Talk:Citizens (Spanish political party)

Center, center right, and right wing positions

Autospark (talk) I understand we have differing stances on what the political positions should be labeled as here. Based on your edit you believed it should be “center right to right wing” based on an Oxford publication using the term “right wing” to describe the party. I believe the position should be listed as “center to center right” and not as “center right to right wing” because there are many more sources that I’ve found (which can be seen for me edits, and from further down in the article text) describing the party as centrist, while I’ve only found one other source in addition to the one you used which label it as right wing, thus I worry labeling it as right wing gives undue weight. Finally, there’s a compromise I can see: since no one has disputed the party being center right, we could meet at that medium between center and right wing and only have it in the position section. Nigel Abe (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Problem with unifying the party under center-right is that it does not reflect the reality of the party. The party defines itself as Centrist and Liberal, which it is by European standards, although it leans far more often to the Right than it does to the Left, therefore it makes sense to label it Center to Center-right as you said. Nevertheless, this party attracted many people from PP after its corruption scandals, some of which belonged to the hard right of PP and who didn't go to Vox as it was still a minor unkown party. In conclusion, it makes more sense to label it Center to Right-wing in order to represent all the different widespread views within the party (there is also a minor Center-left group which is not very powerful and rather irrelevant). Cremaet1238 (talk) 25:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cremaet1238 (talk • contribs)

We don't categorise political parties based on how they "define" themselves. We use third-party sources, preferably not poor-quality journalistic sources, and certainly not based on quotations of a party's leaders or public figures. Also, being part of the ALDE/Renew Europe group of parties does not mean that Citizens is automatically "centrist" – there are centre-right parties in ALDE/Renew (Dutch VVD, Danish Venstre, etc), centre-left and miscellaneous parties – it is a heterogenous group of parties, and besides that, categorising a party purely around its European affiliations is poor practice.--Autospark (talk) 16:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The successive swings of this party towards the right (the last swing from 2019) are presently sourced in the lead, so journalistic sources (already weak sources when confronted with actual scholarly monographies) from 2015 make a very weak case for the "centrism" label (vis-à-vis their current position, not necessarily the "historical" one).--Asqueladd (talk) 07:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that citizens has moved to the right since its founding but I disagree that it’s moved to the right wing. The source provided only briefly refers to citizens are right wing and does so in contrasting it with another party they describe as left wing. I feel using this to call the party right wing in the infobox is giving undue weight and we should just leave it at center right. No one has disputed the party being center right yet, and the majority of sources, both past and present, describe it as center right. Nigel Abe (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I also agree that Citizens has moved to the right since its founding. However, there is only one source cited for describing Ciudadanos as right-wing. The vast majority of sources describe Ciudadanos as centrist or centre-right; as Nigel Abe said, this gives WP:UNDUE weight to a single source (although the source in question is reputable). In addition, the source used does not distinguish between centre-right and right-wing in the section of the chapter being cited; in fact, the same source later describes Ciudadanos as "compet[ing] with the PP in the centre-right of the political spectrum" (page 383). Due to the aforementioned reasons, I believe that Ciudadanos should be listed as "centre to centre-right" or just "centre-right", but definitely not "centre-right to right-wing". Ezhao02 (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not just one source that calls it right-wing, and it's not like center-right conflicts with right-wing.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/13/ciudadanos-podemos-of-right-political-force-spain-albert-rivera

68.197.116.79 (talk) 02:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Uh, the source you pointed me to literally calls Ciudadanos a "centrist party". I'm not so sure that's a good source for "right-wing", even though it mentions "right-leaning". Ezhao02 (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@68.197.116.79: Reply above. Ezhao02 (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@68.197.116.79: 'right-leaning' doesn't mean the party is 'right-wing'. The Guardian article you presented as your source did not describe Ciudadanos as 'right-wing'.--삭은사과 (talk) 05:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Aren’t you the same person who just threatened a wiki staff for blocking you and demand I “apologize” after reverting your edit warring twice? Also, center right and right wing are two different terms. Nigel Abe (talk) 03:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

No, because I've never edit-warred. You just can't tell IP's apart, or don't care. And if wiki "staff" abuses its power, it deserves to lose it. Can you disagree with that?

Speaking of disagreement, you haven't addressed all of the various sources calling this political party some flavor of "right-wing", which is supposed to be the issue here. You seem so distracted by your campaign of insult and intimidation that you forgot we're supposed to be editing an encyclopedia.

So, being a polite person, I'm going to ignore the distractions and stick to the content. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

And speaking of the content, it does not appear that you read the article I linked to. Here's one part you seem to have missed:

“They say they’re progressive, centre-left. But their ideas come from centre-right and most of the votes they’re taking come from the PP,” Ferrándiz said.

But let's not cherry pick. Take https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2019/07/05/lessons-from-ciudadanos-how-liberal-parties-struggle-to-deal-with-the-radical-right/, which says:

Initially, Ciudadanos portrayed itself as a liberal, centrist party that sought to supersede left-right divisions, a theme Emmanuel Macron later took up in France.

Ciudadanos has chosen to align itself with a clear right-wing bloc, including the PP, the main party of the Spanish right, and Vox.

But Ciudadanos’s history and the Spanish context mean that it cannot embrace the far right as forthrightly as some centre-right parties do.

This not only shows that it's right-wing as opposed to centrist, but that descriptions of it as centrist are outdated. It means that an accurate, well-cited description of it would be "centre-right to right-wing", not "centre-right".

This particular source is an academic, "Ben Margulies is a Lecturer in Political Science at the University of Brighton", but there's no shortage of other, similarly-reliable sources saying much the same thing.

I'll give you some time to digest this and maybe read some of the sources I've linked to, and if you can't come up with any plausible rebuttal, I'll fix the article. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 03:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

So citizens is right wing because it cooperates with right wing parties? I guess the Estonian center party is now far right because they work with the EKRE (coalition building and bipartisanship get very weird at times). Both the sources you just sent called the party center right. Your arguing against your own sources here, with OR at that. Nigel Abe (talk) 03:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

No source has been found to describe Ciudadanos' political position as 'right-wing' away from 'centre-right'. On the other hand, there are numerous sources that describe the party as a centrist. I object to labeling the party "Centre-right" or "Centre-right to right-wing". I think it is right to mark Ciudadanos as "Centre to centre-right".--삭은사과 (talk) 05:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

No source? https://www.ft.com/content/35592fb0-f56f-11e9-b018-3ef8794b17c6

"Ciudadanos has slumped in the polls — a phenomenon its political rivals attribute to a quixotic attempt to outflank the PP on the right."

The People's Party is centre-right to right-wing, so outflanking it on the right means being at least right-wing. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Just because you're making a 'partial' right-wing move, the overall stance cannot be seen as being more right-wing than PP. Ciudadanos is basically a centrist party. Another example is that in South Korean politics, Party for Democracy and Peace has taken a more conservative view on homosexuality and abortion issues than Liberty Korea Party, but the LKP & UFP is considered an hard right-wing party, while PDP & PPL are classified as a center-left/right party. I think Ciudadanos should be marked 'Centre to centre-right'.--삭은사과 (talk) 01:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

"Centre to centre-right" is utterly redundant. Let's just compromise and leave it just as "centre-right", with the references, in the Infobox and move on from this.--Autospark (talk) 11:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Our sources don't support "centre", except perhaps historically. They definitely do support "centre-right", so I can't object to that.

However, being to the right of the right-wing PP on some (not all) issues means that Ciuadanos starts at "centre-right" and extends to "right-wing". If it was to the right on all issues, then it would be just be "right-wing", or even further. That's not my opinion (I don't actually have one on this matter) but that of reliable sources, so we can't exclude it.

Based on our sources, we should say "centre-right to right-wing". 68.197.116.79 (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

The People Party is center right to right wing, and what the source you sent means when it says “outflank the PP on the right” is not that citizens is trying to move further right than the PP, but that it’s trying to get ahead of the party which to the right of them. Thus if the People’s Party is center right to right wing then it would make sense that citizens is either center right or center to center right as sources describe. Nigel Abe (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be insulting, but I genuinely don't understand what you're saying. I can't think of any reasonable interpretation of "outflank on the right" that doesn't translate to being further to the right than what is already a right-wing (not centre-right) party. I don't get it. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 01:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Let me try to explain what Nigel Abe said using different words. The phrase "outflank on the right" is not necessarily referring to its political position being farther to the right than that of the PP. Rather, it means that both Ciudadanos and the PP are generally right-leaning parties and that Ciudadanos is trying to compete with them for votes. Basically, Ciudadanos is being criticized for competing with the right-leaning parties instead of campaigning from the center to compete with, say, both the PSOE and the PP. However, the biggest problem with the FT source that you have provided is that it uses claims from Ciudadanos' "political rivals", so the said claims may not necessarily be accurate. Ezhao02 (talk) 13:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

If you're a centre-right party, you can reach out to the left or to the right. You could mellow your policies to appeal more to more moderate voters or you could go further to the right in an effort to appeal to right-wing voters. This is precisely what the source says they did. They outflanked the right-wing PP by embracing right-wing, not centre-right, policies. That's not my opinion, that's what our sources say, in as many words.

If you have better sources, share them, but I don't see any way to interpret our current sources except as saying that Ciudadanos spans centre-right to right-wing. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 14:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The vast majority of the current sources describe Ciudadanos as a party of the center-right. There are comparatively far fewer sources describing the party as purely right-wing or as center-right to right-wing, so listing it as such would give undue weight to such sources. The FT article is not describing Ciudadanos' policies as being further to the right than the PP's but is rather describing Ciudadanos as competing with the PP for right-leaning voters. This is what the source says. Ezhao02 (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Note that Nigel Abe has been blocked as a sock puppet. That editor's previous account had a history of misrepresenting sources and ignoring important context to make far-right parties and ideas appear more mainstream. I do not know if this article is another case of this, but it should be carefully considered if these claims are being taken seriously. See WP:BE for info on reverting edits made by sock puppets. Grayfell (talk) 20:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing that. In hindsight, it does seem that his behavior was consistent with downplaying just how far to the right this political party is. You can see that in this thread. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I must respectfully disagree. I think that the arguments made here are valid even though the person who made them is a sockpuppet with a history of poor editing. At this point, it would still be UNDUE to describe Ciudadanos as "center-right to right-wing", since the vast majority of sources at this point still use the term "center-right" to describe the party. Considering the party's shift to the right, there will likely be some more sources describing Ciudadanos as purely right-wing or as "center-right to right-wing", at which point I would agree to list Ciudadanos as "center-right to right-wing", but until then, I believe that the political position should be left as "center to center-right" or just "center-right". Ezhao02 (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The fact that "Nigel Abe" made this argument in apparent bad faith does not undermine whatever intellectual virtues it might inherently have, but its virtues are scant.

You admitted, in as many words, that there are reliable sources describing the party as ranging from centre-right to right-wing. You argue that we should ignore them because they constitute a minority, but that does not follow.

These reliable sources are not expressing a fringe view, but are instead reflective of the party's more recent trend towards the right. Given this context, we should expect older sources to (then-accurately) describe it as merely centre-right while newer ones mention the right-wing side. There will be more sources that report the older stance for some time, so the current state will remain a view by a numerical minority of sources. We are not bound to wait for newer sources to outnumber the old, but must instead take recency into account.

With all due respect, that argument made no sense to me when the sock puppet first made it, but your attempt to defend it has only revealed its flaws. We have an obligation to report what reliable sources say. Reliable sources say it is centre-right to right-wing, not just centre-right anymore. It has shifted, and we need to report what it is, not just what it once was. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 00:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I did not say "that there are reliable sources describing the party as ranging from centre-right to right-wing." You argue that a numerical minority of sources describing the party as right-wing will appear if the party is truly center-right to right-wing. This is true, but at this point, the minority of sources is much too small relative to the number of sources describing the party as center-right. In fact, I have not seen a single source on this talk page that describes Ciudadaanos as right-wing and not centrist or center-right at the same time. Ezhao02 (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to put words in your mouth. What you literally said was: "The vast majority of the current sources describe Ciudadanos as a party of the center-right. There are comparatively far fewer sources describing the party as purely right-wing or as center-right to right-wing, so listing it as such would give undue weight to such sources". This seems consistent with what I said about there being reliable sources whose descriptions of the party range from centre-right to right-wing.

Here's a Forbes article[1] that says, "In the last elections, Ciudadanos left the center space aiming to become the leader of the right-wing opposition and refused to negotiate with Sánchez."

It left the center and went to the right wing. That's unambiguous. It's clear from all of these sources that the party is not far-right (like Vox), but it's also not just centre-right anymore. It has a right-wing component now.

Or then there's another[2] which says, "In the regular CEO opinion polls of Catalan public opinion, respondents consistently identify Ciudadanos as the second most right-wing party in the regional parliament, second only to the PP and further to the right than the governing conservative party, CiU." Conservative means centre-right, so being further to the right of that means being right-wing. It's the second-most right-wing, but second only a far-right party.

That source spells it out more bluntly:

"The rhetoric and policies of Ciudadanos on immigration are typical of the far right."

"The party has also held demonstrations alongside far-right parties and organizations, and voted against funding activities dedicated to the remembrance of the crimes of Franco."

I don't think Franco was ever centre-anything! 68.197.116.79 (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

One more: "Its radical policy to deny healthcare to undocumented immigrants places it to the right of the PP (which recently made a U-turn on the issue)." 68.197.116.79 (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll address the second (the openDemocracy source) article first. First, you bring up the "opinion polls" mentioned in the article. It is preferable to cite the opinions not of voters but of experts in the field of political science for the political position. Second, you say, "Conservative means centre-right, so being further to the right of that means being right-wing." This is a clear case of synthesis when you describe "conservative" to mean center-right. Third, you say that Ciudadanos, as described in the source, is "second only [to] a far-right party," but the source is comparing Ciudadanos to the People's Party, which is generally described as center-right or right-wing. Fourth, you quote the source, saying, "The party has also held demonstrations alongside far-right parties and organizations, and voted against funding activities dedicated to the remembrance of the crimes of Franco." Holding demonstrations alongside members of the far-right does not mean the party itself is far-right; voting against activities remembering Franco's crimes does not make the party Francoist. Finally, I think that openDemocracy has a somewhat left-leaning bias (please correct me if I'm wrong here), so we should be more careful when using it as a source for political position. The best argument you have here is that "[t]he rhetoric and policies of Ciudadanos on immigration are typical of the far right," which, admittedly, is a pretty strong statement that should be considered. However, I think that one issue (immigration) likely does not define the party's entire political position.

About the Forbes article, I think that the biggest issue here is that it doesn't differentiate between center-right and right-wing (although it does differentiate between "the right-wing bloc" and "the far-right party Vox"). The "right-wing bloc" can include people anywhere from the center-right to the far-right. Also, the caption of the first image calls Ciudadanos a "center-right political party". Ezhao02 (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm open to possibly restoring centre to the political position of the infobox. However, if we are going to remove it I think we should at least have a 'Historical' section underneath like for other political parties that have changed their political position such as Alternative for Germany. There are multiple reliable third-party sources from as recently as 2018 and 2019 that call the party centrist. I agree the party has moved to the right, therefore I agree that centre-right should remain in the infobox, but as I said I'm open to restoring centre as well (which should have received consensus before it was removed in the first place as it was previously cited in the infobox). Here are multiple recent third-party sources that call the party centrist:

• Two-party era in Spain is dead, says Citizens leader. The Times. 19 March 2018.
• The Latest: Spain’s Socialists rule out coalition after vote. Associated Press. 29 April 2019.
• Political leaders set for TV debate ahead of Spain's election. The Olive Press. 21 April 2019.
• Vox: Who are the Trump-inspired far-right Spanish nationalist party and what do they stand for?. The Independent. 11 January 2019.
• Spanish MPs approve exhumation of dictator Franco. France 24. 13 September 2018.
• Spain’s Socialists, Podemos Eye Deal. Atlantic Sentinel. 8 September 2018.

I did also find this source from The Guardian that refers to the party as 'once-centrist' from January 2020.

Spain's PM calls for calm after building his coalition government. The Guardian. 12 January 2020.

This is the closest I have found to a third party source indicating that the party was once centrist but has moved. There may be sources from 2020 that call the party centrist, although I personally have not found any, so there is perhaps justification to not have a centrist label in the infobox. However, with so many sources calling the party centrist, and the party clearly at least once being of the centre, I think this should at the very least be indicated in the infobox by a 'Historical:' section, as is done with some other parties like the AfD. Helper201 (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with this proposal. Ezhao02 (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Bad idea. Just leave it as centre-right – it's reliably sourced. To be honest, I'm generally against "Historical" sections in Infoboxes unless there's been a dramatic shift in party ideology (e.g. something like the Democratic Party (Romania), although that itself is now a defunct party). Also, we need to avoid the trend of labelling centre-right parties as "centre to centre-right", as that's redundant information. Centre-right alone will suffice.--Autospark (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion closed as per WP:TALKOFFTOPIC/WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ezhao02, you're using national-liberal to describe both Ciudadanos and Party for Freedom, while Ciudadanos are definitely less right-wing than People's Party that in turn is less right-wing than Franco. And secondly, the collapse of the People's Party is definitely shifting Ciudadanos to the centre-right but that doesn't necessarily prevent the party from retaining it's centre ideology, which is exactly what you said about PASOK and New Democracy. But unlike Ciudadanos, PASOK's shift towards the centre has spanned across multiple elections, with New Democracy leader Konstantinos Mitsotakis, who originated from the Centre Union, having as many as four consecutive successors who are more right-wing than him, specifically Miltiadis Evert, Kostas Karamanlis, Antonis Samaras and Vangelis Meimarakis for a cumulative period of 22 years, as opposed to the 9 of Mitsotakis before PASOK's shift to the centre that happened at the same time when SYRIZA, a party between the far-left of Communist Party of Greece and PASOK that eventually became New Democracy's major rival, was formed. – Preceding unsigned comment added by KungFuBlackjack (talk) 19:59, 27 June 2020 First, I added "national-liberal" to the Ciudadanos article because reliable sources describe it as such. I am not the one describing it as national-liberal. However, I suspect this gives undue weight to such sources, so I will revert the page to call it "conservative-liberal". Second, I don't understand your accusation that I am "using national-liberal to describe…Party for Freedom". I'm not describing PVV as national-liberal; I didn't even add "national-liberal" to the infobox. Also, these accusations make it seem like you are wikihounding me, looking through my contributions to argue against all of them. Finally, to respond to the legitimate point you make (that Ciudadanos' shift may well be temporary), I agree with you on this. I was hesitant to change this, but it seemed like the only viable option for consensus. Ezhao02 (talk) 15:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC) The one who is wikihounding is you since you've edited the PASOK page where I was edit warring with a person who is clearly biased as a wannabe leader of a Nordic big tent left-wing party according to his talk page. And the person who reverted my edits in New Democracy's page is probably a member of SYRIZA who rejects New Democracy's status as a right-wing party because he promotes the idea that SYRIZA is more appealing to the centre than the right-wing while ignoring that New Democracy did not become a right-wing party due to being led by Political Spring founder Antonis Samaras or tolerating former Popular Orthodox Rally members such as Adonis Georgiadis, Makis Voridis and Thanos Plevris. SYRIZA leader Alexis Tsipras claims that New Democracy has recenlty shifted to the right while his party has shifted to the centre-left, but Tsipras had allied with members of the Independent Greeks party that was labelled as right-wing just for rejecting austerity and representing the ideas of Karamanlis. I didn't give sources because I understand their significance and that's why I want experienced editors like you to give reliable sources but I don't need them to know the truth that I desribed in your talk page, even if what I said is a very short summary of modern Greek history that truly is big enough to deserve an encyclopedia but that encyclopedia unfortunately does not seem to be Wikipedia since New Democracy has always been right-wing due to the beliefs of it's founder and Prime Minister Konstantinos Karamanlis who was also Prime Minister with Greek Rally and National Radical Union that are classified as right-wing. But since Poland's and France's elections are today's news, I wonder if Wikipedia wants to promote propaganda about most European countries being represented by Merkel, even if that doesn't seem to be the case. – Preceding unsigned comment added by KungFuBlackjack (talk) 1:10, 30 June 2020 You do realize that I went on the PASOK page not because of your edits but because I felt like it, right? Your accusations make no sense. First, the editor with the leftist bias may be capable of putting aside his or her biases to edit. (I believe I know which editor you're talking about, and that editor's bias does not show strongly in his/her edits.) In fact, that's part of the reason why Wikipedia requires citations from reliable sources—it forces editors to put aside what they think Wikipedia should look like, making sure that content is actually verifiable. Your obvious unwillingness to even look for sources ("…I want experienced editors like you to give reliable sources but I don't need them…") makes me question whether your goal is just to promote your personal point of view. Second, you shouldn't assume that the IP editor who reverted your edits is a SYRIZA member; neither should that matter, due to the reasons I gave above. Third, none of the arguments you made on my talk page or anywhere prove conclusively that New Democracy is not simply center-right. Finally, what does Merkel have to do with any of this? P.S. Please sign your posts. To do so, type four tildes: ~~~~ at the end of posts you make on talk pages. Ezhao02 (talk) 14:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC) Merkel and Tsipras actually promote the same propaganda that anyone who isn't centre-right does not belong to the European Union if they don't surrender to austerity. New Democracy is not pro-European for being centre-right since the right-wing de Gaulle also was pro-European and he inspired New Democracy's beliefs according to the main analysis of New Democracy's article. But Putin doesn't forget his KGB days when he got to know Merkel as an East German much more intimately than most of her government colleagues from the CDU. Tsipras also represents the losing side of Operation Gladio so Putin might be using both of them to divide Europe so that he succeeds where the Soviet Union failed in absorbing the entirety of Europe into his revived Soviet Union. But there are also Hitler wannabes such as Kasidiaris, Erdogan and Trump's successor in the Republican Party. But since you don't care about that, why don't you permanently ban me or delete my account? I got tired of arguing about the obvious.

I've taken myself the liberty to close and collapse the part of the discussion where KungFuBlackjack was involved, since the user has been indefinitely blocked because of disruptive editing, edit warring and sockpuppetry, but also because it's obvious that this part of the discussion was developing into an off-topic drama and persistent copy-pasting of purely original research content by KFBJ. That discussion is now discontinued for good. Impru20^talk 17:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! 03:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Conservative liberalism?

@Ezhao02: Why such an insistence in depicting the party as conservative liberal? I don't recall it being labelled as such by any of the Spanish media or significant academic or scholarship works. English sources do typically refer to it simply as liberal: the Caroline Close source that is given does so, as does Nordsieck. In fact, the party does not even have any of the traits of conservative liberals: what are its conservative stances? The party is actually quite progressive/liberal on social and ethical issues, not abiding to "traditional stances and personal beliefs" on that, being one of the most common friction points with its erstwhile ally, the People's Party. What's the "conservative" element and which source does back up such ideology?

Two of the sources added, aside of that of Caroline Close, were two German sources ([3] [4]) which, as far as I can see, do not depict the party as conservative liberal, not even with a passing-by mention (the most they come to depict them is "right-wing" liberals. This is not the same as "conservative" liberal, and would constitute a blatant case of WP:SOURCEHIJACKING).

I just guess "conservative liberalism" is being equated to "right-wing liberalism". The party being typically placed on the centre-right/right-wing of the political spectrum does not make it "conservative". Impru20^talk 10:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Impru20: The German term "rechtsliberal" is usually used to mean "conservative-liberal" or "national-liberal" in English. I'm fine with changing this back to "liberalism", if only because Ciudadanos is more often described as simply "liberal". Ezhao02 (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm more tempted to say that "rechtsliberal" does not mean "conservative-liberal" in the English context of the term (Google literally translated it for me as "right/right-wing liberalism", in both sources). It seems to imply that its a liberal party in the centre-right/right-wing of the spectrum, but conservative liberalism, as used here, has some specific connotations related to conservatism which do not match Ciudadanos's actual ideology (though it could be argued whether some elements/branches within the party do (or did) meet the conditions to be considered under either conservative liberalism or national liberalism). So far, though, English sources seem to predominantly stick with liberal/liberalism. Impru20^talk 15:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Nationalist party

"In spite of that, it has been deemed by a variety of sources to profess a populist Spanish nationalist ideology.[28][29][30][31]" please, do not reverse that because I put all references in the page description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.158.55 (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The interview and Vox

In the ideology section there is an interview of ex-member of the party Girauta where Cs is compared to UPYD and Vox. The source, from 2014, has been taken without context and ignores the fact that VOX was a completely different party back then, and the source itself calls it out by saying that it's a new-born party without a clear goal yet. Thus, it makes no sense to state that the party is nationalist or far-right, and is an unnecessary way to create conflict. I would honestly take the interview out from the article as a whole, considering context and the fact that Girauta isn't even a member, but I want to hear other opinions first. Greetings TheSWGrievousfan (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I had a brief look at the interview in question, and I have not found within that interview any qualification of Vox as far-right, ultra-nationalist or whatever by Juan Carlos Girauta (it actually would not make sense if he called Vox extreme-right, alongside saying he sees no difference between Cs and Vox). Thus, I would say calling Vox "far-right" in this article is just an example of anti-Vox propaganda in media, which is as simple as: whenever you mention Vox, mention alongside they are far-right, ultra-this, extreme-that. Not sure it is correct to push for your "(at the time) liberal-conservative" qualification either. I believe, it should be called just "right-wing" here, as a neutral label, without an inherited negative sentiment, and the linked article about Vox goes at all lengths explaining that some qualify Vox as far-right, any why, and that others disagree, and why. Birdofpreyru (talk) 15:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@User:Grandpallama What do you think you are doing here? Have you read WP:BRD yourself? It clearly says "BRD is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle.". Moreover, if you feel it requires a discussion and a consensus, why don't you participate in the talk here before reverting, and explain, why do you suggest to call Vox far-right in places where cited sources do not make such accusations? Where some sources do call Vox far-right, why do you oppose a wording which highlights that it is opinion from that source and not a widely accepted consensus? Birdofpreyru (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

A bold edit, changing longstanding text, was made. It was reverted (by two different editors now). The proper next step is to discuss. It is not appropriate to continue attempting to push that change in until after consensus is achieved. Since you quoted BRD, I'll point out the "common sense" aspect of the policy, in that our own article on Vox describes it as far-right, where you have also been active in trying to change this designation. Please gain consensus before attempting to change this text again, and observe both WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO. Grandpallama (talk) 17:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Nah. In Vox article I was not trying to change the designation per-se, I was trying to equilibrate the article giving a correct perspective on this topic: the party itself, and many sources don't qualify it is as far-right, or ultra; many do. That's the fact. Despite of that the article before I jumped in into the editing, was worded as the "far-right" and "ultra" qualification of Vox is the only possible and widely accepted consensus; which is not true. The current state we reached, does not hide anything, does not whitewash Vox, as some say, it presents the facts, clearly states what party figures claim, what independent sources say, etc. Imho, that's what an encyclopedia should aim for. If you know more facts about Vox which weight to its qualification as far-right, you are welcome to add them to that article.

Now here, in this Ciudadanos aritcle the Vox is mentioned a few times. In the first place which was reverted a few times, the cited source does not qualify Vox either way. I believe, calling it "right-wing" is fair, and fits into context which reads in my version "the centrist UPyD and the right-wing Vox": it clearly show that UPyD is in center, Vox is at right, and matches the actual cited source, where the guy says that he does not see much difference between these parties and Cs at all. He did not say "centrist UPyD, extreme-fascist Vox, and Ciudadanos are not very different from both of them" :D In other places I edited later the sources call Vox far-right, and I just slightly edited the text to highlight that it is the opinion of those sources, which routinely label Vox far-right, and not a wide consensus. I don't see why anybody who aims for neutrality would oppose it, and the attempts to push for "far-right" label look to me only like the idea that Vox should always be mentioned with some negative-sentiment label attached, to form a negative emotional context, without going for some facts. Birdofpreyru (talk) 18:11, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Btw, far-right article has a good note in the Terminology section, with reference to expert opinion: the modern ambiguities in the definition of far-right politics lie in the fact that the concept is generally used by political adversaries to "disqualify and stigmatize all forms of partisan nationalism by reducing them to the historical experiments of Italian Fascism [and] German National Socialism." That 100% matches my naive feeling I tried to explaned above regarding many sources labeling Vox as "far-right" just because, without explaining how Vox qualifies. Birdofpreyru (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

You have attempted to make major changes to this article. Other editors have objected to those changes. If you build consensus for those changes, then yes, they can stand. But they don't stand while the issue is under discussion, and reverting them back to that version is textbook edit-warring. I asked you before to observe WP:BRD, which means you discuss before attempting to reinstate your challenged edits.

As far as the changes themselves go, (again) Vox is described by our own article as far right. The cited sources describe it as far right. In the source in question, "the guy" (i.e., Juan Carlos Girauta) says he sees no difference between Vox and UPyD and Cs, but the article itself unambiguously describes Vox as far right: En España, el partido VOX se le identifica con la ultraderecha.

If RS call a party far-right, we call it far-right; we do not highlight it is the opinion of those sources. Grandpallama (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you seriously calling a major change to call Vox "right-wing" instead of "far-right", in the context of this article? It is almost irrelevant change, if you are not biased. Regarding the source in question, which is weirdly enough not accessible now, as its host website is down according to https://downforeveryoneorjustme.com, I am pretty sure I did a search through article text by "ultra", "extrema" and so on queries, and have not encountered the qoute you claim here. Might be wrong, can't check it now, will come back to it later, and I guess if I can't confirm the source described them as ultraderecha, we have all rights to revert the label back to "right-wing". Birdofpreyru (talk) 15:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah, conveniently, Google allows to check the cached version of the article in question, thus I double-checked, and it does not contain the qoute you claim, namely "En España, el partido VOX se le identifica con la ultraderecha", nor any other mention of "derecha" "ultra" "extrema". Also, Google is not aware about such literal qoute in other sources, thus probably you just invented it. Thus, you lie in your statement above Grandpallama. Can we now remove the "far-right" label from citation of a source which does not give such qualification? Birdofpreyru (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

It is almost irrelevant change, if you are not biased. If it's so irrelevant, then why are you set on changing it?

I have struck my quotation above; somehow, while I thought I was looking at the Compos Times article, I ended up at [5], which is where I pulled the quotation from. Probably poor tab management on my part that I thought I was at the Compos Times article, but you are correct (and I am incorrect) that it is not from the article. Grandpallama (talk) 20:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

If it's so irrelevant, then why are you set on changing it? As I already told, I still strongly believe, as many other users who told you the same before, that calling Vox in a more neutral way "right-wing", is a way more adequate than calling it "far-right", in cases where it is not a qoute from cited source that calls it "far-right". And I ensure you, the question that many scholars seem to struggle to explain: "how comes that after a long period without any significant presence of a far-right party in Spain, especially compared to other European countries, Vox suddenly sky-rocketed in 2019" has a very simple explanation: that is because they are not far-right. They were called like that all around, which effectively created a higher barrier for them to enter into mainstream politics, but as electorate learned more and more news of them, many people just realised that their discourse a way more adequate and acceptable than what they thought assuming it is a "far-right" party. Well, I guess, if you are so determined to defend this "far-right" labels here, I won't waste more of my time, and leave it to the next users who come across it to try to explain you the same once again :D Birdofpreyru (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Vox is widely recognised as a far-right party, with plenty of references available to back that up, so there is nothing inherently controversial about describing Vox as such in this article either.--Autospark (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Abbreviation of the party

I want to invite to the discussion to @Impru20. Recently the party has changed the logo, and it looks like the abbreviation also from Cs to CS. I have reviewed the register of parties and they haven't changed it yet. However, for what can be seen in the logo both are capital letters and in this press release they use capital letters. What do you think? Basque mapping (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Let's wait until the next electoral contest to see whether there is an abbreviation change or not! Impru20^talk 00:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, it seems fine to me. Anyway, I've seen that in Spanish Wikipedia they have already changed it. Cheers! Basque mapping (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)