Talk:Carles Puigdemont/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

A live discussion was placed here. The neutrality tag is in place so it was wrong to archive the discussion. This can be usded to archive discussions that are over. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 18:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality

Unionism is a term used by supporters of Puidgemont to attack their opponents and so has no place in a neutral wikipedia article, hence my tagging the article as POV. We can't be neutral while using this term to attack and disparage those who disagree with Puigdemont. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 15:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

The fact that you consider it offensive an objective, descriptive term is very telling. (I suggest Howard Zinn's motto You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train) Now other than that, it defines a mainstay of their political position, unionism is descriptive and objective, in fact I cannot think any that is more neutral and honest than that. Iñaki LL (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Iñaki. In Catalan politics, "unionista" is a politically loaded term. A professor of International Politics in Barcelona recently warned about it in a Twitter thread. As she says, pro-independence Catalans started to use that word intentionally to make the Catalan situation sound like the North Irish conflict, with pro-independence parties painting themselves as victims. They have had some limited success so far but the word is still used mostly by pro-independence media. The same is valid, on the opposite sense, for "separatista", a word that pro-independence Catalans dislike. It would be more accurate to describe Catalans as for independence, against independence, somewhere in between and indifferent. --Hispalois (talk) 18:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Hispalois and think this should be applied across the board for both terms. User:Iñaki LL, I consider it an offensive term because I read it was one in the Spanish unionism article though I have since seen it as an insult in the Spanish press too. How is this telling? And telling of what? My sole goal in these articles is neutrality. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 19:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@RichardWeiss: This discussion has been had before. You must know that Wikipedia is global platform and outside of the Spanish bubble the terms unionism/unionists aren't considered offensive. During the American civil war the northern side were known as unionists. In the UK unionism refers to a political ideology advocating the continued union of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. And the governing party in the UK is officially known as the Conservative and Unionist Party. This is why you will see many English language WP:RS use the terms unionism/unionists in the context of Spain: Al Jazeera, BBC, Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, Euronews, Financial Times, The Guardian, The Independent, Reuters, The Times and Voice of America. Even El País uses them. So your assertion, in this article and elsewhere, that "term [is] used exclusively by pro-independence supporters" is entirely baseless. This is yet another pointless dispute.--Obi2canibe (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The term came to Spain from Ireland and the unionists there. That it isn't an offensive term outside Spain has no relevance and I am only concerned about its use in articles about Spain. If you think the argument is pointless, why revert me? Why participate here? Your actions indicate otherwise, that you want unionist rather than anti-independent. I am not alone thinking this is important. You need to address the issues on the Spanish unionism page, i.e., This refs that "Spanish unionism is a term used by the Basque nationalism and Catalan independence movements to refer to the political attitude which opposes the Catalan independence movement." and "The adoption of the term unionism into the Spanish context and its loaded usage with negative connotation relates to attempts to draw parallels with the Orange Order of the Unionist movement in Ireland." referenced here. Readers will go to that linked page from here, read about the term (as I did) and assume Wikipedia supports Catalan independence. Which isn't neutral. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 13:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the term "unionist" is offensive at all and a prove of that is that many reliable sources use it. It's true Spanish unionists call themselves "constitutionalists" and try to avoid the word "unionist", because they try to shift the debate from "supporting or not the independence" to "respecting or not the Constitution". That's similar to separatists defining themselves as "republicans". But the priority here is that a random reader can understand which group is what, even if they don't like their names. Indeed, I think I read somewhere in the WP guidelines that groups of people must be defined like reliable media defines them, not like they want to be defined. But I can't find that page anymore. :\

Having said that, "people who don't support independence" or "anti-independence" are good alternatives to avoid repeating "unionist" too much. I would always prioritize whatever fits better with the text surrounding it. What I think is not ok is just removing that information like in these edits from RichardWeiss: 1, 2 3. In the other hand, this one is ok to me, but I would keep the link. --Aljullu (talk) 18:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Whomever is free to be offended with whatever they want, that is not the question if the concept in itself is a neutral and descriptive one as it is, sufficiently backed by the sources; it is actually the single most important rallying point of that party, i.e. the Spanish union and Spanishness. They may want to bill themselves as "constitutionalists", an actually a fraudulent term, since they advocate for its violation, like the Basque statute, an organic constitutional law infringed for 40 year years all in a row without having been brought penal charges still against anyone for it, etc.

But WP is not here to reflect the Spanish or other politicians' jargon. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I think that neither "unionist" (a label mostly used by pro-independence supporters which even has a Wikipedia article on its own that specifically describes it as non-neutral) nor "constitutionalist" (used mostly by PP and Cs, though the PSC is also included in such a group at times) should be used unless the specific context needs for their use, as both of them have POV connotations that we should avoid, in one way or the other. Same for either "separatist" or "republican", as well as other labels which may be used at times by one side or the other to refer to themselves or the other side (secessionists, democrats, etc). "Pro-independence" and "anti-independence" seem simple, descriptive and NPOV enough. I also think that any of these should be used only when there is a need to clarify the particular position on independence of the parties/people involved and/or when such a position is relevant to the topic at hand. Random uses of the terms wherever they are not really needed could be potentially seen as tendentious and/or POVish (i.e. pointing out that Susana Díaz is the female President of Andalusia every time she gets a mention would be a perfectly true and undisputed fact, but unneeded in most cases). Just my two cents to the discussion. Impru20^talk 22:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Please, don't use Wikipedia as a reliable source. The Spanish unionism article only has Spanish sources, which clearly shows that it needs to be improved adding international and Catalan-based sources that corroborate or contradict that information, it currently only shows one point of view. I wonder if we can find at least one international reliable source that says that the word unionist in English is an offensive word. Notice that I think the same with the word separatist. It doesn't make any sense to remove the word unionist from all articles in Wikipedia while we keep separatist. --Aljullu (talk) 09:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I was not arguing that "unionist" was an offensive word, but that it had POV connotations, which is not the same. Nor I was using the article as a source, just as a reflection that it existed. I also find "separatist" (or "secessionist") as having strong POV connonations within a Spanish/Catalan context despite there being articles on them (1 2) providing not-specifically biased descriptions. It is not the overall meaning that the words may have or whether someone may find them offensive or not, but the actual use that the various political parties make of them in the current context, which is heavily POVish. And while I think we may use them whenever a given situation specifically calls for it to provide context, I would advocate for avoiding their use as mere interchangeable terms to "anti-independence" or "pro-independence", as their actual use in the current context is not equal. Impru20^talk 12:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

It does not need to be said once and again, it is just their main defining political feature, I would say they are even defined by harder-to-listen adjectives, but they are charged, this is a very accurate, understated one. Cite it when necessary, <edited>once or twice,<edited> and that should suffice. Remember, for Ciudadanos, they are neutral (= Spanish), the pro-sovereignty are on the contrary marked (= "nationalists", the politically-biased). Iñaki LL (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@RichardWeiss: If you have issues with Spanish unionism why not tag that article? Why tag this article? The term unionist is only used once this article, buried deep in the article, and doesn't even link to Spanish unionism. And yet you placed a POV tag right at the top of this article. And why didn't you remove the reference to secessionist which apparently is also offensive in the Spanish bubble? P.S. I didn't revert you. That's another truth-challenged statement by you.--Obi2canibe (talk) 19:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I tagged this article as I was reverted. I'll PROD the Spanish unionism and see what happens. While it isn't a reliable source it does contain reliable sources. Another possibility is to create a Spanish separatism article. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 12:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

PRODed, ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 12:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC),

I've reverted the PROD tagging of Spanish unionism because it is far from being an uncontroversial deletion. The topic could be discussed to be notable enough to merit a proper discussion in AfD, so if deletion is sought, that procedure should be used instead. Also note that the poor state of an article or it needing improvement is a reason for improvement, rather than for deletion. Impru20^talk 13:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

So back where we started. It seems the only solution is to remove the term from this article. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 13:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Or create Spanish separatism. My initial search indicates that it would be easier to source than Spanish unionism. My real concern is that Wikipedia is not seen to be supporting either side. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 13:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't get what is the connection between all of this and creating a Spanish separatism article (specially after you yourself PRODed Spanish unionism). If you wish to have Spanish unionism deleted, just propose it for AfD. If you are seeking to have "unionist" removed, you are already obtaining some support for it in this discussion (though I would make it extendable to other controversial terms as well). But seeing how the Spanish unionism article was not even mentioned in this discussion before I did mention it, I fail to understand why are we discussing now whether to create a "Spanish separatism" article. This has gone just too off-topic, I think. Impru20^talk 14:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

We are trying to create a neutral encyclopedia which means treating the Catalan independence issue in a neutral manner across article space. What I want is equality in the coverage and not taking either side. Afding Spanish unionism would be one way of trying to achieve that, though the outcome is unpredictable. Some of this thread would be better in WP:SPAIN but the issue is currently here. What do you suggest here? Leaving the link and description intact means the article isn't neutral, as explained above. Can you explain what is wrong with just saying anti-independence? I basically support the idea of always using pro- and anti-independence and never separatism and unionism. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 15:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I already told what my suggestion was, which was against the use of such terms unless strictly needed. But I do not understand the basis for attempting to enforce the deletion and/or creation of other articles just because you are arguing that there is a POV sentence in this one. Impru20^talk 15:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@RichardWeiss: did you have time to look at the contributions I quoted above where you removed the word 'unionist' but didn't replace it with 'anti-independence' neither any equivalent? In all of them I think the reader loses some context with the removals. --Aljullu (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Nope, the only link you shared I can find is fine. The only thing readers lose is the sense that Wikipedia supports independence, and that is as it should be. Is the term even sourced? ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

@RichardWeiss: I didn't have time to look at it with detail, but these are some edits that I think are detrimental for our users because they hide information: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. --Aljullu (talk) 11:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@RichardWeiss: The term is accurate and neutral. Defining information is being removed from readers, and Wikipedia is not censored, and we are not here to mimic the politicians' words either, that is for sure. Historically, Spanish ultra-nationalism has refused to define itself as nothing near political, citing that they reclaim "a moral duty", 'decency', and like rhetoric. Or claiming they are "anti" (anti-communists, anti-separatists, anti-masonic, etc.), i.e. they are 'neutral', the others are 'biased'.

Spanish unionism is a defining key feature of Ciudadanos, so please refrain from removing it. If there are sources backing it, it is fine, although it does not need to be cited once and again. Iñaki LL (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Iñaki, I beg to disagree that the word "unionist" is neutral, and your argument above does not convince me at all. On the contrary, it sounds as if you are personally opposed to Spanish "unionist" politicians, since you accuse them of being "ultra-nationalist", "anti-masonic" and what not. The fact that you insist on using "unionist" is a telling sign of its non-neutrality. --Hispalois (talk) 15:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

No, Hispalois, it seems to me you have not understood. I am not saying at all that Ciudadanos is "anti-masonic". Obviously the party falls in the spectrum of ultra-nationalism if you know something about present-day and historic Spanish politics. "The fact that you insist"..., well, not at all, I insist that 'unionist' is the right term because it is the most descriptive one and it is supported by a number of sources. I would have chosen other words that I find more accurate, but I think this is a balanced one for WP NPOV purposes. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

We must decide if we use the term 'unionist' based on what reliable sources do, not on our personal opinion. I think Iñaki LL provided enough reliable sources using the word 'unionist' in a neutral tone, so I don't see a problem using it in Wikipedia. Also keep in mind we are writing the English Wikipedia, 'unionista' might have a different meaning/tone in English and Spanish. The same way in English 'gay' is usually preferred than 'homosexual' [1] while in Spanish they are used in the same way. --Aljullu (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

"Exile" or "self-imposed exile"

Please, bring your concerns over the issue here and engage in discussion instead of engaging in further edit warring. I'm pinging all users involved: @Iñaki LL: @Arcillaroja: @BallenaBlanca:. Impru20^talk 20:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Impru20, with all due respect, it is little service to the Wikipedia to see that three or four identical behaviour IPs come all in a row to repeat the same slogan time and again to a disruptive effect, what I hear again from Arcillaroja, and BallenaBlanca, and you come to revert my edit when I have come always as me, and my activity is well known to everyone. Very little service.

For a start, I expect that insistence means that it involves some kind of knowledge on the issue. You may know that it was debated among pro-independence whether he should have taken to exile or remain in Catalonia, as compared to Carme Forcadell, Orio lJunqueras, etc. all of them imprisoned almost automatically. Also he was warranted in Spain for high treason, rebellion, and so on, so what are we talking about really? He took to exile because he risked being detained for his political action, and he was persecuted and prosecuted in different European spots at different moments by means of judiciary and police. The use of "self" is almost sarcastic. Iñaki LL (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:3RR is 3RR. You are not an exception to it, and what it is of little service to Wikipedia is that you keep engaging in edit warring above allowed limits while commanding others to take the issue to talk, but not taking it to talk yourself. There is an obvious content issue here, and this should have been brought to the talk page when it became clear that there were several people raising issues with "Exile" (on the issue of the IPs, if you thought there were any issues with them you should have tried to discuss it first, and only then, if calls for discussion went unheeded, consider alternative venues for the issue to be addressed, such as DRN or ANI).

Both exile and self-exile (or self-imposed exile, for that matter) have a synonymous meaning, i.e. the one where one voluntarily chooses to go into exile (even if such a decision comes as a result of prosecution. It is not questionable that Puigdemont could have voluntarily chosen to stay, such as Junqueras or the others). Thus, either one would be correct. Nonetheless, I may understand concerns with "exile" due to that word having more than one meaning, i.e. also compromising instances where exile is forced into a person as a form of punishment (which is not the case of Puigdemont), or whenever a person is living away because he/she was expulsed from their native land by official decree (not the case, either), or even expatriates. And no, being an "almost sarcastic" term is not a characteristic of the use of "self". Impru20^talk 22:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Honestly I had never heard "self-exile" before being used by certain journalists or editors with Puigdemont. Granted, I am not a native, so I may be missing corpus, but just check this, "go into exile" 424,000 results in Google. "Go into self-exile" 6,560 results. If you go into exile, you go because there is an impending danger to your life or safety or your freedom, usually fleeing a territory. Of course a judge does not say he will search someone for "political reasons", that happens nowhere. Those leaders related to the pro-independence process who stayed in Catalonia were imprisoned right away. Iñaki LL (talk) 23:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

"go into self-imposed exile", 18,500 results in Google. Iñaki LL (talk) 07:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

That you had not heard of "self-exile" does not mean that the word does not exist, and is not a particularly strong argument against its use. It does exist and is defined, as presented above. "Self-exile" is a form of "going into exile", so I really do not understand what is the point you are trying to convey here with all these random and generic search results, either.

Further, there could be surely plenty of arguments to defend the use of both "exile" and "self-exile", but if you are really so interested in showing the fact that he is being prosecuted by the Spanish judiciary, then "fugitive" would be better. Otherwise, if you are trying to use the word "exile" to try to convey to the reader that Puigdemont is being persecuted out of politival motives, then that is the use that pro-independence supporters make of such a word, which would not abide to NPOV.

If you go into exile, you go because there is an impending danger to your life or safety or your freedom, usually fleeing a territory. And on this, no. You can also be exiled because you have been officially expelled from your country. Or you could also become an expatriate, who are also frequently dubbed as "exiles". The word "exile" may mean many things, it is not a one-meaning word. So, if that is what you try to imply here, it should be noted that it is not, by itself, a particularly precise term. Impru20^talk 20:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

All the more reason for me! The thing is "go into self-exile" or "go into self imposed exile" has scant usage, so what is the point, why bring more litigation on this back again? I do not understand this insistence. If 'exile' has no univocal meaning, then you prove me right. It can be interpreted broadly, either way, take it as you want. (First definition found: exile (ĕgˈzīlˌ, ĕkˈsīlˌ) ► 1. Enforced removal from one's native country. 2. Self-imposed absence from one's country. 3.The condition or a period of living away from one's native country.)

You may agree it is a forced exile (unless he wanted to be detained!), plus all the persecution of Puigdemont at the highest political level thereafter across Europe. I hold you, Impru20, to be an editor aware of political matters in Spain, especially this, the No1 Spanish point of political contention (...) I should urge not bring this discussion down to a complete absurd.

As for "self-imposed exile", James Joyce would make up one such paradigm, going abroad out of tediousness with the Irish society, as he perceived that (obviously he did not participate in this article...!). That would be a clear case, not one where you risk immediate prison and are the subject of political contention at the highest level. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

"Self-exile" means "go (voluntarily) into exile". You don't say "go into self-exile" mostly because "self" already implies that you are voluntarily going into exile. Indeed, you would have the undisputed reason should you had proposed the sub-section to be named as "Go into exile", which is an action. However, since you proposed "exile" alone, which is a noun, it is no surprise that others did not find such a term precise enough

And you are confusing the section title with the alleged purposes behind his choice to go abroad. The use of "exile" or "self-exile" by itself does not disclose the reasonings behind Puigdemont's flight, just the fact that he fled. As I told you, if your purpose to use "exile" is because it is a word which is also used by the pro-independence camp in a particular way, then you are bringing a POV into here. We are not discussing political motivations here. Impru20^talk 22:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

It is not my intent to judge your intentions or mine's, and I think you missed the point. "Exile" is by all means the most appropriate term, as I have noted above, so I am not repeating myself. --Iñaki LL (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Reading the article from Wikipedia about exile, I think it's quite clear the current situation of the Catalan leaders must be defined as 'exile' instead of 'self-imposed exile'. The Catalan leaders can't go back to Spain without being arrested, that's being in 'exile', not 'self-imposed exile'. Dalai Lama, which might be a similar case, is also considered to be in exile instead of self-imposed exile. --Aljullu (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

In fact, the article exile explicitly states in the lead that Self-exile is often depicted as a form of protest by the person who claims it, to avoid persecution or legal matters (such as tax or criminal allegations), an act of shame or repentance, or isolating oneself to be able to devote time to a particular pursuit. Nonetheless, Wikipedia should not be used as a source, but should we use it, it would actually support the idea of Puigdemont being in 'self-exile', not the other way around. I also do not see Puigdemont's situation be comparable to the Dalai Lama, and indeed this is the first time I see such a comparison be made. Impru20^talk 17:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with User:Aljullu's comment. I think we have delimited very well the types of situation, and Dalai Lama's fall in that very category as Puigdemont, not that of James Joyce, clear. As I pointed, if doubts arise over its semantic domain, "exile" covers any options you may want to understand, stretching from a voluntary action ("self-imposed") to one driven by impending coercion, the case that applies to Puigdemont, and that of Dalai Lama. Iñaki LL (talk) 17:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, the article linked by Aljullu explictly says that 'self-exile' would mean a situation akin to that of Puigdemont (i.e. "depicted to avoid persecution due to criminal allegations", which is basically what has been described in this discussion by both Aljullu and yourself), so this is not particularly helpful. Indeed, precisely because "exile" covers any options you may want to understand, including those of one person being prohibited from entering a country (not Puigdemont's case) or being forcefully expelled from it (not, either), or threatened with death (again, not the case), such a word result as not precise enough. And using the word exile to try to intentionally imply that Puigdemont's situations covers everything in that range as you suggest is misleading to the reader.

The Dalai Lama is also described as a refugee (akin to a more severe form of exile), so I sincerely stand by my argument that it is not even a close comparation to Puigdemont. In fact, the only comparisons in sources that I may find about are heavily POVish: either because such a comparison is used derogatively ([2] [3]) or the exact extreme opposite ([4]), rather than by neutral, opinionless sources, further backing the claim that using 'exile' in the basis of such a comparison would not abide to NPOV. Impru20^talk 17:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Impru20 the article I linked clearly states:

To be in exile means to be away from one's home (i.e. city, state, or country), while either being explicitly refused permission to return or being threatened with imprisonment or death upon return.

That definition seems very precise to define Puigdemont's situation. It's true some interpretations of 'self-imposed exile' might suit Puigdemont's situation too, but it implies he decided to go on exile voluntarily, which might conflict with WP:NPOV.

Looking at some external definitions, OxfordDictionaries.com offers some examples for 'self-imposed exile':

‘Helped by a friend's allowance, and then a substantial inheritance, they lived well in self-imposed exile in Italy.’

‘He then went into self-imposed exile in America but bounced back in 1984 to start a new line of luxury silk raincoats.’

‘Exile, be it enforced or self-imposed, tends to test individual resolve.’

‘Breezing through the audition process, Lemar found himself in self-imposed exile with twelve other students.’

‘Her death in self-imposed exile contrasted markedly with her earlier life as an icon of the Nationalist regime.’

‘He now lives in self-imposed exile atop an Italian mountain.’

‘Peter refuses to grow up, and because of that has entered a self-imposed exile in Neverland.’

...

Almost none of them makes any reference to legal neither political matters. In the other hand, the examples of 'exile' seem to be much more in accordance with Puigdemont's situation. I clearly think 'exile' is a much better definition than 'self-imposed exile' that many readers might understand as he fled for something not related to the legal prosecution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aljullu (talk • contribs) 18:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Please, if you are willing to use a Wikipedia article to back your claims, then at least do it in whole, not just bits of it. Near the text you provide, in the very same lede, the article is crystal clear on what self-exile is.

Self-exile is often depicted as a form of protest by the person who claims it, to avoid persecution or legal matters (such as tax or criminal allegations), an act of shame or repentance, or isolating oneself to be able to devote time to a particular pursuit.

Which is an even more precise definition of Puigdemont's situation. None of the examples of 'self-exile' you provide from OxfordDictionaries.com are contradictory with Puigdemont's situation. And, of the 'exile' examples, some of them make reference to refugees (indeed, you are not arguing that Puigdemont is a refugee, right?) while the remainder of them that do not involve either death threats or legally-enforced exile are rather similarly constructed to the examples provided of 'self-exile'. Then, you are being oblivious to the main definitions of 'exile' given in OxfordDictionaries.com (your own source):

• The main noun definition it gives for 'exile' is The state of being barred from one's native country, typically for political or punitive reasons. Puigdemont has not been barred from returning to Spain.
• The only verb definition given for 'exile' is Expel and bar (someone) from their native country, typically for political or punitive reasons.

A key fact to be considered here as well is that Puigdemont left Spain before any judicial proceeding had been filled against him, and before any member of his government had been jailed (indeed, this only happened after Puigdemont's flight, and partly as a result of it).

As I said before, I've no particular preference for either 'exile' or 'self-exile'. Indeed, Merriam-Webster is more inclusive and clear on its definition of 'exile', which would favour the use of such a word. However, my main concern is that both you and Iñaki LL are trying to justify the use of 'exile' due to specific political or judicial motives (i.e. a specific POV), whereas definitions of 'exile' do not include any motivation behind the action of leaving one's country, just the fact of leaving. Indeed, if you are intent on using 'exile' because you think that Puigdemont's situation is comparable to that of the Dalai Lama (whose very life is endangered), or because he is being prosecuted out of politival motives, then we have a problem, as all of it has nothing to do with the definition of 'exile'. And such arguments would definitely not sway me into it (which would mean the other edit warriors, who were seemingly outrightly against the use of "exile", would not be more likely to be swayed either. Though I concede they could at least participate in this discussion and give out their opinions). Impru20^talk 20:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Well the fact that you insist so long on having the term restricting the political option portrays you. You are not free of having a bias, so I should urge you to spare us these personal considerations. As I said, "Exile" is the most common, and fits perfectly the bill here, whatever interpretation you may want to take as to any drives Puigdemont may have had to take that course of action. Dalai Lama's life would be endangered as Puigdemont's life, only he would not be executed, but receive a 25 year-term in prison. Iñaki LL (talk) 20:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Impru20: please remember WP:AGF, we are trying to build an encyclopedia not to push our personal political agenda. As Iñaki LL said, exile is a more common an undisputed term. You're right Puigdemont left the country before the legal process started, but that doesn't change anything, he can't go back to his home country because he risks being legally prosecuted and punished. That's exactly the definition of 'exile'. --Aljullu (talk) 10:43, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Iñaki LL: As a reply to you, I will limit myself to cite your own words throughout the discussion:

He took to exile because he risked being detained for his political action

You may agree it is a forced exile (unless he wanted to be detained!), plus all the persecution of Puigdemont at the highest political level thereafter across Europe. I hold you, Impru20, to be an editor aware of political matters in Spain, especially this, the No1 Spanish point of political contention --> the later of which, btw, results as a POV claim in itself, as "the No1 Spanish point of political contention" by the time you posted this comment were the issues behind Sánchez's thesis. But whatever, as that does not even closely relate to this discussion.

That would be a clear case, not one where you risk immediate prison and are the subject of political contention at the highest level.

I merely limited myself to discuss the gramatical aspects of 'exile', trying to set the political aspect aside (because they are NOT an intrinsecal part of the definition of 'exile'), whereas you've been discussing political motives behind the use of such a word. Which is what concerns me.

@Aljullu: I of course abide to AGF. My concerns, which I stated, come out of Iñaki LL's remarks on why he sees 'exile' more appropiate and which I quoted above (having little to nothing to do with gramatical aspects, and much more to do with political motives) and your own comparison of Puigdemont with the Dalai Lama, which I still do not understand how does it relate to the gramatical aspect of both 'exile' and 'self-exile'. A comparison of two way-different situations that is only seen in sources for casting a heavy POV into Puigdemont's figure (either in the extreme negative or the extreme positive).

And indeed, we are here to build an encyclopedia. I should remind that is exactly why I opened this discussion in the first place, because otherwise, the edit warring would have likely continued and the alleged WP:3RR's violations would have eventually ended in a much worse way, with little to no progress towards helping WP. The fact that I'm actually trying to discuss the issue (one which I really care little about, beyond the POV issue) when it was other editors who were in disagreement with the use of 'exile' shows how constructive I am trying to be here. Again, as your own linked Wikipedia article explictly reflects and as various dictionary definitions allow, both 'exile' and 'self-exile' would be appropiate for the situation of one leaving their country out of criminal prosecution, so it is also a concern for me that you keep deliberately ignoring this. Impru20^talk 11:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Nonetheless, as this discussion seems to go nowhere (since I've no particular strong issues against 'exile', aside from those I already commented) and also seems rather pointless since Llywelyn2000 changed the section title to "forced into exile" without being contested by anyone, there is no particular reason why this discussion should be kept further unless those opposing either 'exile' or 'forced into exile' do actually show up to provide their own arguments. Impru20^talk 11:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

My main point in favor of 'exile' instead of 'self-imposed exile' is that 'self-imposed exile' has many other meanings which don't seem to adhere to Puigdemont's situation. In the other hand, 'exile' seems much more precise, to me.

You were right when you said 'exile' has other meanings that might not adhere to Puigdemont's situation. He has not been expelled from his own country but he left on his own feet, neither he is threatened with death. But our readers probably know that Spain, as a EU country, doesn't have death penalty neither can expel a national citizen, while still might not know the reason that brought Puigdemont to stay abroad. If you think that's not clear in our current text, we can try to improve it, but that doesn't change the fact that the definition of 'exile' is much more accurate and it's meanings are much more similar to Puigdemont's situation than 'self-imposed exile', from my point of view.

In any case, in the intro of the article we already explain his situation is defined in different ways by different sources, so the reader can take their own conclusions. --Aljullu (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Reverting error fixes

@Iñaki LL:, This edit is unacceptable. Expelled always has two Ls, never one. Desist from making such unconstructive edits, if I didn't know I would assume this is vandalism and with good reason. Take a great deal more care in the future, please. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 18:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

??? I just reverted to the last good version. Please RichardWeiss stop making a fuss out of nothing and falling in undue assumptions. The IP actually vandalized a paragraph for which you remained oblivious. Please now go and put the l where it fits. Bye. Iñaki LL (talk) 18:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Consensus on removing neutrality tag?

The NPOV/neutrality tag seems to have been added with no discussion on the talk page (as per the date of September 2018). I vote to remove, as per Template:POV it should not have been placed without discussion/justification and could be seen as an attempt to discredit the article which seems heavily referenced and mostly sound. Mountain^cirque 11:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree with you. I do not see how it serves any practical purpose. Iñaki LL (talk) 15:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Disagree. There are several neutrality issues on this article. I have not seen any consensus on any of the points previously discussed. Please remember that this is also a highly controversial article prone to political bias. Arcillaroja (talk) 13:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

You are wrong in your claim that there was no discussion, @Mountaincirque:, there was a discussion and I was the one who placed it there. I puit it there due to this sentence "Rajoy rejected the offer, saying that he was only willing to speak with the leader of the Catalan government, whom he considered to be Inés Arrimadas, leader of the unionist Citizens, the largest single party in the Catalan Parliament" I see it has been de-linked since then from Spanish unionism which is helpful in the sense that readers now don't have a direct link to this statement "The adoption of the term unionism into the Spanish context and its loaded usage with negative connotation" which explains why. I don't think the word unionist is well-referenced and I do still think it violates our NPOV policy. It is not an attempt to discredit the article, please assume good faith, and as you could have found out for yourself by going into the archive. The bot has been programmed to remove any thread which isn't active, which I don't agree with either. I support the tag's inclusion until the word unionist is removed from the article as we are supposed not to take sides but that word supports the Puigdemont view of the world. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 13:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

The other solution would be to call pro-independence parties separatists, where refs allow, not a nice term either but at least we would be balanced between two derogatory terms. Using a derogatory term to describe one side and not a similar term to describe the other is clearly a violation of NPOV, and this is the ONLY reason the tag is there. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 13:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

That is a valid point you bring up. In fact the WP is plagued with links of "separatism" and "separatist" (term widely use by the Franco regime in the persecution of dissidence), even for parties from which I doubt anyone has heard a word in support of independence, e.g. Geroa Bai. On the other hand, talk of "union of Spain" as an overriding concern is common rhetoric in the parties on the right in Spain every other day, also among a number of Socialists (who also advocate for the union of Spain and against self-determination of the Catalans). I could not think of a more direct and fair description.

As for the tag, it does not seem to me a regular practice to keep it there sine die. Iñaki LL (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)