Talk:Carles Puigdemont/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

RFC on nationality

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

---

The discussions above don't seem to be getting anywhere, so to resolve this issue I am opening an RFC to get wider community opinion.

Should Carles Puigdemont be described as:

1. A Spanish politician
2. A Catalan politician
3. A Spanish politician from Catalonia

Please indicate your preference and reasoning below. I would recommend reading the arguments presented higher on this talkpage first. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Preferred description

Catalan politician

• Y (Glad to see also that this is Jimmy Wales' prefered description: "...thoughtful discussion on the talk page... I was personally most persuaded by the analogy (not perfect, but relevant enough) to Nicola Sturgeon." Sian EJ (talk) 09:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Nicola Sturgeon case is covered by WP:UKNATIONALS as Scotland is considered a country, but Catalonia is not. Is an Autonomous region of Spain. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Very similar analogy; near enough for Jimmy to agree! Sian EJ (talk) 09:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Please, Sian EJ, do not put words in the mouth of other people, please. Jimmy has set an example that does comply with the guidelines. He may be referring to it and therefore, supporting the use of Spanish... It is not clear on what he has said. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 10:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

BallenaBlanca - do not attack Sian for her point of view. She has expressed her thoughts, let her be! What she has said is perfectly correct. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 11:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

BallenaBlanca - this is about Commenting, not about attacking other users votes as you are doing. Also, the tweet is crystal clear for someone who is able to read. -Theklan (talk) 11:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

This was not a personal attack, I was also giving my opinion as we all have the right to do, but no problem, I will strike a sentence and I apologize to her if she has felt attacked. Let's focus on the topic. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 12:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• Y Catalan politician certainly complies with Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Context, which does not insist that the criteria to be used in the first sentence of the lead must be "only recognised UN states" ie Spain. In fact the MoS wording is very open and flexible! It states: The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. Usually, not always. It goes on: In most modern-day cases this will be the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident. It says most not all. The MoS therefore allows 'Catalan' as a description. Secondly, around 12-5 users have in the above discussion agreed that Catalan politician is acceptable; only three argued for 'Spanish politician'. 'Spanish politician' would be incorrect, as he was born in Catalonia, calls himself Catalan and is/was involved in the Catalan Government. Lastly, what Jimmy Wales said is perfectly clear. As Sian EJ says, the analogy between Scotland and Catalonia is good enough for Jimmy. "I was personally most persuaded by the analogy (not perfect, but relevant enough) to Nicola Sturgeon." Llywelyn2000 (talk) 11:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• Y As expressed in the discussion, this is quite clear everywhere except for a few editors. MoS is quite clear about this issue also, as expressed above by Llywelyn2000. -Theklan (talk) 11:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• Y He's a Catalan politician and calling him such is compliant with the Manual of Style, as I understand it.--Cymrodor (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• Y agree with points above, and that the most fine-grain descriptor should be used here and in other suitable instances. Smirkybec (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• Y "Catalan politician from Spain" could have worked as well, but if I have to chose one of the options available, this is the one. I outlined my points above. Iñaki LL (talk) 14:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• Y Catalan politician. We should respect Puigdemont's self identity and the fact that if he did not identify himself as Catalan he wouldn't be a politician AlwynapHuw (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• Y "Catalan politician from Spain" would be my choice too: not all Catalans are from Spain so "...from Spain" is a useful disambiguation. Another formulation for the same concept would be "Spanish Catalan" (contrasted with "French Catalan"), as used on the pages of many other notable Catalans (until removed by editors choosing to disregard consensus). This formulation ("...from Spain") also acknowledges the subject's Spanish citizenship. Analogous cases to the use of "Catalan", where a criterion other than the strict country of citizenship is used in the biography, include "Flemish", "Québécois", "Kurdish". "Catalan politician" is also the way the subject is commonly described in reliable sources (many examples in the above discussion). Otomixal (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• Y Note that "country" and "state" are not perfect synonyms. Catalonia may not be a state, but it most definitely meets the requirements for being a country as per the OED definition.--Leptictidium (mt) 06:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
• Y "Catalan politician" is how he is generally described in the media. Catalonia and Catalan politics have a higher profile than they maybe once did, partly thanks to the independence movement. My feeling is that a lot of people have got used to the idea that the Catalans are a nation/national group/people within Spain and accept that someone can be "Catalan" in the same way they accept that someone is Welsh or Northern Irish or Breton or whatever. It's not a political statement or a vote in favour of independence, it's just a reflection of present-day reality and should be uncontroversial. This practice is reflected in reliable sources, not just newspaper articles but also other encylopedias, such as here [1]. Dell'Olmo (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
• Y Catalan politician . It gives more detailed information, it's part of his identity. If citizenship is a mandatory concept to be added on the intro, then i'd agree with the option "Catalan politician from Spain".Kippelboy (talk) 04:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
• Y Catalan politician . Nationality and citizenship aren't the same thing.

• We describe Puigdemont as "Catalan" because it is verbose and/or vaguely deceptive to describe him another way.
• The state someone is born in is less important than the combination of their self-declared identity and the identity they are commonly known as. It is common sense that despite their birthplaces and homes, Abdullah Öcalan is "Kurdish", Gerry Adams is "Irish", and Hiyam Qablan is "Palestinian", and so with Puigdemont. And it is more antagonistic to insist otherwise on technicalities than it is to accede to their self-described nationality. Battleofalma (talk) 09:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• Y Catalan politician. He is known for his politics in Catalonia - the regional prefix is obviously important, stating he is a "Spanish politician" would be misleading. As for adding "Catalan politician from Spain" - this has us taking a side in a dispute that there is little reason for us to take a side in. Yes - the majority of views does not recognize Catalan independence, but why should we assert this in the lede? Why is this relevant to Puigdemont's descriptor? We already cover the failure of the independence bid and Puigdemont's exile - there's little reason to assert this further with the "from Spain" postfix, particularly since he's no longer in Spain.Icewhiz (talk) 10:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• You are forgetting that here we have to put the nationality per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Context. And in Spain there is only the Spanish nationality. Puigdemont, wherever he is, inside or outside of Spain, has Spanish citizenship on his identity document.
• In addition, if we put the regionalist prefix, then let's be consistent and precise. He is not just a "Catalan", he is also Andalusian. See [2] [3] --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 11:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@BallenaBlanca: You are forgetting that there is no consensus for your overly strict interpretation of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Context, which in any case is outranked by WP:NPOV and does not justify you modifying the nationalities of various Catalan and Basque public figures to push your POV, as you have been doing. You are also forgetting that we are not "in Spain". It is not our job to interpret the Spanish Constitution. Our job is to summmarise what reliable sources say. And a majority of reliable English sources, including Encyclopedia Britannica, refer to Carles Puigdemont as a Catalan politician. The article has to reflect that. Otomixal (talk) 20:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@BallenaBlanca:, it feels like straws are being clutched at, if Puigdemont is now of "Andalusian origin". Someone like Humza Yousaf may be of Kenyan and Pakistani origin, but is still clearly Scottish. Battleofalma (talk) 20:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Please notice that Scotland is a country and Catalonia is not (see WP:UKNATIONALS).--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Please note that Scotland is not a country of citizenship, and that defining Scotland as a country or a nation has less to do with its legal status than with convention. If you're going to bring up WP:UKNATIONALS, consider also that Northern Ireland has no history of being an independent country or of being a nation in its own right, and that authors writing specifically about Northern Ireland dismiss the idea that Northern Ireland is a "country" in general terms, drawing contrasts in this respect with England, Scotland and Wales. Yet no one has a problem with describing Van Morrison as a "Northern Irish singer", or Tom Paulin as a "Northern Irish poet", which clearly indicates that there is no consensus for your overly strict interpretation of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Context. Instead of continuing to flog this particular dead horse, why not concentrate on describing the subject of the article in a manner that reflects reliable sources? That is, after all, what we are required to do. Otomixal (talk) 16:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Re Crystallizedcarbon's comment: Please notice that Scotland is a country and Catalonia is...: Wikipedians looks at all sides of the story, not only one. If the analogy is good enough for Jimmy Wales (yet not perfect ie Catalonia can't make whiskey...), it's good enough for me! Spain should not have the monopoly on information; it may think it has, and it may dictate to Catalonians, and sensor their rights to free speech, but Wikipedians are not rampaging conquistadores, we respect what people feel, say, think, believe. This is really more than a vote for Puidgement, it's a vote for freespeach, unbiased, neutral Wikipedia. As someone who has NO connections with either Spain or Catalonia (nor do I speak Catalan, Euskara, French or Spanish) I agree 100% with Otomixal and Icewhiz. John Jones (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@John Jones: I fail to follow your argument. We have established that Scotland is a country through reliable sources. If you feel that Catalonia is also a country, please provide arguments or reliable sources to back that claim. @Otomixal: The guideline cites: "the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident". Nicola Sturgeon and the other examples you mentioned clearly meet that criteria per WP:UKNATIONALS. Nothern Ireland also includes the term country in its description. Catalonia does not. Is that simple. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@Crystallizedcarbon: No, the guideline says: "in most modern-day cases this will be the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident." It does not say "in all cases". It's that simple. Regarding Northern Ireland, when you say "includes the term country in its description" you are presumably referring to the opening sentence of the article, which notes that Northern Ireland is "variously described as a country, province or region", which is not the same as saying "is a country". If what you mean is that Northern Ireland is in certain circumstances described as a "country" (a term that does not in itself imply sovereignty, statehood, nationhood, etc.), the same can clearly be said of Catalonia, for example in these sources: "Catalonia is a country with a clear international outlook" [4], "After all, Catalonia is a country of over 7 million people..." [5], "Catalonia is a country within a country" [6] (just like the home nations of the UK!). If, as you say, your motivation is the desire to improve Wikipedia, isn't it about time you stopped trying to use (necessarily non-binding) guidelines as a blunt instrument to impose your POV and started listening to what other users are saying? Or, failing that, reflecting what reliable sources are saying? Otomixal (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

You cited WP:UKNATIONALS what does this paragraph mean to you:

People born in Northern Ireland are generally entitled to Irish citizenship by right (Irish citizenship being a fundamental "entitlement" that extends to almost all born on the island). This automatically allows for dual British and Irish citizenship.

That is why we can use Irish. Do you really claim that to be the case for Catalonia? Catalonia is not a country and the subject does not have Catalonian citizenship. He has only Spanish citizenship.

In "most modern cases" seems to introduce leeway for ancient biographies where the concept of country may be harder to define, it does not seem to be valid reason to use the region instead of the country for regional level politicians just because they want their region to be independent. It is of course normal for most sources to refer to regional politicians within the context of their regional political activity.

This is the third time that you resort to personal attacks, I am really triying to asume good faith, but you are making it very hard. The fact that sleeper single purpose accounts as yourself attack me will not cause me to give up. Should I listen to the many users that have shown a clear POV bias by their edits and statements on their userpages that show they are in favour of Catalan independence, those that refer to Spain as a bulling state or those that choose to insult me? If the arguments are not based on policy or do not make sense no. It has been argued that Catalonia is a country and I do believe that that may be the reason for editing for a good number of those users you mention, they feel that to be true or would want that to be true, The subject himself wants Catalonia to be an independent country, if he achieves his goal, he would have all the right to change Spanish for Catalan in his passport, identity card and we would do the same at this page, but in the meantime his country of citizenship is still Spain. Wikipedia should not be used as a tool for political advocacy. Guidelines should be followed, specially in controversial issues. I wish I did not have to invest so much time on this one issue, as there are many other areas where I like to add value, but attacking me is not going to help, only valid arguments based on policy may. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but what does the entitlement to Irish citizenship of people born in Northern Ireland have to do with anything? It certainly isn't an issue I brought up. What do you mean "That's why we can use Irish"? That's as irrelevant as saying "That's why we can use Spanish". I'm talking about using "Northern Irish" for British nationals from Northern Ireland. You know, like using "Catalan" for Spanish nationals from Catalonia. You should probably read Northern Ireland again, and WP:UKNATIONALS (which you cited more recently than I did), too. Or not. As for the rest of your comment: steady on with your accusations. I haven't insulted anyone and you have no right to insinuate that I have. Nor to question my good faith. And please stop repeating this mantra of passports and country of citizenship and independence and all the rest of it: you're arguing with yourself, no one is questioning any of that. We aren't the ones trying to present a false picture. The argument is about whether we can call a Catalan a Catalan. Some of us say yes, that's exactly what we should call him, and provide vast quantities of reliable sources to support this view . You say no, we have to call him Spanish, and provide no sources at all, preferring instead to insist on a disputed interpretation of the MOS, quibble about the Spanish constitution, argue about what nacionalidad means, and try and reduce the definition of Catalan to "someone from the autonomous community of Catalonia" as if centuries of history and culture and language and art and traditions and oppression and resistance and exile and identity had nothing to do with anything. Fine, that's your POV. But apparently not that of the majority. And now this "sleeper account" (are you accusing me of sock puppetry?) is going to sleep. Otomixal (talk) 23:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@Crystallizedcarbon: Some NI citizens' entitlement to Irish citizenship is not the reason we refer to them as "Irish". Citizens of the Republic of Ireland born before 1948 are entitled to British citizenship but we do not refer to them as "British". We use the nationality that they identify and are known as, Gerry Adams and Reg Empey are both born in Belfast, but one is Irish and one is British, because we acknowledge the split in identities of this particular region and it would be inaccurate or misleading to label either as the other. Battleofalma (talk) 09:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The reasons that back the proper use of either one are outlined at WP:UKNATIONALS. The United Kingdom is a special case. According to Countries of the United Kingdom Northern Ireland is considered a Constituent country of the United Kingdom. The difference here is that Catalonia, on the other hand, is not a country, it's an autonomous community of Spain. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Catalonia has been lots of things, including, historically and by any objective measure, a "country". That it is today an autonomous community within the present Spanish legal order is irrelevant to how we describe Catalans. Unless you are supporting the patently absurd view that it's OK to describe historical Catalans as Catalans while insisting that modern-day Catalans somehow stopped being Catalan and became Spanish instead in 1978. The point about WP:UKNATIONALS is that it provides a perfect example of how "country of citizenship" is not the only criterion to be followed in a BLP, no matter how many times you try and tell us that that's what the MOS says. Otomixal (talk) 11:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Please provide the sources to back your claim that Catalonia is or has been a country. Puigdemont was born before 1978, Catalonia was not a country then either, but if you think otherwise please provide the reliable sources to back your claim. I myself am from Asturias, and I am very proud to be Asturian but I am also Spanish I can be described as both, as a Bavarian is also a German and a Texan is also American. The president of Asturias, Javier Fernández Fernández is introduced as Spanish following the MoS, that does not imply that he is not Asturian as introducing Puigdemont as Spanish does not imply that he is not Catalan. He is both, but the convention in our MoS is to first cite his country of citizenship, within the lead itself I added Catalan President (instead of President of Catalonia) to make that clear. Only Independentists that think that Catalonia is no longer an autonomous community of Spain might claim that he can not be Spanish and Catalan. Most others, including more than half of Catalans according to the last regional elections probably think otherwise. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Please stop repeating yourself, Crystallizedcarbon!

You are getting nowhere; you've already laid out your arguments several time. Repeating yourself doesn't help your cause. It's pretty obvious that the consensus is Catalan politician, unless you have anything new, which I doubt very much. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 14:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@Crystallizedcarbon: Are you kidding? Why would I need to provide sources to "back my claim" that Catalonia is or has been a country? I didn't "claim" anything, I merely threw out a remark to preface my comment that whether or not Catalonia is a country is irrelevant to the case at hand. Or didn't you read that part? Catalonia's status is not (and has never been) the basis of the argument that Puigdemont should be described as Catalan. The entire thrust of my argument, and that of the other editors who agree that this is the correct description, who, by the way, are a clear majority, is that Puigdemont should be described as a Catalan politician because that is how he is described by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources. It's only you and a couple of other Spanish editors who are clinging to a narrow interpretation of MOS:BLPLEAD#Context because it suits your POV. Your argument is that "Catalonia isn't a country". Everyone else is saying, "Big deal, that was never the criterion anyway." Look at the countless examples of articles where country of citizenship is not the criterion applied, including all biographies of English, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish, Kurdish, Punjabi, Flemish (assuming you haven't vandalised them all yet), Québécois (ditto), Amish, Jewish, Cherokee, Inuit, Catalan (as long as they're medieval, right?), Palestinian, Taiwanese, etc. public figures. Then look at them again. Then look at what Jimmy Wales says about it (see link at the top of this section). Then look at what everyone who supports this option has said, which you don't appear to have done. Then look at the biographies again. Then put the stick down ever so gently and walk slowly away from the rotting, stinking, flyblown horse carcass. There, does that feel better? Otomixal (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Please apply your own advice to yourself, look at how sources describe all regional politicians and notice how the only place where I am arguing to use Spanish is in the place we use in BLP's for the country of citizenship, you are free to use Catalan elsewhere and Jimmy Wales just answered to a comment comparing the issue to a Scottish politician without getting into much detail, the difference between Scotland and Catalonia has been clearly established. Tag-teaming to try to convince me that more !votes means consensus won´t work, specially when most of those votes come from many people with a very clear POV on this issue. (2 Catalan, 2 Basque, 4 Welsh) Some called Spain a bulling state and Claims Catalonia is a country, another used very similar language and claimed "Our enemy is uniformity and big states who like to bully others. Any person, community, people, country which wants to be free should be free. Otherwise Wikipedia and open knowledge becomes a tool in the hand of one great big fat fascist.", others state in their page to be against the policies of Mariano Rajoy with a crossed ballot box making reference to the referendum of independence, another proclaims in basque the independence of the Basque Country, other declares to be part of the Catalan nationalist youth, etc...--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on the content, not the contributor and refrain from personal attacks on other editors (specifically, using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views). Please remember that where two opposing POVs exist, the article must include both and a formula must be found to satisfy the NPOV requirement. At present, the consensus appears to favour "Catalan politician from Spain". Please read WP:Listen and remember that believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted. Such behaviour is disruptive to Wikipedia. Otomixal (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

My comments are not intended as personal attacks. Everybody is entitled to their own political views. I fully respect all arguments but I think that if I disagree with them I should be able to argue why. My edit was aimed only at showing that there is no such consensus, and that arguments and not counting !votes is the only way of reaching it. There is a clear disagreement on the interpretation of our guideline and on the actual status of Catalonia. The point that I was trying to make is that I believe that being able to bring more editors in favor of Catalan independence or against "bulling states" should not be the deciding factor at this RfC. I am sorry if there was any confusion on the point I was trying to make. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@Otomixal: @Dell'Olmo: Using multiple accounts to make a point or to vote on an RfC and then use the number of !votes as a deciding argument would be what I would call disruptive. I have a reason to believe that both of your accounts are connected, so I have opened this SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Otomixal. I hope you will be able to prove I am wrong. you can do so at that page. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@Crystallizedcarbon: Jimmy Wales referred to the nationality of both, not the country where they lived (he mentioned this discussion which is about nationality); please read his Tweet again, and try to understand it. You are trying to cloud the issue by continuously confusing nationality with citizenship. Editors will see through this, so please don't attempt to mix people's words. All 5 voters for 'Spanish politician', including yourself, are from Spain (minus Catalonia and the Basque Country), and have a very clear Spanish nationalist POV on this issue. Your Sockpuppet investigations call on User:Otomixal reminds me of a rat in a corner; NOT needed, and has no effect on the value of their contribution to this discussion. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 20:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

You accuse me of clouding the issue, yet you continue to make Assertions without providing real arguments or sources:

1. You accuse me of mixing people's words: The word nationality is not mentioned anywhere in the tweet, yet you claim in bold that that is what he was reffering to. You are using a brief off-wiki answer to a comment ("I was personally most persuaded by the analogy (not perfect, but relevant enough) to Nicola Sturgeon.") to mean what you want it to mean. Despite having been told so, you seem to ignore that while in the case of Nicola Sturgeon there is no question that Scottish does fits the criteria "country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident" of MOS:BLP#Context per WP:UKNATIONALS Catalonia clearly does not fit that criteria as both Scotland and Spain are countries but Catalonia is not.
2. You also confuse the Spanish term Nationalities with Nation. Nationalities is a term used in Spain to refer to regions with a strong historically constituted sense of identity and include: Galicia, the Basque Country, Catalonia, Aragon, Valencia, the Balearic Islands, the Canary Islands and Andalusia. According to the second article of the Spanish Constitution: "The Constitution is based on the indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation, the common and indivisible homeland of all Spaniards; it recognizes and guarantees the right to self-government of the nationalities and regions of which it is composed and the solidarity among them all"
3. On your first edit you claimed to be neutral, but compared Spain with a "Bulling State" (seems like a contradiction) and stated that Welsh literature and media claimed Catalonia to be a country. If you make a claim you should be able to provide reliable sources to back it up. I asked you to provide them then but you did not. I understand that you would like for Catalonia to be a country, but that is not the current reality. (Please check reliable sources if you disagree).
4. You claim that I have a Spanish nationalist POV. I don't even know what a Spanish nationalist is. I am Spanish, yes, but I do not resort to discrediting the independentist side or Spain to make my points, I try to provide objective arguments on the interpretation of our guidelines.
5. Using the number of !votes to claim that "It's pretty obvious that the consensus is" Catalan is also misguiding according to WP:NOTVOTE:

It serves as a little reminder of the communal norm that it is "not the vote" that matters, but the reasoning behind the !vote that is important. While we do often seem to "vote" on things, the conclusion is almost never reached by simply counting votes, as the strength of argument is also very important. A "vote" that doesn't seem to be based on a reasonable rationale may be completely ignored or receive little consideration, or may be escalated to wider attention if it appears to have been treated as a simple vote count. It is important therefore to also explain why you are voting the way you are.

A simple !vote count has no value. We should take decisions based reasonable rational over the correct interpretation of our guidelines and policies.

6. Finally comparing me with a "rat in a corner" is not civil. The SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Otomixal has already been closed and both Otomixal and Dell'Olmo that !voted in this RfC have been indefinitely blocked for abusively using multiple accounts. Not everything is OK to defend your POV. Making unfounded accusations of Sock puppetry is also uncivil (see diff).Using Canvassing to try to have an editor in this discussion blocked (see diff) is also against guidelines. You seem to have had off-wiki contact with Iñaki in the past:User_talk:Llywelyn2000#Peace_Treaties_in_Art_Donostia_trip did he contacted you for the RfC or is it just a coincidence? --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Please stop your personal attacks and center your contributions on the correct interpretation of our guidelines. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

• Y Catalan politician MOS:BLPLEAD#Context is quite open-ended and if you look at objectively you will see there is leeway. That is why you will find thousands of biographies, many of a high quality, that describe individuals as African-American, English, Flemish, French Canadian, Irish-American, Kurdish, Palestinian Scottish, Welsh etc. Is Puigdemont's Catalan identity relevant to his notability? Again, anyone looking at this objectively will see that it is. If he wasn't pursing a Catalan nationalist agenda he would be unheard of outside of Catalonia and probably wouldn't have an article in English Wikipedia. That is why almost all WP:RS describe him as Catalan in their headline, byline and intro. We should do the same.--Obi2canibe (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• Y Catalan politician as he was born in Catalonia or declares that he is Catalan. I agree with Obi2canibe, Icewhiz and Llywelyn2000; their points are my points. Stating (in accordance with the MOS:BLPLEAD#Context guidelines) that he is Catalan will certainly improvement the Encyclopedia. The nationality of Puigdemont is Catalan on some Wikipedias, books, tv programmes, in the eyes of many people as well as his own people and more importantly - himself. Have respect! John Jones (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@John Jones: To be more precise, he was born in Amer, in the comarca of la Selva, in the province of Girona, in the autonomous region of Catalonia, in the country of Spain and he is also a European, etc. Among them, the guideline cites his country of citizenship as the criteria. Please cite reliable sources that state his country of citizenship to be Catalonia. Miguel Ángel Revilla is the president of Cantabria and leader of the Regionalist Party of Cantabria. Sources refer to him as Cantabrian but we use his country of citizenship as we do with the Asturian president Javier Fernández Fernández or the Bavarian Minister President Markus Söder. The fact that sources refer to them as Cantabrian, Asturian or Bavarian does not mean that their country of citizenship is not Spain or Germany.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that he was born in Catalonia, Crystallizedcarbon! Your other arguments are off-track and in no way have anything to do with what John has said. You've been told several times that your comment ...the guideline cites his country of citizenship as the criteria is incorrect. And telling him to have respect? Whow! Way off! Please keep to the discussion in a civilized manner, and if you have nothing new, then refrain from this discussion and take up golf or chess. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 14:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I also confirmed that he was born in Amer, in Girona, in Spain and in Europe you say the guideline does not cite the country of citizenship as the criteria and that is where we can agree to disagree. I already enjoy both golf and chess, I don't see how that is relevant. If you take the time to actually read what I do write, you will see that the comment "Have respect!" that you criticized was not made by me. It was made by John Jones. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

---

A Spanish politician from Catalonia

• Y To comply with Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Context, which clearly states that country is the criteria to be used in the first sentence of the lead. We can call it "Catalan ex-leader", "Catalan politician"... in the body of the article, once the correct background is established, we all agree, but the first line is to define the country to which he belongs and Catalonia is not a country, Catalonia is an autonomous community of Spain. On the example about Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland is considered a country, so in our case, in an analogous way, we have to put Spanish. The arguments that have been given in this discussion to not comply with the guidelines are absurd and can not be allowed in a serious encyclopedia, saying that it is offensive because Puigdemont does not consider himself Spanish, which also violates WP:CENSOR. Do we also have to write, for example, on the page on Catalonia that Catalonia is independent, so as not to hurt the sensibilities of (a part) of the Catalan population ...? A summary of the situation here Talk:Carles_Puigdemont#Summarizing, and Expanded: Summary of the discussion at the bottom. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 10:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support: Since Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Context clearly cites the country of citizenship and not the region or ethnicity as the criteria for that part of the BLP. I added a reference that states his citizenship is Spanish. The term Catalan could be added elsewhere on the lead. I changed the current wording from "President of Catalonia" to "Catalan President" to address that concern. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

No one is questioning the fact that his citizenship is Spanish, so the reference is superfluous. No matter how we interpret the Context guideline, "country of citizenship" is not the criterion followed in the case of Nicola Sturgeon (her country, however that is defined, may be Scotland, but her country of citizenship is unarguably Britain). Meanwhile, an overwhelming majority of reliable sources describe Puigdemont as "Catalan" (see the multiple references in the discussion above). Note also that "from Catalonia" does not mean the same as "Catalan", so the formulation "Spanish politician from Catalonia" could be seen as an attempt to suppress or bypass all reference to his identity, of which his ethnicity / cultural affiliation / Catalan nationality is an essential component. Otomixal (talk) 21:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support: Helps to avoid possible citizenship confusion. Arcillaroja (talk) 12:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support: For the sake of accuracy. It is very important we get it right as people form their political opinions while reading wikipedia and expect it to be unbiased, unlike most news sources. It would be wrong to convey the impression that he was other than a Spaniard, given the failure of the declaration of independence and he hasn't renounced his Spanish citizenship in any other ways. He is active in Spanish politics and is clearly one of the most notable Spanish politicians of this decade. My worry is that independence activists and those who support independence are putting their personal opinions before neutrality. You may wish independence had happened but it hasn't and wikipedia MUST reflect this reality. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 07:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

With respect, I don't think this is about his citizenship, which is not in dispute. Neither is it a question of supporting independence, which is simply not relevant here. Yes, he is a Spanish citizen (or "Spaniard" if you prefer), but he is also, indisputably, Catalan. He is both things: Spanish and Catalan. The exclusion of either of these definitions compromises the neutrality of the article. Both need to be included, one way or another, so we need to find a compromise that reflects the different points of view. In my view "Spanish politician from Catalonia" does not meet this criterion as well as "Catalan politician from Spain" (in combination with "Nationality: Spanish" in the infobox) because it appears to reduce being "Catalan" to a mere geographical or administrative division and denies the national affiliation (culture, language, etc.) felt by Catalans – some, not all. And that's a further point: just as with WP:UKNATIONALS, we should not be trying to impose uniformity. Josep Borrell is unlikely to appreciate being described as a Catalan politician. Or to take another example, racing driver Oriol Servià is a proud Catalan, has a Catalan flag on his helmet, etc., but his notability derives from his achievements on the race track, so it is probably more appropriate to describe him as a Spanish racing driver (unless reliable sources show a strong self-identification as Catalan?). By contrast, and as pointed out in an earlier RfC on this subject (see discussion), Catalan ethnicity is relevant in the case of authors who write in Catalan or politicians who support Catalan independence, among other examples. Otomixal (talk) 08:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Otomixal, we are wanting to say he is a Spanish politician which is different from examples such as Pablo Casals because it doesn't matter what nationality you are as a cellist. Nationality is more important in a writer because of language (and look how we treat Montalbán) but it is terribly important in a politician. We call Oriol Junqueras Spanish, why is Puigdemont any different? I can't think of any profession where nationality is as important as it is in politics. We also use the same for Inés Arrimadas. While she was born in Andalucía her political involvement is entirely in Catalonia, same as with Puigdemont. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 09:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I can't quite follow your reasoning here. Casals is a fine example of self-identification as Catalan. Nationality may be irrelevant in the case of most cellists, but here we have someone whose very name is consistently changed for political reasons, a man who famously appeared before the United Nations with the words "I am a Catalan" and described Catalonia as having been "the greatest nation in the world". To call him "Spanish" in his biography (and to remove the description "Catalan") is therefore anything but neutral. As for Oriol Junqueras, isn't that rather begging the question? This discussion of how to deal with Puigdemont's "nationality" could be seen as a test case for other Catalan politicians. If we can arrive at a consensus here, it may be possible to apply that to other articles, don't you think? It may lead to a situation where Catalan nationalist politicians are described as Catalan and Spanish nationalist ("unionist") politicians are described as Spanish, but what would be the harm in that? In any case we should be guided by reliable English sources. Regarding Vázquez Montalbán, who mainly wrote in Spanish, you suggest the reason yourself when you say that nationality is more important in a writer because of language. You raise interesting points: let's keep this discussion going! Otomixal (talk) 10:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

If we allow Wikipedia to take into account the wishes of the person and how they want to be described at their whim, and not the realities, it would be a wreck for Wikipedia that would shake all its foundations. This violates all the Wikipedia policies and all common sense.

By putting an analogy, for example in the field of Medicine: practitioners of alternative therapies without recognized degrees usually refer to themselves as doctors. Should we also give in to this ...? I assure you that they defend their position with as much or even more fervor than the independentists politicians.

We can not allow people to use Wikipedia as a platform for their own objectives, in the case of this RfC of a political nature.

On you are saying about his notability, it derives precisely from his struggle because he is a Spanish from Catalonia, but wants to become independent from his country, which is Spain. Catalonia is not a country.

No one is denying that he is Catalan, the real situation is put in the right context: he is a Spanish from Catalonia. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 08:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The "right context" is exactly what we are discussing here, precisely because there are different points of view to consider. Self-identification is certainly a valid criterion (one of several) in biographies such as this where alternative ways exist to describe a subject's nationality. Far from violating Wikipedia policy, it is encouraged (see, once again, WP:UKNATIONALS). Where different points of view exist, our job is to ensure that the article reflects all of them, otherwise it will not be neutral. As for notability, try applying your statement to, say, Quim Monzó (who used to describe himself as being from Andorra in order to avoid calling himself Spanish or French. See here: [7]). His notability is as a Catalan writer, writing in Catalan, and clearly has nothing to do with a desire for independence. Common sense suggests that he should be described as a Catalan writer. In this context, describing him as a Spanish writer is not neutral, it corresponds to a specific POV and responds to a political objective. Unlike an RfC, which is inherently apolitical. Otomixal (talk) 09:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Great idea, BallenaBlanca. You have here a list of Category:Transgender_and_transsexual_women, maybe they wish to be treated as women, but in many places they are legally men, so we can't tolerate their ideas! We are an Encyclopedia, not a place were identity wishes are fulfilled! -Theklan (talk) 14:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support: As per the already presented arguments. Additionally, I was not going to intervene in this discussion any further, but seeing from some users' attempt to boycott the request to remove an otherwise unrelated, undiscussed and unilateral edit (and one which is openly against the already established consensus in Wikipedia around the Catalan Republic (2017)), it seems like there is some ongoing agenda to introduce an overtly pro-Catalan independence tone in this article, which is worrying and also overtly against WP:SOAPBOX and WP:TE. Impru20^talk 21:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

How is it any more WP:SOAPBOX and WP:TE to describe a Catalan as "Catalan" than it is to try and pretend that Catalans don't exist simply because of the wording of the 1978 Spanish Constitution (which, when it comes down to it, is the only "already presented argument" in favour of this option)? Wikipedia contains any amount of biographies of pre-Constitution (and even pre-Spain) Catalans. Did Pere de Queralt (died 1408) lose the right to be described as "a Catalan nobleman" with the creation of autonomous communities in 1978? Of course he didn't. This constant effort to reduce the meaning of "Catalan" to "from the autonomous community of Catalonia" is not "neutral", it's tantamount to cultural genocide, or at the very least anti-historical revisionism. Saying that someone is Catalan has nothing to do with whether or not you support Catalan independence. Catalans have been around for a long time! A lot of them (not all) speak Catalan. A lot of them (not all) have Catalan names. A lot of them (not all) live in Catalonia. Stop trying to pretend they don't exist! Dell'Olmo (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Dell'Olmo: It is clear that either you have not read or you are not understanding us.

No one is saying that "he is not Catalan", that is your free interpretation. He is Catalan, off course... in the context of Spain, as there are Galicians, Basques, Asturians, Valencians, Canarians, etc. all of them Spanish as the Catalans are.

His country is Spain, his nationality is Spanish. We have to establish the correct context per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Context, and in the body of the article, he can be called Catalan as many times as needed. It is explained and re-explained in this thread ...

The nationality and not the ethnicities, is what has to appear in the first place. Ethnicity is added, in addition to nationality, if is relevant for the person in question, and for that reason we support adding "from Catalonia".

If he were just Catalan and not Spanish, we would not have to be here arguing, because it would mean that Catalonia is a country, but currently it is not.

That defines himself as Catalan and refuses to be described as Spanish? Perfect. It is an information to develop in the article. But like it or not, he is Spanish in the first place, Spain is his country. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 23:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

All Catalans are not Spanish. All Basques are not Spanish. -Theklan (talk) 07:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

You are making the perfect point. Neither all the Galicians, nor Asturians, nor Valencians, etc. who are living in the world are Spanish, that depends on their nationality in each specific case. One thing is their ethnic or regional origins, another is their nationality.

Precisely, in this concret case we are talking about a Spanish from Catalonia, the nationality of Puigdemont is Spanish.

That's why we have to clarify well. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 08:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

More specifically, a Spanish whose origins are Andalusian and Catalan. See [8]. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 08:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

You didn't understand the point. -Theklan (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@BallenaBlanca: Claiming ethnicity is "Catalan" and "Andalousian" is as ridiculous as it gets, introducing ADN or surname-related racial criteria... For real? That looks like a complete inability to understand collective realities other than states and administrative units. National background is key information on the natural community to which a person is born, usually associated to their language. That is not (necessarily) the state to which they are born (citizenship), although it may change in different international settings according to the make-up and circumstances in each place.

At any rate, "Catalan from Spain" looks like the inclusive way forward accounting to Puigdemont's defining national background, besides being the most inclusive way. Feel free, but I do not see any point in building up 'ammunition' references with a view to facing up to the opposite positions, both main positions have been sufficiently attested. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

It is you who are insisting on using ethnicism. Catalonia is not a country.

All this discussion is based on the need to use the right information in the right place and how to write the lead to comply with the Wikipedia policies. Catalan nationalism and the desire for independence are mentioned in the appropriate parts of the page. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 23:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Point of Order - Thanks @Yunshui: for the above 'RFC on nationality', which you placed on this page at 08:20 (GMT) today, 7 June 2018. I note that the article was changed a few hours later at 10:19 (GMT) by @Crystallizedcarbon:, which in my view was out of order. Can you please revert the wording to what was there when you ‎called the RFC ie a Catalan politician? Many thanks! As Crystallizedcarbon knew fully well that he shouldn't have done so, I also suggest a ban for him. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Definitely. Thanks Yunshui for taking action and opening this. RfC started to discuss the matter, settle maters and reach a conclusion on the final edit; yet someone seems to have seen it as a fantastic opportunity to keep reverting and advancing their position. Rules apply to everyone. Iñaki LL (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I would do it by myself, but I fear Yunshui will block me for defending Wikipedia (again). -Theklan (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I do apologize for this edit. It was done in good faith. I restored the page to the version that was stable through the whole discussion and that was changed by the edit war started by Theklan and finally by 81.32.32.163 a couple of edits after Theklan was blocked. Besides restoring to the previous status quo, it added a reference to establish his Spanish citizenship and changed "president of Catalonia" by "Catalan president" as a way to introduce Catalan on the lead to try to find consensus and still comply with MoS. I was not aware at the time that edits are strongly discouraged once an RfC is in place. I assumed it was OK to restore it to the previous version, but after carefully reading WP:RFC I realized that I was clearly mistaken. Please accept my apologies. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

A ban would be way out of line here. Please remember that consensus was waived as the reason to change the wording. If there is something like a consensus in wikipedia, then it is certainly nothing other than what you can find in all related biographies (Dalí, Miró, Tapies, Gaudí... The list is neverending both in the english and in the spanish wikipedias). This is clearly a political discussion. Some are drawing similarities between the UK and this case. Those similarities are not valid since the nature of the UK ordening is very different from that of the Kingdom of Spain. I will also like to point out that the word "Nacionalidad" (and not "Nación") was very carefully chosen to define Catalonia. I propose that we do not change the wording, until the estatuto of catalonia has an univocal definition for Catalonia as a nation or else, till Catalonia is recognized as a sovereign state. See [9] for some more information Arcillaroja (talk) 07:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Again, "Nacionalidad" or "Nación" is a formula by deciders of Spain took in 1978 that albeit a reference it is not deciding anything here. Catalans or Basques have been a nation long before the Spanish Constitutions started to imposed their legal criteria in the 19th century that makes them 'citizens' of Spain, ignoring their own nature, in the same way native Americans belong to a certain nation irrespective of their citizenship in the United States. That needs to be accounted for.

Also, virtually nobody would accept in Catalonia (or for its case, in the Basque Autonomous Community, and largely also in Navarre) that their cultural or political figures be called only 'Spanish' (or Spanish, at all). It alienates the individual in question, the community to which they belong, and the very WP, for failing to account for underlying, key realities. It is about the nature of this people, born to a certain natural community, historically called nation, that defines them, beyond imposed narrow legal dogmas and exactions. Knowledge and diversity go together in the Wikipedia, so let us stick to it. Iñaki LL (talk) 09:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Legal ordening has a lot to do here. This is the legal definition that applies here. Whether the wording chosen in the spanish constitution is correct or not in your view, is out of scope and quite frankly, uninteresting. Using First Nations is unfit for this discussion as it is again, very far from the situation in present Spain. It is not our role to try to define what a nation is or who belongs to it. Wikipedia is not some activist blog. This person's citizenship is Spanish. There are literally hundreds of biographies regarding Spanish personalities that do not make a distinction on whether this person was born in this or that region. Why should we take a controversial stand in this particular article? Just because it is about a pro independent politician? Seems a weak argument. Arcillaroja (talk) 13:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Citing legal order as a totem is indeed off the mark. This is about defining a prime feature of an individual figure. Get over it and move on, nor himself, neither any other else in the Catalan community believes he is (only) Spanish. WP accounts ultimately for real knowledge, and it needs reflect that. A manual or guidebook may say whatever but we intend to account for reality. "Catalan from Spain" is equally informative and that definition is inclusive, as opposed to the obsession with rules and removal of key information. That is indeed anti anti-WP activism. Iñaki LL (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Dear Iñaki LL, I think you don't get it. We don't use wikipedia for deciding what the definition of "a prime feature of an individual" or anything else. The definition is there and then we use it. In this case the definition is already there. It's called constitution and the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia Arcillaroja (talk) 16:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Please yourself. Iñaki LL (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Theklan, you aren't defending wikipedia, you are defending your own opinion. Please don't confuse the two. Nobody edit warring or calling for others to edit war is helping wikipedia. To the contrary, they are damaging the article and undermining the project. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 07:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Don't try to be funny, RichardWeiss. -Theklan (talk) 14:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Arcillaroja: You have here a category full of people who died BEFORE the US was an independent entity: Category:American_Revolutionary_War_deaths. Please, check if they are American, British or your strict view of nationalities isn't applied here. -Theklan (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Dear Theklan, I'm afraid I can't follow the logics in your statement. Could you clarify? Arcillaroja (talk) 16:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Theklan, I am not being funny, I am being very serious. See WP:AGF and always take what I say seriously. Thanks to you and other EW activists this page is now locked and yet you are still here with the same attitude. It isn't okay. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 16:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Arcillaroja: I can't help noticing that you are the editor who opened the original RfC on this topic almost exactly four years ago, yet here you are again with exactly the same arguments about the Spanish legal order and the translation of the word nacionalidad. While that discussion did not produce a consensus, no one who took part in it agreed with your interpretation of the MOS and you were advised to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. More significantly, the important point was made that in cases such as this one, WP:NPOV (which takes priority over the MOS) requires us to present both views. It was further pointed out that to remove "Catalan Spanish" and leave only "Spanish" would be in breach of WP:NPOV, although apparently you went ahead and did it anyway in the Dalí, Gaudí, Tàpies and Miró articles. Otomixal (talk) 16:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Otomixal, I did. This is a recurring conflict. The arguments were valid 4 years ago, and they are valid now. I did set the articles in their original state at some point. I remember there was a sudden wave of politically motivated edits back then. I also remember that these edits seemed to be sparked by some political event related to the catalan conflict. And not because any legal definition was suddenly changed. I must say that then I tried to revert what in my view, was a strange wording (Spanish Catalan) for something that went more along spanish from catalonia. In some cases a more appropriate wording was found, and in others nothing really happened. It was just a hype and it faded. What I can assure is that I did not set the state of those articles into their present state (spanish only). Other editors did. I also remind you that I did not open the current RfC. I give my opinion and expertise as an experienced editor regarding these types of discussions. And I will keep doing so. I suggest to find a third way that might be more constructive without taking any political stand. In my opinion removing the whole mention of Spanish or Catalan would be acceptable.

Regardless the outcome of these discussions, it will always come back. That is the nature of wikipedia. In any case, I'm consistent with my previous comments and I will try to protect wikipedia form editors that try to change articles in the idle hope of changing reader's perceptions. Arcillaroja (talk) 00:24, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. It rings a bell. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)~

Does it? Interesting because it seems that you did not take part on these discussions or the related articles. You certainly don't ring any bell to me Arcillaroja (talk) 00:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Puigdemont is not "Catalan", he has Andalusian origins

Are we going to put the ethnic origins in the first line of the lead? Well then, let's be precise.

Puigdemont is not a "Catalan", he has Andalusian origins.

Los 4 apellidos andaluces de Puigdemont: el abuelo que se casó con la charnega

"El insulto con el que los nacionalistas catalanes marcaban a los que no eran de pura cepa era ‘charnego’ hace no demasiado tiempo. Un mote xenófobo, un título despectivo con el que los catalanoparlantes denominaban a los obreros, emigrantes de clase baja y menor poder adquisitivo que aterrizaban en una Cataluña boyante desde cualquier rincón de España. Quién les iba a decir que el abuelo del president, Carles Puigdemont, se iba a casar con una de ellas.

[...]

Los orígenes del líder separatista, que sueña con romper con España en poco más de quince días, enraízan con el oriente andaluz. Porque él, nacido en Girona hace 54 años, es nieto y bisnieto de jiennenses y almerienses."

--BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 08:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Then Barack Obama is not African American. -Theklan (talk) 20:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Theklan is correct; do we check everyone's DNA?! As BattleofAlamo said (above), BallenaBlanca is "clutching at straws"! BallenaBlanca - there is a saying in Welsh which translates to: 'the deeper the river, the less sound it makes'. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 07:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

You are mixing concepts and providing wrong analogies continuously.

We have to put the accurate information in the right place, respecting the guidelines. Remember that the guidelines / policies are based on the previous consensus of the community. You are trying to ignore them, but also remember: Other users and I are explaining that following the rules improves the encyclopedia, because it maintains the unification of criteria and avoids misinforming / creating interpretation errors. On the opposite side, the criteria for not following the rules are "avoid offending", giving priority to how the person wishes to be described (ignoring laws and realities), distorting the meaning / context of the fact that certain sources denominate him "Catalan politician" and based on the misconception that Catalonia is a country. This will never be an improvement for the Encyclopedia.

The nationality of Puigdemont is Spanish.

His ethnic origin is Catalan and Andalusian.

And from the perspective of his political ideologies, is a ex-leader Catalan separatist. But remember, this is NOT his nationality, he is Spanish. Catalonia is not a country.

Putting the information in order:

1. In the first place of the firs sentence we have to put his nationality: Spanish.
2. Regarding positions and roles (do not mix...), the lead should describe the person as they is commonly described in reliable sources. He is not characterized for being just Catalan, but for being a Catalan separatist.
3. Do you want to mention his ethnic origin? He is Catalan with Andalusian roots. Does it have relevance? Yes, it has (and he tries to hide it). In fact, the pro-independence Catalan themselves despise people who, like him, are not "pure Catalan race" and even use the word "xarnego" to refer to them. It is an irony worthy of being highlighted.

Therefore, the appropriate wording in the first sentence would be something like this:

Carles Puigdemont is a Spanish politician and journalist, former Catalan separatist leader.

We have reliable sources for everything, describing him as a Spanish politician (his nationality) and as a ex-leader, Catalan separatist (his role / political ideologies):

[10] 14.03.2018 Le Conseil fédéral. Le portail du Governement suisse. “politicien espagnol Carles Puigdemont”

[11] 14 mars 2018 Le Temps "Le communiqué du DFAE (…): qualifiant Puigdemont de «politicien espagnol» (et non catalan), le DFAE «rappelle» aussi que «la question de la Catalogne est une affaire de la politique intérieure de l’Espagne» et que cette question doit être traitée «dans le cadre de l’ordre constitutionnel espagnol»."

[12] 31.10.2017 Toute l'Europe "explique que la seule preuve de la présence de Carles Puigdemont à Bruxelles est "la déclaration d'un avocat belge, spécialiste du droit international, qui affirme avoir été contacté directement par le politicien espagnol".”

[13] 06.04.2018 ZDF "Spanischer Politiker wird erstmal freigelassen Carles Puigdemont"

[14] Munzinger-Archiv "Carles Puigdemont spanischer Politiker;”]

[15] 5.4.2018 Bluewin “Carles Puigdemont è un uomo politico spagnolo”

[16] 23/02/2018 La polizia cerca Puigdemont (…) ma anche questa volta il politico spagnolo non è stato individuato."

[17] 25 marzo 2018 Metropolitan Magazine Puigdemont è stato portato nella prigione di Neumuenster, e, da quanto fa sapere il suo entourage “l’operazione si è svolta in un clima di collaborazione” perché il politico spagnolo si dichiara “come sempre a disposizione della giustizia”.

[18] Vlaamse Radio- en Televisieomroeporganisatie "Carles Puigdemont. Spaanse politicus, minister-president van Catalonië."

[19] 14.03.2018 Le Conseil fédéral. Le portail du Governement suisse. The Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA) has taken note of the visit of Spanish politician Carles Puigdemont to Switzerland.

[20] 25/03/2018 Euronews “Catalan separatist leader Carles Puigdemont”

[21] 25 mar. 2018 The Washington Post “Catalan separatist leader Carles Puigdemont”

[22] 18 March 2018 BBC “Catalan separatist leader Carles Puigdemont”

[23] DW-TV “Catalan separatist Carles Puigdemont”

[24] 5/12/2017 The New York Times “Carles Puigdemont, Catalan Separatist”

[25] Mar 26, 2018 The Week “Catalan’s separatist former leader, Carles Puigdemont” --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 17:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Here we go again.

1. This is the English Wikipedia. Please cite reliable sources in English only. (The few English sources you do cite refer to Puigdemont as Catalan, which somewhat undermines your argument.)
2. Reliable sources in English commonly describe Puigdemont as a Catalan politician. It isn't up to us to prove or disprove the truth of this description, merely to reflect it.
3. Please avoid unsourced generalisations such as "pro-independence Catalans despise..." and refrain from using offensive terms such as "xarnego" (see the last paragraph of this interview [26] for a little perspective on who it is that actually uses this expression today and, incidentally, who it is that has a "supremacist" obsession with people's origins and surnames). If you are trying to imply that the subject of this article holds racist or xenophobic views, you should provide sources. (You can't, obviously.)
4. For the umpteenth time, there is no Wikipedia guideline that says that we have to put the subject's citizenship (which you conflate with nationality) "in the first place of the first sentence" [sic], and there are countless examples across Wikipedia of articles where a different criterion (cultural nation, ethnic group, subnational entity, stateless nation) is used instead. Otomixal (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I will not go into more explanations because it seems you do not understand what I am explaining.

I will just say that your reasoning are as correct as saying that we can only use sources in English. See WP: RS.

P.S.: And I did not make any "unsourced generalizations", because my comment is supported by and adjusted to the reference I already gave in this talk page [27]. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 20:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

P.P.S.: Your comment is not supported by the reference you give. The article you link to says that the term charnego was used (in an unspecified period in the past) by "Catalan speakers". Nothing about present-day "pro-independence Catalans" despising anyone. And even if it were admissible as a source, that scurrilous, hate-filled, muck-raking pamphlet El Español (nice neutral title there!) is about as far from being a reliable source as it is possible to get. So there's that. Otomixal (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

You are not understanding what the source says either. It does not refer to "Catalan speakers" but to "Catalan nationalists". I quote verbatim: "El insulto con el que los nacionalistas catalanes" "The insult with which the Catalan nationalists." (I will assume that all your interpretation errors are in good faith). And again, the way to discredit is questioning the source, questioning policies, questioning guidelines, etc. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 21:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

It's astonishing how many of your contributions to the discussion begin with you telling another editor that they haven't understood something. Y ahí lo dejo. But if you're quoting verbatim, you forgot this part: [Un] título despectivo con el que los catalanoparlantes denominaban a los obreros, emigrantes de clase baja y menor poder adquisitivo que aterrizaban en una Cataluña boyante desde cualquier rincón de España. So which is it, nacionalistas or catalanoparlantes, and which of the two are you (not the source) equating with "pro-independence Catalans"? And as for questioning the source, I shall say only this: can't we have a civilised discussion without quoting vile xenophobic racist supremacist pamphlets? Otomixal (talk) 22:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• "It's astonishing how many of your contributions to the discussion begin with you telling another editor that they haven't understood something". Provide the diffs, please.
• "which of the two are you (not the source) equating with "pro-independence Catalans"?" I see that you have not taken the trouble to follow the link I provided (rather, the links, since I repeated it twice [28]), if you had done it, you would not be asking this.
• I will use the (verifiable) sources that are necessary in the moments that are necessary. The interpretation that you make of them is not my problem. "El Español" is a source that does comply with WP: RS and in fact, it is widely used in the English Wikipedia [29]. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 22:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? Otomixal (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

What? Didn't I just quote from the article you linked to? How could I have done that if I hadn't taken the trouble to follow the link? And you still haven't answered the question... Otomixal (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Fill your boots, but be careful: all that bile might rot your brain. Otomixal (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Moved: Never edit or move someone's comment, do not break up other editor's text by interleaving your own replies WP:TPO.

1. Seriously.
2. No, I'm not talking about this, I'm talking about the wikilinks I provided. Check again and that will give you the answer.
3. No personal attacks WP:TPNO.

Really, how complicated it is to collaborate with a person who does not respect the policies nor guidelines ... --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 23:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Unmoved, frankly. Another example of an editor misinterpreting (and misquoting) a guideline, in this case WP:TPO, instead of engaging with the issue. What the guideline actually says, of course, is "Generally, you should not break up another editor's text by interleaving your own replies to individual points; this confuses who said what and obscures the original editor's intent." But by moving my carefully indented and signed replies to your bulleted items and reproducing them as a list with no bullets or numbers, and then answering those points with a numbered list of your own, it's you that's confusing who said what and obscuring intent. But whatever.

1. Seriously?
2. Wait, you're talking about the link to the article on Catalan nationalism in really tiny letters? Sorry pal, you won't find a source for your unsourced generalisation that "pro-independence Catalans despise..." there either.
3. What personal attack? My friendly warning that reading a hate-spewing rag overflowing with bile will rot your brain?

Really, how complicated it is to collaborate with a person who does not respect the niceties of debate and has such an apparently limited grasp of English. Otomixal (talk) 05:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I was warning you because it's my right per WP: TPO that you never modify my messages: "normally you should stop if there is any objection". (And do not argue about this "normally", the exceptions do not apply here.)

1. Still waiting ...
2. You asked: "nationalists or catalan speakers, and which of the two are you (not the source) equating with 'pro-independence Catalans'". I gave you the link to what nationalist / catalan nationalism means = "the ideology asserting that the Catalans are a nation." It is not my interpretation, it is the definition, therefore, it is what the source says. By the way, the link was not only in tiny letters, also in normal size (duplicated, remember). Do you want more sources that reflect the despise of the Catalan nationalists towards the rest of Spaniards? It is enough seeing the person who represent them: The Guardian, 17 may 2018 Torra sworn in as Catalan president amid xenophobia claims The New York Times, 15 may 2018 El discurso xenófobo del nuevo presidente de Cataluña
3. Thanks for your kind advice, but I do not need it.

And I have no problem in recognizing my limitations with English, just look at my user page [30]. It does not offend me, on the contrary, I consider a privilege to be able to speak several languages, although obviously I do not reach the perfection. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 18:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@Otomixal: According to WP:NONENG when English sources are available for the same content, they are preferred, but there is absolutely no policy to use English only sources. But in any case there are also sources in English that do refer to him as Spanish. for example: The Swiss Government: "the visit of Spanish politician Carles Puigdemont to Switzerland" and "As a Spanish citizen, Mr Puigdemont is entitled to travel freely within the Schengen area" (Bold is mine). And here some more I had mention previously that depending on the context refer to him as either Catalan or as a "Spanish citizen": Swiss info, The Guardian, USA Today. And that is the key, his activity in regional politics and drive for independence are done in Catalonia so when the news are in that context they refer to him as Catalan, but at a nationwide level context they do refer to him as Spanish, his country of citizenship (at this time). --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@Crystallizedcarbon: You can use whatever sources you like, this is Liberty Hall. What you cannot do is use the fact that an Italian newspaper (say) describes Puigdemont as Spanish to argue that this is how he should be described in English. Or try and pass off as a reliable English source a Swiss government press release that has been translated from Spanish. Our job in this article is to reflect reliable sources in English, of which there is no shortage. Moving on, I have no idea what you think you mean by "nationwide level context" but I will say this: The Guardian, which you cite as a reliable source, has an entire section devoted to news from or about Catalonia (see [31]), as part of its "World" coverage. No mention of Spain at all. How's that for context? Also (and I can't believe I'm still having to repeat this): no one is denying that Puigdemont is a Spanish citizen. No one would object to an infobox containing the words "Nationality: Spanish". You could even stick a little Spanish flag in there if you wanted. But where the vast majority of editors who have contributed to this discussion (or to the previous RfC on the topic) disagree with you is over your interpretation of the MOS. Most of us consider that in the specific case of the article in question, the inclusion of the country of citizenship in the first sentence of the opening paragraph is neither necessary nor neutral. The majority view is that the correct way to describe Carles Puigdemont, as per reliable sources, is as "a Catalan politician and journalist". Otomixal (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@Otomixal:: Translated from Spanish? I think not. the Swiss government published it in German, French, Italian and English but not in Spanish, and in all of them it refers him as the Spanish politician Carles Puigdemont and as a Spanish citizen. I am glad that you agree that he is a Spanish citizen, what I would like is to have convincing reasons on why we should do an exception to the guideline with this BLP. How the sources refer to him depends on the context. The claim on whether he self identifies as Spanish or not, is not a valid reason in my opinion. That The Guardian has a section about the region of Catalonia and the drive for independence by a large number of its people (47,5% according to the last regional election) is not surprising, but that does not make Catalonia a Country. His country of citizenship is an undisputed objective fact, so I don't see how using it in the place specified by our MoS can be deemed not neutral or not necessary. I am not against of using the term Catalan elsewhere in the article or in the lead. I added it myself by changing President of Catalonia to Catalan President. Insisting in putting Catalan in the place reserved for the country of citizenship for BLPs is what is not necessary and not neutral as it implies a status of country to Catalonia that it does not have and is not our role to give. Sources describe Bill Walker as Alaskan or introduce him as governor of Alaska, should we change American for Alaskan. How about Don Wright (politician) who was most notable as the gubernatorial nominee of the Alaskan Independence Party according to his BLP? --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@Crystallizedcarbon:: Translated from Spanish. If you look carefully at the documents you link to, you will see that they all contain a link to a PDF of the original Spanish document. Make of that what you will. Once again, the MOS does not "specify a place for the country of citizenship", it states that in most modern-day cases the relevant context will be the country of citizenship. Twist it how you like, that's all it says. Meanwhile, those sources... Otomixal (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I admit that I did not see that PDF, I don't think it is relevant if the Swiss government wrote it first in Spanish and then translated it to their own official languages or viceversa I can guess that the PDF is probably the version sent to the Spanish government. Still, they clearly refer to him as a Spanish politician and a Spanish citizen, and I have not seen any news of Puigdemont or his political party claiming that to be either false or offensive to him. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Obviously, this PDF is the translation into Spanish of the original version written in the official languages of Switzerland, for press release that was provided to Spain. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 17:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Page protected

Since it seems that editors here can't refrain from edit warring even while an RFC is in progress, I have fully protected the article for a week. If the RFC is closed before that, the closing admin is welcome to dissolve the protection. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for PP! Does the offender not warrant a ban? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 08:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Serious thought was given to blocking all parties involved in the edit war - I opted for page protection as a less extreme option. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the PP, Yunshui! But I was blocked for defending the integrity of the article and I demand the same action for those who are edit warring, specially BallenaBlanca, who is imposing his point of view while reverting the article. -Theklan (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Best go to WP:ANEW and make your demands there, then. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

You were blocked for breaking 3RR, Theklan, nothing else. Nobody has ever defended the integrity of any article by edit warring. It just shows impatience. And we calmer editors cannot now improve the article thanks to edit warriors such as you. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 16:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I know what you think, RichardWeiss. You have the right to think so, of course, but I was asking it to Yunshui. Thanks for the answer! -Theklan (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

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