Talk:Antoni Gaudí

Gaudi´s nationality introduction

The topic of Gaudi´s nationality has been disccussed several times. Different users failed to completely erase neither Gaudi´s "Catalan" nationality nor "Spanish" nationality.

However I´ve seen that in Wikipedia and other encyclopedias the articles about persons normally follow this pattern: 1. Name(and data about it and its pronuntiation), 2. The official nationality of the person at the time of his/her death or his/her current nationality (if still alive) and 3. the activity, occupation or job that he/she is known for.

Even if a brief period of consensus arrived in the way of the option "Spanish Catalan", I haven´t read so far any article about a person where two demonyms are used and one of them is a region from the other one. I.E.: You could say a "sicilian-calabrian" or "French-italian", but you could not say "sicilian-italian" or at least you could not say it in an encyclopedia. That´s why "Spanish Catalan" or "Catalan Spanish" are such ambiguous terms because it could imply that Spanish excludes Catalan and the other way around, which is not the case.

In the same way that Pêr Denez, the Breton novelist or Andrea Camilleri, the sicilian writer are refered as "French novelist" or "Italian writer" respectively, Antoni Gaudí should also be referred as a "Spanish Architect".

I used and it has been deleted several times the credited primary source from the Encyclopaedia Britannica that introduces Gaudi as a "Spanish architect". That´s why I propose tu use "Spanish architect from Catalonia" or "Spanish architect based in Barcelona" or something similar. What do you think? (Nitsugagmx (talk) 20:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)).

Nitsugagmx, no thanks. Consensus has landed us here. Please don't disrupt this topic area any further with the nationalism thing. Elizium23 (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Would you be so kind of addressing me to where this consensus has been established? I wasn´t able to find it. Thanks(Nitsugagmx (talk) 20:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC))

This page keeps getting targeted by Spanish nationalists. The consensus was Catalan architect. If you want to have a substantive discussion, please let nationalism out of it. Eccekevin (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The exact reason why I am not interested at all in nationalism of any kind is the same reason why I have not addressed it whatsoever. My main purpose in improving this article is to achieve accuracy. No more, no less. It seems that everyone is talking about different consensus there was a "Spanish architect", then a "Spanish catalan architect" and then a "Catalan architect". As I explained before leaving "Catalan architect" would not be consistent with the way the Wikipedia operates (read my second paragraph from this discussion). And also leaving "Catalan architect" far from leaving out "nationalism" would encourage it as the Spanish nationalists and everyone who speaks English and does not know a lot about Spanish Geography and politics would reasonably think that the article is saying that Gaudi was from a legally independent country named Catalonia that did exist in 1926 which is not really the case. As I mentioned before using a credited primary source like the Encyclopedia Britannica (or something in the same line) should be enough to avoid all these coming and going back and forth. What do you think? (Nitsugagmx (talk) 21:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC))

Nitsugagmx, here is a link to a page where the consensus is discussed, following several previous discussions that can be found in the talk page archive. Ewulp (talk) 01:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Ewulp. For what I can read the situation is far from getting a consensus and keeps getting attacked by people with political biases. Would a credited primary source (like the one I suggested from the Encyclopedia Britannica or any other similar for that matter)be a way to deal in a more straight way against those attacks? Any suggestions to solve the problems and issues arised by the current introduction as it is?. Please let me know. (Nitsugagmx (talk) 09:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC))

I don’t see any issue with the current consensus, so I am opposed to changes. There’s no rule that the best descriptor has to be a nationality.Eccekevin (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The usual course is to follow reliable sources. ULAN is considered authoritative and says "Spanish", The first line of Gaudi's article in Grove Art Online reads "Spanish Catalan architect", and Benezit Dictionary Of Artists says Spanish. Ewulp (talk) 23:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Not necessarily. If you read MOS:ETHNICITY, the best descriptors could be nationality, but also region or territory, depending on the case. And we don't necessarily follow sources, but what is most appropriate. As an example, look at the discussion for Talk:John_Oliver#Request_for_comment:_lead_sentence. despite the majority of sources using British instead of British-American, it was decided that , in line with MOS:ETHNICITY , the latter was most appropriate.

BTW, the Encyclopedia Britanica says Gaudi is a "Catalan Architect". https://www.britannica.com/biography/Antoni-Gaudi, so not sure what the user above was referring to. Eccekevin (talk) 04:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The first words on the EB page are "Antoni Gaudí Spanish architect". I'm familiar with MOS:ETHNICITY and I agree with the consensus on John Oliver, but for Gaudi we can consult encyclopedias and standard art reference sources for guidance. Sources checked place him in the context of Spanish architecture, and I presume they are as interested as we are in doing what is most appropriate. Maybe what's in the infobox serves well enough for nationality, but if it were up to me I'd use Grove's solution of "Spanish Catalan architect" in the lead sentence. I'm well aware that the matter has been discussed at tedious length for years and can live with the current edit. Ewulp (talk) 09:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

No, if you read the actual page is says: Antoni Gaudí, Catalan in full Antoni Gaudí i Cornet, Spanish Antonio Gaudí y Cornet, (born June 25, 1852, Reus, Spain—died June 10, 1926, Barcelona), Catalan architect, whose distinctive style is characterized by freedom of form, voluptuous colour and texture, and organic unity. Gaudí worked almost entirely in or near Barcelona.Eccekevin (talk) 23:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The text you're quoting appears below the heading "Antoni Gaudí Spanish architect". Ewulp (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm quoting the actual encyclopedia entry.Eccekevin (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

You really can´t miss it. "https://www.britannica.com/biography/Antoni-Gaudi"just after the words "Antoni Gaudi"you can read "Spanish Architect".Nitsugagmx (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Apparently it uses both, but uses Catalan in the actual text of the article. Eccekevin (talk) 18:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Nitsugagmx, it's cool you found that, but Britannica is a tertiary source: Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. Elizium23 (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks!. You are right. My mistake. it is a terciary source indeed. Something that could be quite handy as in the link you provide we can read "...it may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other." So maybe this could be one of those cases where a due weight is needed. Don´t you agree?. Nitsugagmx (talk) 09:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Once again, Britannica uses "Catalan architect", so it's kinda of a moot point. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Antoni-Gaudi Eccekevin (talk) 23:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Of course Britannica uses "Catalan architect" but definitely not in the heading, which is the matter we are discussing here.Nitsugagmx (talk) 07:42, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Does it matter? I'd say the heading is less important than the actual text of the article, the heading is just something found in the online version. And if it does matter, then Britannica uses both, so it can't be used to claim we should use Spanish instead of Catalan. Eccekevin (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Does it matter? Absolutely! In order to design the heading of this article we are looking at other headings of reliable sources. The heading comes first in the Britannica and it could also come first in a similar way in the Wikipedia as both use similar structures. (name/nationality & occupation/rest of the article=Antonio Gaudi/Spanish Architect/rest of Gaudi article). So far we have different reliable sources as The Encyclopaedia Britannica, Benezit Dictionary Of Artists and the ULAN all three propose "Spanish Architect" while Grove Art Online reads "Spanish Catalan architect". Also keep in mind that usual course is to follow reliable sources as it seems that consensus keeps getting far from being permanent due to the problems arised by its present form. Linking the heading to reliable sources could be a way to avoid the attack of users with political biases. Nitsugagmx (talk) 09:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

You're confused. We're talking about the lede, not the heading. And the Britannica lede (first paragraph), uses "Catalan".Eccekevin (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I started the debate using the term "introduction" which implies both lede and heading. I know you are talking about the lede which is ok. But we are here talking about what comes first "Spanish Architect" or "Catalan Architect". In the Case of the Britannica is "Spanish Architect" as the Britannica has heading, something the Wikipedia has not. Therefore what comes first in the Britannica entry? "Spanish architect".Nitsugagmx (talk) 10:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

No, because SPanish isn’t used in the text of the Britannica article. It is only used on the online heading, which is not part of the article and does not appear in print. Eccekevin (talk) 01:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I see that you keep writing about giving more importance to the text of an article than to the heading of an article of the Encyclopedia Britanica. By all means the importance of an article's heading is generally considered more relevant when discussing headings or introductions (as they belong to similar categories). But it's ok if you see it in a different way. It would be helpful to see things as you see it, if you could share any references or samples where this issue has happened in a similar way in any other Wikipedia article Talk. However, in order to avoid delaying the decision making process and advancing in the improvement of the article, I would really appreciate if you could inform us if you also dismiss the entries from the Benezit Dictionary Of Artists and the ULAN, which both state Gaudi as "Spanish Architect" and if that would be the case on which grounds.Nitsugagmx (talk) 17:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

There are plenty of references for using either, my job is not to dismiss every reference you find. Like the users above, I see no problem with the consensus that was decided and the current form. I am against any politically-minded changes. It is accurate and fine as it is. His nationality, which is Spanish, is in the infobox. Regarding how he is described in the lede, read MOS:ETHNICITY, which is why currently it is Catalan, since in this case it is better to use his ethnicity than his passport/nationality. Eccekevin (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the link MOS:ETHNICITY, there you can clearly read "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead" which contradicts your assertion that it is better to use his ethnicity. I am glad that we both agree in that we both are against any politically-minded changes. You mentioned having no problem with the current form but you highlight being against politically-minded changes. The main problem that I see is precisely one of your concerns: the constant politically-minded changes in the introduction that occurs and will keep occurring. How to minimize that? I am proposing using credited sources. Don´t you think it will help?.Nitsugagmx (talk) 09:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Once again, you seem to purposely misunderstand what I am saying. MOS:ETHNICITY states that ethnicity generally isn't included unless it's relevant. Since Gaudi was very tied to his Catalan culture, he was an activist for Catalan autonomy and Catalan rights, was the major exponent of Catalan modernism, is among the principal figures of Catalan culture and history, and many other reasons, then indeed it is how we describe him, hence he is an excellent example of the exepton that (such as describing Robert Burns as Scottish instead of British, which was his nationality). Additionally, MOS:ETHNICITY states that the paragraph can state it as "country, region, or territory", and not necessarily country (which would be Spain).

Secondly, just because there is politically-minded vandalism, doesn't mean we have to compromise with the vandals as you suggest and surrender to it. We minimize it not by changing and going against consensus, but by the many anti-vandalism mechanisms present in Wikipedia. Eccekevin (talk) 04:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Here is a primary source, "Gardner's Art through the Ages: The Western Perspective, Volume II" by Fred S. Kleiner contains "Art Nouveau achieved its most personal expression in the work of the Spanish architect Antonio Gaudí." Regardles, Gaudi had a Spanish passport, that should be it, as it is this is just pushing propaganda while misinforming people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.231.128.237 (talk) 05:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Gaudí's Nationality

I'm deeply concerned about the politicization of Wikipedia articles, a trend that I've noticed in many subjects that are not related with politics per se but that have something to do with actual political debates, at least marginally. One such subject that I've come across recently very often and that's given me that perception is that of pretty much any topic related with Catalonia, in any form, something undeniably evident in the Catalan language Wikipedia but increasingly so in the English language version. For the sake of the argument I need to make clear that I'm not Spanish nor do I am particularly knowledgeable enough about the Spanish and catalan political issues but the point I want to underline is that of the conscious omission of factual knowledge or simply stated, facts. This has nothing to do with Spanish or Catalan nationalism as I've read in the discussions on this topic in an apparently accusative manner, I'm talking about real, verifiable facts that are (in my opinion) blatantly overlooked for political reasons. Citing Gaudí as Spanish has nothing to do with a Spanish nationalist point of view but rather with an accurate, true description of the political reality in which Gaudí was born and actually lived through, and obviously died. Catalonia was (and still is) part of the modern nation-state of Spain, I'm not making political statements, I'm just describing the political, factual reality of it, it's just a fact. Gaudí was born within the Spanish territory, held a Spanish nationality and passport, citing his nationality as catalan is a misleading representation because it somehow implies the existence or previous existence of an independent catalan state, which was not the case then nor it represents catalonia's reality at the present. Citing him as a Spanish citizen does not exclude his consideration as catalan, indeed, it’s the only accurate way to do it because, again, Catalonia is (and was also in Gaudí's time) politically part of Spain, this fact was and remains true to this day, it's just representing the factual issues of Catalonia's reality as a part of Spain. A similar comparative situation would be to cite Napoleon as Corsican instead of French, I don't mean denying the fact that he was born in Corsica but rather obliterating the fact that the island happened to be part of France at the time he was born and remains so up until this day. Admitting this isn't French nationalism, it's just describing facts and political realities of existing political entities. This kind of deliberate misrepresentation just degrades the site credentials and undermines the perception of reliability of users and readers of the Wikipedia community. I hope this topic can be addressed and discussed again, because I could read in the discussion on the topic (not an exact quote) that one user said something like the "community has already settled or agreed on the nationality issue". That kind of statement makes the site look like and opinion blog instead of a helpful, relevant source of knowledge. 79.116.75.136 (talk) 13:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you. But I'm afraid that the person being able to change this in the lead on wikipedia has not been born yet. Arcillaroja (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I tried to at least introduce a compromising solution by changing "Catalan architect" to "Catalan Architect from Spain". But even that as well as all mentions in the lead of his country of origin are systematically removed by Eccekevin, using as the only argument a non existing previous consensus or that it "sounded weird" in English. According to the archives it was Eccekevin himself the one that changed the previous standing version of "Spanish architect" without being able to reach any consensus. The fact of the matter is that Gaudí is both Spanish (his country) and Catalan (his region and ethnicity). There is absolutely no valid reason to remove that key fact from the lead. MOS:ETHNICITY states that the ethnicity should not be even included unless it is relevant to the notability of the subject. I may agree that it should be included in this case, but that does not mean that it should replace the country of origin. There are users who advocate for the independence of Catalonia from Spain and renounce that Catalonia is now and was a part of Spain during the life of the subject. Their apparent objective is not only to include the term Catalan, but for it to replace the place in the lead used for the country removing from the lead all mentions of the factual country of origin according to all reliable sources.

The correct way to resolve this is to follow what the most reliable sources say. Encyclopaedia Britannica introduces Gaudi as a "Spanish architect" right bellow the title in a one sentence summary. See here. It is the closest we have to our lead. Bellow that, in first paragraph it also uses Catalan Architect. There is no reason to not do the same in this case. Contrary to what was written in the previous section, tertiary sources as reliable as the Encyclopaedia Britannica carry more weight than secondary sources. The other highest quality tertiary source is the Columbia Encyclopedia which also uses "Spanish architect" in the lead. See here. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannia uses “Catalan Architect” in its opening sentence, which is the closes thing we have to the lede. Antoni Gaudí, Catalan in full Antoni Gaudí i Cornet, Spanish Antonio Gaudí y Cornet, (born June 25, 1852, Reus, Spain—died June 10, 1926, Barcelona), Catalan architect, whose distinctive style is characterized by freedom of form, voluptuous colour and texture, and organic unity. Gaudí worked almost entirely in or near Barcelona. Much of his career was occupied with the construction of the Expiatory Temple of the Holy Family (Sagrada Família), which was unfinished at his death in 1926. it uses Spanish architect in its header, which is the closest thing we have to the infobox (and indeed, we have Spanish in the infobox). Other examples of Encyclopedia which use "Catalan Architect" are: Encyclopedia of Architectural and Engineering Feats, The Grove Encyclopedia of Medieval Art and Architecture, Encyclopedia of 20th Century Architecture, The McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of World Biography, Encyclopedia.com and many more. Of course, several use Spanish. The point is, both have been use in the literature, but here we base it on consensus and the guidelines. According to MOS:ETHNICITY, nationality isn’t necessarily the best way to describe someone. For example, the IP above used the example of Napoleon. Napoleon is a very different cause from Gaudi, since he left Corsia pretty early on and never really had in important connection to Corsican culture. Gaudi instead had a very important connection to Catalan culture and Catalan architecture, and Catalan modernism. Unfortunately, many Spanish nationalists have been targeting this page, and it’s even have to be protected because of these attacks.

Many other sources use "Catalan Architect", such as Architectural Mangazines (Architectural Digest, ArchDaily , Artland ) and other cultural sources such UNESCO , Google Arts and Culture and The Art Story. Many of the official websites of his own works also describe him as Catalan Architect, such as the official website of Casa Battlo , the official website of La Pedrera-Casa Milà , Palau Guell., and Casa Vicens . All these official websites of his work use the word Catalan to describe him. News outlets and other sources also use "Catalan Archiect", such as the New York Times ,,, the Washington Post, , , Chicago Tribune, , LA Times, and the Wall Street Journal,, just to name the top ones. Many of his biographies by scholars use Catalan architect to describe him.,, , and all of his biographies focus also on his connections to the Catalan national movement and to Catalan culture.

MOS:ETHNICITY states that nationality and ethnicity should be based on consesus, with particular attention to what made an individual notable and what was their own feelings towards the matter.

For example, why is Luci Tapahonso described as Navajo poet and not American poet? Her nationality is American, but her specific notability and work is tied to her Navajo background and location. Similarly, why is Robert Burns described as Scottish and not British? His image and life is heavily tied to his Scottish heritage. You can see this in a lot of articles. Gaudi is the same: his works are almost only in Catalonia, has a Catalan name and spoke in Catalan he was passionate about Catalan culture and has become a symbol of Catalonian art, culture, and heritage.

Similarly, Gaudi had a deep connection for Catalan nationalism (especially in the resurrection of the Catalan arts and culture in the Catalan Renaissance) and language. When King of Spain Alfonso XIII visited the Sagrada Familia, Gaudi declined to speak in Spanish and only spoke to him in Catalan. Gaudi also refused to speak Spanish with Prime Minister Antonio Maura, who, being a native of Mallorca and therefore Catalan-speaking, ended up responding to Gaudi in Catalan, thus breaking protocol in front of the King Alfonso XIII. Similarly, when philosopher Miguel de Unamuno visited the Sagrada Família, poet Joan Maragall had to translate Gaudí’s Catalan tour into Spanish. Gaudi also spoke Catalan in public, despite it being declared illegal by the dictatorship of Primo de Rivera, which severely tried to suppress Catalan culture. In 1920 he was beaten by police in a riot during the Floral Games celebrations, a Catalan culture celebration. On 11 September 1924, National Day of Catalonia, he was beaten at a demonstration against the banning of the Catalan language by the dictatorship of Primo de Rivera. Gaudí was arrested by the Civil Guard as he was headed to the church of Sant Just i Sant Pastor to attend a mass in memory of the Catalonian patriots. Gaudi refused to speak Castilian Spanish and kept responding in Catalan, stating that “My profession obliges me to pay my taxes, and I pay them, but not to stop speaking my own language.” He was then taken to prison, from which he was freed after paying 50 pesetas bail. This situation is very different than from Napeolone, as you say. Napoleon was merely born in Corsica, but was not immersed in Crosican culture or a member of the Corsican renaissance. Gaudi instead was, and was politically active (although he never advocated for Catalonian indipendence like many of his political friends), but was nonetheless a proud and crucial member of the Catalan community.

Unfortunately, as User:Elizium23 points out, this page keeps getting targeted by self-described Spanish nationalist who are not interested in a bona-fide discussion but keep trying to attack and vandalize it.Eccekevin (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The description right below the title is the summary. The infobox can not be a substitute for the lead. MOS:INFOBOXUSE states that it is just an optional summary of the key facts. There are many sources that use Spanish architect and many that use Catalan architect. But the point is still that the two major encyclopedias use "Spanish" so at the very least, both Spanish and Catalan should be present in the lead. The fact that you recently added a small mention at the infobox, which again is an optional summary, does not solve the problem. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

You added more sources as examples, but you seem to look only in one direction. You seemed to miss the other side of the coin on all the new sources you quoted. The New York times also used "Spanish Architect" See here so did the Wall Street Journal See here, The Washington Post article you quoted used the term Catalan Architect, but previously introduced him as part of Spanish designers. In many other articles refers to him as "Spanish architect" see here, The same thing holds true with the Chicago tribune see here or the LA Times see here. Those are just the first instances out of many results in Google for the publishers you cited, but of course there are countles more examples. Again. Both terms are used, so both should be used in the lead and preference should be given to "Spanish architect", as that is how it is introduced by the two most reputable tertiary sources. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 00:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

We don't blindly follow sources, we operate by consensus and guidelines. We do not have to use nationality by force. As, as I can see, both of you users are Spanish so I recommend you keep yourselves neutral. I realize that personal opinions and nationalism can be tricky, but here in the English Wikipedia we have to operate with reasonability. The reasons for stating he is Catalan in the lede (just as for stating he Robert Burns is Scottish) have been expressed by me and others. I have yet to hear any reasons for which he should be called "Spanish", other than your insistence that Britannica uses the term (although, as I pointed out, it uses it in the header, not in the actual lede of the article, in which it uses Catalan architect, so this point is moot). If anything, the header on Britannica = WP short description, white lede in Britannica = lede in WP. So even if we were to follow your advice and do exactly what Britannica does, we'd use Spanish in the short description and Catalan in the lede. But, more importantly, MOS is the guideline to follow here, not the sources themselves. As we've seen, there are reputable sources that use both. So the point isn't which source to follow, but which descriptor is most appropriate. I have laid the case for one, and the case fo the other hasn't really been made other than this repeated insistence on the Britannica header.

Also, it is spelled 'below', not 'bellow'. Eccekevin (talk) 01:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean by blindly following sources? If the fact that he was a Spanish architect has been covered by countless reliable sources it belongs in the article. In this case, I agree that the same holds true for Catalan architect. What does the fact that I am Spanish have to do with anything? The subject was one of the greatest Spanish architects, that cannot be censored from the lead. Britannica used Spanish architect as a one line description for the subject right bellow the title. WP short description is not even visible in the article and you just changed it from Spanish architect to Catalan architect doing the opposite of what you were writing in your comment and without reaching any consensus see here, just like you changed the previous version with Spanish architect to Catalan architect in the lead also without reaching any consensus see here and continued changing it back through edit warring. The reason for using Spanish in the lead as was the case before your bold edit without reaching first the needed consensus have been pointed out by many users. In the vast majority of articles in our project we use the country of origin as the introduction in the lead, the exceptions are in cases in which an overwhelming majority of sources address the subject with the ethnic or regional identity and they where notable only within that context. This is clearly not the case here. He gained great prestige and recognition in Spain. Most of his works are in Barcelona, but many of his buildings can also be found in different other regions of Spain as well as abroad. Sources refer to him as both, Spanish and Catalan. It makes no different either of our opinions on the matter. What counts is what the sources say and I insist that the two most reputable tertiary sources introduce him first as Spanish architect. To counter your examples please note that Don Wright (politician), an Alaskan native that advocated the independence from America is introduced in the lead as an American politician from Alaska or Miguel Ángel Revilla a Cantrabrian politician president of Cantabria and member of the Regionalist Party of Cantabria is introduced as a Spanish politician, and the same goes for the Basque president Iñigo Urkullu of the Basque Nationalist Party. The article should be restored back to the version prior to your changes without consensus. I think however that Catalan architect should also be present in the lead. I propose reverting back to Spanish architect from Catalonia and changing the beginning of the second paragraph to Gaudí was a Catalan architect whose work was influenced... Alternatively it could also be changed to a Spanish and Catalan architect or to a Spanish Catalan Architect. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, your argument boils down to: "two sources online use Spanish so we should too". And, as said before, Britannica uses Catalan in its lede, not Spanish (it uses Spanish in the short description, not the lede). But this is beyond the point, since in this case we don't necessarily only take sources into account, but contextualize them. That is not WP policy in this case. Read MOS:ETHNICITY, it's not solely about following sources. "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability". So default, no ethnicity should be mentioned. I have made the case for why Catalan ethnicity is relevant (his deep attachment to his Catalan culture and language to the point of refusing to speak Spanish and only speaking Catalan at times, his connection to the Catalan renaissance and Catalan Modernism, his deep influence on Catalan architecture and the many Catalan motifs in his works, and the fact that he has become a symbol of Catalan culture). I still await your MOS:ETHNICITY-compiant case for inserting the Spanish ethnicity instead. MOS:ETHNICITY. Additionally, a RfC on use of Spanish regional identity in biography leads resulted in a consensus to use the regional identity used most often in reliable sources with which the subject identifies most. It seems clear from the sources that Gaudi had a deep connection with his Catalan culture and identity. And yes, sometimes the nationality of Wikipedians (in this case Spanish) can create conflict of interests and non-neutral points of view. I am not saying this is the case here, but I am just advising caution. Eccekevin (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

No, not two, but literally thousands of reliable sources use Spanish (as thousands use Catalan), WP:TERTIARY recommends using tertiary sources when secondary of primary sources contradict each other, and the two most reputable describe the subject as Spanish (Britannica used both, first Spanish right bellow the title and then Catalan). No question that Gaudí actively advocated his regional identity, but he was not affiliated to any separatist movement and recognized being Spanish. The scope of his works was not only regional as many were built in other regions as well. Spanish is not his ethnicity, but his country of origin. Again, I am not advocating for suppressing Catalan. You advised me caution. It's a good advice, you may want to review yourself WP:BRD and WP:EW. I am requesting for you to undo the changes you made without consensus both to the lead and just three days ago to the short description and to use instead the solution suggested as a compromise in the RfC you just cited. "Spanish Catalan architect". To me this seems like the best option to find a compromise between both points of view. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

As you say, there are references that use both. Nowhere in the WP guideline does it say which sources are more reputable than others. This is not about sources, this is about MOS:ETHNICITY. The RfC specifically says that there is no consensus on using "Spanish Catalan". "Spanish" is an ethnicity, "from Spain" or "Spanish national", or "of Spanish nationality" would express his Spanish nationality. As per MOS:ETHNICITY, the default is saying neither, and just calling him an architect. In order to add either "Catalan" or Spanish", there has to be a rationale. I and others have made the case for Catalan, but the case for Spanish has never been made (other than the flawed claim that souces use Spanish). Please make said case. I never made unilateral changes, nor was I the first to make said changes. IEccekevin (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Sources are always important and yes, some sources are considered more reliable or reputable than others. MOS:ETHNICITY also mentions sources and sources have been one of the key argument used in the past. our policy on sources does recommend the use of reputable tertiary sources when there are conflicting secondary ones. The case for using Spanish is clear. It's the subject's country of citizenship and what we use in the overwhelming majority of bio articles. Ethnicity says that the regional identity can be used, but not that the his country should be removed when it is covered by thousands of reliable sources including the two most prestigious encyclopedias. Even for cases in which most sources used the regional identity de formula from Spain was used. Your change from Spanish to Catalan was made without reaching a consensus on the talk page see here and your recent change to the summary from Spanish to Catalan (see here) went against to what you yoursel wrote, both at that time and now in this discussion. Since your edit back in november 2019 you enforced Catalan through edit warring instead of following WP:BRD. I have changed the article to mi proposed consensus solution in response to a recent edit. If you don't agree please make an alternative solution that reflects the coverage of his country of citizenship by reliable sources. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I added from Spain, as you said, but still think this is the wrong solution. MOS:ETHNICITY says the country of origin should be mentioned based on relevance and consensus, and only if it needs to be mentioned, then looking at sources. You have not made a case for why it should be mentioned in the first place (othen than your fallacious sources argument, which is not enough). It is not in line with the guidelines. That talk, started by @Kingsif: states that the consensus was Catalan, and the users point out also how Spanish nationalists had started edit warring. In line with MOS:ETHNICITY, the ethnicity/nationality should be mentioned only if relevant. I have made the case for why Catalan should be metnioned, you have not made the case for why Spanish should be mentioned (other than your fallacious insistence on these two sources). Additionally, a RfC on use of Spanish regional identity in biography leads resulted in a consensus to use the regional identity used most often in reliable sources with which the subject identifies most, which in this case is Catalan and not Spanish. Also, the idea that I inserted Catalan is ludicruous. It has been Catalan since 2002 see here and it has generally been the consensus, except when Spanish nationalists come here to edit war. Eccekevin (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

At this point I would suggest a full RFC. There has been numerous talks about this over the years, a more “binding” consensus is in order.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Loriendrew: Most likely. It's time to settle between "Spanish architect" and "Catalan architect". I don't think other constructions "such as Spanish Catalan" or "from Catalonia/from Spain" are any good. a RfC on these formulations failed to find them satisfactory and I doubt that will change. I have made the case for why "Catalan" is the best descriptor, but have not yet seen a serious case for "Spanish", other than from the same few self descrined Spanish accounts. I aways assume good faith, but it's getting harder to do so and not assume nationalism instead. Psanish vandalism on this page is rampant. Eccekevin (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

In response to the previous comment please refrain from using ad hominem arguments. I don't even know what Spanish nationalist in modern Spain really means. The Nationalist term is adopted in our country by those regional political forces that seek independence, like the Basque Nationalist Party or the Republican Left of Catalonia. At a national level it has not been used since the civil war. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 13:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I did not claim that you were the first user to make the change, only that you made it without consensus, and that when reverted instead of discussing you resorted to edit warring instead. I have reverted your change to the short description to the status quo version to which you agreed in the past. I appreciate that for the first time you restored at least a mention of the country of origin of the subject. I still think that Spanish and Catalan should both be included in the lead and based on the tertiary sources Spanish Catalan, Spanish and Catalan or Spanish from Catalonia would be preferable, but I guess your change, even if not ideal, could be acceptable from my point of view. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 13:25, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

What is the case for the inclusion of Spanish other than the fallacious sources argument (which I explained is not enough)? Eccekevin (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Please read again my previous comments. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

You've never made a case for "Spanish" other than your insistence on these two sources. Is there a case at all? It seems not. Eccekevin (talk) 01:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not going to repeat myself in detail again because you seem to be strongly biased in this subject. Spain was his country, The scope of his works was not only regional but also at national level. The majority of sources are not for the regional identity and the subject did not renounce his national identity. Sources show that he admited it. I also provided clear examples and could provide countles more. Etc.

In summary there is no reason to omit his nationality when thousands of reliable sources cite it including the two most reputable tertiary enciclopedias. Again, for more details please refer to my previous comments, as any further discussion between us as at this moment seems pointles. If you still disagree, please feel free to open an RfC. In the meantime, please refrain from making any further changes to the current version, without first reaching a consensus. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

There is a consensus for "Catalan" (as you yourself admitted Catalan should be included - and it is in line with the 2018 RfC and MOS:ETHNICITY), but here is no consensus for "Spanish", as I and many other users disagree. Eccekevin (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

No, there is no consensus for Catalan without Spanish, There was a consensus for Spanish Catalan for many years: Talk:Antoni_Gaudí/Archive_1#Consensus and non was established to remove Spanish as you did two years ago and enforced through edit warring. Since you added "from Spain" to the lead and since I am frankly tired, I accepted to leave this discussion and the page as such for now, as a lesser evil, however, I am still firmly convinced that Spanish should be included in the lead along with Catalan. What you clearly can not do is to continue further removing the last remaining mention of "Spanish" from the article, as you did in the short description with this edit, which was the long standing status quo, without first reaching the needed consensus. Your actual interpretation in a previous comment was that it could be Spanish architect based on Britannica. Also "redundancy" is not a valid reason to remove the nationality from the infobox as its purpose is to serve as an optional visual summary. It should be redundant by definition. Please stop edit warring to try to impose your views. If you you don't follow WP:BRD and revert again without first reaching a consensus, I will be forced to ask for administrator assistance and will promote starting an RfC if there is no other way to stop edit warring on this page. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

There was never a consensus for the short description as "Spanish". The first time it was added, it was added as "Catalan architect" in 2018 and since then there was never a consensus to change it to "Spanish". It was changed without consensus in 2019. Eccekevin (talk) 00:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

It was changed to Spanish architect before that and that version was even protected for a month by an admin. There is not valid reason for you to continue to push the change now after been reverted without first reaching a consensus here. I do thank you, however, for bringing it here. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Protection means nothing when it comes to consensus. The Catalan only version was also long protected because of vandalism; protection itself does not mean that it is an accepted consensus. There is absolutely no consensus on using "Spanish" only and excluding Catalan. We use the lede phrasinsg while consensus is being discussed. Eccekevin (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation of the RfC. You say "I don't think other constructions 'such as Spanish Catalan' or 'from Catalonia/from Spain' are any good. a RfC on these formulations failed to find them satisfactory and I doubt that will change." But the conclusion of the RfC was that "there isn't a particular consensus on: When exactly to use a compromise, of which two main ones were proposed: something like 'Spanish Basque', or something like 'politician from Basque, Spain'." An RfC that says there's no consensus when exactly to use such formulations is not disparaging the formulations; it's simply saying that consensus will have to be found on a case-by-case basis. As I stated (way back in June), if it were up to me I'd use Grove's solution of "Spanish Catalan architect" in the lead sentence. In Gaudí's entry in The Britannica Concise Encyclopedia, 2006, p. 741, the text—following birth & death dates—starts with "Spanish (Catalan) architect". Hollingsworth, Architecture of the 20th Century, 1988, p. 25, introduces Gaudí as "the Spanish architect Antoni Gaudí"; the term "Catalan" is not mentioned at all. Jurgen, The Story of Architecture of the 20th Century, 1999, p. 12, describes him as "the Catalan Antoni Gaudí". Reliable sources use either one term or the other, or use both. Wikipedia follows sources. I know of no good reason to eliminate either term. Ewulp (talk) 02:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

But we don't necessarily blindly follow sources, that is not how MOS:ETHNICITY operates, see this RfC. The question is what is more appropriate. MOS:ETHNICITY states that by default, no ethnicity should be included unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. IN this case, myself and other have many a case for why this is true for the "Catalan" identity of Gaudi, but no one has made the case for the "Spanish" part, other than reposting the same old sources. The links to his Catalan identity are clear (he was a Catalan nationalist and major part of the Catalan arts and culture movement), but the relevance of his Spanish identity are questionable (he refused to speak Spanish even when mandatory nor do his work ever express sentiments of attachment to a Spanish identity). At heart, his identity as a Catalan his relevant to his life and work, but his identity as Spanish citizen is not (reinforced by the fact that Catalans are Spanish, hence 'Spanish Catalan would be as redundant as 'British Scottish'). There's also a shifting goal-post in action here. Users above kept for the longest time (both legitimate users and IP vandals) to remove the Catalan part of the lede; now that removal has been clearly rejected by consensus, the new goal-post is to add Spanish (again, without any rationale provided other than those sources). Eccekevin (talk) 03:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Nothing in MOS:ETHNICITY suggests that we shouldn't provide the national context and (if relevant – and it is in this case) the ethnic context. The John Oliver RfC concerns dual citizenship and the solution was to go with both. Numerous reliable sources use "Spanish Catalan" or the like to describe Gaudí; the scholars who use this term are presumably not dunces. This RfC that you have frequently referenced did not conclude that such formulations as "Spanish Basque" are to be avoided, but from your comments here anybody would think such descriptions have been deprecated. I'm suggesting we follow reliable sources with eyes open. Ewulp (talk) 07:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Ewulp Spanish Catalan architect was the only solution that was able to gather consensus acording to Talk:Antoni_Gaudí/Archive_1#Consensus and was stable for years. Is a compromise that reflects the fact that sources use both terms. @Eccekevin: I have posted a last request on your talk page to please restore the short description by undoing this edit until a consensus can be reached here. If not, I will ask for assistance at the edit warring noticeboard. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

MOS:ETHNICITY states that " provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory, where the person is a citizen, national, or permanent resident ", but never says it has to be the country and not the region. Rather, it says that notability and relevance are important. In this case, as outlined above and in the page, the Catalan context is important (while no one has yet made the case for why the Spanish identity is important). Again, almost the entirety of Gauid's production is tied to Catalonia and the Catalan culture, and Gaudi was himself a proud Catalan who refused to speal Castillan Spanish and participated in the Catalan cultural renaissance. I agree that we follow reliable sources with eyes open, which is why I outlined I case for why the sources using Catalan are more appropriate in this case, but no one has yet outlined a case opposing this (other than the "the sources say so" - which, as you yourself point out, is not a good argument since different sources all three descriptors). I have restored the short description so that a consensus can be found. Regadin's Grove's solution, I have stated my opinion for why inserting "Spanish" is against MOS:ETHNICITY because it is less relevant and because it is redundant (reinforced by the fact that Catalans are Spanish, hence 'Spanish Catalan would be as redundant as 'British Scottish'). I still await a response to this that is not "that one source says so". My question is not rhetorical, @Ewulp: you seem like a very reasonable editor, I'd love to hear the reasoning of why 'Spanish Catalan' is better than 'Catalan' and not redundant. (I'd also like to point out again the shifting goalpost here. Many of these Spanish language users for years argued against removing all mentions of 'Catalan' and now, seeing how ridiculous that is, have fallen back to 'qualifying it'). Regards Eccekevin (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

You are repeating yourself. The country is what we use in most articles and myself and other editors explained to you repeatedly why it must be present. The majority of sources do not favor the regional identity. In this case it is the other way around, specially if we look at tertiary sources so the exception is not justified as I do not see how removing all mentions of his country of origin, a key well sourced and notable fact, as you have been doing since 2019, improves the article. As far as my request to stop edit warring, please notice that changing "Spanish architect" to "architect" is also not valid until a consensus is reached. To follow WP:BRD and go back to the previous status quo version you need to please undo this edit and restore "Spanish architect" in the short description. Unless others get involved or an RfC is opened I don't want to continue beating this dead horse, but you must undo your unilateral change. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I wasn’t talking to you. And I’ve already done it, please actually read and follow what’s happening instead of attacking. Eccekevin (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

"Spanish Catalan" seems to better summarize sources, which is what Wikipedia is supposed to do. You say "I still await a response to this that is not 'that one source says so'"—in fact several sources have been provided; finding them required only a few minutes' research. You say the term "Spanish Catalan" is redundant and compare it to "British Scottish". If reliable sources frequently used the combined term "British Scottish" there would be a good argument for Wikipedia to do the same, but they don't, so Wikipedia doesn't. We have reliable sources that describe Gaudí as Spanish but don't mention Catalan, and we have reliable sources that use the phrase Spanish Catalan. ULAN considers Spanish the preferred term. Use of both terms seems fine here. Ewulp (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

More sources use Catalan only, many sources use Spanish only, very few use Spanish Catalan. Our jobs is not to engage in WP:SYNTH, but do decide which one is most appropriate. I believe that Spanish Catalan, which is not the one used by most sources, is not appropriate because of WP:MOSETHNICITY. WP:MOSETHNICITY doesn't only rely on sources, but talks about how to use them when it comes to revelenace, which is what I and other have pointed out. But those arguing for Spanish or Spanish Catalan point to sources alone without talking about the relevance. In the case of the John Oliver RfC, there was a specific reason (based on the relevance of John Oliver in American discourse) for why an expression (British-American) that was used my a minority of sources was picked. Here, no one has yet made a case for why an expression used my a minority of sources (like Spanish Catalan) should be picked. Using simply because it includes both is WP:SYNTH, which is against policy.

Encyclopedia Britannia uses “Catalan Architect” in its opening sentence, which is the closes thing we have to the lede. Antoni Gaudí, Catalan in full Antoni Gaudí i Cornet, Spanish Antonio Gaudí y Cornet, (born June 25, 1852, Reus, Spain—died June 10, 1926, Barcelona), Catalan architect, whose distinctive style is characterized by freedom of form, voluptuous colour and texture, and organic unity. Gaudí worked almost entirely in or near Barcelona. Much of his career was occupied with the construction of the Expiatory Temple of the Holy Family (Sagrada Família), which was unfinished at his death in 1926. it uses Spanish architect in its header, which is the closest thing we have to the infobox (and indeed, we have Spanish in the infobox). Other examples of Encyclopedia which use "Catalan Architect" are: Encyclopedia of Architectural and Engineering Feats, The Grove Encyclopedia of Medieval Art and Architecture, Encyclopedia of 20th Century Architecture, The McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of World Biography, Encyclopedia.com and many more. Of course, several use Spanish. The point is, both have been use in the literature, but here we base it on consensus and the guidelines. According to MOS:ETHNICITY, nationality isn’t necessarily the best way to describe someone. For example, the IP above used the example of Napoleon. Napoleon is a very different cause from Gaudi, since he left Corsia pretty early on and never really had in important connection to Corsican culture. Gaudi instead had a very important connection to Catalan culture and Catalan architecture, and Catalan Modernisme. Many other sources use "Catalan Architect", such as Architectural Mangazines (Architectural Digest, ArchDaily , Artland ) and other cultural sources such UNESCO , Google Arts and Culture and The Art Story. Many of the official websites of his own works also describe him as Catalan Architect, such as the official website of ]]Casa Battlo]] , the official website of La Pedrera-Casa Milà , Palau Guell., and Casa Vicens . All these official websites of his work use the word Catalan to describe him. News outlets and other sources also use "Catalan Archiect", such as the New York Times ,,, the Washington Post, , , Chicago Tribune, , LA Times, and the Wall Street Journal,, just to name the top ones. Many of his biographies by scholars use Catalan architect to describe him.,, , and all of his biographies focus also on his connections to the Catalan national movement and to Catalan culture.Eccekevin (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Please stop spamming by repeating the same sources to which I provided counter examples above. I could also paste thousands of other references. You are also repeating the same arguments yet again. It is not true that more sources use Catalan only. A search for Gaudi Spanish returns more results than Gaudi Catalan. I will also repeat again that the two most prominent encyclopedias first introduce him as Spanish architect as so do most tertiary sources (rescued from the archives. The defunct MSN Encarta used Catalan):

• Encyclopedia Britannica [1]: At the top (right under the title) it says Spanish architect, main article text states Catalan architect
• Columbia Encyclopedia [2]: Spanish architect (no mention of Catalan)
• American Heritage dictionary [3]: Spanish architect (no mention of Catalan)
• WordNet 3.0 dicionary [4]: Spanish architect (no mention of Catalan)
• Random House dictionary [5]: Spanish architect in the Catalan style

As I said before, I will not continue pushing this if you also do the same, unless someone opens an RfC. I'll throw one last sugestion just in case: Perhaps introducing him as a Spanish architect from Catalonia and then changing the beginning of the second paragraph from "Gaudí's work" to "The Catalan architect's work" could be a way of ussing both terms as it was done by Encyclopedia Britannica. Does that sound better? --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Just for the record, "Spanish Catalan" is not WP:SYNTH. We have sources that say he was Spanish and Catalan; this is not original research. The arguments against this simple solution are very thin. Ewulp (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't see how that Gaudí was Spanish (his legal citizenship) or from Spain (Catalonia is a part of Spain at least since the late 1400s) could go unmentioned in WP or simply overlooked. 50 years ago, all books and encyclopedias said that Gaudí was Spanish. That he is only Catalan and not Spanish started some 15 years ago, when the Catalan independence movement worsened. Besides, he was not a Catalan independentist or against Spain, he spoke Spanish, his sketches, drawings and layouts were writen in Spanish and he had a few works outside Catalonia. He did defend his local identity and native language against repression, which doesn't automatically make him not Spanish. -Jdvillalobos (talk) 18:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

GAR

Antoni Gaudí

The following discussion 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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. (t · c) buidhe 07:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Fails GA criterion 2b. Is lacking in inline citations. For example, the following paragraphs are completely uncited: first, fifth, and seventh paras in "Adulthood and professional work"; first para in "Gaudí and Modernisme"; fourth para in "Surpassing the Gothic"; all of "Urban spaces and landscaping"; first para of "Works"; last para of "University years"; etc. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 16:30, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree about a shortage of in line citations. Also the citation style is not consistent (which I will work on now). I think that the existing references almost certainly contain sufficient information and just need the inlines added. I also think that there should probably be a Further reading section for all sorts of additional material. Gusfriend (talk) 01:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

The citation style is now more consistent. I have also tagged a couple of references as possibly being user generated content. Gusfriend (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

@PerfectSoundWhatever: It seems you forgot to notify the major WikiProjects. Given that it's a VIT4 article, we may be able to find somebody willing to rescue it. Gusfriend, nice work so far. Just FYI (you likely know this); consistent citations and a further reading section are not part of the GA criteria. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I would also mention it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vital Articles as there are a bunch of people there who are generalists. Improving citation consistency fits in with being a member of the VA WikiProject and is generally a good thing that I try to do from time to time. Gusfriend (talk) 10:41, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll do that now. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 18:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

• Delist - currently we have orange template on top, 18 'Citation needed' and 3 'unreliable source?' tags, poorly written and partly unsourced Collaborators section, and extremely poor Death and legacy section. Article needs a lot of work, and now it's not a GA. Artem.G (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

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.