Talk:Carles Puigdemont

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FAQ[edit]

I'm pinning two RfCs at the top in the hope that it informs editors about current consensus.

RexxS (talk)

MEP[edit]

It seems from the reference given and subsequently removed, https://www.cope.es/actualidad/espana/noticias/puigdemont-inicia-los-tramites-para-recoger-acta-eurodiputado-parlamento-europeo-20191220_578946 that as of 20 December 2019, Puigdemont has been accepted as a Spanish MEP, representing the Junts per Catalunya alliance. I'm giving a general caution to editors not to remove properly sourced content, and I'll invite Impru20 to explain why they removed the content and the reference, rather than simply amending any perceived errors.

In the UK, MEPs have regional constituencies, but I can't find a source that suggests the same is true in Spain, and therefore it seems likely that Puigdemont may not necessarily represent Catalonia as an MEP. However he clearly is a representative of the alliance that sponsored his candidacy, Junts per Catalunya. To avoid the arguments, I'm going to suggest the addition of Puigdemont's office as MEP to the infobox using the following: 

| office6 = Spanish member of the [[European Parliament]] representing [[Junts per Catalunya]]
| term_start6 = 20 December 2019<ref>{{cite news |title=Puigdemont inicia los trámites para recoger su acta de eurodiputado en el Parlamento Europeo |url=https://www.cope.es/actualidad/espana/noticias/puigdemont-recoge-acta-eurodiputado-parlamento-europeo-20191220_578946 |work=[[Cope]] |date=22 December 2019 |lang=es}}</ref>

I don't know what convention the editors here prefer: either (1) to put the offices in some sort of chronological order; or (2) put current offices at the top, and expired offices beneath. Either way, I'm sure some consensus can be found which simply involves renumbering the office parameters.

I hope that consensus can be found for a suitable wording, as a politician's current office is clearly a key fact in their biography, and should be included per WP:DUE. It is already present in the body of the article. --RexxS (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a bit too premature to add that Puigdemont is an MEP. Although the legal ruling has gone his way, we should wait until he's officially taken his place in parliamentary chamber and the European Parliament's website has been updated. As for the infobox, please see Diana Riba as to how it should look like.--Obi2canibe (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, there is not such a thing as "MEP for Catalonia" as 95.23.197.174 kept adding; if anything, and as per consistency elsewhere in Wikipedia, it would be "Member of the European Parliament for Spain" (which is the electoral constituency, Catalonia is not a constituency for EP elections) or just "Member of the European Parliament" (nothing like "MEP representing [party/alliance]" is done elsewhere, so shouldn't be done here either).
Secondly, Puigdemont is not yet shown as a MEP in the European Parliament page itself, and the COPE source that is being persistently provided says he won't be MEP until, at least, January 2020:
Su objetivo es iniciar los trámites necesarios para recibir las credenciales de eurodiputados, un procedimiento que, según han explicado fuentes parlamentarias a Europa Press "no concluirá este viernes, sino en enero" [...] Los datos serán verificados por la comisión europarlamentaria de Asuntos Jurídicos y si se concluye el proceso en los plazos habituales tendrán su acreditación definitiva en enero, lo que les permitiría ocupar su escaño en el pleno de la Eurocámara que arrancará el 13 de enero en Estrasburgo (Francia).
This only requires for users to have actually read the source, so I'm assuming those who kept re-adding it didn't read it at all.
In conclusion, yes, it would be premature to add him as such right now for the obvious reason that he is not yet a MEP. And obviously, once added, it should be with correct information.
Also it is not logical to keep replacing a previous office such as the one of member of the city council of Girona, which obviously should still stay. Once Puigdemont becomes full MEP, possibly such an office should appear at the top of the infobox, as it'd be his most current office.
Now, I hope 95.23.197.174 knows how to get their facts right before going on to insult people and calling them "subnormal", because you could very well get indeffed for such a reckless behaviour. You were asked for justification and you provided none, not even for a single time (other than your insult, btw), while persistently replacing correct content from the infobox with inaccurate content. Impru20talk 21:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not a very good introduction to WP to insult editors, like 95.23.197.174 did. As for the content, it is all a matter of time to have the indefinite MEP position. For all the bla-bla-bla of the COPE source above, which elaborates on the idea that he has still paper-work to do, the MEP office is clear, but on a temporary basis. COPE is a source with set partisan views on key national matters in Spain, so no wonder. Check out also here [1]. On the infobox, my view is that hierarchy prevails, so MEP first. This is strictly about constituencies, so I should altogether agree with RexxS' arrangement above. Iñaki LL (talk) 23:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know about the possible partisan nature of the COPE source (I only noted that the IP editor seemingly kept trying to assert in the infobox something that the source they themselves provided did not back up). But that is why I brought the source from the European Parliament itself, which does not show Puigdemont as a MEP yet, not even provisionally. Obviously, it must be assumed he won't get the full bit until the entire procedure is over and he gets the definitive acreditation, or at the very least until he is shown as a MEP in the official sources (otherwise, we as an encyclopedia would be giving information that the European Parliament itself does not yet list as such, which seems rather awkward and a violation of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTALBALL). This does not preclude information about him having initiated formal procedures to become a MEP to be described in the text of the article, though. Impru20talk 23:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is a point to what you note above on the EP's list. I do not think, however, this is WP:CRYSTALBALL in the slightest, just a matter of nuance. He is elected MEP, and is formally MEP, though administratively on a temporary basis. Further comments here on this may clarify the way forward on this respect. Iñaki LL (talk) 23:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The date 20 December 2019 is utterly non-notable vis-à-vis the infobox. Puigdemont has been MEP-elect since 26 May, and he is reportedly going to assume as MEP in January 2020 or later. A case could be made for something like inserting the office without date and a "accredited" qualifier or so, but considering the possibility of WP:CRYSTALBALL, I don't see a need to rush and experiment in the infobox regardless of further delving on the whole ruckus in the body of the article. The infobox format proposed by RexxS inserting the electoral list instead of the constituency is absurdwholly unappropiate. Regarding the location of the information, as far as I know, the more recent the office is, the higher the office tends to appear in the infoboxes in English Wikipedia.--Asqueladd (talk) 01:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Asqueladd: Please don't call other editors suggestions to move forward "absurd". These issues are "hot button" topics and there is an obligation on everyone's part to remain civil. From the sources I've seen, it looks like Puigdemont's term as an MEP will be backdated to July 2019, so I agree that an authoritative source for the start date needs to be found. It seems to me reasonable to wait for that. On the other hand, there was a General Election in the UK last week, and all of the newly elected MPs' articles were updated within hours of their election; editors did not wait for the MPs to be sworn in, which took place several days later. A confirmed election result was sufficient to update articles on British MPs, and I don't buy the argument that the same does not apply to a confirmed election result for a Spanish MEP. As for the wording, UK MEPs seem to use the more specific {{Infobox MEP}} which produces a display such as "Member of the European Parliament for London". For consistency, I don't have a problem with ""Member of the European Parliament for Spain" if his constituency is all of Spain – although I see no reason why editors have excluded party/alliance affiliations from infoboxes. Perhaps Asqueladd can explain why that convention was adopted? --RexxS (talk) 02:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@RexxS: if his constituency is all of Spain Indeed it is. The Organic Law 1/1987, 2 April, for the modification of the Organic Law 5/1985, 19 June, for the General Electoral Regime, for the regulation of the elections to the European Parliament establishes the electoral "circunscripción" (constituency) to be the whole Spanish territory. But that is already obvious from the reading of any article about the elections. Perhaps Asqueladd can explain why that convention was adopted? I haven't been here since the dawn of time, I can only speculate: among other reasons possibly because of the haphazard nature of electoral coalitions/electoral lists, often not made to last longer than the electoral process itself. Other reason is possibly because of the fact that the European Parliament operates on a basic level in terms of political groups (akin to parliamentary groups), not parties. Other possible reason is the very notion of imperative mandate, banned in most parliamentary systems and which precludes legislators' vote from having any other due allegiance (in sort of rights) than themselves. Do you think they are already enough reasons?--Asqueladd (talk) 02:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Asqueladd: Not really. If those reasons were valid they would apply equally to the text of the article, where we invariably find the party or alliance affiliation of the officeholder prominently stated. I can't find a single politician's biography where that is not the case. Similarly, looking at List of members of the European Parliament, 2014–2019, you'll find that editors have chosen to identify MEPs by their party or affiliation list, not by their constituency. I still fail to see what is so different about MEPs infoboxes that has lead to the exclusion of their affiliation. Of course, you could just say "it's a question of space, so editors have decided to leave affiliation out of the infobox", but that would then undercut your assertion that my suggestion was "absurd", wouldn't it? --RexxS (talk) 03:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@RexxS: but that would then undercut your assertion that my suggestion was "absurd", wouldn't it? You have begged me not to call other editors suggestions to move forward "absurd"... So, well, unless you are playing some passive-agressive engagement behaviour, don't make me answer that question, because, guess what, I still think it is absurd and lacking of any comprehension of how a parliament operates wholly unappropiate. Another possible reason is the fact that the constituency is something immutable for the whole term. Anyhow, if your question (Perhaps Asqueladd can explain...) rather than to learn about something was a catty way of taking a jibe at someone because they deemed your proposal "absurd" while making a case for the inclusion of the party/whatnot in the infobox, to be honest I think you are wasting your time.--Asqueladd (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Ok, Asqueladd, let's put it another way. I am offended by your assertions that my suggestion was "absurd" and that I lack "any comprehension of how a parliament operates". Those are personal attacks and I'm going to ask you politely to strike them now. Otherwise, I'll simply ask another administrator who is uninvolved to sanction you for your unacceptable behaviour. You need to learn to concentrate on the substance of any disagreement and not make disparaging remarks about other editors.
Moving forward, is there anyone who disagrees with the proposition that we should add, near or at the top of the list, Puigdemont's office as "Member of the European Parliament for Spain" because his constituency is all of Spain? and secondly that we should add the start date for his tenure as soon as we have an authoritative source for that date? --RexxS (talk) 04:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@RexxS: let's put it another way Certainly a much better way. :) I'll strike that "unacceptable behaviour" worthy of heavy sanctions and I hope you may take valuable information about the convenience of being straightforward. Cheers!--Asqueladd (talk) 04:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would personally prefer to fill the 'constituency' parametre rather than completing the 'office' parametre with additional information (but that would also depend on re-formatting the parametres regarding his post of Member of the Parliament of Catalonia). It looks cleaner, although it detracts some vertical space. Regarding the date, I am afraid that we are not going to have an authoritative source for that date until that date presents (it should fall after the end of the Christmas stop on 6 January), but, ok. --Asqueladd (talk) 04:33, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat related. The article is innaccurate/lack of nuance when it states On 20 December 2019, Puigdemont was accredited as a MEP after a ruling from the European Court of Justice said that he was permitted to take on his role as MEP.. The ruling by the ECJ in answer to the query of the Supreme Court of Spain concerned only the issue of the status of Oriol Junqueras (and AFAIK it did not mention Puigdemont nor Comín). The legal services of the EP et. al. just reacted after that regarding the case of the later elected MEPs.--Asqueladd (talk) 04:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Too much legalistic jargon/noise for nothing. It detracts from the basic fact that he was elected by the people as MEP in an official election and he is now administratively recognized as such, although he has still paper-work ahead. I am fine with RexxS's solution: "Member of the European Parliament for Spain". I am not sure whether the latest or the most important position should be stated, but for the matter both coincide. Iñaki LL (talk) 09:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Political prisoner[edit]

I don't think this category should be added. He's not obviously described (except by himself) as such in reliable sources, and he's not even called apolitical prisoner at any point in this article. Unbh (talk) 11:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Whoop whoop pull up: Political prisonship is a controversy in case of Carles. I think a category Category_Political_Prisonship_Controversy would rather fit here.--Geysirhead (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is definitely a political prisonship controversy. [2], [3], [4] --Geysirhead (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given that any political prisoner's political-prisonership is going to be disputed (by the regime imprisoning them, at any rate), I'd say this justifies readding Category:Political prisoners. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 17:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then your comprehension of the Category "Political Prisoner" should be added into the description of the category. Basically, the category already contains at least two subcategories for "disputed" cases.--Geysirhead (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the category should be added either for a reason as simple as WP:CATV: the only mention in the article of him being a political prisoner is actually contradictory: On 23 February 2018, Puigdemont's portrait was ordered to be removed from Santiago Sierra's “Contemporary Spanish Political Prisoners” exhibition in Madrid. I'll proceed to remove the category for the same reason. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality?[edit]

The Wikipedia manual of style references a RfC on use of Spanish regional identity in biography leads which states [...] if sources generally use a certain identity when referring to someone, and it is clear that the person self-identifies with that identity, to use that identity".

Why then is he introduced as a "Spanish politician and journalist", when according to the rule it should be a "Catalan politician and journalist"?

Kind regards, 134.184.232.77 (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, it was an anonymous' vandalism.
Kind regards, Bsckr (talk) 14:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I changed to a Catalan politician and journalist. Not necessary to specify the Spain in that sentence. It is logic. El Caganer (talk) 06:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carles_Puigdemont&oldid=1215966486"