Talk:Q16933549

Not very productive edits

Please discus any significant changes here before you apply them. Protected the item to enforce this. Multichill (talk) 12:57, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Change of foundation date

The term president of the Generalitat of Catalonia is first established in the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia of 1932 . That can't be compared with the role of Eclesiastic Deputy of the Deputation of the General of Catalonia. Assuming that those medieval eclesiastics were Presidents of the Generalitat is a contemporary interpretation to achieve some political ends. --Kurrop (talk) 11:10, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Kurrop: your continous reversions about President of the Generalitat of Catalonia (Q16933549) and Pau Claris (Q2532926), I want to understand that are caused for a misunderstanding of the document you apported as a reference. This institution was created and widely documented on 1359. It was abolished on 1714 and reactivated on 1932 with the document you have use as a reference. Please stop reversions and accept the existing historiography created before your document. Thanks Amadalvarez (talk) 13:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Amadalvarez: The institution that was created on 1359 was the Deputation of the General of Catalonia that, as you should know, was ruled by the eclesiastic deputy, one of the three branches of the medieval power, the royalty and the military were the others. The position of the eclesiastic deputy or preeminent deputy can't be compared with the modern President of the Generalitat of Catalonia created within the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia of 1932 and with attributions completely different from the medieval one . --Kurrop (talk) 14:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Kurrop: I respect your opinion, but I do not build the history on wikidata, I just use a serious reference to exlain the value of statements. The http://www.president.cat/pres_gov/president/ca/presidencia/origens-generalitat.html is the official web about history of Presidents as a public summary of hundreds of scholarly works of the history of the institution. It's not my objective have a discussion about history here. This is not the space. The discussion you are starting has been done several times in the history enviroments and your option always has been rejected, based on serious criteria. Thanks to try to apport a new point of views on history of the Generalitat de Catalunya. I hope you wish to follow well editing on Wikidata. Kind regards, Amadalvarez (talk) 14:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Amadalvarez: Can you please support your words with references? Here you can check some of the several authors and articles that support that the position of president of the generalitat started in 1932

• La Corona de Aragón: manipulación, mito e historia (Editorial Doce Robles, 2014)
• [1]
• [2]
• [3]--Kurrop (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Kurrop, Amadalvarez: Check out the preamble of the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia 2006 (Q1975265). "El poble de Catalunya ha mantingut al llarg dels segles una vocació constant d'autogovern, encarnada en institucions pròpies com la Generalitat -que fou creada el 1359 a les Corts de Cervera- [...]" --Townie (talk) 15:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Amadalvarez, Townie: There are several articles that speak over and over about the eclesiastic deputies instead of the presidente of the generalitat as it can't be compared. In that way is how it is written in the medieval texts, the name of president of the generalitat appears under the Second Spanish Republic.

• Alberto Montaner Frutos, El señal del rey de Aragón: Historia y significado, Zaragoza, Institución «Fernando el Católico», 1995, p. 156, fig. 68. ISBN 84-7820-283-8.
• Morales Roca, Francisco José (1983). Próceres habilitados en las Cortes del Principado de Cataluña, siglo XVII: 1599 - 1713 I. Ediciones Hidalguía. p. 33. ISBN 9788400053987.
• Hernández Sánchez, Antonio (2000). Nacionalismo: pasado, presente y futuro. Universidad de Castilla La Mancha. p. 79. ISBN 9788484270881.
• Morales Roca, Francisco José (1983). Próceres habilitados en las Cortes del Principado de Cataluña, siglo XVII: 1599 - 1713 I. Ediciones Hidalguía. pp. 33-34. ISBN 9788400053987.
• Sánchez de Movellán Torent, Isabel (2004). La Diputació del General de Catalunya (1413-1479) (en catalán). Institut d'Estudis Catalans. p. 215. ISBN 9788472837508.--Kurrop (talk) 15:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Kurrop: Upon my last reversal, I have warned that before making a conflictive change, it must be discussed. You impose your version without waiting for the resolution of the discussion. This action breaks the most basic norms of the netiquette and the collaboration of this project. So, while we are discussing, I urge you to undo your last reversals and leave it as it was originally before reaching a consensus. Amadalvarez (talk) 15:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Amadalvarez: I think there is not such a conflictive change but a correction of a mistake that can take to a potential reader to a misunderstanding of the term. I prefer an administrator to review the situation and take a decision prior to do any further change. --Kurrop (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Kurrop: Well, it is a conflictive change after all, since there are different views on what the mistake is. +1 to the proposed solution by @Amadalvarez: --Townie (talk) 15:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Kurrop: Respect the community guidelines. If you want to modify an item about an historical event, first reach a consensus and then apply the changes. The former data should be kept until there is an agreement. On the other hand, if you want to provide references, please do not focus on the ones you wish. There is a long list of references (from international authors, not just Spanish and with its historial bias with everything that is related with Catalonia) that state and support the information that was before. --Xavier Dengra (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Kurrop: Thanks for your bibliography. I understand you have read and agree with the content of Sánchez de Movellán Torent, Isabel (2004). La Diputació del General de Catalunya (1413-1479). Read the title is not enough to figure out that Generalitat did not exist. On the second line of the book, behind index of contents, of course, you can read "...aquest llibre sobre la història de la Generalitat en el segle XV....". At last paragraph on same page 9, you will see the clue to explain the mistake of some people interested in alter the history. It said "... a la seva Diputació o Generalitat li correspondrà, per abdicació del príncep,.....". It means, under the historical point of view, "Diputació del General" and "Generalitat" were sinonimous. It's only after medieval period when the name "Diputació del General" left behind and only "Generalitat de Catalunya" carry on till now. That's because in redaction of Estatuts de Catalunya from 20th century, just talk about Generalitat. Thanks for your interest,Amadalvarez (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

In Morales Roca, Francisco José (1983). Próceres habilitados en las Cortes del Principado de Cataluña, page 14: say "....Pablo de Claris y de Casademunt, Diputado eclesiastico y Presidente de la Generalidad,...." Another exemple that both duties were sinonimous. Amadalvarez (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

This is issue is about the position of President of the Generalitat that at all can be compared with the position of Eclesiastic Deputy nothing to do with the similarities between Deputation of the Generality and Generalitat. --Kurrop (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

This is your opinion, not the general consens about it. Probably the word "president" changed (i don't kknow), but you must agree that "president" is a new word extended used from 19th century to point to higher elected position, it means, the same as "diputat del General", because both of them reported to a higher nobiliary position. The modernization of the name doesn't change the concept. And you know. Amadalvarez (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I Repeat. I don't want to debate here about history. All serious references (even that you provide) point starting of the institution on 14th century. The rest of discussions is just a troll exercise. See you, Amadalvarez (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Amadalvarez:The general consensus? I fully disagree with you and you are not giving any reference to support your statement. And of course we have to have a debate in order to solve this issue. Berenguer de Cruilles and the following eclesiastic deputies were just tax collectors, The competencies that the Deputation of the General had were completely different from the ones the present Generalitat and its president have. So it is not a comparable position. Can you tell me who was the conseller de interior or the conseller de transportes of Berenguer de Cruilles? --Kurrop (talk) 08:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Kurrop: @Amadalvarez: From a semantical perspective (this intends to be a semantic database after all), the office Berenguer de Cruïlles (Q1924075) held ("diputat eclesiàstic") was a subclass of (P279) "member of (P463) Deputation of the General (Q11917313)" (and depending on sources also a subclass of "primus inter pares", although this may be contested), not a subclass of (P279) of president (Q1255921) nor head of government (Q2285706). The issue of the office not "being the same" (more important that not being a president is the fact that the office was not a head of government), rather than the issue of the office not being called the same either, leads to the necessity for creating a different item for it. I may create the necessary items (ecclesiatical deputy, primus inter pares as position, member of the Deputation of the General (Q11917313), et al, to model that.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, @Asqueladd:, to participate to help in the resolution of this discussion. Please, let me take a step back to take a perspective to assert my opinion that this is not a semantic problem, but a political one. I will explain: As a consequence of the conflict between the independence movement of Catalonia and the state of Spain, there are cross-strait information or counter-information where each part exposes aspects, both of daily life or history, that devalue the opposite position. In this "informative war" each part and every day uses its means (media, propaganda, laws, political parties, institutions, social networks, etc..) to achieve its goals. This debate is surely not new and it happens in any political conflict in the world. Obviously, it will take time and calm to have a non-contaminated and objective-documented version.

Without evaluate his intentions, Kurrop's action has bring this informational war on the real life to WD in an edition war format. He uses as references the sources that are favorable to his point of view and demands that I contribute with "my sources" to maintain the conflict. I reject this way, because we can not solve the real and present political-historical debates with our point of views nor vote by editors what is the "correct version" of the history.

If we go to analyze, as Asqueladd tries, what would be the semantic solution of the relationship of charges, we should base ourselves on some or other sources and, de facto, we will be following the Kurrop thesis, it means, select the "true source".

What is my proposal? Easy: The version that WD has to use about the structure of an institution is the official, and when there is an official change, we will apply it. If from WD we follow what the media or historians say without care that they could have specific interests, we will become judges of the "good version" of the history. In the specific case of the President of the Generalitat of Catalonia (Q16933549), I argue that the reference to follow is http://www.president.cat/pres_gov/president/ca/presidencia/origens-generalitat.html where the Institution explaines not only that the origins were the Deputies of the General and its functions, but also determines that the Institution considers "president" to the figure at the front since 1359, although the functions and structure have obviously changed. I'm sure there are disapproval voices and opinions disagree with what this "official version" says, but I do not think that WD is the space to resolve this discrepancies. They can go to the Generalitat of Catalonia (the source) and explain their arguments with all the documentation and historical arguments they consider, but we should not convert WD into the field of discussion of what, in my opinion, does not correspond to us. Sincerily, --Amadalvarez (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, @Asqueladd: for your help. Is quite entertaining to see how the user @Amadalvarez: tries to impose her point of view discrediting the other's reasoning accusing them of some kind of political propaganda, when is she who is doing so by trying to impose her nationalistic point of view giving sources that support her ideology and discrediting the sources of the "other point of view". Said that, there is a consensus that all of the rulers of the Generalitat from 1932 onward were "presidents of the generalitat" and those before were "eclesiastic deputy". There is not consensus about those eclesiastic deputies being considered as presidents. So I agree with Asqueladd that as this is a database only things well referenced and with consensus should be accepted. So @Asqueladd: I think everybody will be happy with your proposal. If we follow Amadalvarez proposal's that the official point of view is the right and only one then China would be a democratic country and Venezuela the happiest country in the world just because their institutions said so. The official version is just one more of the resources when studying an issue. So I repeat again that this being a database we should keep the information that have a real consensus. I would like to ask Amadalvarez to stop accusing the others to act with political motivations in order to have a constructive dabate she could be accused of acting in the same way. --Kurrop (talk) 09:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

The official version is that we went to the Moon (Q405), but that's just the official version. Some sources say that Stanley Kubrick (Q2001) directed the whole thing, so why not take those into account :P All jokes aside, there existed the royal deputy, the military deputy and the ecclesiastic deputy. The ecclesiastic deputy also served as president of the Generalitat, but it's not like there were the royal deputy, the military deputy and the president of the Generalitat.(source) Even newspapers which have lately pushed for the alternative "less presidents" version have said that Berenguer de Crüilles [sic] was president of the Generalitat.

I'm not arguing that being president of the Generalitat in 1359 is the same as being the president of the Generalitat in 2018: we'd be screwed! Rather, I think it's similar to the case of President of the French Republic (Q191954): there have been different instances of the same institution, and the powers held varied, but it's still considered the same. --Townie (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

That is your point of view. There's many authors that says that Berenguer de Cruilles and those in charge until Nueva Planta Decrees weren't presidents and only preeminent deputies of an institution created to collect taxes. here i.e.--Kurrop (talk) 08:18, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

After 3 weeks of waiting I suppose the people implicated in the issue are no longer interested on it. So after this I will change the terms of the article differentiating both concepts, president of the generalitat from 1932 onwards and eclesiastic deputy for the previous ones. --Kurrop (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kurrop, Amadalvarez, KRLS, Kippelboy: is this something you can agree on? Please hold off major editing for at least a couple of days to make sure this does not start yet another round of edit wars on this item. Multichill (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Multichill, Kurrop, Amadalvarez, KRLS, Kippelboy:As I've said before, there was the military deputy, the royalty deputy and the ecclesiastic deputy. Additionally, the ecclesiastic deputy was also the President of the Generalitat; but it's not like there was the military deputy, the royalty deputy and the President of the Generalitat. This is further evidenced by the case of John I, Count of Empúries (Q11927763): he was a military deputy who also was President of the Generalitat, because he came from a royal family. So, if you want to create the item for "ecclesiastic deputy" and add it to the first presidents of the Generalitat, I'm all for it; however, if you want to replace it, then I'm against it. --Townie (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

+1 to what @Townie: said. ESM (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, @Multichill:. I already explained that this should not be an history discussion but a procedure way to make changes of disputed content. @Kurrop: wants to re-write the history as the spanish media and some historians affected by the disputed political situations in Catalonia try to do. To follow his rules of the game means to transfer inside WD an interested discussion and to give greater support to a non-consensuated issue in real life. This user has large experience in eswiki "cleaning" contents with "catalan" word to "spanish" one. However, he has poor experience in work on a common space as WD. Kurrop propose his bibliography and ask to me to show my defensive literature. Sorry, the scholary discussion on history is now happening on the media and I believe that we do not have to move to WD to avoid a permanent edition war. Do we want accept his version and change it back next month by another editor with a new opinion of a come later historian ?. There are no consens. I defend the official version of the institution and he wants to use WD to change this official version.

The @Townie: pourpose is acceptable, because the "ecclesiastic deputy" were [usually] the condition to get the "president" position. So, add this position is not historically incorrect. If @Kurrop: accepts this pourpose, we can close the discussion. If he doesn't, the problem must go on. Thanks, Amadalvarez (talk) 05:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the denialist point of view, which claims that the office was only established in 1931, was extremely marginal until very recently. Only in the 2014-2016 period did it start to gain more media coverage, no doubt as a counter-reaction to the escalating events in the Catalan independence drive. A simple Google search for articles published before that time shows how unionist, independentist and neutral sources all agreed that the office was established in the 14th century.

It is therefore obvious that the denialist point of view is rooted not in factual arguments, but in a politicised attempt to delegitimise the offices and institutions of "the other side".

As a result, I support @Townie:'s proposal to create the item "ecclesiastic deputy" and add it to this one as a way of reflecting the existence of such ecclesiastic deputies and their relationship with the office of president of the Generalitat.

Finally, I strongly oppose any proposal to include both 1359 and 1931 as values for the "inception" parameter because that would be a textbook example of false balance.

--Leptictidium (talk) 07:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

100% agree with @Leptictidium:. thanks for the comprehensive research! --Jey (talk) 11:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

It's been a week since the last message, and I think the reasons suggested against the proposed change are valid enough. @Multichill: can we go back to this version, before the controversial changes were made (without modifying, of course, the new labels and descriptions)? --Townie (talk) 12:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @Multichill: and sorry for the delay. We all agree that from Francesc Macià until Quim Torra all were presidents of the Generalitat. We all agree also that from Berenguer de Cruilles until Pau Claris they all were Eclesiatic or Preeminent Deputies. We do not agree, neither the historians that those deputies could be called Presidents of the Generalitat. Despite users like Amadalvarez and Leptictidium trying to invalidate those arguments that don't fit with their ideology and using questionable references there is a fact that both schools of thought exist. So as this is a wikidata and as I think the info that appears here should be well referenced I propose that this page don't include nothing before 1932 and all previous to that date should be moved to the page of the Eclesiastic Deputy.--Kurrop (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kurrop: Again, they were mostly ecclesiastic deputies who also served as presidents of the Generalitat, but one thing doesn't invalidate the other. And I'm sorry, but you can't talk about "school of thought" when the newspapers against Catalan nationalism that are currently pushing for the "10 presidents" version had acknowledged the existence of +129 presidents of the Generalitat before. In 2014, the exact same newspaper explained that being in favour of independence was not common among the +129 presidents. In 2010 they said what I'm now saying: that the Generalitat was created in 1359, that the first president of the Generalitat was Berenguer de Cruïlles (Q1924075), and that the ecclesiastic deputy usually also served as President of the Generalitat. It's even what the Statute of Catalonia says in its preamble. So if you want to say that these are questionable sources, go ahead — but I don't think there is any room for that in Wikidata. --Townie (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@Multichill: As you can see, our pourpose to get an eclectic agreement are impossible with Kurrop. As the item is locked with the version he wrote, time is on his side and, as long he keeps the discussion alive, the more time his version is the official one. There are multiple history books (several provide by Kurrop, BTW) as a reference that the ecclesiastic deputy are called "president" too. But the mos important to me is the web of the institution, because the institutions can named their positions as they want. The head of Spanish governement is called "presidente del gobierno" and no "prime minister" or "chancellor", because of the Spanish institutions decission. So, my opinion or the spaniard anti-independence historian are not relevant if the Generalitat de Catalunya decide call them "President". I don't know what you want to do, but the discussion seems to be long. Thanks. Amadalvarez (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you @Amadalvarez: the history is not written by the Generalitat of Catalonia in that case probably Colon was Catalan and the first man in the moon too. But joking apart, many historians, and I am not using newspapers to validate my arguments as @Townie: does, says that the positions that Berenguer de Cruilles held can not be compared with the present position Quim Torra holds. So as there is controversy in the topic I say both position should be separated at least in the Wikidata. If anyone can learn about the different points of view they can go to wikipedia and read it in the different articles. So I think @Multichill: that due that the arguments that Amadalvarez, Townie and Leptictidium are givin are pure ideology I guess we should leave this article the more neutral we can by separating both concepts. --Kurrop (talk) 07:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kurrop: By the same rule of thumb, we can't say mankind walked on the Moon. The official version is that we went there, but hey, apparently we can't trust the official version. There are also many books which argue that we didn't go there, so there is that. Look, I have shown you that "my ideology" was backed by the same newspapers which are currently pushing for an alternative version of history. They even quoted historical studies to say that there were +129 presidents of the Generalitat. As @Amadalvarez: said, time is on your side, and we have already answered all your claims in your last message with sources which say otherwise.

PS: The Generalitat has never defended Christopher Columbus (Q7322) being a Catalan. Also, if anyone goes to Wikipedia, they may find this, which is simply not true, as I have said before. --Townie (talk) 08:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Townie: Well that was just a silly comparison, I can go for the previous comparison that many governments around the world say they are democracies when obviously they are not, see China, Russia or Congo. The official version is not fortunately the real version. You are trying to impose a fait accompli policy by discrediting everything that doesn`t fit your ideology even when it is perfectly referenced by serious sources. And as this is wikidata and not wikipedia only data with consensus, accurate and trusty should appear in an article. I can tell you also that the numeration of the presidents of the Generalitat was inventend by Solé i Sabaté in 2003 and the term Generalitat was given by a socialist to avoid the term Republica Catalana in 1932. See for example this Catalan newspaper considering your preferences for press references [4] --Kurrop (talk) 11:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kurrop: I have referenced my statements using sources which are now defending the 10 presidents version. That doesn't exactly "fit my ideology". What you have just linked to me is an opinion article, I don't think we can use it (also, he is a public figure, and he is known to be especially against Catalan nationalism). --Townie (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

The user has had over a month to try and build a new consensus to replace the previous long-standing one, and s/he has clearly failed to do so. Surely it is time to go back to the stable version of the page before Kruskop unilaterally tried to shove 1931 down WikiData's collective throat?--Leptictidium (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Leptictidium: +1 --Townie (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

As you said this is all about consensus, there is not consensus about the deputies before Macia being Presidents of the Generalitat or that the position was created in the XIV century. So as the only consensus is that from 1932 all the people ruling from Plaza San Jaume were presidents that info is the one that should be kept. Some reasons for that [5] [6] [7] --Kurrop (talk) 08:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

At this point, there's only one person arguing in favour of replacing the long-standing stable version with Kurrop's controversial and unilateral changes, and that's Kurrop him/herself. That pretty much says it all about the level of support for these unilateral changes. We have now waited far longer than the "couple of days" requested by @Multichill: on 2 January and I will therefore be restoring the statement in question to its previous stable version.--Leptictidium (talk) 08:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted those changes until an agreement is reached.--Kurrop (talk) 11:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Look, everyone who has participated in this discussion in the last month has reached an agreement except you. Everyone who has ever participated in this discussion has reached an agreement except you and a single other user. Neither you nor anyone else has the right to unilaterally veto a consensus just because you happen to disagree with it. I am therefore restoring the item to the stable, consensus-based version, and if you revert it again I will be reporting you for disruptive editing and trying to spark an edit war.--Leptictidium (talk) 12:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Well I will not accept 1359 as the only inception date, as there are different and referenced points of view I will add 1932 as another inception date as it is said here Help:Qualifiers#For_disputed_items_&_community_consensus.--Kurrop (talk) 08:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

If you want to follow the guidelines, you should have marked 1359 as the preferred value. Also, the reference you provide for 1932 doesn't even support your claim. Pinging @Leptictidium:. --Townie (talk) 08:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

"I will not accept" is not an argument, Kurrop, but for the sake of compromise I am okay with having 1932 as a secondary inception date as long as 1359 is clearly marked as the preferred value. Does @Townie: agree as well?--Leptictidium (talk) 08:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, the current source @Kurrop: gives in the item doesn't back the claim that the Generalitat was founded in 1932. The sources Kurrop has provided so far are opinion articles, books which say that it was founded in 1359, or newspapers that supported what I am saying before the whole craze began. Therefore, I feel like adding 1932, as @Leptictidium: had said before, would be a case of false balance, even despite it not being the preferred claim: if it's simply not true, it shouldn't be added at all. If you really wanted to add 1932 somewhere in this page, I think that the best solution would be in significant event (P793)>"reestablishment">point in time (P585)>1932. --Townie (talk) 09:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I was not aware that the property "reestablishment" existed. This is an interesting solution I could get behind.--Leptictidium (talk) 09:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Leptictidium: We would first have to create an item for "reestablishment", and then set it as a value for significant event (P793). Actually, this property could be used to detail the whole timeline of the presidency of the Generalitat. --Townie (talk) 09:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Having 1932 as a secondary inception and naming it as a reestablishment is the same as saying that 1359 is 100% valid. I don't agree with that, in order to keep the article neutral and both positions referred I go for having both properties in the same position. Do you @Leptictidium: and @Townie: agre with that before any change is done? --Kurrop (talk) 12:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Well... 1359 is 100% valid. :) Leptictidium (talk) 12:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kurrop: Also, you linked this, where it clearly states «if a consensus exists, it should be indicated by a preferred rank». The overwhelming consensus was that the Generalitat was founded in 1359, so 1932 should (at most) be a secondary inception. You asked for us to agree before any change was done, yet you still went ahead with the change. As I have said before, I find it a case of false balance, and if the claim isn't true, it shouldn't be added at all. Also, the source linked in the item doesn't back 1932 being the foundation date. --Townie (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Leptictidium: is not 100% valid as there is not 100% of consensus on it. Why don't using 1932 as the preferred one? :-) --Kurrop (talk) 12:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

It's up to you to prove that 1932 is the preferred one. In the meantime, the long-term stable version (1359) prevails.--Leptictidium (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

+ 1 to what @Leptictidium: said. The first unconsensed change was made by Kurrop; He is the one who must achieve consensus in favor. Amadalvarez (talk) 13:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Pere Aragonès i Garcia acting or not?

Some sources say Pere Aragonès (Q16169026) is the acting office holder, other sources say it's vacant? What is it? Do the Spanish nationalists and the Catalan nationalists agree or do we have to make two statements again? @Davidpar, MisterSynergy, Leptictidium: Please provide source, take it easy and edit after consensus has been established. I hope you're able to sort it out. Multichill (talk) 10:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of the current situation: correct historical data with a source should never be removed or overwritten at all. Since Pere Aragonès (Q16169026) seemed to have held this office in the past, this claim should not be removed. The current value, which could be no value if this is accurate, should be raised to "preferred rank" instead. —MisterSynergy (talk) 10:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

The fact that someone mistakenly added Mr Aragonès as a value for P1308 a few months ago does not mean Aragonès has actually held this office in the past. The relevant Catalan law does not give Mr Aragonès the position of acting President (president en funcions), but that of vice president fulfilling the duties of the president (vicepresident amb funcions de president). It may seem like a fine distinction semantically, but it is a substantial one legally. There are literally thousands of sources in this regard. Mr Aragonès is not the president, acting or otherwise, as he has quite clearly stated himself. Therefore, the value for P1308 should be "vacant" until the next election takes place on 14 February and a new president is sworn in afterwards. Finally, I do not believe it is helpful or conducive to a proper debate to frame every single event in Catalan politics as a conflict between "the Spanish nationalists and the Catalan nationalists" [sic], and I would urge all users to refrain from making such sweeping generalisations.--Leptictidium (talk) 11:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

President of the Generalitat of Catalonia (Q16933549) officeholders

This list is periodically updated by a bot. Refresh now

query

132.		Pere Aragonès (Q16169026) 2021-05-24 –
131.		Quim Torra (Q1945815) 2018-05-17 – 2020-09-29
130.		Carles Puigdemont (Q4740163) 2016-01-12 – 2017-10-28
129.		Artur Mas (Q8015) 2010-12-27 – 2016-01-12
128.		José Montilla (Q465464) 2006-11-28 – 2010-12-27
127.		Pasqual Maragall i Mira (Q355265) 2003-12-20 – 2006-11-28
126.		Jordi Pujol (Q458702) 1980-05-08 – 2003-12-20
125.		Josep Tarradellas i Joan (Q8005) 1954-08-05 – 1980-05-08
124.		Josep Irla i Bosch (Q731289) 1940-10-15 – 1954-05-07
123.		Lluís Companys (Q7981) 1936-03-04 – 1940-10-15
123.		Lluís Companys (Q7981) 1933-12-31 – 1934-10-07
122.		Francesc Macià i Llussà (Q1806213) 1932-12-14 – 1933-12-25
121.		Josep de Vilamala (Q1951110) 1713-07-22 – 1714-09-16
120.		Francesc Antoni de Solanell i de Montellà (Q8962151) 1710 – 1713	Date precision
119.		Manuel de Copons i d'Esquerrer (Q5994678) 1707 – 1710
118.		Josep Grau (Q6542072) 1706 – 1707
117.		Francesc de Valls i Freixa (Q11922920) 1704 – 1705
		Antoni de Planella i de Cruïlles (Q11906019) 1701 – 1704
116.		Josep Antoni Valls i Pandutxo (Q11928435) 1701 – 1706	Date overlap
115.		Climent de Solanell i de Foix (Q11914127) 1698 – 1701
114.		Rafael de Pinyana i Galvany (Q19301621) 1695 – 1698
113.		Antoni de Planella i de Cruïlles (Q11906019) 1692 – 1695
112.		Benet Ignasi de Salazar (Q5725849) 1689 – 1692
111.		Antoni de Saiol i de Quarteroni (Q11906016) 1686 – 1689
110.		Baltasar de Muntaner i de Çacosta (Q16174136) 1683 – 1686
109.		Josep Sastre i Prats (Q11928922) 1680 – 1683
108.		Alfonso de Sotomayor (Q11904966) 1677 – 1680
107.		Esteve Mercadal i Dou (Q16183767) 1674 – 1677
106.		Josep de Camporrells i de Sabater (Q11928998) 1671 – 1674
105.		Joan Pagès i Vallgornera (Q11927878) 1668 – 1671
104.		Josep de Magarola i de Grau (Q11929000) 1665 – 1668
103.		Jaume de Copons i de Tamarit (Q16189830) 1662 – 1655
102.		Pau d'Àger i d'Orcau (Q11940576) 1659 – 1662
101.		Joan Jeroni Besora (Q16177455) 1656 – 1659
100.		Francesc Pijoan (Q19290925) 1654-03 – 1656-07	Date precision
99.		Pau del Rosso (Q12773470) 1650 – 1654	Date precision
98.		Andreu Pont (Q11905526) 1647 – 1650
97.		Gispert d'Amat i Desbosc de Sant Vicenç (Q11924286) 1644 – 1647
96.		Bernat de Cardona i de Raset (Q16187428) 1641 – 1644
95.		Josep Soler (Q1919176) 1641 – 1641
94.		Pau Claris (Q2532926) 1638-07-22 – 1641-01-26	Date precision
93.		Miquel d'Alentorn i de Salbà (Q16164086) 1635 – 1638	Date precision  Inconsistent predecessor
91.		Esteve Salacruz (Q19290582) 1632 – 1632	Inconsistent predecessor  Inconsistent successor
92.		Garcia Gil de Manrique y Maldonado (Q8963474) 1632 – 1635	Date overlap  Inconsistent predecessor  Inconsistent successor
90.		Pere Antoni Serra (Q11940909) 1629 – 1632	Inconsistent successor
89.		Francesc Morillo (Q11922798) 1626 – 1629
88.		Pere de Magarola i Fontanet (Q11941097) 1623 – 1626
87.		Benet Fontanella (Q11908974) 1620-07-22 – 1623
86.		Lluís de Tena Gomez (Q11933696) 1617 – 1620	Date precision
85.		Miquel d'Aimeric i de Codina (Q11936980) 1616-08 – 1617-07	Date precision
84.		Ramon d'Olmera i d'Alemany (Q11944668) 1614 – 1616	Date precision
83.		Francesc de Sentjust i de Castre (Q11922915) 1611 – 1614
82.		Onofre d'Alentorn i de Botella (Q11939368) 1608 – 1611
81.		Pere Pau Caçador i d'Aguilar-Dusai (Q11941021) 1605 – 1608
80.		Bernat de Cardona i de Queralt (Q11909188) 1602 – 1605
79.		Jaume Cordelles i Oms (Q16189845) 1599 – 1602
78.		Francesc Oliveres (Q11922804) 1598 – 1599
75.		Francesc Oliver de Boteller (Q19257169) 1596 – 1598
77.		Miquel d'Agullana (Q11936978) 1593 – 1596
76.		Jaume Caçador i Claret (Q11927259) 1590 – 1593
75.		Francesc Oliver de Boteller (Q19257169) 1587 – 1588
74.		Martí Joan de Calders (Q19301139) 1587 – 1587	Inconsistent predecessor
73.		Jaume Beuló (Q11927242) 1584 – 1584	Inconsistent predecessor  Inconsistent successor
		Pere Oliver de Boteller i de Riquer (Q19301548) 1584 – 1587	Date overlap  Inconsistent predecessor  Inconsistent successor
72.		Rafael d'Oms (Q11944463) 1581 – 1584	Inconsistent successor
		Benet de Tocco (Q8246290) 1578 – 1581
71.		Pere Oliver de Boteller i de Riquer (Q19301548) 1575 – 1578
70.		Jaume Cerveró (Q16188513) 1572 – 1575
69.		Benet de Tocco (Q8246290) 1569 – 1572
68.		Francesc Giginta (Q19290861) 1566 – 1569
67.		Onofre Gomis (Q19301362) 1563 – 1566
		Miquel d'Oms i de Sentmenat (Q11936983) 1560 – 1563
66.		Ferran de Lloaces i Peres (Q8961413) 1559 – 1560
65.		Pere Àngel Ferrer i Despuig (Q11941107) 1557 – 1559
64.		Francesc Jeroni Benet Franc (Q11922777) 1554 – 1557
63.		Miquel de Tormo (Q19301209) 1553 – 1554
62.		Joan de Tormo (Q19299839) 1552 – 1553
61.		Miquel de Ferrer i de Marimon (Q20005982) 1552 – 1552
60.		Onofre de Copons i de Vilafranca (Q11939367) 1551 – 1552
59.		Miquel d'Oms i de Sentmenat (Q11936983) 1548 – 1551
58.		Jaume Caçador (Q1027399) 1545 – 1548
57.		Miquel Despuig (Q11936956) 1542 – 1545
56.		Jeroni de Requesens i Roís de Liori (Q19299763) 1539 – 1542
55.		Joan Pasqual (Q19299962) 1536 – 1539
54.		Dionís de Carcassona (Q11917267) 1533 – 1536
53.		Francesc Oliver i de Boteller (Q19290910) 1530 – 1533
52.		Francesc de Solsona (Q11922916) 1527 – 1530
51.		Luigi de Cardona i Enríquez (Q3840281) 1524 – 1527
50.		Joan Margarit i de Requesens (Q19299910) 1521 – 1524
49.		Bernat de Corbera (Q11909193) 1518 – 1521
48.		Esteve de Garret (Q11921018) 1515 – 1518
47.		Jaume Fiella (Q15138332) 1514 – 1515
46.		Juan de Aragón y de Jonqueras, 2nd count of Ribagorza (Q645210) 1512 – 1514
45.		Jordi Sanç (Q11928365) 1509 – 1512
44.		Lluís Desplà i d'Oms (Q9023322) 1506 – 1509
43.		Gonzalo Fernández de Heredia (Q11924471) 1504 – 1506
42.		Ferrer Nicolau de Gualbes i Desvalls (Q19290761) 1503 – 1504
41.		Alfons d'Aragó (Q1959001) 1500 – 1503
40.		Pedro de Mendoza (Q21088784) 1497 – 1500
39.		Francí Vicenç (Q19290971) 1494 – 1497
38.		Joan de Peralta (Q17482981) 1491 – 1494
37.		Juan Payo Coello (Q11929320) 1488 – 1491
		Ponç Andreu de Vilar (Q16166506) 1485 – 1488
36.		Pere Folc de Cardona (Q3904360) 1482 – 1485
35.		Berenguer de Sos (Q16176833) 1479 – 1482
34.		Pere Joan Llobera (Q19301507) 1478 – 1479
33.		Miquel Delgado (Q11936898) 1476 – 1478
32.		Joan Maurici de Ribes (Q11927842) 1473 – 1476
31.		Miquel Samsó (Q9033513) 1470 – 1473
30.		Ponç Andreu de Vilar (Q16166506) 1467 – 1470
29.		Francesc Colom (Q11922732) 1464 – 1467
28.		Manuel de Montsuar i Mateu (Q4736480) 1461 – 1464
27.		Antoni Pere Ferrer (Q11905920) 1458 – 1461
26.		Nicolau Pujades (Q19301337) 1455-10-24 – 1458
25.		Bernat Guillem Samasó (Q11909146) 1452 – 1455	Date precision
24.		Bertran Samasó (Q19257367) 1449 – 1452
23.		Pero Ximénez de Urrea i de Bardaixí (Q11941288) 1446 – 1449
22.		Jaime Cardona (Q2535785) 1443 – 1446
21.		Antoni d'Avinyó i de Moles (Q11905999) 1440 – 1443
20.		Pere de Darnius (Q16190470) 1437 – 1440
19.		Pere de Palou (Q11941100) 1434 – 1437
		Marc de Vilalba (Q427696) 1431 – 1434
18.		Domènec Ram i Lanaja (Q2756994) 1428-07-23 – 1431
17.		Felip de Malla (Q4894099) 1425 – 1428	Date precision
16.		Dalmau de Cartellà i Despou (Q11916507) 1422 – 1425
15.		Joan Desgarrigues (Q11927690) 1419 – 1422
14.		Andreu Bertran (Q11905494) 1416 – 1419
13.		Marc de Vilalba (Q427696) 1413 – 1416
12.		Alfons de Tous (Q4721976) 1396 – 1413
11.		Miquel de Santjoan (Q924166) 1389-06-19 – 1396
10.		Arnau Descolomer (Q8204717) 1384-07-12 – 1389	Date precision
9.		Pere de Santamans (Q11698920) 1380 – 1383
8.		Felip d'Anglesola (Q8961103) 1380 – 1380
		Ramon Gener (Q11701994) 1379 – 1380
7.		Galceran de Besora i de Cartellà (Q8963334) 1377 – 1378	Inconsistent predecessor
5.		John I, Count of Empúries (Q11927763) 1376 – 1376	Inconsistent predecessor  Inconsistent successor
6.		Guillem de Guimerà i d'Abella (Q9001285) 1376 – 1377	Date overlap  Inconsistent predecessor  Inconsistent successor
		Romeu Sescomes (Q2876678) 1375 – 1376	Inconsistent predecessor  Inconsistent successor
		Pere Vicenç (Q115571105) 1367 – 1369	Missing fields
4.		Bernat Vallès (Q8246955) 1365 – 1367	Inconsistent successor
3.		Ramon Gener (Q11701994) 1364 – 1365
2.		Romeu Sescomes (Q2876678) 1363 – 1364
1.		Berenguer de Cruïlles (Q1924075) 1359 – 1362
Position created:		1359

WDQS