Talk:José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
WikiProject_Spain
Portal:Spain
 Spain Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Spain which aims to to expand and organise information better in articles related to the history, languages, and cultures of Spain. Please participate by editing the article, or visit the project page for more details.

About Introduction

Notice: SqueakBox and Zapatancas are banned from editing this article and all related articles for one year.
The users specified have edited this article inappropriately and have been banned by the Arbitration Committee from editing it for one year. The users are not prevented from discussing or proposing changes on this talk page. At the end of the ban, anyone may remove this notice.

Posted by Tony Sidaway 19:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC) for the arbitration committee. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas.
Notice: The ban affecting SqueakBox and Zapatancas has been extended to User:Hagiographer and User:MJGR.
The ban on editing José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero and related articles will now be applied to Hagiographer (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log • rfcu), 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)

The ban has now been extended to MJGR (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) following checkuser determination that Hagiographer was MJGR's sockpuppet. [1]Thatcher131 13:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Wikipedia: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 Hagiographer (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log • rfcu), 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] Suggested Changes

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 <ref>http://www.elpais.es/articulo/espana/94/espanoles/contrario/guerra/Pulsometro/elpporesp/20030224elpepunac_1/Tes/</ref> to the end of where it states this in the article. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rascist 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 Hagiographer (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) has to say. Relator 19:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism revert isnt 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 [2] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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.

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.—The preceding unsigned comment was 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.—The preceding unsigned comment was 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 [[3]] 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)

[edit] 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 [4] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. [5]

Randroide 11:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. [6]

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)

[edit] 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 [1]). 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. [7] Randroide 11:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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"

[edit] Too long

Despite myself having just made some minor additions, the article is twice as long as reccomended by Wikipedia: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)

[edit] 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.

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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/s/Talk%7EJos%C3%A9_Luis_Rodr%C3%ADguez_Zapatero_966f.html"