Talk:José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Too long

This article isn't neutral.

It only shows the critics of the right wing on Zapatero politics, which are not exactly fair.

The external links are unfair too. Note that "Right-wing website highly critical of Rodríguez Zapatero" and "News about Rodríguez Zapatero" are the same link, a page which is devoted to destroy Zapatero's image. Also, the link "Copy of the editorial of the Wall Street Journal "The Accidental Prime Minister" " belongs to a page right-winged.

It seems that the author wanted a site to promote People's Party ideas.

If you look at the page history you will see that the latest barrage of loaded statements comes from an anonymous user... In fact, there seem to be many anonymous users with an axe to grind in (in both directions) editing this article, which is a problem especially if their edits violate the NPOV policy. — Miguel 05:07, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)

Miguel, I am sorry for you because you cannot take part in an open, serious discussion. If you don't like a comment you needn't insult people who do not think like you. You can change it saying something like: "Although some critics say ** sentence I do not like ** it has been also argued ** sentence you like because it reflects your point of view**". That's the way towards objectivity: mixing different points of view.

Actually, opinions should generally not be presented without attribution, and the prefix "some people say that" is frowned upon and discouraged by Wikipedia policy (see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms) although, to be sure, even the policy is a matter of disagreement.
When I said some critics I supposed it would be understood as something equivalent to x in Maths. You can put whatever you want. Besides, I have seen the articles about the NPOV policy before writing that and they advice exactly that. If you do not like something you keep that (that is, you do not destroy everything) and you write "According to X (if you prefer) this. According to Y this other thing".
And, unlike other people, I stand behind my edits instead of making them anonymously, which was the main point of my comment anyway. Miguel 23:41, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
I am very sorry Miguel but I cannot pay for Internet access (I belong to that group of guys who are poor) and all my access to the Internet is limited to some hour from time to time in a Public Library with a terrible computer and a terrible connection, after several weeks in a row studying 10 hours a day. When you have only an hour even if it seems impossible to you, it takes too long to register (and to discover that you can register). Forgive me for neither having money nor time (and even for being too silly for not discovering at the first second that I could register). I cannot be so superb as you.

I added the link to The Wall Street Journal because it is a respected, old newspaper that published an article whose opinions are shared by millions of people in Spain and the rest of the world. Add additional information if you do not agree but don't try to delegitimize hard-working decent people because they include a link about Zapatero published by a newspaper read by millions of people all over the world.

Besides, the PSOE was a marxist-leninist party until 1979. In fact, Felipe Gonzalez had to resign temporarily to force the party to make the decision of renouncing to that ideology. So removing data that is so significant about the past of the current president of the government of Spain is quite Stalinist in my humble opinion.

PSOE may have been formally revolutionary Marxist until 1979, but González already declared himself Socialist before Marxist in 1974. And it wasn't Leninist. Even PCE had renounced Leninism in 1978. --Error 02:41, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, do not say that this page is not neutral, because in millions of Spaniards' opinion the best words to define Zapatero are lazy, stupid, arrogant, violent, dictator, murderer, friend of terrorists, useless, liar, cruel, traitor, selfish, manipulator, demagoge and a very, very long etcetera. Millions of Spaniards would love to include that in the article.

This article isn't neutral.

It´s a totally right wing vision of the matter.

It´s totally worthless but the dates. It shows a complete lack of knowledge of a lot of matters (from the concept of "freemason", the resolution of the ONU or the reasons for the withdrawal of the troops). Such lack of knowledge clearly is not a lack of interest but an obvious manipulation to support right wing ideas.

Freemasonry is forbidden by the current Spanish Constitution. It bans secret organizations and those that pursue illegal objectives (like taking control of the State) in its article 22. So if Spanish freemasonry was so good tell me why the people who carried on one of the most applauded Transition Periods to democracy thought it could not be tolerated if Spanish democracy was to survive.

The links work in the same way, specially the critical webpage and the article, that is selectionated for parcial reasons too.

So this article about Zapatero is totally unuseful except you want to know the view of an extreme right person.

Un saludo RHC

It says on the page that Zapatero ordered the troops home from Iraq immediately after being elected. I believe that he did not order them home, but rather he relocated them to Afghanistan.

(Note: they were not rellocated at all. Zapatero decided to send more troops to Afghanistan as a result of internationl pressure to avoid his increasing isolation.)

It seems that this page has been assaulted by extreme-left radicals that cannot bear a point of view different to theirs. The page has suffered several attacks destroying essential information about Zapatero or adding unclear information. One of the examples is the following comment in the version of 2004/12/21: "The manipulation of the information by the Popular Party of Jose Maria Aznar was instrumental in the vitory of PSOE when it was clear that the terrorist attacs were made by Islamic terrorists." This is clearly a partisan point of view as it has not been proven that there was manipulation (for example, serious newspapers -- such as ABC -- have published the names and surnames of policemen who supposedly hid information from the Popular Party government). "El Mundo" has also published (and nobody has denied) that the mobile phones used by the terrorists were bought by some Bulgarian citizens, with no known links to Islamic terrorism. It is not so clear that the attack were caused by Islamists.

It is terrible to see how a noble project as Wikipedia is damaged by the intolerance of some few radicals.

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?

Recent edits

In my edits of yesterday, I tried to make the article conform better to house style, specifically as regards content. I removed assertions that appeared to be contentious, removed content that would be of little interest to the general reader seeking info on Zapatero, and limited the amount of content that will quickly become dated. With the info that remained, I tried to make it more concise and relevant to the theme.

Holdspa

This article is neutral

Hi, I'm the one who opened the discussion time ago.

I'm glad to see that biased comments have been removed, and also to see that unnecessary information have been removed too. I think now the article is clearier.

When editing a page, we should think that we are trying to make information useful for someone looking for general documentation on one specific matter. So, it is important not only to give information, but to present it concisely in the way the user find easy to use. Irrelevant info should be avoided. Also, "Political activism" has no place here.

I didn't want to insult anybody (I think a user confused me with Miguel), and reading the discussion I don't think that neither Miguel nor me have done it. Answering this user, I must say that yes, the Wall Street Journal is a prestigious newspaper, but the article linked is an opinion article- as valid as the opposite. If you bring an opinion, you should also bring the opposite opinion, or the article would be unbalanced.

The link to the Socialist Party is neural?

Last time I visited this article I felt I bit dissapointed, and thought that maybe Wikipedia weak point was politics, in the sense that people editing the article to make it next to their ideas was inevitable. I am happy to see that I was wrong.

Doubts

I have always thought that an encyclopedia was for people who wanted information and not only limited, general information. In Wikipedia, if anybody wants quick information he/she has only to look at the brief introduction included that important article includes. So I think we have detected a new thing you have not understood about how ikipedia works.

The other is that the NPOV policy is not about hidding the truth. In fact, if you read the interesting articles written about Wikipedia NPOV policy you would see how they warn people who try to do a serious work not to make that mistake. If something is true you must include it. Even if a political commissar (that is what you seem, I am sorry to say) does not like it.

Regarding the Wall Street Journal article, as far as I know I am not the owner of Wikipedia. So you can include that wonderful link that balances this article!!! In fact, why instead of seeing bad faith in other people you do not consider an article you do not like as a NPOV article in construction (I have also seen that idea in the articles about neutrality)?

Another thing I wonder is what you have said nothing about Aznar article. There you have a lot of non neutral links, satirical and those things you hate. I think I have read that "los genoveses" was removed (from the Internet only of course) because the person who maintained it was afraid of getting into problems with justice.

Neutrality

I think the sentence Against expectations isn´t true. Here, in Spain, public opinions gave the same probability to win to PSOE and PP. And the PSOE was increasing his results for months.

Also, I think a comentary about wrong informations said by Aznar´s goverment influence the results too will be good. Some people think 11 March bombing affected the results, but others think PSOE wins because PP lies.--FAR 09:17, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Newspapers and information

In this article, there are too many references to newspaper´s opnions that are given like facts when they are are opinions or simply, not contrasted. This kind of reference could be used as link, not as fact. The true is than newspapers have their view of reality, and quoting them as harbingers of the true is utterly wrong. It would be comparable to quoting a german newspaper`s article during the Hitler regime as a fact. I suggest that kind of information should be removed and situated in the link section like "article about Zapatero about...<matters>". Anyway, the article is more balanced than before. Un saludo RHC

Opinions and truth

As you should know RHC, there are facts and opinion. An article can contain both of them. If an article says: "Zapatero meets the fighter against poverty Fidel Castro" it is giving both a fact and an opinion. But if you are saying in the article "Zapatero met Fidel Castro" I do not realize what is your problem with including that article as a reference to support a fact. Besides I do not know why you 'remove' the links, if you want to change where they are placed why do not you change them yourself?

Problems with vandal

The user 80.58.14.X (X is 235 and 170) seems to find a strange pleasure in destroying other people's edits. However, he recovers an old incomplete version and because of that, following the directions of Wikipedia, his/her vandalism cannot be solved by including him/her address directly into the Wikipedia pages created with that purpose. Because of that I begged him/her to follow from now on the rules of Wikipedia regarding the resolution of conflicts. If s/he does not pay attention to this petition I consider it is clear s/he is a vandal and I will deal with him/her according to his real nature. Zapatero

I think the article is perfectly neutral

Hello, i'm spaniard (from Albacete, Castilla-La Mancha, Quijote's land). ::I'm sorry because my english is very imperfect, but I wanted to express my opinion about our president.

Zapatero won the elections against expectations (as says the article), and taking advantages of the attack on Madrid. Nobody knew who were the responsibles, but Zapatero was already saying "It is islamic terrorism", even inventing that there were suicide terrorists, when it wasn't. On my opinion, he isn't preparated for be prime minister. He's ministers haven't any preparation (only Solves, of the economic ministery, wants to imitate the economic polityc of Aznar gobernement).

Zapatero criticized Irak's war, but now he sends troops to Haiti, India, and sells weapons to the ex-dictator of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez.

Thanks yo for reading me.

You say Chávez is ex-dictator of Venezuela. When, in your view, did he change his ways and stop being a dictator (as to how a democratically elected person can be a dictator is another question), --SqueakBox 22:37, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

See Adolf Hitler for a classic answer to that question. — Miguel 07:32, 2005 May 7 (UTC)
Well, yes, take it to the Chávez page; controversial opinions about people not close to Zapatero (Aznar etc) seems a little dangerous here, --SqueakBox 15:34, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
Not that I meant that Chavez is like Hitler in any other way that thyey both got elected. I should rather take it to the page on Democracy. People forget that the people need to be vigilant, even if they are given the vote. — Miguel 21:01, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

Outside opinion

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)

/Dispute

Objetive/Subjetive

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 intention of being so) that shows a real intention of make proselitism and false acusations with wikipedia and thas not right. I haven´t used this disccusion forum before just cause I didn´t knew how did it works. I´ll kept on learning how to do it.

I fear that you have been brainwashed

First, I want to welcome you to the world of the people who talk instead of simply trying to impose their ideas destroying other people's edits (it seems that now, at least, you complement both activities).

I will try to help you because I want you to learn to think for yourself.

I will start solving your mistakes about your appreciation of the 'real' article:

  1. Regarding the Resolution 1546, as the real article states, it can be read in it the following:
"15. [The Security Council] Requests Member States and international and regional organizations to contribute assistance to the multinational force, including military forces, as agreed with the Government of Iraq, to help meet the needs of the Iraqi people for security and stability, humanitarian and reconstruction assistance, and to support the efforts of UNAMI;" That is, it talks about troops. Learn to check your sources.
  1. Regarding the Law of Gender Violence the change of the term woman for that of "Specially vulnerable victim" is the pure truth. Read the law, read the newspapers. I think that your problem is that you do not know what is the "Exposición de motivos". It only explains why the law is written and passed not what the law orders (that is established by its articles where no real reference to woman or women is made as it appears only within larger expressions like "Judges or Courts of Violence against Woman"). It has really surprised me that you have had any problem with that part of the article as it states simply something that has lasted for months in Spain. Besided, the law was passed by unanimity I do not know where you have been that you do not know it.
  1. It seems very funny that you say that the ABC is partial. Could you tell me the name of an impartial newspaper? "El Periódico de Cataluña" has a very strong left-wing bias on the other hand. What I do not understand is why you do not include what it says instead of removing everything. That is how Wikipedia works and you would know it if you would read the Wikipedia articles about its NPOV policy.

They also state that nobody must never offend other user (as you have done with that comment about "real intention of make proselitism and false acusations with wikipedia and thas not right"). I can justify my edits with references. You cannot.

Regarding your comments about "your" article I would like to know the following:

  1. Saying the Nueva Vía is modernizing is POV because there are a lot of people who think that Zapatero is an extreme-left radical obsessed with the Civil war as it is proved by his obsession with statutes that have spent more time in the street with the new Democratic System that with Franco or by his friendship with Fidel Castro. In Wikipedia you must reflect all points of view, this is not the PRISA group. That thing about young people is very funny. The Catholic Church has a lot of young members, does it made it modernising?
  1. The comment about Zapatero's statements about terrorism is also POV because it is a propagandistic comment whose causes are not stated. You must include all the truth not only what Zapatero wants you to know.

The worst of everything is that you have been so terribly manipulated that you feel afraid of the truth when you confront it. Please learn to think for yourself. You owe it to yourself. Zapatero 17:17, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Brainwashed

Please use === Your title === if you add comments to the thread Objective/Subjective you started. In my humble opinion it makes clearer that it is being continued. If not, it seems that new independent topics are being discussed. Zapatero 16:37, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Back to the same.

First, about objetive newspapers, that´s funny cause, as I know there are not such thing like an objetive newspaper, I don´t quote them constantly. You do. And always the same. Again is funny to call somebody brainwashed when your nick is Zapatero, a sign that you are a bit obssesed (other kind of brain washed).

The Wikipedia recommends to indicate what your sources are. My sources, like those of everybody else, are the mass media. Newspapers are mass media available (sometimes) on the Internet. The reason why I made an effort to include so many references was that objective data reported by all kind of television channels, radios or newspapers was being denied (I do not know if you remember that about a UN resolution and troops).
Regarding the nick, don't become so angry about it. It was a joke, there is no need to act as if a god would have been desecrated. In fact, I use it only with this article because I am afraid that the people who do not like my edits in it could try to take revenge on my edits in other articles(as you know some Spanish left-winger are very violent) Zapatero 16:37, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

About the fonts (I think you mean sources Zapatero), clearly you have not read the whole gender violence law (It is true! Zapatero). It opens the possibility to be used in other cases at judge discrection but it works diferent for women and for men. And the the General Council of the Judicial Power (Consejo General del Poder Judicial), is an consultive organism without power to determine if something is constitutional or unconstitutional. For that matter there is the Constitutional Tribunal. So the reason why the law put and additional chapter for opening to other situations was purely political, not judicial. Your article is written to make it look different.

The law can be found here [1]. The Title IV of the law included the term "especially vulnerable" because of the reasons I have already explained. The Constitutional Tribunal decides about the constitutionality of the law, but you do not need to be the Constitutional Tribunal to understand the Constitution and know if something might contradict it or not. The General Council of the Judicial Power simply stated its opinion and they said, among other things, that, in their opinion, it did not respect the constitution.
Besides, do not say that it is my article. You can change if you want. I do not oppose other people's contributions (I am not the owner of the Wikipedia to dare do that), I oppose other people destroying edits simply because they do not like it. Zapatero 16:37, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The same with the ONU (in English, it is UN :-) Zapatero). Again, "it asks for assistance to the multinational force, including military forces". So, to quote as "it asks for military forces" in exclusive is again manipulation. And you are quite fond of it.

To please your wishes I have only kept in the article the quote that reproduces exactly what is written in the Resolution. I do not know why you accuse me of manipulation. Everybody can change the article. I have neither the power nor the intention to avoit it. Zapatero 16:37, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, these are not in the Zapatero´s article. These are on the links so not sense in comenting here. But very funny your joke about brainwashed (Shouldn't it be brainwashing? In spite of everything, your English is too good, I think you must have attended an expensive private school :-) Zapatero).

More matters

One matter more to coment.

About the "poor" studies. I don´t have any access to the results. If you put the reference we will judge it. But it they were poor... how did he finished law studies in time? By the way, the post that he occupied it he university was not a titular one, that needs public examinations. It was by direct election, so the references to problems with the him being chosen for the post are pure speculation

That matter seems a little confusing. I remember testimonies of former teachers of him saying that he was not too good. I also remember a Professor (teacher of the University) that said that he did not pay too much attention to his courses because he centered most of his attention in his political activity. However other sources claim that he was better than average before studying PREU (the preuniversity year). From that year, he became a mediocre. I found the information in the book by "Óscar Campillo: Zapatero, Presidente a la primera". (You have an interview with the author here [2]) Zapatero 16:37, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Talk:José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero/Archive 1

Elimination of old comments

As this talk page was getting too long (at least according to the Wikipedia engine) I have decided to remove its oldest parts, because they refer to previous versions of the article and I believe they are of no use as to understand them it would be necessary to go back on time quite a lot. (Yes, it is true that SqueakBox is a refreshing air that is making us go back to the extremely-short version with a total lack of basic data.) Zapatancas 10:16, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

You can archive old talk but not delete it, especially not a selective deletion. That is clearly against the way things are done here where we have transparency, and could be considered an improper attempt to influence events here. Nevber just delete talk unless it is personal insults, etc, (ie unacceptable material). deleting something you don't like is not acceptable. The version we have is neither short nor totally lacking in info, though we do lack a certain amount of solid substance, what we lack we have never had. All I removed was the POV, the unencyclopedic material and the mass of duplication of material at Zapatero articles which, given the lowish content we have here, were very premature. Please stop trashing my user page, Zapatencas/SquealingPig. How is that going to help your case? An apology would be in order if you wish to keep working with me collaboratively. Your insults have been rude and boorish, and don't create a co-operative atmosphere, --SqueakBox 15:53, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
Once again you SqueakBox have shown your bad faith. You say the page was not long when the very Wikipedia engine was telling so! If you think that it was better to archive it you could have made it yourself after informing a user who had informed of his action and did not know what was the usual procedure. You do not like cooperating with other people as is proved by your deleting my edits to the talk page, proving you do not want to recognize why are your real objectives. (That thing about selective deletion is amusing, what terrible bad faith!!) Zapatancas 09:13, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Besides, tell me what are the supposed parts I do not like of the talk page. Because if you take a lot at it you would see that after hundreds of discussions, of reverting edits, some people had to accept that what they believed to be "non-neutral" comments, where the pure truth. That was what happened. In fact, the real article was liked enough for the hundreds, probably, of people who accessed it because they want information not to create problems. Zapatancas 10:38, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
How can you say you have summarized well the article when there have been users who have said that your version is impossible to understand if you are not Spanish. Zapatancas 09:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

That was your version they were taking about, --SqueakBox 15:14, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

It was your version it was talking about. I see you have been sly enough to remove the yet active comments. And you say I delete things after warning what had happened. You remove the comment about the plane crashed in Turkish because you say it was useless and Miguel say: It was a big scandal but it is true that it is dispatched in a line. Why in a line? Because you have removed the rest. Zapatancas 09:06, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Reviewing the wonderful changes of SqueakBox

I have the following comments about the changes made by the SqueakBox(if he has not made any of them, the comment has the same value):

  • "The media perception during the congress was that Zapatero was the underdog to the other three candidates: José Bono, Matilde Fernández, and Rosa Díez." Explained it to me: what media? He was the favorite. The PSOE looked as if it had no future and he was the only renovation. Saying that Rosa Díez or Matilde Fernández had any chance of winning is really amusing.

I never said that, or added. What are you talking about? --SqueakBox 15:14, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • "He represented the New Way (Nueva Vía) faction, defined as modernising, whose ideology is inspired by Tony Blair's Third ". That is very fun. It is true: Iraq, approaching France, Zapatero's good relation with George Bush, everything proves you are right. What do not you become a clown? You would make people happy, ah, excuse me, I forgot you were not interested at that.

I never said that, or added. What are you talking about? --SqueakBox 15:14, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • "[...] the implication being that crispación was a result of Aznar's style (and the PP's generally) both in the government and earlier on in its opposition to former PSOE leader Felipe González, which was described by the PSOE as arrogant and authoritarian. The People's Party had long blamed the sharp atmosphere on the scandals involving González's governments and the PSOE during González's last two terms (1989-1996)." Have you been frozen on time :-)? That thing of blaming the corruption with González is also a good joke. I think they blamed that Zapatero did not condemn those who attacked the Popular Party premises and thing like that. Are you trying to write a novel? You have imagination, you should try.

I never said that, or added. What are you talking about? --SqueakBox 15:14, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • "Zapatero also cooperated with the central government on some matters. For instance, he was the main proponent of the Pact of the Liberties Agains Terrorism, which was signed on December 8, 2000 [5]." It is written against. You are too used to making mistakes. Another thing that points that perhaps your mind is not well (this is not an offence not an insult, is simply to gather enough evidence to decide if you must be blocked or not).

I never said that, or added. What are you talking about? Withdraw your rude and uncollaborative comments about mental problems. Peersonal attacks are not allowed here, --SqueakBox 15:14, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • "In 2001, the Government reformed the University system through a law that changed its organisation. Zapatero opposed these reforms. In 2002 the Government reformed the system of unemployment benefits by decree (the so-called Decretazo). This included a redefinition of who were eligible for unemployment subsidies, arousing left-wing and trade union opposition. This was his first important clash [...]". Removing the background information about what was changed did certainly improve the article for the people who have not lived in Spain for the last ten years.

Great, --SqueakBox 15:14, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • I am not an expert on the sea but I believe this statement is a total falsety caused by bad faith: "In November 2002 the oil tanker Prestige, Spanish territorial waters off Galicia." According to the Spain article of the CIA world factbook Spain enjoys 12 nm of territorial sea, and 24 nm of contiguous zone. According to [3]: "13 de noviembre de 2002. El petrolero "Prestige" navega cargado con 77.000 toneladas de fuel de mala calidad. Cuando se halla a unas 28 millas del cabo Fisterra sufre una importante vía de agua en medio de un temporal, quedando a la deriva con olas de 6 metros y vientos de fuerza 8." (Sorry, I have not time to translate). This shows the total lack of information you have and how manipulated you are.

I never said that, or added. What are you talking about? --SqueakBox 15:14, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Estremadura is not at the South East of Spain. (Or perhaps if you are neutral enough it is). I klnow where Extramadura is. Check who put it in the wrong place instead of following the lazy path of blaming me. False accusations are no substitute for hard work,

You are lucky I have to leave. SqueakBox or you change your attitude or you will be blocked very soon. (And do not remove this as you did yesterday) Zapatancas 10:38, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Who is goping to block me. You? Cos i don't think anyone else will, mate, --SqueakBox 15:14, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Zapatancas' false allegations have been removed. He is squealingPig, he is in Madrid, I am here in Honduras. It is easy to prove his allegations are false, but I am not bothering as everyone knows SquealingPig=Zapatancas, but if you replace the allegations I will report you for malicious and false personal attacks. If I had been SquealingPig I would need to have had 2 computers/IP addresses, because my IP was not blocked when SquealingPig was blocked. Some of his/Zapatancas edits were from an anon Madrid IP, --SqueakBox 15:14, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

If you are not SquealingPig I will not accuse you of being him but you cannot accuse me either. You say you have not been blocked. Have I? I do not know who believes your accusations. Perhaps are those who have spent months accusing an article of being not neutral, have removed it hundreds of times and never said what they considered that was not neutral. Zapatancas 09:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the article is perfectly neutral

Hello, i'm spaniard (from Albacete, Castilla-La Mancha, Quijote's land). ::I'm sorry because my english is very imperfect, but I wanted to express my opinion about our president.

Zapatero won the elections against expectations (as says the article), and taking advantages of the attack on Madrid. Nobody knew who were the responsibles, but Zapatero was already saying "It is islamic terrorism", even inventing that there were suicide terrorists, when it wasn't. On my opinion, he isn't preparated for be prime minister. He's ministers haven't any preparation (only Solves, of the economic ministery, wants to imitate the economic polityc of Aznar gobernement).

Zapatero criticized Irak's war, but now he sends troops to Haiti, India, and sells weapons to the ex-dictator of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez.

Thanks yo for reading me.

You say Chávez is ex-dictator of Venezuela. When, in your view, did he change his ways and stop being a dictator (as to how a democratically elected person can be a dictator is another question), --SqueakBox 22:37, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

See Adolf Hitler for a classic answer to that question. — Miguel 07:32, 2005 May 7 (UTC)
Well, yes, take it to the Chávez page; controversial opinions about people not close to Zapatero (Aznar etc) seems a little dangerous here, --SqueakBox 15:34, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
Not that I meant that Chavez is like Hitler in any other way that thyey both got elected. I should rather take it to the page on Democracy. People forget that the people need to be vigilant, even if they are given the vote. — Miguel 21:01, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

Recent changes (Zapatancas 14:17, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC))

I did not consider this comment to be neutral:

"Zapatero came to power having pledged to withdraw Spain's troops from the US-led coalition occupying Iraq, which he promptly did after taking office."

Maybe you consider what was there before to be more neutral:
Zaptero came to power by pleding to withdraw Spain's troops from the battle for Iraqi freedom.
— Miguel 06:39, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

because it is not exactly true (I have tried to reflect what he really said in Zapatero's foreign policy). Besides, I believe that its place is not the header of the artcile as it is reserved for very specific information. I have removed it as I consider the specific data about the withdrawl should be covered by the aforemontiend article about Zapatero's foreign policy.

Zapatero spent an entire year critizicing the US invasion of Iyaq, the subsequent occupation, and Spain's involvement. He made a campaign pledge to withdraw the troops (hence having pledged to withdraw), and when he was elected he said he would do so unless a UN resolution changing the legal situation was passed before June 30, 2004. He then withdrew the troops almost immediately after being appointed in April (hence promptly after taking office). To be sure, the decision has never been adequately explained, although it coincided in time with the first Najaf revolt and some clues have surfaced since. — Miguel 06:46, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

I also find non neutral this comment

"By becoming the main spokesperson of PSOE's parliamentary group and actively critizicing the government of José María Aznar, Zapatero used his seat in the Cortes to try to shift the focus of opposition from the media to the parliament."

I humbly think that it stinks of the typical socialist propaganda (what I respect). Besides, as the article is really divided into several sub-articles (namely: Zapatero's years as an opposition leader, Zapatero and the Local and Regional Elections of 2003, Zapatero and the 2004 General Election and Zapatero's domestic policy) I think those pieces of information so specific should be placed into them (to respect Wikipedia rules as those relating to not using too much space for minor items, compared to other more important). So I have included in the article Zapatero's years as an opposition leader the following:

According to some opinions, by becoming the main spokesperson of PSOE's parliamentary group and actively critizicing the government of José María Aznar, Zapatero used his seat in the Cortes to try to shift the focus of opposition from the media to the parliament

I think this is an error:

the scheme to transfer water from the River Ebro to the mediterranean coast

If I am not wrong, the transfer affected all Spain. For example it was supported by the Socialist governed Castilla La Mancha.

There was a country-wide Plan Hidrologico Nacional (National Hydrological Plan). The most contentious point was the long-sought (I have heard about the Ebro-Segura transfer since I was little) transfer of fresh water from the Ebro basin to the Segura basin for irrigation. — Miguel 06:55, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

I disliked also this comment:

[...] vote but without a formal coalition, forcing himself to seek the support of other parties for every vote troughout the term. This was in line with his calm demeanor strategy and would intend to bring the parliament to the fore, but was criticised by the People's Party as leading to a weak government

Again, I think it reflects blindly the image Zapatero wants to project about himself. I have changed it to the following:

This is obviously what he wants to project about himself, because that is what he himself said in his first media interview the day after the election. I guess I'll have to dig up the quotations and just quote him instead of writing a more readable running text. — Miguel 06:55, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

According to his supporters, this was in line with his calm demeanor strategy and would intend to bring the parliament to the fore, but was criticised by the People's Party as leading to a weak government.

I have removed the following:

", and one of his first legislative initiatives was a law on gender violence"

as it was already stated some lines below.

I have also moved the information about the Ibarretxe plan to the article about domestic policy. Zapatancas 14:17, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The reason I expanded on the Ibarretxe Plan is because, to a native English speaker with a resonable knowledge of current affairs, the existing paragraph had no context and was probably unintelligible. — Miguel 06:55, 2005 May 7 (UTC)
There is some good material here (despite, or perhaps because of, the disputes), but (a) the subarticles (eg Zapatero's domestic policy) need structuring (headings etc); (b) they need to be better summarised in the main Zapatero article. Rd232 13:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Historical revisionism

  • I do not find wrong to include some references to what is thought by those who oppose Zapatero's withdrawal. However, I think the best place for them is the article Zapatero's foreign policy, and not the main article as they then would have too many space compared with other important points. I have seen that a user has removed a comment about Chamberlain, Munich and so on in Zapatero's foreign policy. In my humble opinion, it would have been better to change it than to delete it. Zapatancas 17:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Moral Clarity (talk · contribs)'s comments have been removed as is the hardbanned user JoeM (talk · contribs). Do not replace as he is not allowed to edit wikipedia. plwease delete anything of his in the future immediately regardless of content, --SqueakBox 17:01, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Zapatero excess articles

All the excess Zapatero articles have been brought back here without overweighing this article. The POV and unencyclopedic styles have, for the most part, bneen removed. Anti-Zapatero rhetoric cannot be allowed to dominate this article, --SqueakBox 19:52, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

You are very hard with other people edits. You do not look very tolerant, truly. SquealingPig

There was no need for more than one article, --SqueakBox 16:54, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Instead of debating the issues Zapatancas (talk · contribs) created SquealingPig (talk · contribs) to vandalise and harrass, --SqueakBox 22:40, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

That is completely false. I have gone to your personal page and I have seen how you act. Why do not you ask an administrator to remove the "excess" articles, instead of rendering them useless? Do not answer, it is because you know that what you have done is absurd but, still, it is very amusing to vandalize articles inventing absurd reasons. I do not intend this as something offensive at all but I think that it is necessary for everybody that you will answer sincerely: are you mentally unbalanced? do you need psychiatric aid? Zapatancas 10:16, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

First Lady?

I see Sonsoles Espinosa listed as first lady in the infobox. There's no such thing as a First Lady in Spain, and in any case—even thought I am personally not a monarchist—that would be the Queen.

After all, the First Lady was traditionally of any importance only in the USA and translating the concept to other countries is a little strange. In Spain, Ana Botella, Aznar's wife, was the first wife of a prime minister ever to behave as a "first lady", and it is obvious that Zapatero and his wife Sonsoles Espinosa have no desire of going down the same road. — Miguel 06:35, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

Ahem

The article states:

He called his strategy as Tranquil Opposition (Oposición Tranquila), based on a soft, constructive, open to dialogue attitude aimed not at achieving the best for the people. Zapatero's years as an opposition leader (and later as Prime Minister) has been a time of continuous radicalisation of the Spanish political life, a phenomenon also observed by some international media [3] (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6733216/site/newsweek/). Zapatero took part several times in public demonstrations where small groups committed acts of vandalism in a limited fashion.

Considered extreme political tension (crispación) had been raging from about 1989, this paragraph gives the misleading impression that Zapatero was somehow responsible for it. Also, I really like the implicit attack in the line about vandals at demonstrations.

Finally, I am a little annoyed because I spent a while improving the English in the article only to have all my edits reverted and forgotten. The word tranquil is a very bad choice in English, even if it exists, and I did take care of that earlier. — Miguel 07:15, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

Excuse me Miguel, but I think that you have not spent too much time of late in Spain because if not you would know what I am talking about (sorry if this sounds hard, but my English is limited to express it more softly and it is why I believe). If not you would never say that what is currently going on in Spain is the same that happened in 1989 or 1993. Some date:
    • A lot of People's Party premises were attacked after the Prestige and before, during and after the Iraq war. If you believe that had happened before please tell me when it happened.
    • A lot of People's Party rallies were spoilt by agent provocateurs. Popular leaders were insulted, booed, things were thrown at them when they took part in events directed to their supporters.
    • Think of what happened after the March 11 attack and, specially, during the reflection day. The law was not respected widely all over Spain. When had it happened before?
    • Even the attitude of certain media (e.g. the Cope) points to the radicalization. It is true they are not saints to believe that what they do is right or anything like that, but the radicalization of a radio station with one million as audience is quite significant.
    • In the last referendum about the European Constitution, it seems that 1 million of right-wing people voted against it, not paying attention to what the Popular Party had defended. A new symptom, if we take into account that a moderate party is losing an important sector as they want a stronger approach (that is, they have radicalized).
    • Not only that. It is something that is felt by the normal people. In 2002, I went to a private language school (academia, you know)to learn English and, after spending two or three weeks we talked about our interests in politics (you know to train our speaking skills). The result: nobody was interested in it. In June 2004, I went back to the same academia and after an hour of being there everybody knew what were everybody else's ideas.
    • As a final proof think of what has gone on in this article. How many times has been it removed because it was not neutral with nobody explaining what they believe to be not neutral. Take a look at the old comments.
    • Remember what happened to Bono in that sadly famous demonstration against terrorism. I do not know who was the culprit but a national minister had never been attacked before in those circumstances.
Yesterday (today is 10:53, 12 May 2005 (UTC)), Rajoy accused Zapatero during the Debate about the State of the Nation of being a radical. Rajoy can be wrong or not but, when has a prime minister called that in his first year? (All the press is saying that they are very worried because of what happened, the two parties have never been so separated.)
Perhaps the wording of the segment was not the best but it reflected something that was real, unfortunately. Regarding that about the vandalic demonstrations I can only say that it is true, so I believe that it must be included in the article.
To end, I do not mind if you called it "tranquil" or "calm". But why tranquil is bad? In Google you have 2,450,000 links. Zapatancas 10:53, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


Gibraltar

You need to source all the water is Spanish re Gibraltar, it sounded like the harbour waters themselves werte Spanish, --SqueakBox 19:32, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

That is fine, Gibraltar is a red herring and a constant source of embarrassment for the posturing that surround it.
This is not explicitly covered by the Treaty of Utrecht.
The Catholic King does hereby, for himself, his heirs and successors, yield to the Crown of Great Britain the full and entire propriety of the town and castle of Gibraltar, together with the port, fortifications, and forts thereunto belonging; and he gives up the said propriety to be held and enjoyed absolutely with all manner of right for ever, without any exception or impediment whatsoever.
But that abuses and frauds may be avoided by importing any kind of goods, the Catholic King wills, and takes it to be understood, that the above-named propriety be yielded to Great Britain without any territorial jurisdiction and without any open communication by land with the country round about.
Yet whereas the communication by sea with the coast of Spain may not at all times be safe or open, and thereby it may happen that the garrison and other inhabitants of Gibraltar may be brought to great straits; and as it is the intention of the Catholic King, only that fraudulent importations of goods should, as is above said, be hindered by an inland communications. it is therefore provided that in such cases it may be lawful to purchase, for ready money, in the neighbouring territories of Spain, provisions and other things necessary for the use of the garrison, the inhabitants, and the ships which lie in the harbour.
The ins-and-outs of international law regarding Gibraltar are for experts - there are a bunch of later treaties regulating it.
Gibraltar was again mentioned in the Treaty of Versailles (1783) but I can't find the text for that.
I believe it is a geographical fact that you can't reach the port of Gibraltar without crossing Spanish territorial waters, but I will source.
Well, according to the map on this page I was wrong. But the Tireless would have had to come into Gibraltar from the Suez Canal in order to avoid Spain's territorial waters. The page does quote Spain's reservations to the UN Convention to the Law of the Sea to the effect that Spain does not recognize Gibraltar any territorial waters:
In ratifying the Convention, Spain wishes to make it known that this act cannot be construed as recognition of any rights or status regarding the maritime space of Gibraltar that are not included in article 10 of the Treaty of Utrecht of 13 July 1713 concluded between the Crowns of Spain and Great Britain. Furthermore, Spain does not consider that Resolution III of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea is applicable to the colony of Gibraltar, which is subject to a process of decolonization in which only relevant resolutions adopted by the United Nations General Assembly are applicable.
With regard to point 2 of the declaration made upon ratification of the Convention by the Government of Spain, the Government of the United Kingdom has no doubt about the sovereignty of the United Kingdom over Gibraltar, including its territorial waters. The Government of the United Kingdom, as the administering authority of Gibraltar, has extended the United Kingdom's accession to the Convention and ratification of the Agreement to Gibraltar. The Government of the United Kingdom, therefore, rejects as unfounded point 2 of the Spanish declaration.
— Miguel 07:34, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
— Miguel 21:13, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

Turkish crash

The crash of the Yak-42 was a huge political scandal, and still is, with accusations of politization flying in all directions just as with March-11. Please copy the text you deleted on this page, and I will try to provide some context.

Zapatancas

His vicious personal attack has been removed. I expect an immediate apology. If he replaces it or writes something equally nasty he will be repeorted, I am not far from trying an Rfc. His right wing views, which are found in all his encyclopedic writings, are very clear from his latest edits. Wikipedia is not a place to launch a passionate defence of the PP and an attack on Zapatero. Zapatancas appears to be a POV warrior trying to manipulate wikipedia for his own political ends. There is absolutely no nedd for excess articles, and particularly not excessa articles that Zapatancas won't let anyone else edit, --SqueakBox 14:19, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

You have had a negative attitude towards me since the beginning. Simply answer this questions:
  • Why have you substituted an article impossible to find with a REDIRECT statement? If it is useless, why did not you ask an administrator to delete it? Have not you heard that every day hundreds of articles are deleted?
  • What are those right-wing comments? That thing about Zapatero being the first Spanish prime minister talking to the French assembly? You have removed it, so it must be right wing.
  • Excuse me, what are my recent right-wing edits? When I changed your mistake in the Aznar page because you have written "it's IX congress" but it should be written "its IX congress"? When I tried to help you correct that mistake in your talk page, you deleted it although it was clear that I only tried to help you.
  • What is that passionate defence of the PP? An invention to hide your own radicalism?
  • When have I not allowed other people to edit an article? When I removed their links from a Main article and I substituted them with nonsense REDIRECT statements? Oh, excuse me, was not it you who made that?
  • Where is the attack on Zapatero?
You have insulted me calling me a POV warrior. Tell me only an example when I have deleted anything from an article. I expect an apology.
And this time answer the questions and answer them fast. Zapatancas 09:13, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
I have recovered in a single article all the changes destroyed by SqueakBox. Let's see what excuses he uses this time to destroy it again. Zapatancas 09:38, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

To 80.102.6.36

Thank you for your contributions and especially for having cited your sources. It seems you want to demnostrate the existence of manipulation by the Popular government after the attacks. According to the NPOV policy, all theories must be reflected fairly and your theory is as valid as the one stating it was the anti-government groups who manipulated. I have made a series of changes, trying to preserve what you wanted to communicate, but also trying to make it look like what I believe it is, another theory. If you disagree with me, I am open to a sincere discussion. If you want to convince me anything I have written is wrong, please try to find new sources proving it or ask me to find them. I think we will finish sooner if we do that :-) Zapatancas 12:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


I read your changes and it's OK. Thank you too.

NPOV

This article is hopelessly biased against Zapatero (my opinion is by Spaniards more patriotic to the USA than their ownm country and region). When I changed it I got loads of persoanl attacks, and am uninclined to reedit until the atmosphere of intimidation here improves. Don't remove the NPOV unless you can answer my objections, --SqueakBox 15:46, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

SqueakBox, I really thank you for the more peaceful approach you have shown of late. I believe your personal image would improve even further :-) if you instead of simply including NPOV signs also stated what you find to be not neutral.
It would also be interesting if you explained a little what means to be a Spanish patriot for you. I believed the Wikipedia was about saying the truth. The rest is not important.
To end I think that you should improve your way of communicating with other users. That thing of "This article is hopelessly biased...", is kind of offensive, you know. As the articles about neutrality say, it is better to explain clearly an opinion instead of using general adjectives.
Yours truly, Zapatancas 18:05, 20 May 2005 (UTC).

Compare This which is what we have now in the foreign policy section with this which is a later version of the foreign policyy article. This is not the only example. I would have my versions not yours here, and I believe I addressed the POV issues in my edits on May 1, so comparing the 2 versions will give an idea of my objections, SqueakBox 18:33, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, could not you be more specific? I am not too intelligent. If you do not give me (or other users) any further details I believe I will be unable to come to any conclusion. Zapatancas 18:52, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry but no. I did the work on May 1. I can change them to my version if you would like. But if you don't want to do the research or accept my version you will have to live with the NPOV for now. The cleanup notice would be easier to remove. Only José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero should be in black, not other statements not directly connected to his name, plus I had actually cleaned the foreign policy version and removed its cleanup template, but you insist on putting the uncleanedup text back in the article, SqueakBox 19:07, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

I do not know if you remeber, but "your version" was full of mistakes. In my opinion it is not enough to delete something, at least you should say why you did not like it.

Besides, the old foreign policy article included a sign asking it to be wikified . The tag used was {{wikify}} no {{cleanup}}. Zapatancas 19:20, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes but the blacking needs cleaning up too, which is why I put the {{cleanup}}: add the {{wikify}} and we get too many templates. Perhaps you can enlighten me to my mistakes in my version of the foreign policy article? I am scared that if I edit this article "mercilessly" we will just get into another huge conflict, --SqueakBox 19:31, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

The mistakes were in the "general" single article you created some weeks ago. I described some of them at the beginning of this talk page. Regarding the foreign policy article, I do not understand why you deleted that about Zapatero being the first prime minister in talking to the French assembly or the introduction about his foreign policy philosophy. Thank you for your positive attitude :-)Zapatancas 15:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

RfC

I noticed this article was listed on RfC. Speaking very generally, I see some areas where I think it needs some work, notably style and concision. Part of the challenge will be to balance the interest of the Spanish contributors in seeing a very detailed and complete text with the obligation to our general, non-Iberic readership to provide a succinct and manageable biography of the Spanish prime minister. To begin with, some of the material in the section The General Election of March 14, 2004 could profitably be moved to this article: Spanish legislative election, 2004. Would anyone object if I do this? Thanks, Viajero | Talk 11:54, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you. In fact, I tried some weeks ago to create several articles to better distribute all the information but it seems that the decision was not too popular.
I do not mind if you move some thing about the Election to the specific article but I believed that the following should be kept in this article:


    • The creation of the Committee of Notables composed.
    • The announcement Zapatero made he would only become prime minister if the Socialist Party was the most voted political force.
    • The slogan and some of the promises.
    • That Zapatero blamed ETA at the first hours of March 11. H
    • That Zapatero has accused the Popular Party of lying about the authorship of the attacks and that he has been accused of telling the Spanish media that suicidal bombers had been found among the victims in the hours following the blasts.
    • The electoral result and that of "happy crowd gathered to celebrate the victory in front of the Socialist Headquarters cried to Zapatero: "Don't fail us!", "

Thank you.

Please, keep the part about Zapatero's Grandfather's will. It is an essential piece to understand Zapatero's ideology. Zapatancas 10:00, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

DNI?

I have just cast a shallow look, but I wonder why somebody thinks that the DNI number is interesting? Is it an interesting number as in the Ramanujan anechdote? A prime? --Error 21:25, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see your point but if somebody has made the effort of including it, why somebody else cannot be interested in it? Where is the problem in including true information? Is the space available for the Wikipedia limited? (Do not dare say to me that the article is too long, say that to SqueakBox.)

I find it as interesting as what he had tonight for dinner. Unless it's a significative dish or it's somehow telling, it is not article-worthy. --Error 00:54, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why it was removed the data about Zapatero's tobacco addition. I think those things are part of everybody's personality. Zapatancas 15:37, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey, leave me out of this, SqueakBox 16:48, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Another comment about the DNI. It could be used in the future for a researcher to find "official" information about Zapatero. I think it can be a very interesting data. Zapatancas 18:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Um. Maybe. But I don't know if this is the place for that information. --Error 00:54, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Clean Up

Can I clean up this article? A lot of the information is useless and the article needs to be streamlined considerably. I just got a message saying this is vandalism! Right now, this article will serve no one.

Who sent you the message. There is a troll on this page. We know who he is, and his rule over this page is shortly to end. The artiucle is a pile of crap, but he uses sockpuppets and nasty insults to get his way. By all means change anything you like, with my full and energetic support. Ya basta, SqueakBox 15:48, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

SqueakBox, I hope you were not talking about me when you use those unpleasent comments. In any case, I think you sometimes find difficult to be polite with other users.

Regarding the useless information and all that I would like to point out that what is absurd, boring and irrelevant for a person can be very interesting for other. (In Spain, for example, several books with hundreds of pages have been published about Zapatero. They have far more "useless" information than this article.)

One of the reasons that led me to try to contribute to the Wikipedia was to help others to understand Spain. It is really amusing to see the terrible amount of mistakes that is made by international media when they talk about Spain because they simply lack the basic knowledge about the country. For example, the article Alternet, 11 April 2005, "Zapatero Steps Up" (first year in office) (which can be accessed from the Zapatero article), claims that "Just days after the Socialists won the election, several of the autonomous regions announced a moratorium on one of the previous government’s most controversial measures: a law that required religious education in public schools." Public schools must provide religious education because of an international treaty (Concordato in Spanish) signed some decades ago by Spain and the Holy See that imposed upon the first that obligation. The law passed by the previous government had nothing to do with teaching the Catholic doctrine or not, as it simply had to respect the international treaties signed by Spain as the rest of the Spanish laws. In fact, it allowed students to choose not to study religion at all or to study other religion other than the Christian Catholic one. (If you do not believe me, find the Spanish law passed by the PP government at [4] and look for "Disposición adicional segunda. Del área o asignatura de Sociedad, Cultura y Religión").

Because of that, I consider necessary to provide as much background information as possible to help the "real" users (that is, those who access the article to learn about Zapatero) to know and to understand everything they can be interested at.

Of course, I believe the information must be better organized than it is currently. But I am not to be blamed if SqueakBox destroys the "extended" articles created by other users by substituting them with absurd REDIRECT statement and by removing any reference to them that could make it possible for anybody to realize that they once existed. He should know that according to the creators of the Wikipedia, there is not space limit and I do not know who he believes he is to decide what other people can know or not.

Another curious fact about how you behave, SqueakBox, is that you have changed the Long NPOV tag (which asks users to report disputed passages in the talk page) with the normal NPOV tag, (which assumes there is already an existing discussion in it), without explaining (after almost a month) what you find not to be neutral!.

To end, I would like to say that the current version can be effectively considered a pile of crap. There is no mention to the influence of Zapatero's grandfather on his political believes (!), it includes mistakes like saying that "After graduating, Zapatero worked as a professor of constitutional law in the University of León until 1986" (as it was explained in a previous version, he continued to work some hours a week with no pay until 1991) or, according to it, the Tireless never happened (in Spain we spent almost a year being talked about it almost everyday).

SqueakBox: it is wonderful if you come to the Wikipedia to have some fun, but I think you should also try to make a better encyclopedia. Zapatancas 18:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Okay, I just cleaned up the Foreign Policy section. I think it reads much better now. I rewrote many of the sentences to confrom with standard prose, and I divided into subheadings so there is much more organization too. In the process, some redundant information was cleaned out too. Please let me know what you think.

I think you have made a good job. The only thing I found lacking was the information about Zapatero's promise of withdrawing the Spanish troops from Iraq during the political campaign. I believe it is important to make clear what Zapatero really promised and under what circumstances, because it is commonly believed that he had promised to recall them without any additional condition.
I have also recovered the Long NPOV tag because nobody has reported any disputed passage yet so it is still valid. (SqueakBox, please, think a little before making changes.) Zapatancas 09:14, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good to know that you liked the revisions. I think that some of the phraseology needs to be changed, but that very little information needs to be deleted. The info needs to be organized! That is why I am splitting stuff into smaller headings that will allow for people to browse the encyclopedia much more quickly. I did so for Domestic Policy now too, and I am in the midst of working on the language there too. Zapatancas, are you a native Spanish speaker? I am a native English speaker but I know Spanish, and I have noticed that many times you use words that are translated from Spanish but are a bit odd in nuanced English. You say "I think you made a good job." I'm assuming that you meant "did" instead of "made," but I understand that "hacer" is "hacer." It's great to have a Spaniard here though, if you are one, as you know much more about Zapatero than we do. But please don't be offended if I change sentences to fit with more colloquial/common ways of writing.

I think you have made a good guess (this time I have previously checked with Google that "made" is valid ;-)). Yes, I am from Spain. Don't worry about making changes, I am in favor of a cooperative approach. I also recognize that my English can improve a lot. In fact, one of the reasons why I decided to contribute to this article was I believed it could help me detect my mistakes. But it seems I was too optimistic. Zapatancas 15:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)



I am slogging through the "Opposition Leader" stuff the same way I did for Foreign Policy and Domestic Policy. (Which reminds me, I still have to finish the second one). I hope to have it done by tomorrow.

Pbhayani


Reversing Work

Why are people reversing my work? I spent a lot of time subcategorizing and improving both the Domestic and Foreign Policies and it read a lot better. Someone reversed the whole thing. I'm out of here. There are other articles I can work on.

NPOV ultimatum

The NPOV tag was added on May 20, 2005. It has asked "to report disputed passages and terms on the talk page" for a month and two weeks. But nobody has reported anything.

I believe the honest work done in the Wikipedia must not be contaminated with stupid claims from crazy people who affirm other users want to kill them (who added the NPOV tag, incredible as it can seem, does things like that).

Because of this, I will remove the NPOV tag if nobody reports a disputed passage in a week from now . In my opinion, we must make clear that the Wikipedia is not a place where hooligans can do what they are not allowed in real life like making other people waste their time in stupid things.

If the NPOV tag is finally removed in a week and it is restored again without explaining what is considered not to be neutral, I will report that activity as vandalism. Zapatancas 6 July 2005 16:50 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and stop attacking people you consider stupid. By making a very unpleasant atmosphere here you are denying others the chance to edit freely. Please withdraw your attacks otherwise how can we can engage in discussion. Also, who has been issuing death threats. this is a very serious charge. Can we please urgently see some diffs. I can't take your NPOV tag comments seriously while these other issues are outstanding, SqueakBox July 6, 2005 17:16 (UTC)

BTW adding an NPOV template is not vandalism, and you will merely make yourself unpopular, and give yourself a POV warrior reputation, if you make false vandalism reports. You have a history of doing vandalism yourself. Threatening to make a false report is just an empty threat, so I repeat, please desist from your personal attacks, SqueakBox July 6, 2005 17:20 (UTC)
I agree with your comments about hooligans. I don't think wikipedia should tolerate your behaviour, SqueakBox


Zapatancas and SqueakBox need to stop fighting about nothing. I just edited the entire article -- I believe it is much better organized and written. I removed the "Higher Standard" tag as it no longer applies. As I edited it, I did not encounter any bias, and I do not think there is one anymore. Zapatancas, do not worry about reversing my earlier work. It was a misunderstanding, and thank you for restoring it. Please let me know what you think of the article as a whole now. It is shorter but it is less redundant and can serve more people.

Pbhayani

SqueakBox, telling other people they must not make personal attacks is kind of hypocrite in your case, taking into account that you come to the Wikipedia only to attack other people. Furthermore, I think you cannot talk too much about popularity. I believe you must be the one who has had most clashes with other users than anybody else.

Modesty aside, I can affirm that most of the information now in the article was provided by me. If providing information is the kind of behaviors you do not tolerate I must say that you have defined yourself once again.

Regarding the article as it is now, I must say again that I like how it is written and that you, Pbhayani, have done :-) a good job again. It was people like you what this article needed from the beginning. Zapatancas 15:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


Yes, but the people I clash with are the trolls (like SquealingPig (talk · contribs) who even you must agree was a nasty, trolling, vandalising sockpuppet) and never with the admins who try to keep this place troll free, NPOV, etc. I wonder why that is? My behaviour here is not censured because it is just fine. I don't happen to like trolls and POV pushers and those who persisently and unwarrantedly engage in personal attacks. If you want to accuse me of being SquealingPig again we will get a sockpuppet check (ie was it from Madrid or La Ceiba?). Okay? SqueakBox 17:23, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

BTW Well done Pbhayani for an excellent job. When I tried to clean up Zapatancas' English he reverted me so it is great sopmeone else has done both that and removed the POV, SqueakBox 17:30, July 14, 2005 (UTC)


In Spain there isn't First Lady

We the Spanish don't have First Lady. In any case, she would be Her Majesty the Queen cosort Sofía. Mrs. Sonsoles Espinosa isn't any more than "the wife of the Prime Minister".

POV at last

SqueakBox removed the following passage 66.38.206.10 added for the first time on 22:15, 18 July 2005:

Although Zapatero's stance was more moderate than that of outspoken French President Jacque Chirac, Spain's lack of diplomatic influence relative to France may have led Bush to simply ignore Zapatero.

SqueakBox claimed he had removed the last speculative and POV sentence. He did not take the passage to the talk page as it is recommended to avoid conflicts, by the way.

SqueakBox, in any case, should be thanked for that. Those of you who have come recently to this page must know that this user added a NPOV notice about two months ago. I asked him once and again what he considered not to be neutral (to try to fix it, you know), but he never answered (he simply included some offensive comment here and there). Some days ago I expressed that the NPOV tag should be removed if nobody reported any disputed passage because I believed it was absurd to have it if we don't know what is not neutral. Finally other user, not me, took it away.

Once the NPOV label was here no longer and 15 minutes after 66.38.206.10 made his short-lived contribution, he removed that user's edition affirming, as it has been already mentioned, that it was the last POV passage. So the last POV (or should it be the first?) was added two months after he included the NPOV tag and some days after the NPOV tag was removed!!!

The most amusing thing is that he claimed the invisible :) POV (?) of the artice was right-wing and 66.38.206.10, in my opinion, is reflecting a left-wing opinion. That is, the Spanish Left claims that Zapatero has not soured American-Spanish relations. I believe the comment means: if Bush does not meet Zapatero is not because he wants to "take revenge". Spain (a second-class country, it must be recognized) is not important enough for the American president for caring about it (this is only my opinion, in any case). Zapatancas 16:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Recovered the data about Zapatero reporting of the suicidal bombers

I found what I consider an important piece of information missing in the section devoted to the March 11 terrorist attacks in Madrid. I refer to the "supposed" information given to some media by Zapatero about the existence of "suicidal bombers" corpses after the blasts, which I have included in the article. I have also included a link to a Spanish Internet newspaper with an interesting source for those doubting :) the story.

I believe that the Wikipedia users must not be afraid of those who want to hide information about their idols (or about themselves) and don't hesitate in using insults, threats, lies and all kinds of harassment to achieve their goals. For that reason I consider it especially important to present objective data supported by sources like the one I have talked about. Zapatancas 16:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

SqueakBox has deleted the comment before I posted the former messages. Are we talking about an objective fact? Yes, but that is not important. A source was cited? But what was its use. He must think: I remove everything and I feel happy. Zapatancas 16:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Just because something is sourced doesn't give it the right to asppear in Wikipedia. You seem incapable of writing an NPOV article about someone whom you clearly hate, SqueakBox 16:36, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Just because something is an objective fact does not mean that SqueakBox, if he does not like it, will not delete it Zapatancas 17:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

SqueakBox has defined himself: to include objective data about events which have happened is POV. It must only be NPOV to write the article from the Left-wing perspective. SqueakBox likes Zapatero as he has confessed and so, as he is the owner of the Wikipedia, he imposes his law spending hours and hours every day harassing other users Zapatancas 17:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC).


Stop talking bullshit. I never harrass other users, unlike you who harrass me a lot. I do not own wikipedia (what a troll remark) nor do I think much of left wingers, SqueakBox 17:26, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

You have just reminded me of all the users you have criticized for using words like bull**t.

Don't say you are not a left-winger when you have just deleted a verified fact about a real event only because you believe it does not improve Zapatero's image.Zapatancas 17:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Be careful Talk:José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero/Archive 1


Wikipedia members from outside Spain must be cautious with anti-Zapatero writtings as shown above. After the defeat of the PP in last general elections, youths of the PP has created large rings of blogs and web sites with all kind of missinformations (some of them just in the border of being considered just a libel). With reference to the suicide bombers, the only reference to this matter conected with the bombings was the following: "According with unidentified sources, the terrorist atack could had been carried out by suicidal bombers, we repeat, the sources have not been confirmed, and this information is not sure" (cadena SER, main radio station of Spain, supposed to be friendly with Socialist Party). This comment on the news has been broadly used by PP members in order to generate confussion and getting rid of any political responsability due to the missinformation provided by the PP´s government in those sad days.

I would not trust the article too much either, too much fanatism prevents the truth from being seen

I am sorry to say that you have just demonstrated to be a victim of the Socialist propaganda. (Please, do not interpret this as something offensive.) You must understand that political parties (right-wing and left-wing) usually form "curious" alliances with powerful economic groups.
Everybody "knows" that the powerful PRISA media group (owned by Polanco) enjoys more or less "hidden" ties with the Spanish Socialist Party. I presume you are Spanish so I'm sure you must know that Canal+ (which belongs to PRISA) has got the right to broadcast without codifying anything. And I presumed that you do not know (or, at least, you do not remeber) that in September 2004 a Spanish Government official announced the intention (later forgotten) of banning the price discounts affecting textbooks for children (curiously enough one of the most important Spanish textbook publishers is Santillana, which belongs to the PRISA group).
With all this I am trying to explain that you cannot trust 100% Spanish media like El País, the Cadena SER, Canal+ and so on (no media in general can be trust 100% by the way). I would dare to beg you to widen your sources of information. Because too many intentional falseties are being said in Spain with a real bad intention. In my opinion, it is all the Spaniards' duty to prevent the return of the hate which caused that terrible conflict so many years ago, but that is too much remembered today.
After this long foreword, I must say that you are completely wrong with the thing about the suicide bombers. According to Pedro J. Ramírez (the editor of El Mundo, one of the three or four most important papers in Spain) Zaptero told him that bodies of suicide bombers had been found in the remains of the trains (that is, not the SER, Zapatero himself). (The information is included in a book by Casmiro García Abadillo, a famous Spanish journalist who also works for El Mundo.) When he was asked in the Committee of Investigation about that claim he answered:
"Hablé con directores de medios de comunicación para valorar el alcance de la tragedia y para referirme a los extremos de valoración de lo que suponía las posibilidades de autoría. Pude valorar toda la información que existía entonces. Pero no puedo recordar con toda su exactitud las conversaciones".
That is, Zapatero said he talked with the mass media media directors about who could have committed the attacks but he does not deny outrightly that he had affirmed, with no place for doubt, the existence of suicide bombers (a piece of data proved false and in favor of which never existed any evidence).
That was what happened and that is what is known (and that was what I tryed tor reflect in the article, where I also include the source [5], yes I know that Libertad Digital is right-wing but that was the best I could found, a lot of other similar sources can be found using Google)
I did not know until now that thing about the SER, but I hope I have been able to transmit to you that the problem is a little more complicated.
Please, do not allow anybody to make use of your good faith again. Think for yourself! Zapatancas (UTC)

Non accurate info on the last european elections

The current article says that: "The Socialist Party won again with 25 seats against 24 for the People's Party (out of 54). Although José Borrell was the official candidate, Zapatero played an important role in that campaign (as is usual in Spain). The new triumph seemed to dissipate the doubts about the causes of his previous victory, though the Socialist victory was exceptionally narrow."

The last entailment about dissipating the doubts is very weak. In fact, the information is not completely true, since of the 25 seats obtained by the Socialist Party, one was agreed with Ecologists that, after obtaining the seats in the election, separated from the Socialist group as previously agreed. So, strictly speaking there was 24 seats for the Socialist Party and 24 for the People's Party. This kind of biased and unnecesary entailments should be removed from prestigious efforts as the Wikipedia, especially for events as controversial as the 11-M, for which there is still a lot of unclear elements.


Be careful (second part)

It is funny to discover that the concept of objectiviness is supported under the following argument: "you are intoxicated by socialist propaganda". I warn Wikipedia users not to put confidence in any statement only contrasted by a source like "libertad Digital". Since the defeat of Peoples Party it has been clearly detected the following political action. Libertad Digital (a web only news paper) takes the news only from agencies, then they add extremely right wing opinions to the agency, then the web rings, forums, chats, etc... of the youths of the peoples party, start spreading just the opinion, and write in every foro they can get. After that they show to their principals their merits. So, I advice you that any information based only in the a/m media not to be considered as reliable unless it can be founded in other sources of information. If not, wikipedia is at risk of falling in stupid strategies of a political party, which I do not suppose to be the aim of this media. The matter of the suicide bombers is a very good example of a posible missinformation. Check the answer given by Zatapancas, and consider if this is an academical answer or just a political and disgusting justification.

Please, if the anonymous user who contributes from several IP addresses starting with 83. is the same person I would dare to bage him/her to create a wikipedia identity to help identify him/her.
I will assume it is really the same person, so the following is for him/her (or for them if I a, wrong):
First, a question: do you work for the Socialist Party. If you belong to the PSOE I respect you and I believe it is very positive to have a person like you providing his POV in this article (you have lots of it!!! and, as a little common sense makes clear, a NPOV article is the one that reflects all POVs). But, to make your work useful you must respect others' POVs also (and you must show more respect for objective facts).
I hope you are being paid for your funny contributions, because if not in my own humble opinion you will enjoy a lot becoming a grown-up (enjoy your adolescence) ;-). I have really enjoyed reading them. I would have laughed a lot if I were not in a public place when I did.
Please, be humbler when you make a mistake. I do not like either to recognize I have made a mistake, but it is so clear that you have been completely misled with the thing about the suicide bombers that an apology would be welcome (and would also made you feel better).
The thing about the People's Party youths is also very funny. Is it a joke or are you talking sincerily? If you are talking sincerely, you have been "informed" about it or the idea has occurred to you by yourself :-). In the second case you sound a little paranoid, but I would be intereseted in listening more about that thing of conspiratorial PP youths and all that.
Another question. You have defended that the Republican supporters during the sad Spanish Civil War fought for freedom, democracy and the Constituion. Well, that is the true. But, all of them? Because the POUM (a Republican party) , was exterminated in Catalonia in 1937 by other republicans. If they fought for freedom, why did they kill each other? Please, show me the truth. Show me the light. Show me the Darkness visible (as Freemasons say ;-)). 80.37.203.118 16:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Latest edits are not neutral

Please make edits neutral and not an attack against the article's subject. - Tεxτurε 15:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Zapatero and Freemasonry

A user has recently removed the paragraph about Zapatero's supposed belonging to Freemasonry. First of all, I would like to remember that being a Freemason is as bad as being homosexual, it depends on every person's opinion. So, it is absurd to interpret it as something negative.

I would also like to remember that that possibility has been exposed publicly by people like Ricardo de la Cierva, a famous (Right-wing) Spanish historian and nobody has contradicted them (including Zapatero). That provides some evidence (although non conclusive) about the problem we are treating now.

Not only that, some elements of Zapatero's behavior (for example his good relation with the French government, led by Chirac, a known Freemason) could be better explained if Zapatero were a Freemason. That added to his huge grandfather's influence (who were a Freemason) are other interesting links between Zapatero and Freemasonry.

It must not be forgotten that a lot of Spanish politicians are also Freemasons (Joaquín Leguina is an example) and a lot more are supposed to be (e.g. Gallardón, who is a famous PP leader), as well as other members of Spanish Society. It must not be seen as a taboo.

I believe this article must be as relevant as possible. And providing information about Zapatero's ideological background is always relevant. So I hope the information about Freemasonry will not be removed again. Zapatancas 17:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

International spelling

While articles have to either be US or international (British) they must not be both. An extremely important factor when an article is not obviously US or Brit/commonmwealth centred is which spelling did the article start out with. This article began with British spelling as you can see here. Somebody later on changed some of it to US spelling, and Zapatancas says this is what Spaniards allegedly use, which is not relevant as this is en.wikipedia, and that US is more internationalised, which is not true and certainly doesn't reflect wikipedia policy. Most if not all EU articles go for British spelling as British English is one of the 2 official languages of the EU, though what weighs the heaviest is the fact that the article began in British spelling and there is no consensus to change that, so indeed we must respect the original article spelling, SqueakBox 15:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I am happy that, for once, you have paid attention to something told to you and, at last, you recognize that mixing spellings is not allowed in the English language. The article has looked for a long time horribly due to your obsession with jumping from an option to the other in an unpredictable fashion.
I believe your problem is that you don't dominate any option, neither British nor American. Even though you are now obsessed with changing from an international to a local variant of the language, you keep using non-British forms of some words. For example, in your last attack you kept the word "unfavorable", because you do not know the correct British form is "unfavourable". If you have problems with your own spelling, why don't you let other users do the job you are unable to do? Wikipedia belongs to everybody. We cannot use all the time "SqueakBoxian" spelling only because that is easier to you.
Besides, the EU has many more than two official languages. Every language that is official in a member country is an official EU language. It seems that you have not realized that in Spain we have our own language. It is true that in some areas there are a lot of Britons who go on living as if they had not left Britain. But they are foreigners! Spaniards speak Spanish (some of them also speak Catalan, Basque and so on but that is not important now). Your argument that British English must be used because is the language used in Spain is kind of crazy.
So, learn to respect others' effort. You cannot force everybody to adapt to you. You must learn to live with other people. Zapatancas 09:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. At the end of the day this asrticle began in British English, which is not a localised variety, and there is no reason to change it because one Spaniard has a pathological hatred of the British, SqueakBox 15:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Spelling need only follow a consistent convention for the entire article. Unless everyone involved agrees to change the initial convention, all contributing editors should follow the first convention used. This is Wikipedia policy, right or wrong. If you think it is wrong, change the policy before enforcing it. --Zephram Stark 15:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Instead of war editing, I propose that we try to achieve consensus. In the event that consensus fails (anyone opposes and refuses to yield), Wikipedia convention rules. Wikipedia allows for common sense to trump convention when all parties agree. Thus, I move that we drop our pretenses of ego, and allow common sense to overcome personal bias. Can we all agree that the English-language article about the Prime Minister of Spain be written in a dialect most used by the citizens of Spain? --Zephram Stark 16:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Which dialect is that. Zapatancas may claim it is US English, which I can well imagine would be easier for Spanish people, but may not be what they teach in the schools. At ther least we would need a source that US English is taught in the scvhools. Given that Zapatero's opponents love the US and his supporters dioslike it, IMO to make this article US spelling would be blatant POV, and therefore even if US English is taught in the schools I would still oppose. Policy indicates it should be in Brit spelling because of the history, as does the fact of Spain being a part of the EU, SqueakBox 16:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The most used English-dialect can be researched and discovered. I would be happy to do so if it would make any difference in this argument, but you have made it clear that it will not. You refuse to yield your right to a British dialect for this article even if all of Spain would like the article about its prime minister to be written in a different dialect. Therefore, the discussion is over. Common sense only trumps convention when everyone uses it. --Zephram Stark 00:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Well we have no evidence that "all of Spain" wants the article in US spelling. What we have is one editor who changed all the British spellings to American spelling when the article was originally in British spelling, as are the articles on Rato and Solana. But by all means lets have some evidence that Spain uses American spellings predominantly, and then we can discuss what to do in the light of the new evidence, SqueakBox 01:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
That is, of course, nothing but a smoke screen. You have already said that you will not allow changes to be made even if the entire world disagrees with you. --Zephram Stark 03:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I have said nothing of the sort. Either do or don't provide the info but don't just make excuses, SqueakBox 03:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I could not agree more with Zephram Stark when he says the current problem caused by SqueakBox must be solved through consensus. I am sorry to say that, in my opinion, the source of all the present difficulties, is that SqueakBox seldom bases his wishes upon any kind of logical reasoning. For example, he says that all articles about Spanish politicians use British spelling. But the article about Aznar, the most important Spanish politician in recent years (as the prime minister of every country always is) uses American spelling (at least it includes the words 'polarized' and 'generalized').
When SqueakBox first came to this article, it had been written using American spelling for months. And nobody had complaint. But the first thing he did was to start changing the spelling of some words (not all, in fact, he mixed spellings something that is very bad style) saying that Spain is in the EU and because of that everybody is forced to use British English when writing about Spain (!?).
I think the logical, respectful thing to do is to preserve the spelling you first find if nobody else wants to change it. If he has never made any useful contribution to this article, what right he has to change the spelling only to impose that used in his town? Zapatancas 10:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Technically, since the first substantial edits were made by User:Adam Carr, who has a PhD from the University of Melbourne, I would argue that the article was originally written in Australian English rather than British English (which I realize is nitpicking, but it does show that the initial English chosen for an article is based solely on where the editor comes from - if I started an article about some British subject, I would use American English and wouldn't complain when it got changed later on). In addition, I don't find the fact that Spain is part of the EU particularly relevant. Having spent a decent amount of time in Spain, I can tell you that people weren't exactly walking around speaking British English (or American English for that matter). Also, saying that making the article into American English would be blatant POV is a bit of an overstatement - it isn't like Zapatero or his constituents are out there sucking up to the UK. The article itself states that he is focusing on France and Germany as allies rather than the UK, and mentions tensions over Gibraltar. However, to address the other two members of the argument, I don't see any supports for changing the article into American English other than the article on Aznar, which doesn't tell me anything except that there is an inconsistency in English used between various articlces about Spain. Of course I personally would prefer American English, since as an American it is quite annoying to see what look like numerous misspellings in any article, but since wikipedia's policy is to use numerous variants of English, my personal opinion doesn't matter much, and neither do Zapatancas' or Zephram Stark's. Unless either one can show evidence that American English is taught in school (which is entirely possible) or that American English is somehow embraced by the entirety of the Spanish population (which I seriously doubt), I don't see their arguments as being valid either. Also, if "the logical, respectful thing to do is to preserve the spelling you first find if nobody else wants to change it" then why was the article ever changed from the Australian spelling in the first place? I don't mean to come off as insulting, so I hope I didn't come off that way. Maybe some kind of larger debate should be occuring regarding all Spain articles (or at least those about Spanish politicians) to determine what English to use. "Legalisation" and "colonization" are both used in Spain itself, and that isn't helping anyone. -Parallel or Together? 15:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I certainly agree about the problems re using a "foreign" type of English. I actually can't write US English with any degree of certainty, get maddened by the misspellings etc, and appreciate Americans have this problem with our English. At times the grammar is substantially different. Zapatancas, I hate to disappoint you but I was working on this article way before you here. It was not me who changed the spelling to the US version. I merely reverted to non US spelling which was what the article had when I first edited it, indeed until you came along. To claim I have made no contribution to this article is as meaningless as me saying you haven't contributed to the article, and doesn't help things move along at all, SqueakBox 16:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I see two ways to objectively resolve this problem.
1. We can reach consensus omnium, agreement of all parties, which is the only real consensus. Anything less becomes a vote.
2. We can abide by Wikipedia standards for when consensus cannot be reached over the spelling dialect of the article.
Let's look at the implications of each option in depth:
1. Consensus Omnium does not mean that all parties have to arrive at the same conclusion. It only means that all parties consider moving in a unified direction to be more important than getting their way in this particular matter. In considering the best course of action in this matter (outside of Wikipedia policy), I have heard one convincing argument from each side:
a. Zapatancas claims that Spaniards use the more internationalised US spelling. The truth or untruth of this can be verified.
b. SqueakBox claims that US spelling in an article about someone who opposes US intervention is POV (apparently because it's a subtle insult). The truth of Zapatero's opinion about the U.S. is already evident. Therefore, we can assume that an astute reader would get the innuendo associated with U.S. spelling.
Since Zapatancas hails from Spain, and Wikipedia forces us to assume good faith until we have evidence to the contrary, we must assume that his claim of US spelling being taught in Spanish schools it true. Therefore, the only relevant question to reaching consensus is: Which of the following two factors are more important?
a. Preponderance of usage as taught in Spanish schools for this article about the Prime Minister of Spain; or
b. Personal spelling preference of the Prime Minister of Spain
As an unbiased party, I would point out that Zapatero is a representative of all of the people of Spain, not just his supporters. Therefore, the preponderance of spelling usage in Spain should logically dictate the spelling of his article.
2. If we cannot reach a logic consensus, we must fall back upon Wikipedia standards for dialect spelling. As per Parallel or Together's comments, that would require us to change the article back to Australian English, something only an ambered alf would avagoyermug. Naff of this galah's earbashing though. Let's give the article fair dinkum to pivot on it fitting with the Seppos or Poms, and drop the aggro act before this Strine makes me chunder.
--Zephram Stark 16:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I think we need an external source that Spaniards use American spelling. I certainly know Spain (have spent about a year there) and also lived for years with a Spanish woman in the UK, and I find it hard to believe US English is taught in the schools (nor has Zapatancas confirmed this), but if we can prove through independent sources that that is the case it would make a difference to this debate, whereas the personal choice of Zapatero (which is in any case unprovable without original research) is not relevant. I think the fact that Spain is part of the EU, as are the UK and Ireland, is another important factor. I think the fact that Spanish people write legalizar etc is completely irrelevant. For the recordI always conform to US spellings with Latin America, but tthat is a different case, SqueakBox 17:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
"Make a difference in the debate?" LMAO — sounds like more smokescreen to me. Make a decision. Proof that US English is predominently taught in Spain will either satisfy you or it will not. Which is it going to be? --Zephram Stark 20:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Can someone first provide this proof? Without it, whether SqueakBox will agree to American English is a moot point. -Parallel or Together? 06:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. Why does Zephram think I am smokescreening? Wikipedia:Assume good faith, which I am acting in. Making smokescreening excuses won't resolve the problem. The fact that nobody is providing it leads me to suspect the Spanish don't use American English, SqueakBox 15:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

When Zapatancas reverted to US English days back he onmly did a partial job. I suspect being Spanish he can't really tell the difference so he left the article in a mixture of the 2 languages. As A Spaniard living neither in England, the States or any other English speaking country this is not surprising, but I would suggest to him that he is better off letting native speakers format the language spelling/grammar. Example. Rumour, SqueakBox 15:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I would be happy to research the issue of English schooling in Spain if it will make any difference in the resolution of this dispute, but Squeakbox has said that even if the school issue were resolved, he would fall back on the Wikipedia policy of abiding by the spelling of the first edit. No type of faith has to be assumed. Squeakbox has spoken very clearly about this above. If Squeakbox wants to change his mind and state that the type of English schooling in Spain will resolve the issue, I agree to spend up to ten hours researching an objective source to quantify exactly which style of English is taught in the schools of Spain. If he will not, and the Spanish school issue actually has no bearing, then we can say nothing about his argument except that it is a smokescreen to confuse resolution of this dispute. --Zephram Stark 16:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I repeat, it is not a smokescreen. Stop assuming bad faith. How 10 hours research? You are aware, I take it, about no original research. I have clearly stated it would make a difference to this debate whether or not the Spanish use US English, as I have stated that I believe they don't, SqueakBox 16:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

One example of the Spanish using British English is the word móvil, which means mobile phone. Here in Latin America we say celular which means cell phone, the American for a mobile, SqueakBox 16:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

This Cordoba site uses international English, eg programmes, SqueakBox 16:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I can't seem to get a straight answer out of you, Squeakbox. I keep trying to make this an objective discussion that can be resolved. You apparently want to throw as much dirt and confusion on the issue as possible, like it's you against the world. This goes against the core concept of Wikipedia, that we be a resource of collective throught and information gathering. You made a request for our unbiased help, so try working with us. Give us some way to objectively quantify which spelling this article should assume. Tell us what should be the definitive factor, or group of factors for deciding this. So far, the only objectively definable argument I have heard is the school question. For the third time, "Do you agree to yield if the school question can be settled?" Yes or no? --Zephram Stark 16:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I am absolutley being collaborative even withy zapatancas, who has deeply insulted and offended me in the past more than once. This is not about yieldiong, it is gathering evidence and drawing a conclusion. I am gathering evidence so we can discuss the issue more fully. Get on with it, or don't. Your demands have nothing to do with wikipedia policy or spirit, and the idea that it is me against the world is ridiculous. Noone has put any arguments to prove that the Spanish use US spelling but I am providing evidence that they use international English. Which fits in with the fact that this article was originally written in international English. What more do you want? SqueakBox 16:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I want you to answer the question that I have asked four times now, "If it can be established that most schools of Spain teach American English over British English, is it okay with you if we change the article about Spain's Prime Minister to an American spelling?" --Zephram Stark 16:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

No, under those terms, because I am not willing to make that commitment before seeing evidence. If I see the evidence we can have a debate, as I said before, and in agreement with Parallel_or_Together?. It is entirely up to you to provide evidence of your claim before getting me to make a commitment, but as I said, it would be a significant factor, and as far as I am concerned the debate is not over, nor have I ever implied that this is the case. It really is in your hands now, SqueakBox 17:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

As I'm sure you are counting on, nobody is going to invest hours of their time researching a question that will have no bearing on a case. All parties have consented to a specific method for resolving this dispute except you. In your opinion, exactly what should be the definitive element or set of elements in this case? If the dialect taught in schools "would be a significant factor," what additional factors do you require to objectively resolve this issue? --Zephram Stark 17:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I have explicitly stated it would make a difference, nor am I the only editor here. Which parties have consented to what? I see nothing of that, only your fantasy claim that IMO it will have no bearing on the case. Please read what I and others are saying more carefully, then either do or don't get on with sourcing, but stop wasting time with vague, unfounded accusations that are not moving this debate forward, SqueakBox 17:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Your imagination about what I am counting on is another sign of your bad faith in me. What is your problem? SqueakBox 17:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


Call for a vote on dialect used

This issue has already attracted more time and energy than it is worth. I think it's fairly obvious that SqueakBox is not interested in defining terms under which this matter could be solved. He requested comment from unbiased editors and then rejected any comments that did not serve his preconceived notion about how this matter should be decided. Further, I find that the only arguments Squeakbox has made for the article being changed to a British spelling are either weak or untrue. As evidenced by the history of this article, it didn't start out with British spelling, so there is no Wikipedia policy mandating that it be changed to that spelling. Unless someone wants to change all additions to the original Australian-English, I propose that we report this Spanish article in the dialect taught in Spanish schools. Assuming the good faith of User:Zapatancas, a citizen of Spain, that dialect is American English. Please agree or disagree below.

Zapatancas has said no such thing, and even if he had a source is a source is a source, and the word of a user is not the same thing at all. The article started in international English rather than in US English (the Austral;ian version being a misnomer) and Spain is a part of the EU. There have so far been no arguments or sources from the side of US spelling and so a vote is entirely inappropriate and meaningless as articles are not written by votes without arguments being produced and in defiance of policy, SqueakBox 04:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

In the meantime I am still trying to find out whether the Spanish teach US or international English, SqueakBox 04:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're on your own, SqueakBox. A request for comment is for the purpose of getting more voices to help find consensus. You are obviously not interested in consensus. You had your mind made up as to the only acceptable outcome before you ever asked for help. I came here assuming good faith and you have proven otherwise. I will not respond to your requests for help in the future, and from the looks of this discussion, neither will anyone else. --Zephram Stark 16:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

It is not true that I am not interested in consensus, as my record in many articles indicates I am indeed interested in consensus and in having a debate. I am saying let us get the info and then have the debate whereas you are saying we must have the debate before getting the information, which is doing things all topsy turvy, as another user pointed out to you I am absolutely here in good faith and you have no cause to be thinking otherwise. Please examine your own behaviour rather than engaging in personal attacks on other users as that doesn't actually help the situation. on my own? I don't know what you are talking about but this is clealry not so, SqueakBox 16:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm talking about how nobody is willing to spend any more time on this issue, including me. You've got your mind made up that Spain should succumb to the dialects of the EU and nothing is going to change that partiality. I've asked you five times for some type of logic behind your mindset and all you keep throwing at me is a bunch as weak arguments, as if dozens of weak arguments combine to make a strong one. Postulate support doesn't work that way. Resting your argument on a combination of weak support structures makes your assertion progressively less stable. Here's a diagram:
Your assertion relies on nothing that can be substantiated definitively. It is the 24% pink box on the top left. When you base your assertions on claims that are vague or only partially true, people subconsciously assign a percentage value to your supporting claims and a product of those percentages to your main assertion. Thereby, any supporting claims that cannot be substantiated only weaken your argument.
Compare that to Zapatancas' assertion which can be substantiated one way or the other. His is the 100% yellow box on the top right because all of his supporting arguments lead to a definitive resolution, either in support of British spelling or American spelling, depending on the outcome. Zapatancas' method is the only scientifically accepted method of researching matters of fact. To maintain a neutral point of view, you have to define the question and form a hypothesis before you collect and analyze your data.
I have asked you five times to define an experiment that would resolve this question. You absolutely refuse and demand to see the results of any possible experiments before stating how the experiments are to be interpreted. In your unyielding demands for a corrupt method of proof, you have made your intentions evident and good faith can no longer be assumed. --Zephram Stark 17:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I simply don't understand what you are on about. Do you use your bizarre map wherever you go on wikipedia? Why not see if it can become policy? Meanwhile please bring some serious discussion that is to the point here, or don't. Zapatancas has brought nothing here, and neither have you, in terms of solid argument. I have brought arguments, all Zapatancas has done is unilaterally change the spellings for no reason and against policy. Now either bring relevant sources about spelling or don't, but do not blame me and engage in personal attacks if you can't be bothered to, SqueakBox 17:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not interested in experioments (I am not a scientist and that smacks of original research). I have been clear and honest. Please do the same, SqueakBox 17:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Earlier in this discussion you said that the original edits were in "International English" rather than Australian English. I realize that it may be convenient to declare anything that is non-American English to be "International English," but please refrain from doing so. If "International English" were to mean the standard used by numerous international organizations (like the United Nations, etc.) then the original author would have used the -ize endings featured in such a system. If "International English" were to mean the type of English most frequently taught as a second language in most countries in the world, then the original author would have had to just use non-altered American English. So perhaps in regards to the first significant contribution to the article, it would be most accurate to say that Commonwealth English was used. I am sympathetic to your cause, and don't think that anyone has really added any evidence to this debate (that chart above right is ridiculous), but as an American it is somewhat offensive to have "International English" used as a synonym for non-US Englsh. The United States is a major player internationally and to suggest otherwise would be a significant falsehood. And this is not just some misguided patriot speaking - I am making no value judgments about our international role, just pointing out it's importance, which is in fact mentioned as one of the reasons that so many countries choose American English as the standard for TESL. -Parallel or Together? 04:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Zapatancas' opinion

First of all, I want to make clear that I have never claimed that either American or British English are used in Spanish schools. From my own experience, I can say that the topic of spellings is too advanced for the current level of English teaching in Spain. You can believe me if I say I have known Spaniards who believe that 'ungry' is the American for 'angry'.

What I have said is that it is absurd to defend that British English must be used in the articles about Spain as Spain is in the European Union. We speak Spanish in Spain, and not any variant of the English language. I have also said that, in my opinion, American English is more international than British English as the American influence is bigger than that from Britain. I believe this is significant because in Spain when English words are used they usually follow American spelling (for example, it would not be rare to find a gym called "Body Center" instead of "Body Centre", in fact, if you asked from what language 'centre' comes I believe most people would answer French).

It must not be forgotten either that American spelling is more similar to Spanish than British English. For example, Spanish verbs that end in '-izar' have American counterparts ending in '-ize', whereas the British form ends in '-ise'(for example, 'analizar is 'analyse' - British - but 'analyze' - American). Other example is provided by the words ending in -or (Am), -our (British): 'favor', 'favour' = Spanish 'favor'; 'honor', 'honour' = Spanish 'honor', and so on. The similarity is not strange. In Spains spelling and pronunciation always coincide and American spelling was created to get closer to the real pronunciation of words.

What is really important is to use always the same spelling and, the fact is that we Spaniards are more prone to use American spelling, especially if we are influenced by the way words are written on the Internet, where American spelling is far more typical. As this articles attracts a lot of Spanish users (for evident reasons), in my humble opinion it is more sensible to keep using American spelling as is the safest way to preserve a coherent spelling throughout the article.

I also find absurd the current obsession of SqueakBox with the spelling of the article. If the editions made by Squiquifox really belong to him, he had no problem with using American spelling at that time, as it can be easily checked here. In that version of the article, the following American spelled words were used: characterized, criticized, favor, generalized, legalize, legalizing, organization and radicalization. If he did not complain then, when the supposed change from British, Australian, Commonwealth English to American English took place was closer in time than now, why does he complain several months later?

In any case, in my opinion, the worst part of this problem has been the attitude of SqueakBox. He came here one day (after implicitly accepting the American spelling used by the article as I have already explained) and tried to impose the spelling he prefers due to his origin without taking into account other users' preferences and without starting any previous dialogue using as only argument that thing about Spain is in the EU.

I believe that everybody must accept the spelling s/he finds the first time s/he edits the article, if nobody is contesting that use. Therefore, if nobody but SqueakBox wants to move this article to British English (including the person who first started it who has shown no interest in this discussion as far as I know) I do not understand what it must be changed unilaterally after so many months. Zapatancas 11:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

What spelling do you think Prime Minister Zapatero would prefer his article to be written in? --Zephram Stark 16:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea. Zapatero does not master English and he needs a translator whenever he travels abroad so I do not believe he would be very interested in the subject. In any case, political reasons would not play any part in his decision probably. He has expressed he does not profess any kind of anti-Americanism. Besides, his grandfather, who has influenced him a lot, was a Freemason and, as it is known, the ideals Freemasons claim to defend are an important part of the American values. As I don't believe he dislikes Britain for any special reason and, as I have said, he cannot speak English well I don't think he would favor any specific possibility. Zapatancas 08:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I dont think the EU argument is very strong. Spain can use American English and still be a part of the European Union. I've also heard the comment by Europeans that they 'speak American' - in reference to the fact that they speak English because of America's influence etc. in the world rather than Britain's. (and I use British English by the way) Astrokey44 10:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Following the Manual of Style as to spelling issues

The MoS addresses the American English/Commonwealth English dispute as follows:

Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the spelling of that country.
. . . .
If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoking conflict by changing to another.
. . . .
If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article.

(from Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English)

Note that the variety of English most commonly used in a country is a relevant factor only in articles relating to English-speaking countries.

There was some discussion a while back about this part of the MoS; see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style--Archive11#British English / American English. In the course of that discussion, one idea that came up was to specify a style of English to be used in articles relating to non-English-speaking countries, based on determining which style was more commonly used in that country. There was no enthusiasm for that idea. The MoS remained unchanged; it prescribes a specific rule only for English-speaking countries. For all others, we fall back on the general rule that the article should follow the first style of English that was used. Based on what I've read above, I gather that would be Commonwealth English here. Under the MoS, there's no relevance to the form of English taught in schools in Spain, or to any other indication of usage in Spain (English-language newspapers, tourist brochures aimed at English speakers, etc.). JamesMLane 11:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, JamesMLane for your contribution. I think it finally ends a discussion that should never have started. If this article is analyzed on the light of the three points of the MoS the following is deducted:
  1. This article is not linked to any specific English speaking country so the spelling to use is defined by that used by its contributors.
  2. On May 1, 2005, the article, as can be checked in the history page, was written in American spelling (only). Although some of the first stub articles used the British word 'modernising', on March 15, 2004 the first American spelled word was introduced: 'organization'. Spontaneously and little by little, the article started to lose its British words until it became American-only. On May 2, 2005 SqueakBox tried to change the spelling unilaterally for selfish reasons (he is British), although the article had been using for months a specific version of the English language (American English) coherently (that is, only American spelling was used). It has become clear after the useful contribution by JamesMLane that SqueakBox did not respect Wikipedia's rules and showed, and not for the first time, his inability to take part in a cooperative environment. American English was and is the predominant spelling of the aticle and no user can choose another only because of his personal preferences.
  3. Regarding the third rule commented by JamesMLane, as it has already been said, the initial mixture of spellings started when the article was still a stub, so as the major expansions of the article were written using American English, this third rule proves again that SqueakBox had no right to impose his favorite spelling.
I want to express my gratitude for all the users who have taken part in this discussion and have helped to solve the problem. I hope SqueakBox will accept the rules of the Wikipedia. Zapatancas 09:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Why the issue of using British or American English in the article on Rodríguez Zapatero should be so important is beyond me. Anyway, for what it's worth, I would like to point out that the style of English taught in Spanish schools is almost universally British English. When I was at school, we used to use British books by Longman or Oxford University Press and teachers would teach us words like "colour" or "metre". The -ize spelling is, however, more usual than -ise probably because British EFL books also favour that spelling, which is acceptable in British English (and used in most printed books, although not in the press). At any rate, English is not an official language in Spain, so I don't think one should assert that Spain-related articles in English Wikipedia should necessarily adhere to British spelling. But it is true that the EU always uses British spelling in its English-language publications, if that is relevant at all. --AngelRiesgo 19:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Absol;utely. This article was in British English but one editor keeps reverting ity back to American English, SqueakBox 13:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

This article was never in British English as can be checked taking a look at its history. SqueakBox, please, you have proven again and again that you are unable to write neither American nor British English correctly. Your last attempt to change unilaterally the article's spelling was a failure. Favor, favorable, unfavorable, criticize are all spelled the American way. If your cultural level is not high enough to write your own language, why don't you find a passtime other than the Wikipedia (or a job)?
It is clear you also have serious problems understanding your language. For example, you started your contribution above these lines with "Absolutely". But Angel Riesgo has said that:
  • "Why the issue of using British or American English in the article on Rodríguez Zapatero should be so important is beyond me." That is, he finds you behavior childish.
  • "I don't think one should assert that Spain-related articles in English Wikipedia should necessarily adhere to British spelling." That is, he finds the argument you used unbelievable stupid.
Please, SqueakBox. You should find other things in your life besides spending all day long in the Wikipedia. Try to change your life. You cannot live filled with resentment because of all the bad things that have happened to you forever. Zapatancas 09:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Urgent!

Oh my God!!! What's this????

"His party, the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party, with the help of Alfredo Pérez Rubalcaba, prepared the March 11th terrorist attacks to win the general election on March 14, 2004"

Somebody should check the whole article because somebody has changed or added stupid sentences.

Clean up and POV

This article does not conform to wiki stanmdards, is full of original research, and has had the spelling changed to US English, so it needs both a cleanuop tag and an NPOV tag until thesde problems are thoroughly sorted. At present this article is a disgrace to wikipedia. SqueakBox 13:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Zapatancas, I know you only edit this article and Freemasonry so you don't understand how wikipedia works. Try reading Category:Wikipedia style guidelines. There is nothing more frustrating than following wikipedia guidelines only to have this style reverted to the personal style of one editor who seems to want the style in this article to be unique, SqueakBox 15:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


Tags

As this article began in UK English it must continue in said style. Until this, issues of style and issues of NPOV are cleaned up (and the article is riddled with them) the tags must stay. Is Zapatancas really claiming the article is clean? conforms to a neutral point of view? contains no original research? if he claims such things I dispute these claims, and will not accept his removal of legitimate tags without cleaning up the article, making it conform to NPOV, and without his original research in it. As for his false vandalism claims, I suggest he reads the policy on what vandalism actually is. As it is his false claims make him seem a POV warrior, which, as he is a committed PP supporter with a huge agenda around Zapatero, may well be true. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a place to either promote political beliefs or launch attacks on other editors, SqueakBox 13:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

SqueakBox, this is the Wikipedia and in the Wikipedia the Wikipedia's Manual of Style must be followed. We have already explained to you why you must use American English in this article and, most important of all, why you cannot mix spellings. Please, stop your childish attitude.
I must remind you that you added a NPOV tag in May and it had to be removed because nobody reported a single disputed passage. Zapatancas 12:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Not true, and we are now in November. How can you use an argument that we don't need a POV tag because the article was alright 6 months ago? Which "we" have explained that this article cannot use En spelling because Zapatancas changed it? Zapatancas and SquealingPigAttacksAgain, SqueakBox 16:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

You (and anybody else) did not report any disputed passage then. You do not report any disputed passage now. Do you believe you can deceive anybody? The "we" who explained you why you cannot use British English in this specific article is all the people who recently took part in the discussion about that issue. I know you archived all that discussion because you felt it to be a personal defeat. Zapatancas 08:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I treported the passage. Viajero had a look and agreed with me. Noen of the people who took part in the recent discussion agreed with you. Now we have ity confitrtmed Spanish kids learn Brit English it is easy to see thatb you don't know how to write in American English. You tried and it was a disaster. I archived the discussion out of space issues, as per standard procedure. What is this talk of my defeat? I thought the discussion ended with a clear consensus to use Brit English, which also follows policy (which are the rules we are duty bound to follow) which states that we should use that English which was initially used, which was clearly British English. BTW the policy also prohibiyts using sockpuppets to vandalise the user page of other users. I suggest you rwead the policies pages, as I have done, and then follow them, as I do, SqueakBox 14:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I do not know if you lie on purpose or if you have problems perceiving reality. Viajero did not take part in the discussion as an easy search in the archived talk shows (well, perhaps he did but you delete his edit because you did not like it).
In any case, you have proved again you are a liar for other reason. Fortunately, I am humbler than you and I can recognize my English is not perfect (not like you, who are all the time making mistakes and are unable to stop mixing spellings). Because of that, I use the spelling checker of Microsoft Word from time to time to ensure my edits do not include mistakes. So if somebody really does not know how to use American English if must be the people of Microsoft. Zapatancas 08:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The liar here is you. Going to erase me are you? Going to fuck my dead dog in the ass are you? Zapatancas. Why not try? Oh, you donm't have the guts. If all you can do is Squeal, don't do it too loudly. Spelling won't solve your grammar problems, notr thj efact that you are defying policy both in attacking me wioth your nasty sockpuppets and by changing the spelling of the article from en to us, SqueakBox 15:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I just started the cleanup. There is masses to do. The article is POV and does not conform to wiki style. I am coming tio the conclusion that it has been written in Spanish English, which is not a native form and therefore has no place in any wikipedia articles. Foreigners must always expect their grammar and use of language to be corrected by native speakers. I expect and accept that. The idea that putting the tags on is vandalism is lamentable. Is zapatancas claiming the article must stay as it is. tghe section title is not Personal Life and Youth it is Personal life and youth. That is the standard, abnd therefore the tags must stay, or does Zapatancas want to single handedly change wikipedia standards too, SqueakBox 16:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

SqueakBox, are you inventing a new language or is your keyboard broken? It is becoming more difficult everyday to understand your poor English and your spelling and grammar mistakes.
Another thing, the article, according to you, is not POV but invisible POV. You have never reported any single passage in more than six months of attacks.
Regarding the capitalized titles, they were first introduced by Pbhayani, whose contributions were defined as superb by you. Since then, they were removed by other users (not by you) until November 16, 2005 when a user from the IP address 140.247.42.158 (located in Massachusetts, US; it does look Spanish, doesn't it?) introduced that title "Personal Life and Youth" you find so disgusting. Furthermore, capitals are used far less often in Spanish than in English.
In any case, you have proved again you don't master your own language. In English, capitals are used with common nouns when they behaved like proper nouns. That's why mother is capitalized in the following sentence: "Mother sent me to other continent because she did not bear me any longer". Mother is used as a proper noun (the mother of the one who talks), because of that it is capitalized.
Something similar happens with the Spanish Civil War (you are talking about a unique war) or the National Hydrological Plan (it again is something specific). Zapatancas 08:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The style you insist on is not used in wikipedia ever by anyone. Why not look at other articles and you will see that you are deliberately dewikifyingh and thus ruining this article. I advise you to stop, as I strongly advise you to stop your sockpuppetry. I have removed all your stupid attacks as per wikipedia policy, SqueakBox 13:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Please, SqueakBox, learn to write your own language. Zapatancas 15:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a foreigner like you can point out my mistakes to me? Like I do know in English we don't say its sex when referring to people, but who knows? you may really know best and I may be wrong on this one even though you are clearly not a native speaker and would actually be well advised with your poor command of the language not to criticise native speakers. Either provide evidence or stop trolling, SqueakBox 16:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Deliberately creating broken redirects

Perhaps you can explain your deliberate reinsertion of redirects? Why you refuse to follow wiki convention and call the parties PP and PSOE. These are wiki conventions you deliberately flout, not anything made up by me. By attackingt me in this form you attack wikipedia and the article you claim to value. You don't get any credo for deliberately creating redirects in the text when they have been removed and I am not sure why you are doing so, other than to attack me. Wikipedia encourages getting rid of redirects, ie making the encyclopedia better. Please do the same. To give an example Zapatancas deliberately delinked Spanish Socialist Workers' Party to replace it with PSOE. There is clearly no justification for such behaviour. If it happens again it should be treated as vandalism as the deliberate creation of redirects merely serves to clog up and slow down wikipedia. See Broken redirects. In this case Zapatncas appears to be breaking the redirects deliberately, and as I say if it happens again it should be treated as simple vandalism, SqueakBox 14:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

How does continuously reverting to your beloved broken redirects an improvement of the article. Or are broken resdirects just a sign of my bad faith in you? It is true that I assume bad faith from you because of Squealing, but that does not in any way effect how I treat this article which should be beyond and more important than editorial disputes, like lets not break redirects to prove a point, SqueakBox 15:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

I am clearly not the first person Zapatancas is making false claims of vandalsim against; evidence is emerging that he does the same with other users. When he was User:Zapatero he was doing exactly the same thing, claiming legitimate edits like this [6] were vandalsim and making false reports tot hat effect [7]. He has used at least 4 accouints now to intimidate other users so that he drives them away and gets his absolute way over how this article will be. There is clearly enough evidence emerging to try to take the case to arbitration and seek a permanent ban on him editing this article with which he is clearly obsessed, as users like this who go out of their way to make life thoroughly unpleasant for other users need not be tolerated at wikipedia, SqueakBox 14:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

SqueakBox, your edit summary talks about a "death threat". I can't find one. What are you referring to? - Tεxτurε 16:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
I am referring to the edit summary in this edit I haven't read the content. User:SquealingPig came into action within an hour of Zapatancas getting angry at mje for daring to edit his work here, and given the style of User:SquealingPigAttacksAgain I have no doubts that this is also Zapatancas, though the only way of getting a developer to prove it would be taking the case to Rfc as a preparation to take it to the Arbcom, but this kind of behaviour is clearly completely unacceptable, SqueakBox 16:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a death threat all right. - Tεxτurε 17:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


You can send a request to User:David Gerard to check the IP history of both users. - Tεxτurε 17:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I may be wrong but I believe I would need to biuld a case againt Zapatero/Zapatancas for the Rfa before David would check out these rogue sockpuppets, and right now I haven't the time or the energy to prepare a case against him. I would welcome someone else asking David. perhaps Zapatancas would like to prove his innocence by asking himself. I think the problem David has is being overwhelmed by requests. I am aware that there is a very strong case to take Zapatancas to Rfa, and if it is proven that these are his sockpuppets he will most likely face a ban for his incredible behaviour. So I am really just thinking about it aty the moment, SqueakBox 14:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course you have no time. You feel defeated in the issue about the spelling and you prepare the sockpuppet yourself. The killer going to the police? Neither SqueakBox makes mistakes like those. Zapatancas 08:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

You area so deviant I don't want ot know. You cre4ated your sock[puppets. You think the police aren't interetsed in your death threats. You think wikipedia doesn't have the proof of your criminal activities and behaviour. Wrong on both counts. Doi you want to ruin your life? SqueakBox 15:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Franco statue

Is the dictatorship statue retirement important enough to appear in the first briefing? It caused some controversy, but I don't think it had real consequence for the citizens. Maybe it should appear somewhere below...

And, maybe it is my poor English understanding, but "Francisco Franco, the former military dictator", sounds me as if Zapatero's government came directly after Franco's. Am I wrong?

I believe you are right when you say that the comment about Franco's statue should be placed below. However, you have to ask SqueakBox for permission before editing anything in the article. (And also in the talk page, he likes deleting the arguments he feels he cannot answer).
Regarding the use of 'former' I believe that it can be translated into Spanish like 'antiguo'. For example, I have tried to search in Google for "the former president Lincoln" and I have obtained a lot of results, although, evidently, Lincoln has been dead for a lot of time. Zapatancas 12:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Proofs showing bad faith

SqueakBox has proven again he acts in bad faith. He claims I have accused other users of vandalisms with no reason when the fact is that the last time this article suffered vandalism four users defined it as such (and one of them was the very vandal!). Some months ago, an anonymous user kept recovering again and again an old, incomplete, full of mistakes version of the article, preventing everybody from contributing to the article. (Including SqueakBox himself, because his version of January 10, 2005 under the nick of SquikiFox was removed next day, on January 11, by 82.152.51.210, one of the several addresses the “vandal” used.) Due to this situation, in the talk page corresponding to the IP address 80.58.14.170, fvw (not me) posted the following:

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. &#0xfeff;--fvw* 01:20, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)
Please have a look at NPOV. If there are any untrue facts in the article [about José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero], correct them. If there are opinions you disagree with, balance them according to our NPOV policy. &#0xfeff;--fvw* 02:08, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)

He did not change his behavior so I had to ask for a Third Opinion. The result was that another user posted this in the talk page of this article:

Outside opinión
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)

As the user did not change his attitude I decided to warn him I would report his behavior as vandalism in the talk page of the IP address he used the most, in the talk page of this article and in the summaries of the history page. He continued his attacks what moved me to write this Dispute page and to report his behavior. Although he was never blocked, all these efforts finally changed his behavior. He started to use the talk page where he posted the following:

"I haven´t used this disccusion forum before just cause I didn´t knew how did it works. I´ll kept on learning how to do it."

That is, he recognized he had never used the talk page (the only available mechanism to solve disputes) and that, unwillingly as it seems, he had never tried to reach a consensus. In any case, once it was possible to begin a fruitful dialogue he realized that some data he believed to be biased or untrue were simply the pure truth. For example, he could not believe that Zapatero's Government had voted in favor of a resolution asking all UN countries to send troops to Iraq after he had ordered the Spanish soldiers there to return. However, the article he was removing included a link to the Resolution 1546 and the text of the "controversial" articles. Finally, he stopped reverting to the old version, what in my opinion is a tacit recognition of how unacceptable his previous behavior had been.

In my opinion, it is easy to understand what is really behind SqueakBox’s claims. His problem is that he feels frustrated and, as he feels lonely in the real world, he tries to forget his inferiority complex harassing other users.

In fact, I believe the only reason why he has created so many problems here is that before his first attack he did not read the bottom of the talk page, so he did not realize a consensus about the controversial issues had been reached long ago. I have observed that he likes harassing users he believes are easy preys. For example, some time ago, he harassed KapilTagore who contributed to the article on Fidel Castro. When KapilTagore added sourced information about Fidel Castro’s personal wealth he removed it immediately without justifying his decision, as can be seen here. Why did he harass KapilTagore? Because several people among those editing the article on Castro were against him. He thought: "It will be easy to insult this person; I have a lot of people who will welcome my acts of aggression against him". And he has harassed me because he thought exactly the same. However, he made a terrible mistake this time because nobody was against me either here or in the rest of the Wikipedia. As I have already said, every controversial point had been discussed and solved long before his attack.

Moreover, when he first added a NPOV tag on May, nobody, including him, ever reported a single disputed passage. This can be checked here. Another piece of evidence of his bad faith.

I believe he is falsely accusing me of vandalism with no proofs because, recently, he tried to change unilaterally the spelling of the article from American to British. When he asked other users to contribute their opinion nobody supported him and his arguments were described as absurd (for example, SqueakBox defended that the article had to be written in British English because Spain belongs to the European Community, something completely nonsensical). As he felt humiliated for his defeat he is trying to retaliate now.

The ultimate proof of SqueakBox's intentions is the following message posted in my user page (as can be checked in User_talk:Zapatancas_Archive):

If you apologise for the SquealingPig episode and don't attack me on your user page or elsewhere I am happy to let you be on the Zapatero article, by which I mean I would remove it from my watchlist, SqueakBox 18:23, July 26, 2005 (UTC)18:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe he has made clear what he thinks of his contributions to this article. SqueakBox, I have no more patience left for you so I am going to report your behavior and I will not stop until a vandal like you is finally blocked. Zapatancas 12:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

You have already stated you are going to erase me if I continue to work at wikipedia. I have no idea what you are talking about here but I find your imputing UK IP numbers very funny. I am not that technical that I can use proxy IP's in order to edit wikipedia, and actually Zapatancas is far closer to the UK than I am or indeed have been for years. So just for the record, though you know this already, I live in Honduras, about 6000 miles from the UK. Please stop cluttering up this page with idiocy. Instead of apologising about squeal;ingPig you created SquealingPigAttacksAgain. Perhaps in your logic doing that will help your case getting me banned as a vandal for edits done by someone else half way round the world. What a lovely chap, with his charming sockpuppets, SqueakBox 16:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

If you continue insulting me I will have to report your behavior. Zapatancas 08:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

This is not insult it is fact. Are you denying that ypou are SquealingPig and squeal;ingPig AttacksAgain? Who will believe you. Your are not the first person to use despicable sockpuppets. Do you honestly think your denials have any relevancde. You have to learn to take responsibnility fopr your actions and stop insulting me (I am going to erase you, you are a piece of shit, ad nauseam. I would welcome you to report my proveable allegations as you will then sa\ve me the work of having to put a case against you with the arbcom myself. Your behaviour has gone way beyond the realms opf decency, morality, etc, and you will pay the consequences for your errant behaviour if you continue down this path, Squeakling Zapatancas, SqueakBox 14:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

SqueakBox, you are not going to solve your real problems with that self-damaging attitude. Zapatancas 08:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Who are you kidding? I have no problems. You, on the other hand, have the somewhat hopeless problem of trying to prove you are not SquealingPig and SquealingPigAttacksAgain. You should have thought of that before creating your nasty sockpuppets. Now you have to face the consequences of your deviant, criminal-like actions, SqueakBox 15:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism lie

As we all know the false vandalsim accuser is a POV motivated troll. Zaopatancas keeps accusing me of vandalsim, something wikipedia has an excellent record of fighting vandalsim. therefore it is funny that nobody reverts or touches my alleged vandalsim opther than Zapatancas. It obviously isn't vandalsim. i know already from the squealing episodes that Zapatancas is a criminalistic highly deviant liar. These false allegations merely prove it, SqueakBox 15:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Protected

Please work out your differences on the talk page instead of edit warring. Also, please try to keep your discussions civil. · Katefan0(scribble) 03:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Protected

Please work out your differences on the talk page instead of edit warring. Also, please try to keep your discussions civil. · Katefan0(scribble) 03:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

President of Spain

"José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero (born 4 August 1960) is the President of Spain."

  • President of Spain? Spain is a constitutional monarchy. It should be "Prime Minister". - Mike Rosoft 09:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Spain indeed is a constitutional monarchy but the official title of the Spanish PM is Presidente del Gobierno or President of the Government. Nevertheless his official title, the office-holder is commonly referred to in English as the "Prime Minister". In Spain, the PM is often called simply Presidente and Spaniards will often translate the title in English to President which sometimes causes some linguistic confusion. --fdewaele 25 November 2005 11:35 CET
      • Yes, there is a confusion of terms. In Spanish, the word "presidente" may mean either "president" or "chairman, head of an organization". In Czech, the title of the head of government is "předseda vlády" (lit. "chairman of the goverment"; "předseda" is a translation of "president" - from Latin, "to sit before"). It is always translated "prime minister", and so it should be in this article. - Mike Rosoft 21:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Zapatancas' point of view

First, I want to thank Katefan0 for the interest he has placed in this article and in trying to solve the problem going on here for too long. To help solve it, I will expose my point of view about the subject. I am going to divide my exposition in the following points:

  • General statement about what my intentions in the Wikipedia have been.
  • My point of view about the supposed complains against the article: spelling, neutrality and general use of the English language.
  • My opinion about SqueakBox behavior.

General statement about my intentions in the Wikipedia

First of all, I want to make clear that my only intention in the Wikipedia has been to increase the available knowledge about the current Spanish political situation. I have always tried to provide facts and, whenever it has been possible, I have cited sources supporting those edits I considered facts. As a logical consequence, whenever a user has removed something I considered a fact I have tried to recover it and to convince the user about the convenience of preserving what he has deleted (or to let him convince me he was right).

To provide a little evidence about this, I would include this link to the version of the article I consider that best summarizes what my activity here has been, as I provided most of the information there. It can be observed that almost every paragraph includes a reference.

To illustrate what I believe that has been my typical behavior when dealing with a user who had removed something I consider that should be preserved I include the following link. I posted that message in the talk page when a user removed the information about Zapatero’s supposed belonging to Freemasonry, a "rumor" stronger everyday in Spain.

My point of view about the controversial points of this article

I want to make clear that the confrontation here only involves SqueakBox and me, as there seems not to be other users actively interested in this article. So, by now, the strong complains against the article has been expressed by SqueakBox and nobody else.

Spelling issues

SqueakBox first edited the article on May 2, 2005. At that time, the article has been written using American spelling for almost two months (for example, this version of March 7, 2005 used only “American” words). It has included American words since the edit by Merovingian of March 15, 2004, when he included the term ‘organization’. At the time, the article was still a stub made of five paragraphs and 320 words that included two words spelled the British way: ‘modernising’ and ‘organisation’ (that is, the article included both forms organization and organization). As can be checked using the history page, from that day, and more or less until March 2005, the use of American words increased in the article until it finally became completely American.

Although SqueakBox found an article that used American spelling consistently, he changed the spelling of some words to British claiming that “EU articles should not be written in American”.

Other users did not accept that and the article continued to use American spelling (for example, take a look at this version of the article by Pbhayani of July 7, 2005).

On October 26, 2005, SqueakBox decided again to ask the spelling to be changed arguing that all articles about Spanish politicians are written in British English (something false, for example, the article about Aznar uses American spelling).

A request for comments was submitted whose results can be found in the file 2 of the archived talk.

JamesMLan contributed the following rules from the Manual of Style:

  • Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the spelling of that country.
  • If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoking conflict by changing to another.
  • If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article.

As I reasoned in the talk page, I believe this rules imply that the article must use American spelling because:

  • The article does not focus in a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country.
  • The article was predominantly written in American English before SqueakBox decided to change it to British English. (And he is the only user who wants to change it).
  • As I have said, the mix of spellings started when the article was still a stub. The major contributors to this article have been Pbhayani, Miguel and me (Zapatancas). All of us have used American spelling.

This reasoning, a little more elaborate, was posted by me on the talk page (Talk:José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero/Archive 2#Following_the_Manual_of Style). I expressed that, in my opinion, that closed the discussion. I received no answer from SqueakBox.

After that, however, SqueakBox has insisted on using British words, even though he seems unable not to mix spellings. In the article currently blocked (authored by him) there can be found the following British words: 'organised', 'legalised', 'normalise', 'criticised', 'organisers', 'unfavourable', 'rumours', 'honouring', 'legalising', 'travelled'. And the following American ones: 'minimize', 'criticized', 'organized', 'favor', 'favorable', 'traveled'.

Neutrality

Squeak Box has repeatedly accused me of being a POV warrior and the article of being NPOV. However, he has never reported a single non-neutral passage in the talk page.

On May 20, 2005, he introduced for the first time a NPOV tag. I asked him what passages of the article he believed to be not neutral. As it can be found in Talk:José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero/Archive 1#NPOV, he provided no positive answer. Therefore, I change the NPOV tag to its long form, which asks all the users accessing the article to report disputed passages.

Nobody reported anything. That prompted me to post a NPOV ultimatum in the talk page on July 6, 2005. After one month and two weeks, no disputed passage had been reported and I said that if in another week nothing was it was clear that the NPOV tag made no sense. Finally, Pbhayani removed the tag. As I have said, nobody had reported anything.

Recently, on November 16, 2005, he included the NPOV tag again. He did not report any single passage in the talk page. He has not done yet.

However, he has removed the following passages justifying in the edit summaries that they are not neutral:

  • "The opposition People's Party considered the decision [of accepting the participation of Gibraltar as a partner in the discussions about its future] a surrender of Spanish rights over the colony, but Zapatero justified it as a new way to solve a 300 hundred years old problem." That paragraph expresses the views of the People Party and of Zapatero about a decision by the Socialist Government. Both points of view are treated as point of views (that is, not like proven facts or universally accepted stances) and they are treated fairly. Why is the paragraph NPOV?
  • "It is believed that Zapatero is a Freemason. Among the major proponents of that theory is Ricardo de la Cierva, a prominent, right-wing Spanish historian." SqueakBox justifies the removal of the passage because it is "speculation about freemasonry". The passage is exactly saying that it is believed Zapatero is a Freemason. That is, the passage does not say Zapatero is a Freemason. So, the passage to be POV should be either false (that is, nobody believes Zapatero is a Freemason) or the number of people believing should be negligible. Ricardo de la Cierva is sure Zapatero is a Freemason so there are people who believe it (that is, the passage is not false). The number of people who believe is not negligible either. Things like "Zapatero masón" (Zapatero is a Freemason) can be found in street graffiti, in political posters, in banners in the demonstrations against the government, in the programs of radio stations opposed to the Government or in TV programs. If the keywords "Zapatero+masón" are searched in Google, the search engine provides 14,100 links if only the results in Spanish are returned. Thus, I believe that "Zapatero is believed to be a Freemason" is an objective fact and, because of the very definition of non-neutrality, it cannot be POV.
  • "As a student, he [Zapatero] admired the agrarian reforms of Mao Tse-tung as well as those in the Soviet Union." SqueakBox claims this is communist POV. In the version of the article of May 13, 2005, that passage also appeared with a cite pointing to the page 71 of the book "Zapatero. Presidente a la Primera" by Óscar Campillo Madrigal (probably the biography about Zapatero most sold to date). So, or SqueakBox has evidence proving that biography is inaccurate or I believe that passage cannot be removed alleging it is POV.

I want to emphasize that SqueakBox has never reported any single disputed passage in the talk page so it could be discussed effectively in order to make a better article. The passages I have just mentioned were deleted by him alleging POV only in the edit summary, after removing them. And I do not believe any complain against them could not have been solved better bringing them to the talk page.

Use of the English language

I have never hidden I am from Spain. I have no problem recognizing my English is far from perfect and, consequently, I have never complaint if somebody has corrected any of my mistakes.

SqueakBox posted on July 14, 2005 this: "BTW Well done Pbhayani for an excellent job. When I tried to clean up Zapatancas' English he reverted me so it is great sopmeone else has done both that and removed the POV, SqueakBox 17:30, July 14, 2005 (UTC)" ([Talk:José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero/Archive 1# NPOV ultimatum]). He claims I revert the article to unintelligible English (he did yesterday, November 24, 2005, in the Administrators' noticeboard). He also claims that I revert to "Spanish English", as can be seen (here).

The truth is that dozens of users have taken part in the improvement of the article. Some of them were Spanish speakers but a lot of them were English native speakers. Especially, Pbhayani, who was an English speaker, worked very hard in the article. The result of his work can be found in his version of July 7, 2005. As it can be observed, the structure and content of the current article and that version are extremely similar, as few variations have taken place since then. As it has been said, SqueakBox define Pbhayani's work as superb.

SqueakBox has provided some examples as proofs of the "terribly bad" English (he calls it Spanish English) of the article:

  • "[…] it discriminated citizens for its sex". That passage was first introduced on the version of March 7, 2005. Nobody corrected it until November 24, 2005, including SqueakBox himself. So, if it is a mistake so terrible (and not a simple slip of the tongue easy to fix), why nobody, including all the English speaking editors of the article, has been able to fix it for eight months?
  • SqueakBox has also criticized the incorrect use of capitals. He claims that the header “Personal Life and Youth” introduced by the first time in the version of November 16, 2005 from the IP address 140.247.42.158, located in Massachusetts (USA), is an example of Spanish English because only the first word of a header is capitalized according to the Wikipedia style. That was the style the article has used for months and it was used before SqueakBox arrived in May. Since November 23, SqueakBox removes almost every capital he finds in a header, introducing mistakes as he does not understand that common nouns are capitalized in English when they behave like proper nouns. For example, he changes European Union to European union or ‘Spanish Civil War’ to ‘Spanish civil car’ (that is, he has several times written car and not war). The very Wikipedia articles can be used to learn that European Union is written capitalized (it is the name of political institution) and that Spanish Civil War must be also capitalized (it is the name of a war).

SqueakBox behavior

First of all, I want to make clear that I am trying to express my opinion. I do not try to offend anybody with this section.

My opinion about SqueakBox is that he acts in bad faith. He is from Britain, but he claims to live in Honduras, far from his family and, probably, alone; perhaps because his family and he are not in good terms. I believe that he does not like his life and that makes him feel bitter against the world. As so many people in the "real world", I think he wants to forget his internal pain making others feel miserable.

In my opinion, the following facts prove this:

  • When he first come to this article, it was divided into several parts because it had become very long. There exist the main article on Zapatero, and others like "Zapatero’s foreign policy", "Zapatero’s domestic policy" and so on. He substituted those articles with redirects to the main article and, although he moved some of the data in the extended articles, an important part of it was lost. He did not ask the opinion of those who had invested their effort into creating those articles. He has never explained why he did not ask those articles to be deleted if he believed them so useless. (In fact, they can be still accessed.)
  • He has accused me of using the sock puppets SqueakingPig and SqueakingPigAttacksAgain that have vandalized his user page. That is false, he has no evidence and I have never been blocked and I have told him so thousands of times. He do not care about that, of course, because he has said I must prove my innocence (I believe it is others who would have to prove I am guilty, that is what happens in democracies, at least).
  • He posted this in May referring to me: “His vicious personal attack has been removed. I expect an immediate apology. If he replaces it or writes something equally nasty he will be repeorted, I am not far from trying an Rfc. His right wing views, which are found in all his encyclopedic writings, are very clear from his latest edits. Wikipedia is not a place to launch a passionate defence of the PP and an attack on Zapatero. Zapatancas appears to be a POV warrior trying to manipulate wikipedia for his own political ends. There is absolutely no nedd for excess articles, and particularly not excessa articles that Zapatancas won't let anyone else edit, --SqueakBox 14:19, May 12, 2005 (UTC)”. As I have said, I only want to provide information. I have never prevented other users from editing nothing. If I have changed other editor’s contribution, I have tried to explain my decision respecting his/her effort.
  • This post is also full of false accusations: “This article is hopelessly biased against Zapatero (my opinion is by Spaniards more patriotic to the USA than their ownm country and region). When I changed it I got loads of persoanl attacks, and am uninclined to reedit until the atmosphere of intimidation here improves. Don't remove the NPOV unless you can answer my objections, --SqueakBox 15:46, May 20, 2005 (UTC)”.
  • More insults: “Who sent you the message. There is a troll on this page. We know who he is, and his rule over this page is shortly to end. The artiucle is a pile of crap, but he uses sockpuppets and nasty insults to get his way. By all means change anything you like, with my full and energetic support. Ya basta, SqueakBox 15:48, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)”
  • More insults mixed with nonsense: “This article does not conform to wiki stanmdards, is full of original research, and has had the spelling changed to US English, so it needs both a cleanuop tag and an NPOV tag until thesde problems are thoroughly sorted. At present this article is a disgrace to wikipedia. SqueakBox 13:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)” This article does not have original research at all. As I have said, some of its versions included almost a source per paragraph.
  • SqueakBox complete justification of why he included the NPOV tag in November: “[…]Is Zapatancas really claiming the article is clean? conforms to a neutral point of view? contains no original research? if he claims such things I dispute these claims, and will not accept his removal of legitimate tags without cleaning up the article, making it conform to NPOV, and without his original research in it. […]”SqueakBox 13:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC).
  • SqueakBox’s view of the discussion about the spelling to use: “treported the passage. Viajero had a look and agreed with me. Noen of the people who took part in the recent discussion agreed with you. Now we have ity confitrtmed Spanish kids learn Brit English it is easy to see thatb you don't know how to write in American English. You tried and it was a disaster. I archived the discussion out of space issues, as per standard procedure. What is this talk of my defeat? I thought the discussion ended with a clear consensus to use Brit English, which also follows policy (which are the rules we are duty bound to follow) which states that we should use that English which was initially used, which was clearly British English. BTW the policy also prohibiyts using sockpuppets to vandalise the user page of other users. I suggest you rwead the policies pages, as I have done, and then follow them, as I do, SqueakBox 14:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)”. Clear consensus? Viajero agreeing with him? (Viajero did not take part in the discussion) I do not know how to write American English? Perhaps, but as I explained I often check my edits with the American English version of the Microsoft Word spell checker. So, how can a user who is acting in good faith say I mix spellings when I have checked several times the whole article with a computer?

Many other examples could be given.

Conclusion

To finish, I only have to say that my only aim when I decided to become part of the Wikipedia community was to share my knowledge with others. That is why I have edited the article about Zapatero. As I am Spanish, even though I do not master English, I could contribute knowledge very difficult to find for English speaking people.

I have invested a lot of effort trying to write a good article and trying to preserve information that those who do not like plurality would prefer to remove.

I honestly believe that SqueakBox has acted in bad faith, that his main aim has been to harass other users (in this case, me), that he has never contributed anything useful to this article and that this article could be one of the best in the Wikipedia if it had not suffered his activities.

For all this, I ask SqueakBox to change his behavior and, if he does not, I ask the Wikipedia community to help stop why I consider to be a damaging, unjustifiable attitude. Zapatancas 13:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Zapatancas and his death threats and why I won't have anything to do with the death threat troll

You forsook the right to ask for anything when you opened SquealingPig and SquealingPigAttacksAgain. Unmless you profuselhy apologise I will not co-operate with you in any way or read what you have to say. You have to take consequences for your past actions. I have never acted in bad faith but you clearly have. I am extremely angry at your deviant behaviour and ask you either to apologise or withdraw from this discussion. On the other hand you're threat to erase me if I continue working at wikipedia I meet with the deepest contempt. I have no intention of stopping working here due to Zapatancas' death threats. He has no right to demand anything with his death thereats, which he must withdraw and apologise for if we are to move on. He is far and away the worst and most deviant editor I have come acroiss in over a year of editing, and I for one will not back down to his death threeats. The day wikipedia gives way to it's bullies is the day it goes down the tube. I will continue to defend wikipedia from scum like SquealingPig, and will continue to edit this article to make it better, and will converse with anyone other than Zapatancas about this article or about what to do with deviuant users who create sockpuppets like SquealingPig AttacksAgain. Zapattancas lying accusation that I was behind the attacks on my own page is a truly demented idea from the person really responsible. Giving way in any poinmt to Zapatancas would be like giving way to terrorism. He should have thought about wanting a say in this article before starting to edit as SquealingPig. Now is too late, SqueakBox 13:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

You two guys are becoming EQUALLY ANNOYING. You two both made one fine mess out of this once great article. The blame goes to both sides. - fdewaele 25 November 2005, 15:30 CET

Excuse me but how is that so? I have not vandalised anything in the wikipedia, Zapatancas has made 2 vicious attacks on my user page. There is no justification or equality in such attacks. Also please source youer claims that I have made the article worse with diffs or don't make such claims, SqueakBox 14:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

Is the only solution. I am willing to go through mediation on the condition that a developer checks the edits of SquealingPig and SquiealingPigAttacksAgain and see if they are located from the same place as those of Zapatancas. That way if I am wrong I apologise and if he is wrong he does, SqueakBox 14:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Redirects

It is very important that all these get fixed, and that editors don't start deliberately editing direct links and making them into redirects as one editor was doing yesterday. Such behaviour is in direct contradiction of wikipedia policy, and could be used as evidence of one editor stalking another, ie the stalker deliberately undoes the fixed redirects of the stalked, reverting them back to redirects. Stalking is something the arbcom have recently condemned, SqueakBox 14:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

What redirects are you talking about? Zapatancas 09:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Please slow down

Dumping reams of text into this page is less than useless; I didn't even read it. It's much more useful to take your points one by one. Please take it piece by piece. Also, I'd remind everyone to comment on content, not on contributors. I realize sometimes this can be difficult to do when you get angry, but try. · Katefan0(scribble) 17:19, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Katefan0, I understand your point of view and I also understand that it is easier to look the other way when another person is being unfairly attacked. I also believe that the situation going on in the current article probably has no parallels with any other in the rest of the Wikipedia. I would like to ask you two hypotetical questions (although of course they are related to the current situation):
  • Do you believe that a person resented against the world (they exist, don't they?) can use the Wikipedia to hurt people? The Wikipedia is anonymous and it is easy to find vulnerable people. There are a lot of users who have worked hard to write good articles and it is so easy to delete their contributions, to claim that what they have made is useless, to align with the side that looks stronger when a POV discussion is taking place against them and so on. It is so easy to hurt others' feelings in the Wikipedia!!! How is a harssed person supposed to defend his/her rights?
  • Would you believe with no place for doubt that a person who never answered, even though he was asked repeatedly, what he believed to be not neutral in an article where he had added a NPOV tag, can be interested in the content of the article? And if that same person adds again a NPOV tag some months later and does not report anything again?
Those were the two hypothetical questions. Now I ask you a "real" question: what are the issues regarding content? I have no idea. I only know that this article is a "pile of crap" and a "disgrace for the Wikipedia".
Zapatancas 09:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm not interested in hypothetical questions. I'm interested in discrete content disputes. I'll ask again. Please outline specific information that you would like to see changed. Take it a point at a time. · Katefan0(scribble) 15:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Katefan0, I must recognize that yesterday I finally understood what your strategy here is. You have probably solved conflicts in the past where two users seemed to hate each other but, finally, they solved their differences and cooperated in writing a better article. In fact, I can understand that because something similar happened here before SqueakBox first "edit". Another user spent months recovering an old version of the article whenever anybody changed something. When it was eventually possible to communicate with him, he claimed that he had never used the talk page because he did not know how it worked. Once it was possible to solve the problem through dialog, every point of the new article he disliked was discussed and he stopped his negative behavior. And probably, his point of view (once he exposed it) helped improve the article.

Perhaps of that previous experience, I am especially sure that SqueakBox acts in bad faith as it seems strange to me that it has not been possible to change his negative attitude after months of reasoning. But as I understand your skepticism and I am grateful for your interest in solving the problem here I promise I am going to forget all the evidence pointing to SqueakBox's bad intentions.

Because of that, I am open to discuss every content dispute constructively. I would like to "outline specific information that I would like to see changed." However, I cannot because SqueakBox until now has never exposed what he does not like. I cannot explain why I do not agree with him because I have no idea why he disagrees with me.

So, I believe that if the current situation in this article is to change it must be him the first person to explain clearly what he dislikes, in order to allow a serious dialog to start. Zapatancas 08:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, it takes two to tango so to speak. I'd like to hear from SqueakBox also what his problems are. I can speak at least to one point. Apparently whether to use Americanized or Britishized spellings has been an issue. The WP:MOS is fairly clear on this. Articles on American subjects should use American English; articles on British subjects, should use British English. Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the spelling of that country. There is some wiggle room here since Spain isn't an English-speaking country, but I think it can be argued successfully that Spain teaches Britishized English spellings and pronunciations and so therefore, probably, British spellings should be used. It's true that when there's no clear way to determine whether something is more "American" or more "British," often the first-used spelling style is retained. But in this case I think British spelling should be used regardless. In any case, the spellings should be harmonized -- no "center" and "centre" in the same article. · Katefan0(scribble) 17:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I am happy that, at last we start to talk. Katefan0, you are right in what you have said but I believe it is incomplete. I have already explained above in this page my point of view (in Talk:José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero#Spelling issues). I summarized here my conclusions:

  • When the article was a stub of 320 words and contained three British words, a user introduced an American one. The use of American words increased and increased until March 2005, when all British words had disappeared. SqueakBox first "edited" the article on May 2, 2005. He claimed the spelling had to be changed because Spain was in the European Union and changed some words from American to British (that is, an article in pure American became a mix of American and British). Nobody paid much attention to him at that time and the use of American English was kept in the article. In October, the conflict restarted and an RfC was asked. No consensus was reached.
  • The Manual of Style of the Wikipedia provides clear rules to decide what spelling must be used. Those rules are:
  1. Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the spelling of that country.
  2. If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoking conflict by changing to another.
  3. If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article.
  • If we apply those rules to this article, my conclusions are the following:
  1. The article does not focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country.
  2. The article was predominantly written in pure American English and it had been for almost two months, before SqueakBox decided to change the spelling of some words to British English (that is, a user did not aim to conform to the type of English predominantly used).
  3. The mix of spellings started when the article was still a stub. The major contributors to this article have been Pbhayani, Miguel and me (Zapatancas). All of us have used American spelling.
  • As a cosequence American Spelling should be used unless a consensus of active users preferred another spelling.

I have provided a lot of references to previous versions, comments and all that in the section Talk:José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero#Spelling issues and a more ellaborate reasoning. I want also to make clear that "my" last version, previous to the currently blocked one, used only American spelling as the article have done almost always in the last months since March 2005.

In my honest opinion, I believe my conclusions follow a pure logical path, at least if the Manual of Style is a superior guide for all the Wikipedia users. So, if British Spelling is to be used instead, I believe I "deserve" :-) to be explained where the mistake in my reasoning is. Zapatancas 08:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry, but I'll continue to disagree with you on this one. Your argument stands primarily on the fact that the article isn't focused "on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country," backed up secondarily by references to what to do if that question isn't clearly answerable. But I believe that question is in fact clearly answerable and pertinent to this topic. The article is not focused "on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country" -- but, it is focused on a topic specific to a particular country that very clearly teaches British English. That satisfies the first point and therefore I believe we need to go no further. I think the rest of the stuff about who used what language first is nothing more than wikilawyering, given the strong case that can be made to support the primary rule. I suspect that most folks would agree that this article properly should use British English, regardless of what past folks used. · Katefan0(scribble)/my ridiculous poll 16:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Katefan0, I am from Spain and saying that British English is clearly taught in my country is not very exact. A little piece of evidence is provided by me :-). In fact, in my opinion, it is more correct to say that most Spanish Schools use English books made in Britain than that Spanish students are taught British English. Moreover, English teaching in Spain is very bad and Spaniards do not learn to communicate in English at school. Besides, the influence of American English is far higher in Spain than that of British English and American spelling is more similar to Spanish. Probably, the schools that really provide a good English education devote some time to explain the differences between both variants.

I must disagree with you in that "most folks would agree that this article properly should use British English, regardless of what past folks used." You can find the contributions of those people who took part in the RfC about the spelling in Talk:José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero/Archive 2 and you can verify that most people believed that there was no clear reason why the article should be written in a specific variant (in fact, I think the only person defending that was SqueakBox). One of the most interesting contributions was that by Angel Riesgo (who is Spanish but lives in Britain):

Why the issue of using British or American English in the article on Rodríguez Zapatero should be so important is beyond me. Anyway, for what it's worth, I would like to point out that the style of English taught in Spanish schools is almost universally British English. When I was at school, we used to use British books by Longman or Oxford University Press and teachers would teach us words like "colour" or "metre". The -ize spelling is, however, more usual than -ise probably because British EFL books also favour that spelling, which is acceptable in British English (and used in most printed books, although not in the press). At any rate, English is not an official language in Spain, so I don't think one should assert that Spain-related articles in English Wikipedia should necessarily adhere to British spelling. But it is true that the EU always uses British spelling in its English-language publications, if that is relevant at all. --AngelRiesgo 19:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

That is, Angel Riesgo points out that in Spain is really taught a mix of British and American English (as the -ize suffix is preffered) and that he does not believe articles about Spain must use a specific variant of English. Zapatancas 09:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

This link points to today's edition (December 2, 2005) of the English edition of "El País", the most sold Spanish newspaper and the only one with an English version as far as I know. It uses American spelling. Zapatancas 12:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Hm, that's interesting. Well, I've stated my opinion and will leave it at that, though it does appear there's some questions left unresolved here! I still feel that British English is, while perhaps not as ubiquitous as I had assumed, is still used more often than Americanized English, in Spain. I still think that makes a strong case for using British English in this article, particularly since the EU uses British spellings in its publications as the anon noted above. But, this isn't really a big enough point to haggle over extensively if you ask me. · Katefan0(scribble)/my ridiculous poll 15:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the discussion about the spelling is becoming ludicrous and surreal and that too much effort has been already wasted in it. But I cannot resist the temptation of providing an additional piece of evidence!!! I found an old English textbook of mine this weekend and, as you can imagine, I started perusing it to discover what spelling I was taught. What I found was that lessons included at its beginning original English texts (from newspaper articles, books, etc.) and some of those texts used British spelling and others American spelling (for example, throughout the book both forms "neighbor" and "neighbour" could be found). Moreover, the textbook included sections to explain the differences between English and American variants (you know, truck and lorry, candy and sweet, tap and fawcet, t... and bathroom,...) and it was true that the "-ize" spelling was preferred (it was the only one used). So, in my opinion, the conclusion is that the aim of the Spanish education system is to teach English, what includes teaching the differences between variants. That is, in theory, both American and British spelling are taught. (In practise, neither of them is learnt.)

Regarding the use of British English by the EU, the truth is that Spanish is also a European official language, so every official document produced in Brussels must have a copy in Spanish that is the one valid in Spain.

Finally, I must confess I never thought a discussion about spelling could become so tricky :-). Zapatancas 08:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected

I've unprotected; it's been protected several days. Please, everybody, try to talk constructively and don't edit war. Comment on content, not contributors, even those you have a history with. Thanks. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 20:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Removal of POV check

I have removed the POV check tag because nobody has provided any information about any controversial passage. I myself asked Mike Rosoft (the user who added it if I am not wrong) what he believed that could be not neutral but he has not answered me although he has accessed the Wikipedia in the past days. The discussion about the supposed POV has been constant for almost a year. But if the supposed complaints about POV are analyzed the conclusion is that most of them come from the user SqueakBox and that his real goal was to attack, insult and harass those users who have taken part honestly in the improvement of this article. This has become evident in the last month, when he did not even try to justify his behavior after Katefan0 blocked the page so the "conflict" could be solved through dialog and not by edit wars. Zapatancas 14:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Freemasonry

I'm going to change the part about Zapatero being believed to be a Freemason. I was frankly surprised to read that -- I had never before heard anything about that issue, although I live in Spain and follow Spanish politics quite closely.

User Zapatancas himself admits it to be a rumour, and not a very extended one in my experience. It is however very plausible that Zapatero might in fact be a Freemason, given his family antecedents. Many of his ideas are also coherent with Freemason ideology. But the text gives the impression (in my opinion at least) that it is a widely held idea.

I think the following text is more representative of reality:

Ricardo de la Cierva, a prominent right-wing Spanish historian, among others, believe that Rodríguez Zapatero is himself a Freemason.

If no one objects I will make the change shortly.

bml 16:22, 2 January 2006 (GMT)

I don't object your decision and I even like it :-). In any case, I would like to note that relations between the Spanish Catholic Church and Spanish Freemasonry had been really bad historically (well, they have killed each other sometimes) so, even if it is false that Zapatero is a Freemason, the fact that an important social player in Spain like the Catholic church believes it can have an important influence on the Spanish political life. In my opinion, perhaps the reason why the radio station COPE, owned by the church, is being so active against the Socialist Government could be related to that situation. Zapatancas 17:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Zapatancas 17:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Suicide bombers

I must tell that the passage about Zapatero's declarations regarding the sucide bombers can be considered the pure truth. So please, don't delete them. I provided long ago this reference. I know that Libertad Digital is very right-wing, but in this case they are reporting the truth. It was also reported by other media, the problem is that not all of them have their old articles available on the Internet.

That passage had already been discussed here. The discussion can be found in the second file of the archived talk. In any case, if anybody has any doubt after examining the offered data I am open to discussing anything. Zapatancas 16:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Minor changes

I have added some extra information in the Politics with EU and Latinamerica. I think (and have also changed it) that info about Poland should be included in the EU section (as Poland is a member of EU) Mabuimo 20:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)mabuimo

Nice one, SqueakBox 15:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


Zapatancas new harrassment

Zapatancas made this edit [8], implying that this is his/her article and that if I attempt to edit it I am harrassing Zapatancas, apparently I can be blocked merely for editing this article. I urge him/her to read the bit that says If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it, and as I want to edit but am not allowed to I am instead sticking the cleanup and NPOV tags on the article until it can be cleaned up and made NPOV, SqueakBox 16:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Clean-up

Have cleaned the article up, removing bad speling, incorrect names and titles, anti-ETA and anti-UK POV and the use of the word terrorism, and so have removed the tags, SqueakBox 22:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Blatant vandalism

SqueakBox has mixed spellings again. An RfC was conducted to solve the problem peacefully. He has decided not to respect its result. He has claimed in the past (here) to respect the American Spelling, that is, the spelling that has ensured a consistently written article for more than a year. His actions only intend to harass a user, me. Zapatancas 14:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I've requested the article to be protected here Zapatancas 14:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean mixed spellings. I can't see any? And what do you mean by not allowed, certainly it is not vandalism. By that reason yopu would yourself be a vandal as this article has had mixed spellings since the day you changed the original British spelling. Whatever, this is not a vandalism offence nor is it reason to promote thye weasel terroist word which is equally not allowed or the anti-ETA POV, see NPOV, SqueakBox 15:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Blatant vandalism? This? What am I and everyone else missing./ Please bring your arguments to the page if you want to revert changes made by other users, don't call those changes blatant vandalism, that serves nobody. Please explain in detail how my edit is blatant vandalism, SqueakBox 14:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You are mixing spellings even though you know that the article uses American English. Mixed spelling is not allowed. Zapatancas 15:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

No I'm not mixing spellings. Please give an example? SqueakBox 23:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this the spelling conssensus reached in december you were referring to? SqueakBox 15:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

ETA

Repeated use of the weasel word terrorism is actually discouraged at wikipedia so it isn't okay just on this article. Besides using the word terrorism half a dozen times in relation to ETA is blatant POV, which again has no place in this article, SqueakBox 23:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Devious argument

Devious argument used to justify SqueakBox's vandalism.

There is a difference between treating all points of view fairly (even Al Qaeda's) and inventing things. Nobody denies Spain is suffering from terrorism or that ETA is terrorist. Not even the very ETA. Why should it? It started killing in 1968, at that time Nelson Mandela justified the use of violence against the apartheid. They have been proud for years of using terrorism against the "cruel" Spanish government and they are not going to deny now what they have said for decades.

SqueakBox has invented that ETA denies being terrorist to justify his harassment. Zapatancas 09:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Well that isn't an argument it is an attack based on a fantasy harrassment from a known vandal. terrrorism is a weasel word and just because one wants to defy wikipedia consensus is no reason to change it. Given that I am allegedly harrassing you how come it is you who commit acts of wanton vandalsim and them=n blame your victim, SqueakBox 13:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Common name usage

In English he is commonly called Zapatero. he is not known as Rodriguez Zapatero. Therefore we must call him Zapatero and not Rodriguez Zapatero every time we mention him, SqueakBox 23:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Devious argument 1

Devious argument used to justify SqueakBox's vandalism.

User:Cantus changed it (here). If you had acted in good faith you would have discussed that with him. Show other users a little respect. Zapatancas 09:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I haven't committed vandalism, unlike you. Just stop lying, okay? I would also point out that Cantus is a reasonable user not a vandal so please don't compare your shenannigans, bvandalism and edit warring with that honourable Chileño, SqueakBox 13:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

If you had acted in good faith you would have discussed that with him. Show other users a little respect. You don't have to seek out someone's permission to change thjeir edits. That is where you are misunderstanding wikipedia, SqueakBox 15:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Common format

Political parties like the PP and the PSOE are always shortened in subsequent references throughout wikipedia, therefore they need to be called that here as well, SqueakBox 23:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Devious argument 2

Devious argument used to justify SqueakBox's vandalism.

The use of the terms Socialist Party and People's Party (or Popular Party) are very typical in the English press; where, in fact, the acronyms PSOE and PP are rarely used. Even in Spain the "extended" form is often used. Where is the problem in using typical expressions understood by everybody? SqueakBox tries to justify his vandalism and intimidate other users by preventing them from using valid expressions through brute force. Zapatancas 09:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Wiki standard is to use PP and PSO, both of which are habitually used in the Spanish and English media. Presumably vandal Zapatancas merely opposes me because he wannts to build up his imaginary case of being harrassed (I think your English is giving you problems, you are the victomario not the victima), SqueakBox 13:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Capital letters

It is not alright to capitalise words like Terrorism and Socialism in the middle of a sentence' it is plain bad English, SqueakBox 23:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Devious argument 3

I couldn't care less if 'socialist' is capitalized or not. But to claim that George Orwell's English was bad is another devious argument. Here it can be found the text of Homage to Catalonia, written by him, where the term socialist is always capitalized. Zapatancas 09:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

If you dont care about wikipedia that is your problem not mine, George Orwell has nmothing to do with this, SqueakBox 13:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Failure to debate

Zapatancas, please debate your points here. Edit warring while refusing to engage in a ny talk page debate is not wikipedia procedure. I have made my argumenht. You are reverting me while refusing to engage in debate, behaviour not normally welcomed at wikipedia. If you want to ahve a case in your pursuit of me I suggest you engage here, SqueakBox 14:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Devious argument 4

Vandalism is always reverted. To be taken seriously the first rule is not to vandalize any article. Zapatancas 09:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom

Zapatancas has taken me to arbcom as an alternative to debating on this page. Se Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#SqueakBox + Zapatancas. The fact that he has chosen that course of action rather than debate is very sad. he has also twice this week asked for the page to be protected in order to prevent me from editing the page. rather than cloudy the issue I urge him to engage in debate about any changes he wants to the article here rathjer than merely edoit war while doing his or her best to erase me from wikipedia. This is the same Zapatancas who has seen fit to vandalise my user page here, SqueakBox 22:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Devious argument 5

When an article is protected nobody can edit it, including me.

SqueakBox has claimed one thousand times I am a troll. Why is he afraid of proving that before the ArbCom? Zapatancas 09:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

100% Proof, and I don't wantn you to stop everyone editing the article , SqueakBox 13:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Zapatancas devious arguments

Indeed, SqueakBox 13:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Conclusion

Zapatancas' conclusion that all my 5 arguments are devious and therefore he cann just revert every edit I make to this article is, IMO, a devious conclusion designed only to justify his reverts. Drop your hostility and personal attacks, read some wikipedia style guides (I have read the lot, have you?) and then come up with some workable compromise as reverting everything I do here is not a reasonable compromise and this issue can only be sorted out by reasonable compromise. His wanting the article protected and his insistence there that unless the article is protetcted or I allow him to fully revert all my edits he will just keep reverting all my edits indicates that he is still not ready to engage in rational and adult debate. Erasing me from wikipedia is not the solution Zapatancas, and your belief that it is the only solution is getting in the way of (estorbando) this article SqueakBox 15:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Medal

Zapatancas now claims the medal someone awarded me on my user page was a WP:NPA and his vandalism cleaning it up was necessary to protect wikipedia, SqueakBox 13:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

SqueakBox is insulting other users by calling them "rather strange". To remove personal attacks is not vandalism. It is to vandalized other user pages as you did here against my user page. Zapatancas 13:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The trolling behaviour is entirely onesided. Now this individual accuses me of vandalising my user page [9]. I think it takes a special sort opf person to think along such warped lines, and in this case is ridiculous as Zapatancas himself vandalises my page, SqueakBox 14:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words

Congratulations for removing the weasel word terrorism from your reverts. Now perhaps you can see my edit was made entirely in good faith and that your wholesale reversal of it wasn't. You have actually let me make a new edit for the first time in 6 months. Well done! Progress at last, SqueakBox 14:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I want to remind you that before the ArbCom you will have to source all your claims. So, please, be careful when you say things like that I (that is, a user who accesses the Wikipedia no more than twice per week on average) does not allow you, (that is, a user who spends ten hours a day on the Wikipedia) to edit an article.
You continue mixing spellings and introducing other mistakes. Devious arguments are never sufficient to hide vandalism. Zapatancas 16:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The arbncom will only be interested in the personal attacks. The evidence overwhelmingly points to you being SP and I am very glad that someone else is finally going to investigate. At last. False claims of vandalism are normally considered attacks. You access the wikipedia more than twice a week (at least 10 times this week) and I don't remotely work 70 hours a week on wikipedia, what a ridiculous claim, SqueakBox 16:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

False claims

Don't make false claims of vandalism when no vandalism has occurred [10] Such behaviour is the sign of a POV troll falsely labelling an edit as vandalism because they find it disagreeable. You need to shape up your attitude Zapatancas as you cannot create consensus with lies, and your lying claim of vandalism means you have to change that behaviour in order for us to find consensus, I am not making lying claims that you are vandalising so you need to (a) actually read the relevant page on vandalism) and (b) withdraw your lying claims, as if you wants a resolution to this editorial dispute you must first of all stop making false vandalism claims. Otherwise I will, quite reasonably, assume that you are still taking SquealingPig as your model on how to behaviour, ie you are not interested in this article or encyclopedia but only in attacking me. In order to integrate as a normal member of wikipedia Zapatancas must stop making what he knows to be fake vandalism accusations as the person making them in these types of circumstances is indulging in trolling and is not serious in the edits they are making to the article. If you want to be taken as a serious editor start acting like one and desist now and forever from false claims of vandalism, something of which I am completely innocent, SqueakBox 13:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I read your rant, and I am still in the dark about how you were accused of vandalizing and why you aren't guilty of such....... and it makes it hard to agree with you. Please explain both.
KV 17:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


False vandalism accusations are to be found here, here, here, here, while here he accuses me of destroying his work, here and here opf harrassment, whereas there has been neither harrassment nor vandalsim going on, vandalism is deliberately destroying a piece and is always reverted on site by a variety of users whereas [v this] ios a normal edit meant to help the wikipedia. My rant is because I am at the end of my tether about Zapatanmcas, his vandalism of my user opage and his sockpuppets [11] [12], which were indeed acts done purely to harrass me, eg [13], [14], [15], [16], 12:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


See other users comments [17] [18], SqueakBox 12:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


Professor

Please source Zapatero was a Professor not a teacher. Profesor the Es word translates as teacher and I dont believe he was a Professor, ie this needs sourcing SqueakBox 14:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you SqueakBox for proving again you have never read the articles and you are not interested on the subject. Only on harassing. Zapatancas 15:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

? SqueakBox 01:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[19] edit by Zapatancas shows I am right. Who did you claim wasn't reading the article? Be assured he was not a Professor, a lecturer and a Professor are worlds apart in the English language. I am concerned that you are letting your hatred of me cloud your judgement. Please lets keep in mind that accuracy in this article of a living person is essential and claiming he was a Professor is simply a mistake, SqueakBox 15:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Read the definition by the Wiktionary. I cannot teach you your own language. Thank you for reading a couple of lines of an article, you are making progress. Now, you have to read the rest. Zapatancas 15:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

current

Why is this article tagged as current? According to El Mundo and RTVE he isn't anywhere in the papers. I have thus removed the current template, SqueakBox 01:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course Zapatero is not a current event. The article is completely outdated for more than a year. Well, since you started your harassment to be exact. Zapatancas 15:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

In that case you sshould not have put aa fake current tag on the articvle, confusing our readers into thinking something was happening to him. Editing your flaky was not harrassment so I started nothing. You began the attacks with your SquealingPig socket puppet and thus here we are here. At least I can leave the article in reasonable shape, knowing you wont be able to edit it for a year with your semi-comprehensible English and strong anti-Zapatero POV. Phew, a job well done! SqueakBox 02:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Solana

Who put in Javier Solana is PP? He is PSOE. If you revert me Zapatancas please ensure that you don't continue propagating this which you know to be untrue. I also dont believe you can accuse me of sabotaging the article or editing purely to harrass you with this one, eh? SqueakBox 01:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I knew you did not read the articles. But it seems you do not even know what the article is about! Zapatancas 15:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

It was a cheap and flaky attack and I have removed it, SqueakBox 01:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"ZP" nickname

The ZP article used to contain:

ZP is a popular nickname of the Prime Minister of Spain José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. Those two letters were included in the Socialist electoral posters used during the 2004 electoral campaign and are an acronym of the slogan 'Zapatero Presidente' ('Zapatero President').

which should probably be worked into this article somehow. --Piet Delport 10:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, SqueakBox 14:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The truth is that the article contained that information in the past but SqueakBox removed it (see here). No wonder he is going to be banned from this article for a year. The saddest thing of all is that he claims his "contributions" to this article (such us changing "citizen" to "citisen" or using "its sex" when it should be "their sex") are some of the best he has done in the Wikipedia!!! Zapatancas 15:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Your death threat edit looks like it will come to pass eh? Just your watch your back very carefully for the rest of your life as you never know when the tap on the shoulder will be the police wanting to know why a PP activist is making death threats on wikipedia against someone who would not let him stitch up Zapatero. The El Pais will love it. Meanwhile you have to live with the fact that you have threatened someone to death, you have committed serious criminal offences in Honduras, etc, SqueakBox 16:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)