Talk:José María Aznar

message: 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)
thread_title: Ibarretxe plan

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Madrid train bombings

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Moved from the article

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Bias on the page 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unsourced 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Neutrality of the article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Neutrality tag 

message: Er, I've removed this reference to Aznar's putative previous career waiting table at a hotel in Torquay. José María Aznar is *not* Manuel from Fawlty Towers. What worries me is that I actually checked Spanish Wikipedia (translated version) first to find out if it's true. Unsurprisingly, it wasn't. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 19:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  José María Aznar is *not* Manuel from Fawlty Towers. Good grief... 

message: I'm very astonished because many people think Aznar is a "typical Castilian", when he really is an Asturian, lets see: his grandfather was a Navarrese (but Aznar is not like the Navarreses); his father was a Basque (but Aznar isnot like the Basques at all). I dont know about his other grandfather. His mother is an Asturian, and it's very likely that Aznar is like her. If anyone think Aznar can be some of Castilian because he was born in Madrid, he is wrong too; because in Madrid there is nothing of Castile since it was converted in the capital of Spain, many centuries ago.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.37.100.222 (talk) 13:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any specific changes that you are proposing for the article because this is not a forum. Valenciano (talk) 09:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

text: in the article there is a section of "Ancestry" that today is empty, but someday may be filled.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.37.100.222 (talk) 13:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aznar is an Asturian 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on José María Aznar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090306223032/http://www.publico.es/ciencias/205836/aznar/borra/cumbre/negacionista/cambio/climatico to http://www.publico.es/ciencias/205836/aznar/borra/cumbre/negacionista/cambio/climatico
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on José María Aznar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080115072958/http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto060120071601098578 to http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto060120071601098578
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111104202706/http://www.fundacionfaes.org/en/documentos/gotagota/show/00786 to http://www.fundacionfaes.org/en/documentos/gotagota/show/00786
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified