Talk:José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero/Dispute
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There is an user (perhaps more), that has prevented any update of this article for a long time. He (assuming this user is male) attacks from several addresses,
82.213.209.45; 82.213.218.133; 82.213.216.73; 80.58.14.170 (this is his favorite); 82.58.14.235;
and recovers and old, very short version full of mistakes and propagandistic comments; whose full text can be found here.
It can be observed that that "old" version is 99% very similar to that of February 5, 2005 by Jrgl, that is, in two months, none of the thousands of users of the Wikipedia has been able to make any useful contribution according to the person who continuously recovers it.
This is now specially serious as some secondary articles about Zapatero have been created to make the main article more readable (specifically: "Zapatero's years as an opposition leader", "Zapatero and the Local and Regional Elections of 2003", "Zapatero and the 2004 General Election", "Zapatero's domestic policy" and "Zapatero's foreign policy"). The old version, of course, includes no link to those articles what makes them useless as it is impossible for a normal user to find them individually.
The lack of useful contributions is very strange as the article so loved by 80.58.14.170 (probably his favorite address) includes some flagrant mistakes, such as:
- "In 1977, though legally too young to do so, Zapatero joined the Partido Socialista Obrero Español ...". That is not true, Zapatero was under 18, but he could join the party.
- "PSOE won 168 seats in the Cortes, and the Partido Popular obtained 148." The real data is 164 seats for the PSOE and 148 for the PP.
These mistakes has been corrected several times, but 80.58.14.170 continues recovering them again and again.
In fact, it is a proven fact that he does not read other people's changes. A user wrote some time ago in the Talk page: "If people want to incorporate their perspective into the content of the article, that's fine, but I don't understand why people would revert fixes to the grammar of their own writing. Do they even read the changes before revrting them?"
This probably also proves that he does not read the Talk page either. In fact, he has never made any effort to communicate with the rest of the users but for a comment in the History Page on March 2005, 22 referring to his beloved version: "This version is neutral and utterly right".
It is clear that his version is not utterly right but it is not neutral either, as it is proven by the following comments:
- "... Zapatero, representing a modernising faction known as "Nueva Vía" (New Way) ...". A lot of people believe that Zapatero in fact represents a return to a more radical Socialist Party and that he is obsessed with the Spanish Civil War. So to claim that his faction was modernising without any further information goes clearly against the NPOV policy of Wikipedia.
- ".... Against expectations, Zapatero led the PSOE to victory ....". In the talk page of the article the User FAR has complained about the use of the expression "Against expections", as he believes that an important number of people believed in the Socialist victory before the 2004 Election took place. This is an additional piece of evidence that proves that 80.58.14.170 is acting with bad faith.
- ".... He [Zapatero] has said that the government will not be "soft on terrorism" ....". This is a pure propagandistic statement as the reasons that moved Zapatero to make that declaration are not stated. Zapatero said that because of his pacts with some Spanish Parties that are in favor of the independence of their regions, what makes them close to the terrorist group ETA at least ideologically. Zapatero's declaration tried to tranquilize his voters.
My attempts to communicate with him have not been reduced to the Talk Page and to the History Page (where I have told him I considered his activities as vandalism). I have also used his own talk page (that belonging to 80.58.14.170) where I have warned him about the consequences of his actions. I had not been the first to do that as a previous user had written this in the same page:
"OK, joke over. Stop creating pages that say 'in Spanish -------'. It's not funny. It's not useful. It's not clever. It's not allowed. Four reasons: don't do it.--Gabriel | talk 18:40, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
DON'T JUST KEEP MAKING THEM. Please stop at once. The creating of stupid pages is considred vandalism and you can and will be blocked from editing if you continue. Just stop it."
In my opinion, it is clear that he has not respect for the Wikipedia and its values. Besides another user warned him in December 2004 about his behavior regarding the very article about [José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero]:
"If you disagree with the article, see Help:Contents for how to make major changes to articles and achieve consensus on them. If you keep vandalising pages, you will be blocked. --fvw* 01:44, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)"
His answer was:
"As spanish i feel bad because the article of Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero you restored, it shows the president as a far leftist dagerous political, and psoe as a leninist party. I would thank you look at the history of the article and see all this false data was introduced by only one user: 138.100.17.69 with crealy political intentions. At least i would like to see the neutral articles, many of the things said there are just untrue, you only have to look at the history of the article and the articles about zapatero in other languages. Please, dont restore articles that infame"
A look at the current "complete" article (for example that of 15:38, 5 Apr 2005) proves quickly that that criticism is absurd. The main article and the secondary ones include a lot of references, what show the willingness of the contributors in including only real, verifiable information. The comment about the PSOE being showed as a leninist party is also unjust. I made a mistake some months ago as I believed that the PSOE had been marxist-leninist before 1979, but it had been only marxist; so nobody was trying to convey a false image about it.
All this has moved me to think that the continuos changes made from the IP address 80.58.14.170 and others can be only considered as vandalism. However, as the anonym user who makes them has tried to cover them behind a supposed desire of eliminating non-neutral information I have not only try to start a serious disccussion with him but I have also asked other users to provide their third-party opinions through the tools given by the Wikipedia. On April 3, the following comment arrived:
"I know little about the article topic. But it does appear that one person is going against consensus. That is not the Wikipedia way.
I would suggest that instead of deleting or reverting, a better way is to note on the talk page any specific objections. Maurreen 18:14, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)"
This has finally convinced me that the actions that had been committed against the article [José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero] are a pure form of vandalism and that it is impossible to solve the problem through discussion with the other party as it has made clear his total lack of respect towards the rules and ideals of the Wikipedia. That is why I ask the administrators of the Wikipedia to use their special privileges to prevent any further attacks from this user. Zapatero 18:16, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'll try to read this quietly later. To contribute to the talk I'd like to post the Query I sent yesterday to the Spanish Ombudsman Enrique Mujica:
Santiago de Compostela, 28 – Enero - 2006
DearSir,
Making specific the complaint that I take writing up all the day, I would like it to be expressed in these terms:
I ask for of You an explanation and an intervention about the following thing:
I read in Art. 75 of the Spanish Constitution:
Art. 75:
1. The Spanish Parliament will work in plenary sessions of and by means Commissions.
2. The Spanish Parliament will be able to delegate in the Permanent Legislative Commissions the approval of projects or proposals of Law. The Plenary session will be able, however, to at any time successfully obtain the debate and voting of any project or proposal of law that has been object of this delegation.
3. They are excepted of the proceedings arranged in the previous section the constitutional reform, the international questions, the statutory laws and of bases and the General Budgets of the State.
The statutes of Autonomy are Statutory laws (ours, the one of Galiza, for example, it is Statutory law 1/1981, of 6 of April, Statute of Autonomy for Galiza). They would not have to struggled for only in the Plenary Sessions?
Isn’t this fragmented transaction with which they are eternally being a nuisance to us (their so-called "negotiations") illegal, more unconstitutional, if the transaction of the statutory laws according to the constitution must be made in the Spanish Parliament during (a set of) Plenary Sessions? Which reliable legislation can be adduced to support it?
Fernando Santamaría Lozano Spain; To Corunha; 15.705; Santiago de Compostela street San Francisco, nº 24, floor 2º Masculine Sex; N.I.F.:32427849B; Telephone Fijo:981 586176; Móvil:649230655 telephone. Fernando Santamaria Lozano 10:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
If anyone can read Spanish, some facts about the political situation in Galiza, the NW country of Spain where I live, ruled now by Mr. Tourinho, member of Zapatero's Workers' "socialist" Party", who won the elections in June 2005 is expounded here:
http://depecuniisrepetundis.blogspot.com/
Fernando Santamaria Lozano 10:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Finally
A couple of comments. About the not proven right comments.
"1.... Zapatero, representing a modernising faction known as "Nueva Vía" (New Way) ...". A lot of people believe that Zapatero in fact represents a return to a more radical Socialist Party and that he is obsessed with the Spanish Civil War. So to claim that his faction was modernising without any further information goes clearly against the NPOV policy of Wikipedia. "
The name of the faction was "Nueva Via" (New Way). It was modernising cause their members where more young, have a totally diferent view of the politic than the former factions and most of them all new faces.
" He [Zapatero] has said that the government will not be "soft on terrorism" ....". This is a pure propagandistic statement as the reasons that moved Zapatero to make that declaration are not stated. Zapatero said that because of his pacts with some Spanish Parties that are in favor of the independence of their regions, what makes them close to the terrorist group ETA at least ideologically. Zapatero's declaration tried to tranquilize his voters. "
The article doesn´t say that "zapatero is not being soft with terrorism". That would be subjetive. Zapatero has said that lot of times and the fact that he pacts with nacionalist is cited below. And the true I don´t think that anyone will say Aznar wasn´t hard with terrorism for pacting with PNV.
The older articles have a lot of false assertions with obvius manipulative intentions. Some examples :
- " Resolution 1546 ([1] (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/sc8117.doc.htm)), that asked all the Member States to send troops to Irak"
Thas false. It welcomes support for restoration of stability and security. it doesn´t mean troops.
- About the law of gender violence "Finally, the text was changed and the term 'especially vulnerable victim' substituted that of 'woman' after which the law was approved by unanimity." That´s totally false. You only have to the header of the law. BOE 319, 29 Diciembre 1004. Organic law 1/1004
- "According to the Spanish newspaper ABC, Carod-Rovira promised to provide ETA with political support if the terrorist group did not act in Catalonia what seems to have been confirmed by the ETA announcement of a truce affecting only that region some months later." Ok! Acoording "El periodico de Catalunya" it was to ask ETA to stop terrorism. Using partial newspapers is not a way of helping. After that, there´s a supossition totally subjetive.
And so on. The true is that the articles of this user(That is so funnilly objetive that calls himself Zapatero) are so manipulative, false and wrong (and with intentio of being so) that shows a real intention of make proselitism with wikipedia. I haven´t used this disccusion forum before just cause I didn´t knew how did it works. I´ll kept on learning.
