carles. I think a category Category_Political_Prisonship_Controversy would rather fit here.--Geysirhead (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
This is definitely a political prisonship controversy. [40], [41], [42] --Geysirhead (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Given that any political prisoner's political-prisonership is going to be disputed (by the regime imprisoning them, at any rate), I'd say this justifies readding Category:Political prisoners. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 17:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Well, then your comprehension of the Category "Political Prisoner" should be added into the description of the category. Basically, the category already contains at least two subcategories for "disputed" cases.--Geysirhead (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the category should be added either for a reason as simple as WP:CATV: the only mention in the article of him being a political prisoner is actually contradictory: On 23 February 2018, Puigdemont's portrait was ordered to be removed from Santiago Sierra's “Contemporary Spanish Political Prisoners” exhibition in Madrid. I'll proceed to remove the category for the same reason. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Nationality?

The Wikipedia manual of style references a RfC on use of Spanish regional identity in biography leads which states [...] if sources generally use a certain identity when referring to someone, and it is clear that the person self-identifies with that identity, to use that identity".

Why then is he introduced as a "Spanish politician and journalist", when according to the rule it should be a "Catalan politician and journalist"?

Kind regards, 134.184.232.77 (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

My bad, it was an anonymous' vandalism.
Kind regards, Bsckr (talk) 14:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
I changed to a Catalan politician and journalist. Not necessary to specify the Spain in that sentence. It is logic. El Caganer (talk) 06:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
He has an Spanish passport not catalan passport. Spain is a member country of the UN whereas Cataluna not. 194.38.172.194 (talk) 14:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Puigdemont

I’d like to bring to your attention that my recent edits to the article were made to address the previous concerns. I kindly request that you refrain from undoing my version without first taking the time to review the changes. I believe this will ensure we maintain a constructive dialogue. Thank you for your understanding! 194.38.172.194 (talk) 07:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

There's a consensus on this, with a wide RfC. You can read the result here. Theklan (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carles_Puigdemont/Archive_9&oldid=1257817569"