Jump to content

Talk:Julio Iglesias Puga

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Julio Iglesias Sr.)

Why is this at Julio Iglesias, Sr. instead of Julio Iglesias Puga or Julio Puga? RJFJR 17:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does he even have an article? He has no notability except being the father of a famous singer.MartinezMD (talk) 02:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The guy also fathered two kids when he was 90! Plenty of people took notice of that very unusual fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.30.79.193 (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Julio Inglesias Jr

[edit]

The use of this name is rather confused in this article. The introduction states that Julio Inglesias Sr. is the grandfather of Julio Inglesias Jr., and indeed that section links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julio_Iglesias,_Jr., his grandson who was born in 1973.

However, the section 'In the music of his son' refers to his son 'Julio Inglesias Jr.', and talks about a song recorded by him in 1972, a year before the birth of his grandson, the actual Julio Inglesias Jr. I have therefore changed this section and added a (second) link to his son's WP entry. I believe he is the person most would think of if the name 'Julio Inglesias' was mentioned anyway, so the Sr. and Jr. would be superfluous in this instance. Matt Adore (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ETA

[edit]

This group has reliably been labelled a terrorist group, specifically the United Nations as well as several others.[1][2][3] "December 2001: The European Union declares Eta a terrorist organisation - the first time all 15 member governments have labelled Eta as such, in a significant diplomatic victory for the Spanish Government."[4] I will make the change in the article accordingly. MartinezMD (talk) 15:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "SECURITY COUNCIL CONDEMNS MADRID TERRORIST BOMBINGS, URGES ALL STATES TO JOIN SEARCH FOR PERPETRATORS - Meetings Coverage and Press Releases". Welcome to the United Nations. 2004-03-11. Retrieved 2020-06-27.
  2. ^ "Foreign Terrorist Organizations". United States Department of State. 2020-01-13. Retrieved 2020-06-27.
  3. ^ Jones, Sam (2018-04-20). "'We are truly sorry': Eta apologises for four decades of deadly violence". the Guardian. Retrieved 2020-06-27.
  4. ^ "Timeline: Eta campaign". BBC News. 2019-05-16. Retrieved 2020-06-27.
MOS:TERRORIST reads and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. (emphasis added). FDW777 (talk) 16:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:TERRORIST is a words to watch guidance. In the case of ETA, it has been reliably sourced as I have already discussed in the preceding paragraph. if the UN, USA, and EU are not authorities on labeling terrorists, then who is? I've reverted back the change to terrorist and will add the citations in text. MartinezMD (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOV and WP:LABEL are pretty clear on this. See also the treatment in English language sources such as
The BBC: "Basque separatist group ETA"
The New York Times: "ETA, the Basque separatist group"
Encyclopedia Britannica: "Basque separatist organization"
CNN: "ETA, the Basque separatist group"
Reuters: "Basque separatist group ETA"
So, besides being a loaded term, it is not as widely used in sources as you seem to believe, so per WP:NPOV we stick with the less loaded term. Valenciano (talk) 08:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
what Valenciano said, in addition to the part of MOS:TERRORIST I specifically bolded, which of course was totally ignored. FDW777 (talk) 13:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral does not mean equal weight. Numerous major nations of this world have designated ETA as a terrorist organization, and the ETA article itself has this in the lead. Why minimize the murders of almost 1000 people? And FDW777, I thought you meant inline citation not intext. I can certainly adjust that and wasn't trying to ignore you. Would it be inappropriate to add "classified as a terrorist group by Spain, France,[1] the United Kingdom,[2] the United States,[3] Canada[4] and the European Union.[5]" That is from the ETA article and apparently had plenty of scrutiny already. MartinezMD (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would make for one ugly looking sentence, and were those designations in place in 1981? Considering the sentence is talking about a kidnapping and still says police anti-terrorism unit is there any real need to hammer home the point? FDW777 (talk) 15:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not. My intent was to be clear about the seriousness/danger of the group while also not using euphemism to describe them. Alternatively the sentence could add something briefer like, "labelled a terrorist group" with the refs. The tipping point on their designations started in 2003 but based on all their prior history as well. MartinezMD (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK they were proscribed in 2001 (see page 11), in the USA October 1997, in Canada April 2003, the EU irrelevant for 1981, the France reference appears to be simply repeating the EU list (it's even got the European Council press release right before the list). So the only possible 1981 designation in place out of the ones listed would have been Spain (or France, if it has its own list), which has no reference. But I really think it's an unnecessary point, obviously kidnapping is illegal, and there's the rescue by the anti-terrorist police. Nobody will read that and think ETA were boy scouts.
Also "separatist" is not a euphemism for "terrorist", despite me replacing the latter with the former on this article, and repeated attempts to do the opposite on the ETA article. There are purely political separatists in many countries, it is a purely factual description of a group's goals. Their tactics and strategy are a different matter entirely of course. FDW777 (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The euphemism here is calling ETA separatists when they have been employing terrorist actions (extortion, threats, kidnapping, killing innocents, etc). The Catalonian separatist movement, by contrast, is not terroristic. If the article retains the statement of rescue by anti-terrorism police, I suppose I won't belabor the point due to opposition. MartinezMD (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

Requested move 5 September 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: move to Julio Iglesias Puga UtherSRG (talk) 23:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Julio Iglesias Sr.Julio Iglesias Puga – Recommend moving this to either "Julio Iglesias Puga" or "Julio Iglesias (gynecologist)" as the title is a WP:NEOLOGISM. The senior, junior, III model is not used in Spanish, where this man spent his whole life. The English source from UPI introduces him as "Dr. Julio Iglesias Puga" and later calls him "Iglesias Sr.", a common journalistic way of disambiguating people, whether or not they share the same first name. The current title also runs into confusion as the son of Julio Iglesias is Julio Iglesias Jr., and is professionally known as that due to living in the US. The average person who sees the Jr. article and will expect the Sr. article to be Jr's father. Google Books search is mainly cheap biographies of his star offspring, but they too call him "Julio Iglesias Puga". It's up to you whether it's clearer to include his second surname, or his profession. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Shadow007 (talk) 03:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.