Talk:People's Party (Spain)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
This article is part of WikiProject Political parties, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of political parties-related topics. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to "featured" and "good article" standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details. [View this template]
Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Why isn't this page named after the Spanish name of the party ?

On that subject, can we agree on a standard translation of the name? Is is the People's Party, the Popular Party or something else? Estrellador* 20:25, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

PSOE is Spanish Socialist Workers' Party. I have no objection to changing it to the Popular Party (Spain) as that would be more accurate, though as it is already a rtedirect an administrator would have to do it, and I ain't one. Popular Party is a redirect to People's Party with parties from all over the world, so someone has made tthat decision at some point, but we certainly don't have to abide by it. We do tend to translate party names into English, which is fair enough as we are an English wikipedia, SqueakBox 22:29, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the weblink gallardon.es because it is not an official site neither is Gallardón representative of the Popular Party policies. mabuimo


Only one woman named in the notable members list? Raystorm 16:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Name of the article

In my opinion the best name for the article would be "Popular Party (Spain)". Does anyone support my proposal? --Checco 20:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: Thanks for asking (!) but you have already changed the name from People's Party to Popular Party in all the article. You could have waited a little bit...to see what the rest of us thought. Personally, I don't mind but I would keep it as it is, as you see Popular Party (Spain) redirects to People's Party (Spain) anyway. Weak keep Keep People's Party and revert edits of Popular Party in the article.Francisco Valverde 21:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Logopp.gif

Image:Logopp.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ETA Murder victims List

IMO it should be removed and in any case add a redirect to article of ETA murder victims, as including a list only on the PP article is highly NPOV, Members of PSOE, National Police, Journalists, Civil Guard, Armed Forces and even former ETA members have been murdered by ETA over the last 40 years and there is no list in the corresponding articles, including it only in PP make it seem that PP is the only party affected by ETA, that is what many people appreciate as one o PP's main points over the last term.Zape82 10:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it would be very suitable that the victims of other parties are also included in other articles, and also in the articles related to terrorism. But that lack of information there does not mean that it needs to be removed from here, ie missing thing in one article does not justify removing it from another. The victims of any political party are very important, and mentioning them does not affect the neutrality so it should be kept. Escorial82 12:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the list. It is irrelevant and POV considering the PPs use of ETA victims to gain political capital. --Burgas00 13:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The use by the PP of this thing, as many other parties do, is not a reason for removing real data from the article. Many other things mentioned here are used by opponent parties, for example all the critics to Manuel Fraga Escorial82 17:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

You are not neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by La voz de su amo (talk • contribs) 17:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The compelling soundness of your extense argumentation amazes me. Perhaps that's why you left your comment unsigned. Should ever this be turned into a keep/removal vote, I'd vote either keep or link to a list with all people murdered by ETA. As others said, some information being absent from other articles does not justify removing it from this one. Also, I'd rethink the statement about "the PPs use of ETA victims to gain political capital", as it's insulting to the victims. Could you please _prove_ what you are saying? You say "something is POV considering $YOUR_POV" o_O Habbit 10:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

ETA has murdered people of all political colours, however only the PP has used terrorism as an element of its opposition in the history of Spanish democracy, and this only since 2003. Adding a list of PP "martyrs" is clearly NPOV because it helps the party present itself as a victim and forms part of an electoral strategy. Should we also present a list of all the members of the PP who have links with the Francoist regime or with extreme right movements or with the Opus Dei? Such a list would be very long indeed... --Burgas00 11:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Please, by all means do so if you can document your claims (some are low-hanging fruits, some can prove more cumbersome). This is an encyclopedia, and _objective_ information is never out of place. Also, for the sake of the very NPOV you claim to support, add similar lists in all other parties' articles. I will grant you a kickstart: iIrc, José Blanco (PSOE) had more than obvious connections with the Francoist regime.
That was point one. Point two: neither PP members nor all other civilians murdered by ETA were "martyrs", because that word implies that they were captured and semi-willingly sacrificed their lives to promote their causes. The only person that has been near to this definition, because of the social effect his murder caused, has been Miguel Ángel Blanco, but he probably didn't do so willingly. The only "martyrs" would probably be the police/Guardia Civil/army members killed by the terrorists. By the way, I don't quite agree with some of the PP victimism, but I absolutely disagree with the Government's blatant doublethink WRT ETA. Do you remember the T4 bombing? I'm sure you do. What you won't probably recall is that less than 24 hours earlier ZP (yes, our President) was trying to convince us that "he was looking up to the new year about terrorism". Either he was completely fooled by ETA (which is what I want to believe) or he lied to us all. But _even_ in the first case, his behaviour is not excusable because the PP spent whole months trying to convince him that ETA was doing just that. Why wouldn't him listen to people which had tried the very same years earlier with the same result? Pride? Foolishness? (sigh) Habbit 21:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I suggest the following, which I think it wouldn't hide any information and rather provide more: The chapter of victims is inserted, with a brief description saying that there has been many political victims of all parties with links to the correspondent parties and victims lists. Before doing that I'll personally take charge of adding a similar list in the PSOE's article, with a similar structure and a link between them. A sentence describing how this list is now-a-days frequently mentioned by the PP can be included. Habbit, Burgas00, what do you think? Again let's give and not hide information on all articles. Escorial82 09:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

IMHO adding lists to the political parties only magnifies and takes to the partisan, the Basque conflict, I suggest that ETA murder victims, should remain exclusively, to their personal articles (if they have, if not every body is invited to create it), and to articles reffering to ETA and its victims in any case including in that article list include their position and their political party (ie: Miguel Anglel Blanco, PP Councillor in Ermua), if not will end in a nonse debate on weather to add lists to every single spanish articles (why not a list in the Civil Guard of ETA vicitims (as it is the main affected collective) then why not a KIA list while on int'l missions, then why not of those KIA while patrolling the roads.... I have my personal considerations on ETA, the Basque conflict, or the positions of PP, Batasuna, PNV or PSOE, but for that I like to take part on politics fora, lets live the wikipedia a consult toolZape82 00:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about this off-topic, but I really can't resist it: Language is one of the most powerfools weapons available to mankind, as is shown by the expression "Basque conflict", which makes it look like there are two sides. There is really only one, ETA, who is killing people on behalf of their political ideals. And no, Spain is no longer the dictatorship under which people (Basque or not) could be repressed for expressing their ideas. Just look at Catalonia, where people with similar (seccesionist) beliefs are part of the regional government and talk _openly_ about their final purposes. In a democracy, an organization like ETA has _no_ place. There is no "Basque conflict".
Let me explain this further, though this argument does not belong here: there can be legitimate seccesionists, and their ideas may finally succeed (though it is difficult since the constitutions of virtually any state will shield itself against seccesionism). This is also good - I would not accept any territory seceding on the grounds of a 51% yea referendum: the majority would have to be overwhelming (67%? 75%) to justify such a change. I think that if a real majority of Basques want out of Spain, then the Spanish state would ultimately give them what they want (because a democracy _can't_ repress citizens demonstrating). So, as I said, there are only political ideas (by the way, I consider nationalism a rather obselete, XIX-esque mentality in the era of the EU, but...) and there is _no_ thing as a "Basque conflict". There is the people of the Spanish _state_ (stress for those who don't _feel_ Spanish in nationality), who has been more than 30 years sufferering the dictatorship of terror imposed by ETA, a bunch of extorters who just want to gain power through murders. Period. Habbit 20:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AVT "alliance"

Some regular changes on the comments referring to the government's negotiations with ETA and PP's posture wrt it have been made; the AVT is now described in the article as an ally to the Party. I think it is very important to change that term. The AVT supports the Party in its posture against the negotiations, organised manifestations with their support and vice-versa (I also think this was done by other associations so I would mention them as well). Nevertheless they've always insisted that they are not an ally of the party, and those two words are not synonyms, and the Association has criticised the party in many other things (eg their negotiations with ETA in 1997 or the war in Irak). I would therefore suggest to change that. That topic is still important, as negotiations are still being mentioned regularly by many parties, although its true that it's now less stringent. This is due to the accusations of such still being made / considered for the near future. As ETA is still mentioned daily I think it is therefore correct to keep it in the article. Escorial82 08:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The word "allies" implies they have a common political goal: that is to attack the Socialist government. It does not mean they are subordinate to the PP. The language used is thus perfectly correct.
Furthermore, the AVT's criticism of the PP for its 1997 negotiations with ETA was tepid at best, and nothing compared to last years campaign against the socialists. Ideological affinity and political alliance is self evident. --Burgas00 11:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's not strange that each time that a Government tried to negotiate with ETA, only to be once again fooled by the terrorists, victims' organizations become angrier. Especially when the current government has been _warned_ about ETA's intentions. Habbit 22:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The common goal in this topic is to prevent negotiations, not to attack the Socialist government, again referring to the past shows it and indeed the more it occurs the stronger the opposition is. Also, it is the opposing politicians / media that have described the AVT as an ally of the PP, in a rather insulting way, and it has been rejected by both the Association and the Party. Many members of the AVT have criticised the political situation between the 11 and the 14 of March 2004, criticising all parties including the PP.
And the association has never shown its support to most of the other topics the PP has based his opposition upon (EpC, gay marriage, massive illegal-immigrants legalisation, etc).
I therefore think that using that term as the main adjective is not neutral and rather insulting. I suggest to put something with a structure of this type: ...a supporter of the PP in the campaign (some politicians describe the AVT as an ally of the PP).... If no constructive comment is made I'll change it by the evening. I'll also mention the Foro de Ermua, Fundación Miguel Ángel Blanco and others that also supported the PP in this topic. Escorial82 07:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

From what I remember the AVT's official stance on the 11th of March attacks is that they want to know "the truth" of "what really happened". This aligns it with the more hardline sectors of the Spanish right who are still clinging on to the so-called conspiracy theories. I could give you dozens of examples of the symbiosis between the PP and the AVT.

Nevertheless, the term ally is in no way derogative. It is perfectly legitimate for a political association to ally with a political party. What would be derogative would be a term like puppet, instrument or "tool".

I don't think you should add the other groups because the relationship with the PP is not as close nor have their political strategies been so coordinated as the AVT. --Burgas00 08:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed they've said how the want to know "what really happened", ie everything to be clear, rejecting the posture of the government when it occurred insisting that ETA could be involved and that it wasn't sure if it had been Islamists. Nevertheless, since the term of "ally" has been rejected by the two organisations, and not "supporter", which according to you it means the same, wouldn't it be better to use it? It would remove this conflict (similar one occurring in politics), and keep the same meaning. The objective of Wikipedia is to give information in the most neutral way without offending anyone. Escorial82 09:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Woudnt "supporter" imply that the AVT is subservient to the PP? What do you think of this last edit? I have modified the term allied from adjective to verb form. They are not allies but are/were allied at least during the ceasefire.

As for the 11-M, we both know that when you ask for "everything to be clear" you are making an accusation to the government (and other bodies of the state, judiciary, police etc..) of hiding the truth. I really don't remember the AVT rejecting the posture of the PP during the 3 days after the bombing. Maybe Im wrong though. Was Alcaraz already in office by that time? --Burgas00 10:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems slightly better as you put it. I would nevertheless change one thing, and put it like this (keeping ally): AVT has been allied to the PP with respect to the government's actions concerning ETA's ceasefire (now wrote it quickly, I'll make small grammatical modifications). This is to clarify that the common position was wrt the negotiations, de Juana, etc and not other political topics. Escorial82 11:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok I agree with you on that.--Burgas00 11:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Right-wing or conservative?

The definition of the PP as a right-wing party is generally done in a pejorative way by those who criticise it. In all its statements it describes itself as a central party with, generally speaking, conservative ideas. Its international alliances are with other parties or groups that are conservative-central (Centrist Democrat International). Right-wing is used when the party is insulted in manifestations or criticised by rival parties. Having that in the first sentence of the article is not neutral (as people who read it get what many people consider insulting information). Maybe this right-wing consideration can be mentioned later in other points of the article, but therefore not in the introduction. Escorial82 (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

They are right-wing.--La voz de su amo (talk) 13:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
To "La voz": Your argument was so elaborated, convoluted and deeply phylosophic that I couldn't follow throughout. Please try to write less the next time o_O Habbit (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Although in Spanish the term "right-wing" is used as an insult on a par with, or near to, the term fascist, in English it isn't. You can't say to someone, "You're right-wing" as an accusation or insult, anymore than say to someone (in the UK) "You're left-wing". 88.5.156.237 (talk) 10:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] policy

almost nothing about the policy or platform of the party, only general speacking in the introduction. --Hasam (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)