In the wp article, social liberalism is defined as "the belief that liberalism should include social justice. It differs from classical liberalism in that it recognizes a legitimate role for the state in addressing economic and social issues such as unemployment, health care, and education while simultaneously expanding civil rights. Under social liberalism, the good of the community is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the individual." On the other hand, liberalism is defined as "the belief in the importance of individual liberty and equal rights.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but most liberals support such fundamental ideas as constitutions, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, free trade, and the separation of church and state." Is C's really a social liberal party? In most issues, it seems to me much closer to classical liberal (or, better, neo-liberal) positions than social liberal ones. To avoid ambiguity, I guess we can insert both labels in the description. Viator slovenicus (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the fact that Ciudadanos is a classical liberal party, otherwise, it wouldn´t be in the EU ALDE group. I think it might be considered liberal both in social and economic issues, such as aproval of the legalisation of some hard drugs or a free market economy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.25.238.87 (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
This discussion may occur due to the differences between the definition of Liberal in North America and in Europe (more so in Spain). North Americans call left-wing politicians Liberals, whereas in Europe they are called Social-democrats, Left-wing Populists or Socialists. Europeans associate Liberalism with reducing the role of the state in both social and economic issues. In other words, the most similar thing to a European Liberal in North America would be a Libertarian. Furthermore, European Conservatives have traditionally called themselves Liberals as they believe in the free market, which means that a party like Partido Popular in Spain will define itself within Conservative Liberalism, defending Christian social values and the free market economy encouraging deregulation. In contrast, Ciudadanos will identify itself within Social Liberalism, defending the free deregulated market like Partido Popular, but having a secular approach to society without following the teachings of Catholic Social Teaching. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cremaet1238 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
"is a Spanish political party which describes itself as centre-left and non-nationalist, although in fact it is a Spanish nationalist party" - Despite the fact that I agree with the viewpoint expressed here, I'm wondering if it violates NPOV policy. The statement also cites a broken link. saɪm duʃanTalk|Contribs03:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
It is POV. Their manifesto clearly states they they oppose ALL nationalisms. It's probably vandalism from a Catalan nationalist. I've removed it.--Cymru123 (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Article understates Ciudadanos new pan Spanish character?
It seems to me the article overemphasises the party's Catalonian roots and underemphasises its newer pan-Spanish representation. So the article explains the party's views of Catalanian nationalism and how it's viewed in Catalonia. It says "its political discourse is mainly centered around opposition to Catalan nationalism,[33] to the extent that it has been frequently criticised for being a single issue party ... One of the main issues raised by the party is the Catalan language policy," "C's is currently only a political force at regional level ... C's draws most of its support from the Barcelona metropolitan area" etc. Yet it got double figure votes in the 2015 regional elections in Madrid, Rioja, Castile and Leon and Murcia. These results certainly had nothing to do with Catalan language policy. It would be good to understand the dynamic of the party outside Catalonia. FScot2 (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)FScot2
Non-nationalist
The party may be non-nationalist, but that is not the same as anti-nationalist. However in a Spanish context the party is in fact nationalist, for it supports Spain as a single country - it is opposed to regional nationalism (regionalism) and supports centralism (nationalism).Royalcourtier (talk) 04:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Centre-left to Centre-right
We're getting a lot of IPs coming to the page and vandalising this statement in the infobox, often subtly changing it to "Centre to Centre-right" or simply "Centre-right" with or without wiping or changing sources around. The sources we have promote a wide range of viewpoints about where C's stands, from a moderate centre-left force to a pro-business centre-right position. I'm really concerned that people are repeatedly coming here to press an agenda, most of whom don't have registered accounts to post from. I proposed semi-protection for this page before, but the request was denied. If you disagree with the use of "Centre-left to Centre-right" as it currently appears, can you please make yourself known? I'm going to keep reverting changes that delete centre-left and its sources unless people can explain why they disagree. I don't want a rapid edit war to develop, I'd rather hear from other editors and their thoughts on C's positions. It may be that C's is no longer remotely centre-left now, but the provision of several sources saying otherwise need to be talked about. If there's good evidence that they've moved position, I'm happy to back a change on the infobox. Maswimelleu (talk) 13:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
There is a clear bias in the article to not define Citizens party as rightwing, for instance the first lines of the article (intro):"a centre[8][9] to centre-right[14][22][23] political party in Spain". I've checked the sources referenced and they're poor or misused: [8] this one is ok, Politico journalist's define Ciudadanos as "centrist". [9] it's a statement by a deputy from Ciudadanos, so it's not an independent source. It's should be removed [14] it defines Ciudadanos as a "centre-right Spanish nationalist party", it should be kept the whole sentence [22] it defines Ciudadanos as: "Ideologically, it is a moderate pragmatic party and seems to occupy the centre-right". It's not a strong statement that should be used as a source [23] "the rightwing People’s and Citizens parties" / "The Citizens party, which is going head to head with the People’s party for the rightwing vote". It should be removed as a reference for "centre-right", or used as a reference to define the party as "right-wing". Floit (talk) 08:28, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Controversies section
The section someone removed months ago was a) fully referenced and b) full of valuable information that is and will be very pertinent in the next few months. A party with corruption scandals among its membership, public sexist and xenophobic outbursts on behalf of its celebrity campaigners, links to nationalist platforms which contradict their alleged politics and leaders who lie about their past PP membership, cannot have its wiki article sanitized for no reason. All of these things are important for a party that tries to sell itself as middle-of-the-road, non-nationalist.
Whoever contests this must realize that a war of editions is only going to vindicate what I just said in front of any administrator. Had the paragraphs not been referenced this would be another discussion, but they are referenced. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Nobody ever seems to answer any of these queries or criticisms on the talk page, which is why I've proposed semi-protection in the past. The section looks fine, but parts do seem to lack relevance to C's as it exists today. If I remember correctly the issue was that the section was too bluntly critical, and didn't give any weight to C's own point of view. Maswimelleu (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
That is very easy to solve, Wikipedia being (allegedly) a free encyclopedia. Anyone who wants to buttress C's point of view can do so, properly referenced. We the users of wikipedia have little to no power to decide whether C's makes headlines for neutral, positive or negative reasons; all we have the freedom to do is reference said headlines. And I'm sorry but the Controversies section contains very pertinent headlines.
Also the parts appearing so far are very relevant inasmuch as Girauta and Cañas are still very active within the party (Cañas having returned from his self-imposed hiatus), Carlos Navarro is still publicly aligned with their party and overall none of their ideological stance has changed one iota. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't think the purpose of Wikipedia is "buttressing anyone ass with proper references". As I think the socalled "controversy" sections are heavily non-enciclopedic and prone to heavy POV unbalance and WP:SYNTH I would avoid them. If you can source the populist label with a solid source (the author is solid, the media, a personal blog, not that much, but if there is not much else on the matter, well...), then that's an ideological feature some authors find in the party (and worthy of inclusion in an "ideology" section), not a controversy. If you can source Cañas left the party in 2014 after being found by the TSJC probed on fraud, it is not a controversy, but history of the party, and probably worthy of inclusion in the section called "history". I found most of the time this kind of manicheal approach (a spotless resumee and then a specific section created for throwing controversies) is madness, as it allows to push for undue weight to marginally notable information as this Navarro guy (?).
You're absolutely right, not everything in that section is "Controversial" and many of the items should be listed under a "History" banner. Give me a couple days and I'll fix that. Also I hadn't seen the edit qualifying Xavier Casals as a "Catalan nationalist" and indeed it is unacceptable. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Bear in mind that the edits I made simply stripped away biased phrasing and rearranged content, rather than inserting claims of my own. If you want to gut the controversy section then go ahead. There are sources available on Spanish wikipedia for the remainder of the content if you want to use Google Translate for it. If consensus is established then I would prefer to delete most of the controversies section and move the rest of the content elsewhere. Maswimelleu (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
OK so I think it has a better structure now. Removed the word "Controversy" which some considered too charged politically. I don't agree with the redundancies, the style and wording in some places but it is not my duty (or anyone else's for that matter) to comment on other people's styles and the paragraphs are properly referenced. So the content is essentially the same but the distribution and labeling have changed. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 11:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
"Alternative views" Section
A party whose policies are "social democracy and liberal-progressive" is at least centre-left, and more accurately left. Social Democracy is a left - or even far left - position, not centrist. Liberal-progressive is certainly centre-left. It may be that many people believe that the party is centrist - but that does not determine whether it is or not. Wikipedia should place the party where its policies place it, not alleged and unreferenced public perception122.59.213.148 (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Policies don't mean much if actual choices contradict them, e.g. what is the point of "liberal-progressive" policies if the party "refused to condemn the Fascist coup" per the "Alternative views and past membership" in the article? Perlallibertat (talk) 21:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
All major Spanish parties have condemned the Francoist dictatorship, including Ciudadanos - many times. However, Catalan nationalism/supremacism has the rather tiresome habit of calling all parties which oppose them (including the most voted party in Catalonia), right or far-right. It is a rather transparent propaganda technique. The "Alternative views" section is contrary to wikipedia policy so has been deleted.Sonrisas1 (talk) 20:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
"The "Alternative views" section is contrary to wikipedia policy so has been deleted." I'm afraid it takes a bit more than that to justify such an edit. You sound like you don't understand how Wikipedia works. CodeInconnu (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
No article on a political party on wikipedia has an "alternative views" section where people like you can dump propaganda and vitriol. Its contrary to policy.Sonrisas1 (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
The "alternative views" are not mine, they are views by a) Cs militants themselves who display views that are not center-left in nature, b) people who know about politics more than you and I do, and c) journalists who routinely uncover past membership in certain political parties, e.g. Falange or PP or España 2000, hence the rest of the title of the section. Maybe no other political party has a literally titled "alternative views" section because there aren't two identical articles on Wikipedia, but for the sake of analogy a 5-minute search yields This or this which are similar in nature. A 20-minute search would probably yield more. You need to start being more rigorous and thoughtful in your interventions, stop getting so close to edit warring, and avoid terminology such as "dump", "propaganda" or "vitriol" or "soapbox propaganda" when mentioning properly referenced text, lest you wish to be reported. CodeInconnu (talk) 07:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
CodeInconnu Let me put it another way. No other article on mainstream political parties on wikipedia has a section where its critics can "explayarse" with accusations. The conservative party in the UK, CiU, PSOE or PP in Spain can and are accused of all sorts of things. PP and Junts per Catalunya are both accused of being nazis, racists, a criminal mafia etc. Podemos or the CUP are accused of far worse things. But do you see this on their articles? No. Its not serious. This is the thing about the Propaganda Soap box and why I am so insistent on removing this section. It really is contrary to policy, much as we may dislike a party and wish to abuse on them: Wikipedia is not the right avenue for this.Sonrisas1 (talk) 14:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Your paragraph is full of subjective, mendacious and controversial statements disguised as objective ones. First of all, you keep using terminology such as "explayarse", "accusations [towards Cs, presumably on critics' behalf]", "abuse", which while not offensive in and of themselves, are totally out of place here, and can get you closer and closer to facing scrutiny by administrators. Secondly, I would like to know what according to Mr or Ms Sonrisas1 could be "far worse" than "nazis, racists, a criminal mafia etc" and which of those "far worse" things CUP and Podemos have been accused of. If you clarify that you might show light on a lot of things, though not about Cs. Thirdly and most importantly, a party that presents or has presented itself as center-left, yet has so many instances of past or simultaneous membership in right or far-right movements, as well as present attitudes completely out of keeping with the classical left or even with the political center, deserves such a section until their position within the Spanish political spectrum is fully clarified and it needs to be clarified by them, not you. You, private citizen, might think it is clarified now, but a critical mass of the public opinion (and the practical totality of pundits, journalists and even members of their own party) think otherwise as of December 2017. Stating that an increasing segment of the educated population frowns at the former center-left self-styling of Cs and identifies them as center-right or right-wing, is stating an empirical fact. I cannot write it in so few words as such lest I wish to see "increasing segment" or "frowns" followed by [citation needed], and I wouldn't write "Spanish nationalism" for the same reason, hence we need a properly referenced and I repeat, very pertinent section explaining the fact that fewer and fewer people believe the "center-left" or "social democratic" label. The day Cs update their self-definition in a way that can explain where they got their votes from on December 21, or why they have so many Falange, PP, Somatemps or España 2000 former members among them (or why it invites people such as former Fuerza Nueva member José María Fuster-Fabra to its meetings), that day, a true reshuffle of the article will be justified. Until then, we need both sides of the story.
Your claim on articles about parties not containing sections or even links to whole articles about their controversial past, is equally ludicrous. Check out the involvement of the Southern US Democrats in KKK and segregation up until 1968, for instance. Or the Conservative Monday Club UK which is a separate article but is referenced in the main Conservative Party UK. Or mentions to GAL in the PSOE wiki, or the Francoist matrix that led to PP, or many other things. CodeInconnu (talk) 15:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
I thought this would all be easier to understand but apparently I need to explain it a bit further. I'm not identifying them sensu stricto but since you mention it this "centrist-liberal member of Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe" has a few militants and sympathizers who would feel at home in the KKK, that is the point of the references you keep ignoring or trying to erase. Until the party's leadership stops calling itself "centrist-liberal" yet sucking the PP's voter base nearly dry, or calling itself "center-left" yet allowing former España 2000 or Falange members among its membership, if you include the word "centre" in its Ideology section, you also must include a section explaining that there is no consensus on their "centre" nature. And that in fact nobody believes the "centre", let alone "liberal" label at all. My "rant" may be incomprehensible to you (how surprising) but it won't be to the people reading it when they decide whether or not to block you, which you seem to be begging for with your puerile ad-hominem gibberish. Not only that: you admit in your edit captions that you hadn't even read the entire section before erasing it. You need to know when to stop, and you need to learn how Wikipedia works--which you seem to be struggling with. We've all had tantrums on Wiki over the months and even years, nobody is perfect, but intelligent people learn from them. Maybe you'd feel more at home in the Spanish wiki. CodeInconnu (talk) 06:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
The PP is a party marred by corruption and (IMO) stupidity but it is traditionally Spain's main centre right party. Yes conservatives (also Podemos and PSOE voters) have switched to Ciudadanos. In Catalonia Ciudadanos is voter base is largely working-class former socialist voters who are tired of ethnic politics by the Catalan nationalist elites. So what? You have to understand that I am not going to go into the ERC article and start a section on "Alternative views" calling them nazis because, for example, Marta Rovira called charnego Ciudadano voters settlers, foreigners and "the enemy" and because its founders were Herribert Barrera were racists who though non Catalan spaniards were an inferior race. Or because ERC leader Oriol Junqueras wrote an article about the genetic differences between Catalans and Spaniards. I can if you like. There are endless examples of xenophobia in Junts per Cat and ERC leaders. But if I do, you will throw a fit and instantly revert me. All I ask is: 1) Follow policy 2) Be consistent.Sonrisas1 (talk) 09:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Don't you talk about consistency: Heribert Barrera didn't found ERC. It becomes clearer and clearer that you have no idea what you're talking about, and your intentions with respect to Wikipedia are not constructive. On a side note, about this: "I am not going to go into the ERC article and start a section on "Alternative views" calling them nazis because, (...)". Firstly, nobody is calling Cs nazis in the main article page. Having nazis among its membership might render "center-left" self-definitions ridiculous, but that doesn't mean the entire party or its leadership are nazis. People of at least average intelligence understand this. I'd like to think you will, too. Secondly, I for one would second a section on Heribert Barrera's racism and the way large segments of the ERC leadership tried to hide it under the rug like some embarrassing baby poo. And I'm not alone in thinking this. In fact I'd place extra emphasis in keeping that section, as long as it didn't conflate Barrera with ERC or Catalan nationalism. This might not fit in your black-and-white narrative, but nothing does really, which is why you sound so clueless.
Anyway this is all coming from a guy who created a page called "Catalan supremacism", tried to keep another one entitled "Catalan racism", and has already been blocked temporarily once. Keep on talking that talk and walking that walk, see where this will take you. CodeInconnu (talk) 10:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
PS: and by the way, you're the one using the expression "charnego"; the only people using this word, and using it profusely, are unionists, especially to deride people such as Trapero or Rufián who don't fit their narrative. This: "There are endless examples of xenophobia in Junts per Cat and ERC leaders" is potentially libelous. List those examples, or keep it schtum and stop trolling please. CodeInconnu (talk) 10:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Erm actually that is not quite true: ERC leaders are consistently using racist and xenophobic arguments. Do you want the sources? Potentially libelous? Are you kidding me? And pro-independence supporters are using "settler" and "charnego" as the main insult for Catalans they disagree with by virtue of their ethnic origin (also sourced). Herribert Barrera, a pathological racist, was the first president of the Parliament of Catalonia after Franco with ERC. We all know this, no need to correct me. He claimed black people were genetically less intelligent and Catalonia had to be saved from Andalusian immigrants.
If anyone is trolling here it is you by having a section in this article on the Phd thesis about Salvador Allende of one Ciudadanos politician. As if it was relevant to the article.
The question. Can I write a "alternative views" section on ERC and the xenophobic rants of their leaders and supporters in the ERC article? Are you cool with that? There are plenty of sources describing nationalist parties in Catalonia as Supremacist parties. Can we have that as an "alternative views" section? If the answer is no. This section goes because it is POV. Sonrisas1 (talk) 10:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Erm actually that is not quite true: ERC leaders are consistently using racist and xenophobic arguments. Do you want the sources? I do. Still waiting for that long list of consistent racism from ERC leaders. Won't hold my breath for it. And you keep misspelling Heribert, apparently you have trouble apprehending Catalan spelling. And you called him a "founder", not the "first president of the Parliament etc" hence I do need to correct you. And I think I said, but it somehow seems to escape you, that we would agree on Barrera if the discussion were about him. But it's not. It's about Catalanism as a whole, and he's not representative of it, let alone of its postmodern incarnation. So you're clueless across the board and totally off the mark. You're not here to build an encyclopedia.
If anyone is trolling here it is you by having a section in this article on the Phd thesis about Salvador Allende of one Ciudadanos politician. As if it was relevant to the article. I didn't write that article, but now that you say it, I do stand by it. If a guy calls a Marxist politician a Nazi by deliberately misattributing quotes from someone else, this raises a number of issues, however small, for any political party willing to choose someone like this as its spokesperson. Same way ERC deserves a paragraph or so to how it dealt with the Barrera debacle.
The question. Can I write a "alternative views" section on ERC and the xenophobic rants of their leaders and supporters in the ERC article? Are you cool with that? There are plenty of sources describing nationalist parties in Catalonia as Supremacist parties. Can we have that as an "alternative views" section? If the answer is no. This section goes because it is POV. The answer is no because the only "plentiful" sources you could come up with are Somatemps informal blogs like Dolçacatalunya or Libertad Digital, Mediterráneo Digital or Alerta Digital. You could, however, devote a paragraph or so to Heribert Barrera and I, like I said and find myself repeating too many times to you, would agree. CodeInconnu (talk) 11:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely! Be my guest. Unlike you I'd never erase properly referenced sections, not even once (let alone 5 times), and I have stuff to do too. You may find yourself under heat from users objecting to the fact that most of them are op-eds or quotes by politicians, or the fact that most of the controversial quotes are faux-pas, hardly construable as true xenophobia, and are concentrated on one or two people, not the bulk of the ERC/PDCat leadership, but that'll be your own little brawl to fight. Anyway, if in the ERC article you include a section on Barrera and the stupid things he (not ERC) said, not only do you have my blessings, you also have my agreement. CodeInconnu (talk) 12:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
CodeInconnu Asking the leader of Catalonia's most voted party to "return to her home province" is xenophobia. Writing graffiti on the shop of Albert Rivera's parents' corner shop saying "it is not your land" is not a faux pas. But I find your "support" cynical. You know it would be instantly reverted and lead to a massive edit war. Why even try? There are enough crazed pro-independence editors on eng-lang wikipedia these days.Sonrisas1 (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Not nearly as xenophobic as saying "Los moros, que se vuelvan a Marruecos, que es donde tienen que estar"<ref>[http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2001/02/15/espana/982243616.html]</ref> But you don't seem to be in a hurry to devote an "Alternative views" on the PSOE website. Let alone one in the PP website, despite the fact that it even has former CEDADE militants in its midst. <ref>[https://www.rebelion.org/hemeroteca/spain/031207cedade.htm]</ref> CodeInconnu (talk) 13:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
An isolated comment by an MP in the Andalusian parliament 18 years ago about moroccans? Not exactly the same, is it? There is a general agreement among numerous intellectuals, Catalan included, that ERC/CiU are veering towards (or have always followed) ethnic supremacism. It is not even an alternative view. It is a quite well grounded position. Albert Boadella (a catalan victim of the Francoist regime) believes they are far-right. Sonrisas1 (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Sonrisas, "There is a general agreement among numerous intellectuals, Catalan included, that ERC/CiU are veering towards (or have always followed) ethnic supremacism. It is not even an alternative view. It is a quite well grounded position."
More absurd, potentially libellous statements, mixed with weasel wording and unproven assertions. I could just as well say the exact opposite. Boadella comfortably orbited Convergència for most of his mature life, throwing witty jabs at CiU under the form of satirical plays but coexisting with it and living off its Conselleria money, always expecting to be made TNC director, and when the directorship went to Flotats instead, that's when he started his "political" career. Once you realize that, Boadella loses his entire intellectual and moral weight, and invoking him in a discussion becomes just a trite and silly retort.
Being a former Franco victim doesn't entail a progressive worldview, now that you mention it.
The fact of the matter, and the point I was trying to make but you (again!) failed to understand, is that politicians are human beings and they carry their own cultural and emotional luggage and their own prejudices. Of course there are racist individuals in JxCat just like in every other political formation. The operative word is "individuals". An idiot making an idiotic statement in front of a microphone does not demerit an entire ideology, nor is necessarily representative of it. Thinking otherwise is either stupid or dishonest, or both. I've personally heard Iniciativa-Verds and PSC voters and one card-carrying member of IC-V say extremely bigoted things, that doesn't mean these parties have bigotry as part of their ideological corpus. And Jordi Sevilla calling José Montilla the ch-word (and that wasn't 18 years ago) doesn't mean PSOE uniformly patronizes or demeans Andalusian immigrants in Catalonia. Same goes the other way: a failed intellectual joining the Cs foundational clique at the Tivoli theater and calling it "ácrata" or "progresista" or whatever doesn't mean Cs is left-wing or anti-authority.
At the end of the day, there may be sporadic ill-advised or silly remarks by Catalan leaders, but they pale in comparison to the profusion of fascists who vote or have been members of Cs at some or other points. Does that mean Cs is fascist? Of course not, but it isn't left-wing either, and this must be documented and probed accordingly. For every stupid thing de Gispert or Ferrusola have said, 20 former PP or Falange or España 2000 members have popped up in some Cs electoral list somewhere in Spain, that we know of. José Domingo was filmed asking Democracia Nacional skinheads to "be discrete" and keep some distance from Cs during a demonstration. Never heard Jordi Pujol asking Estat Català skinheads to be discrete. In fact, never saw Estat Català skinheads beating people up in broad daylight. Probably because they numbered less than 20 in their heyday. Racist violence in Catalonia speaks and has always spoken Spanish. Capito?
CodeInconnu Jose Domingo left Ciudadanos in the early days due to it briefly joining the populist Libertas European group (he thought this mean betraying its initial values) so he can hardly be considered a fascist sympathizer.You think I didnt see that video? He is asking a group of youths not to join a demonstration and not to display fascist symbols, not "to be discrete". I would do the same, although it takes courage. Then you mention Falange/Espana 2000 and the Partido Popular as if the same thing. The former are small fascist groups, the latter is (regardless of corruption) one of the most moderate centre-right parties in Europe - perhaps the only one (with the exception of the French republicans) not to use anti-immigration discourse in the continent.
Since you bring up Jordi Pujol, father of modern day Catalan nationalism, it makes sense to remind you of an infamous quote from his book:
The Andalusian is not a coherent man, he is an anarchical man. A destroyed man (...), he is generally a poorly made man, a man which has suffered famine for centuries and lives in a state of ignorance and spiritual, mental and cultural misery. He is an uprooted man, incapable of having a wider sense of community. Often, he demonstrates excellent human character, but generally he represents the least social and spiritual value of Spain. I have said it before: he is a destroyed and anarchical man. If, by virtue of numbers, he dominated, without having overcome his own perplexity, he would destroy Catalonia. He would introduce in it his extremely poor and anarchical mentality. In other words, his lack of mentality
— Jordi Pujol, published in 1958 and re-published in 1976.
<ref name="Espada01">{{cite web|last1=Espada|first1=Arcadi|title=Andaluces de Pujol|work=El Mundo. El mundo por dentro y por fuera|date=3 November 2012|url=http://www.elmundo.es/blogs/elmundo/elmundopordentro/2012/11/03/andaluces-de-pujol.html|accessdate=4 January 2016|language=español}}</ref>}}
José Domingo is now a member of Sociedad Civil Catalana. Here, read this if you can.
And why are you taking a detour from the discussion by mentioning this quote by Pujol? How many members of España 2000 or Falange (or any Catalanist equivalent thereof, if you can find one) did he welcome to his party? And how does this refute any of my points, if you read them at all? Are you here to debate or fish for quotable dialogue in order to try to alleviate the effect that my imminent message to administrators is going to have, as in "look, I may have used harsh language, but so did he"?
Ciudadanos is not a left wing party and nobody considers it as such anymore. Period. They might not be uniformly far-right but they don't mind going to demonstrations that have invariably ended in far-right violence ever since October 8. And they're rife with members who owe allegiance to the hard right and to the far right. You can create an elaborate circumlocution to hide this fact in order to justify your poorly thought edit attempts, but the fact of the matter is that you're wrong and you have to come to terms with your errors like we all do, at your own speed and in your own free time. Making mistakes is something everybody does, but learning from them is a sign of intelligence.
I've been very patient but I need to fold tents on this now. You now have all the information an intelligent person needs to consider the matter closed. Until you justify the need to hide past membership and far-right connections under a rug, they are at least as relevant as the "centre-left" label that is also present in the article but nobody takes seriously anymore, and in fact there are things that should be added to that section and the 'Libertas' section in the next weeks. I'm going to use this interchange as proof if you persist on getting closer to edit warring. If you're nervous or annoyed about the current political outcomes, find ways to alleviate your ennui that do not entail degrading an encyclopedia article and turning it upside down. CodeInconnu (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
The bulk of Ciudadanos' 1,100,000 voters in Catalonia, (yes, Ciudadanos is the most voted party in Catalonia, more than 1 in 4 Catalans voted for them) are former socialist voters from the red-belt of Barcelona. This "Ciudadanos are fascists" discourse just doesn't fly anymore than "they all came in buses from Madrid". Its not even worth defending it. No one but the most self-deluded extremists believe this anymore.
The article Catalan independence movement has not ONE MENTION of the fact that they are considered ethnic supremacists by half of Catalans, the leader of catalan opposition, much of Catalonia's intelligentsia, all parties in Spain except Podemos and much of Spain's media analysts. It doesn't matter. Not a word of criticism there. Not one mention of their many instances of xenophobia and xenophobic pattern in their ideology supported by credible secondary sources.
But here a couple of garbage misconstrued facts to create a "conspiracy theory" section (alternative views... really?) calling ciudadanos fascists or far-right. A party which represents the segment of society which faces more political harassment and ethnic stygma in Catalonia. So be it. Very NPOV.Sonrisas1 (talk) 10:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
"the segment of society which faces more political harassment and ethnic stygma" LOL whatever. Turns out there are no Moroccans, Sub-Saharian Africans or South Americans beaten up in subways or harassed in the streets, they're all Andalusian immigrants in disguise, pretending to be from a foreign country. And Cs sympathizers finish every unionist demonstration with acts of violence because of the stress they suffer, on account of the ethnic "stygma" they're subject to. Everything you've written in this talk page is nonsense.
Keep your penchant for vandalism at bay and keep your ramblings low-key and restricted to the talk page for whoever wants to read them from now on, but please stay away from the article page unless you find a rationale behind the deletion of entire referenced and relevant sections. Until you find an intelligent justification why that section should be erased, you have nothing to contribute here. CodeInconnu (talk) 11:29, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
CodeInconnu I don't think dispute resolution is the adequate venue for this. Next step is an RfC. I suggest you close it down.
Sonrisas1 only a slightly warped view of reality ever could lead you to think that you get to tell me what to do.
Worry about refraining from paroxysmally silly edits that you later have to erase because they're "over the top", by your own admission. Such as the one you wrote an hour or so ago. And worry about your frequent use of an ethnic slur. Don't worry about what I do. I haven't taken any misstep so far in this talk page. CodeInconnu (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Robert McClenon, take a look at the [that he later erased], implying that the typical Catalan independentist (and he assumes I am) would deride him for being a "charnego" (near-obsolete ethnic slur that he has used profusely throughout the interchange). I don't use such words, and common sense would expect a similar message from you to him to the effect of "Be civil. Claiming racism when there is no racism is a personal attack". Take your time, won't read the wiki for many hours now.
Also, calling me (not my edits or my statements) "completely bonkers or editing in bad faith" qualifies as what, civil or uncivil? Take your time for that too.
Ethnic based hatred of Catalan Ciudadanos voters by Catalan nationalists is a reality and they do use the ethnic slur Charnegos... profusely over the past few weeks. I find it offensive as a Catalan with roots elsewhere. I don't understand why you hate us so much. It was precisely this ethnic supremacism that made us urban Catalans make Ciudadanos the most voted party in Catalonia, even though most of us are traditionally left wing voters. We are tired of it. We are not less Catalan on the basis of our political views or our origins.
Also, it is wrong that you try to portray a centrist and firmly democratic party like Ciudadanos, as far-right on the basis of crude propaganda by pro-independence mouth pieces. It does not cut it. No credible source qualifies Ciudadanos as far-right. It is mud-slinging based on conspiracy theories and no other party is subject to this on wikipedia. Certainly not your own parties, for which there are plenty of reliable sources criticizing their supremacism.
Ethnic based hatred of Catalan Ciudadanos voters by Catalan nationalists is a reality and they do use the ethnic slur Charnegos... profusely over the past few weeks. I find it offensive as a Catalan with roots elsewhere. I don't understand why you hate us so much. It was precisely this ethnic supremacism that made us urban Catalans make Ciudadanos the most voted party in Catalonia, even though most of us are traditionally left wing voters. We are tired of it. We are not less Catalan on the basis of our political views or our origins. says Sonrisas1.
This is slander. And potentially libelous, like I keep telling you. I'm going to copy this to the dispute resolution page. You've managed the feat of writing a long paragraph without a shred of truth in it. You've come to a place that you know is full of users who do not know Catalonia, and you're trying to paint a false picture of one of Europe's few examples of civic nationalism by portraying it as a carbon copy of the Croatian Ustase.
You could have done this 5 years ago, when Cs' "left" veleities were still believed by some, but you choose to erase all this relevant information precisely when EVERYONE agrees this is a conservative party. You can't even choose the right timing for your vandalism. I keep telling you for the nth time that not the whole party is far-right, it just isn't left or center left, it veers to the right overall but has way too many far-right people and nationalists in it. Why do you take so long to understand what is being said to you, and punctuate your interventions with lies, insults and this phony victimism that is just plain silly?
I mentioned all the Africans and Muslims harassed and assaulted every now and then in Catalonia, uniformly by Spanish-speaking people (now THAT's racism) and you haven't replied about that yet. Apparently those are not "urban Catalans" according to you.
The only succesful far right anti-immigrant party in Spain is Plataforma per Catalunya which is led by a Catalan-speaking ethnic Catalan Josep Anglada. Yes, there is more racist attacks in Catalonia and the Basque country against immigrants than in other parts of Spain (very sad). That is likely due to the supremacism which is deeply rooted in both societies, targeting us Charnegos initially and now foreigners from other countries. Now it seems we again have become a target, even though we are born here and are mostly fluent in Catalan as well as our native tongue. But you assume racist attacks in Catalonia are committed by "Charnegos"? Spanish speakers? On what basis? That we are working class? That we are from poorer neighborhoods? That we are somehow ignorant or less enlightened because of our inferior humble "southern" origins? Classism and xenophobia rolled into one from the corrupt Catalan bourgeoise.
Look at the votes for racist party Plataforma per Catalunya in this map. Their voter base is largely in 100% Catalan speaking areas. In Tractoria, as we like to call it these days. The areas which have been brainwashed into believing they are a superior race since the Catalan renaissance.
2010 PxC Parlament 2010(es)
This is what we have to deal with on a daily basis, while our political leaders are told to leave because this is not their land. The land our parents and grandparents built with their sweat and blood. Sonrisas1 (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
You're not a constructive presence here, you're only here to raise trouble and you obviously have rudimentary reasoning skills because you've understood nothing. No more time wasted on you. If you insist on edit warring you will be blocked, end of. CodeInconnu (talk) 07:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Nationalism vs Postnationalism
There is an increasing amount of references (and there will be more after Cs nearly left PP out of voters in the past Catalan election), that are seeing beyond Cs' "center left" self-styling and admitting that Cs is a right-wing or center-right Spanish nationalist party: a redistribution or [re]concentration (in the words of a Spanish conservative nationalist, to boot<ref>[https://twitter.com/XarnegoSedicios/status/945778236507738113]</ref>) of the Lerrouxist vote, particularly from PP but also from segments of the PSC/PSOE preferring Jacobinism to progressivism.
On the other hand, "Postnationalism" is a goal, not an ideology. A political party, say, demanding the abolition of slavery, would have Abolitionism among its ideological items, because there is an article for such ideology on wiki. But it wouldn't have Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves because that was a goal or an outcome, not an ideology. CodeInconnu (talk) 07:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Funding section
User CodeInconnu has added a somewhat controversial "Funding" section. The controversy here comes about the highly partial and selectively-chosen content he added; for example a claim that "In 2015, hacker group Anonymous released documents allegedly proving that Libertas founder Declan Ganley, Marina d'Or, Mercadona, Grupo Arturo and Omega Air had funded the party." despite no proof on this or further sources reporting on this ever since, or an attempt at trying to portray Cs as an "highly successful astroturf operation, funded and organised by the German overseas security service" based on just one source which shows a single opinion (not even a proven fact) of a single person (which the user claims should be taken into account because it was a (former) British Ambassador). Also, he added that the Court of Audits "found irregularities in the accounting books of several groups, Cs among them". While true, the scope of such irregularities is not explained, and the own party's explanation on the issue has not been introduced despite one existing, which I think violates WP:BALANCE. As of recently, the same user recently also been information about some incidents in which some random Twitter user accused Cs of being involved (which is not encyclopedic), or not highlighting the party's denying its involvement despite such claims being in the sources he added. When I added that the party did reject its involvement in the incidents, he then re-edited the section to try to connect two separate events in a discrediting way to Cs, despite the linked sources not doing that themselves, which violates both WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH.
The issue here to me is that there seems to be a selection of claims and sources intended to present the party in a negative way without proper balancing, or presenting them as if they were undoubtely true and proven, which is not encyclopedical at all. Maybe some of these could be maintained, others should be definitely removed, but creating a whole section just to highlight negative aspects about the party without even trying to portray them in a neutral or balanced way seems to blatantly violate the policy to maintain a neutral point of view. Impru20talk12:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Those sentences were properly referenced and any imprecision can be solved by looking into the references themselves, which provide more detail. Like I told you in the change log, if you have references to other things you should add it to. Otherwise just stop being a nuisance. You're not in the Spanish wikipedia now. CodeInconnu (talk) 12:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
@CodeInconnu: Referencing just for the sake of it is not everything in Wikipedia, just half of it. Firstly, minority opinions should not be given preeminence over majority ones as per WP:UNDUE: this means that you should not include minor opinions from some or minor details without reporting on the majority view as well. It also means you should consider when some events are noteworthy to be included or not, even if referenced. Secondly, adding selective sources to try to present a party/person/issue/event/etc in a particular light or viewpoint breaks WP:NPOV, which demands that representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Your own sources did show all viewpoint yet you did not include them. And thirdly, you say I should "add it to", when I did include other viewpoints reflected in your own sources in one of these claims, you rewrote it to try to portray the party in a negative way again. Tendentious editing does not conform to Wikipedia policies on the neutral point of view. You should not try to edit in a partisan, biased or skewed way. Impru20talk12:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
And who are you to decide what are minority opinions and what are not? And who are you to decide what is noteworthy of inclusion and what is not? And who are you to decide that the Canet events and the Parliament confrontation were totally unrelated events? In fact, who are you? Indeed, referencing just for the sake of it is not everything in Wikipedia, not even half of it: you have to reference every angle that has opened inroads into the public opinion. I've added "stuff" that is properly referenced, if it doesn't represent the point of view you think should be majority, feel free to add other "stuff" properly referenced as well. If you can't find it, that's your problem. The only tendentious party in this interaction is you. CodeInconnu (talk) 12:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
@CodeInconnu: Replying to your questions one by one:
And who are you to decide what are minority opinions and what are not? I am no one to do so, because it is not me saying that, but WP:RSUW: "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts". For instance, pointing that Cs is being financed by Mercadona, Grupo Arturo, Marina D'Or and others should require more than just an Anonymous claim in 2015 referenced in a source which must rely on the web.archive system because it has been removed ever since. If it is a majority one, you should have no issues to substantiate it with references to reliable sources.
And who are you to decide what is noteworthy of inclusion and what is not? Again, WP:RSUW: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not."
And who are you to decide that the Canet events and the Parliament confrontation were totally unrelated events? It is you who should find the sources expressly connecting these events. You are not who to make such a connection yourself. That's original research. As I see from your latest edits, you are again trying to point a connection between the two events without sourcing that, which is WP:SYNTH. Just because Carrizosa stated that Cs had no involvement in the Canet incidents does not mean such an event is connected to the Parliament incident, which is what you are trying to portray here.
In fact, who are you? I am a Wikipedia user, just as you. As far as I am concerned, both of us are subject to Wikipedia policies and guidelines; as such, I should also ask you who are you to try to discredit my policy-based advices in such a way and to try to supersede such policies with your own, particular views.
I've added "stuff" that is properly referenced, if it doesn't represent the point of view you think should be majority, feel free to add other "stuff" properly referenced as well This brings us again to WP:RSUW: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." It is you who should prove that a claim is held by at least a large-enough minority to be noteworthy, because if it is not, it does not belong here. For example (but not limited to), a random Twitter user giving out his opinion about the Canet incidents is indeed a fact that happened, but it is not noteworthy in Wikipedia. Impru20talk
About Anonymous: Alas, you chose the wrong example to make your point. Anonymous releasing those documents is not something that depends on viewpoints: they did release those documents. I'm not saying Cs was financed by those groups, I'm saying a third party says it. Since I'm referencing it, it is not amenable to your Byzantine discussion about viewpoints, majority or otherwise. And whether or not you like it, Anonymous DOES make inroads into public opinion.
Again, WP:RSUW: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." And what elements do you have to decide those are extremely small or vastly limited minorities? If you see a piece of ice in the sea are you going to suddenly decide it's just a large ice cube with nothing below and dive through it with your ship?
It is you who should find the sources expressly connecting these events. You are not who to make such a connection yourself. (...) Just because Carrizosa stated that Cs had no involvement in the Canet incidents does not mean such an event is connected to the Parliament incident, which is what you are trying to portray here. What makes you think that's my intention? See, that's YOU jumping to conclusion.
discredit my policy-based advices in such a way and to try to supersede such policies with your own, particular views. So far you're the only one bandying around epithets like "crazy" directed at what otherwise can be valid sources?
"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." It is you who should prove that a claim is held by at least a large-enough minority to be noteworthy, because if it is not, it does not belong here. For example (but not limited to), a random Twitter user giving out his opinion about the Canet incidents is indeed a fact that happened, but it is not noteworthy in Wikipedia. You're going around in circles. You have to justify why only a vastly limited minority of people deem what happened in the Parliament to be a turning point, why it is worrying, or why it has potential resonance to future (and arguably and speculatively past) events. I don't think it's an exiguous minority but I acknowledge it's not the only viewpoint which is why I keep telling you to add instead of subtract. I've respected your excision of the reference to the Twitter user, I've taken out "vociferously" and added the reference to Carrizosa denying his party's authorship. But removing properly referenced facts and statements just because they don't abide by your preconceived notions, is not something you should be allowed to do unchallenged I'm afraid. CodeInconnu (talk) 13:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Anonymous releasing those documents is not something that depends on viewpoints: they did release those documents. Yes, and what I asking you is if this fact, which does indeed exist, is noteworthy. That an event happens does not make it noteworthy. For example, are those documents authentic? Have those been confirmed by any of the mentioned parties, or by a third party aside from Anonymous themselves? That someone releases some info on a party does not make such an info authentic or noteworthy. You should realize that, and prove that yourself with additional sources that confirm such a point and make it noteworthy. Otherwise, political party articles throughout Wikipedia would be full of references to negative advertisement about them, because claims casting doubts about the financing of parties or candidates are commonplace and nearly an usual rule in politics.
And what elements do you have to decide those are extremely small or vastly limited minorities? It is you the one who must prove that they are not in a minority so small that they are not noteworthy, as per RSUW. If they are in a majority, as you seemingly say, you would not have issues providing further sources that confirm such an extent. Minority views are defined precisely by the absence or limited amount of sources about these. In order to prove that a view is in the minority, instead of in the majority you would have to prove the non-existence of such sources, which is exactly the contrary as RSUW (in connection with RL and NPOV) point to. Do not pretend a probatio diabolica of requiring others to prove the non-existence of sources that do not exist, because that is obviously impossible.
If you see a piece of ice in the sea are you going to suddenly decide it's just a large ice cube with nothing below and dive through it with your ship? I would rather say that the actual example here is you seeing a small ice cube in the sea and dubbing it a massive iceberg without the necessary proof for it. Or it isn't you who unilaterally decided that the piece about the Anonymous papers is so relevant to be deserved a note here to doubt about the party's funding? Or it isn't you the one unilaterally deciding to insert the opinion of a person (which is not even a fact, just an opinion) to claim that the party "originated as a highly successful astroturf operation, funded and organised by the German overseas security service, the BND"? Or it wasn't you the one who unilaterally decided that the opinion of some random Twitter user was relevant here? The elements I do see to consider that these are not majority views and that you are giving these undue weight is that you have not proven so far that these are anything else than small ice cubes in the sea. Do prove that these are actual icebergs without pretending that it is up for everyone else to take that for granted for the sake of it.
So far you're the only one bandying around epithets like "crazy" directed at what otherwise can be valid sources? I do not think I understand what you are trying to say here. Nonetheless, please note that just because you can find a source for a claim does such a source become valid under the WP:RL policy. Nor does finding a reliable source about a claim make you eligible to select what information of that source should you include while hiding other data brought by such a source.
What makes you think that's my intention? See, that's YOU jumping to conclusion. Because it is you the one re-writing such a paragraph several times to make such a connection between the two events? Also, it is a little unpolite to say it is me jumping to conclusion when you are jumping to conclusions yourself.
You're going around in circles (...) I have only suggested you to abide to Wikipedia policies on neutrality, original research and proper source weighting, which so far you have failed to accomplish. I did not even put the Parliament event in question here; what I told you on it is that you are trying to directly connect it to the Canet incidents to put the party in a negative way without the sources explictly stating that, which as I said constitutes WP:SYNTH. If the sources do not connect these two events, you are not whom to do that unilaterally yourself, as that is prohibited. Also, you are not whom to unilaterally guess out (as you do seemingly hint here) the possible implications of some events in unforeseeable future events, because then we would also enter into WP:CRYSTAL grounds. Btw, it was me who took out the "vociferously" reference as it was tendentious and not ours to make as an encyclopedia. And of course you respected the removal of the mention to the Twitter user, as that was the most cleares and obvious examples of unnoteworthy facts in Wikipedia: we do not report events based on what random Twitter users say. Impru20talk13:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
This is a "parrafada" that does not demerit any of my arguments, and I'm going to summarize the gist of it in this sequence: "It is you the one who must prove that they are not in a minority so small that they are not noteworthy, as per RSUW. If they are in a majority, as you seemingly say, you would not have issues providing further sources that confirm such an extent. "
1. No I don't need to prove that the minute there are reliable references to it, especially if they are references stemming from elected officials (the CUP councilor), former diplomats who are probably more informed than you and I (Craig Murray) or newspaper articles. Those are markers of an inroad into public opinion and public interest whether you like it or not.
2. Right in the middle of your paragraph, I apparently switch from saying those viewpoints are not too small a minority, to saying they're a majority. Turns out: I never said they were a majority, "seemingly" or otherwise. That's your conclusion. You're moving the goalposts at your convenience right in the middle of an argument. You don't really have anything to cling to other than your desperate need to have those excerpts erased (indeed that is my conclusion, but it's a very educated one seeing as you devote whole circumlocutions to say pretty much nothing except for that). CodeInconnu (talk) 14:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Your calification of my response as a "parrafada" does not demerit none of my arguments either. If you are unwilling to reply to them, that is your choice, though.
1. Of course you must be able to prove that the claims you try to add to Wikipedia merit inclusion. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia".
2. Ok, then change "majority" for "not too small a minority". The result in meaning is the same: you must still prove these are a majority or not too small a minority that they merit inclusion. Do not try to going around in circles to avoid acknoledging that, which I have put up very clearly since the beginning of the discussion.
Indeed, there's a difference between treating Wikipedia as an indiscriminate dumpster for information, and deciding that a given data is worthy of inclusion based on rigid criteria. Is the data related to Cs? Check. Is it properly referenced? Check. Is it terse, short and impervious to weasel wording? Check. Is it recent enough to reflect current views on Cs, minority or otherwise? Check. Are those views more than just an exiguous minority? Check. Reason: if they weren't, they'd only be in Kaosenlared or Rebelion.org or in some paltry private blog instead of in a Court of Audit report, a Vanguardia article that shows no compunction in explicitly echoing the CUP councilor's accusations, or in an article by a former representative of a sovereign government, neither of whom, by the way, have been the object of a slander lawsuit on behalf of Cs. Your tunnel vision prevents you from realizing I've been replying to that question of yours from the very beginning. Newspapers decide what's news for the common mass, and they decided this was news. CodeInconnu (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
What you dub as "rigid criteria" are the criteria provided in Wikipedia guidelines. Precisely, to prevent "treating Wikipedia as an indiscriminate dumpster for information". That a data is of "worthy inclusion" is something than the one including it should be able to prove. Indeed, the information you added is related to Cs (this was never questioned). That it is referenced is not in question either. What was questioned here was the quality and relevance of such sources (on the one hand) and the way to present such information (on the other), something you still fail to account for. Let's see:
1. Under your own criteria (that "newspapers decide what's news for the common mass, and they decided this was news"), the bit about Anonymous should be removed, right? Its only source is an El Plural source which had to be taken from the web.archive wayback machine as a result the original article being removed from the original website. You also present this claim as "not too small of a minority" one, but the only source to an actual newspaper reporting such an event (that I can find) is the one you linked to: this is, a source which, as of now, has been removed from Internet searching. This on the sourcing, because it is also left unexplained how such documents actually prove who is behind Cs funding.
2. You must realize that this previous claim collides with the later claim that it is the "German overseas security service" the one funding them. You should explain in this discussion what the actual purpose of the section is: it is intended as an actual and sincere collection of information about Cs actual funding, or just a random collection of people voicing the opinion about who is funding Cs just to try to portrait the party in a negative way?
3. When you say Are those views more than just an exiguous minority? Check. Reason: if they weren't, they'd only be in Kaosenlared or Rebelion.org or in some paltry private blog, you do realize that the opinion of Craig Murray that you mention has as a source his own personal "private blog", right? This is presented as an "explicit" fact by a "former British ambassador", but it is just an opinion from him, voiced through a digital channel in where his former public office has no relevance. Specially when he makes no attempt himself at sourcing such a claim that Cs "was funded by the BND". So a necessary question would be: There are other, reliable sources reporting on this and confirming it? If yes, by all means have them there and retain this piece of information. If not, then this information comes out only as the opinion of some political activist and is not noteworthy to be in Wikipedia.
4. One of the issues I pointed out was you manipulating sources to select specific information from it, and to re-write paragraphs to connect events which are not connected by the sources themselves; a clear violation of Wikipedia policies which you have repeteadly avoided to answer to. That Carrizosa said that Cs members did not have any involvement in the Canet incident, then being involved in a way different and independent incident himself in Parliament a few days later, does not make the two events connected, or makes the later being a consequence of the first, so they should not be presented as such. Indeed, sources proving that the two incidents happened do exist (that has not been questioned) but the connection between the two should require of a source making such a connection, not you elaborating such a connection yourself from what you interpret of these sources. Again, see what WP:SYNTH is.
5. Another one of the issues (which I tried to solve, but that you re-wrote, as stated above, to make an implicit connection between two events) was that you completely ignored the party's own views on the Canet incident, and instead took as valid only the alleged claim from CUP's councilor accusing Cs members to be among those staging it.
6. Another issue is precisely the one revolving around the Court of Audits report. Such a report does exist, but in your addition of it to the article you neither 1) explain what are exactly the "irregularities" found (i.e. we are talking about minor accounting errors? The unveiling of a major financing scandal? and 2) explain the necessary connection that should have such an event with the party's funding (after all, you've created a whole section specific to "funding" for something, so it should be related and an explanation for that should be given). The issue in this case is not the source given, but rather, your presentation of it.
All in all, what you are doing is to present unquestioned claims as issues of the discussion, leaving unanswered the actual questioned behaviour by engaging in an exercise of self-complacency which is not even supported by any actual argument: just by your apparent conviction that we should take for granted that such obvious presentation of information is good and well because you affirm it is.
Forgive me about this new "parrafada", but it is what happens when someone actually tries to provide reasonable and well-based arguments: that it is not easy to condensate them. Impru20talk15:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
You need to learn how to synthesize. This [1] is an example of why some opinions are not only an exiguous minority, but a growing trend that is making it to newspapers. The source from El Plural was removed for reasons not known to you, and even if you knew those reasons, it would still be an article published on a newspaper (otherwise wayback wouldn't have found it). I don't explain the irregularities in the Court of Audit report because unlike others I don't want to flood Wiki articles with a litany of facts and counterfacts that add nothing to the gist of it. Be that as it may, your first response was to erase the whole thing which was even less of an argument. Craig Murray may be voicing his opinions from his own personal platform, but he doesn't do it anonymous and it is the personal platform of a relevant political figure. I, too, disagree with the way noticiasdenavarra defines Cs as "centre" (and some other foreign sources even defined them as "centre-left") but I have no choice but to respect those because they were published in newspapers. Same way anyone would frown in disbelief in 2018 at Cs' initial self-styling as "centre-left" but they did define themselves that way originally, and that deserves inclusion too. If the Guardian's or Albert Boadella's obsolete characterization of Cs as centre or centre-left deserves inclusion, so does Craig Murray's article. Problem is, you only want inclusion of the sources that abide by your worldview. Also you want me to give explanations on whether I intended [the reference to Murray] as an actual and sincere collection of information about Cs actual funding, or just a random collection of people voicing the opinion about who is funding Cs just to try to portrait the party in a negative way?. Newsflash: I don't owe you an explanation for the reasons or the motives behind my edits. You're not running the show here. If you have references representing a variety of views then the onus is on you to write them here, as long as you think they should be represented. The points of view behind the references I've written are not marginal and no verbose tantrum on your behalf is going to change that. CodeInconnu (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, I am not as good at synthesizing as you are. I do not get your point about "exiguous opinions" getting to newspapers. If an opinion is "exiguous", then it has no place in Wikipedia, whether a newspaper shows it or not (most specially if only one shows it). I surely do not know why El Plural article was removed (neither do you, I assume), but I know that it was removed, and I see no other reliable sources reporting on the Anonymous event. So, while wayback machine has found it, the fact that you have to resort to web.machine in the absence of other sources is proof of this fact's unnoteworthiness. What you are doing is to "flood" this article with a "litany" of negative feedback about the party, then refusing to justify your actions in the light of Wikipedia guidelines, then considering yourself what "adds nothing" and what not to the articles. You must know that if you have to explain something, you must to. This is an online encyclopedia, not your personal blog. This is precisely why your actions are criticised. I erased the "whole thing" (i.e. in reference to the "Funding" section) because it was visibly presented as a mere compilation of partisan feedback about the party using very selective sources and/or minority views as relevant while presenting them in a negative way, and that is your fault, not mine.
The references to the party being in the centre-left are obviously out of date. There's even a template in the "Ideology" which states that "This section's factual accuracy may be compromised due to out-of-date information". Instead of making similar edits to those you consider erroneous or out of date by adding negative feedback about the party, be bold and update the information on the party. But disrupting Wikipedia to make a point is not the way to go. You say you "don't owe me an explanation for the reasons or the motives behind my edits". Not me, but Wikipedia. WP:NPOV is a policy, as are others, and you are not allowed to break them just because you think you don't owe anyone an explanation. It is very simple to understand. I never said I was "running the show here", but you are not running the show here either. Or do you think that others must accept your violations of NPOV and OR and say nothing? The onus is on you to prove the actual relevance of the content you added; obviously, if the content is not relevant or noteworthy, it is not up to other users to turn a blind eye and making it noteworthy for you. If it is noteworthy, prove it. If it is is not, remove it. You have been provided enough links to Wikipedia policies and guidelines to get the idea of when something is relevant and noteworthy and when it isn't, as well as to how to show and present information. Please, use them.
Also, about the "verbose tantrum on [my] behalf", I'm posting you an additional link to another Wiki policy: WP:NPA. Please, read it. Impru20talk16:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
If we applied your rationale to the entire article it would only read "Citizens is a Spanish political party". My contributions are referenced, they are germane to the subject matter, and in your verbose tantrum (because that's what it is) you have produced zero evidence why you deem them to be irrelevant, other than discrediting some of them as "wild opinions" in the change log. The onus on backing that up is still on you whether or not you like it. CodeInconnu (talk) 16:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
If we applied your rationale to the entire article it would only read "Citizens is a Spanish political party" Unexplained and unsourced claim which you bring here only to avoid discussing what has been exposed to you. Your "contributions are referenced", but you have been already shown that unnoteworthy facts or opinions should not be included, even if referenced, be it because of the (lack of) reliability of the sources, be it because of the absence of them, be it because they are presented in a way forbidden by Wikipedia. Also, references mean little in those areas where it is you interpreting what the sources do not say.
Oh yes, my evidence was those "parrafadas" you kept insulting and disregarding. It has been presented to you clearly and repeteadly to you; another issue is that you do not like it, because so far you have refused to even pay attention to it. Please, read Wikipedia policies and guidelines and take some time at learning how Wikipedia works. Impru20talk17:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
but you have been already shown that unnoteworthy facts or opinions should not be included, even if referenced, be it because of the (lack of) reliability of the sources, be it because of the absence of them, be it because they are presented in a way forbidden by Wikipedia. You have provided no evidence that those facts and opinions are not noteworthy or that the sources are not reliable. I haven't presented anything in a format forbidden by anyone. And the only one talking about "wild guys" and "wild opinions" was you. Check out the meaning of verbose while you're at it. Unless you cannot provide with proof that the added facts are not relevant, I really can't help you any further. CodeInconnu (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
You have provided no evidence that those facts and opinions are not noteworthy or that the sources are not reliable The onus is on you to provide the evidence that those facts and opinions you are adding are noteworthy and that the sources you add are reliable, and I've shown to you already the policies and guidelines pointing you to that. You've done neither of those, so we must assume that the highlighted flaws exist and that you cannot show evidence for that (i.e. the Anonymous claim relying in only one newspaper source in the entire Internet and that being a deleted one; i.e. the Craig Murray statement being an opinion from that person which is in itself unsourced; i.e. your way of presenting information being contrary to WP:NPOV and WP:OR). In other cases, you've been shown to manipulate and re-interpret the sources (in those situations, the issue is neither on the sources or the noteworthiness, but in your way of presenting the information) and you still refuse to even make a mention to it.
Please, take a read at the "parrafadas" you disregarded. I tried to make a summary in this response, but all evidence is there in a much more detailed way. And I can't help out with your personal attacking, but I'm not going to enter into it. Impru20talk17:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
The onus is on you to provide the evidence that those facts and opinions you are adding are noteworthy and that the sources you add are reliable I've done that repeatedly. Past newspaper articles. The alleged testimony of a man who unlike myself (and, probably, you) knew German intelligence assets. Recent newspaper articles. A Court of Audit report. These things are not everything, but they're not nothing either. CodeInconnu (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
No, the only thing you have done repeteadly is to 1) re-assure that what you have provided is enough only because you affirm it, ignoring all references to Wikipedia guidelines you would be potentially violating; 2) ignore the criticism to your presentation of information and your behaviour; and 3) fulfilling the previous point by discrediting my comments as "parrafadas" or "verbose tantrum" (if you don't wish to read what I told you, understand that it's your fault, not mine). Do you consider that as "providing evidence that these facts are opinions are noteworthy"? If so, then yes, you indeed did so.
Past newspaper articles. This, on the Anonymous issue. Here you have been asked for further sources that confirm what the claimed (and as of currently deleted) newspaper article does reference. Can you do that? Can you provide a reliable source that supports this? For information to merit inclusion you must either 1) being easily able to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts (note both the "commonly accepted" qualification as well as the use of thr plural) or 2) being easily to name prominent adherents. If you can prove one of these, then this will be either a majority view or a significant minority one and, thus, meriting inclusion. If you can't, it would be a viewpoint held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, meaning that it does not matter whether it is true or not; or whether you can prove it or not: it does not belong in Wikipedia (WP:WEIGHT and WP:RSUW).
The alleged testimony of a man who unlike myself (and, probably, you) knew German intelligence assets. Your whole approach on this is mishandled. The issue here is that this is a self-published work, and as such it must adhere to Wikipedia's policy on self-published works: check WP:RS/SPS and WP:SELFPUBLISH. Ask you the next questions: Is the author an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications? Can you bring a reliable secondary or tertiary source that may confirm what he affirms? Can you prove that such a man actually knew about "German intelligence assets" and that such a claim is not just a wild guess from this person? If the answer is no, then it is not acceptable as a source. And it is not me saying that, but the Wikipedia policies I persistently tried you to read.
A Court of Audit report. The issue here is not the source, but the generic presentation of the information contained in it without further clarification, which is against WP:NPOV (and WP:WEIGHT too, depending on whether those "irregularities" are relevant or not). This could be maintained if expanded by explaining and clarifying what does such a claim of "irregularities" mean.
Recent newspaper articles This on the Canet and Parliament incidents. The issue here were not the sources, either, but in you trying to connect two unconnected events (using references to Carrizosa to accomplish that) when the sources themselves did not do that. That would violate Wikipedia policy on WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Really, is this that difficult to understand?
So, with things clear, are you going to actually do something? Or do you find this insurmountable amount of evidence to be another "parrafada" that you can disregard as "no evidence given because I feel like it"? This is so obvious I do not know how you can still pretend to ignore all of it. Impru20talk19:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
The reason I didn't read your "parrafada" the first time is because I already what your argumentative route plan would be. But now I've read it.
This, on the Anonymous issue. Here you have been asked for further sources that confirm what the claimed (and as of currently deleted) newspaper article does reference. Can you do that? Can you provide a reliable source that supports this? Supports what, that Anonymous said those things? Well, they said them. That's a fact. It doesn't need a sizable minority or a majority to validate. But if it makes you happier, here's another reference. [2]
The alleged testimony of a man who unlike myself (and, probably, you) knew German intelligence assets. Your whole approach on this is mishandled You don't even read the links to Wikipedia policy you try to use as argument currency. "self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources" I wasn't using Murray's paragraph as a source, I was mentioning the fact that HE alleged those things. If we were to use your argument in the rest of the article, I repeat, nothing would prevail, starting with "Noticias de Navarra" calling this a centre party. Is the author of the article a reputable source too?
A Court of Audit report. The issue here is not the source, but the generic presentation of the information contained in it without further clarification this is a bunch of hogwash I'm not even going to bother answering. Read WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT yourself instead of quoting them in order to try to fill the whole "parrafada" with blue-letter hyperlinks and a false patina of seriousness.
The issue here were not the sources, either, but in you trying to connect two unconnected events (using references to Carrizosa to accomplish that) (...) "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." how many times do I need to tell you that this is an unsubstantiated conclusion of yours? You can't even tell when you're exposing the facts and when you're jumping to conclusions. The mental mechanism for both processes seems to be the same in you. CodeInconnu (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
If you did not read my comments previously then do not dare to say I did not put up evidence as you have said throughout the discussion. Read others' arguments and don't be offensive, because it is disgusting to see someone launching accusations, then realizing that person is not even caring on the issue. This as a preliminary issue.
Supports what, that Anonymous said those things? Well, they said them. That's a fact. It doesn't need a sizable minority or a majority to validate. Uh, yeah pal. Read WP:WEIGHT again. Oh, and your "new" source: 1) it is from two years later (the one mentioned in the article is from 2015, the one here is from 2017), and 2) See what? None of the sources (neither the El Plural one from 2015, nor the El Nacional one from 2017) do make any mention to any "release of documents" proving anything. They do not even make any mention to any "document" at all. They are just random tweets in Twitter taking their facts for granted as any random user could make, and making some threats (i.e. to publish a "crucial" information at some time) that they did not fulfill. So you've not only published a blatant lie in the article (i.e. that "Anonymous released documents"), but you also have sought to give prominence to the random tweets of some random guys on the Internet which are not even confirmed to be members from Anonymous. Are you going to do something on the issue?
On the Murray issue: yes, I do read Wikipedia guidelines more than you seem to do. Because when WP:RS/SPS and WP:SELFPUBLISH say that "are largely not acceptable as sources", you'd see that it says "largely" because it allows for an exception which it mentions just next to it: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Tell me: is Murray an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications? Can you prove that, please? If you cannot, why should we in Wikipedia consider what he says as noteworthy? Can you explain any of it? Or are you going to ignore it yet again and come with some random and wild excuse about why my comments are "parrafadas", etc.
Btw, the only use of a "Noticias de Navarra" link in the article is this one. This is a news article which the Noticias de Navarra media took out from the actual author of the article, the Europa Press agency, which does indeed have a reputation as a reliable source. Now, your argument that "If we were to use your argument in the rest of the article, I repeat, nothing would prevail" is obviously false, so please, stop trying to play games and being disruptive.
this is a bunch of hogwash I'm not even going to bother answering. Read WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT yourself instead of quoting them in order to try to fill the whole "parrafada" with blue-letter hyperlinks and a false patina of seriousness. This whole sentence is a blatant personal attack. You know, if you can't actually defend your arguments because you have none, I'll give you an advice: stay shut up. Getting violent on others won't help you. From this, I guess that you indeed acknowledge your ignorance of WP:NPOV and WP:OR and that your offensive behaviour comes only because you can't prove otherwise.
how many times do I need to tell you that this is an unsubstantiated conclusion of yours? You can't even tell when you're exposing the facts and when you're jumping to conclusions. The mental mechanism for both processes seems to be the same in you. Same as the previous point. Also, it is an insult you now try to deny the fact that you have blatantly tried to make such a connection between the two events. Impru20talk23:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
The reason I read your parrafada diagonally the first time, is because I knew what you were doing and upon closer scrutiny you're still doing it. I've read tons of arguments like yours and in real life, I've met people like you dime a dozen. You're practicing sophisms, not reading other people's replies carefully, instead reading them selectively, juggling with the object of the predicate, inserting lies or half-lies to bulk it up: sources for what? I never said Murray's claims were true, now THAT would have rendered Wikipedia policies applicable. If I said "Cs was financed by so and so" and offered a reference to back it up, that reference should have passed all those litmus tests mentioned in your blue link. But turns out, that's no what I'm saying. What I'm saying is, Craig Murray is claiming it. And that takes us to a gray area. In that gray area you cannot impose Wikipedia policies without backing arguments because said policies don't apply per se. Whereas I have two reasons backing my position: 1. he's a senior diplomat who has been a part of the EU machinery for many years, 2. he hasn't faced legal action by anyone despite the seriousness of the allegations. They might not be watertight, but they're better than nothing. You have nothing.
You are ostensibly misusing Wikipedia policies by suddenly rendering them rigid (and over-encompassing) whenever it suits you. Well here's a few bits you can chew on while you're at it.
the Noticias de Navarra article: [3] this is used. This is the only reason the word "centre" still appears in that tab. I rest my case (concerning what I said in the first paragraph) by looking at your argument: This is a news article which the Noticias de Navarra media took out from the actual author of the article, the Europa Press agency, which does indeed have a reputation as a reliable source. Europa Press is not an author. And most importantly: the only appearances of the word "centro" are in quotes taken from Rivera's speech. Rivera is not an impartial source, and there are also policies on misusing the main actors of an event as sources for said event. Again: you quote Wikipedia policies a lot but understood nothing about them.
at least one of the sources for "postnationalist", [4], does not even contain the word, it only contains "non nationalist" which is not synonymous with it (and is very much obsolete as of 2018). Another source for this is "Asociación de Compositores y Autores de Música"--top-notch reliable source, let me tell ya...
one of the sources for "centre" in the main text actually says this: "The centre-right, pro-business party Ciudadanos (Citizens) is forecast to take fourth place."
I could go on (by extrapolation, probably at least a fourth or a fifth of sources suffer from this) but unlike you I have more important things to do. You get the picture.
This whole sentence is a blatant personal attack. You know, if you can't actually defend your arguments because you have none, I'll give you an advice: stay shut up. Getting violent on others won't help you. From this, I guess that you indeed acknowledge your ignorance of WP:NPOV and WP:OR and that your offensive behaviour comes only because you can't prove otherwise. Precisely the only one who borders ad-hominem is you. Like I said in my first paragraph, your verbose rants are not constructive and another goal of people like you is to unnerve the person they're arguing with and goad them into resorting to ad-hominem, in order to whine and pull the headmistress' (in this case the admin's) skirt "señorita, me ha insultado". I haven't devoted any epithets to you because I don't have to, all I need to label is the things you say, and indeed your rants are verbose and your "parrafadas" less than constructive. Needless to say, the only one who should heed your underlined advice is you, because so far you have failed to produce a sound argument. I told you this once, this is not Spanish wikipedia. You need to reason things a bit more here. CodeInconnu (talk) 10:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I am ignoring the personal attacking without arguments from your first paragraph and instead will limit myself to comment the little bits about content. I am here to comment on content, not on the contributor, and I would ask you to do likewise. You say "I never said Murray's claims were true", and well, this only increases the issue. There is no "gray area" because WP:SELFPUBLISH applies to any content which is self-published, be it true or not (though it is isn't true, you should also please explain why are you considering it noteworthy for Wikipedia in the first place). Further, if you are know acknowledging that you do not even know if Murray's claims are true, then they are definitely unnoteworthy and should be immediately removed from Wikipedia, because 1) Wikipedia content must be sourced, and 2) self-published claims by any person requires sourcing themselves with reliable sources from third parties. If you acknowledge Murray's claims cannot fulfill any of these, then it does not matter if he is God himself: this is a violation of WP:RL and WP:NPOV. You liking it or not.
This is the only reason the word "centre" still appears in that tab. Uh, first of all, you're bringing this off-topic, but ok: there are (at least) five other sources in the article that depict Cs as centrist (check the first paragraph in the "Ideology" section). You want additional sources? Take these: [5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. And the claim of it being a "centrist" party is completed with the addition of the claim that it is a centre-right party (of which there are also sources), determining that the party's position in the political spectrum is from the centre to the centre-right. I don't know where the issue is here. Now, you are obviously trying to bring this off-topic to ignore the fact that you can't prove your claims about the disputed content. But I assure you: adding flawed content to this article just because you think that other parts of it are flawed is not the right thing to do.
You could surely go on, but that is not the issue of the discussion: if you think there are flawed sources in some of these statements, remove them, or update them, or whatever. Adding a whole section to try to depict the party negatively in response to you not liking other information throughout the article is an outright violation of NPOV and WP:TE.
And see how in this last reply from you, you have not even commented the fact that the bit about Anonymous is a blatant lie added to the articles, because the sources do neither prove this is a noteworthy fact to be added, nor do they say what you have added to the article. You have not even cared to argue any of the other claims either, so we can safely say you are not able to prove anything of it. Impru20talk13:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Also, I removed the bit about Jordi Cañas because if it refers to events that happened while not a party member, it obviously has nothing to do with the party's funding. It should belong in a Jordi Cañas article (which you are free to be bold and create it to add this information), but not in here. I have also removed the contentious Anonymous and Murray bits, as no source has been provided about their reliability (despite these having been asked for multiple times). Everything else has been preserve, though I have added some clarification templates in those areas that would need it. Impru20talk13:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I have also addressed some of the issues you pointed out (as you are seemingly aware of them but reject to address them yourself for some reason). Let me know what is the specific source that says that "The centre-right, pro-business party Ciudadanos (Citizens) is forecast to take fourth place" which is reportedly mistakingly reporting Cs as a "centre" party, so I can remove it and replace with one of those which I have provided. Impru20talk13:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I won't argue about the Cañas bit just yet because I've got other stuff to do, ditto for the other references you've added, but you've got it all wrong in the rest. I never said I tried to depict a party negatively (that's your assumption), I have not attacked you personally (that's your specialty), also when I said "tab" I meant the box with the description, not the rest of the text, and indeed it only appears once and the only reference is Noticias de Navarra. Also it doesn't matter if Murray's claims are true or not, they're as true or untrue as Rivera's definition of his party as "centre" in the Noticias de Navarra, and both claims are referenced so if one stays, so does the other. Do you think I enjoy talking to you like this? Do you see why your edits need to monitored and scrutinized? You go off on rants but you add little substance to them. And finally: relax, this is just an article! You'll end up having an aneurysm and it'll truly break my heart. CodeInconnu (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I never said I tried to depict a party negatively (that's your assumption). Yes. I assume that because that is what you have done; you do not need to actually acknowledge you did it. The thing is that the edits you added did put the party in a negative way, in many cases altering what the sources actually said and overestimating the relevance of some facts or opinions.
I have not attacked you personally. The continuous reference to my texts as "parrafadas"; "I've read tons of arguments like yours and in real life, I've met people like you dime a dozen"; "inserting lies or half-lies to bulk it up"; "verbose tantrum on your behalf", etc. All of it are personal references to a contributor, and as such these are personal attacks. That it may have not been your intention? Well, avoid expressions like these and we surely may reach an understanding.
Indeed, the only reference about the centre ideology in the infobox is the one about Noticias de Navarra, but there is little point at trying to refute the validity of the "centrist" description since there are plenty of sources in the article for it (and more can be provided, if needed). The issue here would be that we can't bomb the infobox with sources, because it creates some issues for readers (thus, sources in infoboxes should be limited to one, two or three), but that does not mean that more sources do not exist. If such a source is troubling for you because it is Rivera the one self-describing his party as centrist, then you have a point. A better source could be used.
Also it doesn't matter if Murray's claims are true or not, they're as true or untrue as Rivera's definition of his party as "centre" in the Noticias de Navarra, and both claims are referenced so if one stays, so does the other. So, this means that if we change the source of the "centre" definition in the infobox for one that shows it is not Rivera the one describing the party as "centrist", we may remove the bit about Murray too? No issues. Changed. Does this mean we can now remove the bit about Murray?
I do not enjoy getting dragged in a discussion like this, but obviously it is not better to let you to adding all the random information you wish to the article just because you think some parts of it are flawed. Wikipedia does not improve by further undermining the quality of their articles, but rather, by actually being bold and improving the flaws we notice. Impru20talk14:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not going to contest your reference additions but I'll mention them again at the end of this paragraph. Your insistence that I'm trying to portray the party negatively, however, rings hollow, if not downright silly: you shouldn't confuse the output with the intention. By the way, I've altered nothing of what the sources actually said (see, this is you surreptitiously inserting lies whenever you can). If those references portray the party in a negative light, that's the party's and/or the sources' problem, not the Wiki editor's. I need to remind you, however, that all of this is in a section titled "Controversy" so it would be rather naïve (to use a term that offends nobody's thin skin) to assume that the data in such section should be leave a nice aftertaste about anything related to the party. And finally, no it does not mean we can remove the bit about Murray, because in your recent references for "centre", a) Alistair Dawber and whoever wrote the FT and The Economist articles have not been proven to be any more credible political analysts than Craig Murray, and b) the two sources that are open access (FT is not) explicitly refer to Cs as centre-right in their main text. So you've essentially copied those references only because "centrist" appeared in the title without even bothering to read more carefully. Hence you've done what you were accusing me of doing: interpret and editorialize the main body of the message conveyed by articles written by other people. I'm sure there could be powerful reasons for the position you're trying to defend, but you should come to terms with the fact that you're not the optimal mouthpiece for said position. It needs to be defended by someone more rigorous I'm afraid. CodeInconnu (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
rings hollow, if not downright silly; surreptitiously inserting lies whenever you can; you're not the optimal mouthpiece for said position. It needs to be defended by someone more rigorous I'm afraid And again, the personal attacking. Please, refrain from making such an expressions, please. You are not needed to insult people.
I've altered nothing of what the sources actually said. Well, you said Anonymous "released documents" when 1) no reference to such a word was even made at the sources you presented, those were just tweets; and 2) the "Anonymous" intervention here was limited to an unconfirmed Twitter account releasing random tweets. This is one alteration. Another alteration would be connecting both the Canet and Parliament incidents together. Another alteration would be to present as a proven fact the unsourced opinion of a person. How would you call all of it? Good researching?
If those references portray the party in a negative light, that's the party's and/or the sources' problem, not the Wiki editor's. The issue is that those sources did not portray the party in the way you have portrayed it. So yeah, that's your problem.
I need to remind you, however, that all of this is in a section titled "Controversy" so it would be rather naïve (to use a term that offends nobody's thin skin) to assume that the data in such section should be leave a nice aftertaste about anything related to the party. Indeed, but the content in such a section should reflect actual controversies, not 1) minor incidents which only you seem to portray as controversies; nor 2) controversies that actually happened but that you are intent in magnifying beyond their actual scope.
Financial Times and The Economist are well-established news outlets, and thus reliable sources as per WP:NEWSORG, and they do describe Cs as centrist. Murray's statements are in his personal, private blog, and thus is subject to WP:RSSELF. It wasn't you who praised the reliability of newspapers compared to some "paltry private blog"? Now you are being inconsistent here. You only seem to be improvising excuses for not removing Murray's bit, trying to put the whole article in question to try to divert attention from your obvious inability to put up any valid argument to support the permanence of Murray's claims here. I am sorry but I am reverting your edits, and if you keep your behaviour I will outrightly report you for disruptive editing (and possibly for keeping in a personal-attacking mood at multiple times despite numerous warnings on it). Your call, but unencyclopedic content must be obviously removed, and now you have not provided a single source in the whole discussion that makes Murray's statements meet WP:RSSELF, nor do you seem intent on being here to have a constructive discussion nor in helping improve this article. Impru20talk17:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
And again, the personal attacking. Please, refrain from making such an expressions, please. You are not needed to insult people. First of all, again since it seems quite challenging, I'm labelling your actions and statements, not you. Second of all, "You are not needed to insult people" doesn't even make sense. Write proper English please. This is the English Wikipedia.
I've altered nothing of what the sources actually said. Well, you said Anonymous "released documents" when 1) no reference to such a word was even made at the sources you presented, those were just tweets; and 2) the "Anonymous" intervention here was limited to an unconfirmed Twitter account releasing random tweets. This is one alteration. I didn't insist on the Anonymous thing anymore, is this all you've got? Oh dear, it's not...
Another alteration would be connecting both the Canet and Parliament incidents together Not it would not be. That's you (for the nth time) jumping to conclusions. If you see a connection between those two pieces of text that's your own Gestalt perception, I didn't make any direct connection and it is not up to you to infer my intentions.
Another alteration would be to present as a proven fact the unsourced opinion of a person. When have I done that? Have I ever said "this is true because person A or B said it"?
How would you call all of it? Good researching? I can certainly label what you are doing: looking for quotable acerbic dialogue in order to complain to the admin.
The issue is that those sources did not portray the party in the way you have portrayed it. So yeah, that's your problem. See, you're making things up along the way.
Indeed, but the content in such a section should reflect actual controversies, not 1) minor incidents which only you seem to portray as controversies; nor 2) controversies that actually happened but that you are intent in magnifying beyond their actual scope. Again, for the nth time (I didn't know it would be so hard to understand): who decides whether the incidents are minor, and whether merely writing them here implies magnifying them?
Financial Times and The Economist are well-established news outlets, and thus reliable sources as per WP:NEWSORG, and they do describe Cs as centrist. They describe it as centre-right throughout the text of their articles, and they're well-established news outlets when it comes to economics, finance and the Anglosphere. Anything they have to say about a non-English speaking topic should be taken cautiously and you're obviously not doing that.
Murray's statements are in his personal, private blog, and thus is subject to WP:RSSELF. They are the personal statements of someone who already had his point of view vindicated by EU sources on at least another case of interference by the intelligence community. <ref name="Sullivan">{{cite news|last=Sullivan|first=Kevin|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/31/AR2008013103501.html|title=The Envoy & His Navel Liaison|work=The Washington Post|date=<!-- per article heading. -->1 February 2008|accessdate=17 March 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2005/12/13/144449/84|title=The Torture Biz: Selling Our Soul for Disinfo Rubbish|publisher=European Tribune|date=13 December 2005|accessdate=18 July 2008}}</ref> Remind me again how many bloggers do you know who can say the same? Because you're obviously dismissing him as a mere blogger with no authority in the matter.
It wasn't you who praised the reliability of newspapers compared to some "paltry private blog"? I've answered this in the previous point, and in English it's "wasn't it you (...)"
You only seem to be improvising excuses for not removing Murray's bit, trying to put the whole article in question to try to divert attention from your obvious inability to put up any valid argument to support the permanence of Murray's claims here. And how's that not personal attacking by way of blatant unsubstantiated inferences on what I intend and do not intend to do?
I am sorry but I am reverting your edits, and if you keep your behaviour I will outrightly report you for disruptive editing (and possibly for keeping in a personal-attacking mood at multiple times despite numerous warnings on it). Be sure to document those accusations because you're the one who told me to "keep it shut", remember? Your accusations of personal attacks could seriously backfire and erasing your comments would not change anything at all.
nor do you seem intent on being here to have a constructive discussion nor in helping improve this article. I do want to have a constructive discussion, I just don't think I can have it with you. You're not here to build an encyclopedia, you're just here to tell people to "keep it shut" and define their actions as "disgusting". CodeInconnu (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
This is the English Wikipedia, but you do not seem aware on the English Wikipedia policies about personal attacks and uncivility. Please, take a look at these and learn something new.
I didn't insist on the Anonymous thing anymore You did say that you did not altered nothing of what the sources actually said. If you do not want me to "insist on the Anonymous issue", please do not lie.
You connected both incidents throughout Carrizosa, and I again note you that you re-wrote me two times to imply that an actual connection between these two existed.
Yes, you are continuously stating in this discussion and in your edit summaries that Murray "has such an information" despite no third-party source being provided to back up such claims. You are openly violating WP:RSSELF and WP:SELFPUBLISHED just to disrupt this article, which is a true shame coming from an editor who comes here giving out lessons to others.
No, I have asked you to label what you are doing. Please, answer me.
you're making things up along the way. I have voiced your obvious intent on manipulating sources to depict the party in a negative way from the very beginning of this discussion. Who is coming here without a clear argument, putting in question different content throughout the entire article just to counter the fact that Murray's claims are unencyclopedic and in violation of sources? Hmmm...
who decides whether the incidents are minor, and whether merely writing them here implies magnifying them? Definitely not you unilaterally, as you have been doing the whole time. Or are you going to deny that you are bringing random events here that you find controversial? You surely would say that "I insist on the Anonymous issue", but then, who tried to insert a blatantly fake "fact" as a "controversy" here? Surely that was not me.
They describe it as centre-right throughout the text of their articles, and they're well-established news outlets when it comes to economics, finance and the Anglosphere. Well, you are surely checking wrong sources:
The Economist: "His party was formed by disillusioned Catalan Socialists who disliked temporising with nationalists. Last year Mr Rivera repositioned it as a centrist, progressive liberal party."
The Independent: "Spain’s Socialists have taken a first step towards ending weeks of political paralysis by joining by the centrist Ciudadanos party in a bid to form a new coalition government."
We can't access the Financial Times source, but the title clearly dubs the party as "centrist".
It seems you are lying then. Do you actually check sources? Because considering this and the Anonymous affair, one would think you do not actually check sources.
And how's that not personal attacking by way of blatant unsubstantiated inferences on what I intend and do not intend to do? Would a killer recognize he has killed someone? Enough evidence of your actions has been presented, yet you still try to ignore it by claiming that you have not acknowledge it. You call it "unsubstantiate"? Well, surely it is much more substantiated that your Anonymous issue, right? And back then, you did not care to introduce unsubstantiated content in the article, so please, have some modesty at least.
It is obvious you are here to make politics and to introduce biased content on this party. I have not taken it from your acknowledgements (obviously) but from your actions. You have not proven otherwise. You did accuse me of "not being here to build an encyclopedia" from the very first edit summary, even before this discussion started, and you did not care to make unsubstantiated accusations back then. And you now feel "hurt" because I have put up evidence to you of your own actions? It is obvious you're not here to build an encyclopedia, but at least, try to disguise it better. Impru20talk18:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I need to bring in a third party in this. Take a look at your talk page and please steer away from ad hominem. CodeInconnu (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Outside Observation
There has been too much uncivil discourse and too many personal attacks. It appears that there are content disputes to be resolved. If the editors are all interested in resolving the content disputes and are willing to put aside or settle the conduct disputes, I suggest formal mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
User talk:Robert McClenon, the other user in that discussion has said he'll take a hiatus from it (or at least that's what can be gleaned from his text), and I've decided not to contest the removal of the only one of my contributions (the Craig Murray bit) that deserves to be called controversial, so we seem to have tacitly found the closest we'll get to a common ground. Be that as it may, this is an extremely contentious article and general topic and will only grow more so as the situation worsens in Catalonia and Spain, so your or someone else's external scrutiny may be necessary again in the future. I also predict vandalism and very cheap, partisan and poorly thought pot shots will be taken at this page increasingly often, so it may have to be locked every now and then. If such mediation takes place, it ought to be someone who has no dog in this fight, and I mean someone who is neither Spanish nor Catalan. Ideally they shouldn't be French or from the Spanish-speaking world either (liable to side with the pro-unionist Spanish side) or from anywhere in Continental Western Europe (liable to be adamantly partisan on either side, depending on the country). But at the same time, they should be at least vaguely knowledgeable about Spanish and European history from 1930s onward and about the current political situation. That narrows it down a lot but this is one of those topics you do get from time to time methinks.
Be that as it may, this discussion in particular seems to have been partially assuaged so in the present scenario I wouldn't do much to stir the riverbed. CodeInconnu (talk) 06:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
POV violations
To attach the subject of the article, some self-proclaimed "experts" are invoked. For rhe first (Calas), a personal blog is used ad source. A background check of the "expert" shows no academic credentials justifying why this person would be an expert. The next expert, Borràs, appears to be a photographer. Again, no information in why he should be considered a neutral, reliable expert on politics. It seems pretty clear these "experts" have been chosen not because of any neutral verifiable expertise but rather the opposite: since no expertise can be found to support the claims they make, these non-experts are invoked and claimed as experts. That's the very definition on WP:POV.2A01:CB19:184:6200:514:F3A4:5B7F:FA5 (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
If "Calas" means Xavier Casals, I'd say a PhD in Contemporary History [12] and at least seven published books on the global matter is a bit of an academic credential--enough to render his blog authoritative to say the list. Not much of a "background check" of the expert if you ask me. The next expert, Borràs, doesn't exactly photograph wildlife in the forest or aerial photographs of the Kalahari. He has photographed and documented virtually every far-right and unionist demonstration and political group since he is active and he was considered enough of an expert on the matter by impartial referees, to face José Alsina in Catalunya Ràdio [13]. Of course, Borràs might not impartial in the ultimate reasons why he looks into these things, but the way he does so is thorough and well-researched. One thing does not contradict the other. An arachnophobe can be an expert on spiders, too. CodeInconnu (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Introduction is not objective
I'm a political scientist from the UK and have no allegiance to any Spanish party, but as someone who understands the Spanish political debate, I don't find the introduction to be objective. It essentially implies that while there are debates about the ideology of the party, it basically stands for Spanish nationalism and right-wing economic policies. That is a description the party itself rejects, but more importantly, it's precisely the description that has been advanced by the party's opponents both within Catalonia and across the rest of Spain. There is no consensus at all in the academic community on whether you can classify the party as being on the right of the political spectrum or in the centre (it claims to be centrist or beyond existing ideologies, its opponents for the most part claim that it's right-wing). The same is true of the nationalism debate (its opponents have attempted to portray it as expressing a similar nationalism to the PP, while it has strongly rejected this and claims it simply opposes Catalan independence). The introduction simply isn't balanced in this sense and should be changed. 210.136.45.202 (talk) 04:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
isn't the commonly used name "Ciudadanos "
I understand that Citizens is a translation from the Spanish.
But it feels improper to me.
Most English media I saw use "Ciudadanos" and besides Citizens is pretty generic.
Thanks. But the reference is wrong. most of those results use citizens in the regular meaning rather than as a political party name. see tenth page of the google search you gave me, most of the results use citizens not as a party name but as its literal meaning.
Not sure how to solve it. I tried "citizens rivera -wikipedia" vs citizens but this will yield spanish results too.
trying "citizens party rivera -wikipedia" vs ciudadanos gives 5m vs 3m to citizens. but its not clear that all results means citizens as party name. But just adding riviera threw away much of the irelevants Jazi Zilber (talk) 13:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Nonetheless, this still gives "Citizens" as the COMMONNAME, and the application of the other Wikipedia policies, guidelines and conventions at hand (NCPP, WP:ENGLISH and WP:DIVIDEDUSE) would still result in "Citizens" being the preferred name for the article title. We would still have to wait for further evidence in order for "Ciudadanos" to become the preferred one. Impru20talk16:26, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Virtually all of those results start by using the Spanish name "Ciudadanos" - and then using "Citizens" to provide a translation of the name. I don't think that establishes that "Citizens" is the, or even a, generally-accepted name in English-language media. Any serious media I have seen uses the Spanish name - it may also provide a translation of the name, but that does not establish that the translation is the name being used. I was surprised to find this article under "Citizens" because I have never before seen the party named that way except as an explanatory translation. I think the article should be moved to "Ciudadanos".GSTQ (talk) 04:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
.png)