Talk:Citizens (Spanish political party)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Murcia ciudadanos

In murcia a king maker as pp needs Cs to form a govt .and psoe is in tge same boat.demanding govt jobs for its nembers and govt policy accordingbto Cs policy.education is big for Cs.bilingual education.setting external quality control of b1 for graduating child school and b2 to enter high school. External tests for guaranteed english.vox also might play same way..if its seats are needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.4.184.25 (talk) 18:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

citizens murcia bilingual education and ingles garantizado

clever idea to have a spin off from partido popular ..a bit to the left or centre. in murcia it is the king maker. Ciudadanos best idea is in education .they want to have external quality control of everything.. children must pass a standard maths test to finish 6th grade at 12 years old. and an english exam b1 pet level as well. they want all subjects to have standard exams.. all kids in all schools same day.. they say that too many schools pump the grades nowadays.they want teachers also to be aware of theses tests.external quality control in education is so american and runs opposite the spanish ed system which is more social..groups are name based not iq based..its a great idea especially in bilingual education as in spain most bilingual schools are the cart is pulling the horse.... they put up the name before they are really bilingual.. ciudadanos wants to make it real..in murcia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.32.240.56 (talk) 07:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Labeling Vox as far right

According to Vox’s wiki page, the party is “right wing to far right” with sources for both positions. With this is mind I would request we either use the same description here, or just not make reference to the political position, in the name of consistency. Nigel Abe (talk) 14:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

How about following what the sources state vis-à-vis that party in connection to what Citizens do? That is. Not doing original research.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

How is looking at what the party’s own wiki page says original research? The party’s wiki states their political position to be right wing to far right, with sources for both, thus if we are to be consistent we should either employ the same description here or not give the political position. Nigel Abe (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes it is. You can't transplant a misrepresentation of sources across Wikipedia disregarding what sources do in different contexts.--Asqueladd (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Look at Vox (political party). All I’ve done is re state what it says, “right wing to far right” with both having sources in the article. If using what wiki defines a party’s political position as along with its sources is somehow a misrepresentation or original research then it’s impossible to make en edit without doing original research or making a misrepresentation. Nigel Abe (talk) 00:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Asqueladd is, as usual, correct, and is paraphrasing what you will find at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which you should read. Consider building more experience in editing WP before diving into controversial areas, and consider taking into account the concerns/objections that have been raised on multiple talk pages at your attempts to change sourced descriptions of left-wing and right-wing affiliations. Grandpallama (talk) 13:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I’ve looked at the page, and found this quote: “ When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides ”. This is what I’m trying to do, elsewhere on Wikipedia, the party is not described as just “right wing” or “far right” but “right wing to far right”. Unless you intend to change its affiliation on all other articles to “far right” how can it be labeled that way alone here and cause inconsistencies? Nigel Abe (talk) 14:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The relevant quotation is Non-fiction literature, such as an encyclopedia, is expected to be internally consistent. As such, arguing in favor of consistency among Wikipedia articles is not inherently wrong–it is to be preferred. Only when the precedent is itself in conflict with policy, guidelines or common sense is it wrong to argue that the precedent should be followed elsewhere. The terminology used here is sourced appropriately, which is the policy, and the attempt to change it from the longstanding text has been opposed. In fact, as has been patiently explained to you elsewhere, the idea of "far right" falls within "right wing", so treating them as mutually exclusive isn't kosher; moreover, it definitely doesn't support the removal of references to "far right", which is what your edits did. There is no inconsistency in it being described as "far right" here and also as "far right" on its own page, which is the current state. Grandpallama (talk) 16:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Alright, if you can give me RS that supports the idea of “far right falls within right wing” I will accept your argument and cease. Otherwise, I will continue to view this idea as original research and as running counter to Wikipedia seeming to view right wing and far right as separate, based on their separate pages. Nigel Abe (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

How does the existence of separate pages indicate different meanings? The opening sentence of of far right is Far-right politics are politics further on the right of the left-right spectrum than the standard political right, which undermines your argument entirely. Grandpallama (talk) 18:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The “standard political right” is the right wing, and with it being further enough to the right it becomes its own category (just as the center right is further enough to the left than the right wing to be its own category) . I fail to see how this in any way undermines my argument and implies the conclusion that far right falls within right wing (which I still ask for RS for). Nigel Abe (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I do not think you will gain consensus for your particular interpretation of this (that "right wing" = "centrist right" only, which most will view as flawed, or to change the longstanding text that is supported by reliable sources. Grandpallama (talk) 19:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I did not say that right wing = center right. I said right wing and center right are far enough away from each other that they are considered different categories, just like right wing and far right are far enough away that most people consider them different categories. Additionally your statement that right wing = far right I have asked twice now to see RS for and have not, so I don’t see how that rationale to not use the description of “right wing to far right” which is attributed to reliable sources for both positions back on the party’s wiki page, is “supported by reliable sources” Nigel Abe (talk) 20:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

That "far right" falls under the umbrella of "right wing" has been explained to you multiple times, most fully here. No editor needs to provide RS to explain this basic concept, and the requests/demands for such increasingly look like sealioning.

You have not gained consensus for your edits removing various usages of "far right" on this page, and you just tried to edit war back in a reverted edit that inexplicably removes a reliable source in order to push the type of POV for which you have argued in the past. If you do this again, at any page, you'll find yourself at a noticeboard. Grandpallama (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

First: I continually ask for sources on your claim that far right falls under the umbrella of right wing (and sufficiently show that the sources in dispute use right wing as an umbrella since right wing is still its own category) because this concept sounds unknown to me and about two people on this platform have argued it to me. If this was a legitimate concept supported by sources and is being used by the sources disputed, I would happily relent and let you keep things as is, because even if this is to you an obvious concept, to me it isn’t, and even the most obvious concepts have sources confirming them (as an example, it is obvious the sky is blue, but to some who are perhaps colorblind your May need to give them a source saying so, and since the key is indeed blue there are many available).

Second: I re added my edit with the addition of more sources. I’ll have a conversation with the original editor on the matter if he so desires but not only is “center” used to describe the party further in the article with even more sources than I’ve used, but to disregard these sources in favor of one which refers to the party as “right wing” not only gives undue weight, it also violates your own logic regarding the term (as a third opinion, there could be a compromise to only include center right as the position, since it’s the medium between center and right wing and no one has yet disputed that).

Third: I don’t have interest in threats. If you want to go to a noticeboard fine, but if we do I’ll explain that all I’ve seen is editors use a still unsourced concept as if it were scientific fact and using it to justify giving undue weight to a single source and disregarding a consensus among others.

Nigel Abe (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I re added my edit with the addition of more sources. I’ll have a conversation with the original editor on the matter if he so desires You re-added your edit that removed sourced information along with the source itself, and you did so after having already been reverted, after the language was already disputed, and when a talkpage discussion was already occurring. Per BRD, you need to seek consensus after being reverted the first time, which indicates that discussion is required, and that the onus is on you to acquire consensus to allow your edit to stand; I know that you are new to Wikipedia, but you've decided to immediately begin editing hot-button topics, and that necessitates learning and adhering to policy (which is why I advised you to build experience in less contentious areas of the encyclopedia first). And you can take my warning as a threat if you want, but edit warring, ignoring consensus, and ignoring policy are brightline issues on Wikipedia, and warnings are the next step when an editor persists with these actions. I'm struggling to assume good faith here, since I know you've been told such things before. Grandpallama (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I have created a talk section regarding the issue and (I think) pinged the original editor. I try to make edits is less contentious areas when I can but many a time there’s little that needs doing there and I find myself whisked back to these battlegrounds. Nigel Abe (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)