Talk:Carles Puigdemont/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Controversial use of above RfC

Recently, Llywelyn2000 has sistematically changed the supposed nationality on the bio articles of a number of political personalities from the independentists spectrum [[1]]. I doubt that this is what a RfC should do. I also don't understand why and how is it intended to use this. Is this RfC only applicable to notorious pro independence politicians? or should it be set to all politicians? Maybe not only to politicians but also other professionals? I thought that RfC were meant to give an advice rather than a wp wide policy. In my opinion these edits could discredit wikipedia as a neutral information source. Please, my comment is not intended as personal attack to Llywelyn2000. I just want to illustrate the consequences of ad hoc changes. Arcillaroja (talk) 09:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Llywelyn2000:. This RFC does not set a precedent for other articles. It covers the one case of how Wikipedia should describe Carles Puigdemont. Nowhere in the RFC is it stated that this decision should affect all articles dealing with nationality - for that, you would need a site-wide RFC debated in a central location. Using the above RFC to justify sweeping changes to other articles is verging on disruptive. If you think that other articles should be changed, you need to have that discussion out on the talk pages of those articles. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:42, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Given we should attempt to be consistent I would suggest a new Rfc to cover all politicians from Spain rather than individual discussions on multiple talk pages. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 09:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

↑ that is probably a good idea. I would suggest WT:SPAIN as the most obvious venue. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The RFC is a guide on others. Pre RfC there was no guide. Call it a guide rather than a president if you wish, but it is certainly is a guide for similar articles - biogs of other Catalans, and I've included artists and actresses as well as politicians; at least we now have a better criteria than pre RFC (no criteria!) 'Controverial' - in your eyes maybe, but this is biased heading, as is 'supposed nationality'; the former wording (Spanish nationality) was not only 'supposed' but also pre-discussion. That discussion has taken place, and a consensus reached. Until this consensus is changed in the future, all biogs of Catalan, Basque, Scottish etc people should include that nationality. 'wp wide policy' - there was no 'wp wide policy' pre RfC - the nationality on each biog was changed ad hoc, usually a free for all fight! Such fights, such ad hoc editing and waring certainly discredits Wikipedia, and hence my edits. A reasonable consensus has been achieved, and a system in place. Nowhere in the RFC is it stated that this decision should not affect other articles dealing with nationality Thanks. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 10:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Arcillaroja, Yunshui and RichardWeiss. I also think that a RfC in WT:SPAIN is the most appropriate venue. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 10:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I also agree with BallenaBlanca, Arcillaroja, Yunshui and RichardWeiss. In my opinion and judging from the comment above and from this edit Llywelyn2000 seems to be claiming that the RfC states the nationality of Carles Puigdemont is Catalan instead of Spanish. This in my opinion is using Wikipedia for political means. I respect the results of the RfC on this article even though I found questionable the rationale used to close it. I disagree with the statement that "there is clear consensus amongst the participating editors that Carles Puigdemont should be described as a Catalan politician" From the discussion above it seems very clear to me that there was no such consensus, unless if by consensus we understand a higher number of !votes. This is specially relevant since it was closed just as it was found out that there was sock puppetry both in votes and comments by two very active users and without addressing a possible case of WP:CANVASS (see here).

I do not want to challenge or re-open that RfC. An admin made a decision and I think it should be respected, but trying to use it as a way to establish that nationality is Catalan and not Spanish and using it to change a large number of BLP's from Catalonia is in my opinion against our policies, and a political use of Wikipedia.

If a wider RfC is finally opened, It should probably be published at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style and at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography as well, since it would directly affect Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Context allowing for the use of region for all/some territories where some of its citizens want to be independent to be used instead of the country of citizenship as currently stated in the guideline. Extending the argument used by Llywelyn changes would or could be made to BLPs of Andalusians, Valencians, Asturians, Bavarians, Alaskans and countless others. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I disagree discussing it in WT:SPAIN, as this is only about spanish as long as there are three users following their agenda. Also, it's true there was no consensus. There were all the people, media, common sense and citations versus three well co-ordinated editors with lot of time to invest in changing everything in Wikipedia. And this 3 won't be convinced. So no, no consensus at all. Because there is not consensus if there are three users that won't change their agenda. -Theklan (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Theklan, if you are implying that I have some kind of complot orchestrated with Yunshui, RichardWeiss, Crystallizedcarbon, BallenaBlanca or whoever else, you are very much mistaken. I don't think I need to defend myself or others from these accusations, but please refrain from doing this. Let's keep this a constructive discussion. Arcillaroja (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

It is obvious this issue involves the application of MOS:BIO, so if this is to be applied in a wide range of articles, then a proper RfC should be attempted there to gather consensus for such move. Right now, it seems some user has attempted to use the RfC specific for this article to edit a whole range of articles related to pro-Catalan independence figures, and this is what is being contested. For Puigdemont, proper sources and arguments that were specific to him were applied, but these are not necessarily appliable to all other articles for different people who may be covered differently in English media. I also do not understand why this conflict is being brought to articles on Catalan people only, but not others. If there is a conflict with the application of MOS:BIO, which seems to be the case here, then the discussion should be brought there in order to solve this conflict for all articles. In the current discussion there seems to be a majority of users against the generic application of this RfC's outcome in all articles, so I would not summarize this into some sort of "coordination between three people" because it is obviously not the case here (please note that good faith should be assumed). Impru20^talk 15:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Theklan:, either back up your false allegations with diffs or desist from making them. I am tired of your personal attacks, which have nothing to do with improving the encyclopedia. You seem to think if you make life unpleasant for others they will withdraw. That isn't how things work on the English wikipedia. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 15:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I assume good faith when there is good faith. Not in this case. Quim Torra is the best example of disruptive editing despite consensus here.

@Impru20: Current discussion is being made by the editors who lost their case in the RFC. Is obvious that most of Wikipedia editors don't have their time (all day around, it seems) to discuss here when the discussion was over with such a clear output. Maybe we need a wither discussion, but the arguments would be the same exposed here. -Theklan (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I will remind you how WP:AGF works: When doubt is cast on good faith, continue to assume good faith yourself when possible. Be civil and follow dispute resolution procedures, rather than attacking editors or edit-warring with them. If you wish to express doubts about the conduct of fellow Wikipedians, please substantiate those doubts with specific diffs and other relevant evidence, so that people can understand the basis for your concerns.

Consensus here was for this article. Arguments and sources used here referred to Puigdemont being described in English reliable sources. Yet dozens of articles have been edited based on it, when the discussion here was limited to Puigdemont's article only. If what you are contesting is how MOS:BIO is currently applied, then you would wish a wider consensus on this being applied by seeking it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. Otherwise, there is no sense in editing a whole host of articles based on a RfC for a specific article when such an application of the RfC outcome was not discussed nor consensuated. As of currently, it is obvious there is a majority of users against applying the outcome of this specific RfC on cherry-picked articles without previous discussion, so you must seek consensus for it first. It is crystal clear. Impru20^talk 17:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Consensus was for this article and for all the cases where someone defines itself, press describes it and mayor common sense calls to call it as Catalan. Three users are reopening the issue and, of course, they are now majority BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES reopening the case they lost. And when someone reopens the same case again and again, makes disruptive editing and tries not to understand what was discussed and lost... well, I can't assume good faith on that.

On my side, I don't have time to discuss again and again and again exactly the same thing. If you want to discuss that what applied for Carles Puigdemont is not valid for Quim Torra... go on. I have other things to do in Wikipedia better than discussing the same thing ad infinitum.

By the way, I don't have time for looking for diffs, providing evidence of what it is evident, and litigating in every article on Wikipedia. -Theklan (talk) 17:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I am counting five users (six if we count myself, since I do not agree with this way of doing things either), who are against unilaterally imposing the outcome of a particular RfC in a specific article on other articles. Disrespecting others' opinions by trying to picture some sort of conspiration orchestrated by those who do not agree with your own stance would require you to "have the time for looking for diffs and providing evidence" of such behaviour, because otherwise, it is you who are engaging in a clear misconduct by breaching both WP:AGF and WP:NPA.

On the issue at hand, maybe the RfC should have been centered on all articles rather than awaiting until obtaining a favourable RfC in a single one, then attempting to circumvent MOS:BIO in a wide range of articles by claiming that this RfC was a "precedent". So far, such an RfC applies only to the Puigdemont article; for all others, MOS:BIO still applies. If you wish to contest the way MOS:BIO is applied, then I suggest you to seek consensus on such a page so that subsequent changes are applied on all articles and not just on those that some user thinks it should apply. It is not others' fault that you seemingly "do not have time" for that, but that is the way to go, not unilateral imposition and edit-warring. Impru20^talk 17:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Theklan: If you don't have time to back up your allegations don't make them though you might consider spending less time pointlessly edit warring if you are short of time. I would suggest you haven't found diffs because they don't exist. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 18:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I didn't follow the discussion about Puigdemont's bio in detail, but if I'm not wrong the consensus was to use Catalan or Spanish based on reliable sources. Currently, however, in most cases using Catalan or Spanish in bios is not based on reliable sources but which side lasted more in the edit war, for example Oriol Junqueras bio was created as Catalan and since then there has been a constant edit war with dozens of edits modifying it between Catalan and Spanish (an incomplete list of them: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]).

I think the same reasoning we used in the case of Puigdemont can be applied to other biographies. For example, I guess it's quite easy to demonstrate that most reliable sources refer to Oriol Junqueras or Quim Torra as Catalan instead of Spanish.

It's because of that and WP:Bold I think Llywelyn2000 shouldn't be blamed for his edits. If you think they are not appropriate, you can revert them and bring the discussion to the talk page, explaining why you think that person should be described as Catalan or Spanish and providing sources to justify your position. --Aljullu (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I fully support a wider RFC so that we can settle the issue and not waste our time having the same arguments on several articles. WT:Manual of Style/Biography is the most obvious place as the dispute relates to the interpretation of this policy. It would also allow a more wider, and perhaps more experienced, group of editors to respond rather than the "usual suspects". WT:SPAIN might, rightly or wrongly, be perceived as a non-neutral location.

The scope of the RFC shouldn't be wide e.g. it shouldn't cover all Catalan biographies, but should be limited to individuals whom we can reasonably be sure place greater emphasis on their regional identity (Catalan, Basque, Galician etc) than their Spanish identity. This could be because they belong to a nationalist organisation, such as Catalan political party advocating independence, or if the individual has themself stated this.--Obi2canibe (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I support an Rfc at the location proposed by User:Obi2canibe whatever its scope. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 21:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Seconded; if we're going to do this, let's do it properly, so that the same discussion doesn't have to take place in every region attempting to gain autonomy. I also support an RFC at WT:Manual of Style/Biography over WT:SPAIN, much better idea. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with these ideas too. I only hope the discussion is feasible as there are so many different situations where this point could be contested... Let's see what happens! Arcillaroja (talk) 08:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Sure, let's settle the issue at WT:Manual of Style/Biography. The outcome (that we follow the sources when they say "Catalan Politician", "Spanish Basque band" or "Welsh poet", etc.) is pretty much a foregone conclusion, but at least it will put an end to the bickering and the edit-warring. Please feel free to notify me when you've opened an RfC. --RexxS (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with @RexxS: - WT:Manual of Style/Biography is a much more neutral place to host the RFC than . But let's not bring Wales into it (I would have to declare an interest! - and nationality = Welsh in the lead is already agreed and in place in many articles (as is Scottish). As requested above by @Obi2canibe: let's just focus on Catalan and Basque nationalist politicians, where there is no doubt. Then we can look at others. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 06:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Llywelyn2000 that we shouldn't bring the UK into this. It is a very different case. IMo focus solely on Spain's Catalan and Basque regions, however, should be anyone (inc bands) with a view on the independence issue, not just politicians. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 08:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I also agree with that WT:Manual of Style/Biography is a better place to host the RfC and that we shouldn't bring the UK into this because it is a very different case. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 09:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish are already covered by WP:UKNATIONALS and for those BLP it is acceptable to use either that or British as all are countries. If an RfC on the guideline is open, its criteria would need to be inclusive and not arbitrary, why only politicians, why Catalonia and the Basque region but not Galicia or Andalucia and why not other regions like Martinica or Bavaria. A general criteria could be whether we should use the region in the first word after ") is a" where we now use the country, for politicians and activists that advocate the independence of their region from their current country. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I see it as just a matter of following the sources, so as far as Wikipedia is concerned, I'm quite "blind" to whatever underlying political issues exist. Wikipedia is not the place to try to determine who is right in those sort of disputes, and we should be doing no more than attempting to determine what the principle sources say. If The Beatles are described as a "Liverpudlian" band in the sources, then that's what we should say in the lead. The same would go for "Kurdish fighters", "Rohingya refugees" and so on. Stick to the sources and we avoid most of the problems you're seeing. --RexxS (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Easy enough when the sources agree with each other, which isn't the case here and might not be with the other cases except the Beatles. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 15:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@RexxS: Sources refer to many regional leaders that way: Catalan president, Asturian president, Cantabrian president, etc. that does not mean that they are not Spanish as the Alaskan Governor is American and the Bavarian minister president is German. Mos Currently states that we should use the country of citizenship (see here), instead of counting how many sources use the region vs the country to describe them. The RfC for this particular article determined that because there were more !votes defending the use of Catalan that there was consensus for its use. That does not extrapolate to other articles.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@Crystallizedcarbon: you are failing to read the full guidance at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Context, which is leading you to an over-simplified view:

• "The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases this will be the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if the person is notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable. Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability."

You omit the caveats "most" and "unless it is relevant to the subject's notability". There are many people, organisations and groups whose notability depends on their ethnicity or nationality, not their citizenship. You also have too narrow a view of nationality. The New Oxford American Dictionary defines nation as "a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory", and the world is full of such groups that are not coterminous with nation states. Notability is determined by sourcing (and nothing else), and putting that notability into context – as required by MOS:BIO – actually does require evaluating (not "counting") what the principal sources say. If an Asturian president is notable principally for being Asturian, the we call them an "Asturian president", not a "Spanish president" (which would be grossly misleading as well as inaccurate). Of course they are still a Spanish citizen, but if that is not relevant to their notability, it doesn't need to be spelled out. Anyone who wants to know where Asturias is can simply follow the link – this is a hyperlinked encyclopedia and that takes care of incidental information. --RexxS (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Puigdemont as Spanish isn't incidental information; it is why he is facing charges and why his independence bid failed. I would argue it is highly relevant to his entire political career and to characterise it as unnotable is misleading. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 19:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@RexxS: You can review the RfC as many of this issues have been covered above. Ethnicity is discouraged "unless" relevant. If relevant it should go in the lead, yes. But that does not mean that it should replace the first word with is what we use for the country of citizenship. Take as an example Barrak Obama: He is an American politician. His ethnicity is relevant, and therefor it's included in the lead, but just not in the place used for country of citizenship. As far as your other point the guideline sets the "country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident" not a concept of nation. Catalonia is not a country. Finally, the first words of the BLP are not to mention the title, so the article would not start with Asturian president, but with Spanish politician even if most sources do refer to Javier Fernández Fernández as the Asturian president (please see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Positions_and_roles and the examples cited bellow). Same applies to Miguel Ángel Revilla, Susana Díaz, Bill Walker, Markus Söder and countless others... --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I want to say two words only: Frantz Fanon. -Theklan (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

His country of citizenship was France, as Martinique is an insular region of France. The current version is not following the criteria of the guideline. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Of course he was a French citizen, but that is incidental to his notability. His principal notability lies with his works and his career. There is no problem whatsoever with describing him as a "Martinican" as he was born in Martinique and was part of the Martinican nation. I suggest you should be the one to review the RfC above as it clearly rejects your preference for calling Carles Puigdemont a "Spanish politician". Yes, he's a Spanish citizen, but his citizenship is of no consequence when explaining his notability - that relates to his nationality as a Catalan politician. Similarly, the guideline you're trying to rigidly enforce doesn't say what you think it does. According to the New Oxford American Dictionary a country is "a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory". That fits well with how we perceive the Basque Country and almost as well with Catalonia. If you're using a different definition, let's see what it is and what its provenance is. Dylan Thomas was a Welsh poet; Jesus Christ was a Jewish preacher and religious leader; Franz Kafka was a Bohemian novelist, Patrick Pearse was an Irish teacher, barrister, poet, writer, nationalist, republican political activist and revolutionary; George Washington was an American soldier and statesman; and so on. Not one of those is described by the state where they were born or were a citizen. Both Pearse and Thomas were citizens of the United Kingdom; Washington was a British citizen for most of his life; Kafka was a citizen of the Austro-Hungarian Empire; and Jesus was a Judean citizen within the Roman Empire. They are described in accord with what the principal sources say, as should every biography on Wikipedia. Citizenship is almost never a factor in an individual's notability. --RexxS (talk) 00:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The idea behind the MoS is to provide a consistent format for all articles. In BLP's that is to first (after date of birth) put the country of citizenship followed by the roles. This is also the case for people notable at regional or city or even supranational level. This does not mean that if relevant Martinican should not be included elsewhere in the lead, just not in the place we reserve for the country of citizenship. Is a matter of consistent formatting. Frantz Fanon BLP should be consistent with most other Category:People_from_Fort-de-France. As far as your other examples, Ireland and Wales are Countries of the United Kingdom so their country could be considered to be Ireland or Wales or also the UK (see WP:UKNATIONALS) that is not the case for other regions. As far as Jesus the guideline talks about "most modern-day cases"; See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Examples for other historical figures from the past where the country is not used. Finally, for the case of George Washington the guideline states that we should use "the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable". America became an independent country under his rule and Washington was clearly more notable as the first American president than as a common subject of the British Empire. Since America is and was a country we use American soldier and statesman. That is not the case with Martinica. Finally, about Puigdemont, yes, its unquestionable that he is Spanish, as it is unquestionable that Spain is a country. To meet the guideline you would need to establish that Catalonia is also a country. The problem is that it is not. To prove otherwise you would need to use reliable sources that clearly state that fact. Your interpretation based on the definition of the word is original research and depending on how you choose to twist the interpretation of "own government" may apply to many other regions of Spain, as well as countless others in the world. The RfC decided by just counting !votes (despite of confirmed socking and without looking into alleged WP:CANVASS) to use Catalan instead of Spanish for this BLP and this BLP only, it is not valid to use this RfC to claim that the nationality of people from that or any other region should be Catalan instead of Spanish or Martinican instead of French etc... and does not mean that the interpretation of MoS should be changed and use this RfC as argument for replacing country by regional denomination for multiple BLP's. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I personally will not add any more here, If a RfC is opened on the guideline itself I will present my arguments there, for more information, please read the entire RfC first. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually, according to WP:PAG, the purpose of policies and guidelines (such as the MOS) is to document what are the generally accepted practices on Wikipedia. Our policies and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive and all of them are intended to illustrate how we usually do things, not to impose a rigid framework on article writing. That's where you go wrong, and the rest of your argument falls when it is clear that not all biographies can be written to fit your framework without becoming stilted, unnatural, or lacking any support in mainstream sources. There is no place reserved for the country of citizenship. You are making that up, as is obvious from your inability to answer the counter-examples presented to you. When Washington was alive, there was no "United Kingdom" - that didn't exist until the Acts of Union 1800. When Dylan Thomas was alive, Wales had no self-government and he was a UK citizen. When Pearse was alive, Ireland had no sovereignty of its own, and Pearse was a UK citizen, no matter how you try to twist it. Washington was a notable British commander in the French and Indian war (1754–63) long before he became president; when he became notable, he was a British citizen. According to your rigid formulation we would have to begin "George Washington (1732–1799) was a British military commander". What utter nonsense! It is clear that Puigdemont is a Spanish citizen, but we still write "Carles Puigdemont ... is a Catalan politician" because that is what is important to explain his notability. In your search for fixed rules, you miss the bigger picture: there is no uniform formula, and the purpose of the opening sentence is to introduce the topic in the most relevant way for that particular subject. Nobody has to prove that Catalonia is a country (although it meets the NOAD definition of "a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, with its own government, occupying a particular territory"), any more than you are required to prove that it isn't. You can't make up rules that are convenient for just your side of the argument, or if you wish to do so, you need to adduce some evidence - so what is your definition of "country" and what's your source for it? The RfC determined that "There is a clear consensus amongst the participating editors that Carles Puigdemont should be described as a Catalan politician. - nothing more and nothing less. if other editors want to take that outcome as a precedent for similar disputes elsewhere, they are entitled to do so. You have no authority whatsoever to unilaterally declare that "it is not valid to use this RfC to claim that the nationality of people from that or any other region should be Catalan instead of Spanish". You don't get to make those sort of decisions for other editors. It does, however, indicate that your interpretation of the MOS needs to be changed. It is obvious that your over-prescriptive interpretation of some general guidance does not fit with what we find in Wikipedia as a whole: there are many exceptions because the final authority is what the sources say, not what you think the MOS says. --RexxS (talk) 13:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@RexxS: After reading your comment stating that George Washington notability as a British commander in the french Indian war could somehow be considered more relevant than been the first American president "just because it took place " long before he became president", I propose that we just agree to disagree. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Crystallizedcarbon: I'm afraid you've completely missed the point, or you're having difficulty reading. I made no such claim. You stated above "the guideline states that we should use "the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable"." When George Washington became notable (1754–63) he was a British citizen. There's no doubt about that because we have an article George Washington in the French and Indian War. So your reliance on the guideline is nonsensical, because it is common sense that his notability as the first president is more relevant than his notability as a British commander. Yet the guideline you quoted at me above says "when the person became notable", not "the period when they were most notable". I'll be happy to propose an amendment to the MOS to bring it into line with reality, but in the meantime, you need to concede that you're relying on flawed guidance. --RexxS (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@RexxS: My mistake. I did miss that point, I interpreted it to mean when the person became (most) notable, but you are right that a literal interpretation could back your claim. I think it is a problem with the wording and not the spirit and that it should be amended. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to RexxS, his respect of diversity, his free spirit, his common sense, my hope in the neutrality of the English Wikipedia is reignited. How can we now move on from here so that edit-warring becomes something in the past? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 09:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I suspect only with a compromise everyone agrees with. I was impressed by this Inés Arrimadas: ‘We’re all Catalans and we all deserve respect’ but this doesn't mean they aren't all Spaniards too. IMO we need text that satisfies both parties, e.g., "a Catalan and Spaniard", any solution that only appeals to one side of the argument won't work. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 11:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I think you're right, RichardWeiss. Compromise is surely the only sustainable way forward. If each side entrenches, then you end up with wars of attrition, and that's not good for the encyclopedia. Rather than having one side insisting on "a Basque writer from Spain" and the other side insisting on "a Spanish writer from the Basque Autonomous Community", couldn't both sides live with "a Spanish Basque writer", for example, where the sources allow it? It would differentiate them from "a French Basque writer" while giving equal prominence to their citizenship and to their nationality/ethnicity. These sort of compromises don't fully satisfy either side, but they are often sustainable, where others aren't. --RexxS (talk) 14:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@RexxS: There had already been talk about this and that "the 'Spanish Catalan' approach is outrightly unencyclopedic because such an expression does not exist" (also applicable to "Basque Spanish" obviously). You have the full conversation here Talk:Carles Puigdemont/Archive 3 (you must expand the text at the bottom of the page, incorrectly collapsed, I do not know who did it). --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 11:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@BallenaBlanca: You're quoting an editor who is not a native English speaker to me (a native English speaker) to support your view that "Spanish Basque" and "Spanish Catalan" do not exist? That's pretty comical. "Spanish Basque" gets 302,000 Google hits, and "Spanish Catalan" gets 723,000 Google hits. You really need to give up on pushing that fiction. The 'Spanish Catalan' approach is absolutely encyclopedic because such an expression is found in a huge number of sources. Once again, you're refusing to give an inch to any suggestion of compromise. --RexxS (talk) 01:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, I have the same disinterested view I held six weeks and many more edits ago at Talk:Carles_Puigdemont/Archive_3#Nationality: '"Spanish Catalan" works for me. It addresses both concerns/claims and still manages to be correct.' ---Sluzzelin talk 14:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

As an alternative Only in death suggested using the formula "is a politician and journalist form Catalonia, Spain" at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard as a way to "sidestep the nationality issue". Even though is not in line with MOS, for politicians or advocates of independence it could be a way to avoid using the first word to describe them as something they strive to stop being. I took too long to respond to that proposal and the thread got archived, but I am beginning to think that it might be a good compromise and hopefully an acceptable formula for regional leaders or politicians that advocate independence from their current countries. There would be no problem with using the term Catalan, Basque Bavarian, Martinican, Californian, etc. elsewhere in the lead and that way we would prevent using those BLP's for political advocacy. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

While this proposal seem to be techincally more neutral for wikipedians, maybe it's not for the subject described. As you can see, no one is proposing a lead saying that ETA (separatist group) is a Spanish armed/separatist/terrorist group, as that would be a nonsense for the notability of the subject. As I wrote above, the problem is easily solved with Frantz Fanon, who claimed not be be french, and we respect it. Many separatist politicians or specific culture representants claim to have a specific identity, not related to their citizenship, but yes to their nationality. As far as is possible, we should respect that, as we respect gender identity. I would agree to a Basque Spanish or Basque French "partial" solution for those who are ethnically basque but don't know if they identify themselves as Basque. And would note that taking this change in the MoS will carry new problems, specially for kurdish (see Abdullah Öcalan), québecois or flemish. Also for people like Mahatma Gandhi (Indian British) or Adolf Hitler (German from Austria-Hungary; Godwin not intended). Let's think then if pushing the MoS to an even narrower interpretation is a good idea, or simply common sense could solve this. Because now MoS says (as noted in the RfC above) in most cases and not in all cases. -Theklan (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment: The guideline applies only to BLPs. biographies --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Great! Let's wait till this people die to call them what they wanted to be called in life. Beside irony, this same argument has been used for death people (Nestor Basterretxea or Jorge Oteiza) and music groups (Kortatu or Zarama). -Theklan (talk) 07:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

If the sources allow it and the Rfc is successful then yes we should call ETA a Spanish/Basque armed/separatist/terrorist group. Good thinking, Theklan. ♫ RichardWeiss talk

contribs 09:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

RichardWeiss Are you serious? -Theklan (talk) 12:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Crystallizedcarbon The guideline is not just for living persons, is a guideline for all biographies Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography. In fact, recommendations are given on the death dates "(when applicable)" and the examples that are provided are Cleopatra, Petrarca, François Mitterrand and Cesar Estrada Chavez.

Maybe its application to groups of people is controversial, I agree. It is better to include this point in the RfC to reach an agreement. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 11:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@BallenaBlanca: You are 100% right, I meant to say biographies which the article on ETA is not. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary line break

Any article containing info about people is covered by WP:Bio. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 11:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 11:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Obviously the sources would have to verify this in each case, Theklan. It doesn't sound odd to my British ears, ETA was seen as a Spanish terrorism issue. And outside Spain not everyone by any means has heard of Basque country. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Rfc

I've boldly started a new Rfc here. The wording wasn't easy. Please comment. @Aljullu, Arcillaroja, BallenaBlanca, Crystallizedcarbon, Impru20, Llywelyn2000, RexxS, RichardWeiss, Theklan, and Yunshui:--Obi2canibe (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you @Obi2canibe: I will propose changing the scope as I mentioned before the result will has repercussions for all biographies of subjects that promote the independence of their regions, not just Catalonia or the Basque region. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

monarch ??

"monarch" parameter is not apliable in such a box. It is not used in any other spanish CA President, nor in Mayor or other elected position.

I can't understand what makes User:Impru20 spend his time in changing ALL the Catalan presidents articles, in order to type the spanish king or president ruling in this period. No new info added. Just unuseful data added. Boring and stupid behavior, man. A ridiculous spanish nationalist POV, I guess. Joan sense nick (talk) 21:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)