Talk:Quim Torra/Archive 1

Archive 1

Catalan or Spanish name?

Since it looks he usually adds 'i' (and in Catalan) between the two last names, that means his name is written in Catalan instead of Spanish, so the Template:Catalan name must be used instead of Template:Spanish name. Indeed, the Catalan name template redirects to the Catalan section inside the page Spanish naming customs#Catalan_names. --Aljullu (talk) 13:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Racism of Quim Torra

Please, can you read de article:

"Nightmare in Barcelona: Does the new Catalan premier Quim Torra, with his savagely xenophobic views, truly represent today’s pro-independence movement?" https://elpais.com/elpais/2018/05/15/inenglish/1526373293_276622.html

and reflect it in the article.

Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.9.203.199 (talk) 22:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

NPOV

We must carefully monitor this article to ensure compliance with WP:NPOV. The subject is currently a very hot topic and some editors come here with an agenda. Please especially consider how much space to give certain accusations and which labels to use or not to use. If you think that my recent reverts were unjustified, please put forward arguments here. wikitigresito (talk) 05:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

"Dear Wikitigresito, I think the neutral point of view is respected. I am not judging, I am only reporting several media accusations that allow readers to understand the controversy generated by the candidacy of Mr. Torra. All the information is properly referenced. Why do you believe the NPW is not respected? Thanks in advance. Sincerely", this was posted by IP-User Special:Contributions/2a01:c50e:1117:6000:345c:fe3b:e5e4:7b78 on my talk page. I will reply here as this is of general interest.

The problem I have with your edits, is that you are trying to highlight the criticism towards the subject. Of course this information is relevant, but it should stay within reasonable limits (WP:Balance). The language you used is also harder than necessary. Generally, it is advisable to follow independent, reliable sources when attributing space and labeling certain aspects in an article. If you look for example at this recent article in the New York Times, you will see that the coverage about the controversial tweets only accounts for two smaller paragraphs in the second half of the article, the tone is also quite conservative. This is the reason why I reverted you. As a preemptive measure, I would also like to point out, that Spanish newspapers should in this case not considered to be independet, as they are involved in this deeply dividing conflict. wikitigresito (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

To start with, it would be helpful if those editors who want make a big deal out of the tweets would register an account rather than edit anonymously. It is clear that Spanish unionists are out to tarnish the image of Torra. As Wikitigresito has said, we need to be vigilant to ensure that any content complies with Wikipedia policies, particularity WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Using a newspaper with ties to Spanish right-wing parties as a source to suggest that Torra supports fascism clearly violates these policies.--Obi2canibe (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Lihaas: I have re-inserted the tweets section, which you removed, as it has been widely reported in the media. However, I have toned it down and removed from the lede in order to comply with WP:UNDUE.--Obi2canibe (talk) 22:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I generally support these edits, but I suggest removing the phrase "die hard" from the controversial tweets section. wikitigresito (talk) 02:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Wikitigresito: Apologies for the late response, I have no strong views on this and have no objection to the removal of "die hard" which I note that you have done.--Obi2canibe (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Controversial writings

The "Controversial writings" section is poorly written and of questionable neutrality. "Considered a radical nationalist, the xenophobic tone..." is a textbook example of a dangling modifier. The sentence is therefore ungrammatical. More importantly, the "xenophobic tone" of Torra's articles is not fact but opinion. It would be difficult to argue seriously that the tone of "La llengua i les bèsties" is xenophobic. If anything, the article criticises the xenophobic attitude of those "repelled by any expression of Catalan culture". The same applies to the article "'Día de la raza', però quina raça?", which discusses racial discrimination in the context of Latin America. Neither of these articles "targets Spanish-speakers in Catalonia". Otomixal (talk) 10:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I would support making the tone a little more conservative, but we should in fact take into account that there is extensive coverage about this topic that generally supports the fact that these allegations have been made by many prominent individuals and groups.example wikitigresito (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The interesting thing is that many people who are actually pro-catalan independence and work with him have described him in these terms. Criticisms don't come just from the unionist block but from Podem (wavering ally of separatists) and individuals linked to Catalan nationalism. Anyone who claims this guys' writings are not xenophobic (describing non-nationalist Spanish speaking Catalans as people who have an issue with their DNA) is not serious.

Furthermore, there is no mention of his participation in acts celebrating Nazi-style organizations (nosaltres sols!) which considered non-Catalan Spaniards racially impure africans who were "less white" and thus inferior (sic). This has been a significant controversy in Spain and should also be included.217.165.72.165 (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

"[D]escribing non-nationalist Spanish speaking Catalans as people who have an issue with their DNA". The article in question ("La llengua i les bèsties" [1]) does no such thing. To suggest otherwise is a blatant manipulation. Note also that the Guardian article linked to above by wikitigresito has now been edited from the original "An article has come to light in which he described Spanish speakers in Catalonia as 'carrion-feeders, vipers and hyenas' " to the current "Six years ago, Torra wrote an article in which he described those who opposed the use of the Catalan language and objected to expressions of Catalan culture and traditions as 'carrion-feeders, vipers and hyenas'." It is also worth noting that several articles have appeared denouncing the misreporting or deliberate distortion of the content of Torra's writings/tweets (see [2] and [3]). Finally, Torra's interest in the history of Catalan nationalism is well documented, but using that interest to imply that he shares the views of groups from the 1920s and 1930s such as Nosaltres Sols! and Estat Català is dishonest. Otomixal (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed that the Torra's opponents are manipulating and distorting his views for political gain. The reaction by moderate individuals/groups may be because they too have fallen for this organised campaign of misinformation.

The recent additions by unregistered editors are a clear violation of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. I will be requesting page protection.--Obi2canibe (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I just saw what some editor added to the article, trying to link the subject to Mussolini etc. is a blatant attempt to harm this individual. However, I think including the reactions to his tweets and writings by prominent and relevant people (such as the ALDE representative) is valid (WP:DUE). Also, I am surprised that the guardian article was edited, we must carefully monitor how this topic develops. wikitigresito (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Why have sourced reference to statements by President of ALDE and Catalan chapter of SOS Racisme been removed? Whoever has done so please self-revert. wikitigresito I don't know about Mussolini, I did not see that edit, but ALDE, European Socialist Party and SOS Racism positions most certainly have to remain. Miska5DT (talk) 10:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Swarm I only see one unreasonable and POV anti-Torra edit here which was immediately reverted. One single edit is not a concerted attack on this article. Other edits, including by IPs seem perfectly reasonable, NPOV and sourced. I wonder whether that edit was not done to prompt a page protection? I'm not trying to say you have protected the wrong version, just saying there are not yet enough grounds for protection. Miska5DT (talk) 10:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, I realized I actually did protect the wrong version and have restored good faith improvements. Regarding the grounds for protection, sufficient diffs of disruptive editing were provided in the request for protection. Swarm ♠ 10:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Swarm I am hoping you have made another mistake here. You have removed a totally extreme, one-sided censored version removing all sourced reference to the Position of Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe group, Party of European Socialists and the Catalan chapter of SOS Racisme. If you are taking a neutral approach to this topic I can only assume you have made a mistake in changing your protection to a far worse version.Miska5DT (talk) 11:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Miska5DT, in restoring the ALDE reference you have also added the phrase "targeting Spanish-speakers in Catalonia and Spaniards generally". The word "targeting" is not a neutral expression. Neither of the articles mentioned above can be truthfully characterised as "targeting" or "attacking" "Spanish-speakers in Catalonia and Spaniards generally". The first is an account of a case of perceived Catalanophobia on a flight to Switzerland. The second is a reflection on the Día de la Raza, with reference to Latin America. Either give some examples to support this claim of "targeting" or use a more appropriate (i.e. neutral) verb. Otomixal (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Otomixal. Done. Fixed.Miska5DT (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

131st President?

Quim Torra i Pla is not the 131st president of Catalonia but the 10th.

The Generalitat of Catalonia was an institution created in the Medieval Ages for the collection of taxes in the name of the King of Aragon. Such an institution, however, did not have a president but a ruling body of different representatives (divided per estate, that is some for the clergy, others of the nobility and some other for the third estate). There was no such thing as a president, being so that for the counting of the 131st (made up by Josep Maria Solé i Sabaté which the nationalist parties have always defended) they have taken the oldest clergy representative.

The Generalitat of Catalonia cannot be seriously taken as successor of the medieval one as its functions nowadays differ from the ones it had centuries ago; so much so that nowadays the collection of taxes is a competence the Spanish State carries out directly. But even if we were to consider the current Generalitat as the successor of the medieval one, the fact is that the first president it had was Francesc Macià i Llusà.

All details concerning such matter are found in a report made by the association of historians "Historiadors de Catalunya" in the following link (only in Spanish): https://www.historiadors.cat/contemporanea/2018/05/el-decimo-presidente-de-la-generalitat/

For all these reasons, I proposed changing the number to number 10th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minitlofo (talk • contribs) 18:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The linked page (www.historiadors.cat) seems to be of very recent creation (its first post being on 16 February 2018). Aside from the fact that it seems an online blog with very little reliability, it seems to include some articles of "immense historical value" such as an interesting stuffed shoulder of lamb recipe, another recipe for fritters and a further one for lamb sweetbreads, among others.

Most interesting is also the fact a "list" decreeing that there were only 10 President seems to have been created on 18 May 2018. How peculiar, given than the controversy in Wikipedia articles involving IP users trying to enforce such a numbering started by about 17 May. Further, the only relevant information about this self-proclaimed "association of historians" that I may find out is that it was founded just a few months ago to "divulge the truth about Catalonia". What is such a "truth"? Do they unilaterally decide what is the "truth" and what is not against official links and general consensus?

As it seems, such a page is very questionable and doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources, so it is very much questionable that a new numbering of Presidents on the basis of such a page should even be considered. Impru20^talk 19:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I suggest removing any numeration from the lead section, as it is generally not used in independent reliable sources. Examples: NYTBBCEl Espectador wikitigresito (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the numeration is generally used by reliable independent sources. Examples: Europa Press, Economía Digital, El Mundo, El Punt Avui, Radio Televisión de Castilla y León, El Confidencial, RTVE, La Sexta, The Guardian, Euronews, The Week, etc. I do not see any reason why it should not be included. In addition, the source used in the lead section is the Catalan government official, where the numeration is also included. --Beethoven (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

For now I move to neutral on this issue, some of the source you cite are biased because they support Catalan independence. However, others are known to oppose indepence and usage of the number 131 in these sources seems to be an indicator that it is widely established. You still have to admit that internationally (except for the Guardian article) it is usually not included. Just to clarify, I strongly oppose changing the number to "10th" as proposed by other editors. @Beethoven:, feel free to revert me. ||| wikitigresito (talk) 00:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Putting the media and the historical reasons aside, as several political parties have different views on the matter; I believe it is most objective to leave the number blank. Ciudadanos’ MPs have defended he is number 10th and other political parties have concluded otherwise. The Spanish prime minister’s Wikipedia page does not include any numeration; the same criterion should be used for a regional president. Minitlofo (talk) 12:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

This Presidents numneration has been used for many years without any problem. All the political parties have accepted it. Neither the Catalan government nor the Spanish government have made any protest about it, despite having been governed by parties of different ideologies. I think what you mean about Ciudadanos, is this: Ciudadanos se mofa del presidente "131" de la Generalitat: Deben de contar también a Légolas y Conan (17 May 2018). It is a comment made by an Andalusian MP, with no greater relevance than mockery as it seen on the words he uses. Regarding the Spanish Prime Minister numeration (List of Prime Ministers of Spain), it is not included because it simply does not exist. There is no official numeration, nor is it used in the press or on the institutional day to day. If it existed, it would be used and included in the Wikipedia page. But in the case of the Presidents of the Generalitat de Catalunya, that numeration does exist and is widely used as it can be seen. --Beethoven (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Some quotes from Quim Torra

All taken from the Spanish version of Snopes "Maldito Bulo" which dispels fake news from all political sides in Spain - including anti- and pro independence.

https://maldita.es/maldito-bulo/que-ha-escrito-realmente-quim-torra-y-que-no/

*1. On differences between North and South of Spain

"Here [in Catalonia] there are people who have said enough and, each in its own way, fights for ideas and a country. People who have forgotten to look south and look north again, where people are clean, noble, free and cultured. And happy.

*2. On the "beasts"

"Now you look at your country and see the beasts talking again. But they are of another type. Scavengers, vipers, hyenas. Beasts with human form, however, that are rinsed with hatred. A disturbed, nauseating hatred, like false teeth with mold, against everything that the tongue represents. " "They are here, among us. They are disgusted by any expression of Catalanness. It is a sick phobia. There is something Freudian in these beasts. Or a little blemish in their DNA.

*3. On Speaking Spanish in Catalonia

"No, it is not natural to speak in Spanish in Catalonia. Not wanting to speak the language of the country is the uprooting, provincialization, the persistent will not to assume the identity of where you live."Without language there is no country. And when you decide not to speak Catalan, you are deciding to turn your back on Catalonia."

"In Barcelona you always end up being overtaken by a group of boys and girls speaking in Spanish [...] You go out into the street and nothing indicates that this is the street of your parents and your grandparents: the Spanish advances, impeccable, voracious, very fast . You open the newspapers or watch television and talk to you about things that have nothing to do with you and your world.

*4. On founder of paramilitary fascist-racist-supremacist organizations Nosaltres Sols! and Estat Catala

In the golden age of the double and triple readings and the neoliberal Catalan politics, his spontaneous clarity was fought with a mocking smile or a general splash of stereotypes (resistential, minority extremists, dreamers, identity, etc.).

(Here is the link to his article in Punt Avui if anyone doubts it. http://www.elpuntavui.cat/article/7-vista/8-articles/710557-pioners-de-la-independencia.html

5. On immigration from other parts of Spain

"Today we realize, stupefied, that we were there where we were; even worse, that the feeling of national urgency has multiplied and that there is a risk that the nation will fall apart like a sugar in a glass of milk, caught between the migratory avalanche, the monstrous fiscal plunder and a globalization that only respects those who belongs to the world order: (Nation) States ".

So it seems that what we have here is a couple of editors hell bent on whitewashing this man's image on English language Wikipedia.Miska5DT (talk) 11:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Miska5DT: please, don't open the same discussion in several pages. As I said in Talk:Catalan_independence_movement you should read WP:FORUM.

In addition to that, the quotes you post are all of them out of context and misleading. Just to give a quick example: the first one is a quote from a poem written by Salvador Espriu and "South" refers to Catalonia and "North" to the rest of Europe. You can read the entire poem in Catalan here: [4] --Aljullu (talk) 12:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure that is what he meant Aljullu. :-) Quim Torra has declared himself and admirer of Switzerland and, after all, as the leader of Republican Left of Catalonia, Oriol Junqueras recently wrote: "The Catalans have more genetic proximity with the French than with the Spaniards and a little with the Swiss, while Spaniards have more proximity to the Portuguese than to the Catalans and share very little with the French. Curious ... ".https://www.economiadigital.es/politica-y-sociedad/junqueras-cree-en-las-diferencias-geneticas-entre-espanoles-y-catalanes_174470_102.html Miska5DT (talk) 08:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Junqueras' article is based on a scientific study which was also published in The New York Times. Feel free to edit The New York Times page with your accusations of 'supremacism' if you disagree with that study. By the way, per WP:FORUM I will not answer any other comment from you if you can't make any serious contribution to the discussion, so feel free to WP:WORD. --Aljullu (talk) 09:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

You find it normal for politicians to write articles highlighting genetic differences between demographic sectors in their own country? You don't see any racism there? Ok. We have so many examples now, denialism is futile, anyways.217.165.72.165 (talk) 09:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

In 2008 he was not a politician but a historian. --Aljullu (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

That's odd since he has been running for elections since 2003. Are you being sloppy or just running out of arguments and having to make them up? Miska5DT (talk) 09:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

May I suggest that we return back to what a talk page is about? We are not here to determine facts, we only reproduce what has been state in secondary sources. Therefore, if you, Miska5DT, would like to make any changes to the controversial writings section, why don't you propose the exact change in wording and back it up with independent, reliable sources, so we can discuss this? wikitigresito (talk) 00:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

wikitigresito The section is fine as it is. I am only responding to arguments claiming that secondary reliable sources or opinions of notables are mistaken should be eliminated since they misunderstand what a wonderful man Quim Torra is. If anything we could expand to include the opinions of the New York Times and the Guardian, but as it stands is fine too. I'm happy either way. Miska5DT (talk) 08:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Mass removal of content and verifiable sources

This edit is a mass removal of content, which has erased several verifiable references and includes an edit summary with personal attacks, since to call it "cherry picking" implies assuming bad faith WP:AGF.

I'm going to recover a part. I give the reason to keep Catalan president, but I will restore the rest.

On the topic of "regional minister" there are more explanations here. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 10:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, you should remove the references from the first sentence. Per WP:LEDE, I think it's clear there is no need to add those references there considering his professional life and political career are broadly explained in the article and those sections have many more references. --Aljullu (talk) 10:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@BallenaBlanca: did you have time to look at this? --Aljullu (talk) 17:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@Aljullu: It is surprising that you ask to remove references in the lead. Look at the other Wikipedia pages, we always put citations in the lead sections. Conflicts have normally arisen if they do not include references and for this reason other users or ips revert or delete content, even though they are in the body of the article because usually they do not realize. When putting the references in the lead, this problem is solved.

In addition, in this specific case, not only there is no reason to eliminate them but they have to be put per WP:LIVE and MOS:CITELEAD because is a biography of a living person and a controversial issue, such as everything that surrounds the situation in Catalonia.--BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 19:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@BallenaBlanca: Thanks for your answer. Can you please explain which part of the sentence you consider is "challenged or likely to be challenged"? The only parts of that sentence that have generated controversy are defining him as "Spanish" instead of "Catalan" and saying he is the "President of the Generalitat of Catalonia" instead of the "President of Catalonia". Your references don't seem to address any of those issues (indeed, they even contradict the current sentence). --Aljullu (talk) 06:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I reordered the references already present in the lead section [5]. I think it's adjusted. The first references support that he is a lawyer, editor and the current president of the Generalitat of Catalonia, within the framework of the conflictive political situation in this Spanish region. In the third paragraph, his pro-independence position. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 23:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@BallenaBlanca: Thanks! But still, we don't need a reference for this part "lawyer, editor" that's not challenged by anybody and there are plenty of references in the following paragraphs. The part "current President of the Generalitat of Catalonia" seems to be contradicted by your reference, which describes him as the "President of Catalonia". Indeed, the article you are using as a reference is not even about his profile but more about the criticism Torra received, that's why I consider it is not the best reference to have there. For example, this one [6] seems to be much more about his professional background than the one you linked from The Guardian, which, in addition, is repeated in another section of the article. --Aljullu (talk) 07:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

There is no doubt that this material is likely to be challenged. And I am going to challenge at least a part, after reading the sources more thoroughly and locate others, such as the one you are proposing [7] .

The issue of his occupation is a controversial topic, because he is questioned for not being a "professional politician": "It has to be noted that Mr Torra is not a “professional” politician. He is an intellectual, writer, journalist and activist.".

In line with this, it also seems convenient to reorganize the information, leaving in the first place lawyer and editor, or even more precise "a former lawyer", (supported by this source [8]). The source you just proposed helps clarify this fact: [9] "Torra, who is not a member of any political party" and to document that he was president of Òmnium Cultural.

The sources from the Generalitat de Catalunya and The Guardian do not "contradict" but complement each other, because one of them is less precise. His official position is president of the Generalitat de Catalunya, "President of Catalonia" is more ambiguous and less adjusted, and since this is an encyclopedia, we must be precise.

The reference of The Guardian illustrates his appointment, which has been involved in the controversy. They are information that goes hand in hand, there is no reason to choose another "aseptic" reference, this might seem an attempt to hide information and cherry picking. We now have two ones: an "aseptic" source, the one from the Generalitat de Catalunya, which I left first, and another international source, the one from The Guardian. Both complement each other and give a perfect balance for WP:NPOV. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 15:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I have moved "politician" [10] to discuss here, because of what I was stated in my previous message. Let's see your opinions. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 15:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not cherry picking the references, remember WP:AGF, please. Also, let's remember how this discussion started: you modified the first line from "is a Catalan politician, lawyer, and editor" to "is a Catalan politician, lawyer, and editor, Catalan nationalist" and added the reference to The Guardian. I reverted those edits because, as you later agreed, political ideology doesn't belong there, but breaking WP:BRD, you added the reference again. But I still assume good faith from your part.

The main concern I have here is:

1) I'm not sure we need a reference to the first line of the article. See George W. Bush, Barack Obama or Donald Trump, for example. They don't have references in the intro. Indeed, that's what WP:LEDE states.

2) In case we agree we need references in the leading, which I still disagree, I think there are some references which already appear in the article which are much more relevant to that specific sentence.

Per your comment, should I understand you are deliberately trying to choose one "aseptic source" and one which makes reference to the criticism he received? I might have misunderstood you, but if you said so, that's exactly what is wrong. The first sentence says nothing about the criticism (we have an specific section about that), so there shouldn't be a reference specific to that in the leading. --Aljullu (talk) 08:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, sorry Aljullu, excuse my awkwardness and my language barriers! I did not say that you're doing cherry picking, but "this might seem an attempt to hide information and cherry picking", referring to the final result in the page, not you. My apologies, I trust your good faith.

1) In my opinion, it is important to put the reference, for what I have explained above, mainly due to his particular and controversial profile, for not being a politician, but a lawyer, editor and activist.

2) The reference from The Guardian [11] serves to support his profession and also his appointment. It is an international source in English, so it is very appropriate for the English Wikipedia.

No, what I am saying is that before we had two international sources in the lead [12] (from The Guardian [13] and The Independent [14]), both mentioning his profession and his appointment. I edited to remove one of them, replacing it by another one, a Catalan source already present, which I let in the first place, to look for a balance [15]. It is an edit made with all good faith and in line with your concerns. The Catalan ref does not cover his profession, so the other complements it, which also covers his appointment, so with both the whole paragraph is referenced. And in addition to supporting the controversy about his particular profile, also doubts, ambiguities, challenges and more reversions on what is the accurate denomination of his charge may be avoided with them, as what happened with this edit [16] per WP:LIVE and MOS:CITELEAD.

And what I am saying is that his appointment goes hand with hand with the controversy in the sources, because is a fact that has been and is surrounded by controversy and I see no reason to deliberately choose a reference that ignores it. When we choose a source, we do it because it supports what we want to reference, but its content does not have to be limited to that, the sources always contain more information. This is not negative, on the contrary, it is more complete and allows that the same source can be used in different places of the page, as in the case of the reference from The Guardian [17]. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 18:09, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid that BallenaBlanca is playing the same game he did on Carles Puigdemont, that is try to undermine the article because of his hatred of the subject. Here he is introducing unnecessary references in the lede simply because the contents of the refernce cast the subject in a negative light, and nit picking (the President of Catalonia and member of Parliament isn't a politician according to BallenaBlanca). Pathetic.--Obi2canibe (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@BallenaBlanca: But even as a reference for his profession, the article from The Guardian might not be the best. Describing Torra as a lawyer and journalist seems to be much more common than as a lawyer and editor in international media (see Reuters, Financial Times x2, RTE, AT&T and Euronews). Per WP:LIVE and WP:Criticism we must be very careful when adding criticism to a living person's bio. Since there is already a Controversial writings section, there is no need to use a source about the criticism he has received as the reference for his profession.

Being honest, the reference you added clearly looks out of place to me, you are right when you say "When we choose a source, we do it because it supports what we want to reference, but its content does not have to be limited to that, the sources always contain more information" but still, if there are better alternatives those must be chosen. If we find an article which is about his biography, that's better than an article which is mostly about the criticism he got.

How would I proceed, now? My first option would be to remove the references from the leading, but if you don't agree with that, I propose to keep the reference from Generalitat and replace the one from The Guardian with this one: [18], which at least has an entire paragraph with the biography of Torra. --Aljullu (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@Aljullu: Your explanations about criticism make sense and have convinced me. I also agree that it seems that more sources refer to him as a journalist instead of editor.

I still think that it is better to put references, but okay, we can substitute the source frome The Guardian with another reference, but probably the one you are proposing is not the best because it requires subscription. Maybe a free access source would be preferable, since it is not difficult to find one. What do you think? --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 18:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@BallenaBlanca: you're right. The first time I could open the article with no problems but now I see it's behind a paywall. I replaced the reference with this source [19]. It has only two lines about Torra's bio, but I can't find any international source that makes an in-depth description of his background so that one seems ok. --Aljullu (talk) 07:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Catalan, NOT Spanish

Joaquim, aka Quim, Torra is the President of the Generalitat de Catalunya. He is Catalan, NOT Spanish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.29.53 (talk) 16:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Catalonia is an autonomous region so if he is Catalan he is by definition Spanish as well. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

There was a similar discussion for Carles Puigdemont and we ended up agreeing to define him as a Catalan politician. I think Quim Torra isn't any different. Thoughts RichardWeiss? --Aljullu (talk) 07:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 08:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

That RfC was for that article, It can't be be used to overrule the MoS that states that country and not region should be the first thing cited for all articles without a wider consensus. To sidestep the nationality/country MoS issue (as suggested by another user) I have changed the wording to "is a lawyer and journalist from Catalonia, Spain." if this is not acceptable the previous status quo for this article should be restored and a wider RfC should be opened for this article or for the guideline itself. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't object to the current. I do place high value on consistency across articles, however, ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 11:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I do too, that is the idea behind the MoS. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:34, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Are we going to go through this again? Didn't the outcome of the RFC at Carles Puigdemont make it clear that MoS isn't written in stone. Are the "Spanish only" contingent going to makes us go through RFC for every article? Why are we wasting our time on these petty disputes when there is such a huge void on Spanish topics in English Wikipedia.--Obi2canibe (talk) 12:40, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Exactly! The president for nationality = Catalan (Basque, Scottish...) was set in the Carles Puigdemont RFC outcome. This means that the MoS isn't written in stone. Nationality = Catalan. @Crystallizedcarbon and RichardWeiss: This discussion is not only provocative but could be considered disruptive and tendentious. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The RFC concerns the article Carles Puigdemont only, and does not set precedent for other articles. Please discuss any changes to this article on this talkpage. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

This thread is not disruptive and tendentious. @Llywelyn2000:, stop trying to shut down a legitimate conversation and see WP:AGF. I suggest an Rfc for all politicians from Spain. Puigdemont's rfc is solely for that page. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 09:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I support the proposal of RichardWeiss and, as Yunshui proposed here [20], it seems that WT:SPAIN is the most obvious venue. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 10:25, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Seriously we have to discuss the same thing with exactly the same people again and again?-Theklan (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

No, I really would hope not, if changes are to be introduced to the interpretation of WP:MOSBIO#context for all BLPs from Catalonia and/or other regions where part of its population wants independence the debate should be much wider. Other than very few users from Spain including myself the last RfC included mostly users that clearly stated their support for Catalan independence or other regional independence. Some labelled Spain as a bulling state others cast multiple votes and comments using puppets etc. You yourself, tried to remove references to Spain from the lead of the article of Basque separatist Arnaldo Otegi long time ago (see here).

So yes, if any user wants to extend the scope of that RfC to change the interpretation of our guidelines I would hope that a significant number of clearly neutral new eyes would get involved in this issue. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I support a more wider RFC at WT:Manual of Style/Biography. See my comments here.--Obi2canibe (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)