Talk:Javier Solana

Vandalism

I object to SqueakBox's repeated vandalism of what had been a serious and objective article. I particular object to SqueakBox having at various times added references that Javier Solana was "very happily married" when there was strong evidence to the contrary. Now it turns out form EuropeanVoice.com 1995 archives that Javier Solana and his wife "called it quits" 6 months before Solana was given his NATO job. I emailed SqueakBox to give him an opportunity to explain and/or correct this himself. He made no response to my private email, so I have edited the article to correct it. He will no doubt, once again, try to label this as 'vandalism' and his hacking as 'editing.' So be it. User Cumbey.

(Please do not remove when archiving). I've looked at the "666" edits on this article and it appears to me that, for some editors, there is a clear intent to vandalize the Solana entry and the user pages of those who get in their way [1], [2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10]. I will indefinitely block those involved in all such vandalism. In view of this extended campaign of coordinated vandalism I will issue no further warnings and heed no appeals. The users blocked are:

--Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

68.159.142.227 (talk · contribs) is a Michigan IP according to my locator, as are 68.159.157.232 (talk · contribs) and 68.159.146.54 (talk · contribs) --SqueakBox 01:56, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Questionable wording

The article states

By going to the foreign Ministry in the later years of González administration he avoided the political scandals of corruption, and of the dirty war allegedly being fought against ETA, that characterised its last years.

I don't think this is entirely accurate:

1) Coming from the Culture and Education ministries, and from being the government's spokesman, it can hardly be argued that Solana was involved in the various corruption scandals which involved mostly the Interior Ministry's "secret funds" (fondos reservados). As for the scandals involving PSOE's electoral campaign financing, Solana was not associated with the "organization secretariat" of PSOE although he was a member of the "federal executive committee".

2) The dirty war (primarily the GAL case, but not exclusively) is not alleged, as evidence has held in court in more than one case.

3) What characterized Gonzalez's later years in power were not the actual corruption and the dirty war but their prominence in the media. GAL in particular was over around 1985, but a particularly embarrassing point about it is that, although the incidents were reported in the press when they happened, people (and politicians) didn't seem to mind for the most part that alleged ETA collaborators were being killed by paramilitaries. It was only much later that the cases resurfaced.

4) The PSOE managed to pull off an election victory in 1993 which nobody really expected, as the scandals had been raging pretty much for the entire term since 1989. Also, many (most) of Gonzalez's ministers emerged out of the corruption scandals unscathed and were very active in the 1990s. Solana is also not the only one to have moved on to European politics, leaving Spanish national politics to a younger generation.

— Miguel 19:50, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

Please edit the text with your knowledge of these events, --SqueakBox 19:54, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

My inclination is to remove the line I highlighted as irrelevant. GAL, fondos reservados and Filesa simply have no relation to Solana. — Miguel 20:03, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

BTW, my source for the By going to the foreign Ministry in the later years of González administration he avoided the political scandals... was CIDOB, which, of course, doesn't make it right, --SqueakBox 16:52, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

11-M

In March 2004, in response to the Madrid attacks, Solana went on television to say that he thought it was the work of ETA, which is what the government were claiming. He later said he felt he had a duty as a patriotic Spaniard to believe what the government had told him. Having just listened here to the radio on 11-M everyone was saying it was ETA, and unfair to single out Solana, --SqueakBox 16:52, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Editing archive

Cumbey edited Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Javier Solana Antichrist allegations. This is a closed discussion and is not to be edited, --SqueakBox 14:02, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Cumbey's latest statement

Update: May 13, 2005: SqueakBox has made damaging inferential admissions on my own blogspot, www.cumbey.blogspot.com that he fabricated items in various stories he has composed about Javier Solana either here or on his various other internet stalkings seeking to erase all negative references to Javier Solana on the whole worldwide web (a daunting and challenging task!). He now admits he invented the story about Solana being considered the friendliest child in his grade school class. I was quite surprised to learn this as I honestly thought maybe SqueakBox had information which could be useful to me in the book I am writing about Javier Solana as well as my Wikipedia contributions and blogspot articles. I asked him for his source and he publicly posted that he got it from the same place as I got that Ariel Sharon refused to meet with Solana. The problem with this is that Ariel Sharon really did refuse to meet with Javier Solana and SqueakBox deleted that reference from Wikipedia and defamed me all over the web by falsely claiming I had fabricated that information. What was fabricated was Squeakbox's claim that the evidence (and website links were posted at the time) did not exist. J'accuse SqueakBox of intellectual dishonesty to the detriment of Wikipedia and I will be seeking to have him permanently banned from Wikipedia. Below are just a few of many links proving that contrary to SqueakBox's bold assertions, Ariel Sharon refused to meet with Solana in July 2004!

[11] [12] [13]

How is Cumbey going to get the arbcom to permanently ban me for writing in a blog that Solana was the friendlisest chap in school? I sourced that they met. They did, --SqueakBox 15:01, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

From Archive 2:

Sharon

It was claimed Sharon refused to meet Solana on 20 July, but here he meets him on the 22nd. Mistake or propaganda? --SqueakBox 05:02, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC) Cumbey may still believe they did not meet so I have put a relevant link on the page. Wikipedia must not spread fgalsehoods as it is read by so many people, and these falsehoods get spread around. Before you know it everyone is believing they never met last July. --SqueakBox 16:24, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Image

Several images have gone witghout reason. When it returns we will put it back, --SqueakBox 15:10, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

A kind reminder....

to everyone editing this article, the talk space is designed to discuss the article and any disputed content. It's hard to help everyone out when comments are placed willy-nilly in six different places. If there are honest discussions of the content, they should remain here. Thanks. KC9CQJ 16:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion has strayed over to Cumbey's blog

[14], especially re her genuinely not realising that Solana and Sharon had actually met last July. By going to Cumbey's blog in the first place it was partly because she was mentioning me there again, and partly my attempt to be inclusive and collaborative, drawing her back into the article which the events of a couple of days ago show she still cares about. Which is how we got to talking about the Solana visit to Sharon. I inly withdrew the Rfc in an attempt at making peace with Cumbey, and make her feel that she has the same editing rights as I do, --SqueakBox 17:26, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Right, which I understand fully. It's hard for me to chase down diffs on here and then follow the argument either off-site to blogs where other factors are driving the article dispute here or elsewhere on Wikipedia, especially in discontinued VfD petitions. KC9CQJ 03:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent vandal

We have had this for 2 days [15] with noone noticing. I can't do it all myself, SqueakBox 19:29, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

I reverted this anon and reported the IP on ongoing vandalism to request a block, but nobody was paying any attention I guess. Fawcett5 22:09, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You, me and Chanting Fox had all just reverted him. i do wonder if the watchlist mechanism was working as I do check it regularly, and didn't notice. Strange. I only got it today because I started editing, and I guess noone had come to visit the site, believable as Solana is not that well known. Even so I somehow got the right text and only discovered this edit after I had made my own edit and got edit conflict problems. As I say very strange, but not the first strange thing I have seen on Wikipedia. Gremlins or hackers or a mixture of the 2 I guess, SqueakBox 22:16, May 22, 2005 (UTC) SqueakBox 22:13, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Use of "Dr"

The title "Dr" isn't an honorific, it's an earnt title, and is used in many Wikipedia articles, especially when the subject is best known for activities in a field unrelated to the doctorate (it can be assumed that a modern chemist or academic hiistorian has a relevant doctorate). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that you are a university professor, but as one who also holds the distinction, I assure you that it is an honourific, not a title in the proper sense of the word. And one with which a majority of non-MD doctors (except perhaps those in the "soft" disciplines (-: ) prefer to dispense. Universities have no power to bequeath formal titles (except perhaps insofar as job descriptions may be considered titles, i.e. "Professor"), only degrees. By custom, those who hold such a degree are acknowledged the right to the use of the honourific, but it is certainly not a title. In any case, it is clear from the context of the article that he has a doctoral degree. I'll revert once more and then let it lie if you insist. Fawcett5 12:44, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that you're simply wrong on this; there is a clear distinction between a genuine and an honorary doctorate. Use of the latter as a prefix is deprecated, but use of the former is common (in the U.S., of course, most academics have another title, such as "Prof.", so the "Dr" is less often used, but that's only because it's been superceded). I'm not a professor, in fact, in the U.K.-English sense.

Of course, we're not talking about "Prof." but "Dr". Medical doctors are granted the title as a courtesy, but academic doctors bear it by right, and use it in all academic and most non-academic contexts. I'm not sure what you have in mind when you talk about the "power to bequeath formal titles", but in most countries (in fact, in all of those of which I have knowledge) Universities have exactly that, granted by law. My passport, my credit cards, my cheque book, my mortgage documents — all address me and my partner as "Dr". See the relevant Wikipedia articles for more information.

Use of honorifics can be seen as PoV, but I can't see that use of a professional title, earned in the normal way through (usually) the presentation of an academic thesis, can be seen as anything but NPoV.

With regard to "Prof.", incidentally, the title has a clearly defined position with regard to purely honorary titles (for example, it's "Prof. Sir Peter Strawson", not "Sir Prof...").

I might understand your position better, I suppose, if you gave some examples of what you take non-honorific titles to be. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps there is some cross Atlantic confusion in play, especially in regards to what constitutes a title. Certainly most academics in North America choose not to style themselves "Dr." in non-academic/non-professional contexts (except when advantageous naturally), and to do so is considered a bit pretentious. ANYBODY can have "Dr." put on their passport, credit card, etc. — I am unaware of any legislation which prevents anyone from styling themselves in this manner if they so choose. Mind you, I also never made the assertion that including the honourific was NPOV, just unecyclopaedic: Encyclopaedia Brittanica doesn't do it, the Dictionary of National Biography doesn't do it, the Dictionary of Canadian Biography doesn't do it, and neither should we. If anything, the "professional title" bequethed by the university would be "Master of Science" or "Doctor of Philosophy", etc. The use of "Doctor" is just the accepted honourific accorded someone bearing the later credential. It is telling that there are credentials (or titles if you prefer), such as the M.Sc. for which there exists no specific honourific. One must therefore distinguish between the honourific and the "title" which it implies.

An imaginary example (certainly not all would apply, and I may have precedence confused here):

Blessed|Honourable   Dr.|Fr.|Mr.  Professor|President|King  Sir Wordblather Wombat, 1st Baron Wombat,  Ph.D. 
    (Style)         (Honourific)           (title)                    (name)             (title)   (credential)

In any case, I will let the matter stand. Fawcett5 20:17, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He is Dr at his NATO official bio and mr in his EU bio, SqueakBox 20:23, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

i was always taught at (UK) school that you only put a dot after shortening when the last letter is not used. So tel. but not Mr, SqueakBox 17:59, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

It's a U.K./U.S. difference; the U.S. has followed the German rather than English approach. It's odd, but they can be passionate about it, so I don't suggest bringing it up for discussion... Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In that case we should stick with the british version as the article has british spelling, and so it should to conform with all the EU articles, as well as the NATO article, SqueakBox 21:45, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Truce

I think that given all the controversy surrounding Dr. Solana, there should be some reference to the anti-christ and the EU's very real "recommendation 666" theory....just to be fair.

To ignore it would be to ignore what has become part of his biography, which is history. It should be done objectively, though.

It isn't part of his biography, it's part of the psychiatric notes of various people, and medical confidentiality should surely apply on Wikipedia. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:11, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Javier Solana Antichrist allegations is to me perfect evidence that we must not include such a reference. I bet they don't in the George W. Bush article, etc. We have been through all this before, and in my opinion the overwhelming consensus is not to mention the 666 theory, SqueakBox 14:36, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

I smell censorship....

You could argue that the whole votes for deletion process is censorship, and I am sure that there are people who do. But that is a policy issue not appropriate for this particular article. You could say the people have spoken (at the Vfd), SqueakBox 03:17, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Recommendation 666 was in fact written and authored by Dr. Solana, that is as concrete of a factual fact as you can get. It is not some creation on a neoconservative baptist's website, it is on the official website of the Assembly of the WEU. To remove an edit that simply links to an official government document on the WEU's website is absolutely censorship, despite what you think was democracy. Fact isn't decided by what the majority thinks, fact is decided by fact. And the fact in this matter is, whether you like it or not, Recommendation 666 is a real government document, created by Dr. Solana, and is on the official website of the Assembly of the WEU. Simply linking that document in his entry in and of itself is completely acceptable. Anything less would be playing the dillusional game of 'lets create our own reality' - one that I'm confident you are bright enough not to play. <---unsigned comment from User:Gump

Gump, your edits to Michael Moore and Fahrenheit 9/11 1/2 show unambigously that you are a vandal and a bad faith editor. Including some practically random recommendation document just because the number gives you a thrill is unencyclopaedic and will not be tolerated by good faith editors. Based on your supposed logic, why not include recommendation 665 and recommendation 667 (or which ever other ones Solana wrote), etc.? So go away and leave it alone, or you will quickly find yourself banned...your behaviour on other pages alone is already sufficient justification. Fawcett5 14:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can Gump apologise here for his outrageous assertion about thinking he is in Nazi Germany. He is creating a very rank atmosphere here with his rash assertions, which is not conducive to a collaborative effort on this article, plus it can be construed as a personal attack against the editors of this article, SqueakBox 16:25, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

When I realised what he'd been up to on other articles, I decided to block Gump for twelve hours to give him a chance to cool off and reflect on whether he wants to contribute to Wikipedia or just vandalize and troll. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow Tony, you're so brilliant, I'm so impressed with your ability to go to an admin page that does all the hard work for you. I make two edits to Michael Moore (just to see what happens) then suddenly every other logical argument I ever make afterwards is null and void. Way to divert the issue by pointing your finger at something else other than taking on the issue at hand. Thus is human nature, to point at something else when confronted directly with truth. Of course my two edits to Michael Moore were stupid (was supposed to be one, but when I hit refresh on my browser it did the same thing again), but can you think beyond that in any capacity? And Squeakbox, I have no apology for using Nazi Germany as an example, because guess what? Now that I've been 'banned' for 12 hours, been called a troll, and have only had 'then use 665 and 667' thrown at me as a defense, I'm confident that I will be now be deemed irritating enough to be banned completely for such an 'outrageous assertion' - despite my starting this entire 'truce' section on my own free will, engaging in challenging conversation, and by adding a simple link to a page on the European Union - not fundie - website. So go ahead, be a dictator and censor me right up, create your own reality, just the way you want it to be. But until then, that page exists whether you like it or not. p.s. I don't think Solana is the antichrist, and 99.9999% of people don't think so either. Recommendation 666 is highly important though, because in an 'emergency situation', all authority is handed over to ONE person....which is ironic and could serve useful to a FUTURE person in power....but whatever, that came from a fundie website right? Oh wait....it didn't. User:Gump

This has nothing to do with censorship; merely that the 666 resolution is neither interesting or important enough to warrant mention in the article let alone the first paragraph. And yes, you introduce 666 and you should indeed include 665 and 667 and 669 etc, because they are doubtless equally relevant. Until you can come up with a good reason to include this particular resolution other than it's number can you please desist from your personal attacks, by which I refer to your Nazi Germany edit summary in particular. Nobody is censoring anything. People here just want to write an encyclopedia article. BTW censorship has as much to do with people being forced to include things in work as to exclude them, and were you to force us to include this resolution it would indeed be a case of censorship, SqueakBox 03:18, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

We can easily mention the emergency powers without reference to 666, SqueakBox 03:20, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Then go ahead and prove it - put substance behind your words and show that you are a fair editor by following your own advice of mentioning this in the article. User:Gump

Recommendation 666 is a WEU recommendation, nothing to do with the EU, and is a virtually defunct organisation. What exactly am I supposed to put in to the article? SqueakBox 20:42, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

NATO Secretary General

Who has removed the paragraph dealing with his time as NATO secretary General? Since was was general during the Kosovo war, I would think that would be important to include.

Returned. I will find out how it got removed later, SqueakBox 16:21, May 27, 2005 (UTC). it got lost while I was trying to revert 216.125.81.19 and it got lost. i need to take more care, and 216.125.81.19 and others like them need to stop vandalising the article with their fascist politics, SqueakBox 17:12, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Degree information

I've had a mail from the anon editor about the current dispute on physics/UCM vs. chemistry/AUM. I've pointed to this page, so perhaps both sides could state their sources here? Thanks -- sannse (talk) 18:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) (Lisa Carter on mail)

I don't know anything definitive on this, but I'll bet he did an undergrad in chem or physical chemistry and then did doctoral work in physics. In 1964 he would have been 22, so it is highly unlikely it would be a PhD. Fawcett5 19:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My source is CIDOB, SqueakBox 22:27, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

The web site that says that Solana is a Chemist says that he studied in AUM?, it's not a reliable source. It even misspells the university acronym! (UAM is the name). You are right, at 22 he had a MSc and not yet a PhD. Anyway, the important point is that he is not a Chemist. You can find Solana as a Physicist at: [16], at [17], at Foreign Policy (an interview with Solana !!)[18], another evidence at [19] and thousands more. But probably you still don't believe me, so let's see what you think when Solana himself says in a speech on EU security 'I am a physicist' (which means he is NOT a chemist) at: [20], or when he answers to Physics World Magazine to the question 'why did you choose to study physics', please, read the answer at [21].

His father was a chemistry professor but he says he was more interested in Physics and gives an explanation.

Please, correct the wikipedia page.

(WeatherGirl 21:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) -I am a Physicist at UCM, I know what I'm talking about-)

Unfortunately there is nothing in any of your sources that indicates he studied physics and n ot chemistry as an undergraduate. I at least have a source, SqueakBox 12:50, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

We make it very clear he is not a chemist, indeed the section title includes him being a physicist. Just because he graduated in chemistry doesn't make him a chemist. The mistake re AUM and UAM was my mistake and not CIDOB's, SqueakBox 14:52, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

In one of my sources he answers to why he studied physics (so, he has a physics degree). Do you prefer to believe what CIDOB says or what Solana says?. You understand spanish and you should know that when we ask: what have you studied? that means university degree, not career. And, besides, UAM: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. I'm afraid to tell you that at that time UAM didn't exist and all that existed was Universidad de Madrid (now Universidad Complutense de Madrid). Do you have any source other than CIDOB? Just think they've made a mistake and you are copying it here.

(and, entering the personal field, I can assure you he studied Physics, but that's not a web-based source)

WeatherGirl 21:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The physics world interview is an external link here already. And it doesn't contradict what CIDOB says, nor do any of your sources, SqueakBox 20:33, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

If you have off web sources I would be very interested to hear about them, as any new information on this aspect of his life would be greatly appreciated. Like, for instance, the names of his 30 articles. Depending on the nature off web sources may or may not be welcome to the page itself, but they would be very welcome here. I am genuinely interested, SqueakBox 20:37, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

It might be worth asking CIDOB if they have made a mistake, SqueakBox 20:39, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

It's WeatherGirl again. I had added a lot of links but I don't know where they went. Here you have one from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Education (at the time when he was minister, possibly, I am not sure)[22]

Javier Solana nació en Madrid hace 53 años. Es licenciado en Ciencias Físicas

Or, in german you can find:[23]

Javier Solana Madariaga wurde 1942 in Madrid geboren.

Von 1959 bis 1965 studierte er Physik an der Universität Complutense in Madrid.

And, besides, UAM -universidad autónoma de madrid- didn't exist at that time (1964). ;)

(before starting this conversation, I have tried to contact CIDOB but unsuccesfully).

Is Ciencias Físicas physics or a broader description of a science course? I feel happy for you to change the sentence in accord with this new source, though perhaps as we have a contradioction we should not specify what he studied? SqueakBox 21:14, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

WeatherGirl Ciencias Físicas: physics (licenciado en ciencias físicas (5 years long) -> MSc in Physics). Ciencias Químicas: chemistry. Ciencias Biológicas: biology. Ciencias matemáticas (o exactas): mathematics.. and so on. If you are not 100% (despite my efforts!) convinced, don't say anything.. it's 'your' page about Solana. You made the effort of writing it! As long as it's not said he studied Chemistry, I'm happy and I won't insist you anymore on that subject. It's 100% true he studied physics in that Faculty, so you can write that down if you feel like :)

If I get additional information on this subject, I can show it to you here if you want to. But if you prefer, we can close the subject now.

Weathergirl again. Hi squeakbox, I have an email from the 'cabinet de presse' of Dr. Solana where they confirm me he is "licenciado en físicas".

I've read you wanted some information about his ARTICLES. As I told you, I have personal information (not web-based information) about him and that's why I know he has a degree in physics bla, bla, bla... and I can also tell you the titles, name of journal, date, even the page number of a lot of his articles. All what we, scientists, need to find a paper. If you give me an email address, I can send that to you (here it's too long). Some titles (I hope you believe this, despite I can't link to anywhere):

NOTE ON FOURIER COMPONENTS OF GAS-SOLID INTERACTION POTENTIAL;
UNCERTAINTY IN INELASTIC RESONANT SCATTERING ASSISTED BY PHONONS
ANALYSIS OF METHODS PROPOSED FOR COMPUTING SCATTERING OF ATOMS FROM A HARD CORRUGATED SURFACE MODEL OF HE-LIF(001)
QUANTUM RAINBOW IN SURFACE SCATTERING
LOW-FREQUENCY GRUNEISEN PARAMETERS OF GLASSES - MODEL ESTIMATION
NOTE ON FOURIER COMPONENTS OF GAS-SOLID INTERACTION POTENTIAL

and a lot more...