This is an archive of past discussions about Carles Puigdemont. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 6 years ago167 comments19 people in discussion
Spanish or Catalan? Either way we need to make a decision and stick to it and not edit war. I think we should call him Spanish as Catalonia is part of Spain but there is plenty of precedent to call British people say English or Scottish. What do the sources say? ♫ RichardWeisstalkcontribs16:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
The situation of the central Spanish government and the Parliament of Catalonia did seem comparable to the central Westminster government and the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales. But this became less clear when the Parliament of Catalonia was disolved? In terms of this article it's also complicated by the need to accurately describe Puigdemont's preferred "nationality" or ethnic origin? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
@RichardWeiss and Martinevans123: Nationality and citizenship are two different things (see Nationality#Nationality versus citizenship). In the UK England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are regarded as nations. According to Autonomous communities of SpainCatalonia is given nationality status. In addition, most sources I've read refer to Puigdemont as Catalan - they rarely refer to him as Spanish. We are fortunate in that the infobox has fields for nationality and citizenship so why not use both i.e. give his nationality as Catalan and citizenship as Spanish? In the lede we should follow the British convention where for nationalist politicians we give nationality rather than citizenship as is the norm e.g. Nicola Sturgeon v Theresa May.--Obi2canibe (talk)17:06, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Currently Puigdemont's nationality and his citizenship are Spanish for all legal purposes. That is what his Passport and National ID state. The difference with Scotland and England is that both of the latter are countries but Catalonia is not (despite the failed Catalan declaration of independence). Catalonia is still an Autonomous community of Spain. After the last Catalan regional election in December 2017 the three pro-Catalan independence parties won a slim majority of parliamentary seats, claiming 70 out of 135, but fell short of a majority in the popular vote by securing 47.5% of the share. Independentists want Catalonia to break away from Spain so that may be the motivation for trying to remove Spanish for the place used for the country in our biographies replacing it by Catalan (Catalan should also be included but without removing Spanish). This discussion is been used to do similar changes to multiple articles. this is an example of such an edit where a source in which the subject of the BLP reluctantly admitted: "In my ID it says I'm Spanish", "At this time I'm a Spanish citizen from a legal point of view" was removed and Spanish changed for Catalan. This issue was debated before... --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
@Crystallizedcarbon: Do you know the difference between nationality and citizenship? Do you know the difference between nation and sovereign state? Do you know that the Spanish constitution recognises the existence of nationalities and regions? Scotland and Catalonia are legally the same - neither are sovereign nations and neither can offer citizenship.--Obi2canibe (talk)19:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
The Scotland and England articles do describe these as countries due to general consensus about these being so, whereas Catalonia is described as an autonomous community. Clearly, Scotland/England situation is not comparable to that of Catalonia.
There's even differences when comparing what Scottish and Catalan people are described: the first are described in their article as "a nation and ethnic group native to Scotland", whereas the latter are described as "a Pyrenean/Latin European ethnic group formed by the people from, or with origins in, Catalonia (Spain)".
Just to point out that I'm not against recognizing the Catalan origin of Puigdemont, but if the terms of discussion here are that "Catalan" should be equalled to "Spanish"—in comparison with what is done with "Scottish/English/Welsh" rather than "British" in other articles—as Puigdemont's "nationality" (it understood as "the legal relationship between an individual person and a state"), then such a comparison would be wrong, as it's obvious these are not comparable. Impru20talk20:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)7
Impru20 and Crystallizedcarbon are right. The jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court of Spain determines that the concept of nation and nationality are not synonymous, declaring that the Constitution of Spain only admits one nation, which is the Spanish Nation. Therefore, the correct thing to do is to refer to Puigdemont (and any person from Catalonia) as Spanish in the first place, although Catalan can also be added.
Sobre el término nación, el texto del Constitucional dice: «De la nación puede, en efecto, hablarse como una realidad cultural, histórica, lingüística, sociológica y hasta religiosa. Pero la nación que aquí importa es única y exclusivamente la nación en sentido jurídico-constitucional. Y en ese específico sentido la Constitución no conoce otra que la Nación española».
De todas formas, el TC admite que Cataluña tenga «símbolos nacionales», pero explica que se refieren únicamente a «su condición de símbolos de una nacionalidad constituida como Comunidad Autónoma en ejercicio del derecho que reconoce y garantiza el art. 2 (...). Se trata, en suma, de los símbolos propios de una nacionalidad, sin pretensión, por ello, de competencia o contradicción con los símbolos de la Nación española»."
I agree with Impru20 and BallenaBlanca. I think that the difference between the status of Scotland and that of Catalonia is clearly established, and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Context clearly states that the country of which the subject of the biography is a citizen should be used, not others. I Think that the best formula for Spanish people from Catalonia would be "XXX is a Spanish YYYY from Catalonia" in this case "Puigdemont is a Spanish politician and journalist from Catalonia". If there are no arguments to refute that currently Spain (and not Catalonia) is the country of which Puigdemont is currently a citizen, I will add the proposed new wording by tomorrow per MOS:BLPLEAD. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
National laws are not a valid source in this discussion. There are laws in Saudi Arabia against homosexuals, but we don't use them when we describe someone from the LGBT community in Saudi Arabia, isn't it? -Theklan (talk) 09:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
You're just cherry-picking out of MOS. The same paragraph says unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Clearly the fact he is Catalan and one of the key people trying to extricate Catalonia from the Spanish state IS relevant to the subject's notability. Otherwise a reader new to the subject will go "errr what? why is a Spanish politician trying to get Catalonia independent". The revisionists here are pushing some very strange agenda trying to remove all references to Basques and Catalans from the English Wikipedia that does not seem neutral at all. Akerbeltz (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Horst Seehofer is a politician from Baviera, yet he is presented as a German politician. Umberto Bossi or Matteo Salvini are politicians from Lombardy but they are presented as Italian politicians. George W. Bush and Jerry Brown could be identified as politicians from Texas and California, respectively, yet they are labeled as American politicians. Biographies across Wikipedia do predominantly use the person's actual nationality, rather than his/her regional ascription.
Further, Puigdemont is not notable for being of Catalan origin, but for being a Catalan independentist politician. What you have described do constitute Puigdemont's political motives, but that has nothing to do with nationality. However, maybe something along the lines of Puigdemont being "a Catalan independentist politician and journalist" could be used, in line with Gerry Adams, where it is not nationality what is actually used but rather the person's ideology. Impru20talk14:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
But Seehofer (I'm from Bavaria... just saying) does not have a political (or cultural, incidentally, since I see that even Basque ska bands are not safe from having the word "Basque" purged from their articles [1]) career that hinges on the fact that he is Bavarian. For the same reason, Milorad Dodik is a "Bosnian Serb" even though I'm sure his passport says Bosnia & Hercegovina. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Contentious edits about Kortatu should be discussed at that article; this is about discussing Carles Puigdemont's nationality.
Well, Milorad Dodik may be listed as a "Bosnian Serb" maybe because he has the two nationalities (or at least he is listed as such in the article). Nonetheless, you have two additional issues with such an example: 1) "Bosnian Serb" is not the preferred label by Dodik himself (rather, he seems himself as just "Serb"); and 2) Under the criteria established by others in this discussion, Dodik should be referred as "Serb" as that is the demonym of Republika Srpska. Also, the Bosnia & Herzegovina situation does not seem particularly comparable to that of Spain and Catalonia.
For the case of Puigdemont, I agree that MOS:BLP says that Similarly, previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability, but here you fail to account that 1) Puigdemont is notable for his actions and ideology, not for being born in Catalonia, and 2) Saying he is a Spanish politician and then commenting that he is from Catalonia would already fulfill the same goal, so the use of "Catalan" here as Puigdemont's nationality (which is what this discussion is about), is both wrong and unnecessary. Impru20talk15:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Akerbeltz, you said [Otherwise a reader new to the subject will go "errr what? why is a Spanish politician trying to get Catalonia independent"]. I strongly disagree with this assertion, besides which trying to anticipate what our readers might think isn't how we do things, especially when the assertion, as here, isn't common sense. To my mind, if anyone other than a Spanish person does what Puidgemont has done he or she would be interfering in the affairs of a foreign nation, clearly not the case here. ♫ RichardWeisstalkcontribs19:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
This seems to be a main discussion page of the issue raised by some editors to a number of articles, so I bring my point here. The removal of national background is removal of critical content, and very untimely so, since it seems to be reflecting an urge by some editors to bring their political tension and controversy outside WP to advance some views inside WP.
Nationality is not the same as citizenship, a concept applying to law. A nationality is about someone being born to a natural community, not one imposed by a central state by means of its law. It is clear that removing that critical information does little favour to the reader to know properly the subject, so whomever wishes to approach the person in question will get little help from reading here in the main definition that he is "Spanish" and only Spanish, as some Spanish politicians are inclined to push.
We are about adding accurate and relevant information to the WP, not removing it, let alone doing so controversially. The MoS is not a dogma or policy, it should be helpful and used with common sense. Keeping it accurate and inclusive is the way forward in line with Wikipedia principles, not using directives as a throwing weapon. Everybody knows Puigdemont is a Catalan first and foremost. Let us provide knowledge and diversity in line with the basic tenets of Wikipedia. "Spanish Catalan" should go down on everyone and provides all comprehensive basic information on nationhood/citizenship. Iñaki LL (talk) 20:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
It seems that you do not want to respect the Wikipedia policies. You are edit warring, reverting edits without arguments, also violating Wikipedia policies with your edit summaries, which are considered personal attacks, misleading, inappropriate, and uncivil per WP: SUMMARYNO (see for example [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9])
Please, stop personal attacks, stop reverting without arguments, use the talk pages and and respect what is being talked here.. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk)21:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Do bring your queries to my personal page if you have sth to say, this is not the place for your accusations. You are contentiously serial removing and/or altering proper, accurate information. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:49, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Please, both of you, do not go off-topic. Any quarrels you may have should be dealt with in your personal talk pages or with a DR if needed, but this is not the place for it.|}
On the issue at hand, I do not like "Spanish Catalan" because it is a rather made up term. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Context is very clear when it says the "country", and nationality is also very clearly defined as the "legal relationship between an individual person and a state". Catalonia is neither a country nor a state, so if we go with nationality then it should be "Spanish". Nonetheless, dubbing him as "a Spanish politician and journalist from Catalonia" has the same effect as "Spanish Catalan", without the controversy it brings. Impru20talk22:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Adding only Spanish is a clear removal of key information, besides highly controversial. Catalan is not the same as being from Catalonia. There is no doubt what the historical concept of nationality is, beyond twisted legal definitions attempting to assimilate state to nation. Yes about citizenship, which accounts for individuals belonging in a certain legal territorial framework.
Spanish Catalan sounds good to me, it is comprehensive and inclusive, it does not alienate anyone, plus the MoS is no policy or dogma, it should be applied with common sense. Spanish tribunals have no say either here. "Spanish" only clearly suits a (exclusive) position held by one of the sides in present-day political events. I should think that bringing this issue now is most unfortunate and charged, and we should stick to the most inclusive, accurate and informative, "Spanish Catalan".
At a wider level, it fits perfectly in with the overriding principles of free knowledge and diversity the Wikimedia Movement stands for. Iñaki LL (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Saying that he is "a Spanish politician and journalist from Catalonia" does remove key information? How so? "Spanish Catalan" may sound good to you, but such an expression does not exist, nor it is in use in sources to refer to Puigdemont, nor does such a group exist as an ethnic group. It is not for us to create made-up words. "a Spanish politician and journalist from Catalonia" fulfills the same, it is comprehensive and inclusive, does not alienate anyone, and does not imply that we must create expressions out of nowhere so that we may satisfy some people desire to equal "Catalan" to nationality status, when it is not. Impru20talk23:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Impru20. I think it's best to put "Spanish .... from ...". We must remember that our agreements cannot be based on wishes or personal opinions, we have no power to modify laws or realities. I have provided verifiable references that comply with WP:RS and this is what we have to respect. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk)00:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Ot we may as well use a Catalan from Spain... The "Spanish"-only approach is extremely controversial and is contested, if you know identity and political dynamics in Spain, in the very places of these people are referring, if you have some knowledge of identity surveys. It is no news that the Catalans and Basques are nations, irrespective of Spanish tribunals, Constitution, or judges. For a start, they are even in these texts taken as nationalities.
That is grounds enough to stick to the most inclusive and informative approach. The "Spanish"-only approach is clearly alienating both editors and readers from the EN WP. It is very bad news to transfer red hot issues in Spanish politics straight to the EN WP, when freedom of expression is at stake against singers and rappers, to alienating effects. Let us stick to the principles of knowledge and diversity. "Spanish Catalan" is a good compromise on these grounds. Iñaki LL (talk) 06:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Iñaki LL that "Spanish Catalan" is a good compromise. More than that, it is a useful reminder that "Catalan" is not circumscribed by "Spanish", in that it enables us to distinguish between Spanish Catalans and French Catalans, for example. Otomixal (talk) 06:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
1) No one is proposing a "Spanish"-only approach, but a "Spanish from Catalonia" approach. 2) This said, it seems obvious the use "Catalan" as a nationality is the true controversy here. MOS is clear when making reference to the "country" (so "Catalan from Spain" would also be wrong, as that would mean we would, again, be giving preference to "Catalan" as a nationality when it is not). And the "Spanish Catalan" approach is outrightly unencyclopedic because such an expression does not exist. We are not whom to create expressions which are not reflected in the sources, specially when there is no reason for it.
Also, I cannot see how "Spanish from Catalonia" is not the most inclusive and informative approach, and an explanation on it has not been given. Rather, the only argument against it is that "Catalan" is the actual "most inclusive and informative approach" and that using "Spanish" is alienating, but without additional arguments to explaining why (except that freedom of expression is at stake against singers and rappers. Seriously, that's the only argument to reject the use of "Spanish"? This has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand). Do you think that using as a nationality a term which is not referred to as a nationality is not alienating? Do you think that creating expressions out of nowhere just to satisfy some people's pressure to impose the use of "Catalan" even if it looks unnatural is not alienating? Because I do not think so. Impru20talk07:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
What do you mean "such an expression does not exist"? Try this: "Joan-Lluís Lluís is a French Catalan writer from Perpignan. Terenci Moix was a Spanish Catalan writer from Barcelona". See? Both are Catalans, one is a French citizen, the other was a Spanish citizen. Nothing unencyclopedic about that. Otomixal (talk) 07:36, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Can you provide sources showing the existence of such a source, and where is it used to refer to Puigdemont? Thank you. Impru20talk07:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Not quite sure what you mean by "sources showing the existence of such a source". What we are discussing here is a compromise wording, because there appear to be various objections to describing Puigdemont as exclusively Spanish or exclusively Catalan. He is quite clearly both. I'm not suggesting that "Spanish Catalan politician" is the most common way of describing Puigdemont (although examples can be found, such as here [10]). But since some editors are unwilling to follow reputable sources such as the Encyclopaedia Britannica ([11]) and mainstream media ([12], [13], [14]) in referring to him as a "Catalan politician", this solution represents a workable alternative. Otomixal (talk) 08:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Wording in Wikipedia must adhere to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and using contentious material when regarding living people means that such a material may be removed immediately and without discussion (WP:BLPRS), no matter how large of "compromise" you want to label it. As such, the "Spanish from Catalonia", which is also a compromise wording, does not have such an issues as the ones affecting "Spanish Catalan" (and note how I have yet still to see any comment trying to explain why "Spanish from Catalonia" cannot be used). Indeed, Puigdemont is both Spanish and Catalan, but Spanish is a nationality, whereas Catalan is not, and using both together would be akin to give Catalan a nationality status which it does not currently have, which does not comply with the aforementioned MOS. If you acknowledge that "Spanish Catalan" is not the most common way of describing Puigdemont, then why referring to him as such? The only argument is that of "compromise", but the "Spanish from Catalonia" approach is also a compromise one which is being outrightly ignored by those who try to impose "Catalan" as a nationality. Impru20talk08:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
+ 1 with Iñaki LL: Citizenship and nationality are TWO different concepts. That's why we have 2 Wikipedia articles for it. Puigdemont's legal citizenship is Spanish, as said by several users on this list, read also this, but his nationality is Catalan. Spanish constitution recognises several nationalities inside the Spanish state, so Catalan should stay.Kippelboy (talk) 09:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Nationality is defined as the "legal relationship between an individual person and a state". Catalonia is not a state, so it has no nationality. While "Catalan" is mentioned in the nationality article, you should note that it was unilaterally added by an user in October 2017 (amid the constitunal crisis deriving from the 1 October referendum. It does not seem a coincidence to me) without citing any sources or references (in fact, the whole paragraph has a template requiring a citation for what it claims).
Look, it is very simple: the issue here is on whether "Catalan" may be regarded as a nationality or not, which is the actual issue of controversy. If it is, it may be used. If it is not, it should not. And the easiest way for that is to provide an actual source that "Catalan" is a nationality. Impru20talk09:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Impru20, are you deliberately ignoring the fact that Carles Puigdemont is most commonly referred to as a "Catalan politician"? It would make more sense to call him a "Catalan politician from Spain" than a "Spanish politician from Catalonia". Also, would Spanish editors please stop trying to impose their definition of "nationality" on English Wikipedia. Thank you. Otomixal (talk) 09:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
@Otomixal: You are deliberately ignoring the fact that MOS refers to "countries", which Catalonia is not. And please, save us the accusation to "Spanish editors trying to impose their definition of nationality on English Wikipedia", because I've seen a lot of edit warring in Wikipedia ever since October 2017 in Catalan-related articles trying to impose the vision that Catalonia is/was a sovereign independent state at some point during this whole ordeal. As seen from this edit at the nationality article, which so far remains unsourced, it is obvious it is some users the ones seeking to impose their view that Catalonia is a nation and that, as such, Catalan is a nationality. So please, keep on topic, because if we are going to have such a debate, I assure you I can provide dozens of examples of such political motivated edits throughout Wikipedia.
Returning on-topic, I still have yet to see any argument explaining about why "Spanish politician from Catalonia" is not appropiate, because I have taken care to explain why the use of "Catalan" is not. Instead, this has been replied with a lot of alleged "compromise proposals" that are intent on portraying "Catalan" as a nationality (the last of which, dubbing Puigdemont as "a Catalan politician from Spain". Catalonia is an autonomous community of Spain, so it is redundant). Impru20talk09:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I fully agree with Impru20. @Otomixal: There is a clear guideline on this issue that explicitly mentions country of citizenship as the criteria and it must be followed. If you disagree with it or think there should be exceptions you could try to reach the consensus necessary to change it. In the meantime we must apply it as it is currently written. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Congratulations for creating Schrödinger's ethnicity, an ethnicity which at the same time exists without arguments on pages like Catalans and List of Catalans but not on pages of actual Catalan people. Have you any idea how ridiculous your arguments are? No wonder I'm rarely editing the English Wiki these days. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Arbitrary break 1
@Akerbeltz: I think you may be missing the point of this discussion. according to Manual of Style:
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.
It is clearly stated that the country of citizenship is what should be included and it is also clearly stated that ethnicity, religion or sexuality should generally not be in the lead. If you can provide sources to establish that the Catalan ethnicity is relevant to the subjects notability you could include it, but elsewhere in the lead or in the article. You can use the article of Barack Obama as an example where his ethnicity is mentioned in the lead as being "the first African American to assume the presidency" since it's notable, but he is still introduced as: "is an American politician" not as: "is an African American politician". --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Impru20 and others, you are still sidestepping the issue, which is that the usual description of Carles Puigdemont in reputable neutral sources (e.g. ([15], [16], [17], [18]) is as a "Catalan politician". Unless you can provide comparable sources in which he is described as a "Spanish politician", the lead should begin "…is a Catalan politician and journalist." Our job is to reflect the most common usage in reputable sources.
If consensus cannot be reached on this, then "Spanish Catalan" (as opposed to "French Catalan") or "Catalan politician from Spain" (as opposed to "Catalan politician from France"; the fact that Catalonia is an autonomous community of Spain does not mean that all Catalans are Spanish) are common-sense compromise solutions.
Re "imposing their definition of nationality", perhaps I should have been clearer: the specific meaning of the Spanish term "nacionalidad" as used in the Constitution and various statutes of autonomy does not have an equivalent in English. The English word "nationality" means the status of belonging to a particular nation, so the distinction you and other Spanish editors across Wikipedia are attempting to make is a false one.
As for the MOS: Crystallizedcarbon, look at your own post. What do you think "in most modern-day cases" means? How do you get from that to "It is clearly stated that the country of citizenship is what should be included"? Otomixal (talk) 11:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
@Crystallizedcarbon: very funny, according to that twisted logic, Nicola Sturgeon should be described as a "British politician" in the lead. Good luck with that. But not doubt I'll get a tortured exposé on why Scotland is different from Catalonia. Bonkers. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Those who would impose the "Spanish only" view are side stepping the core content policy here in Wikipedia, WP:V. Most WP:RS refer to Puigdemont as Catalan, not Spanish. They are confusing nationality with citizenship and nation with country/state. And they are also confusing Catalan with Catalonia which are two different things. Having said that, Iñaki LL's suggestion of Spanish Catalan is a fair compromise as it includes both Puigdemont's legal citizenship as well his nationality/ethnicity/cultural background.--Obi2canibe (talk)12:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
@Otomixal: I disagree completely, our guidelines should be followed. There is no justification to substitute the place we reserved for the country of citizenship by the ethnicity or the regional provenance. There are plenty of reliable sources that state that Puigdemont is a Spanish citizen (Example from Deutsche Welle: "Carles Puigdemont, deposed of his post, is a regular Spanish citizen").To me it is also clear that "in most modern-day cases" is used with regards to choosing the present country of citizenship as opposed to using previous ones which would be acceptable only if the person was notable when it had a different one, not as a way to ignore the guideline altogether. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
The issues raised by Akerbeltz have been answered before: Scotland is considered a country and Catalonia is not, so the guideline is being followed in that case. @Obi2canibe: There is no confusion. Spain is and has always been his country of citizenship. The fact that the subject of the BLP himself as well as other independentist may wish for Catalonia to be an independent country is not relevant to this discussion. We have a clear guideline and it should be followed. WP:V is met. There are plenty of WP:RS that state that Puigdemont is a Spanish citizen. The information is verifiable and it should be presented according to our manual of style. I will no longer re-state the obvious. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 13:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
What do you mean "our guidelines should be followed ... the place we reserved"? Who are you speaking for? I suggest you reacquaint yourself with Wikipedia guidelines regarding sources. If most sources refer to Puigdemont as Catalan not Spanish, then that is what we should call him. No one is disputing that Puigdemont is a Spanish citizen (just like no one disputes that Nicola Sturgeon is a British citizen), but neither can anyone dispute that he is Catalan. Why don't you try and find some sources referring to Puigdemont as a "Spanish politician"? You haven't offered any so far. Meanwhile, consensus seems to be growing for the "Spanish Catalan" solution. Otomixal (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
You are ignoring the fact that when the sources refer to Puigdemont as "Catalan politician" it is in the context of Spain, that everyone knows and it is not necessary to repeat in every news that is published. Within Spain, we can speak of Catalans, Galicians, Basques, Asturians, Valencians, Canarians, etc. but always each and every one of them are Spanish in the first place.
Impru is right, the term "Spanish Catalan" (neither "Spanish Basque" nor "Spanish Galician", etc ...) do not exist and nobody uses them. Using them means violating another fundamental policy, we can not invent, WP:NOR Wikipedia articles must not contain original research!
There is not one of us trying to impose the "Spanish only" vision (please, provide an example in case I am wrong). On the contrary, we support the "is a Spanish ... from ..." formula, in the correct order. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk)13:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
@Otomixal: The issue here is that, when those sources refer to Puigdemont as a "Catalan politician", they do so within the context of Spain and to differentiate Puigdemont from, let's say, a Basque or an Andalusian politician, but they do not use "Catalan" as a nationality. In fact, the whole ordeal of the citizenship vs nationality issue that has been around in this discussion since the beginning is rather absurd. Take Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Context. I clearly says:
“
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.
”
It allows that both the citizenship and nationality of a country may be used used to describe a person, the key feature not being the nationality/citizenship issue (as either of these can be used), but rather, that the country to which such person belongs to. That is, the nationality or citizenship must be of a country, and the issue here is that Catalonia is not a country. The example of Scotland was added earlier in the discussion, but in such case, even the article itself recognizes Scotland as a country, whereas Catalonia is not recognized as such.
Really, the issue here is much more simple that the entire discussion we have dragged ourselves into. Is Catalonia a country? If yes, you can use either the nationality or the citizenship that is in use in Catalonia (or both). If not, however, then the nationality/citizenship of the actual country prevails. Which is way "Spanish politician from Catalonia" is accurate, whereas "Spanish Catalan" or "Catalan politician from Spain" are not. Impru20talk14:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
@Otomixal: by our guidelines, I mean yours, and of the rest of users that contribute to this project including myself. Weather you personally took part in the current wording of the manual of style you could always propose changes with the aim of improving our common project and they could be accepted by the rest of the community. Nothing is set in stone. In the meantime we should follow the rules that we give ourselves. Puigdemont is Spanish nobody denies that he is Catalan, as nobody denies he is Amerense, independentist or European etc. Regardless, that spot in the lead is reserved in biographies for the country of citizenship, not for his region, autonomous community, ethnicity etc. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 14:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Impru20 and Crystallizedcarbon: it's all about the sources. When The Economist subheadlines an article in its Europe section "Catalonia's new president" ([19]) it is not "in the context of Spain", it is in the context of Catalonia. When The New York Times offers the headline "Ex-Catalonia leader, freed from German jail, calls for talks with Spain" ([20]), the context is very plainly Catalonia and its relationship with Spain (the same article describes Puigdemont as the president of Catalonia and Rajoy as "Prime Minister Rajoy of Spain". If the context was "Spain", there would be no need to spell out what country Rajoy is prime minister of). In exactly the same way that an article about Scotland could be described as being "in the context of the United Kingdom", but what would be the point?
The Economist, the New York Times, the Times, the Guardian are perfectly happy to refer to Catalan politicians as Catalan politicians. These are reliable sources. Wikipedia guidelines require us to follow them.
Regarding "Spanish Catalan", please stop saying "the term does not exist". Of course it exists. It's a good descriptive term. To compare it to "Spanish Galician" is disingenuous, since there are no non-Spanish Galicians. "Spanish Basque" does exist, however, and contrasts with "French Basque".
You do seem to be on something of a crusade, BallenaBlanca, reverting nationalities and brandishing Spanish jurisprudence. But this is the English Wikipedia. Sources count, not the ideologies of individual editors or constitutions written in other languages.
Impru20 and Crystallizedcarbon: stop trying to make the MOS say what you want it to say, as opposed to what it actually says. It won't wash. Arguing about what is a country, what is a nation, etc., is missing the point. The only question we need to answer is "how is Carles Puigdemont usually described in reliable sources?" If you can show that a majority of sources describe him as a "Spanish politician", fine. If not, not. Otomixal (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I have NO connection with Catalonia or Spain other than that I and my family visited both places once - 15 years ago. I would like to add the following points:
Puigimont himself states that he is Catalan with spanish citizenship. That is important.
99% of all relible sources outside Spain state that he is Catalan. Equay important and neutral.
Stating that he is Spanish is very offensive to many people in Catalonia, my country and many other nations. I have friends in London who would equaly be ofended by this statement.
Stating that Puigimont is Catalan is not offensive to any one. Incorrect, to some of our friends from Spain, perhaps, but not ofensive.
Wikipedia does not have to follow UN definition of what constitutes a country, nationality, citizenship or anything else. We have our own neutral stance and free spirit.
Wikipedia should endorse the multilingual, multicultural world we live in, rather than uniformity thrust upon minority cultures by bullying states. If it doesn't, I give up!
Welsh literature and media always refer to Catalonia as a country. The Welsh Wikipedia (cywki) states on the article on Catalonia that it a country - of course it does - we need to reflect our universities, literature and media, our sources.
Please accept my points in good faith, as being completely neutral in this discussion and have only the respect of rich diversity in mind, and heart. That respect should be the foundation of Wikipedia.
Llywelyn2000 (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
@Otomixal:When the sources point to Puigdemont being "Catalonia's President" and "Catalan politician", they of course do so in the context of Spain. The President of the Generalitat is currently an institution of a Spanish autonomous community. Puigdemont was able to be a politician and held different public offices be virtue of Spanish laws. You cannot say it is not "in the context of Spain", because it is. Or well, if you do prefer, in the context of Catalonia as an autonomous community of Spain. Also, we are not denying that there are sources referring to him as a "Catalan politician", but you seem prone on insisting on these sources to try to circumvent Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Context, which again, is very clear on the issue. Ethnicity, such as "Catalan", is expressly discouraged, and should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Puigdemont is notable for being a Catalan independentist politician and a former President of the Generalitat, which are entirely unrelated to ethnic issues so the general use prevails here.
I still have yet to see someone actually explaining me why "Spanish politician from Catalonia" is bad, because as it has been already explained five times (I have received no response on it in none of these), it is a perfectly valid, MOS-complying, accurate, descriptive and compromise wording. Maybe some day someone will fulfill this wish for me. Impru20talk16:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
@Otomixal:@Llywelyn2000:You are both missing the point. The guideline is clear and should be followed. Puigdemont's only country of citizenship is Spain. Llywelyn, your considerations are subjective and even in good faith, labeling Spain as a bulling state is not neutral. Stating that Puigdemont is Spanish should not be offensive for anyone unless perhaps for some independentists and people who share their cause who may want to change that current reality. Wikipedia should not be used as a tool for political advocacy. You mention that Welsh literature and media refers to Catalonia as a country but all sources I have been able to find contradict this, do you have any reliable sources to back that claim?, For more information read the comments above. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I find amazing that in this discussion the Wikipedia policies are trying to be ignored in favor of personal opinions or biased point of view continuosly.
We can not neither base our content on what may be offensive or not. Again, we would be violating another policy WP:CENSORWikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not censored: Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive—even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia. Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia policies (especially those on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view) or the laws of the United States (where Wikipedia is hosted) .... --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk)17:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Impru20, when the international media describe Carles Puigdemont as a Catalan politician, they are not doing it to differentiate him from a Basque or Andalusian politician, as you contend, they are doing it because it is the clearest and most accurate way to describe him, in a context that needs no additional explanation. Both you and Crystallizedcarbon would do well to take a look at this table:
In the same way that the above Scottish public figures are legitimately described as "Scottish" in the leads of their respective articles, despite the fact that they are British citizens, so the Catalan figures in the table can legitimately be described as "Catalan" – and indeed are so described by most reputable sources – despite being Spanish (or French) citizens.
I think that all that had to be said here has been said yet. The only reliable source that says Puigdemont is an Spanish citizen is an opinion piece from Deutsche Welle. It also has been said that saying he has an Spanish nationality (not citizenship) is not offensive, but I would think that is offensive for him, that is also a point here. Furthermore, the link used for "Spanish" is not "Spain" but "Spaniard", which clearly he is not. If we have an article for Catalans, then whoever is Catalan must be stated as Catalan. Even more if they claim to be Catalan and everybody says that they are Catalan, both in media in Spain and abroad. -Theklan (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
User:Llywelyn2000, you make several dubious assertions. "99% of all relible sources outside Spain state that he is Catalan" Do you have a source for this or did you make it up? "Stating that he is Spanish is very offensive to many people in Catalonia, my country and many other nations" Not sure why you think where you live is relevant to us but do you have a source for this? I for one find this unlikely but even if it was so, who cares? We don't aim to avoid offence. You then say "Stating that Puigimont is Catalan is not offensive to any one" You cannot claim that whatever you disagree with is offensive and what you agree with isn't. This works both ways, either both are offensive or neither. You seem to be labouring under the illusions that the majority of Spaniards don't have strong feelings on the matter, demonstrably not true. We aren't guided by free spirit and NPV does not mean supporting Catalan independence. Your own POV is given away when you talk about bullying govts, "uniformity thrust upon minority cultures by bullying states" such a charge could certainly be laid against the Cataln govt. If you can't accept neutrality, yep, best to give up, but if you can work with opinions you disagree with you have the makings of a great editor. ♫ RichardWeisstalkcontribs18:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
@RichardWeiss: that article says, in the very first sentence: "El magistrado se decantó ante el riesgo de fuga del expresidente catalán, que pidió permanecer en Alemania". Is to say (sorry about the bad translation): "The judge decided [it] because of the risk of escaping from justice of the catalan ex-president, who asked to live in Germany". In the same article there is only one mention to the word "Spanish", and are the words of the Spanish consulate, saying: "a cualquier ciudadano español que se encuentre en estas circunstancias ante la Justicia alemana", is to say "[will assist] to any Spanish citizen who suffers that situation with the German justice". So not, that article is not saying that he is not catalan, but Spanish, besided his citizenship. But ABC is not either a reliable source in this case. -Theklan (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
We are not discussing whether Puigdemont is or is not Catalan, of that there is no doubt. What we are discussing is how to format it in the introduction of the page, respecting the Wikipedia policies. And for that, the correct thing to say is that it is Spanish from Catalonia. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk)18:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
No, the correct way is not saying he is an Spaniard from the Autonomous Community of Catalonia, because he is not Spaniard (as linked by you). Because Spaniards, according to our own article are are a Latin Europeanethnic group and nation.. And Catalans are not Spaniards in that sense. -Theklan (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
<EDIT CONFLICT>@Theklan:@Otomixal: About the Scottish cases as well as other member countries of the United Kingdom you can read the essay WP:UKNATIONALS to help you understand the reason for the exception in the Scottish cases you cite and why it does not apply to Catalonia. Once again, Scotland is considered a country while Catalonia is not, Catalonia is an autonomous community of Spain. Of course Catalonia and Catalans exists, there is nothing wrong with saying that Puigdemont is a Catalan, just not in the part of the lead reserved for his country of citizenship. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Theklan, you can't arbitrarily assert ABC is not a reliable source. Which media don't have an opinion on the subject? Scotland was a country till 1603, Catalonia never was, and doesn't have it's own football team, if you are born in Glasgow you don't play for England, but if you are born in Catalonia you play for Spain. Scotland has its own currency and bank and legal system so there are many differences between the two places. ♫ RichardWeisstalkcontribs19:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
@RichardWeiss: So your argument for saying that Puigdemont is Spaniard (what he is not) is that Catalonia is not part of the UEFA? Wow! By the way: I haven't cited Scotland. ABC is not a reliable source because they are part of this conflict. And because they have a huge history aligning themseleves with Franco and francoism. But even saying that, your article doesn't say what you are claiming. -Theklan (talk) 19:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Let's see what this links are saying, because Googling is great, but Ctrl+F is your friend:
Media
Catalan
Spanish
Swiss Info
Former Catalan leader Carles Puigdemont
Catalan politician who has sought
an idea that could convince the majority of Catalans
to be re-appointed as Catalan president.
The Spanish Public Prosecutor’s Office
the Spanish Supreme Court
part of a Spanish investigation
The Swiss and Spanish authorities are in contact
As a Spanish citizen, Mr Puigdemont is entitled to travel freely
The Guardian
Catalan leader Puigdemontis is wanted by Spain
“a Spanish citizen visiting Finland” (quoting a legal paper)
USA Today
The Catalan leader was detained by police
over the Catalan leader within 60 days
why the Catalan leader was taken into custody in Germany
...
..."very unusual" for a Spanish citizen to apply for political asylum in Germany.
...German and Spanish law.
...has been speculated that Spanish authorities' belief...
Spanish media, including the newspaper El Pais, have reported that Spanish intelligence services
Justice ministries confirmed that there had been contact with Spanish colleagues
So, your sources say that Puigdemont is Catalan and there is a matter between different justice systems because he has Spanish citizenship. And they clearly make a difference between the term "Catalan" and "Spanish". But well... maybe you want to follow on and continue claming that Puigdemont is Spaniard, as the article says. -Theklan (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Crystallizedcarbon: No sources are needed to prove that Puigdemont is a Spanish citizen, or "national" if you prefer. That is not in dispute. What are needed, though, are sources calling him a "Spanish politician" to counterbalance the numerous reputable sources referring to him as a "Catalan politician". If you can't find them, the wording of the lead needs to be changed. Various compromise solutions have been suggested, with "Spanish Catalan" so far appearing to enjoy the greatest consensus. Interestingly, this was also the solution adopted by consensus several years ago for the WP entries of prominent Catalans such as Joan Miró and Salvador Dalí, although it appears that someone has since unilaterally changed these entries to "Spanish", in contravention of Wikipedia guidelines on consensus.
Regarding the Scottish case, all citizens of the United Kingdom have British nationality. In other words they are British nationals. That doesn't make it wrong to call them "Scottish" in the lead. The distinction between "country" and "not a country" is in any case a fairly arbitrary one: Scotland is not "a country" in the legal sense. Be careful not to confuse concepts such as "nation", "state" and "country". RichardWeiss's football team example is not a good one. Catalan teams compete in international competitions in a variety of sports. And while we're on the subject of what constitutes nationhood, Catalonia also has a number of institutions with "national" in their name (Teatre Nacional de Catalunya, Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya, etc.). The key point about the Manual of Style section you keep quoting is its name: Context. It does not, as has been repeatedly erroneously claimed in the course of this discussion, "clearly state that the country of citizenship is what should be included", merely that this will provide the context in most (not all) modern-day cases. Otomixal (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Sorry guys, I'm disengaging from this discussion. Whatever compromise you may find about should be good. Cheers. Impru20talk20:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
<EDIT CONFLICT>ABC is a Spanish nationalist newspaper with clear affinities to the previous dictatorial regime adapted to the present-day age, that is pretty clear to whomever knows a bit of history of Spain or follows politics and journalism. My main concern is the alienating approach (and other irregularities I will deal with in the suitable place) defended here, and the use of WP rules to use them against different views. The state of Spain is repressive enough to not allow any expression of nationality, so no football team is allowed, nor other things, but that does not detract from the fact that historically the Basques have been considered a nation and that is clear to whomever visits the place, it was clear to Humboldt and it was clear to Victor Hugo, and to so many others. The same goes for the Catalans.
The very Spanish institutional framework accepts the different Catalan and Basque nationalities, although the most nationalistically inclined are quick to level any differential reality they may perceive (as dangerous) across Spain. Now coming with the most restrictive interpretation to remove visibility to present historic peoples living in Spain goes frankly against the principles of knowledge (critically so) and diversity, it pushes POV. It is reflecting litigation someone may be engaged in outside the WP, to bring it over to the WP, alienating readers and editors, and causing aggravation, and breaking basic harmony.
Almost no one would endorse in the Basque Autonomous Community and Catalonia, and at least half of the population in Navarre to present its people only as Spanish nationals, or as a Spanish national whatsoever. The accurate and most inclusive is "Spanish Catalan" no doubt, reflecting the very base of contributors to the EN WP in Catalan and/or Basque subjects. Other than that "Catalan from Spain" could work for me as well. Iñaki LL (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
You are still missing the only point that matters. I very much doubt that you will be able to find a single reliable source that claims that Puigdemont is a citizen from the "country" of Catalonia.
But country is exactly what the guideline mentions, it is normal that sources refer to him as Catalan Presiden as sources refer to Markus Söder as the Bavarian premier, Bavarian finance minister or Bavarian politician, but following our MOS the article lead cites him as a German politician.
If you read the first paragraph of the Spaniard article lead who do you think it is referring to when it mentions the Catalan language speakers:
"There are several commonly spoken regional languages, most notably Basque (a Paleohispanic language), Catalan and Galician (both Romance languages like Castilian). "
or latter in the body when it mentions:
"Within Spain, there are various regional populations including the Andalusians, Castilians, the Catalans, Valencians and Balearics (who speak Catalan, a distinct Romance language in eastern Spain), the Basques (who live in the Basque country and speak Basque, a non-Indo-European language), and the Galicians (who speak Galician, a descendant of old Galician-Portuguese)."
@Otomixal: as I mentioned in a previous comment, the "most modern day cases" bit is referring to the use of the current country of citizenship vs a previous one (birth for example) in case it is more notable, it should not be used as an excuse to ignore the guideline. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
@Crystallizedcarbon: I disagree that "most modern-day cases" refers to the use of the current country of citizenship versus a previous one. The issue of previous nationalities is covered in a separate sentence. The key words here are "most" and "notability". There are countless Wikipedia articles on British public figures who happen to be English that mention an ethnic group ("English") in the lead and ignore citizenship. If you feel so strongly about it, why not include "Spanish" in the infobox? Alternatively, let's go with a compromise solution like "Spanish Catalan". Otomixal (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Let's make an exercise. Imagine that Puigdemont is not delivered to Spain by Germany and Germany gives him a german Passport (i. e. German nationality). Would you say "Carles Puigdemont is a german politician"? I don't think so. -Theklan (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
<EDIT CONFLICT> Then we would have to agree to disagree. as far as the British public figures, I already stated that UK nationals are the only reasoned exception I have found to the rule, but it is still consistent with the current wording of the MOS guidelines because as its been said before England, Scotland, Nothern Ireland and Wales are considered countries ( constituent countries or nations, also called the Home Nations). Please note that despite the declaration of independence by Puigdemont or any other considerations, Catalonia currently is not a country nor was it at any time during the life of the subject of the BLP. Also please note that ethnicity is not a factor on the examples you mention. Please see WP:UKNATIONALS for a more detailed explanation. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
To answer your last question, that is exactly the exception contemplated in the phrase "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" so until he would become more notable as a German (whatever he decided to do) he would could still be introduced in the article as a Spanish politician from Catalonia.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
You are citing again and again the same paragraph, without noticing that in the text we have a link to Spaniard, what is defined as an ethnicity. But you have your agenda, I understand your reasons to have this article opposing bot common use and common sense. -Theklan (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Done. Spaniard refers to both, the ethnic group and to Spanish nationals, but to avoid any possible confusion and as a way of compromise still following our guidelines I have changed the link to Spain and I have also added from Catalonia to the end of the phrase. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Sorry Ballena, I am too tired I thought your edit was made by another editor using it to defend the oposite argument. It obviously made no sense. It is time for me to go to bed. Good night. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
The point raised about removing "Catalan" is extremely alienating and makes me really sad, it is only understood in line with present-day tension and manoeuvring in Spanish politics, as opposed to the more inclusive "Spanish Catalan". Very unfortunate the attempt to remove "Catalan" or "Basque", a campaign started also in other articles.
Citizenship and nationality are definitely not the same, not in the European or many other contexts at least. However, it holds true that certain states attempt to assimilate nation to their political project, projecting their ideological concepts onto their law, like the Constitution, and political action, a move that started to take shape in the French revolution and expanded later.
However, the Spanish constitution accepts the nationalities and the Gernika Statute in the Basque Country defined the Basques as a nation in the preface, so even if it were on that legal grounds there would no be no problem to accommodate the most inclusive definition, ruling out the most restrictive and aggravating definition proposal. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
@Crystallizedcarbon: I guess your compromise is a slight improvement, but I see little evidence of consensus. A couple of final suggestions for today: look at "English" before saying that ethnicity isn't a factor. Note also that WP:UKNATIONALS explicitly warns against changing nationalities in articles on the basis of personal preference or prejudices and acknowledges that different people hold different views on the subject. And seeing as you cite "Nation", you might want to read the opening paragraph of that article and explain to us why you believe that the definition of "nation" it contains doesn't apply to Catalans. Finally, and for what it's worth, UK nationals are certainly not the only exception to your "rule". Gerda Hasselfeldt, for example, is described as "a Bavarian politician", Milena Agus is "a Sardinian author", Philippe Muyters is "a Flemish politician". Should I go on? Another time, perhaps. Otomixal (talk) 22:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I've just re-read all comments in this thread. We're getting nowhere due to the fact that on one side we have Spanish Nationalist attempting to enforce a Wikipedia guideline (and that is what they are: mere guidelines) and on the other hand we have common sense which dictates that yes of course Puigemont is a Catalan politician. End of! Change it! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 05:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
You cannot claim that those more interested in wikipedia guidelines are all Spanish nationalists, I'm not even Spanish. And what do you mean by common sense? And how do wikipedia rules deal with this dubious concept, and where does common sense dictates what we must do. ♫ RichardWeisstalkcontribs05:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
@Otomixal:English as well as Spaniards, Italians etc have two meanings, the ethnic group and the nation. For the last time, the criteria for the guideline is to be citizen of a country, which Spain is and Catalonia is not. The examples you mentioned are clear cases where the guideline has not been followed, thank you for bringing it to our attention. I have fixed them, and I will look to see if I can find any similar cases. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
User:Iñaki LL said "Everybody knows Puigdemont is a Catalan first and foremost" Nope, we can all recognise he self-identifies as such but anybody opposing Catalan independence may disagree that he is objectively Catalan, let alone the assertion that he isn't Spanish. He hasn't renounced his citizenship so was consciously choosing to remain Spanish till the independence declaration and probably couldn't claim another citizenship anyway right now. ♫ RichardWeisstalkcontribs08:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, you are free to make believe yourself whatever you want, and certainly are mistaking a legal concept, citizenship, with the most restrictive and alienating interpretation of nationality, so that no nations exist except those of a state's Constitution. A complete aberration, still defended here. I have commented largely on this above, so nothing more to say. Also the MoS is a guideline, to fix problems, not create them. Iñaki LL (talk) 14:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
A poll
I do not think there are any further contributions to make here, the positions cannot be more clear, and this goes nowhere. There are at least two options expressed here about what introductory phrase should define the person's nationality in this biography. I proceed to open the vote:
Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary (though not exclusive) means of decision making and conflict resolution is editing and discussion leading to consensus—not voting (voting is used for certain matters such as electing the Arbitration Committee). Straw polls are sometimes used to test for consensus, but polls or surveys can impede, rather than foster, discussion and should be used with caution.
@Theklan: We have given ourselves some policies and guidelines that should be followed. Consensus should be reached based on them. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Context clearly states that the country is the criteria to be used and it should be followed. Failing to provide arguments based on our guidelines should not be substituted by a vote limited to people on this talk page, as the issue has implications for the whole community. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
<EDIT CONFLICT>Fully agree! That is what it sounds like, "my way or highway"! It rings a bell in Spain. We have talked a lot on the principles of Wikipedia above. The stakes are now on, Wikipedia is about consensus, vote to break the stalemate! Thanks for adding other options I had not considered (I still think "Spanish Catalan" is the most inclusive, but all the same), thanks for adding the "Catalan" option. Iñaki LL (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello @Crystallizedcarbon: Thanks for reminding us that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Remember, though, that it is not a bureaucracy either. Please read WP:BUREAU:
While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without consideration for their principles. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus.
You are still trying to impose your interpretation of the guideline in question ("Context") and deliberately ignoring the scope it affords for a less strict interpretation ("the opening paragraph should usually provide context", "in most modern-day cases", "unless relevant to the subject's notability").
At the same time, you are ignoring the very next section of the Manual of Style, which clearly states: "The lead sentence should describe the person as he or she is commonly described in reliable sources." And as has already been amply demonstrated, the subject in question is commonly described in reliable sources as a "Catalan" politician/leader/president.
Yet rather than accept the evidence of reliable sources or give due consideration to the point of view of other editors, you adopt behaviour that approaches civil POV pushing and have even opted to amend nationalities in other articles in an attempt to shore up your argument (meanwhile BallenaBlanca is busy excising all mentions of Basques or Catalans from Wikipedia because, apparently, "there is only one nation"). Good luck with that. To help you in your mission, here are a few more Flemish politicians for you to "fix":
And the nationality of these Kosovars to Serbian…. oh wait, Kosovo is a "country" isn't it, even if Spain doesn't think so.
Your attitude is remarkably similar to that of those (mainly anonymous) editors who remove "Catalan" from the biographies of prominent Catalans such as Salvador Dalí, Pau Casals, Joan Miró, and many others – no matter how much you dress it up as (selectively) respecting guidelines and policies. Not an approach that will improve Wikipedia. Otomixal (talk) 19:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
@Otomixal: Please clarify what do you mean by "Your attitude is remarkably similar to that of those (mainly anonymous) editors who remove "Catalan" from..." I have no idea of whom you are referring to but I would appreciate it if you could keep your comments focused on content. I try to respect all guidelines and policies, if the MOS is changed to recommend that the regions that claim independence should be used where we now use the country of citizenship I will have no problem changing it myself. In the meantime I will continue to try to improve our common project according to our guidelines. I will fix many of the examples that you pointed out. Flemish XXX should be changed to Belgian XXX from Flanders. the term Flemish can be used elsewhere in the article, same way Catalan can, just not in that part of the lead the same goes for Canadians from Quebec Americans from Alaska, French from Corsica, Italians from Sardinia etc. If Kosovo is a country as you claim, then there should be no problem in using it.
if you look at the two paragraphs from the MOS you made reference to:
Context
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.
The sentence introduced as "in most modern-day cases" talks about using the current country and the alternative on the next phrase talks about the posibitiy of using the country when the person became notable, it discourages the use of ethnicity.
The following paragraph you referred to is titled Positions and roles:
Positions and roles
The lead sentence should describe the person as he or she is commonly described in reliable sources. The notable position(s) or role(s) the person held should usually be stated in the opening paragraph. However, avoid overloading the lead paragraph with various sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable. Incidental and non-notable roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph
It is also clearly referring only to how reliable sources describe the role or position of the subject, not the country of citizenship which is a totally objective fact.
It seems to me that many people in favor of the independence of the places you mention including Catalonia have a strong desire that their territories are recognized as countries, and may want to break away from their current ones. there are other places to voice those concerns, Wikipedia should not be used as a tool for political advocacy. On a final note please note that I just checked the articles of both Dalí and Miró and they do use the Spanish surrealist and Spanish painter wording according to the MOS. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
@Crystallizedcarbon: You say: "The sentence introduced as 'in most modern-day cases' talks about using the current country and the alternative on the next phrase talks about the possibility of using the country when the person became notable, it discourages the use of ethnicity."
No, you're wrong. I can't tell whether you are deliberately misinterpreting this or if it's a problem of English comprehension. I will assume the latter. "In most modern-day cases" governs the whole sentence. The phrase "…or if the person is notable mainly for past events" merely clarifies which country to cite, present or past, in those cases where the country of which the subject is/was a citizen or national is determined to be the relevant context. Perhaps it would be clearer if there were another comma after "or".
The use of ethnicity is discouraged, true, but I rather think this is mainly to stop people saying things like "African American lion tamer" instead of "American lion tamer". I don't think it means "Spanish not Catalan", "Belgian not Flemish", "Scottish not British", because the issue in these cases isn't really (or at least isn't exclusively) one of ethnicity. But you know that really.
Be that as it may, you cannot ignore the most in that opening phrase, nor the should usually provide in the previous sentence, nor the generally and unless in the sentences that follow. As pointed out above (by WP:BUREAU, not by me), there is such a thing as an overly strict interpretation of guidelines, and it seems to me that you are clinging to your overly strict and, in my view, erroneous interpretation of this particular guideline as a way of stifling discussion. None of your contributions to the discussion so far have sought to build consensus and you have yet to provide any reliable sources to support your point of view.
Regarding "Positions and roles", did you miss the part that says "The lead sentence should describe the person as he or she is commonly described in reliable sources"? That means the lead sentence of the opening paragraph, in case that wasn't clear. If, as you say, you try to respect all guidelines and policies, how about respecting that one?
Setting about unilaterally "fixing" the nationalities of the subjects I mentioned seems to me to be the exact opposite of consensus-building (particularly in the case of the Québécois, where it is actually consensus-trashing) and may not have the effect you desire. But if that is what you are determined to do, please don't forget the Kurds!
Not sure what "people who favour independence" has to do with anything. I wasn't aware that was being discussed here.
Lastly, I don't understand your point about the Miró and Dalí articles, or perhaps you didn't understand mine, which is that the descriptors "Catalan" and/or "Spanish Catalan" in these (and other) articles have been unilaterally removed by IP editors despite consensus for these solutions having been reached in years past. Otomixal (talk) 00:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
In addition, in the hypothetical case of applying how verifiable international sources are describing Puigdemont, let's see a few examples of how they describe him:
Euronews 24 mar. 2018 [21]"Fugitive Catalan President Carles Puigdemont"
The Guardian 2 Mar 2018 [22]"The fugitive Catalan leader, Carles Puigdemont"
Couldn't read the entire discussion so forgive me if I'm repeating something that was already said, but I agree with Llywelyn2000 we shouldn't follow exclusively the list of UN member states to define people's nationality. There are many ambiguous cases, from Kosovo and Taiwan to Kurdistan and Tibet including Scotland, Greenland and, of course, Catalonia. In those particular edge cases, I think the best is to rely on external sources. --Aljullu (talk) 07:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
@Aljullu: The guideline is very clear in stating the country of citizenship as the criteria to follow. There is no explicit reference to the list of UN member states is not mentioned. It has been clearly established that Scotland is a country (you can check its article or WP:UKNATIONALS) and Catalonia is not. Do you have any reliable sources that states that Catalonia is or has been a country anytime during the life of the subject of this BLP?
@BallenaBlanca: you make an excellent point and provide further useful sources indicating how the subject should be referred to in the lead. I am not sure "fugitive" should feature in the lead sentence, however, since that would not be in accordance with the guidelines repeatedly cited by Crystallizedcarbon above. Also, since it appears to be cherry-picking season, we must be careful to balance "fugitive" with "exiled", as in the following verifiable international sources:
"Exiled Catalan ex-leader Puigdemont hopes to return to Belgium" (Al Jazeera, 7 April 2018) [33]
"Exiled in Belgium … the former Catalan leader" (The Guardian, 2 March 2018) [34]
"Exiled Catalan ex-leader Carles Puigdemont detained in Germany" (Japan Times, 26 March 2018) [35]
"Exiled Catalan leader Carles Puigdemont ordered to return for re-election" (Daily Telegraph, 28 January 2018) [36]
"Exiled Catalan leader Carles Puigdemont has been detained in Germany" (Business Insider, 25 March 2018) [37]
"German court extends detention of exiled Catalan leader Puigdemont" (Euronews, 26 March 2018) [38]
I'm glad that we seem to making progress towards consensus at last! With the notable exception of Crystallizedcarbon, who continues to insist that "the guideline is very clear..." (even though it doesn't actually say what you want it to say and, even if it did, should not be applied overly strictly to the detriment of common sense and reliable sources) and is effectively obstructing discussion by refusing to listen to anybody else's point of view.
By the way, if we're going to keep citing WP:UKNATIONALS, let's be sure to read all of it, including the part where UK Prime Minister David Cameron says "The United Kingdom is not one nation. We are four nations in a single country." This is at odds with Crystallizedcarbon's repeated insistence that "the guideline is very clear in stating the country of citizenship as the criteria [sic] to follow". I am not, of course, suggesting that the use of "English", "Scottish", "Welsh" as a nationality is wrong (before anyone decides to start to "fix" them), but this would certainly appear to confirm that Crystallizedcarbon's interpretation of the guideline in question is in fact incorrect or, at the very least, overly strict (as per WP:BUREAU). Otomixal (talk) 09:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Using "Fugitive" or "Exiled" in that part of the lead would be obviously against our policies. Please correct me if I am wrong BallenaBlanca but I think his examples were aimed at showing it would not make any sense to use the wording by news sources. How reliable sources may refer to him may be relevant to his title or role, but not for the country of which he is a citizen which unless you can prove otherwise is Spain. Since he was the president of Catalonia it is only logical that news refer to him as Catalan president but as far as his country of citizenship (cited in the guideline) there is no question that he is Spanish and not Catalan. This is not an an strict interpretation as it has been established that Catalonia is not a country. Regarding your comments on WP:UKNATIONALS please check the first phrase on the articles on England, Scotland and Wales. It clearly states that they are countries. I am not going to get into your interpretation of David Cameron comments which in my opinion does not exclude the possibility for those four nations to be countries as well. The fact is that we consider them countries and that is the clear criteria that the guideline uses. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
@Crystallizedcarbon: You've got nothing, have you? Round and round and round. Repeating the same thing over and over again to every editor who holds a different view. Shutting down discussion with your own erroneous and overly strict interpretation of a guideline which, despite WP:5P5 ("Wikipedia has no firm rules"), you insist on treating as though it were carved in stone and not susceptible to different interpretations. No sources are reliable enough for you. Common sense carries no weight with you. You're not interested in consensus. You're starting to sound like a fanatical Spanish nationalist (I have no idea if that's what you are, nor do I care), the kind that says "the only nation is Spain", "not a country", "never a country", "not a nation", "only a nationality" (as if that wasn't as amusing to English speakers as the fact that the Spanish navy is still known as the "armada"). Meanwhile the rest of the world will continue to describe Catalans as Catalan, Scots as Scottish, Flemings as Flemish, Kurds as Kurdish, and so on. Let's hope Wikipedia catches up soon. Otomixal (talk) 13:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
This "poll" has no value per WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Also, as it is biased and badly raised, it is preventing me (and other users) from voting, which I am not doing either because it is clearly not valid, since it does not conform to Wikipedia policies. I am waiting for Iñaki LL to open a legal, neutral and well structured RfC, complying with the Wikipedia policies and that is visible to the Wikipedia community. In addition, this "poll" is biased from the beginning: Note how Iñaki LL has not included in the list the other option that at least three users have raised and supported here in this discussion: "is a Spanish politician from Catalonia". Note also how nobody has answered Impru20's questions about why this option is not valid, so there is not a neutral discussion, but a biased discussion ignoring other users proposals.
Please, Otomixal, do not misrepresent my words. I have said several times that I agree with Crystallizedcarbon.
And Catalonia is not a "country", but "an autonomous community in Spain", as is stated in the first sentence of the lead of the own page on Catalonia and this comment that is placed just before the start of the lead, after the infobox:
<!-- Please note: The descriptions "autonomous community" and "nationality" are based on formal political terminology as found in official sources and have been discussed at length on the talk page in the past. Please do not directly change to "country" or "nation" – or, conversely, to "region" – but raise any issues or suggest any improvements on the talk page first, as direct edits on this subject may be controversial. -->
The proposed wording “Spanish politician from Catalonia” (which Iñaki LL forgot) complies with Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Context and is adjusted to the info in Catalonia. The other options are similar to pretend to give Catalonia a status it does not have or invent new terms ("Spanish Catalan") violating WP:NOR.
And I repeat again: to call Puigdemont Catalan is in the context of political news, it has nothing to do with this debate, which is a biography. Yes it would be valid, for example, to speak of a Catalan politician, a Galician politician, an Asturian politician, a Basque politician, a Valencian politician ... in a Wikipedia page on Spanish politics, or other pages on politics, in which the background is already stablished, as is the case with the sources on news cited here. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk)14:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
@Otomixal: please stop your personal attacks against me. Instead of claiming that I am deliberately misinterpreting the policy or that I have a problem of English comprehension you should provide solid arguments. "Most modern-day" makes reference to time and that phrase as well as the next one give two options also relating to time. Current country of citizenship as preferred and previos country of citizenship as an alternative in case the subject was notable at that previous time. I could also speculate that the most modern-day could be a reference to ancient figures for which country of citizenship would not be aplicable. To me it does not provide justification for your argument that the "most moden-day" can be used to replace the country of citizenship for the autonomous community in this or other cases. As I also disagree with your claim that this text: "The lead sentence should describe the person as he or she is commonly described in reliable sources. The notable position(s) or role(s) the person held should usually be stated in the opening paragraph." applies to the part reserved for the country of citizenship as stated in the previous section. It is included in the positions and roles section and it refers to just that, the profession or title cited by reliable sources in this case politician and journalist (the footnote at the end of the paragraph clarifies this further). I presented multiple reliable sources that clearly state that the subject is a Spanish citizen can you present any that claim Catalonia to be a country. When there are content disputes the debate should be centered on providing valid arguments on how to best interpret our guidelines and policies, instead of resorting to argumentum ad hominem. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
@BallenaBlanca: Here we go again. Do you think that if you keep repeating something it will magically end up meaning what you want it to mean? Do you think if you paste the same paragraph in different-coloured type for the tenth time it will say something different from what it said the last nine times? You are clinging to a narrow interpretation of what is only a guideline, not a rule, and wilfully ignoring reliable sources, common sense, Wikipedia practice and the views of other editors. You and Crystallizedcarbon are also making unilateral changes to other articles in an attempt to bolster your POV.
If you don't like the options in Iñaki LL's poll you could always add your own. How are you prevented from voting? (And then you say you wouldn't vote anyway – this is starting to sound like the independence referendum on 1 October 2017!)
Start the RfC process if you want, but I suggest you read WP:RFCBEFORE first, particularly the sentence that says: "Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others. If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC."
This discussion is not about the political status of Catalonia or the passport that the subject of the article happens to hold. Put a little Spanish flag in the infobox if you want.
A majority of participants in this discussion believe that "Catalan" in some form or other should appear in the lead paragraph as the subject's nationality. My preferred option (not included in the poll either, but I'm not crying about it) would be "Catalan politician and journalist from Spain", because state borders make it necessary to distinguish between Catalans from France (or "French Catalans") and Catalans from Spain (or "Spanish Catalans"). No neologisms, no original research, just straightforward descriptive factual language. The current wording "Spanish politician and journalist from Catalonia" does not mean the same thing and, frankly, sounds like a ploy to avoid calling him Catalan. Eyewash, in other words.
@Crystallizedcarbon: If suggesting that you have a problem with English comprehension (strictly in the context of your repeated misinterpretation of an English sentence) is a personal attack, I'd better not say anything about your grammar, spelling or sentence construction, had I?
For the last time (it's an expression. It obviously won't be the last time): no one is disputing that the subject is a Spanish citizen. No one is claiming that Catalonia is an independent state, which is presumably what you mean by "country" (because under other definitions of country – see the first paragraph – it could certainly be described as such if anyone really wanted to).
This entire discussion is about whether it is reasonable, accurate, acceptable, informative, neutral, factual and correct to describe the subject as "Catalan" in the lead sentence (BTW there's only one lead sentence and it should contain context, e.g. "Kurdish" AND roles and positions, e.g. "sword swallower", among other things).
Not in the place that our manual of style reserves for the country of citizenship. It would be misleading as it would imply that Catalonia is a country. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
It does frame what we disagree on. The first answer for all the examples you mention for biographies is No. The country of citizenship is what should be used according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Context so instead of X is a Québécois potter it should read X is a Canadian potter from Quebec or X is a German Apfelwein taster from Bavaria. In both cases Quebec and Bavaria are optional, but Canadian and German are not. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
And I suppose my first example should read "X is an Iraqi basketmaker", should it? I notice you haven't started changing the nationalities of Kurdish public figures yet. Once again, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Context does not say that the country of citizenship is what should be used, it says that in most modern-day cases this will be the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident. The examples I have offered are to be found across Wikipedia (possibly not basketmakers or Apfelwein tasters), where they coexist happily with other articles that use a person's citizenship in the lead. In many cases (notably the Québécois) they are the result of a painfully arrived at consensus. If you continue your mission to unilaterally remake English Wikipedia in order to further your thinly disguised Spanish nationalistconstitutionalistunionist whatever agenda, you're going to get your wrists slapped (this is a metaphorical expression) for obvious POV pushing. Otomixal (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I have not edited any Kurdish articles because I am not familiar with the subject. All other examples you mention fall clearly on what the guideline recommends. You continue to reproduce only parts of the guideline to try to make your point. you forgot to add the second part of the phrase that provides the alternative to the first part and relates to the past: "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". Your claim that I have a "thinly disguised agenda" is yet another personal attack, you are free to check my contributions to the project both here and at eswiki. I can see that you seem to have a lot of information, despite the limited number of contributions you have made with your account. If you know of a previous consensus that is directly related to this issue and the guideline involved, you should have provided the link to those discussions, as they could include some valid and relevant arguments. I would appreciate it if you would share the links to those talk pages now. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
This is clearly a comprehension issue. The second part of the phrase does not "provide the alternative to the first part", as you put it. This is how the sentence works:
[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].
If the sentence said what you think it says, it would be phrased like this:
[In most modern-day cases this will be the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident]; [in other cases it will be the country where the person was a citizen etc. in the past].
But that would be patently absurd, in that it would be creating a false opposition between [most modern-day cases] and [persons notable mainly for past events]. Surely you can see that "most modern-day cases" can also include subjects who are mainly notable for past events? And that other options are equally possible, such as stateless persons and persons whose notability is primarily linked to a subnational entity. For example Gurdas Maan, who is described as a Punjabi singer, not an Indian singer.
As I have said before, "most modern-day cases" governs the entire sentence.
And while accusing me of "forgetting" to add the second part of the sentence (why would I add it when it is not relevant to the case in question?), you yourself omit the sentence that follows, which explicitly allows other criteria including ethnicity to be used if relevant to the subject's notability. The point being that flexibility is built into this guideline (like all Wikipedia guidelines).
It's all very well saying you're not familiar with the subject when it comes to Kurds (although apparently you are when it comes to Quebec, Bavaria and the Flemish Community), but you justify your refusal to listen to other editors' arguments by repeatedly citing your own rigid interpretation of a mere guideline as though it were some absolute principle of law. That being the case, you should either apply it consistently and show those Kurds (and sundry members of other stateless nations) what's what, or accept that maybe it's not quite as catch-all as you want it to be.
I've been following this discussion from the sidelines and it really is going round in circles. I can see plenty of sources quoted and different proposals made but then there is a brick wall where one or two users keep repeating the same mantra and refusing to compromise. i don't think it's really about WP guidelines: it's about competing nationalisms. So find a compromise: call him Catalan and put Spanish in the info box. That should please everyone. A point that I don't think anyone has made yet (I may have missed it) is the issue of self-identification. Polls in Catalonia regularly ask people if they feel Catalan, Catalan and Spanish, more Spanish than Catalan, only Spanish and so on. If someone self-identifies as Catalan and is also referred to as Catalan by a majority of reliable sources, what is the harm in using Catalan in the lead sentence? Who does it hurt? Put "nationality: Spanish" in the info box. Or put "Catalan from Spain" -- that would satisfy most people and meet the guideline and would respect the self-identification of the subject of the article. I don't think it's right to mess about with other articles to support your own point of view. Sounds a bit like vandalism to me. OK, that's all I wanted to say. Dell'Olmo (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Jan Morris and Chelsea Manning's Wiki pages respect their self identity as female. Their official documents of birth gender are not seen as overwhelming evidence of gender (but their birth gender is mentioned). A Nationalist politician clearly doesn't self identify with the nation state that s/he is campaigning to break away from so official nationality such as passports, UN status etc are irrelevant. President Puigdemont, self identifies as a Catalan, that self identity should be respected. If we don't respect his self identity I propose that we change "George Washington was an American statesman" to "George Washington was a British statesman to be consistent! AlwynapHuw (talk) 04:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
@Otomixal: Please correct me if I am wrong. Do you really mean to say that this sentence "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability" (that you claim i omitted) explicitly allows ethnicity to be used instead the country of citizenship?? The sentence is actually discouraging the use of ethnicity unless is notable, and even then what it says is whether it should be mentioned at all in the lead, not in the place that the guideline reserves for the country of citizenship. I allready explained this before using Barrack Obama as an example where being the first African American President is notable. Notice how it is included in the lead. Obama is introduced as an American President, not an African American president. African American is used in the lead, but not in the place reserved for his country of citizenship. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
@AlwynapHuw: The claim that the subject of the BLP does not identify himself with his current country of citizenship I believe is what is motivating this discussion. The subject, independents and people sympathetic with their claim would like to change that current reality. Their main goal is that Catalonia does become an independent Country. Puigdemont's declaration of independence failed, so his country of citizenship continues to be Spain. If in the future he were to succeed in his aspirations and Catalonia were to become a country, that would be the time to replace Spanish for Catalan. Wikipedia Pages should not be used for political advocacy. Even if independentists or the subject of the BLP himself may want for Catalonia to be a country independent from Spain, Wikipedia is not the place to advocate that claim. Your argument to use British instead of American for "George Washington" is also flawed. George Washington was obviously more notable as an American Statesman than as a British politician. There is no set place for including the gender on the lead of a BLP the only guideline is to not include it unless is notable (like in the cases you mentioned) self identity can be relevant in that case, but it is not for the country of citizenship which currently is Spanish. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
@Otomixal: You mentioned a "painfully arrived consensus" for some Québécois. Did you take part in those discussions? I ask you once again to provide a link to those talk pages as they may be relevant to this one. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
@Crystallizedcarbon: My interpretation of the ethnicity part is that while it will not normally be included in the lead, it could legitimately and usefully be included therein in those cases that fall outside the set [most modern-day cases], in other words in articles where country of citizenship is not mentioned in the lead. I wish you would stop referring to "the place that the guideline reserves for the country of citizenship". It doesn't do any such thing, and your insistence that it does is starting to sound like "abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles" and "asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express" (from WP:LAWYER).
Regarding the Québécois consensus, my comment was a reference to real-world disputes and the two bitter referendum campaigns.
Moving on, your reply to AlwynapHuw is something of a straw man. Editors who support the use of "Catalan" as a descriptor of nationality (for want of a better word) do so because they believe it to be a more accurate, more informative, more inclusive (etc.) description than the country of citizenship. They are not advocating Catalan independence or trying to "change reality" and it is absurd to suggest that they are. The reality is this: when someone changes an article on, say, a Catalan writer to describe them as a Spanish writer, and justifies this change by reference to policies and guidelines (or the Spanish Constitution!), what they are really doing is denying them their identity, their membership of the cultural nation they identify with, even their language as an integral part of that identity. That is obvious to anyone not blinded by their own nationalist prejudices. Otomixal (talk) 06:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
At this point, we will have to agree to disagree. No, I do not think that that phrase implies that you can use ethnicity (or religion or sexuality for that matter) in the place that we use for the country of citizenship. Doing so claiming a previous Québécois consensus that turned out to be off-wiki or trying to use abstracts concepts of nationality/ethnicity instead of the country of citizenship is what I think goes against both the letter and the spirit of the guideline. If you still feel that "is a Spanish politician and journalist from Catalonia" goes against Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Context I suggest you seek dispute resolution.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
"Doing so claiming a previous Québécois consensus that turned out to be off-wiki" Doing what, exactly? You make it sound as though I'm the one making unilateral changes to articles on subjects I know nothing about in order to further my own agenda. I haven't changed anything and I haven't "claimed" anything either, I merely suggested that modifying the wording of other articles that is, one may reasonably assume, the result of consensus in order to bolster your POV, while consistently ignoring the views of other editors, dismissing reliable sources and deliberately misreading guidelines (or applying an overly strict interpretation and flying in the face of practice across the project, which amounts to the same thing) is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Meanwhile, here are few more Catalans for you to purge:
Pau Casals "Deixeu-me que us digui una cosa... jo sóc català."
And to think that there are some who claim that it's the Catalans who are "supremacist"!
I think we'll leave it for a couple of days to see if anyone else has anything to add and then change the lead as per the consensus that has emerged over the course of this discussion. After that, if you still feel that "is a Catalan politician and journalist from Spain" goes against Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Context I suggest you seek dispute resolution. Otomixal (talk) 12:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Catalonia is not a country, it is an autonomous community in Spain. Therefore, complying with the Wikipedia policies, we must put Spanish as nationality in the first place, without prejudice to adding the autonomous community to which the person belongs.
There is a group of users who do not want to respect that policy and want to use another formula/s.
The arguments for this are poor. For example, using sources from news about politics, whose objective is not to establish the nationality, but speak in the context of Spanish politics. Or arguments like if he feels Catalan, that's what must be put (do we also write on the page of Catalonia that it is a recognized independent republic, since a part of Catalans feels that way?). Or putting examples of other Wikipedia articles that violate the policies, whose problem is not having been edited or patrolled correctly. That there are errors is not a valid argument, it is as if we want to violate WP: RS arguing that on page x or page y there is content without references or supported by non-verifiable sources. The aim of Wikipedia's policies is to improve the encyclopedia and to unify the formats of the contents, not to perpetuate errors and inaccuracies and to turn it into a chaos, published at the whim of the users interested in certain specific approaches.
They are insisting that we, the ones who want to respect the policies, are the ones with the wrong behavior and approach.
A user has opened a poll (ignoring WP:DEM) instead of a RfC visible to Wikipedia community. This poll is biased, without including all the suggested options made in this discussion, omitting the only formula that respects the policies and covers both assumptions supported by several users, reflecting that he is Spanish and from Catalonia.
Although I have notified the irregularities and suggested to the user to do things respecting the Wikpedia policies and to open the RfC, he has not done anything, he has not even added the lacking option to the poll.
On point 4 above these lines: The users continue without providing any valid reliable argument to support their claims. They have come back to repeat as argumentation that Puigdemont should not be offended because he describes himself as Catalan, which violates WP: CENSOR[39]
And they have added one more argument to describe Puigdemont in the first sentence as a Catalan, which also goes against the fundamental bases of an encyclopedia: "the reader will know where Catalonia is, therefore nothing else is needed, unless you live on the moon". This is an encyclopedia that is consulted from anywhere in the world. An encyclopedia is intended to give complete, specific and unambiguous information to all kinds of readers, from all parts of the world, from all cultural levels and any level of knowledge. And in addition, so important or more, we have to write it in a timeless way, keeping in mind that the information has to be understandable and it does not disorient the reader over the years.
There are some who seek an outcome for discussion in bureaucracy.
There are those who want to assimilate nation to state.
There are those who assimilate country to state.
These premises lead some of them to take the most restrictive interpretation.
No one from the territory of the politician in question would accept the version as it stands now, nor the person subject of the article, and it would seem that neither does the contributor community that shaped Catalan (or Basque) articles and similar.
The discussion came to a standstill with the sides having clearly taken their sides.
A poll proposed following discussion to provide a way out presenting the main options considered up to that point and other options whomever may wish to add gave a result in favour of the "Catalan" solution (that, however, is not binding per WP policies and guidelines).
Some editors who had the right and opportunity to be proactive and add their own phrase to the poll did not use it, and opted instead to extend sine die the discussion making their point and sometimes keep adding objections. Iñaki LL (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Off topic
I speak in my name: I am giving you the opportunity to demonstrate good faith, collaborative spirit and neutrality, being yourself who adds it.
A poll on this talk page on an issue that has direct implications to one of our guidelines does not have much value. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Context clearly states country is the criteria to be used. That can't be ignored. The wording of the guideline would need to be changed to allow the use of the Regionalism, nationalism or the ethnicity etc. instead of the country. Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion#Policy_and_guidelines discourages their use for that purpose. I think that in this case the guideline is so clear that there is no room for interpretation, but if you or someone else thinks otherwise there are options outlined at WP:DR like WP:RfC or the WP:DRN to widen the debate. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia currently has a problem, with so many pages violating the policies and misinforming the readers, which need to be corrected. It is good that you keep adding more listings and examples to make the task easier. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk)23:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Summarizing: you are the best and you have won! No, really, let's read WP:5P5 and then start thinking about how an article about a Catalan leader who is known for being catalan, who is a well-recognized figure of the Catalan independence movement can't be described as Catalan because there are two users that prefer WP:BUREAU. I will change the article, per consensus in this discussion, and if you have any problem, ask an admin. -Theklan (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
He is both. Spanish citizen (his country) and Catalan because he is from the Autonomous region of Catalonia. He was president of Catalonia and was involved in politics of that autonomous region, so it is fine to use the term Catalan president or Catalan politician elsewhere in the article, just not in the place reserved in our manual of style for his country of citizenship which has been clearly established to be Spanish just because of claims that you, independentists or the subject himself may not wish it to be so. If you can prove otherwise please do so, otherwise please respect our guidelines. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
WP:IAR-abgHowever, many people seem to misunderstand the spirit of the rule (WP:IAR), and think it's a convenient excuse to ignore anything they disagree with. This goes against the intention of the rule. No convincing reasons have been given to ignore Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Context. Nobody is denying that he is Catalan, it is recognized in the first sentence, but this is not his nationality, we have to write it correctly.
Edited: Even if a consensus is reached, which is not the case on this page for this specific topic (proving that his country is not Spain),A consensus on a talk pageit does not serve to modify Wikipedia's policies. If you want to modify Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Context to be able to change the first sentence of this lead, you need to open an RfC. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk)09:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
There is no consensus, as no arguments have been given that his country is any other than Spain and that is the clear criteria of the guideline. It applies not only to this article, but to all BLPs. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Multiple people oppose your idea of common sense. I haven't reverted you in spite of your absurd allegations but I disagree with your edits and bemused that you think you will get your way edit warring. ♫ RichardWeisstalkcontribs11:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
No, there is no a "consensus" to call him Catalan in the first line of the lead. We can call it Catalan 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, which is Spain, because Catalonia is not a country but an autonomous community of Spain. He is undoubtedly a Spanish from Catalonia, we have to write it in this way to fulfill Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Context.
The arguments they are giving for trying to ignore the policies are ridiculous and do not hold up, like this one "Calling him Spanish is offensive as he always describes himself as Catalan"WP:CENSOR, that they also said above in this talk page. 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 ...?
This conversation is rolling on itself and they continue without giving any verifiable reason to justify their claims, forcing us to repeat ourselves... --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk)16:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not actually saying there is a consensus for Catalan but if it is going to be that version it needs to link to the right article. Edit warring should not get in the way of the integrity of the actual version, and it keeps doing so at the moment. ♫ RichardWeisstalkcontribs17:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
For those saying we need to open an RfC, it's already been done. I suggest everyone read the discussion that ensued: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Request_board/Archive_3#RfC:_Citizenship_Issue_for_Spanish_Catalan_biographical_articles. No sign of a dogmatic insistence on an overly strict and POV interpretation of a flawed guideline, which in any case is inferior in rank to WP:NPOV, a policy with a higher priority. And plenty of scope for using the "ethnicity" criterion in the first sentence of the first paragraph. Like I have repeatedly said, "In most modern-day cases this will be X or Y. In other cases..." Otomixal (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Otomixal - Interesting!
The Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Context is not sacrosanct, but people are, and they have feelings. The MoS wording is very open: 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 the use of country = Catalonia. Akerbeltz also mentioned (14:24, 26 May, above): "The same paragraph says unless it is relevant to the subject's notability," which in my opinion it certainly is.
A compromise: We have agreed that 'Carles Puigdemont... is a Catalan politician.' That's good. And as you suggested above, the reader will know where Catalonia is, therefore nothing else is needed, unless you live on the moon. So I suggest: Carles Puigdemont (born ...) is a Catalan politician.@BallenaBlanca and RichardWeiss: - I can't see why this isn't acceptable, but if it is then I do think that a face to face meeting over Skype would address your issues? Just the three of us? Three neutral people, unattached from both Catalonia and Spain. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 18:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
@Llywelyn2000: I think "...from Spain" is a useful addition, in that if the "national" criterion followed is more along the ethnicity/cultural affiliation line (as per the RfC discussion), then it is important to distinguish Catalans from Spain ("Spanish Catalans") from Catalans from France. Attempts to equate "Catalan" with "from (Spanish) Catalonia" should of course be resisted as inherently POV. Or are you proposing including "Spain" in the "born..." part? Also, what about introducing a "nationality/citizenship" category to the infobox? This should clearly be "Spanish", in that Spain is unquestionably the country of citizenship. Might that be an acceptable compromise? Otomixal (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks both for your contribution to untangle this! (Notwithstanding the wide consensus so far) To be taken into account, yes, but the MoS is not a policy as BallenaBlanca wants to make us believe ("The arguments they are giving for trying to ignore the policies are ridiculous and do not hold up"). I will add that extending artificially a discussion is a recipe for disruption. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Iñaki LL, our policies say that we have to respect the policies and guidelines. And as it seems that you are directing this comment to me "extending artificially to discussion is to recipe for disruption", I ask you once again, please to focus on providing concrete arguments for the discussed topic not about the actions or behavior of users (notice this [42]).
Otomixal There was no consensus in the link that you gave. Also, what we are saying is that you need an RfC to modify the guidelines and be able to make the changes you want on this page, which is not the same. And on your concerns about the distinction, this is done unambiguously using the formula that complies with the rules: "Spanish politician from Catalonia".
Llywelyn2000 I think that you must be consistent and that you always apply the same criteria, you had clear ideas, I see no reason for you to change them now [43] (referred to this [44])
And please, do not try to distort what others have written taking it out of context and saying that we have reached the commitment that Puigdemont is Catalan, with the aim of justifying that we can put it in the first sentence of the lead.There is no such "compromise". In addition, it is not our question to decide what he is and what he is not, we have to stick to the reality and the concrete context, which is the first sentence of the lead. We do not have the power to modify laws, realities, nationalities or the status of an autonomous community.
You said: "the reader will know where Catalonia is, therefore nothing else is needed, unless you live on the moon". This is an encyclopedia that is consulted from anywhere in the world. An encyclopedia is intended to give complete, specific and unambiguous information to all kinds of readers, from all parts of the world, from all cultural levels and any level of knowledge, and has to be understandable over the years.
Anyway, all your arguments lose their validity, since you are starting from the error of considering Catalonia as a country (you said "The MoS therefore allows the use of country = Catalonia" but it is not a country: is an autonomous community of Spain.
BallenaBlanca - my statements hold, as do my original comments a few days ago. Your comments are off subject, yet you have a way of making them sound on target; they're way off! I think all Talk pages should have live video streaming, where editors could discuss matters face to face, but I respect your right of anonymity. However it's really odd that both you and Crystallizedcarbon live in Spain, edit 20 hours a day, have similar personal page profile and behaviour and prefer to be anonymous. This is my last and final point on this discussion page. There has been a general consensus by all (but three, all of who live in Spain, not Catalonia). Llywelyn2000 (talk) 06:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Llywelyn2000 It seems that your comment contains veiled accusations. Please, strike it. And please, comment on the topic, not on the users per WP:TALK#USEWP:TPYES
By the way, more errors of concept to add: Catalans are also persons who live in Spain (Catalonia is not a country) and in this conversation more people living in Spain are participating, the Basques are Spanish (the Basque Country, despite its name, is not a country either, but an autonomous community of Spain, whose official name is the Basque Autonomous Community. See Basque Country (autonomous community)). --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk)06:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
"It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply" MoS. A single-handed restrictive interpretation by one/two editors against wide consensus is not an option forward. Iñaki LL (talk) 11:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
You continue without providing specific valid arguments to justify your claim to ignore policies and guidelines, which always prevail and especially in case of conflicts (I also remind you that you can open an RfC to try to modify them).
Well, sorry, so what are you doing now? Do stick to the topic. On the ANI, I added my concerns on your talk page, period. It is clear that this discussion has been extended for ages, which is extenuating editors and further brings the situation to a standstill. One just needs to see above that a vast majority of the editors oppose a "Spanish"-only approach, clear.
Again, "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply" WP is about its spirit, ultimately about consensus, adding knowledge, not removing it, and reflecting all its diversity and that of the world's. Iñaki LL (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Well said Iñaki LL! From what I see, it's 15 users for 'Catalan politician' and only 3 against (but what a loud noise they made!) John Jones (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
