Talk:José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero/Archive 3

Stray comment
I think the Jose Mena's sack was a secundary news in the local press and it should be moved to 6.3. Also, i will change catalonia autonomy reference for "he impulsed a new autonomous statute for Catalonia" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.32.42.48 (talk) 01:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

State of the articles
I notice someone deleted the José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero category. I am fine with the article as it is and also happy to see that all the sub articles are now redirects. I strongly support that they remain that way, SqueakBox 04:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
Lokks to me like Hagiographer is a Zapatancas sockpuppet. His edit summary ''Inserted links to articles redirected by user banned from editing the article. It seems he deletes them as part of his fight against other user.'' in poor Spanish attacking me is pure Zapatancas and of course I wasnt banned when I made the edits which were supported by every user other than strange Hagiographer. Bet he wants US spellings too? SqueakBox 13:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Update
I've updated the article. I've removed old information that doesn't look as important now as it did one year ago and that can be found in the sub-articles. I've found that in the article there were several mistakes, for example, the surname Armendáriz was written Armendáris. I believed that in the fight between SqueakBox and Zapatancas those mistakes were added on purpose as part of the conflict between them. So I've recovered a version previous to the edit war and I've added to it the scarce new information that have been posted here in the past two months. Hagiographer 07:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You have been busy, Zapatancas, reverting the article to your version in defiance of the arbcom ban and using sockpupets. Nothing changes, eh? SqueakBox 12:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The "Update" is really vandalism and should be reverted
Although Hagiographer's comment above sounds reasonable, in fact the "edit" s/he has performed amounts to vandalism. Huge tranches of useful information have been removed and many smaller edits that had greatly improved the article have been eliminated, for example the well-considered changes by David Kernow and the genuine update, now restored, by Zape82 regarding the education system. Indeed, far from being an "update", as claimed, the article is now mutilated compared with the version as of 05:24, 10 July 2006. In my view the article should be reverted to that version, the bot edit of 00:33, 11 July should be restored, and if Hagiographer wants to make such drastic changes s/he should discuss them here first. AdeMiami 06:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I fully support your view AdeMiami. I urge you to revert Hagiographer's edits, I would have done so myself but am banned from editing. That ban does not mean I dont get to have a point of view as a wikipdia editor, I think what Hagiographer has done has been a crying shame. If this continues I will take Hagiographer to Rfc or arbcom, SqueakBox 13:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Explanation
Excuse me, AdeMiami but I ask you not to use the term vandalism so easily. You must assume good faith first. I believe you have made that "mistake" also in good faith, but I think you are wrong. As far as I know, I have not removed any information. I have only removed that information that was already in the sub-articles and that refers to old events or that I think it does not belong here. For example, that thing about "Asesinato en Febrero", what is the use of having it here? It has nothing to do with Zapatero. If it has to be placed somewhere is in the articles about the March 11 attack. Please tell me what information I have removed that were so useful and all that. If necessary, I can accept I made a mistake. Regarding those edits by David Kernow, I have already recovered them - I believe. I don't find them so impressive but quite petty and unimportant but it is true there is not reason not to recover them.

Besides, it something amounts to "vandalism" is your request to go back to the edition of July 10, so the vandal here is you!!! :-) You are requesting to recover mistakes such as "Armendaris" instead of Armendariz, that is petty vandalism difficult to detect. SqueakBox, and probably, Zapatancas, added mistakes as part of his fight.

But of course, I believe that everything has been a misunderstanding. By the way, what this article really needs is not to keep that tons of old information that are already in the sub-articles but to  include into it the most modern events that have taken place. So, probably, more information currently present will have to be reserved to the sub-articles.

AdeMiami, I recommend you not to become an instrument of SqueakBox, a user banned for insulting other users. So please, if you are interested about keeping information in the Wikipedia, what do you think about redirecting the sub-articles to the main article? SqueakBox insulted me first when I reverted his redirections, so it would be good if you could prove you are acting in good faith and not as a part of the campaign he started against me even before ever talking to me. SqueakBox really destroyed information and mutilated an article.

By the way, I have changed the title of this section because I think that AdeMiami will recognize that the use of "vandalism" was inappropriate and it amounted to an insult, something forbidden in the Wikipedia ;-). Hagiographer 14:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

If making false vandalism accusations is an insult perhaps Hagiographer would explain why he knowingly indulged in such behaviour. Who on earth does Hagiographer think he is going around insulting people? SqueakBox 01:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you chill out Hagiographer. I agree witgh SqueakBox and Miami and think you should withdraw before you get blocked as a vandal. Ras Billy I 15:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this is the better version. Are there other users out there with an opinion? Having looked at Hagiographer's edits today and the history between SqueakBox and zapatancas I am forced to include that Hagiographer and Zapatancas are indeed the same person, Ras Billy I 16:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The truth is that looking at your history and when you were created and when you have got so interested in this article, I cannot help thinking you are SqueakBox. It is difficult to believe for me you are acting in good faith as you have recovered an evident mistake I have talked about several times here. Hagiographer 16:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I only know about this case because SqueakBox gave me a welcome message and when I replied his page came on my watchlist. When you started vandalissing it today I spotted that and, of course, reverted. Do you think Miami is also a Squeakbox sockpuppet. Perhaps you have a guilty conscience. No, I am not SqueakBox, I am not white, I am black and I am from Belize. It seems to me you are trying to prevent the consensus going against you with these sockpuppet claims, having looked at Squeak's latest edit I am inclined to believe him, no more. God bless your soul. Ras Billy I 16:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but how you can act in good faith and claim something so false that I have said Miami is a sock puppet? Why have you recovered the mistake? Hagiographer 16:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

hey I dont want to argue with you Hagiographer. I got involved because I saw you vandalising Squeak's user page. I dont want anything to do with your locuras on this page or arguing with squeak. Dont impose your ideas on me, okay? Ras Billy I 16:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why this article shold be the object of such controversy. No-one is disputing the factual information it contains (or contained) except for a few minor points, so surely it should be posssible to reach a consensus about how it is presented. However, there's no chance of consensus in this atmosphere of mutual accusation, so personally I'm going to take it off my watchlist and ignore it until the dust settles while I get on with something more constructive. AdeMiami 15:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Mena
I'm not sure that the sacking of Gen. Mena is correctly attributed to Zapatero. As I understand it, former Defence minister, José Bono was responsible for Mena's punishment and sacking. I get a funny feeling that this is not only incorrect but that it's being given too much significance.

One source: http://www.typicallyspanish.com/news/publish/article_5328.shtml

I'll leave the edit for now, and see if anyone agrees with me before I make the change. Tomclarke

I agree, SqueakBox 00:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

In Fact the disciplinary reponsability, repecting high ranking officers, in the Spanish Army is responsability of the Chief of Staff of the Army (Jefe de Esatdo Mayor de la Ejercito) or of The Chief of Staff of The Defense (JEMAD) --Zape82 22:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, all of that is true, but the way Mena thinks it's quite similar (the same) to the way Bono thinks: By the way, i'm quite unhappy with spanish government and would like to write some thing's on wikipedia that would be interesting for people but i'm spanish and my grammar is sh*t. So, if anyone would like to hear day by day stories about 11-M and other stuff in order to write it properly on wikipedia (with it's sources, of course), please write me to alex_pedre@hotmail.com ... thanks
 * read Bono's speech when he's been chosen member of Spain's State Counsil or Bono. He declared himself as moderate (while he is member of progresist socialist party) and found alliance with people's party (opposition) as key.
 * Also the fact that Bono "personally" quitted the charge of Minister of Defense can be due to his differences with Zapatero. The start of conversations with ETA, the fact that the word "nation" was present in Catalonia's Statute when he had said before that it wouldn't be used, the fact that he was obligated to get Mena out of the way when he had said on TV that he "couldn't punish a Military member for reading the Constitution and defending it" ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXP0GFLWOzg )

in general
This entry is seriously lacking in citations. I have, today, performed a tidy-up, basically correcting language and grammar errors... but more needs to be done. There are specific areas (such as the education reform section) which need a complete re-write. Tomclarke 21:09, 15 July 2006 (CET)

Sub-Pages
Why has all the relevant info of this article been moved to various sub-pages? In my opinion it makes the article look like a skeleton, previously this was a full-fledged article.--Jersey Devil 19:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This is why I opposed having the sub articles in the first place, and this opposition is what led to the huge conflict with Zapatancas. Now Zapatancas has been banned from editing this article Hagiographer has taken his place to pursue this same strategy of the sub-articles which I for one oppose strongly. I believe all the sub articles should be turned back into redirects (which they were until Hagiographer decided to pursue Zapatancas path and reinstate them) with all the relevant information being put in this article, which is what we had before Hagiographer decided to single mindedly impose his and Zapatancas views on other users away, chasing away 2 other editors so far this week, SqueakBox 20:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur, possibly a straw poll to find consensus is in order to settle this.--Jersey Devil 20:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Several comments: Hagiographer 07:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I propose to ignore SqueakBox and his sock puppet User:Skanking. He is an absolute liar and he never talks about content, he only insults, preventing users like AdeMiami from editing the article or exposing their opinions. If the history page of any of the subarticles is examined it is found that they weren't redirected until some days before he was blocked when he already knew he was going to be blocked. I recovered them because I don't understand why a sub-article is redirected to the main article. It seems SqueakBox only argument is this is a war and he'll be the winner if the articles remain redirected.
 * In regard to the article, Jersey, if you believe the article is a skeleton is probably because it is a skeleton. The article would have been wonderful one year ago. Now it's completely outdated. I believe that's good if it looks incomplete because it's incomplete. It makes clear that it has to be updated.
 * What's that relevant information that's lacking? I only removed from the main article information that was old and irrelevant, nothing else.
 * It has to be decided if the limit of 32 KB recommended is going to be respected or not. Before my change, the article was longer than that and, as I've said, it has to be updated.

Stop trolling, zapatancas, calling me a liar merely demonstartes that you arer Zapatancas. You may choose to chase every legitimate editor from this site and ignore me but I am an editor with a record that isnt 99% trolling and therefore my wishes are not to be completely ignored by a sockpuppet like yourself. The consensus is overwhelmingly against you and your trolling clone Zapatancas. One only has to look at the history of this article to see how you and Zapatancas have stubbornly and persistently destroyed this article. How is it that 4 genuine users dont want this and one troll user insusts on getting his way, iussuing death threatsd to those in his way. I am baffled and wont have anything more to do with this project which is doomed to failure bexcause of [people like Zapatancas. Well it is much easier to destroy than to create, as Zapatancas will soon find out for himself and in the real world, SqueakBox 17:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC) SqueakBox 17:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

External Links and Succesion Box.
I have eliminated the links to antizapatero pages as this is not a political webpage but an enciclopedia. As well links to pages such as el Zapatazo or los Genoveses are not acceptable links in the Spanish Wikipedia. I also added again the Leadership of the PSOE succesion Box, which I have aded to all the recent leaders of the PP, PSOE, IU & PCE (but Hernandez Mancha and Gerardo Iglesias with no article) as I think it ads interesting Information to the article.--Zape82 09:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Israel-Lebanon Conflict
Most recent coments on Isral Lebanon conflict are absolutely POV and unsourced. The ONLY offical satement on hizbula made by the spanish governement was the stament made yesterday by Minister Moratinos at the Foreign Affairs comitte of the congress and where highly critical on Hizbula and Hamas. Criticism by the Spanish PM is always directed to the attack on cicilians. --Zape82 17:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

What about Zapatero wearing Palestinian garb and saying that Israel is using "abusive force"??? --Rambone (Talk) 01:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

- 	Now. Saying Israel uses abusive force is said by nearly all the leaders of the world and does not make the antisemitic. Even more if your Foreign Minister clearly states on a parliamentary comitee the main responsible for the current escalation is Hezbollah. And wearing a palestinan garb for a few seconds while a group of palestinian youths took a photo with him, is not an act of provocation.-- --Zape82 16:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "And wearing a palestinan garb for a few seconds while a group of palestinian youths took a photo with him, is not an act of provocation"

You're right...it's an act of foolishness. --Rambone (Talk) 03:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

He should have punched in the face, the palestinian guy and then ask his security services to finish him according to you. That would have been an act of foolishnes not taking a photograph with some of the many a atendants to an international mass rally. --Zape82 07:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Where did I say anything like that? Could you point it out to me? Now I remember why I dislike Europeans so much---you lie and twist people's words around like a petulant little child would. --Rambone (Talk) 14:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Important Message to alex_pedre@hotmail.com
a) Wikipedia IS NOT a forum nor a blog. So crictical comments and not encyclopedical comments are not welcome. You are of course welcome to have your own blog or post on poblic forums. But wikipedia is not the place to do it. I am higly critical on som policies by the current governement, but my criticisms are not encyclopedical, as well as if I public on articles to promote my personal Party. As NPOV must prevail on an encylopedia open to anyone. b) You have errased a signed comment by myself which I consider an utter lack of respect to a fellow wikipedian, aswell as heavy trolling.

''Por si no te enteras e lo digo en Español: a) Wikipedia NO ES un foro ni un blog. Asi los comentarios criticos y no enciclopedicos no son bienvenidos. Por supuesto si tu tienes tu propio blog o posteas libremente en foros de politica. Pero la wikipedia NO ES el lugar para hacerlo. Yo tambien soy muy critico con el gobierno actual. pero no considero mis criticas enciclopedicas, ademas tampoco me dedico a postear articulos promoviendo mi opción politica personal. Recuerda que la Neutralidad debe de primar en una encilopedia siempre b) Has Borrado un cometario firmado mio, lo que me parece una falta de respeto a otro wikipedista. Ade mas de hacerme ver que eres un troll.''--Zape82 17:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Zape82, I have a lot of experience in Wikipedia conflicts as I suppose you have already guessed and I can say to you respectfully that the attitude you have shown above, after introducing so many useful changes in previous days, can attract unpleasent results, such as having a bad relation with users with whom you could cooperate constructively, something I sure you do not want. Comments such as "heavy trolling", "por si no te enteras" are very unpleasant and I do not believe you wanted to hurt other user. An important rule in the Wikipedia is "assume good faith". Perhaps alex_pedre@hotmail.com did not delete your comment on purpose. Give him a chance. Don't interpret this as a critic against you. I simply try to help because now after more than a year this article is becoming again a Wikipedia article, and not a useless battlefield. It would be a pity that honest users would lose the opportunity to write a good biography for unintended mistakes. Zapatancas 18:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll
Who prefers

Hagiographer version?

Pura Paja version?
 * 1) User:SqueakBox 01:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC) (SqueakBox = Pura Paja, your attempts to pretend several people like your vandalism won't be tolerated Hagiographer 07:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC))

User Pura Paja's version contributes nothing and he simply deletes information perhaps more suitable for a Spanish audience than an international audienca but as far as I know the aim of the Wikipedia is to be the sum of all knowledge. Hagiographer 07:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC) this comment was made by Hagiographer while he also changed my signature to that of Pura Paja (that's your real signature, respect the rules, no wonder you've been blocked five times Hagiographer 07:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)), indicating a user who is not willing to abide by the rules of the community here SqueakBox 03:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It is absolutely an international encyclopedia for an international audience, SqueakBox 04:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Zapatero's call to Bush
Somebody asked a citation about that Zapatero's phone call that George Bush ignored after being reelected. The source was in Zapatero's foreign policy, the article SqueakBox wanted to destroy. Hagiographer 07:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

That isnt a source that is wikipedia. What we need is a a source outside Wikipedia, ie a source for the statement in Zapatero's foreign policy or it MUST be deleted as a slur on the Spanish President as is made clear at the top of this page, SqueakBox 03:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

SqueakBox has proved again he's a troll. He redirects using sock puppets articles he has never read!!! He has never taken a look to the articles so he didn't understand that in Zapatero's foreign policy there's a link to "http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1354071,00.html" (look for [2]) that points to an article of "The Times", that's the "outside" source somebody asked for. SqueakBox has proved against he's a vandal and troll. Hagiographer 06:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalsim
Altering other users comments will not be tolerated Here, SqueakBox 03:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas
Adopting a commonsense approach to identification, the administrators of Wikipedia have decided to enforce the provisions of this case against anyone who exhibits behavior similar to that of SqueakBox and Zapatancas, to wit: ''Hagiographer and Pura Paja, and anyone else who engages in warring, tendentious edits, personal attacks and harassment related to José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero and related articles.

Pura Paja has been blocked indefinitely because of his username.

The ban on editing José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero and related articles will now be applied to, as will the personal attack parole, because his involvement in the mutual harassment campaign closely resembles that of Zapatancas and it is reasonable to treat Hagiographer, for the purposes of this dispute, as if he and Zapatancas were one and the same person. For good reason, any administrator may extend the article ban to other editors exhibiting substantially similar behavior. --Tony Sidaway 10:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Racist user Hagiographer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/BlackApe I advise editors to check these contribs before listening to anything the highly rascist user has to say. Relator 19:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Poor edit
Zapatero is described as an teaching assistant, it should be a teaching assistant. I have no idea whether teaching assistant is better than assistant professor or not but I would be tempted top revert this edit myself, SqueakBox 01:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the older edit Associete professor was actualy the las post Zapatero had at the University of Leon. Any way for llater edits I´ll suggest the following translations:

Becario FPU- Teaching Assitant Profesor Ayudante - Assistant Professor Profesor Asociado - Associate Professor Porfesor Titular/Contratado Doctor = Professor Catedratico - Chair (Professor) Porfesor Emerito- Professor Emeritus Zape82 16:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It needs to be a teaching assistant, not an teaching assistant, SqueakBox 20:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Poor edit 2
Zapatero was born in Valladolid to a long history of socialist politics doesnt make sense grammatically, removing the bit about the wealthy family is fine by me but the sentence needs to make sense. Can someone please change it? SqueakBox 16:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thnx for fixing that, SqueakBox 19:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Controversy
Hi all. I removed the word "controversy" from the first paragraph that stated "Controversial actions of his government have included withdrawing Spanish troops from Iraq". A controversy refers to an issue where there is strong disagreement or an act that is intensely disputed. Of course, the "controversy" in Spain was to send troops in the first place, given that the vast majority of Spanish citizens disagreed with the policy. Indeed Wiki itself reports that 90% of Spaniards opposed the war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Iraq_War#Opposition_in_European_countries

Given the now number of people that would have found the withdrawal "controversial", if the word remains, then we would have to describe every action that is disputed by less than 10% of the population as "controversial"

Lee Salter, 15 December 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.32.28.208 (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC).


 * Probably the "controversy" was internationally speaking and regarding the way this withdrawing was carried: it was done in the immediate aftermath of the Madrid bombings, against the general advice of European governments which would have preferred a delayed withdrawal which made less obvious the linking between the bombings and this move. Also, it was controversial in the eyes of the American government who had so far relied on the Spanish one as an ally in this war and this change caused a harsh dispute between both governments which have not fully recovered as of yet. Mountolive 16:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Lol, against the advice of which European governmennts. The French? The German? I agree with Lee, SqueakBox 16:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If you read my post again, you will notice I am not saying that the French or the German were for the Iraq war nor for sending troops, I'm only saying that European governments (French and German included, now that you mention those) would have preferred a delayed withdrawal, probably two or three months later when the shock of the bombings was diminished or maybe some sort of withdrawal by phases. Mountolive 16:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * PS: just in case you don't get the reason (lol?) why the other European governments discreetly asked for this, it was because they were fearing that mass bombings could get back "in fashion" to achieve political results after this one proved itself so much effective in this regard.Mountolive 16:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you source the German anmd French opposition to the Spanish withdrawal. Achieving political results through invading countries who offer no threat was also bought back into mode by Bush, and this is what zapatero so strongly opposed. to blame Zapatero not Bush for the spread of terrorism is certainly a pov argued by some but I dont believe by all European governments, which is why it would be good to see a source, and particularly for the French and German but perhaps also the Russian government, SqueakBox 16:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Man, looks like you are getting me wrong from the beginning: I didn't revert the edit we are talking about, which is perfectly fine according to the reasoning provided. I only suggested the origin of the "controversy" word, nothing else, that's it.


 * I don't have an opinion on that controversy, I don't have an opinion about "invading countries who offer no threat" (other would say the contrary) and I am not blaming Zapatero for the spread of terrorism whatsover, I only said that some European governments would have preferred a different kind of withdrawal and this was controversial -if only to some extent- that's all. For the very nature of this diplomatic scenario, it is difficult-to-impossible to source it other than from analysis in newspapers who may be labeled as "POV", that is why I am not going to engage with this edit. In other words, you can calm down: Zapatero can still be revered as The Pacifier if you like him this way. Mountolive 17:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Great, sorry to read you wrong, I do support Zapatero's attitude to Iraq but I think NPOV gets priority over what I or any other editor thinks, SqueakBox 18:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

What happened with the Hydrological Plan information?? Thanks --Mabuimo 21:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

ETA
There should be some mention in this article that under his Presidency (or Prime Ministership, whatever) ETA declared a permanent ceasefire, and that the Government has undertaken the so-called 'Peace Process' (Proceso de Paz) so as to end ETA's terrorism. Is there any reason why this isn't mentioned (edit wars...)? Would anyone object to a few lines mentioning it? Cheers Raystorm 21:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit wars sounds about write. Zapatancas so hated Zapatero and that has affected the article. When I tried putting such a thing in I got reverted, but now he has shown his rascist credentials and been corrido from the project I would urge you to edit the article to add this clearly important information, SqueakBox 21:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, si lo digo antes! This morning a bomb exploded at Madrid' airport (no casualties). ETA has claimed authorship, so I guess we're gonna have to wait (at least a few days) and see what happens before changing the article...Cheers Raystorm 11:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Something like this needs putting ion the article. Que lastima, SqueakBox 20:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I have expanded the ETA section a bit, with many references so as to make it as NPOV as possible. How does it look now? Raystorm 18:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It looked awful. You blanked a sourced statement. Randroide 19:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ahhh, you made _that_ edit. Listen, aside from redundant, it's POV. And it clashes with the theme of the entire section, which is domestic policy regarding ETA, not reactions by certain citizens after a certain event (though you could create another article about it if you wish). Cheers, and please do assume good faith Raystorm 19:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ohhh, yes, I made that edit. It would be wonderful if you could explain us why is POV a simple statement of a sourced fact.


 * "Certain citizens" are hundreds of citizens holding banners, as you can see in the video. You never protested about similar claims in the aricle about José María Aznar. I ask you to explain us what´s the diffrence, because I see no difference. Randroide 19:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not that familiar with Aznar's article. If you wanna add it, fine, but do it in a way that doesn't clash with the section ok? My reference to it being POV is that it's an edit made with the idea to show people are against Zapatero, but it's a weak argument as best as only a few hundred demonstrated against him after the car bomb. Are we to think that the rest (millions) do not blame Zapatero or his actions in the Proceso de Paz? Ãgain, I'm not against this edit, but it'd be better if it was rephrased. Raystorm 19:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll rephrase it now then, and we'll see how it looks like. Cheers Raystorm 19:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. I'm thinking, do we need the example? I mean this part: ...with texts like: "Zapatero assasin: Who´s behind the 2004 Madrid train bombings? Isn't it a bit sensationalist? We've already said that the March 11 attacks authorship had been questioned by demonstrators and a source has been provided. Isn't that enough? I find it quite redundant as it is...Cheers Raystorm 19:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Modified it slightly so as to quote the source more exactly and end the redundancy. Raystorm 20:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Article
Any ideas as to why this article has been split into about 6 different pieces. Ive read a few bios and never come across anything like this. I have put some of the information back into the main article. Does anyone object? THis article seems very poor, no sources as the lead states. Episodiod 00:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for my accidental deletion. I am only just getting used to editing (never did before yesterday) and of course those 2 sectiopns absolutely shoul;d not have been deleted. The whole articxle, or series of articles, is a bit of a mess, I now know why having just read some of the talk page annd its archives. Oh dear, problems. But this is the Presidente of Spain so I guess we should do better.Episodiod 17:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome. Just try to do not do too much changes in a single edit, to avoid any further sourced statements deletion by mistake.

I also suggest you to make a change at a time, and to provide a proper edit summary. This article is the suject of too much vandalism, and you must do your best to avoid to be confused with a vandal. Cheers. Randroide 19:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Zapatancas split the article 6 different ways and when I opposed this he took me to the arbcom, amongst other actions. I strongly oppose the splitting and think they should be unified, SqueakBox 21:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced statements

 * Zapatero ran against three other opponents (José Bono, Rosa Díez and Matilde Fernández). Matilde Fernández was the candidate of the guerristas (an important faction of the Socialist Party, characterized for its left-wing leanings) while José Bono was the candidate of the reformers. Rosa Díez is a Basque politician who was a kind of intermediate option.


 * Zapatero was a dark horse who had against him his inexperience and in favor his image of renovation and being the only MP among the candidates. (All the Spanish opposition leaders have been MPs before winning the elections. That is very important in Spanish politics where electoral campaigns last for only 15 days and to be widely known long before they begin is essential.) Bono was deeply disliked by the guerristas, which also favored Zapatero significantly.

Randroide 11:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

More unsourced statements

 * At the end of 2004, Zapatero decided to change his policy and to become the first Spanish prime minister to accept the participation of Gibraltar as a partner on the same level as Spain and the United Kingdom in the discussions both countries hold regularly about the colony. The decision was criticized as a surrender of the Spanish rights to sovereignty over the British colony by the Spanish opposition. Zapatero justified it as a new way to solve a 300 hundred years old problem.

So delete it. I was transferring materialfrom other wiki[pedia articles on Zapatero to this one and suggest you tackle the editors who made these statements and the articles in which they are. Blaming me when I am just trying to help is horrible. --Episodiod 17:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced statement

 * In this regard, during the meeting of the European Union Justice and Home Affairs Ministers held in Tampere on September 22, 2006, some of the European ministers reprimanded the Spanish authorities for the aforementioned massive regularization of illegal immigrants which was regarded as too loose and opposed to the policies of other State members (on September 2 and 3rd alone, during the height of the last illegal immigration wave, 2,283 people arrived illegaly in the Canary Islands having shipped from Senegal aboard of 27 traditional Senegalese boats ). It must be noted that, once they reach Spanish territory, the illegal immigrants can travel freely -for the internal frontiers are basically open- within the European Union; thus, it is not strange that some of them have as their final destination some other European country. This started a short lived polemics between France's Nicolas Sarkozy and the Spanish premier Rodríguez Zapatero. Randroide 11:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Where I got the additons from
These statements were taken from The early years of José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero (1960-2000) José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero's years as an opposition leader and Foreign policy of José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero--Episodiod 20:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

These articles should be tagged as OR or redirected to this article with the non original material added here, SqueakBox 21:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism revert isn't an edit
Here I have not edited this article, I have reverted a nasty edit attacking a living person to the previous version and therefore I dont consider I have broken the arbcom ruling on being forbidden to actually edit the article. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

This obvious vandalism hadnt been fixed in 14 mins and was obvious vandalism in violation of WP:BLP, as it was a simple vandalism revert it wasnt an edit, SqueakBox 17:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Too long
Despite myself having just made some minor additions, the article is twice as long as reccomended by Article size. The thing is that the sections regarding his early years are too in depth, we should focus on his times after gaining preeminence as opposition leader and, later on, premier. I may start trimming the article soon but anybody else, feel free to do so. Mountolive | Talk 06:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Unorthodox English expression and too long
Surprisingly, this article is much longer and much more detailed than the Spanish Wikipedia entry for the same subject! Its expression could easily be improved by a native English writer, which I propose to start on. It's a bit repetitive and I will try to cut this down. As for references, I'll leave that to later. It will require a lot more work. islander 02:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Rodríguez vs. Zapatero
It is my understanding that it is the custom in Spain and other Spanish-speaking countries to consider the first last name (which comes from the father) as the main surname, not the final name. Therefor, when referring to José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero by only one name, it should be Rodríguez, not Zapatero. I don't want to go through such a lengthy article to make all the changes, especially without first consulting others, but I'm pretty sure this is the correct convention. Godnoble 19:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That's correct what you mention about spanish naming customs, however, in this case, Zapatero (or his marketing agency) chose this second surname over Rodríguez, given the abundancy of "Rodríguez" in Spain. He may also think that this is a "feminist" gesture as well. While your point is correct, it shouldn't be changed here because he is known and wishes to be known, as Zapatero, instead of Rodríguez.

Mountolive | Talk 19:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Zapatero is known as Zapatero and that's enough for us. Why he is known as Zapatero not Rodriguez could indeed be included if sourced, SqueakBox 19:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason is simpler. Although in Spain we have two surnames, when people refer to someone generally use just the first surname. However, it's also very usual in Spain that if someone has a very common first surname (Rodríguez, López, García, etc), people tend to refer to that person using both surnames (which is normally only done for legal or administrative purposes) or even using just the second surname (if it's a less common one). I'm almost certain that this is the reason why Zapatero is known as such or as Rodríguez Zapatero sometimes. You have the same example in his grandfather who should be captain García but was known as captain Lozano for the same reason (a less common second surname). It's not a written rule or a law and doesn't necessarily happen but it's pretty common. And finally, there's also for sure a marketing issue there, but I'm 99% sure that people used to know Zapatero as such from a very early age. Sorry for not providing an authoritative source, but what I tell you is the best of my knowledge. Maybe it's documented somewhere and expressed in a more formal way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.70.34.54 (talk • contribs).

We use the common name for somebody here, in this case clearly Zapatero. I had read whaty you say elsewhere, SqueakBox 22:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's right, the President of the Spanish Government is known as el Sr. Zapatero (Mr. Zapatero) for the reasons you explained, but only in the case of absence of his name, José Luis. So, it's impossible and incorrect to say José Luis Zapatero. The full name has to be José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero.--Cyril-83 12:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggested changes
It's a not specially subtil right wing (popular´s party) article. For instance, It is very curious the underlining of the real relationships between Tamayo and Rodríguez Zapatero while said nothing about the meetings and logistic help gave for the president of the PP in Madrid or even the famous extreme right supporters like the chief of Radio Intereconomia. In this way the article underlines that Zapatero blame ETA at the very first moment (as Aznar did, but said nothing that the government continued seying that Eta was to blame the whole day, calling the newspapers giving them "special information" about Eta was to blame and even forcing UN to condemn this "ETA action".   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.235.113.28 (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I deleted the info about the raise of pensions and minimal wage because it hasn't happened yet (it's still an electoral promise!). --Mmaese 19:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I find the following paragraph highly irrelevant. Do you imagine that we begin to include language abilities in the biographies of all prime ministers around? "Zapatero is fluent only in Spanish and has some knowledge of English, despite the fact that his father sent him to Britain for several summers to help him learn English." Junjan 12:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I am beginning to introduce proper footnotes. If footnotes get duplicated on saving, get out footnote code from main article and introduce on Note Section and save again. Junjan 13:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, keep up the good work, SqueakBox 16:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I thought the statement on Iraq that reads "Opinion polls showed that a clear majority of Spanish voters (more than 90%) were against the American-led invasion" probably needs a reference to back it up. A number of well-publicized polls came out in late February 2003 that showed such a percentage of the population against the war; one of them was referenced in this article from the Spanish leading newspaper El Pais: http://www.elpais.es/articulo/espana/94/espanoles/contrario/guerra/Pulsometro/elpporesp/20030224elpepunac_1/Tes/ (subscription required). Since I'm new to Wikipedia and don't yet know how to include references, please feel free to use it if you agree that it would be a good addition to the article.67.186.35.201 17:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do it yourself. Just add to the end of where it states this in the article. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

On the edits by Rubén Mar
Unluckily I will have to make comments on a user. User Rubén Mar has been making delusional edits on Spanish politics such as claiming the General Council of the Judiciary Power's crisis is caused strictly by the PM, and not by the fact that CJPJ is in caretaker functions since last year due to the impossibility of reaching an agreement in its renewal in the Cortes, the crisis has lead to a crisis in the Constitutional Court of Spain due to the fact that the Chairwoman and the Vice-Chairman are both CGPJ appointees. Rubén Mar has shown in all of his edits an utter lack knowledge of the Spanish legal and constitutional system despite being Spanish and a pro gender terrorists (Gender violence) bias. Trying to link everything with the Comprehensive Law Against Violence against Woman as if it was the only issue in Spanish politics. I advise editors specially Spanish ones with a knowledge in Spanish politics and constitutional system (no Spaniards with the same knowledge also) to review his comments and see they are completely false and biased claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zape82 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
This article has been heavily vandalised by unknown users over the last day, probably the same as his IP always starts with the same series of numbers, I sugest that it is closed to unregistred editors.Zape82 09:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm attempting to remove today's vandalism... [edit] Seems like somebody beat me to the punch! ;)The Sporty Jew (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic politician
I doubt that he´s really a Catholic, even if he was raised as one. There´s any source who can confirm that ? User:Mistico


 * I agree, he definitely should not be included in that category. Feel free to remove, I don't think anyone could have a problem with that edit. Mountolive 05:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree to.Zape82 12:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think he´s probably an atheist or an agnostic, but I don´t have any source for that. Mistico 22:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think a fair description of his religious stance could be 'religiously unafiliated / agnostic", even if he was raised as a Roman Catholic. This said I don't think it would be accurate to describe him as an atheist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.129.163.212 (talk) 08:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

POV in the first paragraph?
Up until now one sentence in the first paragraph went "Actions of his government have included withdrawing Spanish troops from Iraq, a failed and controversial negotiation with the armed separatist group ETA,..."

To me not only "failed" and "controversial" exclude each other (if something is controversial there are different opinions about whether it failed or not), but at least the former clearly is POV and stylistically inadequate.

I have simply deleted the term "failed". I hope you all agree.

janfrie1988 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janfrie1988 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Election 2008
zapatero won again in 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Murcia comunidadjudia (talk • contribs) 21:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

2004 bombings/election - impartiality
Regarding the weight of the Madrid bombings on 11/03/04 in the general election, in my opinion it was not the terrorist attack that influenced the result, but the outrageous lies defended by the Popular Party during those three days (at least that was my case and the people around me). As shown by the also outrageous murder of Isaías Carrasco last saturday, torrorism by itself does not have the power to decide who is to be the President of the Government. I think this article should elaborate about the misinformation practiced by the PP in that period.

Also, I perceive a certain degree of impartiality in this article, focusing too much on the criticism received by Zapatero, and not enough on the policies implemented. --78.4.161.58 (talk) 10:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Zapatero's family
In this article it is stated that his father is or was a prominent lawyer. Whoever has written that should give arguments for that statement. I am sure it is completely false, and his father was just a lawyer as many others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.77.11.211 (talk) 10:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

waldo faldo bebe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.231.155 (talk) 04:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Zapatero's cabinet
Have removed the following as it does not related to this article, which is already long enough and rambling enough for it to have to get clogged up with this. Am pasting it here for future reference and/or action:

Zapatero's cabinet

--Technopat (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Belly-gazing
Propose removing much of the stuff devoted to local León politics - might be of interest for the Spanish Wikipedia, but too detailed for anyone not preparing a biography. It would also help reduce the number of inline citations, as per recent single-source template.

Happy to be bold on this one but would like some sort of feedback before tucking in... --Technopat (talk) 10:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I am concerned, you can sharpen your scalpel and proceed. However, I dont think the tummy tuck in the Leon lower parts would really affect the {onesource} tag, because it is not a matter of reducing fatty text (and therefore citations from that source) but a matter of introducing new sources. In other words, we could reduce OCAM from 37 to, say, 15, but they still would be too much if those are the only source for a significant part of this article  MOUNTOLIVE  fedeli alla linea 13:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Greetings MOUNTOLIVE. Thanks for feedback - and consensus ;) Fully agree that more sources are needed, but a reduction in the number of OCAMs (which would be the result of reducing some of the non-notable content) would make the article less top-heavy. Countdown to meatball-surgery day has begun... Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Zapatero and Freemasonry
I have been reading some internal Masonic material which does not hesitate to claim that a Zapatero government equals a Masonic government. Of course, any public mention of Masonry is taboo, but in the case of Zapatero the Masonic element is reputed to be so strong that it can be mentioned without serious problems. There are also Spanish priests that have written books about this (see the article Catholicism and Freemasonry). ADM (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of unnecessary detail
As promised threatened proposed above (in Belly-gazing), have started removing what I consider unnecessary detail of no interest to anyone not actually writing a biography of Zapatero. If anyone considers some, or all, of what I have removed to be critical to understanding the subject matter, please return it to article:

A document of New Way proclaimed the group's objectives: "New Way' wants to generate a project of political and social change for and from democratic socialism, a Socialist project to allow the PSOE to recover its credibility and the citizens' trust." The members of Nueva Vía were, on average, 40 years old. Among the most prominent of them were Zapatero, Trinidad Jiménez, Jesús Caldera, Jordi Sevilla, José Blanco, Antonio Cuevas, Enrique Martínez,etc. Enrique Martínez played an important role in the promotion of Zapatero. He was the director of the "Escuela Jaime Vera" a school belonging to the party that trains Socialist Leaders. His network of contacts became essential. He and Jesús Caldera knew José Luis Balbás, a prominent member of the Socialist Federation of Madrid (FSM). He had belonged to the Unión de Centro Democrático, the center party that won the first two democratic elections and joined the PSOE in 1981. He is an entrepreneur, an auditor and a consultant. He belonged to a sector within the FSM called "Renovadores de la Base", that amounted to a third of the FSM. (There were other two sections: the so-called leguinistas - followers of a former president of the regional government of Madrid called Joaquín Leguina and the guerristas.) In April 2000, Zapatero, Caldera and José Blanco had lunch with Eduardo Tamayo, a friend of José Luis Balbás in the party, in a restaurant in Madrid. (Tamayo would become later a representative of Zapatero in the 35th party national conference and a major character in the so-called crisis of the Assembly of Madrid, described later). At the end of the month the "Renovadores de la Base" decided to support Zapatero. Balbás agreed to be part of the team of New Way after being invited by José Blanco and Enrique Martínez. He played an important role during the campaign and the 35th conference. For example, Balbás together with Blanco controlled the list of delegates with all the data about them. It was a fundamental job, as the different tasks of promotion needed that list, at least, to contact the delegates for the conference. --Technopat (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Further removal of unnecessary detail
Please see rationale above: In 1987, he instigated, as one of the main leaders within the Socialist Party of León, a pact to win the mayoralty of León after the elections held that year. The previous mayor, Juan Morano, had occupied the post since the first local democratic elections in 1979 as his independent party had always won the most votes, even in the 1987 elections when it obtained 12 seats. The Socialist Party (nine seats) created a deal with Alianza Popular (the predecessor of the current People's Party), which had four seats, and an extinct center party called Centro Democrático Social (2 seats). The mayor eventually elected belonged to Alianza Popular. Zapatero and his allies justified the civic pact, as it was called by its supporters (or the cynical or hatred pact, as it was called by its opponents) by stating that it was necessary to change the "negative dynamics" of the city, to "normalize" its democratic life, to end its "bad relations" with other institutions (like the Regional Government of Castilla y León), to lessen the social tensions "promoted" by the independents, and to eliminate the supposed system of patronage. Months later the pact was broken by pressures from the regional leadership of Alianza Popular and Juan Moran became mayor again. --Technopat (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Less neutral article I have read on Wikipedia so far, biased against Zapatero
I am a Spaniard living in the USA for 8 years, reading El Mundo and El Pais daily, and following Spanish politics for the last 20 years. This entry about Rodriguez Zapatero focuses on his weaknesses and controversial decisions while only briefly mentioning the positive aspects of his politics. The sources are clearly biased towards the conservative side of Spain politics. Hard to believe that the Madrid bombings conspiratorial theories (the bombings were meant to change the elections) are given coverage here (in the US, this would be the equivalent of the Jews being responsible for 9-11, something only hard-core fanatics believe). The excessive level of detail when discussing local politics contribute to the overall negative image projected of Zapatero. I read the article on Aznar and it is excellent, neutral and informative, I wish the Zapatero entry could follow the same guidelines. Immuno leon (talk) 05:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sad Face Zapatero?
What exactly is this? Where can I find this picture? I find it odd that there is no explanation 216.165.95.66 (talk) 02:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

/* Influence of the attacks on the election outcome */
This section has a Hoax template. It is easy to see that there is controversy over the accuracy of this section, but it should be explained why, and which part, may be a hoax. I have just placed the hoax template on a quite implausible section of an article. Now I have been looking at the other articles with a hoax template. Some are clearly doubtful material and should be deleted, some I don't know one way or the other, but the section of this article on Rodríguez Zapatero does not seem like a possible hoax. Inaccuracies, speculation, sure. I will await replies, but at some point the hoax template should either be removed, or the problems with the section corrected with reliable sources cited. --DThomsen8 (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Mass unemployment
I am from Madrid and can not believe that nobody has mentioned the extreme unemployment in Spain that has underpinned the last years of Zapatero's years as President. There is an overwhelming feeling of hostility against the PSOE for having driven Spain into economic turmoil and caused over 4 million unemployed with a further 1 million unemployed unaccounted for. Spain's economy is now penultimate in the EU, only just beating Lithuania. In the year 2009, over 1 person became unemployed every 40 seconds. These are all statistics from spanish TV news. Spain has just begun it's presidency with the EU for the next 6 months and Zapatero has claimed he will help resolve the economic crisis in Europe. The media and people, in general, have scoffed at this as he can not even control the domestic economy. Zapatero's reputation is fast becoming disreputable and comical and there is talk of the PP presenting a motion of censure ("mocion de censura") to PSOE in order for them to call elections pre-maturely for Spain's domestic and foreign affairs can not to go in such a dire state. I am new to Wikipedia and don't know how to reference properly, but if any one spends even 5 minutes on the internet looking this up they'll find the citations and so forth. I find it ridiculous that there are so many paragraphs written about Zapatero and Spain's current issues and there is nothing whatsoever mentioning unemployment which is becoming the complete ruin in Spain as well as the most crucial issue.

A.M.M Manners316 (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If you can't keep and NPOV don't do anything Wikipedia is not a Forum, or any of the media you like to read--Zape82 (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Zape82 I understand that Wikipedia must be completely factual and therefore these are completely valid and necessary statistics that cannot be disputed and must be referenced rather than withheld. Saludos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.183.26 (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Not neutral
In many aspects this is not neutral (in my opinion) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.124.80 (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I don't like the guy yet find this article embarrasingly biased, which probably means it is. A deep clean-up is required. 62.42.102.238 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC).


 * Complaining about it on the talkpage (especially in the middle which hardly anyone reads) won't solve the problem. Editing the article yourself would be far more productive. Valenciano (talk) 21:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Honorific
Can you please leave the Don honorific on the same line as his name? The reason I had it like that was to distinguish the 'Excelentísimo Señor' honorific, only held by the Prime Ministers and regional Presidents, from the usual Don honorific which can be applied to any notable person in Spanish society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.226.21 (talk) 13:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Phonetic transcription of name
I know this isn't vitally important, but I wanted to explain the minor edit of his name and there wasn't an appropriate topic that was already in the discussion page.

His name was originally transcribed as [xo̞'se̞ lu'is ro̞'ðɾiʝe̞θ θapa'te̞ɾo̞]. I changed the voiced palatal fricative [ʝ] to a voiced velar fricative [ɣ]. The written g in Spanish would never be transcribed as a palatal fricative.

Again this isn't vitally important, but it's obvious that a lot of you have put a lot of work into this, and I wouldn't want to see a change made by an anonymous reader without justification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.30.105.180 (talk) 13:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted! And thanks for the improvement, but I'm afraid I'll have to take issue with you on that one. I've changed it to [ɡ] as better reflecting the corresponding sound in English. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 15:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Note that compound given names in Spanish are pronounced as if they were only one word: shows explicitly that José Luis is pronounced in Spanish as "joseluís", i.e. [xose'lwis]. Lubrom (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

President vs Prime Minister
Hey there. I'm wondering about the references to Zapateros' Prime Ministership and so on. He isn't a Prime Minister like Blair, he is a President, like Bush. That's the name of his office and that's how he is referred to by both the people and the media in Spain. So could anyone please explain why all the Prime Minister references and equivalences in the article? (Really, I wanna know. Is this some sort of weird Wikipedia policy?) Because George W. Bush isn't mentioned as a Prime Minister, or the equivalent of, anywhere in the article. Cheers Raystorm 16:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The reasoning is that the electoral system is like the UK parliamentary system not the US presidential one but having said that I fully agree it should be President not Prime Minister, SqueakBox 21:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The official title is President of the Government ("Presidente del Gobierno) that evolves from the Older President of the Council of Ministers (Presidente del Consejo de Ministros) that is used similarly in other European countries, such as Italy to speak of the Head of the government. Due to the fact that the usage of the word president could bring confusion with a President of the Republic to may of the English speaking world and in many cases with other languages the term Prime Minister is preferred.Zape82 12:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Is preffered by some and not others. Generally we dont pander to people's alleged ignorance, and especially native English speakers' ignorance (such of our customers) on wikipedia and I dont see why we should here, SqueakBox 18:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with SqueakBox's reasoning. Plus I don't know why it should cause confusion to say Zapatero is the President of Spain (or the Spanish Government) if it is later explained that Spain has a Parliamentary Monarchy (and therefore is not a Republic). I really believe it would be more accurate to call him by the name of the office he holds, that's all. Raystorm 12:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC.

As a Spaniard, I can tell you he's the Prime Minister of Spain, not the President.


 * Well my dear Spaniard, I am a Spaniard myself and there's not such thing as a a Spanish Prime Minister. He is "El Presidente" and that's that.             It should be explained that he is the President of the Spanish Government and that should be enough, but, (sorry my English speaking readers) I've never heard anything like "Primer Ministro Aznar o Zapatero"

Have you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.204.220 (talk) 00:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As a Spaniard, you should say that Zapatero is not President nor Prime Minisiter but President of the Government, as the spanish language does stipulate. But the reality makes that he's often called "Mr. President" (Señor Presidente). The only heads of government clearly called Prime Ministers are the French and the British ones. The others are Presidents of the Government, Presidents of the Council (of Ministers), Chancellors, Ministers of State or Ministers-Presidents and we have to respect that terminology in each foreign language.--Cyril-83 13:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

As a Spaniard, I can tell you that "Prime Minister" and "President of Government" are both used as synonyms. By the way, NOBODY ever calls Zapatero "Mr. President"; that's an American Structure, not a Spanish One.

Jajaja... Estarás bromeando, por lo menos lo espero... La expresión "Primer Ministro" no existe en España para designar al jefe del gobierno, sólo se dice "Presidente del Gobierno" desde hace siglos, y si sigues negándolo, bueno, pues, pienso que tuvieras que escuchar un poco más la radio, ver la tele y leer los periódicos. A no ser que no no vivas en España... El señor Rajoy interviene lo suficiente en el Congreso y cuando le habla a Zapatero, me parece que no le llama de otro modo que "Señor Presidente" o "Señor Presidente del Gobierno". "Primer Ministro" sólo es la denominación del jefe del gobierno en Francia y en el Reino Unido.--Cyril-83 20:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's quite common usage in English to refer to someone who is head of the government but not head of state as being the Prime Minister. To me, calling someone the "President" always suggests that they are actually the head of state, as would be the case in any republic such as France or the USA. Mentioning that he is president of the government would be accurate too, but simply calling him president creates confusion - Spain is not a republic and the leader of the government is not the head of state. I think it's fine to leave it as "Prime Minister" Southofwatford 14:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Cyril-83, I both am a Spaniard and do live in Spain. The most widely used expression is "President of Government", BUT "Primer Minister" is starting to get acceptance. Personally, I don't mind if it's an Anglosaxon or French borrowing. And -PLEASE- stop saying that he's often called "Mr. President", because that's simply not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.3.219.183 (talk)


 * No, you're wrong and you know that. The expression Prime Minister (Primer Ministro) is not getting acceptance among the Spaniards for the head of the government of that country, in the medias as well as among the population. It is just a very bad traduction for the English-speaking countries, as it is used for Italy where the head of the government is called President of the Council (of Ministers) [Presidente del Consiglio (dei Ministri)]. It was the case in France too until 1958, during the IIIrd and IVth Republics, and both the President of the Council and the President of the Republic were called "Mr. President".
 * There is no other acception in Europe for the terms Prime Minister, except in France, Portugal, Luxenburg, Belgium and the United Kingdom, and some other countries all aover the world like Australia, Canada or New Zealand. In Spain, it is President of the Government (Presidente del Gobierno), y punto.--Cyril-83 17:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Cyril83, you're lying and you know it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.45.138.244 (talk)
 * I have no opinion in this argument. However, I would point you to WP:CIVIL Aleta 02:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Lying ? Everyobody can look at the Spanish Government website [] to see if I am lying or if you are wrong ! I would be ashamed if I were you, as a Spaniard, to ignore such things about my own country and to invent other ones... I am French and very passionned about Spain because of my job. And much more, I try not to make demagogy with the English language because it's not the only reference in the world: we have to respect as they are equals all the languages, their way of speaking and naming things and their usings. --Cyril-83 12:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I find this discussion rather silly. It seems to me that the information provided by an encyclopaedia should be as unambigous as possible. The term "president" (in political context) is used in English for the heads of state such as in the USA, France, Germany and many other countries. The head of the Spanish state is King Juan Carlos. If the term "Prime Minister" is not natural in the case of Spain, then the proper usage would be "President of the Government" (and not just "President") which clearly shows that he is not the head of state. Just as an example see the case of Poland. English Wikipedia uses the term Prime Minister but the official Polish title is Prezes Rady Ministrów which translates as "President of Council of Ministers". The head of state uses the title of President of the Republic of Poland (Prezydent Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej in Polish). Both words "prezydent" and "prezes" translate as "president". Informally the prime minister is called "Premier". Following the logic of the previous discussion what term should be used in English? It seems to me that "Prime Minister" is the best one because avoids any confusion. Whenever I hear news about Spain (in English) the only title used is that of "Prime Minister". Tsf 20:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

As a Spaniard, I must say that we don't call him Prime Minister, but in the american or british way, he is. The equivalent to a President, as in "Head of State" is The King Juan Carlos I. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.213.237.18 (talk) 22:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I realise this debate (I'll refer to it as that, although the tone used here - and on this discussion page in general - so far is hardly worthy of the term) is long gone, but just for the record, the correct term in English for a head of government (jefe de gobierno) is prime minister. The term president is used (in the context of government posts) for the head of state (jefe de estado). The English Wikipedia uses English language terminology, i.e. the nearest equivalent, regardless of what the translation would be in Spanish. Zapatero is currently the head of government and therefore Spain's prime minister. There is no objection to the article including the original Spanish title with an acceptable translation, but that is surely more appropriate at the dedicated article rather than this one.


 * A similar case would be the mistake made by the Spanish press for many years refering to the US secretary of state as the secretario de estado rather than the US foreign minister or minister for foreign affairs. --Technopat (talk)

23:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The argument that English language uses to refer to a head of the government as a Prime Minister is not grounded. It is only the case when referred to UK. But obviously Spain is not UK. This is neither a matter of taste, nor a linguistic controversy. On Spain there is an official name for Zapatero's post and it is "President of Spain". Some of you have argued that the word President is ambiguous, since it could lead to confussion treating Spain as a Republic. But this is also applicable to the word Prime Minister. The French Prime Minister, being France a Republic, is also very different and could lead to confussion. Even the british Prime Minister has very different powers and functions. The Spanish case, as the British, the Italian, or the French, is particular and not completely equivalent to any other. We have then to assume that there is not a precise equivalent translation. Why then treat Spain differently, if in the other cases the translation respect the original name? Why don't respect it here too? The case is even worst because the president of the government, in Spain, is not a minister. So he hardly could be the Prime MINISTER, if he is not MINISTER at all!!

Here it is my second argument, based on political reasons (the only valid here, I guess). First, the distinction between head of the government and head of the state makes only sense in parliamentary systems. It means nothing in the presidential ones. Second, the use of the name Prime Minister is not homogeneous in the parliamentary systems. Third, what is politically relevant is the distinction among the three powers or branches of government (the legislative, the executive and the judiciary). In United Kingdom and its colonies excepting US, the head of the excutive is called Prime Minister. But in US it is called President. Therefore, there exists an important precedent in English for calling President the head of the executive. So, why don't keep president for referring to "el presidente de Espana", considering that nobody ever refers to him as "Primer ministro". (JLM, Princeton)

Per Convention, in English any head of government is usually treated as Prime Minister or Premier, and this title is given to the prime ministers of different nations wether they are Presidents of the Government, Leaders of The Government, Presidents of the Council, etc. Despite in their home countries they are called X. It is a convention to differentiate from heads of state in republics, are they or not heads of government (like USA, Latin American Nations, etc) or not. And by the why It is not "Presidente de España" but "Presidente del Gobierno" or "Presidente" but not "Presidente de Espña" that we have only had to Manuel Azaña and Niceto Alcala Zamora.BTW, do you read every one elses comments? or just state your opinion as if was true and infallible? (I thought that only the pope could do that)--Zape82 (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * a) Greetings JLM - I see that someone has nipped in there before me, but just so there is no confusion over this one, there is no "President of Spain" - Spain is not, at present, a republic; b) for English speakers, France, being a republic, has both a president AND a prime minister (just for the record, both the United Kingdom and Spain have a reigning monarch AND a prime minister); c) obviously no single country in the world has exactly the same functions attributed to its ministers, neither do countries have the same number of ministers, and so on - in other words, it is necessary to use the nearest equivalent expressions mutually understandable by all, which you acknowledge by saying there is no precise equivalent translation; d) English speakers do not use the term "foreign secretary" to refer to foreign ministers of other countries or "home secretary" to refer to the minister of the interior, least of all do we use "chancellor of the exchequer" to refer to his/her counterpart in another government; e) as for your argument that there is no distinction between head of state or head of government...; f) the earlier concept/translation of "president of the council of ministers" was much easier to understand than "president of the government" but it really is irrelevant, because Wikipedia clearly states that terminology should be that which is most easily understood by a majority of users of the encyclopedia (or words to that effect) i.e. prime minister, or as was mentioned above, premier. But this has already been dealt with extensively here and elsewhere. As they say ¿Opinas o impones? - or, as this is the English-language Wikipedia: Do you give opinions or do you impose opinions? --Technopat (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course I read the interventions made by others. And in contrast to many of them, I am trying to offer arguments in favor of my position. So I will take sariously the second of the comments to my last intervention. First, conventions are the general preferred solution for linguistic controversies, except when you find a technical concept, such as this. A technical concept, by definition, does not receive its meaning from social conventions, but from technical analyses. So it doesn't really matter what a majority of the people would say about it. The general prescription of Wikipedia cannot be effective here, as it is not in defining other technical concepts. When "assassination" or "rape" need to be defined, since they are legal concepts, need a legal (technical) definition too. All the article can do besides this is to specify explicitly some other not-technical meanings of the words. The same happens in respect to this controversy. Second, I don't really think that any reader could be confused when reading this article about the political regime in Spain. Even accepting that some readers could associate the word "president" with a republic, this speaks only about their ignorance, and anyway this danger is avoided when the very article mentions that Spain has a King. Third, translating involves often the necessity to make tragic decisions, when you don't find a perfect equivalent and need to minimize dangers or maximaze the conservation of meaning. I asssume, as I said, that we are in front of a case like that. The the floor is open to discussion. But among the universe of arguments one can afford for and against any option, there is one objective fact that you cannot forget or deny: the President of Spain is not a MINISTER. He is not. Read the Spanish constitution, please. So, if he is not a minister, he hardly could be a Prime Minister. In the case of Spain, no matter what happens in other countries now, to use the tag "prime minister" to refer to the president of the government, is to make a mistake in this sense, is to force language. (JLM) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.112.208.150 (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please take the time to read the Wikipedia Manual of Style (MoS) I have posted on your talk page. It will help you understand some of the conventions used at Wikipedia, conventions such as consensus-seeking, NPOV, good faith and a whole host of peculiarities used here. This article discussion page is not the place to discuss conventions or questions of style.


 * Encyclopedias (such as Wikipedia) are precisely where one goes to get information, check up on things, etc., so please do not refer to readers' ignorance. Everyone, absolutely every single one of us, is "ignorant" about something.


 * Finally, whatever results from this discussion as to the "best" way of expressing "Presidente del Gobierno de España" it is not "President of Spain". While the discussion remains "open" - because you will not accept the English-language convention on this matter - please do not change the "standard" version without first reaching consensus. --Technopat (talk) 21:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, Zapatero was received at the Pittsburgh G-20 summit as the "President of the Government of Spain".

That's true. Mr Rodríguez Zapatero is not the Prime Minister (as in the UK or France), nor the Chancellor (as in Germany), nor the President (as in the USA or other republics). He is the President of the Government (as in Spain). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nenuco1971 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't suppose many of you are especially interested or really care, but just for your information, the updated English Style Guide (Fifth edition: 2005 Revised: March 2009) published by the European Commission Directorate-General for Translation http://ec.europa.eu/translation/writing/style_guides/english/style_guide_en.pdf


 * states the following:
 * 19.29 Spain. Full name: Kingdom of Spain. The 17 political/administrative units into which Spain is divided are called Autonomous Communities in English. Translate Presidente del Gobierno as Prime Minister (of Spain).


 * But then, of course, we all know that the professional translators at the European Commission are a bunch of comedians who like to waste Wikipedia editors' time and prevent us from tidying up articles that are in need of serious revision.--Technopat (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've read all your arguments (both opinions) and I'd like to speak now. I'm a Spanish 15-year-old boy (by the way, I didn't know "Spaniard" was a synonim of "Spanish")and a I can say that the correct title is President of the Goverment. In the 1930's, the title was "President of the Council of Ministers", and the President was another Minister (Prime Minister) and President of the Republic at the same time. After Francoism, the title changed to "President of the Government", and the President is just Head of the Government, but not a Minister. In Spain, we use the term "President" or "President of Spain" instead of "President of the Government (of Spain)" because it's shorter. It's true it has similar functions to a Prime Minister, but if you have to translate it, we prefer the title "President", "President of Spain" or "President of the Government", althought we don't have a President of the Republic. Please, we don't like to call the "President of Spain" by anglicised title of "Prime Minister". That's all.

P.D: I hate ZP. He has ruined my country. He just lies and distorts the truth. I want him far away from here, if it's posible, in jail. (Anónimo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.25.171.50 (talk) 13:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Prime Minister vs. President
The actual word applied to the Head of Government of Spain is "President of the Government" or "President", not "Prime Minister". Due to this fact I´ve introduced the correct terminology. By the way, I´m Spanish, so I know it. - Follgramm3006, 16/04/2008, 17:10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Follgramm3006 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow because you're Spanish you know it, (vamos cojonudo, como el tio de llevo esta bandera por que soy español de España en el CQC Argentino). The use of Premier/Prime Minister to refer to the head of a government of ANY nation is a convention in English, and even in Spanish, to avoid embarrassing situations such as Jeb Bush's President of the Spanish Republic. So the President of the Council of Ministers in Italy or Peru is called Prime Minister in English and in many cases in Spanish. If you son't belive just read two months of discussion.--Zape82 (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, Zapatero was received at the Pittsburgh G-20 summit as the "President of the Government of Spain".--Follgramm3006 (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've read all your arguments (both opinions) and I'd like to speak now. I'm a Spanish 15-year-old boy (by the way, I didn't know "Spaniard" was a synonim of "Spanish")and a I can say that the correct title is President of the Goverment. In the 1930's, the title was "President of the Council of Ministers", and the President was another Minister (Prime Minister) and President of the Republic at the same time. After Francoism, the title changed to "President of the Government", and the President is just Head of the Government, but not a Minister. In Spain, we use the term "President" or "President of Spain" instead of "President of the Government (of Spain)" because it's shorter. It's true it has similar functions to a Prime Minister, but if you have to translate it, we prefer the title "President", "President of Spain" or "President of the Government", althought we don't have a President of the Republic. Please, we don't like to call the "President of Spain" by anglicised title of "Prime Minister". That's all. P.D: I hate ZP. He has ruined my country. He just lies and distorts the truth. I want him far away from here, if it's posible, in jail. (Anónimo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.25.171.50 (talk) 13:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Blatant contradiction - needs to be sorted
his maternal grandfather supported the coup d'état of Franco and he was killed by Republicans during the war.

or

His maternal grandfather, Faustino Zapatero y Coronel, was a paediatrician and middle class liberal who died in 1978.

Which is it? It can't be both182.240.33.106 (talk) 04:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Zapatero Still PM
Zapatero will remain Spanish PM until Rajoy is sworn in by the king on Wednesday. For now the info box should reflect this.90.222.137.240 (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Zapatero Still PM
Zapatero will remain Spanish PM until Rajoy is sworn in by the king on Wednesday. For now the info box should reflect this. 90.222.137.240 (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Republicanism
Doesn't Zapatero supports the restoration of the republic in Spain? Most of the PSOE members are certainly republicans.213.13.244.151 (talk) 00:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Not officially, at least. But probably most of PSOE cabinet does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.216.101.173 (talk) 17:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The PSOE is not anti-Monarchist. In fact, it is often said that PSOE PMs (Gonzalez and Zapatero) had a closer and more amiable relationship with King Juan Carlos than PP PMs (Aznar and now Rajoy).--80.26.120.40 (talk) 12:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Female-majority cabinet
Is Zapatero the first head of goverment in the world with a female-majority cabinet? --71.118.38.219 (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know; it would be an interesting addition if true... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comments
There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)