Talk:Carles Puigdemont/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

ESM

--ESM (talk) 16:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what this new section means. I had previously assumed it was a signature mistakenly left after addition/ adjustment of the header banners. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Community Sanctions

A proposal has been made to impose community sanctions including possible editing restrictions, on the topic of Catalan independence. Interested editors may join the discussion here. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

1st president of the Catalan republic

Carles Puigdemont is at the moment the 1st president of the (Unrecognised)Catalan republic. I think we shoud add that in the infobox. Catalan_republic_(2017)83.86.208.191 (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

When brand new countries announce themselves, isn't it usual to wait for some kind of official recognition from other countries? the United Nations? some other kind of official validation? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia always add presidents(of other functions) of a unrecognised country in the infobox of that president. For example: Bako_Sahakyan Vadim_Krasnoselsky Igor_Plotnitsky Alexander_Zakharchenko83.86.208.191 (talk) 15:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Francesc Macía is credited as "President of the Republic" despite a similar lack of recognition, so precedent suggests Puigdemont can be similarly credited . Culloty82 (talk) 15:54, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree, it should be added to the infobox that he is the First President of the Catalan Republic (albeit, noted that the position is unrecognized at the moment). Should we receive further information on the name and details of the position, it should be modified to the correct information.

Haven't followed this situation too closely. Does Catalonia even consider itself a republic? Perhaps they're a monarchy, with Philip as its monarch. GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

The recent referendum explicitly called for independence as a republic. PatGallacher (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

To original poster, it's still under heavy dispute as to weather their is a Republic of Catalonia. According to the Spanish Constitution, there isn't. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

agree, but there is also official not a donetsk republic, but their leader is also president is the infobox83.86.208.191 (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Unrecognized states such as Transnistria, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia have their state leaders listed with office boxes as well. LXM Volo (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Puigdemont is NOT president of any political entity. He WAS the president of the Generalitat but was suspended/fired by Mariano Rajoy. The declaration of independence is illegal, Puigdemont violated the Spanish constitution, Catalonia is still part of Spain . Also the European Union condemned his act. Edu (talk) 03:46, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Puigdemont et al's responses to this have yet to be seen, as Rajoy issued the termination late last night, so the response of the newly-declared Catalan Republic—Internationally-recognised or not—to that decree is another matter entirely, and one which I await with trepidation for all the possible outcomes, as precisely none them are going to end well. —TwoWholeWorms (talk) 07:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Puigdemont has not even disputed his removal as of yet, much less declared he is the "President of the Republic of Catalonia" or whatever. So, for now, we must assume he was sacked. We shall see what his reaction is, and will act in consequence. Impru20 (talk) 08:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The whole point of declaring independence was to be free of control from Madrid. Independence having been declared, the catalan authorities will no longer be recognising any 'orders' from madrid, so Puigdemont will not consider himself sacked. That said, he will also no longer consider himself president of a regional government but of a national government. Lin4671 (talk) 09:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Director of the Mossos d'Esquadra, Pere Soler i Campins, did indeed acknowledge Madrid's orders despite the independence declaration, so what you say cannot be taken for granted. We need evidence that the Catalan government, including Puigdemont himself, is indeed going to resist and that the independence declaration was not merely symbolic. Whether Puigdemont considers himself sacked or not, we cannot know until he says. Impru20 (talk) 09:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

you all don't understand, the fact is that he is the president of the Unrecognised Catalan republic. But we should add that in his infobox just like we did it for all other presidents of Unrecognised republics83.86.208.191 (talk) 10:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Other "presidents of unrecognised republics" do consider themselves as such. Let's wait for Puigdemont to actually announce that, if he does. Currently some sources are pointing that the Catalan government may actually not resist the Spanish takeover of the Generalitat. Impru20 (talk) 10:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Just after giving a press conference, where he has rejected Spanish actions and Article 155, so presumably he does now consider himself President of the Republic? Culloty82 (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

He did not clarify whether he and his government would acknowledge the Spanish government's instructions, much less considering himself President of the Republic. As his formal title ("President of the Generalitat of Catalonia") is a neutral one (the "Generalitat of Catalonia" being an historic term trascending the autonomous community) we should leave it as it is, and mark it as disputed from 27 October onwards. I've already done it. Impru20 (talk) 12:47, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Disputed

In what way is the suspension "disputed"? Controversial for sure, but it has certainly occurred has it not? Bagunceiro (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Puigdemont has just walked away, has he? "He condemned the suspension of Catalonia's autonomy and promised to continue to "work to build a free country": [1]. But I acknowledge User:Impru20's last comment at the "1st president of the Catalan republic" thread above. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I don`t understand what that has to do with it. The office in question (President of the Generalitat of Catalonia) has been suspended. It isn`t in Puigdemont's power to overide that suspension, condemn it as much as he wishes. It`s a legal fact. The office of President of the Republic of Catalunya is a different matter - I haven't heard that he is declaring himself that but that would be a fair case of "disputed". Bagunceiro (talk) 21:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps, I was taking "condemnation" to mean "disputed". But within the Constitution of Spain I guess there is no room for "dispute"? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The Right Honourable

Why is he styled as such? Ueutyi (talk) 04:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

No longer Now restored, here at least, it seems. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Protection

At the moment, this article is only semi-protected. While that is a good start, this article is still very controversial (indeed, there's a dispute over the basic issue as to what Mr Puigdemont's role is), and semi-protection does not effectively protect against vandalism, because while it prevents unregistered, or very new, users from editing the page, it still allows those users who have been users for quite a while, to edit (and potentially vandalise) this page. I'm going to request either ECP or full protection on the basis of vandalism. The Historian (talk) 14:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

How much vandalism has there been by "users who have been users for quite a while"? Vandals get blocked, don't they? I think the page seems to have calmed down quite a lot since Friday, much to my surprise. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The protection should be removed. As a a new editor, I want to edit this page. The results of the independence referendum is a must.FreeCatalonia (talk) 11:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Not with that user name. Please set up your own website for your propaganda. Wikipedia is not the right place. --2001:16B8:2891:DE00:BC1E:D09A:B217:7EFA (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The recording was made with a computer, not with real person. --92.75.107.147 (talk) 11:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Be that as it may, it does not seem to match the IPA: the second ə in Catalan pronunciation: [ˈkarɫəs pudʒðəˈmon i kazəməˈʒo] sounds different from the first and more like e. Looking at Help:IPA/Catalan, I wonder if it is Valencian. PJTraill (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Rwxrwxrwx, why did you remove "POOTCH-da-mon" as "incorrect pronunciation"? It was literally sourced to the New York Times. Minder, Raphael; Kingsley, Patrick (October 10, 2017). "In Catalonia, a Declaration of Independence From Spain (Sort of)". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. (Your removal left the reference hanging.) The IPA alone is only useful to a small subset of readers. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 21:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• I assume we only offer native language IPA pronunciations. Even BBC Radio 4 newsreaders have been known to pronounce the final t. (Naturally, I don't include Zeb Soanes in this damning over-generalisation). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC) .... and now Fiona Bruce on BBC News at Ten

• @Czar: It's really poodge-duh-mon; listen to the recording which is correct. You can also hear it from several people at http://www.catalannews.com/ . But IPA is really the only accurate representation. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I hear POOTCH-da-mon at catalannews.com. The NYT's provision of respelled pronunciation (across multiple articles on the topic) should indicate that English-language readers need the respelling. It also doesn't help that the audio file, which not all readers can access, is really low quality. (By the way, pings don't send without a signature in the same post.) czar 03:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

In Catalan, word-end consonants take on the voicing of the starting consonant of the next word (Puigdemont is really 3 words), so even though "puig" on its own is "pootch", before a "d" it becomes "poodge". It's explained at Catalan phonology#phonotactics: "Word-final obstruents are devoiced, however they assimilate voicing of the following consonant". — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm more concerned with readers having any pronunciation guidance at all. I'm not contesting either version as long as some readable pronunciation is restored. If you don't want to use the NYT version, perhaps you can produce a similar reliable source for "poodge". czar 17:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure people need any more than the IPA and the audio, but I'm looking at my copy of Teach Yourself Catalan (Alan Yates, 1975), and on page 20 he says "Final -f, -s, -ç, -ix, -tx, -ig are voiced before a vowel or voiced consonant", giving an example "passeig meravellós" with an IPA pronunction showing the first word ending with "-edge". That is a reliable source, more than a NY Times journalist who probably knows no Catalan. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 11:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

And the "-de-" is certainly not pronounced "da". — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 12:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Additions on/after Oct 1, 2017

Many of the additions on/after Oct 1, 2017 are written in non-neutral wording and do not cite sources. I've added a POV tag at the top of the page. -- Palal (talk). —Preceding undated comment added 12:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Palal , please give examples ore make propositions what you want to change. Your very sporadic few edits give me no idea ... --Neun-x (talk) 23:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Stop attacking him personally! It doesn't matter how active he is and you shouldn't make up opinions on past edits because his views are not guidelines for the improvement of the article. That would be biased too. He just pointed out the problem and any person with a clear mind can tell how certain phrases might not be ideal. --92.74.22.131 (talk) 14:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

He didn't "attack" anybody - and the number of edits one makes does matter - newbies and experienced editors are night-and-day. Neun-x was spot on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.36.161 (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The section on his current status makes no sense and needs some help. Puigdemont was removed from his post by the national government. Puigdemont may not accept his removal, but as the legal status of his removal is not in question, he should be referred to as the former head of the Catalonian government. The article should not speculate about the "perspective of the people of Catalonia", who continue to be Spanish citizens and, as such, have had their regional government temporarily suspended until new elections can be held. Whether one agrees or disagrees with recent events, there is still rule of law in all of the autonomous commonwealths of Spain, including Catalonia. Embarcadero1 (talk) 16:08, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Again, the formulation that "from the perspective of the government of Catalonia" is in error. At present, the government of Catalonia is led by appointees from the central government who will retain that leadership until elections are held in December. These leaders consider Puigdemont to be the ex-president of the regional government.

Whether or not one agrees with recent events, it is unhelpful to recast the current situation in partisan terms. While it is early, there is no sign that Puigdemont will lead a parallel government or that the authority of the appointed and temporary regional leaders is in question. Embarcadero1 (talk) 07:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

He has been sacked

Read this, he is no longer president.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41794087

Um, that happened on Friday? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

President of Generalitat can only be sacked by the decree of that institution, which appointed him - this is the principle of deliniation of powers. Art.155 does not give the Spanish Prime Minister the power above the law to dismiss a democratically elected head of the Autonomy. One can say that in a state, governed by the rule of law this can aslo be done through a decision of an impartial court of law. Where is the decision of the Constitutional Court to dissmiss the President? Who stripped him of his immunity of the public office? The court or a politician? If it's the latter - draw your own conclusions about the notion of the Spanish state and the 'rule of law' in it--92.239.230.160 (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm no. He was appointed by the King of Spain and his appointment was effective once being published in the BOE. So, he is sacked when the BOE says so, and it has said so respecting the procedure laid out as per Article 155 and as underlined by the Spanish Senate. The Spanish Prime Minister has exercised a power granted to him by Spanish law. We can't say the same applies to Puigdemont. Impru20 (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

He's now also a fugitive from Spanish justice. 104.169.36.161 (talk) 17:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of what you have said, he is in trouble and has been sacked. No longer President. Good bye fool! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.103.25.178 (talk) 10:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

"Catalan politician"

There is no Nationality or Citizenship parameter in "Template:Infobox officeholder", so that's one thing less to fight over. But, as far as the article lead section is concerned, should he be described as "Spanish" or as "Catalan"? I don't see how Spanish can be wrong as such, as Catalonia is (currently) still part of Spain. And Catalonia is not (yet) a separate nation. But should the article not be guided mainly by how Puigdemont chooses to describe himself? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Three comments: I agree that how he describes himself is a key factor; it is also relevant that he is not a member of the Spanish parliament, in which case there could be more of a case for calling him a Spanish politician; thirdly it is interesting to note how politicians are described elsewhere where they are advocating independence for part of an existing country - e.g. most politicians from Scotland are described as 'Scottish' rather than British. Lin4671 (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

So maybe that's a false alternative. Perhaps "Spanish (Catalan) politician" is a good compromise? Although I can't see "British Scottish politician" proving to be very popular. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I am with the "how he describes himself" side, and have edited it to say that he is Catalan only. With the independence standoff and the surrounding emotions running so high right now, it's NOT neutral to call Mr. Puigdemont "Spanish."207.210.148.158 (talk) 14:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

When describing Puigdemont's nationality, it is important to note the definition of Nationality. Nation and Nation State are two separate concepts. Catalonia is officially designated as a nationality by its Statute of Autonomy . Therefore, it is correct to say that Carles Puigdemont is of Catalan Nationality but Spanish Citizenship, even if Catalan is a constituent Nationality of Spanish. Also, I should point out that many wikipedia articles use the adjective of ethnicity as well as nationality. I apologize for not discussing my previous edits. DewyBukiaPeters (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

If a consensus has been reached here, please can we request page (semi-)protection? User, 204.187.67.25 keeps making edits that push one side of a political agenda and the notion that Catalonia is "not a nation" despite it saying the contrary in Catalonia's Statute of Autonomy. As this user is not registered, they cannot be directly contacted and only their IP can be blocked. It seems that my reasoning and references have been completely ignored and the user is not interested in defending their claim on this talk page or anywhere else in a logical manner. DewyBukiaPeters (talk) 12:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I tend o agree with you. Perhaps User:Lin4671 could offer their view before a request is made? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Unfortunately it may be necessary to request semi-protection as at least stop unreqistered editors seeking to push a point of view - one would hope that registered editors have a better understanding of how Wikipedia works and would not seek to push agendas in the same way. Lin4671 (talk) 13:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

If any of you have time, may I suggest you do the same for other pages in the same situation? If you look contributions made by 204.187.67.25, you will see that he has edited the pages of other notable Catalan people in exactly the same manner, including Oriol Junqueras and many others. This strongly suggests his motivations are entirely political. Given the politically contentious situation in Catalonia, the pages of notable Catalan figures should at least be semi-protected if not fully protected for the sake of neutrality. A fast way of finding these pages is viewing the edits made by 204.187.67.25. If the wikilink doesn't work here, just click on previous edits of Carles Puigdemont and you will see the IP address in question. DewyBukiaPeters (talk) 13:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The underlying assumption here that no one has provided any evidence for is that when the lede sentence describes him as "Spanish" or "Catalan" it is necessarily attempting to talk about "nationality" rather than "citizenship". I see no basis for such an assumption. Calling him "Spanish" is unquestionably correct. I think it is those who have recently decided to alter this and related articles to say "Catalan" instead of "Spanish" who are the ones pushing an agenda. At the very least some form of compromise position along the lines of "Spanish (Catalan)" ought to be workable. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 14:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Two more points which I think are important in this discussion are (1) all of the communities of Spain are "autonomous" and politicians in the other communities are routinely described simply as "Spanish" so the autonomy of Catalonia is completely irrelevant for this discussion and (2) the United Kingdom is actually made up of four constituent countries so Scotland is a country within the United Kingdom and hence the way Scottish politicians are described is not a good parallel for making an argument about Catalonia, which is not a separate country within Spain. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 14:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

If there is dispute on whether the adjective described nationality, ethnicity or citizenship, perhaps the best compromise would be to omit the adjective. It wasn't actually there until recently. Therefore, I suggest rephrasing the sentence as "politician from Catalonia, Spain". That way, there is no debate regarding what the adjective refers to. DewyBukiaPeters (talk) 14:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, older versions of the article have taken different approaches. Early this year the article said he was a "Spanish Catalan politician" until someone deleted both adjectives to "avoid unnecessary conflict". But there are also facts involved here, and Wikipedia deals in facts, whether people's feelings are hurt by them or not. He is both Catalan and Spanish, we should be able to find a way to say both things. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Is it an indisputable fact that he is a Catalan? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Given that he has an obvious Catalan-style name, is from Catalonia, and belongs to a Catalonian nationalist party, I don't think anyone is questioning whether or not he is Catalan. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad we can agree that. Describing him as a "Spanish politician" is clear and simple, but it suggests he is a member of the Spanish parliament, which he is not? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

No, it does not imply that. It implies that he is a politician from Spain, which he is. American state-level politicians are routinely described as "American politicians" and it doesn't imply that they hold federal office; it just means they're politicians from the US. If you want to know what kind of political office they hold at which level, you read the next sentence. Same deal here. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Well I only said "suggests", but I think what you say is perfectly reasonable. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: I have now requested semi-protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: I think full protection might be needed before too long. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

...and to think, that I believed that this nationalists stuff only occurred in the British bio articles :( GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Important: There is not Catalan style name. There is not Castilian or Galician style name. The surnames in Spain have different origins, but is the Spanish law which regulates the name, second name, and the order of surnames [2]. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_naming_customs. The same case for someone born of Moroccan origin parents or any other nationality, but in Spain. For example: Mohammed Ahmed Mohammed. This is a spanish custom, not moroccan custom. End of the debate. --Concolor (talk) 01:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

In "almost" all other 'Catalan' politicians articles say 'Spanish', like Artur Mas, Josep Borrell, or José Montilla. The only nationality is Spanish, or Spaniard. --Concolor (talk) 01:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I think the lead should say he's Catalan for the following reasons -He has always considered himself Catalan -He was the one who made it possible for Catalonia to declare independence and is the lead figure behind the movement -He claims to be the legitimate head of state of the Catalan Republic

He's neither obeying Spanish authority or submitting so it's likely the situation will remain stable for a while.

Also, I suggest we change all leads of Catalan politicians who support independence to say they're Catalan. Civciv5 (talk) 09:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Civciv5, this is an academic article, not a blog. His response is an insult to intelligence. See principle nomen iuris, please.

"He has always considered himself Catalan" This is not an argument.

"the one who made it possible for Catalonia to declare independence and is the lead figure" ...And?

"claims to be the legitimate head of state" Again, this is not an argument. Catalonia nowadays is under the rule of Spanish and European law, there is no other rule in that moment. The former president of Catalonia is now in Belgium waiting for a judicial decision to extradite to Spain with Spanish passport and Spanish nationality.

I demand that neither personal nor political opinion being allowed in a Wikipedia article. Concolor (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Neutrality flag

This has been up since October. There should be a specific section on the TP to discuss the issue with SPECIFIC reasons, or it should be removed.104.169.28.113 (talk) 11:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Corruption

Please take a look about that and update this wiki: https://elpais.com/ccaa/2017/09/19/catalunya/1505804572_958228.html http://www.eldiario.es/politica/CUP-directamente-Puigdemont-denuncia-Girona_0_688382083.html http://www.lavanguardia.com/politica/20170919/431400106696/operacion-guardia-civil-aigues-girona-puigdemont.html https://elpais.com/elpais/2015/10/21/inenglish/1445414318_195770.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.61.161.70 (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Spain issues arrest warrant:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/01/21/spain-to-seek-catalan-politicians-arrest-on-denmark-visit.html I'll let the two sides fight it out on inclusion in the article.104.169.39.45 (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Grammar notice

[Moved to User talk:Nov3rd17 at his request. Scolaire (talk) 11:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)]

New subsection needed

Carles Puigdemont's detention isn't a short-lived episode of a couple of days, so a new subsection is needed or the title of the subsection "exile in Belgium" needs to be changed. I would prefer to have a new subsections like in Catalan, French, Italian and (even) in German Wikipedia.--Nov3rd17 (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Nobody knows what's going to happen next. He may be extradited to Spain, in which case there'll be an "Extradition to Spain and trial" section, or he may not, in which case he'll probably go back to Brussels and "Exile in Belgium" will still be the appropriate section. There's no rush. In principle, biographies of political leaders should have the same format, so Puigdemont's article should not be different than George Washington's or Napoleon's. Updating articles every time there's a news flash is a modern disease (in Catalan, French, Italian and German Wikipedia the same as here). I believe in stopping it whenever possible. Scolaire (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I think that articles about active politicians cannot have the same format like articles about politicians of the past like Napoleon. There's a big difference: The active politicians make politics in the here and now that affect people, so their articles aren't mere "biographies" but canvases about what they do now. And this "modern disease" isn't actually a disease, but an acknowledged part of Wikipedia, there is even a template for that (Template:Current).--Nov3rd17 (talk) 05:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses, and initial news reports may be unreliable. The last updates to this article may not reflect the most current information. (Learn how and when to remove this template message) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nov3rd17 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

That template is inappropriate for this article. If you were creating an article entitled "Arrest of Carles Puigdemont" (please don't!), then a message saying "This article documents a current event" should indeed go at the top, but there is no corresponding template for "a sentence or two near the bottom of this article documents a current event."

And no, a Wikipedia article is not a "canvas" or a day-to-day diary of somebody's life. There are newspapers, television news and online news for that. The ten-year test asks: "In ten years will this addition still appear relevant?" The fact that he was arrested probably will; the fact that he was in Finland to speak at the University of Helsinki, that he was stopped about 11:19 a.m. CEST on the A7 near Schleswig, or that he got legal representation by former judge Wolfgang Schomburg, won't. There is no need for a separate section to state the one single fact that's relevant to this article. And there's no need for a "current" template either. It's not the same as a war or a constitutional crisis. Scolaire (talk) 09:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I occur with this. The contribution was quite valuable in the beginning, but over time more and more irrelevant details were added, like details about his stop in Finland and the exact time of his arrest. --TheRandomIP (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I beg to differ on the template, at first. It is not uncommon in Wikipedia to use it in this case: For subsections see de:Carles Puigdemont#Erneuter Haftbefehl und Festnahme in Deutschland) and for the whole article see it:Carles Puigdemont.

Second, I've a question regarding sub-articles. Are they allowed in English Wikipedia? --Nov3rd17 (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

If you mean, can you create an Arrest of Carles Puigdemont article, I can guarantee you that such an article would be immediately nominated for deletion, and would be deleted. If that's not what you mean, what do you mean by "sub-articles"? Scolaire (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, it would be better if you proposed any edits you wanted to make on this talk page, when you know in advance they are likely to be controversial. Scolaire (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

And also, there is major edit-warring on the German article – and a very similar discussion to this one on the talk page – and a Recentism template on the "Arrest" section in the Italian article, so experienced editors on those pages have exactly the same concerns that I do. Scolaire (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Scolaire: It proves my point, that the template "current" (or it's non-English cousins) is used in German and Italian Wikipedia. Why not use it here?

Mr Puigdemont is not in exile in Belgium anymore, it's like "0 is not 1". One can fix this by a new subsection (you don't want it) or declaring with template "current" that the article or it's structure may be outdated (you don't want it) or find another more general headline for the subsection: You don't want my solution - that still mentions Belgium (as his residence up to now) first and then Europe - on the grounds that Spain is in Europe,too? What is that? Do you think that I wanted to infer that Spain doesn't belong to Europe? That would be very "unscolaric" of you! --Nov3rd17 (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

2nd: BTW I think that those who edited the English article in the past are best to decide on it's development. Not newbies (to this English article) like us.--Nov3rd17 (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

1. Some person added the template on German Wikipedia. Some person added the template on Italian Wikipedia. The Wikipedias themselves did not do anything. There is disagreement on both German and Spanish Wikipedia about how the event is to be handled. Therefore, somebody adding a template on those articles is not a good argument for you adding it on English Wikipedia. You can add it on English Wikipedia if you have consensus to do so. You do not have consensus to do so.
2. The "Exile in Belgium" section is about that part of his life that began when he left Catalonia. His arrest in Germany, en route back to Belgium, is part of that. As I said back at the start, if he returns to Belgium the section heading will still be good; if he is extradited to Spain, that will be dealt with in a new section (and I'm sorry, but saying that he was exiled from Europe to Europe is ridiculous). But there is no hurry. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. It should not be updated on a daily basis according to what is in the headlines. Ideally, nothing more should be added to this article (except relevant, sourced information about his earlier life or career) for another six months until it is clear what course his life is taking. This "on 25 March (about 11:19 a.m. CEST) his car was stopped on the A7 near Schleswig and he was arrested by the Landespolizei of Schleswig-Holstein" style of writing is a disease. Let events unfold, and then summarise what reliable sources (preferably not news reports) say.

This discussion has been going for 24 hours and still nobody has posted in support of your edits. Please wait until you have a consensus before going any further.

P.S. Those who edited the English article in the past are welcome to discuss it here. So far, nobody has. The fact that I haven't edited this article before does not make me a "newbie" in any sense. Scolaire (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

"11:19 a.m." was never my issue here. It was a mistake and so I didn't defend it once. But waiting six months before writing about developments is equally indefensible. Do you find even one article about a major active politician where important developments are hold back for six months? --Nov3rd17 (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't expect people to wait six months before editing. I said that ideally they would. People do add to Wikipedia articles each time they read something new, and it makes for bad articles. Look at Catalan independence referendum, 2017, for instance. It's a complete mess. If somebody was starting to write that article now, it would look completely different. All I'm saying – and I've said it twice already – is that if Puigdemont's case is thrown out and he returns to Brussels, then it will be appropriate to write another single sentence to say so; and if he is sent back to Spain, it will be appropriate to write a single sentence to say so, and also to add a new section heading. In the meantime, there is no need to keep fiddling with the article. Scolaire (talk) 09:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@Scolaire:In French Wikipedia they have more general section names, see: fr:Carles Puigdemont:"1.5 Président de la Généralité de Catalogne" and "1.6 Après sa destitution". Without using subsections of 1.6 it would comply with a more actual structure AND a more biographical style. Is that agreeable? --Nov3rd17 (talk) 08:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't like the structure of the French article at all. It's exactly the sort of thing I'm trying to avoid here. I don't see how "Après sa destitution" is a "more actual structure" or a better biographical style than "Exile in Belgium". I would be agreeable to just leaving the article alone. Scolaire (talk) 09:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

It's better because it is more factual. The section "Exile in Belgium" now covers all the time after his disposal as president. So the headline "after his disposal" is in line with the text of the subsection. But when the text states that he is in prison in Germany (for extradition to Spain) then he is clearly not "in exile in Belgium". It is a simple "0 is not 1" stuff.--Nov3rd17 (talk) 10:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not "0≠1", it's nitpicking. Take a look at 14th Dalai Lama#Exile to India. That section heading has been there since 2005. Now take a look at this page and see how many times he has been outside India since his exile. Has anybody complained on the talk page, or tried to change the heading? Never. "After his dismissal" is indefinite and vague: in a few months or a few years it might have to be changed to "After his dismissal and before his extradition back to Spain" or "After his dismissal and before his triumphant return to Catalonia". "Exile in Belgium" concisely describes the period of his life we're talking about, even if he is not physically in Belgium during the entire period.

I repeat, if somebody else agrees with you on any of your points, then you can try to establish a consensus. As of now, you have no consensus for any of your edits, so please let it go. Scolaire (talk) 11:41, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

The exile of the Dalai Lama to India is well established, he effectively got asylum there. If he would be arrested in another country on foot of a warrant from China, India would protect him. But the Belgian authorities don't defend Mr Puigdemont and never did it in the past. All "Belgium" did was that an important court in Brussels was suspicious of the warrant and the Belgian prosecutor was suspicious and the Belgian federal government refrained from lauding the Spanish one. And then Spain backtracked from the European arrest warrant. With no European arrest warrant in place and being a citizen of an European country, Carles Puigdemont had the right to live in Belgium. So his "exile in Belgium" wasn't a real exile. As long as it lasted the arrest paused but now the pause is over. The odds that Mr Puigdemont will leave German prison as a free man are low, as the German federal government rushed to laud the Spanish one and the German prosecutors are "weisungsgebunden" (subject to directives), only the courts are independent. So he needs a much stronger legal defense before court. And even then it would be a big surprise if he wouldn't be extradited. --Nov3rd17 (talk) 17:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC). Source for "subject to directives" see section 146 (GVG, Courts Constitution Act, official translation from German) --Nov3rd17 (talk) 17:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

There is insufficient content to merit a separate section on Puigdemont's arrest. The fact that other wikis have separate sections is irrelevant, this article's structure has to looked at on its own. Having said that, we do need to elaborate on his arrest and detention (not enough to justify a new section) and I intend to do that when you guys have stopped edit warring and things have calmed down. The two section headings which have been changed recently should be changed to Constitutional crisis and Exile.--Obi2canibe (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

No need to wait, Obi2canibe. I'm sure your edits will be sensible, and I'm sure Nov3rd17 will be fine with them. He was only fighting with me for the joy of it. Scolaire (talk) 18:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)