Jump to content

Talk:President of the Government of Catalonia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vacant?

[edit]

Rajoy just dissolved the entire autonomous government of Catalonia.[1] --CASportsFan (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree now first president of the Independent Republic of Catalonia.

References

  1. ^ https://elpais.com/elpais/2017/10/27/inenglish/1509089811_324029.html

Requested move 27 June 2018

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. This is a difficult determination, as there is clear consensus that the page should be moved, but disagreement as to the target. I am convinced by the arguments below that the name and function of the office are more accurately described by a title containing "Government of". bd2412 T 12:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

President of the Generalitat of Catalonia → President of the Government of Catalonia – As per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ENGLISH. President of the Generalitat of Catalonia is a mix of different languages which is not reflected in English reliable sources. The correct English translation of Generalitat de Catalunya would be Government of Catalonia (acknowledged in the corporate identity manual of the Catalan government, as well as recognized as such in the Generalitat de Catalunya article). A quick search in Google also gives about 39,800 results for "President of the Generalitat of Catalonia" (and only 200 in Google News), as opposed to 112,000 results for "President of the Government of Catalonia" (1,140 in GNews). Another choice would be using "President of the Generalitat de Catalunya", but I discourage it because 1) It would still be a mix of languages, and thus I don't know how would it comply with WP:ENGLISH; and 2) with only 22,700 results for it in Google (163 in GNews), it is much less common than the proposed title. Impru20talk 10:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because "President of Catalonia" is neither concise nor precise enough. "President of X" is typically used for heads of state in countries, but this office is that of a head of government of a region, so the use of "President of Catalonia" alone may lead to confusion. "Prime Minister of Catalonia" would be arguably more correct (as happens for the case of the Prime Minister of Spain); the issue with it is that sources do not use it, so it would fail to meet COMMONNAME. "President of the Government of Catalonia" would thus be a name which meets all naming criteria. Impru20talk 08:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Obi2canibe: The issue with "President of Catalonia" is that the searches you give here do not distinguish between "President of Catalonia" and "president of Catalonia" (or "Catalan president"); differences being that "President of Catalonia" (capitalized) would be a reference to the actual office, whereas "president of Catalonia" (uncapitalized) would be an informal reference to the person holding the office. Most of the Google searches on the term do show the latter. In constrast, President of the Government of Catalonia is the official translation as shown in the gencat.cat web (here and here) used by the Government of Catalonia itself, so it should be the most correct one as per WP:NCGAL (i.e. Use official names in article titles). For public offices and posts, we must use official names rather than informal references to it. Note how the term "Minister-president" is indeed used officially in some of these cases you describe, whereas "President of Catalonia" is not a name which is used officially. Impru20talk 13:39, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Impru20: Is there really a difference between the office and the person holding office? American president redirects to President of the United States and Spanish prime minister redirects to Prime Minister of Spain.--Obi2canibe (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Obi2canibe: There is. The officeholder changes over time, but the office itself is an institution. As you point out, the titles for these articles are names of the offices which may be considered official, rather than the more informal ones, which are left as redirects. With President of Catalonia (which is currently a redirect to this page anyway) we have several issues: 1) that it is not an official name for the government office, so it does not meet WP:NCGAL; 2) that there is some issues about it complying with WP:COMMONNAME, because what the pointed sources tend to show is an uncapitalized form due to its use in a more informal language (i.e. "president of Catalonia", which would be akin to "Catalan president". Not an official styling but, rather, an informal reference to the person holding the title. These may be good as redirects, but not as actual article titles); and 3) as I pointed our earlier in the discussion, the use of "President of X" (without further wording) throughout Wikipedia usually refers to heads of state, whereas this office is the head of a sub-national government, meaning that PoC would fail to meet consistency and would lack enough conciseness.
Remember that here we are discussing on what should be the formal title of the article, not that "President of Catalonia" or other wordings cannot exist as redirects, which of course is good that they exist. Impru20talk 14:59, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Impru20: WP:NCGAL does not over-ride WP:COMMONNAME which states that we don't necessarily use "official" names but prefer to use the name that is most commonly used in English-language sources. That is why we have Prime Minister of Spain rather than the official President of the Government of Spain. I don't see why we should treat President of Catalonia differently from Prime Minister of Spain. They are both the most common name used by English-language sources and the most concise versions.--Obi2canibe (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Obi2canibe: You have a misconception of how WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCGAL work. COMMONAME is one of several generic naming criteria, whereas naming conventions cover specific themes, being the result of specific consensus on these themes, and supplement and complete the generic criteria. We are in a situation were one of such specific naming conventions applies. WP:NCGAL is very clear on this in the lead: This guideline documents an English Wikipedia naming convention. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. So yes, it does override COMMONNAME unless you can otherwise explain why an occasional exception should be applied here. Note how NCGAL itself exposes a very good example of this, as "US Treasury Department" would give almost double Google search results as "United States Department of the Treasury", but it is the latter that is used as an article title. You will see this happening for all articles covering government departments, agencies, and officials. This one is no different.
On the issue of "Prime Minister of Spain" vs "President of the Government of Spain", you would surely know that comes as a result of an anglicisation of the term (i.e. it means that WP:UE applies there). Indeed, that would be one case where one of these "occasional exceptions" mentioned by NCGAL would apply. Nonetheless, you should also know that, should NCGAL have been applied ignoring the anglicisation, President of the Government of Spain would have been the name (and not, for instance, President of Spain, which was an entirely different office). As has been said, "President of X" typically refers to heads of state, so "President of Catalonia" is not concise enough and may lead to confusion on the nature of the office, which is that of a head of government. WP:CONCISE is a naming guideline as important as WP:COMMONNAME. Impru20talk 23:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Impru20: WP:COMMONNAME is a part of WP:TITLE which also tells editors that it is "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow". So, in my view there is a conflict between WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCGAL. Whilst President of the Government of Catalonia may meet the "Consistency" characteristic of WP:NAMINGCRITERIA I'm not sure it meets the other characteristic, particularity "Naturalness" and "Conciseness".--Obi2canibe (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Obi2canibe: Yes, and WP:TITLE defers to the application of naming conventions, which are explictly described as being appliable "for pages that have received general consensus as English Wikipedia guidelines to supplement and explain the Wikipedia:article titles policy". Naming conventions exist because they were created by consensus on each topic area that articles of such topics should be named according to each convention. As you would see, when a specific naming convention prefers COMMONNAME to override it (i.e. that the name most commonly used in English-reliable sources should be applied if possible), it explictly states it (i.e. WP:NCPP or WP:FAUNA, as examples). But there are instances where conventions do not defer to COMMONNAME, or do it in a limited way (i.e. WP:AIR/NC or WP:FLORA. WP:NCGAL also falls in this category). Correct me if I am wrong, but Wikipedia articles for government departments, agencies, and officials are not titled based on the most commonly-used wording in English sources (unless one of the specifically-provided exceptions applies, i.e. this happens for commonly-used untranslated names). It happens likewise for election articles. They are all titled according to the guidelines stated in WP:NCGAL. So, for you to defend the article being titled as "President of Catalonia" you would have to explain and prove why an "occasional exception" must apply here.
On the issue of CONCISE, note that "President of Catalonia" does not identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects, as it does not make it clear whether the office is that of a head of state or that of a head of government, and it is a relevant difference. On the NATURALNESS of the name, I defer to WP:NCGAL. Titles used throughout Wikipedia for government departments, agencies and officials are in many cases not the most likely ones that readers will likely look or search for, yet they are used anyway, because NCGAL does override it. Impru20talk 00:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Impru20: OK, you are inferring that WP:NCGAL takes precedent over WP:COMMONNAME due to the absence of information to the contrary. That is a dangerous route to take. I still believe that the two policies are contradictory and I don't know which one we should be following. But, as stated in my initial comment, President of the Government of Catalonia is better than President of the Generalitat of Catalonia and is a fair compromise.--Obi2canibe (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Obi2canibe: I will try to answer to two misconceptions I think you have about the naming criteria:
Firstly, naming criteria should be seen as goals, not as rules. Not in all cases the achievement of all five goals is accomplishable or desirable, meaning that, at times, it may be necessary to favor one or more of the goals over the others. The existence of naming conventions is derived from WP:CONSISTENCY, but also from established consensus on how these conventions should apply and when. When a topic-specific naming convention is appliable, you cannot circumvent it through COMMONNAME unless a specific and justified exception exists. Doing so would mean you will be enforcing COMMONNAME as a rule (and not a goal) over CONSISTENCY (which is another goal) in those cases where WP:CONSENSUS has provided that some specific guidelines (i.e. the naming conventions) should be applied.
Secondly, COMMONNAME calls for names that are recognizable. In most cases it would call for the most recognizable name to be used, but that a name is not the most widely used in English-reliable sources does not mean it is not recognizable and, in consequence, that it fails to meet COMMONNAME. As you would see, NCGAL does take precedence over COMMONNAME when it comes to name elections or government departments, agencies and officials, so it is not something that "I infer", but something that is actually and actively applied.
In any case, it seems obvious from the exposed arguments that there is a wide consensus here, at least, against the use of the current title. Impru20talk 21:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Beethoven: Names for government departments, agencies, and officials abide necessarily by WP:NCGAL, so the title structure must follow what is established in the naming convention, even if a more common (yet unofficial) name is shown in sources (and even here I have also raised doubts about such a situation being applied here, as sources typically use the term to refer to the specific person holding the office, not the office itself which is the topic of this article). I explained it all above in a very detailed way to Obi2canibe. Impru20talk 10:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

On Pere Aragonès as vicepresident discharging the duties of the president

[edit]

Good afternoon, @Impru20:. The two statements I added to the article (and you have removed) are duly sourced. Therefore, I would like to ask the two following questions:

  • do you have any reliable sources that clearly and unambiguously support your claim that "vice president discharging the duties of the president is, under Spanish/Catalan law, an acting president"?
  • is it acceptable to handwave away a duly sourced statement by second-guessing the intent of the person who uttered the quote in question?

Thank you.--Leptictidium (mt) 15:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In law, a person is acting in a position if they are not serving in the position on a permanent basis. This may be the case if the position has not yet been formally created, the person is only occupying the position on an interim basis, the person does not have a mandate, or if the person meant to execute the role is incompetent or incapacitated.
Our article on acting presidents establishes that An acting president is a person who temporarily fills the role of a country's president when the incumbent president is unavailable (such as by illness or a vacation) or when the post is vacant (such as for death, injury, resignation, dismissal).
Wiktionary defines "acting" as Temporarily assuming the duties or authority of another person when they are unable to do their job.
Add another, official example: Merriam Webster defines it as holding a temporary rank or position : performing services temporarily // acting president
In the case of the Catalan president, this is explictly regulated under Article 6.2 of the Law 13/2008, of 5 November, of the Presidency and the Government: (Spanish: Si concurre uno de los supuestos de cese del presidente o presidenta de la Generalidad que determina el artículo 7.3, le sustituye el consejero primero o consejera primera o el vicepresidente o vicepresidenta, si han sido nombrados). The decree where such law is enforced establishes that (Spanish: El vicepresidente del Gobierno y consejero de Economía y Hacienda sustituye al presidente de la Generalidad. El vicepresidente del Gobierno ejerce las atribuciones de la presidencia de la Generalidad de acuerdo con los límites propios de una sustitución y de un Gobierno en funciones).
So, "sustituir" means "replace", and "en funciones" means "acting". It has been mentioned as an argument for the change that Aragonès is not "acting president" but, instead, "vice president fulfilling duties of the president", and that this is a "substantial distinction legally". So, which one is this, Leptictidium? Can you please elaborate? As has been explained and sourced, an acting president is, by definition, a person who assumes the duties of the role in a non-permanent basis and/or without having been appointed to the post. An acting president is not an appointed president, and that's why the person in question is in acting capacity. It's the essence of the definition. So there is, indeed, nothing more than a semantical difference there (though "acting president" will always be more comfortable to work with in a sentence and in an infobox than "vice president discharging the duties of the president").
View this the other way around: your own edits to this article leave the office as vacant. Which is simply not true (and you have acknowledged it), because there is this guy legally exercising its roles and duties. Impru20talk 15:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with your interpretation. First, because the Decree says: "The vice president of the Government and Minister for the Economy and the Treasury replaces the President of the Government". Okay, but in what capacity does he replace him? Does it necessarily and unambiguously mean that he replaces him as [acting] President? Well, let's look at a source like El Comercio, which states: "[…] le sustituyó Pere Aragonés, como vicepresidente con funciones de presidente". The interpretation of El Comercio (and many other sources) is backed by the text of the Decree, which says "El vicepresidente del Gobierno ejerce las atribuciones de la presidencia de la Generalidad" when it could have easily said something along the lines of "El vicepresidente del Gobierno asume la presidencia en funciones de la Generalidad". If I were the only one disagreeing with your interpretation, then it could be easily dismissed, but as I pointed out, there are dozens if not hundreds of sources that specifically describe Aragonés as "vice president discharging the duties of the president", not as "acting president".
  • I also disagree with your conclusion that an office cannot be vacant as long as someone is legally exercising a limited number of its roles and duties. For example, in between the death of an old pope and the election of a new one, there is someone legally exercising some of the secular powers invested in the Papacy, yet it would be very disingenuous to claim that there is such a thing as an "acting Pope" and that the Holy See is not vacant during such periods.
  • That being said, I welcome the addition of this footnote as a step towards building a consensus. Still, I would reword it for absolute clarity. I hereby suggest: "As part of an agreement between the two parties in government in Catalonia, Aragonès refrains from using the title Acting President, instead opting for Vice President discharging the duties of the President". It has the advantages that 1) every single part of the footnote can be duly sourced; 2) it informs the reader that Aragonès has explicitly rejected the title of "Acting President", which is noteworthy in itself; and 3) it does not require us to second-guess what his intentions were when he uttered that quote.--Leptictidium (mt) 18:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with your whole reasoning is that you automatically seem to assume that "acting president" is some sort of appointed office. It's not. You don't get appointed as "acting president", you exercise the functions of the president and that's why it's an acting president. Thus, a "vice president discharging the duties of president" is an acting president by definition, because it means the actual office is vacant and that someone else (in this case, the vice president) is taking over the functions of it in the interim. The law clearly states this fact: that the vice president replaces the president in the exercise of its functions and duties. None of the hundreds of sources you may provide will contradict this.
Does it necessarily and unambiguously mean that he replaces him as [acting] President? Yes, when it says that he assumes the functions of the presidency. Re-read the definition of "acting" that I explained above and referenced through multiple sources. Again, it's not an appointed position. Just as "Vice President with the powers of the President" is not an actual appointed position, either.
In your final statement, you yourself acknowledge what is the problem at hand: You say that you would re-word it like this: "As part of an agreement between the two parties in government in Catalonia, Aragonès refrains from using the title Acting President, instead opting for Vice President discharging the duties of the President" Thing is, a statutory law is not disposable through an informal agreement between two parties. Further, by proposing this as a solution, you yourself acknowledge that Aragonès is the de facto acting president but that you don't consider him as such because he has voluntarily refrained from using the title. That's perfectly ok, but is a way different thing than what was brought forward initially in support of the change: it's indeed all about semantics and styling, not the legality of it.
Nonetheless, I have no issue in the addition of your proposal in the footnote that, as part of the agreement between ERC and Junts, Aragonès has chosen not to self-style himself as president. But it must be clear as well that this has no ultimate consequence legally, since the powers that Aragonès can take care of are the exact same than those Torra or any other one would have in his same situation (that is, that of an acting government), meaning that he is ultimately not legally bound to respect an inter-party agreement that seeks to limit those out of reasons in the parties' interests. Impru20talk 20:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I continue to disagree with almost every aspect of your interpretation of the decree and the legal situation it has led to (particularly now that you seem to agree that "the actual office is vacant" and that Aragonès is "de facto acting president", which does not necessarily mean he is so de jure —the whole point of contention of this discussion), but since despite our different viewpoints we seem to have found a mutually acceptable solution in the shape of the footnote, let's implement that instead of debating this ad aeternum. Have a nice day.--Leptictidium (mt) 08:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of the discussion is whether Aragonès is acting president of Catalonia or not, which he is. The issue of contention revolves in that you seem to make the implication that acting president equals to de jure President, when it's the opposite: there is an acting president when the de jure officeholder is absent, incapacitated, dead or in any other way unable to exercise their functions. I've never defended any other thing. Impru20talk 15:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:President_of_the_Government_of_Catalonia&oldid=1255349039"