Talk:1983 Aragonese regional election

Corts numbering

Impru20 these were emphatically not the first Corts. There were Corts centuries earlier and just because the website of the Corts (a primary source which I can't access at the moment) labels it the "first legislature" does not mean it was the first Corts. The website of the Spanish parliament similarly labels the 1979-1982 parliament as the "first legislature" even though elections had taken place before the Civil War.

So, saying it was the first election since the transition is factually accurate, saying that it was the first Corts is clearly not, as it relies on labelling the previous Corts as ....not Corts, which is as POV as it gets. Valenciano (talk) 23:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Valenciano

Okay, let's go with my considerations:

1. It's not polite to revert my edits despite you being the one having the issue. Obviously I can't now revert without violating WP:3RR, so this is not fair, in sight that you have now brough the issue to the talk page.

2. You are creating a mountain out of a molehill. First, the article (in my version) stated on its first sentence "the 1st Aragonese Corts, the regional legislature of the Spanish autonomous community of Aragon." That is, the Corts, in this context, are clearly described as the regional legislature of the Aragonese autonomous community. Previously to 1983 Aragon as an autonomous communities didn't existed. That is, it is absolutely correct to say that those are the 1st Corts as the regional parliament of the autonomous community of Aragon, because it is true. I can't see where you see POV there.

3. "labels it the "first legislature" does not mean it was the first Corts"

Corts = Legislature. That is, a "Legislature" is a parliament. The Corts, are a parliament. It is the 1st Legislature, just as those are the 1st Corts. They are synonyms, so it is actually meaning to say that. You can't accept the term "1st Legislature" and refuse the term "1st Corts". Of course, they do mean that they are the 1st Corts/Legislature of the autonomous community (not of all-time in history), but that was already mentioned in the description of the regional legislature.

4. The Aragonese Corts article states several times:

"the Corts were revived in 1983 following the passing of a Statute of Autonomy."

"Section: Current Corts"

"The modern Corts were established in 1983 under Article 12 of the Statute of Autonomy for Aragon"

That is, with "Aragonese Corts" we are obviously referring to the modern Corts, which the article itself does separate from the "old Corts". Pick this together with what has been said before about "the regional legislature of the Spanish autonomous community of Aragon". Again, can't see POV here.

5. You do seem to assume I don't know those were not the "first Corts", or that even I'm assuming that what was before weren't Corts. I'm refering to the Corts as "the legislature of the autonomous community of Aragon", which, pretty obviously, was not the definition of the old Corts (as has been explained before).

6. I'm frankly bothered of needing to add "[something] since the Spanish transition to democracy" everytime we need to account for party results' comparisons, historical events and such. It's repetitive, and in this case, there isn't any need for it. Really. Of course it would be more factually accurate, but on your own arguing, we would also have to explain that with "democracy" we do mean the 1978-today period and not the 1931-1936 period when there was also democracy. Do we need to explain, when we say "Germany" in a present term, that we are refering to the current German Federal Republic and not to Nazi Germany, the Weimar Republic, the German Empire or the Holy Roman Empire? When we say "France", do we need to explain that we are refering to the current Fifth French Republic in order to be more factually accurate?

Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 23:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's take your arguments point by point.

1) The lead of the article was stable from I created it in 2009 until you changed it today. That is, it had existed for 6 years with clearer wording. Per WP:BRD having made a bold change and then been reverted, the onus was on you to take it to talk.

2) In that context "the first Aragonese Corts" is unclear and would easily lead the reader to think that it was the first. First since the transition or first since Franco's death is necessary for clarity.

3) Parliament and legislature, while very similar, are not synonyms. See for example this link. Would you say that the first legislature of Spain (i.e. 1979-1982) was the first Cortes Generales? Clearly that wouldn't be correct.

4) I know exactly what the Aragonese Corts article says, after all, I started the article and wrote most of it. The Corts were revived in 1983.... exactly my point. If something is revived, it obviously isn't the first.

5) Ok. No offence was meant there and I apologise if you were offended.

6) There is a need for it when something existed before and we therefore have to clarify that. We absolutely *do* need to say the first since the transition or since Franco's death. No, we don't have to explain that we mean the contemporary period when we're talking about democracy. Spanish transition to democracy links very clearly to an article which clarifies which democracy we're referring to. In the case of Germany, West German federal election, 1949 shows exactly what I mean. Though it was the "Election for the 1st German Federal Diet", the article makes it clear that "They were the first contested elections since 1933 and the first after the division of the country." Clarity is necessary. Valenciano (talk) 01:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, here go the answers:

1. This format is the one being used for Spanish general, Valencian, Asturian, Madrilenian, Catalonian, Galician, Andalusian, etc regional elections being modified and updated as of lately (in order for having information up to date for the upcoming 2015 elections, but that's another issue). No issues with the numbering of regional parliaments until now. I obviously didn't brought it to talk because 1) the previous format was not the result of any given consensus that was to be broken, and 2) I considered my edits to be most optimal; not only because I think of them as best (of course I do, but that's subjective), but mostly because they have not been contested.

2. Uh, no. The sentence is "the 1st Aragonese Corts, the regional legislature of the Spanish autonomous community of Aragon.". Aragonese Corts = the regional legislature of the Spanish autonomous community of Aragon. You can say you don't like the sentence if you want, but please don't say it isn't clear because it is obviously clear what "Aragonese Corts" meants for in that context; and it's obvious that it doesn't mean the "old Corts".

3. Uh, actually, that would be correct. The 1977-1979 were the Constituent Cortes Generales (that is, the term "Cortes Generales" being introduced in the Constitution of 1978; you obviously couldn't have Cortes Generales back in 1977 as the term didn't existed then). About the difference on "Legislature" and "Parliament", the only difference made in the link you put in is the Executive's responsability to the chamber. Some difference explaining why the numbering of Legislature and Parliament should be different, when they usually and frequently are used interchangeably?

4. Good way how to entirely skip half of my arguing. What about the section dedicated to the "modern Corts". You still fail to explain why you keep insisting on the "old meaning" when the "modern Corts" are introduced in the context of the articles. I'm sure the "old Corts" were not the lgislatures of any autonomous community, were they?

5. Ok, let's pass the matter.

6. But you put it as a need, when the most obvious evidence tells you that the Corts in its current incarnation did not exist before. There weren't any Corts to the Aragonese autonomous community because Aragon as an autonomous community, and the Corts as an institution of the autonomous community, did not existed until 1983. And that was already clarified. When I talked on France and Germany I did not mean elections, but now that you put it the matter; yes, the German article says "They were the first contested elections since 1933 and the first after the division of the country", but much to my favor; that is not there to clarify, but as a notable event. Germany did have elections before 1949, whereas Aragon never ever had any regional or parliamentary election before 1983. Thus, saying that "this is the first election since the Spanish transition to democracy" is redundant. Yes, it's true. And we could also say that it was "the first election since the 1982 general election", or "the first election since the death of Franco", "the first election since the Civil War" or even "the first election since fall of the Roman Empire", just because it was the first ever regional election and all those expressions would fit into it. Some things are obvious, and don't need to be "clarified" more than needed; otherwise we could spent hours and countless amounts of text in order to "clarify" things. Impru20 (talk) 01:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

In any case, to prevent further conflicts, I've added the "democratically-elected" expression after the numbering. Prevents excessive redundancy and is much simpler. Impru20 (talk) 02:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with "first democratically elected." As a general rule, I don't think it's really necessary to number them much beyond that anyway. Valenciano (talk) 09:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)