Talk:Quim Torra

Mass removal of content and verifiable sources

This edit is a mass removal of content, which has erased several verifiable references and includes an edit summary with personal attacks, since to call it "cherry picking" implies assuming bad faith WP:AGF.

I'm going to recover a part. I give the reason to keep Catalan president, but I will restore the rest.

On the topic of "regional minister" there are more explanations here. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 10:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, you should remove the references from the first sentence. Per WP:LEDE, I think it's clear there is no need to add those references there considering his professional life and political career are broadly explained in the article and those sections have many more references. --Aljullu (talk) 10:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@BallenaBlanca: did you have time to look at this? --Aljullu (talk) 17:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@Aljullu: It is surprising that you ask to remove references in the lead. Look at the other Wikipedia pages, we always put citations in the lead sections. Conflicts have normally arisen if they do not include references and for this reason other users or ips revert or delete content, even though they are in the body of the article because usually they do not realize. When putting the references in the lead, this problem is solved.

In addition, in this specific case, not only there is no reason to eliminate them but they have to be put per WP:LIVE and MOS:CITELEAD because is a biography of a living person and a controversial issue, such as everything that surrounds the situation in Catalonia.--BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 19:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@BallenaBlanca: Thanks for your answer. Can you please explain which part of the sentence you consider is "challenged or likely to be challenged"? The only parts of that sentence that have generated controversy are defining him as "Spanish" instead of "Catalan" and saying he is the "President of the Generalitat of Catalonia" instead of the "President of Catalonia". Your references don't seem to address any of those issues (indeed, they even contradict the current sentence). --Aljullu (talk) 06:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I reordered the references already present in the lead section [1]. I think it's adjusted. The first references support that he is a lawyer, editor and the current president of the Generalitat of Catalonia, within the framework of the conflictive political situation in this Spanish region. In the third paragraph, his pro-independence position. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 23:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@BallenaBlanca: Thanks! But still, we don't need a reference for this part "lawyer, editor" that's not challenged by anybody and there are plenty of references in the following paragraphs. The part "current President of the Generalitat of Catalonia" seems to be contradicted by your reference, which describes him as the "President of Catalonia". Indeed, the article you are using as a reference is not even about his profile but more about the criticism Torra received, that's why I consider it is not the best reference to have there. For example, this one [2] seems to be much more about his professional background than the one you linked from The Guardian, which, in addition, is repeated in another section of the article. --Aljullu (talk) 07:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

There is no doubt that this material is likely to be challenged. And I am going to challenge at least a part, after reading the sources more thoroughly and locate others, such as the one you are proposing [3] .

The issue of his occupation is a controversial topic, because he is questioned for not being a "professional politician": "It has to be noted that Mr Torra is not a “professional” politician. He is an intellectual, writer, journalist and activist.".

In line with this, it also seems convenient to reorganize the information, leaving in the first place lawyer and editor, or even more precise "a former lawyer", (supported by this source [4]). The source you just proposed helps clarify this fact: [5] "Torra, who is not a member of any political party" and to document that he was president of Òmnium Cultural.

The sources from the Generalitat de Catalunya and The Guardian do not "contradict" but complement each other, because one of them is less precise. His official position is president of the Generalitat de Catalunya, "President of Catalonia" is more ambiguous and less adjusted, and since this is an encyclopedia, we must be precise.

The reference of The Guardian illustrates his appointment, which has been involved in the controversy. They are information that goes hand in hand, there is no reason to choose another "aseptic" reference, this might seem an attempt to hide information and cherry picking. We now have two ones: an "aseptic" source, the one from the Generalitat de Catalunya, which I left first, and another international source, the one from The Guardian. Both complement each other and give a perfect balance for WP:NPOV. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 15:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I have moved "politician" [6] to discuss here, because of what I was stated in my previous message. Let's see your opinions. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 15:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not cherry picking the references, remember WP:AGF, please. Also, let's remember how this discussion started: you modified the first line from "is a Catalan politician, lawyer, and editor" to "is a Catalan politician, lawyer, and editor, Catalan nationalist" and added the reference to The Guardian. I reverted those edits because, as you later agreed, political ideology doesn't belong there, but breaking WP:BRD, you added the reference again. But I still assume good faith from your part.

The main concern I have here is:

1) I'm not sure we need a reference to the first line of the article. See George W. Bush, Barack Obama or Donald Trump, for example. They don't have references in the intro. Indeed, that's what WP:LEDE states.

2) In case we agree we need references in the leading, which I still disagree, I think there are some references which already appear in the article which are much more relevant to that specific sentence.

Per your comment, should I understand you are deliberately trying to choose one "aseptic source" and one which makes reference to the criticism he received? I might have misunderstood you, but if you said so, that's exactly what is wrong. The first sentence says nothing about the criticism (we have an specific section about that), so there shouldn't be a reference specific to that in the leading. --Aljullu (talk) 08:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, sorry Aljullu, excuse my awkwardness and my language barriers! I did not say that you're doing cherry picking, but "this might seem an attempt to hide information and cherry picking", referring to the final result in the page, not you. My apologies, I trust your good faith.

1) In my opinion, it is important to put the reference, for what I have explained above, mainly due to his particular and controversial profile, for not being a politician, but a lawyer, editor and activist.

2) The reference from The Guardian [7] serves to support his profession and also his appointment. It is an international source in English, so it is very appropriate for the English Wikipedia.

No, what I am saying is that before we had two international sources in the lead [8] (from The Guardian [9] and The Independent [10]), both mentioning his profession and his appointment. I edited to remove one of them, replacing it by another one, a Catalan source already present, which I let in the first place, to look for a balance [11]. It is an edit made with all good faith and in line with your concerns. The Catalan ref does not cover his profession, so the other complements it, which also covers his appointment, so with both the whole paragraph is referenced. And in addition to supporting the controversy about his particular profile, also doubts, ambiguities, challenges and more reversions on what is the accurate denomination of his charge may be avoided with them, as what happened with this edit [12] per WP:LIVE and MOS:CITELEAD.

And what I am saying is that his appointment goes hand with hand with the controversy in the sources, because is a fact that has been and is surrounded by controversy and I see no reason to deliberately choose a reference that ignores it. When we choose a source, we do it because it supports what we want to reference, but its content does not have to be limited to that, the sources always contain more information. This is not negative, on the contrary, it is more complete and allows that the same source can be used in different places of the page, as in the case of the reference from The Guardian [13]. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 18:09, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid that BallenaBlanca is playing the same game he did on Carles Puigdemont, that is try to undermine the article because of his hatred of the subject. Here he is introducing unnecessary references in the lede simply because the contents of the refernce cast the subject in a negative light, and nit picking (the President of Catalonia and member of Parliament isn't a politician according to BallenaBlanca). Pathetic.--Obi2canibe (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@BallenaBlanca: But even as a reference for his profession, the article from The Guardian might not be the best. Describing Torra as a lawyer and journalist seems to be much more common than as a lawyer and editor in international media (see Reuters, Financial Times x2, RTE, AT&T and Euronews). Per WP:LIVE and WP:Criticism we must be very careful when adding criticism to a living person's bio. Since there is already a Controversial writings section, there is no need to use a source about the criticism he has received as the reference for his profession.

Being honest, the reference you added clearly looks out of place to me, you are right when you say "When we choose a source, we do it because it supports what we want to reference, but its content does not have to be limited to that, the sources always contain more information" but still, if there are better alternatives those must be chosen. If we find an article which is about his biography, that's better than an article which is mostly about the criticism he got.

How would I proceed, now? My first option would be to remove the references from the leading, but if you don't agree with that, I propose to keep the reference from Generalitat and replace the one from The Guardian with this one: [14], which at least has an entire paragraph with the biography of Torra. --Aljullu (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@Aljullu: Your explanations about criticism make sense and have convinced me. I also agree that it seems that more sources refer to him as a journalist instead of editor.

I still think that it is better to put references, but okay, we can substitute the source frome The Guardian with another reference, but probably the one you are proposing is not the best because it requires subscription. Maybe a free access source would be preferable, since it is not difficult to find one. What do you think? --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 18:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@BallenaBlanca: you're right. The first time I could open the article with no problems but now I see it's behind a paywall. I replaced the reference with this source [15]. It has only two lines about Torra's bio, but I can't find any international source that makes an in-depth description of his background so that one seems ok. --Aljullu (talk) 07:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Catalan, NOT Spanish

Joaquim, aka Quim, Torra is the President of the Generalitat de Catalunya. He is Catalan, NOT Spanish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.29.53 (talk) 16:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Catalonia is an autonomous region so if he is Catalan he is by definition Spanish as well. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

There was a similar discussion for Carles Puigdemont and we ended up agreeing to define him as a Catalan politician. I think Quim Torra isn't any different. Thoughts RichardWeiss? --Aljullu (talk) 07:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 08:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

That RfC was for that article, It can't be be used to overrule the MoS that states that country and not region should be the first thing cited for all articles without a wider consensus. To sidestep the nationality/country MoS issue (as suggested by another user) I have changed the wording to "is a lawyer and journalist from Catalonia, Spain." if this is not acceptable the previous status quo for this article should be restored and a wider RfC should be opened for this article or for the guideline itself. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't object to the current. I do place high value on consistency across articles, however, ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 11:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I do too, that is the idea behind the MoS. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:34, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Are we going to go through this again? Didn't the outcome of the RFC at Carles Puigdemont make it clear that MoS isn't written in stone. Are the "Spanish only" contingent going to makes us go through RFC for every article? Why are we wasting our time on these petty disputes when there is such a huge void on Spanish topics in English Wikipedia.--Obi2canibe (talk) 12:40, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Exactly! The president for nationality = Catalan (Basque, Scottish...) was set in the Carles Puigdemont RFC outcome. This means that the MoS isn't written in stone. Nationality = Catalan. @Crystallizedcarbon and RichardWeiss: This discussion is not only provocative but could be considered disruptive and tendentious. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The RFC concerns the article Carles Puigdemont only, and does not set precedent for other articles. Please discuss any changes to this article on this talkpage. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)