Talk:2016 PSOE crisis

COUP?
Using the term coup is taking sides, it is not a coup when it is legal. It is a loss of confidence, whatever, not a coup. Highly charged term in Spain as well. Please remove this term from this article. Asilah1981 (talk) 11:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Coup d'état: A coup d'état, also known simply as a coup, putsch or an overthrow, is the illegal and overt seizure of a state by the military or other elites within the state apparatus.
 * The definition given fits exactly on what has happened. The mass resignation from the party's Executive is not a "legal" way to remove the leader (in fact, party rules are rather ambiguous on whether the Secretary-General should actually resign, as it only says that the "Federal Committee" should convene to prepare an extraordinary congress). The critics' aim to create a managing committee to replace Sánchez is also not specifically provided by party rules (intepretation of them could pave the way for it, but they don't say so right away).
 * Besides, it's the term media uses, so it can hardly be said to be "taking sides". We report what sources report. Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 12:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Haha you gotta be kidding me. Tell me where it says in the estatutos that resigning is illegal. WTF?!?! Asilah1981 (talk) 15:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * ? Resigning is not illegal. But in the party rules it is nowhere to be said that the resignation of 51% of the executive members does necessarily lead to the Secretary-General's ouster (in fact, that's one of the key issues being discussed right now: what party rules actually say). Even so, the vacancy of 51% of executive members is not an intended method by party rules to dismiss a party leader, the mass resignation being more directed to trigger enough political pressure to lead to it.
 * Even non-Spanish sources, such as The Guardian (which can hardly be considered as taking part in the conflict) consider this as a "coup attempt". Other leadership crisis/election articles for other countries also use the word "coup" without any issue arising. It's clear this is a move by critics to oust Sánchez, and recognizing that doesn't mean we're taking sides here (the critics themselves recognize they did it to cause Sánchez's downfall). This is merely reporting what sources say. Impru20 (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Impru20 Coup is not used in the literal sense but as a metaphor. It is ridiculous to use the term in Wikipedia as if it were an actual "coup". It makes it sound like who ever wrote this does not master the English language. The media also uses the term "coup" over Jeremy Corbyn's leadership crisis. Wikipedia does not. Have a look. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Corbyn#Summer_2016_leadership_crisis http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-politics-36779587. We should bring more editors to comment on this. Asilah1981 (talk) 12:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, well, here the term "coup" is not used in the literal sense by anyone since this is obviously not a "military move" nor is this a "state". It is used as a metaphor. Sources use such a term in such a way and we report it in the same way that sources use it. Can't see the issue, and can't see why you keep complaining on this.
 * Hey, pal, in my previous comment I actually cited you the Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2016 article which uses the term "coup" many times throughout the article. Didn't you see that? Your claim is obviously wrong. Impru20 (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It does not refer to it as a coup, it cites people using the term, which is fine. We cannot define it ourselves as a coup because a federal executive resigning due to lack of confidence in its SG simply does not qualify as a coup.Asilah1981 (talk) 12:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * You seem to not have checked the links I put to you.
 * The Guardian. Link ---> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/29/pedro-sanchez-insists-still-charge-spanish-socialist-party
 * First sentence: "Pedro Sánchez ignored calls to step down as leader of the Spanish Socialist party (PSOE) on Thursday, insisting he was still in charge despite an attempted coup that saw more than half the party’s executive committee quit in a bid to topple him and break Spain’s nine-month electoral deadlock". It uses the term in its own right, not referencing anyone's words. In Spanish media its use is more common (through Spanish translations, of course), as well as the use of similarly-related words (revolt, war, schism, split...). That's what sources say, I'm just reporting it as it is. The current state of PSOE is of a party in open revolt with two factions which don't recognize each other as legitimate to lead the party, with both sides claiming to be the only authority. It's obvious this is not just a mere "resignation due to lack of confidence" happening. The mass resignation is a part of the whole event, not the event in itself as you seek to portray it. Impru20 (talk) 13:04, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * In any case, my use of the word "coup" is to use a term—preferably one which is used by the media, if possible—different than "crisis" (which is already widely used) to describe the current party's situation. If you have another word or short expression which can be used to describe the whole sequence of events in a better way, I'm open to discuss it. Impru20 (talk) 13:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ouster attempt is as neutral as it gets. Asilah1981 (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * But an "ouster attempt" is the same thing as a "coup"... Impru20 (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I would agree it refers to the same thing, but "ouster attempt" is more neutral. In English to describe something as a coup indicates a violent overthrow, usually of a government. Clearly many news sources are using that word to describe the situation, but that is sensationalism, and not neutral. We can definitely say "events described in some news sources as a 'coup'" Jdcooper (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, this whole thing is being quite "violent" actually, so it's not that they're exaggerating it. Anyway, I've already changed the disputed section titles from "coup" to "crisis" or "leadership crisis". Impru20 (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * By what I understand Pedro Sanchez has been invited to leave and finally resigned as a result of 1) A block resignation in his own executive committee 2) The absolute majority of the Federal Committee voting against his proposal. In any case, the whole thing is over now. But considering the virulent misinformation campaign coming from the Podemos camp on what is going on, we should be careful in the way we write. A coup has extremely negative connotations. What has happened here is a generalized loss of confidence by the party where even sworn enemies have united against Sanchez, and where the initiative has been taken by the people who actually put him in power. Asilah1981 (talk) 21:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * And no, it hasn't been violent. The only violence of sorts has been by the hundred odd people standing infront of the PSOE offices insulting Party leaders and calling this a coup. Asilah1981 (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, Spanish media, most of which can't exactly be considered as "pro-Podemos" regard this as a coup or, at least, as an open revolt. Non-Spanish media, most notably The Guardian (which I can hardly find to be in the "Podemos camp") consider this as a coup and/or revolt. Some even talk of "war". You forget to mention the woman that went to Ferraz to proclaim herself as "the sole authority existing in the PSOE" the day after the mass resignation, as well as the critics rejecting to recognize Sánchez as their party leader any longer despite party rules being rather ambiguous on the issue. Or the full-blown division throughout several party governing and control bodies. Imagine how this would be regarded if something akin to this had happened at a statewide-level.
 * Just check news to see how this has been specially violent and virulent. "Verbal" violence also exists, and that was quite common within the meeting (there are even reports of Susana Díaz herself breaking down in tears at some time of the assembly after Sánchez was reported to have attempted to rig a vote and many members shouted and insulted him. That's 'violent' too). The party is essentially broken internally (not yet formally fractured, but it's fairly close to a split). Impru20 (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I heard of Susana Diaz crying, but I don't know what level of "violence" occurred since the Sanchez team refused to let the cameras into the building. People heatedly telling someone to resign as he should have done many days earlier instead of attempting to destroy the party for the sake of his own position is not "violence". The only element of this entire episode which resembles a (failed) coup were those dodgy ballots that the Sanchez team placed to vote, something so outlandish that many of his erstwhile supporters (e.g. Borrell) switched camp once they realized who/what they had been initially supporting. Or the earlier attempt to push through an "express" congress without opposition duplicitously framing it as a referendum on abstention, contrary to what had been agreed by the Federal Committee.... Yes that could also pass off as a (failed) coup. Besides that, the PSOE has got rid of its non-leader in a stressful yet very much legal fashion. I do not see media claiming it was illegal or against party statutes. In fact, all mainstream Spanish media seem to agree the ouster was very much legal. I'm not claiming to be neutral on Mr. Sanchez, I think he is a power-obsessed psychopath willing to sell his mother to become Prime Minister... but I'm not pushing that position here, simply stating that calling this a coup is intoxication and propaganda as well as simply not fitting the definition. The article should also clearly mention that many of those involved in the rebellion were contrary to abstention for formation of government. Asilah1981 (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * According to some sources, Díaz's deputy tried to physically assault Sánchez. Others say that yelling and shouting was quite common within there. We don't know exactly what happened within there, but it's sure it was quite chaotic (and, in my personal opinion, quite ridiculous for a political party that says to be seeking to rule a country, but well). The "dodgy ballot" thing is already mentioned and is named as it was: a vote rigging attempt (which, in fact, was so outrageous that it was what led to Sánchez's ultimate demise). That won't be a coup since it doesn't fit that word's definition, but vote rigging. It's quite obvious both sides here have had a quite outlandish, bizarre and outrageous behaviour. Critics tried to depose Sánchez through a mass resignation and by sending that woman claiming herself to be "the only authority"; Sánchez entrenched himself on the party's headquarters and refused to let anyone in until the federal committee. The only "legal" thing here was the final vote that led to Sánchez's downfall (and even so, the vote wasn't on Sánchez himself, but on his proposal). I fully agree with you on your criticism to Sánchez, but so must rebels be criticized as well. Right now, the article covers both sides' actions frankly well (I'm still updating it everytime I get new info).
 * This is not "intoxication" or "propaganda" because this is just using words used by neutral sources (a word which, btw, is also used in other articles without issue as I showed you), and both factions get quite a lot of punishment here. And this is how this must be, because if there's something that everyone agrees is in one thing: that the whole event has been a disgrace for those involved in it, resulting in the PSOE's full-blown implosion. You now show quite a biased view against Sánchez, which may be affecting your own reasoning. What you describe as "coups" do not match that word's definition as provided by Wikipedia itself.
 * On the abstention thing, this is still soon to talk about it: as of now, only critics' leaders position has been established, and even for those (e.g. Ximo Puig) it's still too early to call. The party will seemingly decide on its stance on Rajoy's investiture throughout this week. When it happens this will be covered in the "Aftermath" section, don't worry. Impru20 (talk) 21:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * In any case, as some sort of compromise, I've replaced the word "coup" by "revolt" (also used by sources, and more frequently), limiting the use of "coup" only to those cases where such a word is expressly quoted by the source. Impru20 (talk) 21:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Impru20 Ok that is good. In any case, it seems that things have calmed down within the PSOE with the figure of Javier Fernandez. It was an ugly episode but we should avoid hyperbolic language (War of the Roses is a name I don't think will stick long-term). Asilah1981 (talk) 11:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

"ouster"
To the person who replaced use of the word "ouster", it is indeed the correct word. I remember being sceptical the first time I saw it too but it is real: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/ouster?s=t and is actually pretty widely used across English-speaking media regarding this topic. It is most certainly far more natural English than using "overthrow" as a noun... Jdcooper (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

That was me. I'd never seen the word before, although having googled it I see it is used in the US media. As a British English speaker it looks very odd and awkard. The fact that you seem to had to look it up tells me something. As for 'overthrow', "the overthrow of the government" doesn't sound unnatural. Look forward to your views. All the best Stoorybrig (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah I meant I had to look it up the first time I saw it (have seen it many times since, you know how it is!!). I'm not a huge fan of the word but ultimately the best description of what happened to Sanchez was that he was ousted, so the noun from "oust" seemed the most appropriate here. Anyway I've rephrased it throughout for variety. "the overthrow of the [X]" does sound ok, but phrases like "After his overthrow..." don't sound natural to me. I did "the google test" and it's vastly more common as a verb. Most references to an overthrow were for baseball or cricket.. Jdcooper (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Nothing on P Sanchez interview on Salvados
Pretty important should be included.Asilah1981 (talk) 03:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)