Talk:Javier Ortega Smith

Birth place
I see there is no rigid policy about birth_place but it is actually rather discretionary. For example Donald Trump includes Queens, New York City, not including the country (not even the US state). Others indeed include the country: I do see for example Michel Barnier is born in "La Tronche, France" (not " ", by the way) and Raül Romeva (an entry you roughly edited at the same time as this one) in Madrid, Spain (not, by the way). Others include a region in the middle (for example Pedro Almodóvar was born in Calzada de Calatrava, Ciudad Real, Spain. Others just city and region/constituent country as Tony Blair is born in Edinburgh, Scotland). Others as the aforementioned Donald Trump just neighborhood and city... In this particular case there may be some merit to re-emphasize Spain as the citizenship is dual (although in the other hand Madrid is a rather known name worldwide), not for linking. Additionally, I do not see it as common practice for people born 1936/39–1975 in Spain to emphasize the political regime (a dictatorship) in that infobox parametre. I am all for searching sources that put into context how living in a rather well-off neighborhood of the Spanish capital during the Francoist dictatorship up to age seven conditioned the history of this guy, but that should be dealt with in the body of the article... with sources doing so. The infobox is not intended to bypass that.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * It is quite common on many pages to include the country that existed at the time of the person's birth. Take for example former president of France, Albert Lebrun or Nazi SS member Heinrich Himmler, both link to the country that existed at the time of their birth. Regions are also often stated as they were at the time of the person's birth, take Cilla Black for example. Her article states she was born in Lancashire, which Liverpool was a part of at the time of her birth in 1943, but is now part of Merseyside. What is the disadvantage to stating the country the person was born in? It is simply stating factually accurate information. Expanding articles with accurate information only benefits Wikipedia, I don't see how it subtracts. Helper201 (talk) 11:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * For starters, it would be good to start acknowledging the "country" is the same (Third/Fourth French Republic, Francoist Spain/Current Spain et. al). 2) No, linking the historical period/political regime is not dominant at all (particularly in BLPs). Even you enforce the criteria haphazardly (while editing both entries at the same time you felt compelled to pull the political regime here and not in Raül Romeva and yet you fail to provide a rationale to the different editorial approach roughly taken by you at the same time). 3rd) A case of overlinking. Including the country with or without link already detracts from the value of the main link 4) For the purpose you mention of historical subnational administration, while it is certainly good to be accurate hitting the correct administrative subdivision if they are mentioned, I do not see great value into converting infoboxes of people in lectures about administrative hierarchy for the sake of it. As in point #3 simplicity is a (often forgotten) virtue in infoboxes (the very weak valid rationale of not needing just the main link would be for printed versions of Wikipedia, and 4a) EASTEREGGING does not bode well with that 5a) the case for Madrid is weaker). You can agree to disagree, of course.---Asqueladd (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * In the case of Raül Romeva I was not editing his country of birth. That didn't cross my mind when editing his page, as that was not what I was focusing on and I was not going to edit it post you mentioning this, as the matter was in discussion. Yes, I should have been clearer there, country or government, or regime. I would not say it was overlinking adding one additional link. Regardless this is not that big of an issue. Helper201 (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit war
is in a crusade to remove things he/she doesn't like from the lead sporting random policies such as WP:BLPCAT (?), and whatnot. Please take your concerns here instead of gaming the system. Our articles are, by foundational policy, based on what is published in reliable sources, and those reliable sources say Ortega Smith is a far-right politician. Your problem is with the sources, not with Wikipedia, and we cannot allow you to rewrite an article because you dislike what the sources say. Please provide evidence in the form of reliable independent sources that his position on the political spectrum is incorrect or subject to debate. Otherwise we are done here--Asqueladd (talk) 03:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello. Please, if you want to quote a source then quote that source outside the lead, and don't take that source as a mater of fact. I am not crusading for a point of view, it could be considered that you are pushing a point of view since there must be a consensus among sources to classify this person as a "far right" politician, and as long as the article currently is, there's no such consensus among sources. WP:BLPCAT explictly advises that Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation; "far right" is clearly a category that suggests bad reputation. 168.235.134.215 (talk) 04:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Please provide evidence in the form of reliable independent sources that the position of Ortega-Smith on the political spectrum is incorrect or subject to debate. Don't bring random policies about categories such as WP:BLPCAT that have nothing to do here (also avoid making personal judgments of what you think it is connected to a good and a bad reputation, bringing your particular worldview to the mix, I may add). There is no policy for what you are stating. Insofar a number of reliable sources states this man is a far-right politician and you don't provide evidence in the form of reliable independent sources that his position on the political spectrum is incorrect or subject to debate, you cannot be allowed to rewrite the lead just because you dislike what the reliable sources say. "there's no such consensus among sources": There currently is a consensus in sources about that. For the umpteenth time: you are invited to bring independent reliable sources providing evidence that his position on the political spectrum is incorrect or subject to debate, but WP:YOUDIDNTHEARTHAT. You cannot fabricate a lack of "consensus" among sources.--Asqueladd (talk) 05:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "Don't bring random policies about categories such as WP:BLPCAT"? This is a living person's biography and WP:BLPCAT is a guideline directly related this kind of article. WP:BLP and all its sections are relevant here. And back again to the concensus issue, there's no consensus for classifying this person as a "far-right politician;" there are some sources that classify him as such (20 minutos, La Sexta and El País…) but others don't agree with this classification and even call it out (El Confidencial, El Español, La Marea.es, Voz Pópuli…); so it's pretty sure to say that there's no actual consensus about this in the sources, and since this is a sensitive category then we should follow what WP:BLP and don't push a particular point of view. 168.235.134.215 (talk) 06:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not about a category. That's for starters. "there's no actual consensus" You say that there is no consensus. Well that's a bold assertion. In order to even begin to suggest the possibility that "there's no actual consensus" you need to start providing evidence in the form of reliable independent sources that the position of Ortega-Smith on the far-right of the political spectrum (which comprises both extreme and radical right) is incorrect or subject to debate. I don't see any reliable independent sources disputing his position on the far-right of the political spectrum. Please bring them here. If a number of reliable independent sources state Ortega Smith is a lawyer and has worked as lawyer, we describe him as "lawyer". If a number of reliable independent sources state Ortega-Smith is a far-right politician, we describe him as "far-right politician". That's unless you can provide evidence that he is not a lawyer nor a far-right politician in the form of reliable independent sources explicitly disputing those statements. Then we can discuss further and things can get complicated. But we are not there yet.--Asqueladd (talk) 04:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Your reasoning is upside down, the bald statement is actually classifying this politician as “far-right.” For example, that this politician is a “lawyer” is an undisputed claim by all the quoted sources, but there's contradictions in calling him “far-right” among the sources. Then, following Wikipedia's policies (and also, as a basic principle of rational discourse) we describe him as “a far-right politicien according to X source,” with due weight and attribution; and not categorically, as it was a matter of fact. 168.235.134.215 (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)