Talk:José María Aznar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Spain Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Spelling

Could someone please check for and correct the numerous spelling mistakes that appear in this article. October 24, 2006

"hmmmm..... Spanish TERRORIST??? C'mon now..."

"President of the Spanish government" looks like a direct translation from the Spanish. In English, I have usually seen Aznar referred to as prime minister, since he is the head of government under a monarchy. - Montréalais

That could fit. The previous text stated just "president", which can be misleading. Jeb Bush hasn't been the first to salute the "President of the Spanish Republic". Correct it if you want. Is there a list of Spanish Chiefs of Government?
In Spain there is no Prime Minister figure (or not with this name), so I think President is a lot better than Prime Minister. A similar figure to Prime Minister in Spain is First Vicepresident or Gobernment Minister (just examples, not a fact).
It should absolutely be "President of the Spanish government". There is no Prime Minister in Spain. The role of President in Spain is, in terms of responsibilities, somewhere between a Prime Minister and a Head of State. It should be changed.

I agree and have changed the title, yet again. This is a controversial issue, SqueakBox 15:37, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

I can only find one reference to Jose Maria and Manuel Aznar being related - and that says that Manuel is his grandfather. Secretlondon 20:16, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ibarretxe plan

User:195.92.67.208 writes (was Aznar a MEMBER of falange or did he merely express sympathy for the movement? - Ibarretxe's plan has now been declared illegal - does the satirical site add any OBJECTIVE information?)

Added link to a 1969 letter
Which court has declared the Ibarretxe plan illegal? I am not trolling. It may be that it has been declared illegal while I didn't pay attention, but I don't think so.

As far as I know, no court has declared the Ibarretxe plan illegal.

The satirical site (new address, maybe they were outsquatted from aznar.net) adds lots of info not available elsewhere in the net. The tone is very critical, but still you can learn a lot.
-- -- Error 01:30, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Moustache

The following was deleted by User:161.116.80.23

Derided by his moustache, Aznar was long underestimated by his opponents and touted as a man without charisma. His critics liken his moustache to those of Franco, Adolf Hitler and Charlie Chaplin. After 8 years in Government, his successful economic management has deepened his image as a quiet, hard-working achiever.

I think that his moustache is an important part of his public image. And the critics (and cartoonists) do liken it so. Could you propose some alternative paragraphs on his public image? Otherwise I'll restore that one. -- Error 01:24, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It is utterly ridiculous to have a criticism section of a political leader, consisting exclusively in pointing that some people made fun of him because of his moustache. Are there jokes about moustaches in Roosevelt's page, in Lech Walesa's page or in Lenin’s page? This is pure character assassination.

The following was deleted:

Derided by his moustache, Aznar was long underestimated by his opponents and touted as a man without charisma. His critics liken his moustache to those of Franco, Adolf Hitler and Charlie Chaplin.

[edit] Basque descent

What was his descent on his mother's side? -- Error 04:28, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Error in place of birth

José María Aznar is born in Madrid (February 25th, 1953), not in Valladolid. See a link already cited in the same page about Aznar: Fundació Cidob (http://www.cidob.org/bios/castellano/lideres/a-065.htm) Biography (in Spanish)


[edit] The Falangist letter

Please don't delete the link to the Falangist letter. It serves as a reference for the claim that he was a teenage Falangist. If you delete the letter, the fact can seem unbased. -- Error 00:56, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

La obra que España espera, the letter from 1969, declaring himself as an independent Falangist (in Spanish) --Error 00:02, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Madrid train bombings

Shouldn't there be a mention of the 11 March 2004 Madrid attacks here somewhere? Leaving aside POV speculation regarding possible political motivations of terrorists, it is still significant that the PP was looking good to win the elections until the attacks occurred. To simply say "The PP lost the March 2004 elections" understates the issue. Mashford 15:07, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As a Spaniard I can tell that "the PP was looking good to win the elections until the attacks occurred." is clearly POV. It can be widely disputed, more than ever now that the Socialists have won the elections again.89.128.223.165 (talk) 21:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is POV. That's exactly what the Opinion polls clearly showed. [1] <-- in this link you can perfectly see that on March 10 (one day before the bombing) the vote intention was a 41.2% for PP and 38.4% for PSOE. That changed drastically on the official results which were 37.6% for PP 42.6% for PSOE. So, "the PP was looking good to win the elections until the attacks occurred" seems perfectly exact and clearly referenced. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 18:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It needs to be phrased in an NPOV way as opinion polls are a very different thing from how people vote. We can simply state the facts "the PP were ahead in the opinion polls (cite reference) before the election but the PSOE won" states it without putting unnecessary spin on it. Valenciano (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Valenciano - the opinion polls have been significantly wide of the mark in several elections so we should avoid creating an unestablished direct cause and effect relationship between the bombings and the election result. Southofwatford (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Maurice, Opinion polls of this sort normally have a margin of error of +/- 3 so a PP lead of 2.8% before the election is well within the margin of error for a PSOE win, even on March 10th. Furthermore, it's interesting to note that the opinion polls show the gap between the PP and PSOE consistently narrowing from 10.7% at the beginning of February to 2.8% the day before the bombing. So even on the basis of the polls, a PP win was no certainty. The unpublished poll the day after the election still showed a PP lead so we could alternatively spin it as 'if the PP hadn't blamed ETA, they would have won.' As I say I believe we should avoid spin and stick to the facts, rather than our own opinions. Valenciano (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Polemic issues about aznar's legacy

I find a lot of facts missing about aznar's legacy; facts regarding cheating in the macroeconomic data prestige crisis, war on Iraq, homosexuality represion, catholic and fascists funding, 1 million of ilegal inmigrants. I would write an article explaining the negative facts of his government if someone wrote one stating his goals.

Your comment is very much misplaced. Prestige was made a crisis by the opposition (compare similar events in Ibiza). On the macroeconomic data, it is certain the current government is taking advantage of the economic progress during Aznar's period. homosexuality repression, catholic and fascist funding are just typical left wing moral biases, not objective comments.

If there is one thing he failed to do is to clean up the judicial system and the media of political control.

[edit] Moved from the article

This is ugly:

These parties were treated as friends and allies in the first term because Mr. Aznar needed their support, but political relationships changed in the second term when Mr. Aznar got an absolute majority. He scorn these parties and he made the public Tv to manipulate the truth in his favour.* Spanish public TV was condemned by a National Court by not saying the truth in a General Strike that stopped the country for 24 hours. The Government and the public tv channel tried to make up the global situation of anger and frustration of low wages, temporary contracts, no social support and the Mr. Aznar's refusal to talk and deal with spanish Unions.
  • Incorrect, Spanish media are decidedly left-wing and anti-Aznar.
Among Aznar presidential round was broadly known that spanish national TV was manipulated by the goverment. The issue stated in the first paragraph is completely true, and the National Court condemned the entity for such act. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.33.181.72 (talk) 12:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

The issue of nationalists I have reworded though it could be expanded (within NPOV). The issue of relations with the media and the unions I have left out waiting for somebody ready to neutralize it.

His politics were against gays and lesbians and social advances that the majority of the country was asking for and that were far away from his ultra-catholic view of what Spain should be (a new law for divorces, avoid catholic religion classes at school, spend Government funds in cheap new houses and rentals for young people, integration with the inmigrants and minorities from other countries that are working in Spain, prevention plans in drug adiction and the use of natural drugs as marijuana for cancer pains, legalizing prostitution,...).

This description begs the question of how his party was doing so well if "the majority of the country was asking for" all that. Rewrite what were his goals in his second terms. You can write about the retreat on labor-market reform, the euro. --Error 22:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligence Reports

Based on the first intelligence reports, his government strongly blamed the attack on ETA rather than a terrorist islamic group

Could the first assertion above be documented? I have founded reason to believe that no intelligence reports were ever issued linking ETA with the attack.


Letters were issued to the representative in the UN to declare that ETA was behind the attacks. The police reports did not show any inmediate evidence to ETA. PP knew that if islamic extremits were behind it was going to prove that supporting the war in Irak was a big mistake.


Nobody knew who the attackers were besides the attackers. Not even now this is clear, nor there seems to be an interest in the current government to find out. Demanding the government to state who the attackers might have been at the time of the election was purely electoral. The attacks were designed to overthrow the PP.

[edit] Bias on the page

The article was ridiculously biased / POV in many pages so I've done a bit of a hatchet job on some parts.

1) "the fascist [[People's Alliance]]" Fascist is POV and hence removed.

2) "The Popular Party won again the upcoming election with a landslide victory" An 18 seat majority out of 350 does not constitute a landslide victory so this has been changed to the more neutral 'overall majority.'

3) "mainly due to the ... need of a strong government to oppose nationalist demands." That there was a need for a strong government to oppose nationalists is again totally POV and hence removed.

4) "His large majority allowed a firm stance towards regional nationalism demands albeit this stance never translated into deeds against a constant nationalist defiance." Inaccurate and examples of deeds against Nationalists have been added (banning of Batasuna etc.)

5) "After six years of relative political calm, when political debate was dominated by consensus on economic success, nationalist strains and terrorism" The lack of majority support in the electorate for the PP during that time suggests that there was not a consensus.

6) "several issues withdrew the attention from the nationalist problem" That there was a "Nationalist Problem" is totally POV.

7) "even though more than 96% of the Spanish population was against the war" Total POV and I've just removed it.

8) "the Popular Party was set to comfortably win his third election in a row, on the absence of a credible opposition." The line on the opposition is totally POV and has been removed. Furthermore most of the polls in the early election year of 2004 suggested that the PP would win but lose their overall majority hence not "a comfortable win." Valenciano 19:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


I have removed:
'As of today, there are still several obscure points that have not been explained by the socialist government. Despite losing the election and the findings of the official inquiry allegedly pointing to Islamic involvement, Aznar and the Popular Party still suggest that ETA may have been involved in the attacks'.

The reason is simple: the investigation is still going on. The National Audience is still carrying out the investigation, the process is still open. I suggest we wait until they finish it before boldy proclaiming that the socialist party hasn't explained 'some obscure points'. It seems kinda POV to suggest the investigation is over, many things haven't been explained, and thus one side or the other was right about who perpetrated the attacks. At the very least, it's premature. Just an opinion. Raystorm 11:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nothing about the economy?

Aznar is most known for his economic achievements, for taking Spain from a backward economy to one that could really compete in Europe for the first time in decades. There isn't a mention of his economic achievements in the article.

Unemployment fell from 22% to 9% under Aznar. The GDP grew by about 70% on his watch. (These are estimates: Some people say unemployment fell 25% to 10%; some economists say the GDP grew by 64%)

That's why he was as popular as he was. It's not easy to win politically in Spain as a conservative, but he did. The article just says he won an "unexpected majority" in the Cortes. That's a little weak.

There just needs to be more about the strong economy. Spain hasn't been this wealthy in probably a few centuries. This economic growth occurred under Aznar.

Let's be honest: Spain was a pretty poor and backward country before Aznar. Now they're one of the most successful nations in Europe.

You can't even compare Spain in 1996 to Spain in 2006. Much more modern, much more well-to-do.

Spain in 1996 had one of the lowest crime rates in the entire world, as opposed to today when Madrid has become as dangerous as London or New York. Spain in 1996 had problems with immigration, but they were nothing compared with today. Not all of this can be blamed on Aznar, but much of these changes did happen on his watch (as well as a tolerance for corruption that has seen several city councils taken over by the national government since the PSOE returned)

[edit] Unsourced

The article doesn't cite a single one of it sources so I've added the unsource tag. Probably adding sources would help to solve the neutrality issues. Hagiographer 07:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


I have introduced two references/footnotes and the Footnote section code. On the preview looks quite ok, but they keep duplicating when saving, no idea why. One reference is a biography and the other is the famous letter mentioned above. I do think the letter is relevant, though I am open to discusion. Junjan 09:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


Duplication issue fixed. The footnote code should be removed from main page and introcuded only in Notes section to avoid duplication, please do that on new references.

I also introduced the Montalban reference as a footnote and a reference on Murdoch issue.Junjan 10:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Not clear where the Georgetown image comes from...perhaps this non-functioning link should be deleted

[edit] NPOV and citations

"At the end of the year students all over the country joined in strikes, demonstrations, and sit-ins, often alongside their rectors and professors." Biased "The Trade unions reacted by calling a 24-hour general strike on 20th June, embarrassing the government on the eve of the EU summit in Seville. The stoppage proved a largely unexpected success" biased, citation needed. (how many people did take part? The cover of a spanish diary (La razón, according to my memory) was stated that the gay pride parade demonstration was bigger than the 20th demonstration. Google it. "Mainly due to the success of its economic policies, Aznar was reelected with an unexpected outright majority" biased. It should be noted that the polls predicted his victory. Google it and cite the polls. (The polls also predicted the PP victory in 2003). "...later claimed the bombings were in response to the role played by Spain in the Iraq war" Citation needed "and because the public perception that the government was hiding facts from the general population, there was a large public outcry" citation needed. I think only some journalists did protest in front of the PP building in Genova Street (Madrid). Google "Gran via manifest" 4 some information about it. http://www.nodulo.org/ec/2004/n026p11.htm (text of the manifest). In Spain there is a HUGE controversy on the role of ETA in the 11-M terrorist attack: the cassette of the Mondragon group, the information about boric acid, the information given by Cadena Ser (a radio station), the rucksacks modified (?) by the police... It is VERY important to include citations in this subject.

The funniest thing that I´ve read in this article is that Jose Mª Aznar is "descendant from the Counts of Aznar, an ancient nobiliary family in northern Spain which played a major role during the reconquista". How do you can show us the truth of this sentence?. I don´t know if it´s true or false, but what I know is very very funy.

[edit] Neutrality of the article

In my eyes, this article it's made from a not neutral or the tipical anti-Aznar point of view of the lefties in Spain. I think that someone who is really neutral should make it again with CORRECT information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123spain123 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This article seems completely anti-Aznar. Sources can be found that might support the claims of this article, but they're not necessarily factual. Aznar was re-elected, and actually got more votes the second time around; polls showed that had he run a third time, he would have also won that one. Doesn't it seem odd that he was so popular if his government was so bad? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.101.79.205 (talk) 03:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:Verify, the sources don't need to be "factual" since that is often a subjective term. They need to be verifiable, that is we attribute the opinions to whoever said them and balance them by opposing viewpoints wherever possible. Again, if you believe that the article isn't neutral or is more representative of left wing opinion, then by all means go ahead and add extra information. Valenciano (talk) 10:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality tag

This has been on the article for quite a while but I propose to remove it. The reason is that it is up to those adding the tag to specify exactly how the article isn't neutral and that hasn't been done. Just complaining that the article is biased is unproductive. Users need to propose changes or additions to the article which we can then try to reach agreement on. I will wait to see if changes are proposed before I remove the tag. Valenciano (talk) 10:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there doesn't appear to be any coherent or constructive criticism, or any attempt being made to alter the article to a supposedly more neutral state. ʄ!•¿talk? 00:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)