Talk:Inés Arrimadas

"Won the election"

 * Her party won the Catalan regional election, 2017 against Carles Puigdemont, Oriol Junqueras, Miquel Iceta and Xavier García-Albiol, but they can't form a government. It was the first time a constitutionalist party had won an election in Catalonia with Arrimadas becoming the first woman to win a Catalonian election.

What does it really mean to "win the election" though? Even if they won a plurality of seats, it is generally considered that a party doesn't win an election if they don't get into power.

There are numerous examples of a party winning the most seats but not getting into government: In these cases, people generally say that the party who gained power won the election, not the party with the most seats.
 * Catalan regional election, 2003
 * Catalan regional election, 2006
 * Irish general election, November 1982
 * Navarrese regional election, 2015
 * Portuguese legislative election, 2015

And in what way did Arrimadas herself win the election? She's unlikely to become President of the Generalitat (but, if she did, then I would agree that she would have won the election), so she's not really winning anything here.

Basically, what I'm saying is there is a difference between winning the most seats and winning the election. IronTempleMan (talk) 00:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added what I find in newspapers. If it say "Arrimadas gana las elecciones" ["Arrimadas won the elections]", or "Ciudadanos gana las elecciones" ["Citizens won the elections"], it means she/they won. I don't mind if in general, when a party won a plurality of seats, it means it won. Both are different cases. Tajotep (talk) 03:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Just because it says so on a newspaper headline, that doesn’t automatically mean it’s an accurate summary of the election results. You still need to explain in what way they won the election.


 * What I’m saying is that even though they won the most seats, that doesn’t really mean much if they can’t form a government. IronTempleMan (talk) 11:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Hoax
There was a hoax. Please note that "it is not said". That implies as if someone states something without any proof. On top of that you are removing the information which denies the hoax. Please, read sources and stop reverting and vandalizing. . And don't say X people is reverting because that is a falacy. See Argumentum ad populum. And Argumentum ad hominem. And don't even try to throw red herrings. Filiprino (talk) 15:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Catalan classes
How exactly is it important that a company paid her to take catalan classes? Should we also add that her father paid her university? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raicopk (talk • contribs) 20:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

First woman to lead a nationwide party?
Regarding this statement: "On 8 March 2020, Arrimadas was voted leader of Citizens, obtaining 76.9% of the vote in a three-way race. She became the first woman to lead a major nationwide party in Spain", I think it's controversial, since Dolores Ibárruri led the Communist Party of Spain, that after the 1977 and 1979 elections achieved more than 20 seats in the Spanish Congress. Also, Rosa Díez, former leader of the UPyD party, led it and also entered in the Spanish Congress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JulenBengoitia (talk • contribs) 09:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)