Talk:Podemos (Spanish political party)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Political Party Vs. Political Platform

The Podemos Platform and their participants had never declare themselves as a political party. In order to participate in the elections, gain votes and thus political power, the platform had to officially sign up as a party, but only because this is the only way to participate, and not because it was ever stated by them as such. Instead they refer to themselves as a political platform. This is also in line with their "assembly democracy" (a concept that is also ill-defined in the article). In order to be accurate, but do not make it hard for the user to find the article, some sort of consensus has to be reached here. I will change the article after I provide supporting sources (statements by the public members of Podemos).

Primary sources do not belong in Wikipedia - we go by what others say, not by what Podemos says of themselves. And propaganda that Podemos is not a "traditional party" is irrelevant. Obviously, for all means and purposes of the word, Podemos is a party, even if it is only meant to "represent the social majority" (like every party claims to do...) rather than support its own interests (which it obviously does, as it is a party different from the others and has a specific ideology). Zozs (talk) 06:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Propaganda is saying that Podemos is a traditional party by all means and purposes of the word - the only thing that Podemos has in comon with the tradictional parties is that it is also registered as such, given that this is how the system is set, and there is no other way of gaining political power by the citizens without the use of violence, which is one of the rooted concepts of the 15M. What you don't seem to grasp is the fact that Podemos is working bottom-up and not top-down. That alone, makes them a not traditional party.
Comparison here:
Traditional party -------------------- Podemos
Registration as party: yes --- yes
Funded: mostly by banks/big companies --- exclusively by the people
Liders/Members: elected by militancy --- open lists
Electoral program: fixed by militancy --- open (in discussion at this very moment)
Why don't you try to go and discuss the electoral program at the party that you are afiliated to? - then come back and say that it is the same in there than it is in Podemos.
Here on Wikipedia, we go by what reliable sources say, not by what the subject of the article says about itself - it is completely irrelevant whether Podemos claims it is a party or not, we do not consider their own opinion at all - and we certainly don't act as their spokesmen. Obviously, every new party will claim to be completely different from all older parties as a promotion trick to gain support. Reliable sources describe Podemos as a political party. This has nothing to do with our opinions. Zozs (talk) 20:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

label

There are numerous reliable sources which describe the party as "far-left": [1], [2], and even [3].

It's hard to disagree with the EU's policies nowadays without being labelled as "far"-something...

Also, in regard to this edit summary [4] please note that whatever the consensus on Spanish Wikipedia, it is irrelevant to how we proceed on English Wikipedia. I'm sorry, but even if it was discussed extensively there, you still have to take time and make the arguments here. In regard to this edit summary [5] best as I can tell these sources do describe it as "left" but just in the sense of being somewhere to the left of center - in that sense, "far left" is simply a subset of "left".

Finally, please do not add instructions in hidden text to editors for which there is no consensus.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added more sources. The comment is there so that users do not do highly controversial actions (changing political position to "far-left") without discussing in the talk page and achieving consensus, as it asks them to do. Calling it far-left is highly controversial and based on 1-2 right-wing sources. Zozs (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I could just as well change it to "far-left" and leave a hidden comment there instructing users not to change it to "left wing". You cannot put that kind of instruction in there unless there is clear consensus how it's going to be described. There isn't. Also, the sources given above are not "right-wing sources".Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you remove these sources?
[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]
You could at least combine all of them in the same reference, to avoid formatting issues... 17:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zozs (talk • contribs)
Because citation-stacking to prove a point is a violation of
WP:POINT. There really should be no more than two or three sources for a claim in an article, with the additional sources provided on talk if need be.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
It's easy to understand the confussion of whether Podemos is a far-left, left- or right-wing. I agree that most of the sources that you use to support your claims on either side are valid, but in any case, they present two problems: the first one is that none of the sources come from declarations of any individual from Podemos, and the second one, is that these declarations do not exist "per se". Everytime that this is specifially asked to any public member of Podemos, the discussion left-rigth is disregarded. The argumentation goes as follows - Podemos is the political extension of the 15M, and the 15M had/has no flags (in the political sense). Nor the 15M, nor Podemos is about left or right, but about up (oligarchy, priviledge class, caste -as Podemos calls it-), and down (people, working class, population). The agglomeration is therefore on the basis of a different criteria, a swift in the values around which to gather (and this is independent of the fact that most of their public members are left-wing). This is as well what leads the confussion in Spanish Wikipedia. If you have the need of setting a label, and you want an accurate one, which I guess it should be the case here, the most appropriate one is "transversal". This is also reflected in their voters. I will change the article after I provide supporting sources (statements by the public members of Podemos).
What Podemos says about itself is irrelevant. Here on Wikipedia we go by reliable independent sources, not by primary sources. Zozs (talk) 06:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's more of right-wing since it talks about national sovereignty which is what exactly [UKIP] claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.166.116 (talk) 11:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All sources consider it a left-wing party. Zozs (talk) 06:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
face meets the palm!!!

It is true that multiple sources call the party both "far-left" and "left". Both should be noted (Left to far-left), as the Podemos articles states that Podemos "was organized by the Anticapitalist Left (Izquierda Anticapitalista) party,[12] the Spanish state section of the Trotskyist Fourth International. Anticapitalists and Trotskyists are groups both included in the

far-left article. The far-left article also states that "Dr. Luke March of the School of Social and Political Science at the University of Edinburgh, defines the "far left" in Europe as those that place themselves to the left of social democracy" and that "March sees four major subgroups within contemporary European far-left politics: communists, democratic socialists, populist socialists and social populists". Podemos has also been described as having a "Left-wing populism" (populist socialism) ideology. The article also states that "Hloušek and Kopeček add secondary characteristics to those identified by March and Mudde" such as the "opposition to NATO and rejection of European integration", which Podemos opposes both NATO and seeks to back away from the Treaty of Lisbon. So with all of this stated in both the Podemos and far-left article with the additional sources stating that Podemos has a far-left positioning, the Podemos article should at the very least have its political position stated as "Left to far-left".--ZiaLater (talk) 05:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

To ZiaLater: Ok, some reasons why I believe the 'far-left' definition does not fit Podemos right now:
As things are going now, the subject of debate should be whether Podemos can be regarded as a 'centre-left' party or not (due to the recent moderation of their message and proposals), and not if they are a 'far-left' party. For the moment it is too soon to regard them as
left-wing seems a reasonable compromise right now) but definitely not far-left. Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Ok, thank you for replying. In my edit, I did not mean that a single element such as opposition to NATO or left-wing populism meant they could be far-left but that all of those elements together could possibly justify sources calling it far-left. You cannot look at a single element of the Nazis (just as an extreme example and not comparing) and say, "Hey, they did a bunch of social welfare programs for the German people, they must've been pretty good!" You can't just look at one part of the picture separately from the others, and I'm sure I do not have to explain that whole picture with the Nazis. Also, the way I read the article made it seem like Podemos is turning away from the EU since it is stated in its policies section that they may be "revoking or curtailing the Treaty of Lisbon" in order to "refine sovereignty", part of the party's policy and not an individual's belief. I am just explaining my edit, but I agree with your proposal as of right now for keeping Podemos at left-wing. If something were to change in the future, however, we should consider moving it to center-left or far-left. Once again, thank you for the discussion!--ZiaLater (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Actually, I got those traits separately to explain all of them in a more or less detailed way, with a separate explanation for each one, but it wouldn't matter if we consider all of the three together:
European United Left–Nordic Green Left
, to which it has joined: it is against some EU policies, but it is not advocating for a Spain exit from the EU. To short it off: it doesn't oppose the EU as an idea, but it opposes the current German-dominated EU (where in practice everyone must comply to what Merkel says). More or less, that would be the idea.
I agree: if something changes enough to qualify for a re-definition of the party's ideology, it should be discussed. Cheers! ;) Impru20 (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It will be interesting to see how the party evolves. Thanks for your hard work and cooperation as well!--ZiaLater (talk) 00:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure why there is any debate. Podemos are far left. Even Felipe Gonzales, former socialist PM, calls them Leninist. https://www.thespainreport.com/articles/603-160128161043-podemos-chavist-communists-using-coup-manual-to-do-leninism-3-0-say-other-parties.Royalcourtier (talk) 09:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely, if Felipe González (a political opponent of Podemos) calls them as "far left", it's just another reason to doubt on that label. You must use neutral sources, not to abide to what political opponents say of you, since they are making politics. After all, adversaries will say everything necessary to attack political opponents. There was a time in which Felipe González called the PP as "far-right" and Aznar said the PP was a "centre" party. Result? None of them; the PP is a "centre-right to right-wing" party (and this only due to the enormous political spectre it encompasses). Impru20 (talk) 11:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Purple

This seems a very strange symbolic color to use for a left wing socialist political party? UKIP use the same in the UK and it has ties to royalty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.39.153 (talk) 01:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is the color, it is a left-wing party, and it is not socialist. Zozs (talk) 06:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In Spain, purple is actually a color associated to republicanism. Moreover, as it has been said, it is just a color. A color does not tell pretty much anything about a party's ideology. Impru20 (talk) 18:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And why a socialist party should necessarily be red? That would be so cheesy!!! Besides, it's not orthodox socialist but rather left-wing populist in character.

Controversial Ideology

The ideological labels are disputed. Many of the sources are non-independent, and are contradicted by other sources.

The "populist" claim has mainly one backbone: Elorza, who is a non-independent person and also has been affiliated with the IU and UPyD parties in the past, openly supporting them (look it up), and also accuses Podemos of ridiculous things such as "totalitarianism" in the same article which is used as a source.

For example, university philosophy professor Villacañas said that the party is neither populist nor republican.

The same article which says that Podemos is an "egalitarian" party, also launches into a series of ridiculous accusations, asserting that it is "Marxist-Leninist", "Chavista", "Peronist", and "Utopian socialist" - something which no other source has agreed with.

Remember that sources on Wikipedia are judged also by the quality of the source in itself; in this case, the article. If it is being outright ridiculous or biased, then it is to not be considered as a reliable source. This is from the Wikipedia policy.

Lastly, "participatory democracy" is not really an ideology.

I suggest that these labels are written about within the article body, explaining who claims what, and taken outside the infobox. Zozs (talk) 02:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Participatory democracy'

is a buzzword of chavismo. A key question here is who finances, and who supports Podemos. Regular folks in Spain tell me they see it as a Spanish chavista party, i.e., far left, totalitarian, populist. Most of Latin America has fallen into totalitarian regimes of the type that routinely steels the election, and the issue here is to try to find out whether Podemos is a party in that vein, financed with money from Venezuela, or not. 74.164.41.7 (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again the same politically correct nonsense... you disagree with neoliberalism you are "totalitarian socialist", you don't like the EU, you are "a stupid communist", you want controlled immigration, you are "racist" blah blah blah... political correctness is a code for conformity and obedience.

Requested move 14 December 2014

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 06:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Podemos (Spanish political party) → Podemos (political party) – From what it looks like, there is only one political party named "Podemos" and it is this one. Spain should only be mentioned in the title only if there was another party called "Podemos" in another country so they would be distinguished. Երևանցի talk 01:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Oppose according to Podemos there are several political parties that are called that. Just look at the logos for those parties. Therefore "Podemos (political party)" should redirect to Podemos -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Looks like the Venezuelan party is also known as Podemos (see the party logo at For Social Democracy). Number 57 08:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, some other parties are known as "Podems" but none are simply called "Podemos" and are as well known as this party. --Երևանցի talk 18:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't matter whether the Venezuelan party has other names, the fact that it's known as Podemos is enough to make Podemos (political party) ambiguous. I could start a new party called UKIP tomorrow, but that doesn't stop it being confused with the UK Independence Party.
    • Secondly, given that it won 15 seats in Parliament (9% of the total) in 2005, and was at one stage the only opposition party, I don't see how the Venezuelan party can't be considered as notable as a party that's less than a year old and only won 9% of the seats in the last major elections in Spain (the Europeans). Number 57 19:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Number of members source

Just starting a discussion about the source for the number of members that is in the infobox. I got a dead link when checking it now and was wondering if we can find the source again.--ZiaLater (talk) 06:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here --> https://participa.podemos.info/es
The link does work, but sometimes the page gets overcrowed with visits and can't be accessed for some time. Impru20 (talk) 13:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's the link I was talking about. Thanks for explaining since I haven't been able to access the page since bringing up the issue.--ZiaLater (talk) 07:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 31 May 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 12:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


© Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 00:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Also, I forgot, we have
© Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 00:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Oppose
1."Podemos" is a verbal tense in Spanish language, and indeed a very frequently used one (meaning "[we] can"). Naming the article "Podemos (Spain)" does not make it clear whether you are refering to a party, to the verbal tense in Spanish language or to actually any thing that is named or refered to as "Podemos" in Spain. It is ambiguous. Btw, "Podemos (Spanish political party)" is not only precise enough as you say, but much more precise than your proposal.
2. The Spanish wiki article is called "Podemos (partido político) (translated as "Podemos (political party)"). Where do you get the ""Podemos (España)" translation?
3. We also have
Golden Dawn (political party), Attack (political party), Svoboda (political party) and more. Not sure what you mean with this. Impru20 (talk) 01:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Please, don't teach me how to speak Spanish because I do speak Spanish. It is not ambiguous, at all, for the English-speaking world, in which this article is written. As you ask, I get the translation from the literal translation itself. The fact that es.wiki disambiguates it through "(partido político)", despite the fact there are other two political parties, doesn't change anything, es.wiki guides and en.wiki guides are not to be used outside the respective Wikipedia they are written. Now, I don't get your listing of political parties, Golden Dawn, Attack and Svoboda doesn't have further disambiguation, because there aren't further political parties from which they would be disambiguated. Tories, on the other hand, hasn't been discussed yet, and considering
© Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 02:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Out of sequence comment - actually while there is a
Tories (Scotland) article per se, as that particular terminology redirects to a title that uses both country and party as coupled disambiguators.FeatherPluma (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Firstly, don't be rude. I also do speak Spanish, and coincidentally I also happen to live in Spain. Podemos is a verbal tense very frequently used in the day-to-day Spanish language; naming the article Podemos (Spain) may lead to confusion between the party, the verbal tense and whatever thing named Podemos in Spain (the party's own slogan, for example). As such, it is ambiguous, as "Podemos (Spain)" does not give readers a hint to guess that it is an actual political party and not other thing. So please, you could try to go on and answer this instead of just saying it is not ambiguous in a generic way without countering my own arguments. It is ambiguous and confusing.
Well, then, if you weren't refering to the es.wiki then I don't know what you meant here by putting the Spanish translation. The same issue would arise from that. What gives?
You say that the parties I put in as examples doesn't have further disambiguation. Yet they do (Golden Dawn, Attack, Svoboda). The "(political party)" denomination is added to them to highlight that there are (or there could be) other existing things with the same name. Most notable is the case of "Attack", which is also composed by a single word (a noun in this case); or "Svoboda", also a noun, in Ukrainian. The same happens with Podemos, being composed by a single word, without any hint that you are refering to a political party. That's why the "(political party)" expression is added, with "Spanish" being added too to differentiate it from other countries' parties with a similar name.
I should also highlight that a previous move request for the article was already declined (you can check it in this very same page), so, at the very least, you should have come here to discuss the proposed move instead of just moving it unilaterally, since this could be a controversial move. Impru20 (talk) 13:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When there is one single political party, "(political party)" is used, when there are two or more political parties, as recommended by NCPP, we use the country, the year, or the ideology of the party, and I can cite dozens of political parties following this method, like I did with
Left (Denmark). If there is a new political party, they will be moved to an appropiate place, as recommended by NCPP. This is not like "Citizens (Spanish political party)
", where "Citizens (Spain)" is ambiguous with "Spanish people".
And again, "Podemos (Spain)" is not ambiguous in English, and I'm not requesting this article to be titled "Podemos (Spanish)" so you can say that as it is a verb, people will be confused. Spain is a noun, Spanish is an adjective. You're thinking in Spanish, not in English.
© Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 16:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
You are contradicting yourself. You say that "when there is one single political party, "(political party)" is used". So, what's the deal here? Podemos is a political party, and a Spanish one (used to differentiate it from other countries' parties with the same name). You insist on putting
L'Oreal; "Juntos Podemos" is also the name of a book written by Albert Rivera; and so on). "Podemos (Spain)" would be ambiguous, indeed, since you are not making it clear whether you are refering to a political party. So, instead of generic sentences and wishful thinking saying that the name is not ambiguous, care to explain why, for you, it is not ambiguous. Because so far I have shown you evidence that it could be. Impru20 (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
There are 3 political parties sharing this name, not 1, therefore I am not contradicting myself. And because I'm getting tired of telling you over and over again, I'm going to say this in Spanish: Esto es Wikipedia en inglés, donde los artículos se escriben en inglés, y las reglas y guías de Wikipedia en inglés se escriben en inglés, para las personas que hablan inglés. Now, assuming you finally understand that point, the reason I posted the literal translation was because you said on the contested move summary "It is ambiguous in Spanish". If its literal translation is not ambiguous in Spanish, it is not ambiguous in English. The thousand of alleged examples of the word Podemos are neither a reason to not move the page, first, who would search a L'Oreal slogan under the term "Podemos (Spain)"? Who would search a book titled Juntos Podemos as "Podemos (Spain)"? Spain is a country, not an adjective that, when added into a disambiguator, transforms the subject into an ambiguous term. It's like I if I say: "Let's move
© Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 06:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Firstly, I'm going to ask you nicely: please don't treat me like if I'm retarded. Entiendo perfectamente lo que me quieres decir, e insisto: No tienes razón. Now, I said it is ambiguous in Spanish not because of the translation, but because there are more things that can potentially being described as Podemos (Spain). So, again, don't treat me like if I'm stupid. You say "Who would search a book titled Juntos Podemos as "Podemos (Spain)"?" Ok, if you are going to put it that way, who would actually look for this article as "Podemos (Spain)"? I can also argue that it is easier that people would look for this as "Podemos (Spanish political party)" rather than "Podemos (Spain)". It is not the fact about how people would look for this, but rather about there being other things that can be refered to as Podemos (and FeatherPluma down here has added another few examples).
"Let's move
Javier, Spain
to another stuff because obviously people will think it is about the name or Spanish people with that name"
On this issue, obviously you can't pretend to compare it with this. I have gave you precise examples of other things being refered to as Podemos. As well as, since people's names are usually differentiated by surname, it obviously can't lead to confusion in the example you put in. But it is not the case for Podemos, which, in my view, requires
WP:PRECISION. Impru20 (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Oppose. Despite the passion, I can discern no convincing argument in favor. Absolutely not worth agonizing over, as the present unambiguous title is very reasonable at this time. Although things may change if political currents change such that Podemos is generally immediately recognized as a political party in English (the "Mother Theresa" example) that's for the possible future. FeatherPluma (talk) 05:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FeatherPluma It was, I think, quite humerously pointed out to me through a discussion at User talk:SMcCandlish that words such as "disambiguation" are, themselves, ambiguous with a wider meaning that had been used at WP:Disambiguation. I think that the new guideline content far better represents real world understandings of the term and, to me, "Podemos" is wholly ambiguous. I would have no clue what it was and would consider the additional text to be of significant value. GregKaye 09:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support easily per
    WP:CONCISE. There's nothing else that could be described as "Podemos (Spain)". Red Slash 03:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Amplifying what I have written in response to the additional posting, it is clear that pointing to
Tories (Scotland), which in fact is both disingenuous and counterfactual as that particular terminology redirects to a title that uses both country and party as coupled disambiguators ! [User:FeatherPluma|FeatherPluma]] (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Oops,
redirect to other titles. FeatherPluma (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I checked all the English language citations attached to the article. Of course, that does not constitute the universe of English language usage, but bizarrely enough every single one of those references either uses the equivalent of this current title's double disambiguation within its title or alternatively features both components prominently within the text. Suggesting that
WP:NCPP is relevant thus only firms up the position that these selected English language sources did NOT (presently) use "Podemos (Spain)" (or an equivalent single disambiguator) anywhere, ever, without explaning its context. Nor do I recall any article in English (beyond these) that I've read that didn't use the same methodology. So I'm going to call out the challenge: "please come up with sources that don't double disambiguate". Naturally enough, if the party becomes much better known in English, it will then make sense for sources and for this article to contact the description but that isn't the present situation. It would then be natural language use for sources to say something like, "In Spain, Podemos took control of Madrid in Spring 2015... and has now won a large majority in the recent national election (of xxxx)." At present, however, the derived conclusion is a nicely counterfactual application of policy. FeatherPluma (talk) 00:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Relevancy of content

There appears to be too much irrelevant, blog-ish content in the article: Lists of opinion poll ratings (which belong in the article about the next Spanish general election), quotes from rival party figures in the Reception section, too many direct quotes from Podemos politicians. Needs replacing with a more appropriate encyclopaedic style. That and there is a lot of broken, ungrammatical English.--Autospark (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Podemos qualified as populist

Using the term populist to describe Podemos doesn't fit the wikipedia rule of neutrality. The term is mainly used in a demeaning way by its rivals, while there are many academics, such as José Luis Villacañas, professor of Philosophy at the Complutense University, Juan Carlos Cuevas, professor at the Complutense and Ignacio Sánchez-Cuenca, director of the Instituto Carlos III-Juan March and professor of Political Sciences at the Carlos III University reject such term. Since there is so much controversy, beginning the article saying that it is a populist party should be avoided. --Fjsalguero (talk) 07:52, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fjsalguero Show your sources or stop edit warring. Left-wing populism is not presented in a negative way in the idelogy's article itself when it defines what is "left-wing populism". It is defined as "a political ideology which combines left-wing politics and populist rhetoric and themes. The rhetoric often consists of anti-elitist sentiments, opposition to the system and speaking for the "common people". There are sources proving that Podemos does indeed use such a rethoric and is a left-wing populist party, and it is even cited as an example in the Left-wing populism article itself. That it may be used in a demeaning way by its rivals does not disqualify it from being used to describe a party (just as "communism" or "conservativism" may also be used in demeaning ways for other parties, yet that doesn't disqualify them from being regarded as such). Unless you can prove that Podemos is not a left-wing populist party, I'd ask you to revert your edit. Impru20 (talk) 07:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everything I have mentioned is referenced in the Spanish version of the article. You can find about what I said in [20], [21], [22] and about the negative use of the term in [23] and, of course, in the own Spanish dictionary, [24], or in [25] for its use in English.--Fjsalguero (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those sources are from online blogs. I think you know Wikipedia's
policy
on those, right? I can very well write down a blog, say that "populism" is fantastic and say that must count as a reliable source. But surely, that wouldn't be enough.
The infoLibre source you put says that "populist" is used in a pejorative way by party rivals, but doesn't say that the party is not "populist" in the wider sense of the term, and much less does it explain what is "left-wing populism" and its connection to Podemos.
The RAE source doesn't say that "populism" is negative.
And your last source says that "populism" may be used both "as an insult and a description". In the case of this article, "left-wing populism" is obviously used as a description, not as an insult. "Populism" may be used as an insult (just as nearly everything in this life, I think), but its definition is not negative.
So, what is wrong with its use, actually? Impru20 (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The blogs are from the professors mentioned, so they are perfectly fine to be used to reference the opinion of these academics. And they are not only blogs, but magazines of political science. The infolibre link is perfectly fine to prove what you deny: that the term is peyorative and used by rivals, showing that writing in wikipedia that Podemos is populist would break the neutrality rule. The RAE definition says clearly:
"Tendencia política que pretende atraerse a las clases populares. U. m. en sent. despect.".
You may not know it, but "U.m. en sent. despect." means "Used more often in despective way". And finally, regarding to the last link, maybe you should read beyond the first sentence. You would find that, just in the second sentence you could read that "Too often the term is used to dismiss a troublesome political adversary whose nature one does not quite understand", and the meaning of the article isn't that it can be used as an insult "just as nearly everything in this life", but that it is used by political rivals. So, if you have nothing else to argue, I think that the conclusion is clear.--Fjsalguero (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you can't prove that the "populist" reference has a negative connotation here. "Populist" may be used as an insult just as "communist", "conservative" or "neoliberal" may for other parties, but the definition of those ideologies is not negative. When you say "Used more often in despective way", I'm pretty sure you're quite aware that "more often" doesn't means "always". Right? The word is not used as an insult in the article to describe the party, so I can't really see what your complain is. It is a valid ideology, with its own article, in which Podemos is even listed as an example of such an ideology. The only one arguing that it has negative connotations is you. Ideologies are not meant to be used in a pejorative way. This would be akin to saying that you can't say that
neo-nazism because it is mostly used in a pejorative way. That would be absurd, I think. Sources point to Podemos being a left-wing populist party, and the description used in Wikipedia por that ideology fits with Podemos' ideology indeed. If we were to abide by your claim, then such an ideology should not even have an article in Wikipedia, which would have no sense. Impru20 (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Impru20, I have proven you that populist is most often used as a pejorative term. How many times is "populist" used to praise a party? Do you have any example at all? For each one you give me, I can give you five.
Do you want more? Here you have what The Economist say[www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/10/whats_the_matter_with_populism]:
"Actually, it is politicians' use of populism that is often dismissive, condescending and derogatory."
The own reference used in
Left wing populism [26]
(by the way, a blog) begins "A spectre is haunting Europe: the spectre of populism."
And it goes further to the actual point of my edition:
"Time and again, Syriza and Podemos are accused of being populist. Here ‘populist’ is used in the pejorative sense: as irresponsible pandering to the irrational masses. ":Is that a positive view? You are changing your requirements when you can't defend your position any more. The point of all the discussion is that applying the term to this party is controversial, just as this argument proves, and so, it should be reflected in the article, regardless of whether you consider the term positive or negative, what is irrelevant. What is relevant is that there isn't consensus on whether Podemos is or isn't populist. --Fjsalguero (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can't override sources just because you feel like it on grounds that you "feel" that "it is mostly used in a pejorative way". It is not used in a negative way here in Wikipedia. The "populism" referenced in those sources is not the same as the "left-wing populism" listed in the article (they even have different articles in Wikipedia, check: Populism and Left-wing populism.
Enter
Left wing populism
. It is defined like this: "Left-wing populism is a political ideology which combines left-wing politics and populist rhetoric and themes. The rhetoric often consists of anti-elitist sentiments, opposition to the system and speaking for the "common people". Where is it described in a pejorative way? Doesn't that fit within Podemos ideology? Sources do indeed point to it, regardless of the negative use others' may want to use of it.
In fact, all ideologies may be used in a negative way if wanted to, and surely we could get sources that do so for many parties throughout the world with varying ideologies. But that is not a reason to ignore the encyclopedic value of those ideologies, you can't just remove it on such grounds. Podemos is a left-wing populist party in the encyclopedic meaning of the expression. That it may be used in a negative way by rivals is entirely irrelevant for its encyclopedic value.
Your pretended reason for removing it, as far as I can check, was that "Using the term populist to describe Podemos doesn't fit the wikipedia rule of neutrality." The term is not demeaning as described in Wikipedia, so it can't be regarded as not neutral. Impru20 (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't override any source. To begin with, Wikipedia cannot be used as a source, so your argument doesn't hold. I provided you with sources in the real world proving that populist is a pejorative term, that it is used by political rivals and that its used to describe Podemos is controversial. That is everything that is needed to do the change. All the rest is your personal opinion about its ideology, what is irrelevant.--Fjsalguero (talk) 05:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your own saources say that "populist" may be used in a negative way, not that it is always used in that way. Thus, your claim doesn't stand. It is you the one who wants to see it used as a pejorative term. Yet, while it may be used in that way, it doesn't means that it by itself is pejorative. It is an ideology, not an insult, and if parties use it as an insult has no connection to the fact that the party may indeed have such an ideology. There has been at least another user who has reverted your edit once, so it's obvious your vision is not achieving consensus here. I'll wait a few days and see if there's more support for your proposal, tithe but if there isn't, it'll be reverted to the original version. Impru20 (talk) 10:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: Just checked your comment on my talk about the DRN. I must commend you for trying to solve the issue through a pacific and mediated way, once seeing we're deadlocked here. Impru20 (talk) 10:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that you agree to a third party mediation. Meanwhile, regarding your comment, my sources show that "populist" may and is used in a negative way, specifically to Podemos. I've shown you my sources. Can you show me sources where Podemos is qualified as "populist" as a praise? Do you agree or not that the term is controversial and there isn't agreement?--Fjsalguero (talk) 22:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is used, but not always. You try to convey the idea that "left-wing populism" (and again, note that I refer to "left-wing populism", not just "populism") is always negative, but your own sources show that it not always used negatively, and that it in fact only has a pejorative meaning when others do use it in that way. We're not using it in that way here in Wikipedia. Hence, it is not being used in a negative way in the article.
I'm not saying "populism" should be a praise. It shouldn't be shown as either here, and it isn't. "Left-wing populism" is added to the article because of its encyclopedic value, not because it may be used as an attack or as a praise to the party. You're mistaking terms here. Impru20 (talk) 22:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree with Impru20 on this issue. Many political terms are, or have been, used as pejoratives - socialist, nationalist, liberal, neoliberal, communist, the list is potentially endless. Even the basic political spectrum terms left-wing and right-wing have been used as pejorative terms. That does not mean that those terms do not have encyclopaedic or other academic worth. This is an encyclopaedia, not a blog, and we are interested in academic discourse.--Autospark (talk) 22:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Autospark, anything can be used in a pejorative way, but "populist" is almost exclusively used in that sense. I would like to see how many references do you find where it is used in a positive way. But, independently of how the term is used, I have shown references that prove that using it to describe Podemos isn't generally accepted and is controversial, so the article should reflect that.--Fjsalguero (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree with Impru20 and Autospark. While "populism" has been used in a pejorative way, it is a respectable, distintictive and identifiable political tradition. As an ideology, it might be a little bit vague, but it is still a good description for some parties, including Podemos, which is clearly a left-wing populist party, more than a traditional socialist one. Is there actually a better description of the party's ideology? --Checco (talk) 07:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checco, it isn't only about "being respectable", which is your opinion. It is about not being agreement among scholars to whether Podemos is or isn't populist, as the links that I have provided show. Is there a better description of their ideology? Yes, "left wing". Everybody agrees on that. Just dropping the populist adjective will make the article more neutral.--Fjsalguero (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. "Left-wing" is the political position in the spectrum, not an ideology.
2. It is also your opinion the fact that you think "populism" can only be used in a pejorative way, which it doesn't have to.
3. There are now three people disagreeing with you. Clearly not "everyone agrees with that" (in reference to your point).
4. I have reworded your edit in the article. Now it clearly says that "populist" is used sometimes in a negative way by political opponents (whereas before you said that its use was "controversial". Given that even you yourself say that there's not agreement between scholars on such an issue, you can't just categorically say that it is "controversial"; that's clearly
WP:SYNTH). Impru20 (talk) 22:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
2. I have never said such a thing. I have said that it is used, particularly in this case.
3. The other people have disagreed on whether populism is pejorative or not, not on whether scholars agree or not to apply such term to Podemos. I have provided references to scholars that do not agree.
4. If there is a group of scholars saying A, and another group saying B, that's a controversy. It has nothing to do with
WP:SYNTH, since I am not reaching a third option, but just saying that there isn't agreement, what is the case.--Fjsalguero (talk) 12:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
2. You're arguing that "populism" can't be used as ideology to refer to the party because it is pejorative. It isn't. It is others who give it a pejorative meaning, but the term in itself is not pejorative nor has to.
3. The other people have agreed that "left-wing populism" is the ideology that best fits Podemos right now. Scholars may agree or may not, but there are enough sources (and indeed, the very definition itself of "left-wing populism" refers to what Podemos does and thinks right now) to support such a claim. Furthermore, you're insisting in that, since scholars don't agree, the term is "controversial". It is you who say that the term is controversial, not scholars; you can't just put that here as if extracted as a result of scholars not agreeing, because that's
WP:SYNTH
.
4. Again, you've stated that the term is "controversial", which is your own guessing, not scholars'. The very thing you have explained is
WP:SYNTH
: If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. When you say "there is a group of scholars saying A, and another group saying B, that's a controversy", you're extracting a conclusion C yourself that is not mentioned by either A or B.
My rewording was respectful with what you asked for, stating that "populism" is used by political opponents in a pejorative way to describe the party. Yet you keep reverting to your version despite it clearly being
WP:SYNTH, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. You filed a case in the dispute resolution noticeboard to address the issue, which has been closed because you did not even cared on commenting there. There are two other people in disagreement with you. It is very obvious that your claim has no support. Reverting to reworded version (which, so far, I see as the most faithful to reality and which respects your vision too) and, please, don't spark a conflict and avoid engaging in edit warring. Impru20 (talk) 12:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
2. No. I'm arguing that it can't be used because there is no consensus. It being used in a pejorative way is a reason why it is used by some.
3. The opinion of the editors is irrelevant. The references show that there is no consensus.
4. If there isn't agreement on something, there is a controversy, but since you don't like that word, I change it. What is not acceptable is omitting the fact that there isn't agreement.--Fjsalguero (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am fully agreed with
WP:SYNTH.--Autospark (talk) 17:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

You agree in what? Do sources disagree on qualifying Podemos as populist or don't? If you have some scholars saying that they are populist and others saying that they aren't, how would you word it?--Fjsalguero (talk) 08:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with
WP:SYNTH, that you are trying to synthesise new material from existing sources in a non-encylcopaedic way.--Autospark (talk) 09:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Would you say that the "The term "populist" is sometimes used by political opponents to refer to the party in a pejorative way" is a wrong wording? That should solve your complain about "populism" being used as an attack by rivals, yet you still don't accept it (despite it including your own worryings on the issue!), nor do you seem willing to accept another vision other than yours, which is problematic since your text violates
WP:3RR. You filed a DR/N request to discuss the issue with me, to which you have not even cared to reply, and there are two other editors (aside from myself) which don't agree with your doing. We can keep discussing the issue to check ways to improve the article and/or the wording if it needs to, but stop edit warring over an issue on which you are not right. Impru20 (talk) 09:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

There are two different issues that you are mixing here:
1. There is disagreement among scholars to whether Podemos is or isn't a populist party. As such, the article can't say that they are a populist party.
2. The term populist is used by political enemies in a pejorative way. That's a totally different topic.
Regarding the DR/N, as I explained to the mediator, I wasn't aware of the 24h limit to reply. By assuming bad faith you are violating the wikipedia etiquette. And no, I am not wrong. You are the only one that relies in your self opinion, whether I provided references that back my position.--Fjsalguero (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. It is you the one saying there's disagreement among scholars. That's
WP:WEASEL
. The article doesn't say Podemos is a "populist" party. It says it is a "left-wing populist" party. Not exactly the same thing (those even have separate articles with different definitions). "Populism" is a feature within that ideology, not the only one. Most sources regard Podemos as a "left-wing populist" party, and you can't say it can't be described like that just because you don't like it.
2. I did not assume bad faith. I just said the DR/N was closed and you had not commented it despite it being yourself the one having asked for it. It was re-opened, and again, you did not care to respond to it, and it has been closed again. It's not bad faith. It's just a fact that you have not even cared to respond.
Either you revert your own edit, or you'll have to be reported for edit warring (you've violated
WP:3RR and, despite you being noticed on it here, you just went and made a FOURTH revert). I'm not going to discuss anything else with someone who doesn't care for Wikipedia rules, who seems not to even care to seek a compromise solution and who only seeks to push his view forward. This is futile so long as you refuse to even come to terms. Impru20 (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Furthermore, I must say that I see your last edit as entirely inappropiate. Aside from violating the three revert rule, you removed sources added by
reliable sources. Aside from that, for the last time, your current edit has no support. I asked you to discuss the issue here to find a compromise solution, and you just keep refusing it. Revert your last edit and discuss the issue, or you'll be reported for edit warring. Impru20 (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Impru20, left-wing populism is a branch of populism. If the references say that Podemos isn't populist, automatically they aren't "left-wing populist". Regarding your threats, I'm afraid that it has been you the one who has violated the
WP:3RR, so I suggest you to stop threatening and talk like civilized people.--Fjsalguero (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I only reverted you twice (here and here). As far as I'm able to count, you have made one, two, three, four, five and six reverts within timespaces of less than 24 hours each (clearly violating
WP:EDITWAR, with three users other than you (Autospark, Checco and myself) not agreeing with your edits. If you want, we may take this to administration and check whether your conduct is right. Do you agree? Impru20 (talk) 18:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Totally agree with User:Impru20! One should refrain from reverts, as long as a new consensus is not formed. --Checco (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Impru20, whose conduct in this matter I must add has been impeccable.--Autospark (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neocommunism party

Hello, everyone, Podemos is a neocommunist party, which can be endorsed in a far left wing ideology. It will be good to note that in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptwsm17 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to find reliable sources and put it in the article. Ron Oliver (talk) 08:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ron Oliver I guess, opinion of many media persons, who are considered right-wing journalists, is not a reliable source for you? And, at the same time, the self-identification by the party, supported by left-wing media, that is on contrary, a reliable source? Birdofpreyru (talk) 13:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just responded to you in the section below. Ron Oliver (talk) 19:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Far-left

I know it has been debated here, but I think it is probably time to bring this up again. As far as reliable sources go, most trustworthy newspapers not headquartered in Spain tend to rely on Spanish media outlets, which may or may not be reliable. As specified by @Impru20:, their positions are not in line with other far-left movements. As of now, I can only see one ref supporting the idea of Podemos being a far-left party. Checked the source and it is only mentioned once, without any kind of analysis. I believe that label should be challenged and, possibly, removed. Ron Oliver (talk) 08:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since no answer seems to be forthcoming, I'm removing the "far-left" tag, as it's not present either in their regional branch articles, such as Podemos Andalusia, Podemos Asturias, Podemos Region of Murcia, nor in any of their alliances, such as Units Podem Més, Elkarrekin Podemos, En Comú Podem, Catalunya en Comú–Podem, Catalunya Sí que es Pot, En Marea, És el moment, and A la valenciana. If anyone here feels Podemos is still a far-left party, we are going to need an analysis much deeper than just assertions from the media which can sometimes be politically-motivated and not an accurate representation of their political stance on hot issues. Ron Oliver (talk) 09:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The "far-left" label is appropriate. Podemos amalgamates different political currents. One of them, to which notorious members of Podemos belong, is the "Anticapitalistas". This current is defined in its own entry in Wikipedia Anticapitalistas as "a revolutionary, anti-capitalist, internationalist, feminist and socialist organisation, assuming Marxism in an open, plural and critical sense". This is obviously a "far-left" ideology, and the fact that it is integrated inside Podemos it implies that that political spectrum of Podemos goes from the "far-left" to the "left". --Dixebra (talk) 03:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Anticapitalistas argument seems like it falls under
WP:SYNTH by trying to state a small faction changes the polticial position of the party as a whole. Regardless, Wikipedia formatting does not place the more extreme position first when using "X to Y" political psoition parameters. Even if it did, there is certainly much more cited material that labels the party left-wing than there is far-left. Anticapitalistas are a very small faction within Podemos as a whole. Helper201 (talk) 04:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Scholar sources often place the party as a "radical left" party (inner tensions notwithstanding). Those sources are yet to be cited here and English Wikipedia does not have an appropiate entry for the concept "radical left", though. Regarding this party, a Far-left label (while this one would not be incompatible with a radical left labelling following the commonly used Luke March's classification) and not to say a "extreme left" one are comparatively minor takes in scholar literature when compared to "left wing populist" or "radical left". Regarding Anticapitalistas they obtained a 13 % of party representation in Vistalegre II and their cadres are already fleeing the party (take Madrid or Murcia for instance). I wouldn't say they are "currently" particularly representative (only Urban and Teresa Rodríguez come up to my mind), but that's up for the sources to decide.--Asqueladd (talk) 05:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As
pointed out, Podemos's members may belong to whatever organisation they may like, but the party itself does not align with that. I am talking about Podemos's ideas or actions that would be classified as far-left. On that note, I do see a tendency on the media to portray them as far-left extremists and, since extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, I am going to ask for just a tad more than "it's obviously a 'far-left' ideology". Ron Oliver (talk) 09:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@User:Ron Oliver I saw you reverted my edit. I believe, it is appropriate to write it the way I wrote "the party self-identifies as left-wing, but media whoever often describe it as far-left". Look, the last week I had some fun jumping into editing of Vox article, and there the consent of community was like "as left-biased media and experts call Vox far-right or radical right, that should be the definition in article header, even without mentioning that Vox itself, and all right-wing media qualify it as a regular conservative right". I believe, it makes sense to apply similar criteria to Podemos, which I believe is an antipod of Vox, and write the way I suggested.
Also, regarding the membership count. It sure should mention that those ridiculous numbers are claimed by party itself, and they sure inflated. As I tried to wrote, no other Spanish party has as much members, even they have a way better electoral performance. Without mentioning it, this Wiki article looks just as advertisement of Podemos, without a healthy critical approach. There is also a lot can be added to this article regarding criticism of Podemos, and controversies surrounding it (like multitude of court cases against its members, etc.) But as my personal opinion on them is quite negative and formed, I don't follow to carefully news about them, thus I guess many people can write that better. Birdofpreyru (talk) 13:42, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to explain this to you in the past already: Wikipedia is not the place for smearing. Actions and positions on hot topics determine where parties fall in the left-right spectrum. An assertion from somebody, be it right-wing or otherwise, has no bearing on whether or not the party truly is far-left. "Qualifiers" mean nothing if they don't come with a thorough analysis of their positions. Ron Oliver (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ron Oliver No need to explain me that, I do agree. My point is, currently Podemos article reads as an advertisement pamphlet for the party: it only mentions good policies (or better say goals) nobody would argue are good, huge popularity, no controversies, no mentions of anybody questioning that, just a pure idyll. Now, anybody who follows Spanish political news knows that it is a very controversal party, doing lots of questionable statements, with lots of dirty stories surrounding it, numerious investigations against its prominent members and leaders in courts, etc. It well deserves at least to have some mention of that until somebody sits and writes detailed explanation of this party, as I did (at least tried to do) for Vox. Reaching for a remote edge case analogy, it is like advocating that in Grey article we should not write "it is an intermediate color between black and white", until somebody adds a physics theory behind it, exlaining nuances, we should write "grey is black" or "grey is white". That is, imho, the current case with Podemos article :D Birdofpreyru (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to
assume good faith, but this is not what your edits have shown as of late. You got it your way on the page for Vox, and I won't get into a heated back and forth there since I don't really care about that, but the fact that you tried to basically whitewash a far-right party by means of citing some very sketchy sources (even periodistadigital, which would be comparable to OAN) just to downplay their actions and positions definitely tells me that you're not really here to state the facts. You stated that "Wikipedia is not a place for political activism" on your first revert in Vox (political party), and now that's exactly what it seems you're doing here. If those dirty stories you talk about are true and not just faffing, you're welcome to write something about it in a dedicated section. You can also use the template {{POV}} wherever you like on the page. However, your edits were not "there are some facts you guys are trying to hide": they were rather "here are some sources that reinforce my point of view", and I said that that's not relevant. Please see Unidas Podemos#Ideology for reference. Ron Oliver (talk) 05:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
@Ron Oliver I disagree with your evaluation that I was trying to whitewash Vox, and also that Vox is far-right. The facts I know about Vox (also following some leftist-biased sources), they are different from what I imagine when I am told far-right (you know, violence, or endourcement of vioence against some groups, etc.), so I updated the article with everything I learnt about them so far, kept all criticism and "far-right" evaluations, and just tried to make it clear that "far-right" is an opionated evaluation, there are many who disagree, thus the reader better read entire article and evaluate himself. If you know more Vox-related critics and facts you are welcome to add that to Vox article, as long as you don't present it as the only valid opinion, I am good with that.
Talking about dirty stories surrounding Podemos and their far-left orientation, the first thing comes to my mind is Pablo Iglesias literally saying, and later re-affirming "No me canso de decir que los escraches son el jarabe democrático de los de abajo", which looks to me as endoursment of violence; also party leaders were endoursing quite violent attacks of extermist-left groups on public events of Vox during latest electoral campains. That looks a lot more "far-left" to me, than anything "far-right" what Vox is accused of. I also think about "caso Dina", and as a part of it an ex-accountant of Podemos accusing them of corruption, I believe; recent sentenses against Alberto Rodríguez, Isabel Serra, Pablo Echenique (and there is more people in the lists like this, but I guess OkDiario is not reliable for you, though I am pretty sure you can find mentions of the same in El Pais as well). Sure, citing right-wing media regarding all that is an easy walk, as they give a lot of detailed coverage of such stores, but you won't consider that objetive; and citing left-wing media is more tricky, they mention about all this stuff, so you know it is not just a right-propaganda myth, but they don't cover it with much details, and far less critical about that. Birdofpreyru (talk) 09:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I don't care about Vox, but the very fact you're denying whitewashing Vox and then asserting Vox isn't far-right, when there was consensus amongst editors that it is with well-supported references, tells me that you aren't here to discuss ideology or make good-will contributions, but rather to uphold some party's honorable standard. I reject your notion about "right-wing media" and "left-wing media". OKDiario is very well-known for unashamedly publishing falsehoods and fabricating stories, so it is not reliable, not for me, not for anybody (you don't need to take it from me — you can check Okdiario or Okdiario's article in the Spanish wiki). Furthermore, the very first thing that you proposed as an example of Podemos's extremism is a public statement by one of its founders which is dated before Podemos's foundation, and does not represent Podemos as a party, as it is not a statement that Iglesias made as Podemos's leader or representing Podemos's guidelines. What you did there is called NOR, and is the very first thing you should avoid. I personally dislike rants, so I'm not going to keep arguing unless something is actually worth being mentioned. Ron Oliver (talk) 15:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Explain me just one thing: what reliable sources support the ridiculous numbers of Podemos members, given in this wiki article, beside the party's own claims? And if you are all about wiki policies, why don't you want to do anything about that? Birdofpreyru (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that they were not asking for a membership fee might help. However, that might change at some point, since this article needs to be updated (2019 is the last update — just checked the ref and couldn't find anything related to that, so somebody must have pulled those figures from other unlisted sources). Every bit of new info seems to have been moved over to Unidas Podemos. I believe they started charging some money at some point, but I guess I'll have to find the info somewhere. I'll be sure to fix this in a few hours. Ron Oliver (talk) 20:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good. To me, 19k - 25k of "paid" members / activists, the numbers from reference titles you just added, seems the actual equivalent to "members" of other parties which makes sense. The 523k is actually more (or about) the total members claimed by all other major Spanish parties togerther: PSOE ~180k; PP ~65k; Vox ~50k; Ciudadanos ~30k - these four claim about 325k members in total vs 523k Podemos "members" :) and that does not correlate with electoral performance Birdofpreyru (talk) 21:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, much of the problem with this article arises from the fact they formed an electoral alliance with United Left, so this article was left to rot, basically. That's why most information hasn't been updated in years and, though you may find multiple Update templates on it, very few people (not including me, as I'm not really a member of the party) are willing to overhaul the whole article. Ron Oliver (talk) 05:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Euroscepticism.

I'm not sure if the party are eurosceptic at all. Spanish sources doesn't label Podemos as an eurosceptic party and describes them as a party in favour of

soft euroscepticism
would be more correct.

I agree, I think
soft Euroscepticism would be much more accurate as far as Podemos is concerned. One of the citations used to claim Euroscepticism also lists Syriza in the same sentence, of which there is consensus on its page that it is a soft Eurosceptic party. Podemos do not want Spain to leave the European Union, they are just critical of certain aspects of it that they wish to reform. Helper201 (talk) 14:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Populist

Uuuh, regarding the intro, you can't really say "This party is populist" only to admit two sentence later that "its opposition calls it populist in a pejorative way". It's quite clearly a POV issue. --77.107.218.170 (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the opposition uses that tag to attack Podemos does not mean that the tag itself is pejorative. Ron Oliver (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting nowrap from the infobox

Asqueladd, here to discuss Template:Nowrap. I don't see any issue with using this in the infobox. I used it to keep the memberships and activists claims together on one line so they don't awkwardly split over two lines and keep on the same line as the memberships= parameter. Plenty of infoboxs are slightly stretched, there is nothing wrong with it if everything in the infobox and main text is perfectly readable. You also have no consensus to keep reverting, so you are no more justified than I am. Please show me any Wikipedia rule, or consensus against this on this page, if you can provide neither then you have no right to keep reverting this. Helper201 (talk) 00:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@
WP:BRD? Look: --Asqueladd (talk) 00:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

I dissagree with this being a 'bold change'. There was also no prior consenus on the matter. Helper201 (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On my part I will suggest a compromise of just getting rid of the activists claim as its not about memberships, nor standard to place this here. It could perhaps be mentioned somewhere in the main text. It is also unclear what specifically constitutes to someone being a member but not an activist. Helper201 (talk) 00:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, guess what. It's perfectly sensible to undo you because your "not so bold" edit may be deemed "not an improvement". Deal with that. That happens, everywhere, everytime. You have been downright reckless trying to impose you proposal without discussion three times. What are you talking about Wikipedia rules? You can add a "line feed" if you want to see the bracket together, but your edit makes the infobox less efficient in terms of space. So it is up to editors to decide about what's better here in the talk page, while respecting the previous consensus. Wikipedia 101.--Asqueladd (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully ask you please keep in mind Wikipedia:Civility. Helper201 (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On my part, I don't have a problem with removing the activists bit, but the fact that members don't pay membership needs to be included somewhere.--Asqueladd (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That could be included in the main text, either under the 'Reception' section or the 'Popular support' section, or under a new section specifically about its membership. Helper201 (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the international press and academics consider Podemos a party of the extreme left. https://www.ft.com/content/5a93de8c-0551-11ea-a984-fbbacad9e7dd

See Talk:Podemos_(Spanish_political_party)#Far-left. Ron Oliver (talk) 07:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consultancy work

@Ron Oliver: Hi! I was meaning to ask why was the information about Monedero's consultancy work was removed: the paragraph states that the audition found that the total income received by the party was € 947,000 and that the donation by the MEPs was € 52,000, but the same article cited says that Monedero received €425,000 for consultancy work, which is nearly half and ten times more of these figures, respectively. You reverted saying that this was "Completely irrelevant", but given this amount and its mention in the article I fail to see how this is the case. The revert also changed "in 2014" to "last year", 2020, which besides would be incorrect per the source; I was also wondering if there was a reason for this. Many thanks in advance! --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey, @NoonIcarus:. I am not sure I understand the motivation to include that bit of information in the article. The fact that Monedero worked for these governments should probably have its place in Monedero's article, but not on this one. That section in the article talks about donations from founding members, and the bit you added talks about how much Monedero earned, regardless of the amount of money that went into the project. I am not sure about the "amount" thing you addressed, but if the link between these two figures implies that the party was funded illegally, that is yet to be proven, i. e., not encyclopedic information. The fact that so and so earned a certain amount of money with consulting work is irrelevant, in my opinion. MEPs had different jobs and earned money from different sources, so I would appreciate it if you could clarify it for me. Can you go further into detail as to why you believe it to be relevant just to help me understand your point better? Ron Oliver (talk) 06:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, the "last year" is a mistake on my part. I tried to revert the change, but I changed that bit too without noticing. Sorry about that. Ron Oliver (talk) 06:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ron Oliver: Thanks for the quick and thorough response. The purpose of the inclusion was merely to contextualize, particularly when The Telegraph source included in the article mentions it. In no way this is an implication that the party "was funded illegally", since as far as I know this is something that Podemos members have acknowledged. Consulting work is already mentioned before in the paragraph, so a possible alternative, if you agree, is to likewise include this information before. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:18, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NoonIcarus:. I still believe it is not relevant enough. I believe some news media outlets might have included it because it was a fairly big thing for a while in Spanish media, but it died down soon enough (maybe because it was utterly inconsequential). If the €52,000 figure was all Monedero's contribution to Podemos's foundation, I could somewhat see why we should specify the relationship between the amount he received as a consultant and the subsequent donation, but I feel it is inconsequential because Monedero did not work as a consultant with the intention of creating a party. By providing that as a "context", it is very possible for readers to establish either a causal or a correlational relationship between these two events, and, in reality, that is much harder to prove, especially because I have been unable to even find a reliable source where Monedero's donations to Podemos have been singled out from the rest. Let me be clearer for you: I can understand that Podemos's representatives went out of their way to attempt to disprove accusations against them, which is actually coherent with the first sentence in that very paragraph. However, when we use that figure (which is unrelated to Podemos's foundation) and provide it as context, readers might find that there is some relationship between those two events (when, in reality, there is no such relationship or, at the very least, it is very difficult to prove either way). While I agree that the information is most likely accurate and correct, I think it is not relevant enough. However, if you still believe it is relevant and want to include it in the article, I will not oppose. I will still be here anyway, in case you want to discuss this further. It is much trickier than it looks at a first glance. Ron Oliver (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ron Oliver: Many thanks for this explanation. I have included the sentence earlier in the paragraph, hoping to solve this possible confusion. I'd be glad to know what do you think about it. Best regards! --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:24, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 September 2022

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: not moved. On grounds of the word being a verb in Spanish as argued in the discussion, thus neccesitating similar treatment as other political parties that use verb/noun/adjective/etc as mentioned in the oppose arguments. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 06:36, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Podemos (Spanish political party) → Podemos (Spain) – In Wikipedia Podemos is only referred to political parties, but this is the only one with "political party" specified in the disambiguation. Since Podemos is only referred to political parties, this specification seems unncessary also for the title of this page. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we overlook the verb issue (which is not a minor one), we still have the electoral coalition issue in which most of the alliances of which Podemos is a part of are named "XXX Podemos" and frequently shortened as just "Podemos" in most media. "Podemos (Spain)" would not be concise enough to unambiguously differentiate this topic from them. Note that Podemos has not run on its own in a Spanish general election since 2015, thus the alliances are the primary electoral brand nowadays. Impru20talk 06:30, 9 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.

Will Podemos run alone with a seperate list....

or are they likely to join Sumar? 62.226.94.221 (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK nobody knows it for sure yet. Ppl say their chances if running alone are poor, but because of it if joining Sumar they hardly will be able to place all high-ranking podemits to prestige well-paid positions in sumar (which isn’t likely to get too many votes neither). Birdofpreyru (talk) 22:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ideology section of Infobox

The Ideology heading in the Infobox urgently needs de-bloating; "Democratic socialism" and "Left-wing populism" is all that needs listing (no particular feelings about in which order, although my personal preference leans towards "democratic socialism" as the primary ideology, being a broader description). "Republicanism", "Non-interventionism" and "Federalism" are policy positions more than political ideologies (if they weight heavily enough to be considered noteworthy), and "Anti-neoliberalism" seems rather redundant to list given that the party is clearly described as being on the left.--Autospark (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree: "democratic socialism" and "left-wing populism" are more than enough for this article's infobox. --Checco (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This really needs a wider Wikipedia consensus as opposed to ad-hoc article-by-article talk page discussions with often minimal editor inputs regarding whether we should limit the number of ideologies in political party infoboxes and to what degree we should do this providing there is a wider consensus to do so at all (i.e. what number of ideologies is considered acceptable and the limit etc). Helper201 (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is more that over time many editors have crammed Infoboxes with overlapping ideologies, or even non-ideologies which are actually more accurately policy positions, or even redundant descriptions (a democratic socialist and left-wing populist party doesn’t need prominently describing as “anti-neoliberal”, really – that’s self-evident). Personally, I’m all for making dedicated Ideology sections as detailed as possible, with a variety of descriptions, and listing key parts of parties’ policy platforms (with suitable references), but that doesn’t mean overcrowding Infoboxes, which should be a thumbnail sketch, and free of redundant, unhelpful or misleading information.— Autospark (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this approach is that there are so many Wikipedia pages like this you are going to encounter consensuses both in favour on some pages and against on others, leading to an imbalance across the Wikipedia platform. This would really obscure the consistency and uniformity of political party infoboxes. Helper201 (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is almost impossible to have a general discussion, including each and every party of the world. There is an ongoing process of updating, restricting and uniforming ideologies in the infoboxes and I much welcome it. For Podemos, "democratic socialism" and "left-wing populism" are the only two viable and uncontroversial ideologies. --Checco (talk) 06:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Checco, I mean a general discussion around whether we should limit ideologies and by what degree etc. NOT on a case-by-case basis i.e., we wouldn't discuss each party in this discussion, nor each individually on talk pages as some editors are doing, but the general principle and concept of infobox reduction as a whole. Helper201 (talk) 06:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ideology section of Infobox (Part 2)

Let's return to this discussion. Currently, the Infobox is bloated, as has non-ideologies (or non-core ideologies) listed which can and should be moved to the Ideology section of the article body. I propose listing just "democratic socialism" and "left-wing populism" In the Ideology field, and "left-wing" in the Position field (far-left is an exaggeration, being a party which contests democratic elections).--Autospark (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support removing non-interventionism and federalism from the infobox, as nether are political ideologies but I advocate for keeping the rest, which would leave 4. Four ideologies is not bloat. While I personally don't think the party is far-left we have reliable sources saying as such so it should remain in the infobox for the sake of balance and
WP:WEIGHT. To include one cited position and not another would be weighting via editorial opinion, which we should absolutely not do and we should keep to what reliable sources state, of which we have multiple for both positions. Helper201 (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, “republicanism” and “federalism” are clearly policy positions, not ideologies, and can be listed in the article body. As for “far-left”, I’m not disputing in any way that reliable sources have described the party as such, and can be moved to and mentioned in the article body. It seems an exaggeration given it participates in democratic elections and is currently part of the governing coalition of an EU and NATO member state, however.— Autospark (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Republicanism is defined on its Wikipedia page as a political ideology. I still think it would cause a balance issue to omit far-left from the infobox. Just my thoughts. Helper201 (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Surely, there are too many items in the ideology parameter. I would also leave just "democratic socialism" and "left-wing populism" as ideologies, and "left-wing" as position. I understand the argument on "republicanism", but, still, it is more of a policy position than an ideology, especially in Podemos' case. --Checco (talk) 04:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Podemos is openly against Spain's presence in NATO and in the Eurozone, also they are no longer part of the government since November and even their parliamentary support to the PSOE-Sumar government is debatable. Just going to post some sources so that we can all move on from this fruitless discussion that you keep trying to bring up and end your attempts to change this and other articles into personal ideologically driven blogposts:
https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/controversial-vote-on-nato-enlargement-splits-spanish-coalition/
https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/spanish-leftists-oppose-black-sea-mission-nato-membership/
https://mishtalk.com/uncategorized/podemos-economic-manifesto-calls-for-debt-restructuring-spain-to-abandon-the-euro-trap/ NotTheRealDiogoFaro (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You’re slandering a en.wiki user who’s had over a decade more experience than you, and who has grasped the basics of wiki writing and referencing academic sources. I know a troll when I see one.— Autospark (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A "en.wiki user who’s had over a decade more experience" than me unable to even bother to use sources? That's embarassing...
Guess I should have a look at how many articles you vandalised without a WP:NPOV and a lot of WP:OR over the years. As I have said before, Wikipedia is not your personal blog, either present credible sources or don't edit at all. NotTheRealDiogoFaro (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I call this harassment of a Jewish Wikipedian by some kind of brainless alt-right thug, quite honestly. You people are on the wrong side of history.-- Autospark (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have gone insane. It is completly irrelevant if you are Jewish or not. Post sources or stop editing. Branding me a "brainless alt-right thug" is a serious breach of Wikipedia's guidelines and using your religion is a falacy to hide the fact that you have no arguments to counter my sources. You should log off instead of defacing articles. I am just a guy interested in the politics of my country and am just done with your shenanigans.NotTheRealDiogoFaro (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
far-left is an exaggeration, being a party which contests democratic elections — I'd love seeing you defending this thesis in Vox article — another Spanish party contesting democratic elections, and with a greater success than Podemos, but somehow labeled far-right (and only far-right) in the infobox, despite number of sources considering it just a right-wing party :)
Otherwise, I support cutting down the Ideology section of the infobox. I'd say just leaving Left-wing populism would be enough, maybe followed by Democratic socialism — these are really characterize their broad ideology, the rest are more stances on narrow topics, that can be explained in the body of article, but aren't that important to be in the infobox. Birdofpreyru (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Watch out or you will also be branded a "brainless alt-right thug harassing a Jewish Wikipedian" just by asking for sources and consistency with other articles. The absolute state of this website... NotTheRealDiogoFaro (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot understand how they call a party that is progressive "SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC" extreme left (YES, it is social democratic, not socialist as the pirated reference of "Parties and Elections in Europe" says. Even if they are, it is not an extreme left ideology either. I understand that there are millions of media that call it extreme left (generally their positions range from the center to the right) but you need to have a minimum of SENSE to realize instantly that it is not a party that is neither extreme nor reactionary nor radical. It is simply a leftist party with half-woke populist rhetoric, nothing more. Monito rapido (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well... they did escraches against political opponents, and their leaders endorsed such direct actions publicly — that's as extreme left as it gets, just a notch short of the terrorism. Their opinions on variety of topics are also very socialists. Sure, many prefer to call it "social democratic" to keep a friendlier appearance, the actual content behind the facade isn't that democratic, and quite extreme. Birdofpreyru (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see, the escraches do not define the political position of any political party, because otherwise the PP would be considered extreme right and the PSOE extreme left and that is not true? Therefore, there is no valid argument, except for the references, to determine that the party is a far-left force. They do not meet any characteristics of the extreme left, and even if they shared some characteristics with the ultra-left, there would still be many more coincidences to say to the extreme left party, don't you think it's a bit naive? Do I say VERY naive? Why else should we classify the PP as an extreme right-wing party, because it is conservative (which most right-wing parties are), liberal, Catholic and because of the escraches? Clearly not. At most, we would have to find another term to describe the party if you will. But it makes no sense to say that it is an extreme left party (if it is neither revolutionary, nor communist, nor reactionary (as if it is, for example the Workers' Front, then it is an ultra-leftist party)). Monito rapido (talk) 19:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is simply your opinion. Monito rapido (talk) 19:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well... as much as I'd like to enter this rabbit hole of an argument, I'll stick to
WP:NOTFORUM and keep myself from further discussion :) Birdofpreyru (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Btw, I disagree with your argument that they aren't anti-capitalist (c'mon, they are, and they formed a part of socialist government that paraded an array of bizarre leftist measures and laws over its 4 years term). However, I support removing it from the Infobox ideology section, as commented earlier. Birdofpreyru (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The government of Pedro Sánchez was clearly capitalist, none of the policies of this government have even a slight relationship with anti-capitalism. Monito rapido (talk) 19:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has gone a little bit off the rails. I also think that "far-left" is an exageration—I would have only "left-wing" as position, while "left-wing populism" and "democratic socialism" are enough as ideologies. By the way, I think that also Vox is wrongly described as "far-right": "right-wing" would be enough. Generally speaking, "far-left" and "far-right" should be used only for fringe or authoritarian parties. --Checco (talk) 06:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vox is clearly an authoritarian party. "Podemos" is not. Monito rapido (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Podemos_(Spanish_political_party)&oldid=1209789620"