This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catalan-speaking countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history, languages, and cultures of Catalan-speaking countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Catalan-speaking countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Catalan-speaking countriesTemplate:WikiProject Catalan-speaking countriesCatalan-speaking countries
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
@Crystallizedcarbon: Replacing "Catalan" with "Spanish from Catalonia" means using Castilian custom, because it uses the birthplace to define her as Spanish but not Catalan,[1] and we know that Spain is plurinational, already documented in Wikipedia with two articles: Nationalities and regions of Spain and National and regional identity in Spain. Using the term "Spanish Catalan" is also wrong. If your Castilian custom (see peer reviewed paper The Sardana: Catalan Dance and Catalan National Identity) considers Catalan people as Spanish you don't need to put Spanish. If your custom does not define Catalan people as Spanish, using "Catalan" is also correct. Is up to you to consider Catalan people Spanish. There is no need to put Spanish. It depends on your custom the interpretation you give to it WP:POV. Ada Colau is Catalan as per Catalan custom, and Castilian as per Castilian custom if we consider that Catalonia is a member of Castile (Spain). I am restoring the version previous to your edit, edit which is an example of a vexed and baffled (quote from the cited journal article) Castilian person. Another example of Castilian custom being used to negate Catalan identity can be found in an article of "El Español": [2]. Filiprino (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is a country constituted as an autonomous community in the country of Spain. In fact, the statute of autonomy and the constitution itself recognize the Catalan nation. Filiprino (talk) 19:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim that Catalonia is a country is wrong it is a region of Spain constituted as an autonomous community. Please provide a reliable source that explicitly states that Catalonia is a Country. Do not confuse the term nationalities used in the Spanish Constitution with nation. See Nationalities and regions of Spain that you quoted above:
the second article was passed along with the term "nationalities" but firmly stressing the indivisible unity of the Spanish nation.[8] It reads:
The Constitution is based on the indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation, the common and indivisible homeland of all Spaniards; it recognizes and guarantees the right to self-government of the nationalities and regions of which it is composed and the solidarity among them all
— Second Article of the Spanish Constitution of 1978
You added "from Catalonia" as if it was not a country and you did not mention its Catalan nationality, which exists, as anthropologists have already demonstrated. Legal affairs like the Constitution of Spain are not a valid source for stating who is Spanish or who is Catalan. Ethnicites are not a legal status, but a recognition made by a social group to a person who now they find as belonging to the group. So, because Spain does not allow Catalans to recognise others as Catalans and give the legal status of Catalan (legally, only Spaniard), does it mean that Catalan nationality (and hence, the nation) does not exist? I don't think so. Nation, nationality and country can't exist without any of the others. Moreover, the term nationalities in the Spanish constitution is not defined. It has no legal use, except "Spanish nationality" in article 11. But we know that the Spanish Nation is plurinational. That is, there is no such a "Spanish Nation" or "Spanish Nationality" but many nations which agreed to coexist within a single State, having a common foreign policy. Now, you ask for sources talking about Catalonia as a Country: [3] quote, page 3, paragraph 2: "Catalonia is a country of varied geographical character;". I would rewrite the Wikipedia article sentence to use the ethnic followed by the state (or states) in which currently that ethnic coexists. Filiprino (talk) 00:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On our article of Catalonia we describe it as an autonomous community in Spain, not as a country. If you attempt to edit the article itself you can read: "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.". Please refer to those discussions. That would be the proper place to make your arguments if your are still not convinced. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I bring you sources, you talk about another article and don't bring sources. Wikipedia policy clearly states that you can not write articles based on how other articles are written: . As I already said, the term nationality is not defined in the constitution, the same for the Spanish Nationality which does not state what ethnics form the Spanish Nationality. I have defeated your arguments, still you insist on "officiality" (official definition does not exist). I bring you scientific definitions and you reject them. If we had to go by official terms then Catalan place names should be used in the Spanish Wikipedia, and we know that is not the case, they use a book of place names as basis for their naming scheme. Your problem is that you are confounding "country" with "state": Country vs. State. A state is a country which also has sovereignty. Because of that confusion, you are talking about Catalonia as if it was a mere administrative division of Spain, Catalonia as a constituent country. If we go by the Catalan statute of autonomy [4] the preamble reads the following: Cataluña es un país rico en territorios y gentes, una diversidad que la define y la enriquece desde hace siglos y la fortalece para los tiempos venideros. Article 1 also says that Catalonia is a nationality, and because of the Spanish constitution of 1978, it is defined as an Autonomous Community, a mere administrative division, a constituent country. Now you can throw me that part of article 1 into my face, but the preamble and the article 1 itself define Catalonia as a country with its own nationality. Anthropology also uses ethnics, not legal affairs. Legal affairs can use "Democratic Republic of the Congo" to name a country that by all means has not been democratic until recently. The same goes for "Autonomous Community". Filiprino (talk) 12:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect, Article one of the document you cited reads: "Cataluña, como nacionalidad, ejerce su autogobierno constituida en Comunidad Autónoma de acuerdo con la Constitución y con el presente Estatuto, que es su norma institucional básica." which in the official English version of the document reads: "Catalonia, as a nationality, exercises its self-government constituted as an autonomous community in accordance with the Constitution and with this Estatut, which is its basic institutional act."; It mentions nationality as defined by the Spanish Constitution and states that it is an autonomous community ruled by both the Constitution of Spain and the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia. you can read it yourself in the official current English version. You will see that the word country is not mentioned a single time in the document. In the preamble in English it uses "Catalonia is a land rich in territories and peoples...". As I said before, this matter has already being discussed at length in the past. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 13:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Land is a synonim of country [5]. Wikipedia policy does state internal cohesion, not external cohesion. The Spanish Constitution does not define what is a nationality. The statutes of autonomy define the nationalities, in the case of Catalonia, Catalonia is a nationality of Spain, as its statute states, and is also a country (land) as per its preamble, and a constituent country as per Spanish Constitution. What has been already discussed is irrelevant. Filiprino (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is the wrong meaning. You are just twisting words. Do you think that California being well-known as the land of fruits and nuts means it is a country see here or that when in this article they refer to Asturias as "a land of crazy physical contrast" they mean to say it is a country? The document says what it says, not what you want it to say. Also your claim that Catalonia is defined as a constituent country in the Spanish Constitution is false. That term is not used anywhere in the Constitution and there are no explicit references to Catalonia itself. The only mention of nationalities and regions on article 2 cited above to state their level of autonomy and where it also makes clear that Spain is the common homeland of all Spaniards (see here or in the quote above). This is very different from a constituent country as is the case in the United Kingdom for example. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong meaning because you say so, right? The document with legal value is the Spanish version, not the translation. The Spanish version clearly states country, so land must be synonym of country, and as such it appears in the English dictionary. Then you divert into a random article talking about tourism. Meanwhile I have offered you scientific sources talking about nationalism[6] and country history[7]. Still, you continue with legal affairs. We are talking about people, not laws. We are talking about anthropology, not politics. The Constitution does not define what is Spain nor what constituent countries is it formed by. But again, that would be a legal argument, irrelevant from the science perspective to define nationalities and countries[8]. You keep confusing Country with State and Anthropology with Law. If we were in Franco's dictatorship Law would dictate that Catalan people and other nationalities do not exist at all. And you would obey that. That's nonsense. Filiprino (talk) 16:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BOE is not published in English. Neither is DOGC. Translations are available for informative purposes. The official texts are in Spanish and Catalan. And the English version states "land" which is synonym of "country", "país" in Spanish and "païs" in Catalan. Your argument is based on law, and law counters your arguments. Additionally, law is not the only reliable source. Science is another reliable source which prevails over law when law fails, because law tend to be written after established concepts by science, such as in [[9]. The lists you provided is a list of (sovereign) countries, that is, States. But Catalonia is also a country. Bye. Filiprino (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is an ongoing debate, and the constitution excerpts brought above have absolutely nothing to do with the WP ("indivisibility of Spain", serious???, let us leave political/legal dogmas and totems aside). I do not understand this insistence bu some on removing Catalan from everywhere. Iñaki LL (talk) 10:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What dogma? That is the same article of the constitution that introduced the term nationalities used and cited above as an argument, so I do think is very relevant. What I see is the insistence of editors that have a clear POV in favor of independence trying to remove Spanish as country of nationality to try to support unsourced claims that Catalonia is a country (see above) that to me is WP:ADVOCACY. You, yourself claimed that the Spanish flag offends you. For now, the status quo should remain. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What dogma? The nationalist dogma you are bringing here, citing even "the indivisibility of Spain" (sic). We have come a long what way in this issue, and a lot of litigation here and here, for which we all are tired. Still you insist on your pursuit, this one: remove Catalan, put Spanish instead. You have actually not supported your "Spanish" claim you mention above. Iñaki LL (talk) 07:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"That the Spanish flag offends you". Please bring the diff. Yes, clearly it offends me if it is imposed on me as it is imposed by hefty fines and threats in Catalonia and the Basque Country, or in sportsmen/women if they do not want to see their careers ruined. Iñaki LL (talk) 07:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Iñaki, we have discussed this in the past and you admitted it, You clearly have a very strong POV on this subject. I personally believe that it is impairing your better judgement.
In answer to your request, your comment about the Spanish flag was prompted by me pointing out your strong POV on Catalan independence referendum, 2017 based on the fact that you have a userbox on your userpage stating that you are against policies of Mariano Rajoy in reference to not allowing the referendum as shown by the crossed ballot box. Your response was to say that your were being honest and that the Spanish flag in my page was not "a neutral symbol in this issue". This was my reply and this was your response. I had to rescue those diffs, it's true that you did not use those exact words then, you said that it was imposed as well as the ID that states that you are Spanish. Correct me if I am wrong, but by your comments I gather that you feel that to be a false imposition by the Spanish government. About the flag, you just clarified that it offends you.
Now let me clarify to you that I am not in any way against Catalonia, Catalans, the Catalan flag or the Basque flag. One side of my family happens to be Catalan, of them, most are proud to be both Catalan and Spanish. This has nothing to do with that, I am simply trying to stop what I see as clear efforts directed to use Wikipedia as an advocacy tool by various editors who do not want Catalonia to be part of Spain and want to change the current political reality.
If you did not have such a strong bias, you may have realized that the reason for adding the excerpt from Nationalities and regions of Spain was just to put into context and clarify the meaning of "nationalities" which was introduced by the constitution itself and was misused by Filprino to imply that Catalonia is a country. I quoted it to show why Filiprino's claim was false. There was no intent on mentioning the indivisibility of the Spanish nation. Even if it would have been my intention, which it was not, the fact that the current version of the Spanish constitution states its indivisibility is not a dogma, is just a fact. One which, of course. may change in the future, but that at this point is the political reality.
A wall again??? Have not you followed previous discussions about walls? I will not take your ad hominem path. Your activity shows what your edits are about, you portray yourself and that is enough: you are intent on removing Catalan, and adding Spanish, despite all the discussion, knowing it is a highly (partisan) contentious issue in the WP community and in Catalonia itself. Bye. Iñaki LL (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is your view, for some reason you don't seem to think that it applies to the IP which started it all by changing the previous status quo of the article, but that's OK. All I did was revert that edit done without consensus and add "from Catalonia" to the article. There is a difference. Bye. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ada Colau has a nationwide projection in Spain which goes beyond Catalonia. I will not engage in a discussion on whether Catalonia is a country or not (basically because this is mostly non-relevant for the disucssion at had), but if I remind correctly, some of the arguments used at Talk:Carles Puigdemont were the person's personal preferences and/or how he/she is known elsewhere. Colau was well-known as a Spain-wide national spokeswoman of the PAH even before she choose to start a political career of her own (in fact, her social activism nationwide was the main reason for her notability at the time), and has actively participated in election campaigns at a national level: the local elections of 2015 (where she also campaigned outside Barcelona, such as a rally with Carmena in Madrid) or the general elections of 2015 and 2016 (she even ran as a candidate to the Congress of Deputies in 2015 and 2016 for the province of Barcelona, even if just symbolically [10][11]). She is also quite active in Spanish politics from her position as Mayor of Barcelona, and has even been referred by English sources (take The Guardian) as "a figurehead of the new leftwing politics sweeping Spain". I do not care about the issues that some users may have about Catalonia's political status, but clearly, defining Colau as a "Catalan representative", while technically not untrue, is not reflective of her career, status or projection, which would make "Spanish representative" more precise. So please, I'd like to ask people to come with more thoroughly-thought arguments than merely seeking to define a person based on his/her birthplace or on the political status of an autonomous community. Specially because this discussion is seemingly being brought by the same people to a wide-range of Catalan-born people without caring about the actual person in question. Impru20talk21:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is disturbing, so if I get notability out of my original and activity area, I change my identity, wow! The definite solution would be the individual's own consideration/statement of her collective identity, since we are about transmitting knowledge, not bureaucracy. Failing that, Spanish Catalan could fit in pretty well. His speech as a spokeswoman for the PAH may be taken into account of course, but I consider myself well-informed, and associate her with Barcelona and Catalan issues. Furthermore, no WP:VER has been provided yet, as far as I know. Iñaki LL (talk) 08:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The articles describes Colau as a "Spanish left-wing representative from Catalonia", which according to reliable sources is the most accurate and descriptive term to refer to her. The issue is that some wish to turn this into an identity battle, which is absurd. You, for example, have only participated in the discussion to talk about Catalonia's status, rather than to lay out actual reasons as to why "Catalan left-wing representative" is more descriptive than "Spanish left-wing representative". In fact, the whole discussion since it was started by Filiprino has revolved on a generic debate on ethnicity and regional customs, rather than on the actual person. I am not going to enter into an identity debate which does not belongs here. Impru20talk10:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The subject is not only Spanish, she also feels Spanish as she declared in a recent interview were she also said to be against the independence of Catalonia from Spain. She of course is also Catalan, European and Barcelonian (See here: Ada Colau: “Yo siento a España como algo propio”). But I do not think that is relevant. Also, since she is the mayor of Barcelona she is cited by sources mostly at that level, but again, I do not think she should be introduced as "a Barcelonian left-wing representative" or as a "left-wing representative from Barcelona". At an ongoing RfC some editors suggested using the number of sources or what the person was notable for to decide which level to use. MOSBIO sets the country of citizenship as the objective criteria and unless the RfC changes that, I feel that it should be followed as currently written. Meanwhile the current status quo for this article should be respected. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:32, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first of all, the reference provided does not support her as "Spanish left-wing representative from Catalonia", where did you find that? That should be made clear first. The article actually prefers not to engage in identity issues, knowing that is a a controversial issue. You have instead engaged in a pursuit to remove Catalan and add Spanish from a number of articles, you have been reminded of that. MOS defines also nationality, so not only citizenship. Ada Colau and her group have also
What I propose is an appropriate solution from a diversity and knowledge point of view which should be fair and reasonable to everyone, and I think that should let lay the whole Spanish/Catalan issue to rest and leave the nationality pushing aside. Iñaki LL (talk) 13:53, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What you propose is to stick to the identity issue all over again. I think I am the first person in the whole discussion who is even trying to address Colau's actual career (which is the topical scope of the article) and not Catalonia's status (which is not) or Catalan "diversity" needs (which are not, either). The Guardian source which I did brought is crystal clear on the issue, as the article is a perfect example of an English source covering Colau's career showing her relevance and projection in Spanish-wide politics (and more could be found). Also, I am quite surprised on the assertion that what I propose is an appropriate solution from a diversity and knowledge point of view which should be fair and reasonable to everyone. This is nearly as worrying as the title of this discussion itself (She is Catalan, hence she can also be Spanish), because all of it seems to imply that "Catalan" is an inclusive term from a "diversity" viewpoint, yet "Spanish" is somehow excluding or offending, which I think is an outrightly wrong approach. While being Catalan does not preclude being Spanish, being Spanish does not preclude being Catalan either, so I do not know where the actual issue is, aside from personal preferences (which should be left out from the discussion) or the term's suitability to better describe a person (which seems a better argument to use). The latter of which is basically dependant on the territorial projection of the person in question, which is really the only issue why "Catalan" or "Spanish" would fit best depending on the case.
This said, describing Colau as "Spanish left-wing representative from Catalonia" is perfectly reflective of how she is described and referred in English reliable sources as well as her career, which is the whole point here. "Catalan left-wing representative from Spain" would not be wrong for her, but it excludes or minimizes Colau's actual career beyond Catalonia (which is 1) what gained her notability in the first place and 2) a public projection of her in which she is also pretty much active as of currently). Impru20talk14:18, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Impru20, if you have a source and feel so strong about it, well add it, since you are so keen on having "Spanish" added. That is one of the points. The other is there are other options rather than putting "Spanish" at all costs and are perfectly in line with WP general tenets, as I have explained above. Just citing "from Barcelona" should be defining enough, still you may add later from Catalonia or Spain or from Catalonia, Spain, if Barcelona is not enough. The wider geographical information is provided there.
There is no need to insist adding the highly controversial identity tag again, you know it is a matter of heated controversy in the EN WP, and the single most important bone of contention in Spanish politics nowadays. Well, if you insist on adding it, please do it with an idea of inclusion, integration of knowledge and diversity, and not yet again, adding your "Spanish" preference. Iñaki LL (talk) 10:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, arguing that we should think on whether to use one word or the other in terms of "inclusion, integration of knowledge and diversity" goes against WP:CENSORED. Wikipedia does not try to make some people happy, but rather, tries to reflect encyclopedic facts. Then, the "identity tag" is controversial precisely because of some people bringing such a POV-ish controversy in here, not because there is any actual controversy in the use of either "Catalan (from Spain)" or "Spanish (from Catalonia)" in terms of inclusiveness. The only actual controversy that I may think of would be on whether "Catalan" complies with MOS:LEADBIO. But let's take for granted that it does: the only issue then would be which one of the terms better fits with what MOS:LEADBIO demands in a case-by-case basis; this is, which term better helps in providing a context explaining why the person became notable which also connects to the notable position(s) the person held, activities they took part in, or roles they played. I've defended that "Spanish" better explains Colau's career and helps explaining her own context as a former social activist and a current politician who keeps playing a significant role in Spanish left-wing politics. Surely, there could be valid arguments for defending the use of "Catalan" as well, but those of "inclusion and diversity", as if somehow the use of "Spanish" was derogatory and/or could offend someone, are not among them. Impru20talk11:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, these are principles of the Wikimedia Movement, and good criteria to stick to if they are right from a knowledge point of view for smooth editing. As it happens, what I propose is a compromise, not to make "Catalan"-only compelling, so please do not alter the sense of the discussion. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Iñaki LL: Did you bother to look at the edit history of the article or even to read my comments? The only thing I added (your bold) to the article was "from Catalonia" and Impru did not add anything. Look at what was the status quo since the article was created and until the unexplained edit by the IP. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I beg you pardon? What I see here is your first edit is to add Spanish[12](I cannot see any edit of yours before in the history), right? So what are telling about "The only thing I added (your bold) to the article was "from Catalonia"? Iñaki LL (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is it so hard for you to understand that this edit was not adding anything to the article, but just restoring what the IP changed (Undid revision 847155937 by 95.16.188.73) to the status quo version of the article since it was created? How can reverting this unexplained edit be called adding something? I just returned the article to how it was. Bye. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then I suggest you define better your own activity, instead of saying I only added "from Catalonia". No, you have added Spanish instead of Catalan, and nowhere is stated it needs to be default "Spanish", the WP is dynamic, so your edits define your activity, and in this case the first edit or yours I checked was adding "Spanish" and removing "Catalan" (see the diff above). Like you have done in other articles.
By the way, the definition "Spanish" is not supported presently by WP:VER, so whomever insists on adding "Spanish", please add verifiability. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CENSORED is a core Wikipedia principle. I do not understand why, as of suddenly, all of the articles related to Catalan people (well, some Catalan people, because I am not seeing this issue being brought into Albert Rivera, Juan Carlos Girauta or Xavier García Albiol) need a "compromise" so as to try to please some users out of some "integration, inclusion or diversity" (or knowledge?) purposes or because some people may allegedly get offended by the use of "Spanish". Wikipedia is not censored, and that is important, because any argument trying to point out that we should not use a specific term just because some readers may not find it acceptable would be invalid. Any compromise should only be needed if there was a clash between two or more sustantive policy-based or source-backed arguments, but here? No such arguments have been brought to support using "Catalan" as the main denominator, and in fact most of the discussion has been centered on political dogmas entirely unrelated to this article (WP:NOTCHAT and WP:TALK#USE should be considered for future discussions). Further, the insistence on "Spanish" being "not supported by WP:VER" clashes with 1) a failure to consider the Democracy Now source on an interview to Ada Colau currently in the lead which, to describe Colau's career, uses 3 mentions to "Spanish" and 23 mentions to "Spain" as opposed to just 1 mention to "Catalonia" and 0 to "Catalan"; and 2) a failure to consider that, under such a demand, whomever tries to add "Catalan" should also add verifiability, or else this would develop into the WP:CHEESE-sort of discussion. Impru20talk22:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, you got it! WP is not censored, that is a good a guide to those who continuously push a "Spanish" only approach, or dedicate to removing "Catalan" from a number of articles and putting "Spanish" instead. You, Impru20, have followed the RfC discussion and the necessity pointed to add a verified source in order to improve smooth editing, since this is an issue that elicits no consensus. Sorry but I do not see any "Spanish" referring to Ada Colau in the source.
And yes, you like it or not, you are removing key knowledge, national background, included in MOS:BIO. Nationality is one key feature in definitions. We are talking about Ada Colau, so I do not say the same should go, evidently not, for Albert Rivera or others. Since you are so inclined to "Spanish", add a source saying so and that should do as far as I am concerned. Meanwhile, no information is lost if we just define as a mayor from Barcelona in Catalonia, Spain. Iñaki LL (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please, do not try to subvert what WP:CENSORED stands for. Anyone is absolutely free to push any approach they wish, be it "Spanish"-only, "Catalan"-only or whatever (it is called being bold). However, when conflict rises (such as in this case), what you cannot argue is that one of these approaches must not be used under the "it may offend someone/diversity/integration/other alleged social rules"-sort of argument, because that would be censoring.
Precisely, this issue of "removing Catalan and replacing it with Spanish" is only brought in a selective number of BLP articles. I do not see any complaint from you when this is done at Xavier García Albiol, Miquel Iceta, Pere Navarro and a long etc (who, btw, would have more arguments to be defined as "Catalan" than Colau). I do not see you complain when a "Spanish-only approach" is used on Albert Rivera either.
Could you please elaborate how "Spanish left-wing representative from Catalonia" is removing key knowledge, national background, and how your interpretation of MOS:BIO must be applied differently for Ada Colau than for Albert Rivera, both being Catalan-based politicians who have an involvement in Spanish-wide politics?
(...) the necessity pointed to add a verified source in order to improve smooth editing, since this is an issue that elicits no consensus. Sorry but I do not see any "Spanish" referring to Ada Colau in the source. So, because you say there is no source claiming Colau to be "Spanish", we should use "Catalan" instead (of which there is no source either)? And for we to use "Spanish" we must provide additional sources in order to please you? This is WP:CHEESE, sorry. "Spanish" is a nationality, or are you pretending to deny it? The source currently in the lead does highlight the relevance of Colau in political developments in Spain (which leads to how "Spanish" would be more descriptive for her). Other sources have been brought in this discussion that point to the same conclusion. I have not seen you validly defend your own claim of "Catalan" being better to reflect "key knowledge" either with sources or other policy-based argument. Sorry, but "I just don't like it", "I just like it", and their variants, are not arguments to use in talk page discussions. Impru20talk14:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the exact wording I acknowledge that is a bit weird (sources typically define her has "politician", "activist" or both of them. I wouldn't mind changing "left-wing representative" to "activist and politician" if that's the issue). But given that you seem to seek sources on the literal expressions to be used, I guess a Google search analysis will provide some answers on the use of "Spanish", "Catalan" and "Spanish Catalan" when searching for Ada Colau:
"Ada Colau Spanish" gives 144,000 results as opposed to 86,900 for "Ada Colau Catalan" and 2,270 for "Ada Colau Spanish Catalan". As a side note:
"Ada Colau Spanish politician" gives 50,900 results as opposed to 8,940 for "Ada Colau Catalan politician" and 2,000 for "Ada Colau Spanish Catalan politician".
"Ada Colau Spanish activist" gives 13,700 results as opposed to 10,700 for "Ada Colau Catalan activist" and 593 for "Ada Colau Spanish Catalan activist".
"Ada Colau Spanish politician activist" gives 12,400 results as opposed to 6,900 for "Ada Colau Catalan politician activist" and 534 for "Ada Colau Spanish Catalan politician activist".
"Ada Colau Spanish left-wing representative" gives 8,500 results as opposed to 4,790 for "Ada Colau Catalan left-wing representative" and 487 for "Ada Colau Spanish Catalan left-wing representative".
"Ada Colau Spanish politician" gives 9,470 results as opposed to 528 for "Ada Colau Catalan politician" and 70 for "Ada Colau Spanish Catalan politician".
"Ada Colau Spanish activist" gives 1,210 results as opposed to 139 for "Ada Colau Catalan activist" and 0 for "Ada Colau Spanish Catalan activist".
Out of curiosity, "Ada Colau Spain" gives 236,000 results as opposed to 134,000 for "Ada Colau Catalonia".
As it stands, it is much more likely to find Ada Colau in connection to "Spanish" or "Spain" than it is to find her to "Catalan" or "Catalonia". Not to say that results for your "Spanish Catalan" proposal are negligible in most cases. Now, I guess that this pretty much settles the issue on the "Spanish"/"Catalan" issue. Nonetheless, I acknowledge that "left-wing representative" is a rather boggy term, so I will edit the article to replace it with "activist and politician", which are terms more commonly used to search for her (and also mirror what is done for other articles, which independently of the nationality issue do use the person's activity rather than an ambiguous descriptor). Impru20talk16:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the statistical results are nothing near an absolute figure. I should remind you that the WP is a reflection of its community, and at the same time of the underlying reality. The "Spanish"-only approach is perceived as problematic by part of the community, because while it makes reference to citizenship, nationality is disputed. Now, straighter to the question, does the source as it stands now (Democracy Now) support her as Spanish? No. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:CHEESE again. Nothing seems to be able to please you except for the answer you are seeking, which ironically I am not giving you, so you keep on trying with different types of cheese.
I do not actually know if results for "Spanish" and "Catalan" are statistically conclusive (though I'd consider it as relevant when the first is basically doubling the later in most cases), but they are indeed statistically conclusive for "Spanish Catalan" – for the worst. Use of "Spanish Catalan" in sources is very minor, and I am sure you acknowledge the WP:UNDUE, WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:VER issues that would arise from the use of an undersouced term in order to term a person for whom most sources basically prefer to , right?
I should remind you that the WP is a reflection of its community, and at the same time of the underlying reality. Yes. And such a reflection of its community has led to the current WP policies and guidelines that we must follow. WP:VER is one of them.
The "Spanish"-only approach is perceived as problematic by part of the community, because while it makes reference to citizenship, nationality is disputed. I am puzzled as to how this relates to Ada Colau needing to be termed as "Spanish Catalan". Could you please elaborate when has the community determined that "Spanish" is disputed as a nationality, and how it is a dispute for Colau but not for other Catalan-based politicians? And has the community determined that it is you who chooses when and for whom there is a dispute? I would have thought it was sources, but I will be pleased to hear from your thoughts on the issue.
Now, straighter to the question, does the source as it stands now (Democracy Now) support her as Spanish? No. Fine. I have just added a few sources specifically addressing the issue. So, if that was the real issue, I would think that would end the discussion. Impru20talk23:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You removed again the statement of her being Catalan? She is Catalan, and if you consider so, she can be also Spanish (is an implication that Spaniards want to apply). It is at readers discretion to consider Catalan as Spanish too. Anyways, the precise term is Catalan. Number of results in Google won't return anything useful because by population numbers Spaniards are a majority over Catalans. Not many searches will you find using the term Catalan for Ada Colau. Your argument is flawed. She is Catalan because she recognises as hers the symbols of Catalonia. She is integrated in Catalan culture and defends it, although without going into independentism. Please, make yourself a favor and read some anthropology: [13]. Castilians like to say that Pep Ventura is Spanish[14] but in reality he is Catalan. Spaniards use birthplace to tell the nationality of someone while Catalans consider to be Catalan those who learn Catalan custom, integrating with the rest of Catalans. Please note we are talking about nationality, not citizenship. Filiprino (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please, stop it already. Spanish meets WP:VER and is how Colau it is most commonly recognized in English reliable sources, all of it has been already discussed and explained above. And sorry, but regarding She is Catalan, and if you consider so, she can be also Spanish (is an implication that Spaniards want to apply), what you think others imply or not has no place here. POVs should be avoided. Besides, such an assertion is not logical per se (being Spanish does not preclude being Catalan (specially when the expression "Spanish from Catalonia" is used) but there are some Catalan people who do not consider themselves to be Spanish). In fact, the later was used as an argument at Talk:Carles Puigdemont, but I don't think this applies to Colau, who has openly acknowledged herself as both Spanish and Catalan. I do not know what the issue could be now. Impru20talk21:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No one is discussing whether she considers herself Catalan or not. Of course she does, just as she considers herself as Spanish, of which sources have also been provided. All of this has been already discussed. But WP:VER requires that information must be verifiable from reliable sources, and as it has been pointed out in the discussion above, she is predominantly regarded as Spanish by ERS. Content must not be added based on a particular point of view, which is what you have been doing in the whole discussion since starting it (to the point of considering that discussing Catalonia's current political status is relevant on whether to describe Colau as Spanish or Catalan). Stop unilaterally adding the content into the article against consensus, because what you are doing is to promote edit warring. Impru20talk22:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not discussing if she considers herself catalan either, I am providing sources and facts which make her Catalan as per [16]. Of course, if you don't like science and are stubborn enough to ignore scientists, go ahead and keep pushing your POV and your POVed sources. You state nationwide projection, career and other things which do not have nothing to do with nationality, which is what the statement is about, nationality. I have not stated Catalonia's political status as relevant on whether to describe Colau as Spanish or Catalan. You have done that by using her birthplace in Spain (because as per your POV, Catalonia belongs to Spain, so her birthplace qualifies her as Spanish, by Castilian custom: [17]) and part of her career, the same as the POVe sources you provide, ignoring all the support she does to Catalan symbols and integration in Catalan culture. I am not adding content against consensus, because either the consensus is in the other direction or there is no consensus at all on nothing. A neutral judgment would remove any statement on nationality, instead you keep pushing your POV with your POVed sources. What I am doing is clearly state that her nationality is Catalan. That is not POV. As it has been pointed above, your numbers are flawed. Number of results in Google won't return anything useful because by population numbers Spaniards are a majority over Catalans. Not many searches will you find using the term Catalan for Ada Colau. Your argument is flawed. International sources also apply the same POV of Spaniards like you. Using the term Spanish instead of Catalan negates Catalan nationality and Catalan custom. Those POVed sources you provided won't never recognize politicians in Catalonia as Catalan unless Catalan has its own sovereign country. It is blatantly obvious they will refer to them as Spanish because they consider "Spain" a single entity. When talking about generics they will always use the term "Spanish" which is incorrect under any light, as is the case of the other two sources you provide: [18] and [19] which has no free access. Only articles talking about more details start to distinguish Catalans from basques, from galicians and castilians. But POVed sources like this one you provided are completely wrong [20], which states Ada Colau is Castilian and Aragonese (using birthplace, as per Castilian custom[21]) and goes against the facts I provided in non-POVed sources [22] and [23]. By using the term "Catalan" the reader is free to think that Catalans are Spanish, or not. That is precisely the best way to solve the problem and workaround the issue and cover both people thinking Catalan is not Spanish and Catalan is Spanish. That or remove all mention to her nationality. Because you want to push "Spanish" and push Castilian custom as in "Spanish from Catalonia" which keeps using Castilian custom. Hell, read the friking article which defines Castilian (the one used by Spaniards like you, not Catalans) and Catalan custom: [24]. Read the Pep Ventura case explained in that peer reviewed article. Science about the matter exists! Isn't this about WP:VER? The problem is that you don't want to admit other cultures than the Castilian! You want to se homogeneous Iberian Peninsula! You don't conceive the Catalan nationality! Sorry, Catalan nationality exists. But we agree Catalan citizenship does not. Filiprino (talk) 22:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, what you keep providing is your particular POV of why she should be labeled as "Catalan", despite having been already shown in this discussion that English reliable sources prefer "Spanish" to other terms when referring to her (and now I also see you providing a personal attack on me). Do not manipulate my arguments nor resort to straw man fallacies: I state nationwide projection, career and "other things" because this is what sources say. You have commented on Catalonia's political status from the very beginning of the discussion, commenting on how Spain is a plurinational state, on Castilian and Catalan customs, that Catalonia is a country constituted as an autonomous community in the country of Spain, that Legal affairs like the Constitution of Spain are not a valid source for stating who is Spanish or who is Catalan, and a long etc going from the very beginning of the discussion up until now. All of which could be a nice topic for a political discussion (not for Wikipedia), but all of it has nothing to do with MOS:BIO or with WP:VER on the issue and is, on the contrary, very dependant on WP:POV. You are then making personal assumptions here on me which are entirely absurd. I have not spoken a single word here on the issue of Catalonia being a nation or not, so I'm really intrigued how you end up accusing me of not wanting to admit other cultures than the Castilian! You want to se homogeneous Iberian Peninsula! You don't conceive the Catalan nationality! in the last sentence of your text wall. I've brought this to WP:ANI because this seems beyond any attempt of successful resolution here. Impru20talk23:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, you have not shown in this discussion any preference from English reliable sources. You have used three sources talking generics on Spain's politics. I have not attacked you personally, you are using a red herring. I am not manipulating your arguments, another red herring. We are talking about Ada Colau's nationality, not her job. I have commented those things, but I have not used them, except Castilian and Catalan customs which is not politics (law), is sociology and anthropology. I have used scientific definition for national identification, as described in [25]. Don't come here to argue a thing you don't understand, and please read the sources I have provided you and show some respect to other Wikipedia editors which take the time to read what you put here. WP:NOFORUM only applies to you by keeping this snowball. I am not acussing you, I am stating what from my POV is a typical Castilian position of not understanding what makes a person Catalan with the tendency to put Spanish over Catalan. Please note that using Catalan is not putting Catalan over Spanish, but the more precise description. Catalan can be a subset of Spanish, but you don't define a subset by its superset. I have talked about Catalonia as a nation because other users negated it, and a nation is necessary for a nationality to exist, but a nation may exist without a sovereign state. Now, returning to the Spanish vs Catalan and the use of Spanish instead of Catalan, of course for that you will use articles which do not talk about Ada Colau but about Spain in general, and of course those articles will mention Ada Colau as Spanish. Instead, you could read on the matter of nationalities before throwing generic articles which do not correspond with the topic of defining the nationality of a person or talking about the nationality of a person or talking about nationalities. It's the same as with far-right. You won't use articles which talk about a far-right organisation doing a rally without stating they are far-right. You will use articles which talk about far-right organisations and mentioning they are far-right. Because we have to use WP:RS, appart from WP:VER. The sources you have search are not reliable for the topic of nationality. They are out of topic. Filiprino (talk) 01:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Beside the foreseeable nepotism (she comes from activism) and the childish 'accusations' that she flew (and not sail?) to South America, might there anything that could be written about her actual politics? Would be nice, if someone could write something about that. Thank you in advance. MenkinAlRire20:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
