Talk:Pedro Sánchez

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment

Surely there are better ways to indicate he was the leader of the biggest party in the parliament not part of the government and the protocolary importance of it than assume he held a non-existent office in the infobox.--Asqueladd (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

What are you doing? Of course the office of "Leader of Opposition" is not official in Spain, but it is recognized as an honorary role. There's not an official appointment because, since it is more of an informal and honorary role, it is rather automatic. Sánchez assumed the honorary role of Leader of the Opposition when he was elected as leader of the then-main opposition party. Here you have some sources of that time referring to him as such ([1] [2] [3] [4]). There have always existed "leaders of the opposition" in Spain ever since 1977. That this needs a citation when the role's workings are explained in the proper article itself (where you can find a lot of links from media using the term "Leader of the Opposition", and even for the role being once acknowledged by Parliament itself) is absurd. Impru20 (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

What are you doing? What a way to start. You may well indicate that protocolary recognition in the lead, but not as an office in the infobox because it is not an office and you mislead readers into thinking there is such thing in Spain as there is in the UK or Catalonia.--Asqueladd (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I've answered in your talk page, but I remind it to you here: either you start showing anything that actually proves that what you say is what must be applied after I spent a whole lot of time showing you links, references, sources, evidences and other proof, or I'll have to consider that you're just not pretending to be constructive here. The "this must be done so because I say so" argument does not work here, pal. Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 23:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Evidences of what? It is not an office. It is a political role and a honorary recognition ("oficiosa") as the article states, not an office. And you haven't proved otherwise.--Asqueladd (talk) 23:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I've proven that such offices are added to infoboxes too. You have it in your talk.

You've not proven why honorary roles are not eligible to be added in infoboxes when they are relevant. Specially seeing this is actually done in Wikipedia against your criteria. Where is it stated that relevant political roles can't be added? Please elaborate. Impru20 (talk) 00:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm checking Wikipedia policies on biographies and infoboxes, as well as this specific infobox template. It is nowhere to be found where it says that political offices may not be added to living people infoboxes. Specially when they may be relevant to the topic. So far I've not only proven that it's done in Wikipedia; I've just actually proven that it's not forbidden anywhere.

Please, it's urgent for you to explain where are you getting your claim from. Impru20 (talk) 00:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Btw, we either discuss the issue here or in our talk pages, but please let us stick to one place. Impru20 (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Urgent? Lol, mate. It is not like the very fabric of space-time is at stake. Btw, what claim? You have checked that. Fine. And you have found out it's not discouraged (because it does not tell anything about it). Awesome. Its conveniency can be still discussed. At least we can agree it is not an actual office? I propose this or this as compromise.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, "mate", but it was you who started asking for evidences to others, and ended up being unable to offer some yourself. Look, it's now obvious you have nothing and that you're only proposing changes for your own sake. Your own argument was supported in no grounds, and now you actually come and propose maintaining it but in a different format.

In any case, I don't wish to press this issue further seeing there's really nothing to talk about. From what I see, your second choice consists on merely changing the order and having the "Secretary General" office being placed in first (I discard the first one because that is not used actually anywhere, and because a connection does not strictly exist between both posts). Seeing you being really so concerned on this whole issue, I may accept having it that way since order doesn't seem really important to me (even despite both offices being political ones, and even despite customary practice in other articles being in favour of putting opposition leadership over party leadership first), just for compromise. Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

No, chap. You have had to acknowledge that is not a political office, which you were refusing to accept like a maniac (even although its own entry states it). What I have to provide sources for once you have accepted that is not an actual office, if I may ask? I can disagree about the (un)convenience of the editorialization you add in the infobox, because is misleading. You can't reason? Cool, I have better things to do. Once you avoid debate about it (the convenience) and resort to "urgently provide sources that prove you can't do that in wikipedia". Seriously? I am done in trying to debate the necessity of including ceremonial titles in the infobox (criteria any other wikipedia follows in this case, by the way) in those terms. Once I am done in trying to convince you about the bad editorializing in the infobox, I provide you two options that at least try to show that is is a role/title and not an office. The second one also changes "In office" for "In role" , you seem to forget.--Asqueladd (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Uh, what? I did accept it from the beginning. Just check how absurd is your claim: I am the author of that entry. I know perfectly what is said there and why, and it's all sourced. In this whole discussion I only pointed that the office is not entirely unprovided by law as you initially wanted to convey (because the figure has been recognized by both law and parliamentary practice), it's just unregulated. And it's just curious how now you resort to talking about that entry when throughout the first part of this discussion you not even looked at it to check for sources! What you did here from the beginning was to somehow explain that this figure had to be left out from the infobox, basically because you wanted to remove it, because so far you've proven unable to put forward any argument defending that this office must not be put in the infobox. You bogged down in all that "swore in" issue which was irrelevant all along.

You've asked me for sources from the very beginning, which I've offered. You even went as far as to sent me to look in the Boletín Oficial de las Cortes Generales for something you knew I won't find because it didn't exist. That said, it's only fair and logical that once I showed you evidence that your claim was wrong, I asked you for giving sources that backed your reasoning for leaving the office out of the infobox, and you showed none. Not only that, but now you're resorting to ranting and to outrightly accuse me of editorialization, when I've showed you plenty of evidence that this thing is pretty common in Wikipedia (and, specifically, in a country you put me as an example that supposedly supported your claim; it's obvious you had not enough knowledge on it as it obviously refutes you as it has been shown).

Look guy, you're the one being unable to prove your facts, you're the one whose only reasoning for keeping up this discussion is that you think that it shouldn't be there. And you accuse of editorializing to those that don't agree with you, but are still unable to explain what's wrong with what is done. I called you for urgency so as to end this quickly once I had already given enough sourcing myself to you. Now it seems you want to still keep this up.

I hadn't noticed the "In role" change. So, I obviously don't agree with that; and this is quite surprising, coming from someone accusing others of editorializing. Now I'm definitely not accepting your "compromise" since that's obviously just trying to impose a sneaky form of your own POV. I should remind you that your own marvelous example, the UK, uses "in office" even for those Opposition Leaders that served back when the post was just a protocolary and political one.

This whole discussion is a waste of time, and it's quite obvious you're not willing to abide to anything that doesn't abide to your own POV. So, seeing how for you it's only good to demand sources from others but then it comes as something very bad to you that some other asks you for sourcing, and seeing how my case is very strongly-defended and supported even by Wikipedia standards whereas yours is now just limiting to mere accusations, and unless you've anything new to reveal here, we can take this issue for settled. Impru20 (talk) 00:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

You are thick as fuck. What do I have to provide sources for, again? If you want wiki-examples in en:wiki [sic] (note: that is not a source): the very same role of First Lady of Hillary Clinton features as In role (obviously, as that it is not an office, same as here).--Asqueladd (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I did put a on the claim Pedro Sánchez "assumed office of Leader of the Opposition on 26 July 2014" for the reasons I have explained. You do not want to reason. Fine. But the WP:BURDEN on restoring unsourced material (which currently falls on WP:SYNTH as it is) is on you.--Asqueladd (talk) 18:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

"You are thick as fuck", surely, doesn't count as a source either, I hope.

Again, you prove unable yourself to explain where the WP:SYNTH is. You'd have to prove that, obviously, because that you think that there may be SYNTH doesn't turns this into SYNTH. I think this is so obvious. I'll note you on WP:BURDEN a little further ahead, but first, I don't think it's even necessary to point out that Sánchez was not a First Lady and can't, thus, receive the same treatment.

For some reason, UK Opposition Leaders before 1937 don't provide enough sourcing for you. Or the fact that even current "officeholders" don't need to be sworn anywhere but automatically access to the post, this is also not enough for you. Ok, then check Ireland, which is a country where the opposition leadership office is found in the same situation than in Spain, with no official recognition beyond parliamentary convention and media sourcing. Check Micheál Martin, Enda Kenny, Michael Noonan, John Bruton... and see how they all use the "in office" figure. Wikipedia practice, sources and evidences are overwhelmingly against you. Opposition Leadership is considered as an office. This is not SYNTH. This is widely accepted and done in Wikipedia for Opposition Leaders. So, you're not right here, and for you to keep considering this as SYNTH you would have to put more arguments forward.

Because, let's see: you claim that you put the template on Pedro Sánchez's "assuming office of Leader of the Opposition on 26 July 2014", "on the reasons explained". Well, firstly you wanted to remove it from the infobox altogether (it's now curious that you mention Hillary Clinton and the figure of the First Lady as an example; on your initial grounds, she shouldn't be listed as First Lady in the infobox in the first place, should she?); then, worked out for more "imaginative" ways of trying to press your own personal views forward. So far, seeing how this is widely handled in Wikipedia and how you're not even being consistent yourself, you have not explained why Pedro Sánchez is more special than other Opposition Leaders in the world and should, thus, be given a specific, different treatment. Because that's what you are pressing for doing. What's currently done here is not the exception, but the norm: the exception being what you want to do. So, yes, this is why WP:BURDEN falls on you, because you currently lack explanation and/or sourcing on this issue.

Btw, after I've (once again) taken my time to answer you giving out lots of reasonings and explanations, are you going to say again that I don't reason? You keep doing that, but it's curious you're not even answering my requests. Just to know if this discussion is even worth at all or you're just not going to accept anything that doesn't mean abiding to your own, particular view of reality. Impru20 (talk) 20:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

So far we have:

1. Leader of the Opposition (Spain) is not an office.
2. Indeed I would not include First Lady as position in an infobox, I am trying to find WP:CONSENSUS, my dear thick interlocutor.

When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns. The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution. Consensus is an ongoing process on Wikipedia; it is often better to accept a less-than-perfect compromise – with the understanding that the page is gradually improving – than to try to fight to implement a particular preferred version immediately. The quality of articles with combative editors is, as a rule, far lower than that of articles where editors take a longer view.

— WP:CONSENSUS#Through discussion

1. Examples of alternative use of infoboxes to reflect positions that are not offices (but roles and/or ceremonial recognition). Just changes that at least warn the reader that the position is not an office the polician held but a ceremonial recognition/title/role the politician plays. One of them mimicking the solution used in a rather extensively edited entry such as Hillary Clinton.
2. Refusal to even contemplate the minimal change proposed above and suggestion that it is a "sneaky POV" [sic] proposal (?).
3. The assumption that all leaders of the opposition from all over the world should be handled the same way. I find it preposterous. In any case, I am aware that a consensus on how to handle post-1978 Spain could be desirable (I am not sure this has been discussed extensively before...). But the world? Completely absurd. I find this quote interesting (by Maunus): Consistency is not a greater good: Enforcing consistency simply for consistency's sake is not necessarily an improvement. Creating consistency across incomparable contexts may in fact be detrimental.
4. Request of sources directed at me (for what?)
5. No. Mr. Sánchez is not more special than any other (it is a straw man fallacy as I don't recall myself stating it). We can give the same treatment to the rest of post 1978 Spanish politicians that held that honorary position as it is a "comparable context".--Asqueladd (talk) 20:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

1. I've already show you (and you've had the opportunity to see) how Leaders of the Opposition are handled in Wikipedia. Office or not, sworn into office or not, they are all handled the same. And it's not how you point out.
2. One thing is to find WP:CONSENSUS. But you just suggested doing something that is outrightly contradictory with your own supposed reasoning and dismantles your own arguments. So, if adding it in the infobox was so bad at first, but then you currently say that it can be done, what's actually the issue here?
3. It's not only that you pretend to compare the offices/roles/recognitions of an Opposition Leader to that of a First Lady (which are not quite comparable), but that for the issue at hand you're also trying to give an higher importance to how a First Lady is handled above how other comparable Opposition Leaders are handled! And just add to this that you yourself have just said you wouldn't list the First Lady role in the infobox (yet you're now defending that we treat Sánchez as a First Lady in what it comes to Opposition Leadership). Just acknowledge that this has not much sense, really.
4. I may accept changes, of course, as this is not mine and I don't have any desire for ownership. But that's why I asked you for evidence that supported treating Sánchez differently, because a) it's a non-sense giving him a different treatment than Opposition Leaders in both the same (Spain) and other countries, and b) you're being constantly inconsistent and erratic on your requests, your arguments and your reasonings, so we don't know what is to be changed, why should any change be made at all or the necessity of it. To this request for evidences (just to elaborate these points), you have constantly kept replying that you don't have to do so and that you don't have to check for sources or evidences. This, despite you having asked sources from me yourself, which I have offered (and then you seem to have ignored). So, what gives?
5. What I've shown you are examples of Opposition Leaders in the very exact situation than Sánchez was (UK pre-1937, Ireland... and I surely could find more if I checked a little deeper). The closest you could give me in return was a First Lady. Well. I won't say this is a "consistency for consistency's sake" case. Rather, I'd rewrite that sentence as Enforcing change simply for change's sake is not necessarily an improvement. You just pretend to change this for change's sake, with me repeteadly asking you for reasonings to do so and you just replying that I "don't reason" or that I'm "thick". You even accused me of doing WP:SYNTH with this. Is it SYNTH for all other countries that do like this, too? Obviously, stronger reasonings would be preferable, because otherwise the change would be very feeble-based.
6. For what has been repeteadly said all throughout the discussion as well as above.
7. But then, you'd have to give some reasoning as to why such office should be treated differently here than in other countries. So far, you've not entered into content, but rather into accusations and personal opinions. Just because you want to do it or because you think it's SYNTH doesn't mean it has to be done and/or changed. That's why I'm requesting you for evidences or stronger arguments, something you repeteadly refuse to do. Btw, I haven't accused you of saying that Sánchez was "special", but you pretend to give him a special treatment, different from other Opposition Leaders around the world (and now you want to enlarge it to all Spanish Opposition Leaders, but then again without giving a reason). For that to be a straw man fallacy I'd have to be refuting that you said that, but I'm just saying that your change would do that. Just to point this to you. Impru20 (talk) 21:13, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

1. I have not said it is a comparable context to Hillary. Again a down right strawman fallacy. You are full of it. I proposed several options to change the entry and improve the infobox in the sense that explicitly undermines the notion that "Leader of the Opposition (Spain)" is a political office, which is not.
2. I have provided a reason. Leader of the Opposition (Spain) is not a political office and the infobox should not imply it.

PS: I don't see Práxedes Mateo Sagasta with the fecking title in the infobox either. Go, run to insert it, Barry, run. --Asqueladd (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Rewriting parts of your comment after I had answered it doesn't seem a fair thing to do. Anyway, yes, I do know what WP:CONSENSUS is. And I think, seeing from your behaviour, that I'm quite more experienced than you in that area, thank you.

1. Huh, but you did say this, right?

One of them mimicking the solution used in a rather extensively edited entry such as Hillary Clinton

Or what does mimick mean for you, then?

2. It's the same situation than for pre-1937 UK and for Ireland, and the infoboxes of those countries do imply that. Again, what you say is your opinion, but that is not reflected by facts nor are you trying to make any attempt at trying to prove your point yourself ("thick", "run, Barry, run"... yeah, high quality reasoning indeed).

PS: Yeah, guy, that's what happens when Leaders of the Opposition have been mostly recognized by parliament and the media only from after the transition to democracy in the 1970s. Sagasta would have needed to be a bit older, I think. Btw, I think you know that in Sagasta's era, the old Restoration system was based in the agreed-for and peaceful alternation in power between both main parties through election rigging, so there was really no identifiable "opposition" in such a sense. And from what I see, Sagasta has no infobox at all (not even to list his role as PM), because the article is incomplete. Impru20 (talk) 21:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I am trying to show patience:

1. Are you denying Leader of the Opposition (Spain) is not a formal political office? It is not, as the entry states.
2. Do you agree the proposed alternatives (or others, I am open to suggestions) in the infobox undermine the (imprecise) notion that Leader of the Opposition is an political office ?

If so, I don't know what are you discussing here, as the change improves the presentation of the individual entry.

• Now:

1. We can choose the best way to do it.
2. If you think consistency is a need, can you agree that, in any case, post-1978 Spanish politics is the most adequate (comparable and manageable context) to enforce the improvement across wikipedia entries?--Asqueladd (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

You had a curious way to show patience by mocking me, I must say.

1. And? It isn't either for Ireland, or wasn't for UK pre-1937, or other countries. I still can't see your point or what sense your claim has, which is what I'm asking you all the time.
2. Well, if as you said the proper article is clear on that, and since the infobox entry gives a direct link to it... where's the confusion?

I don't know where does the change show any improvement. Most people would not even notice that and would go to the article anyway to get their information, and those that notice may not even know what does that mean. And to accomplish that whole confusing thing, you'd be breaking consistency with established precedent. I can't see how the benefits of it would be better than the negative effects...

1. Yes, I'm all for choosing a compromise, but the issue is that I can't even see the necessity of such a change. You put it as if it has to be necessarily done. Why? You have not given out reasons yet.
2. The same as above. Overall, the issue here is that you're seeing a problem where I see none, and you're trying to impose a course of action when I don't even see why something must be done. Now you talk about post-1978 Spanish politics, but I have to remind you than the one mentioning Sagasta (pre-1978) was you. The most adequate and manageable context is all of Wikipedia. I can't see why Opposition Leaders in Ireland and the UK can be treated in one way and we have to treat them differently in Spain. Impru20 (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Date

@Aude9331: I think you are not considering the concept of retroactivity here. Indeed, Sánchez's appointment and his sworn in ceremony won't be held until 2 June, but that is independent of the fact that Sánchez is already considered to be the incumbent Prime Minister (pointing a pair of sources: [5] [6] [7]), and he is so from the very time the President of the Congress confirms his investiture and his appointment decree is signed by the King (which happened on 1 June). Of course, the decree will be published on 2 June and will enter into force on that day, but it has retroactive effect from the signing date. Otherwise, it would have been some periods during Spanish history where there would have been no PM at all, as at some times publication is delayed even if the person at hand is already considered as PM. Impru20^talk 22:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Impru20: I am no lawyer and no specialist for the question when assuming office effectively takes place. Usually, a law comes into effect on the day when published in the official bulletin. Another more convincing example: The President of the United States is elected in November and sworn in in January. The outgoing President still remains in office. The newly elected president is called President-elect, but has no power. He assumes office on the very day, more precisely: after the inauguration ceremony, not before, although everybody knows months before that the President-elect will be the next President in office.

Back to Pedro Sánchez: Most Wiki language versions mention 2 June. Some distinguish between becoming president and assuming office (like the Italian one): president from 1 June, office assumed 2 June. But isn't that the point? “Assumed office” – it reads in en.wikipedia. – I had "corrected" only the German and English versions to 2 June. Maybe all wikis mentioning 2 June are wrong. But I doubt it. Walkuer (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Sources are very clear about the date from which Pedro Sánchez is considered to be PM. Even La Moncloa website shows the date as 1 June 2018, as well as media sources, so there is little doubt about this. The swearing-in ceremony should not be confused with the actual appointment. The motion of no confidence has a double and immediate effect: firstly, the outgoing PM (in this case, Rajoy) is removed from office, and the proposed candidate (Sánchez) is automatically appointed in his place. Impru20^talk 19:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

La Moncloa website gives dates for "appointment" and "cessation" (see columns: "nombramiento" and "cese"). That brings an interesting debate, because these dates are both notable information as well as the most available one (therefore the most easily "tabulable"), but the parameter in the infobox is still about the day when assuming office, which undoubtedly is 2 June.--Asqueladd (talk) 10:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Most sources do show 1 June as the date to go, as it was the date in which Sánchez was appointed. There are already five sources in the article showing that, but more can be added. Sánchez was sworn in on 2 June but he was appinted on 1 June. Sometimes, the appointment and swearing in dates do coincide (i.e. Giuseppe Conte), but in other cases they do not, and in these, preferece seems to be for the appointment. For instance, Theresa May is shown as being Prime Minister since 13 July 2016 (the appointment date), even when the swearing in was not complete until 19 July 2016. Impru20^talk 11:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@Impru20: The official source [8] now is very clear about 2 June and corresponds with general logics. As a reaction of my correspondence with La Moncloa press department the table of presidents has been corrected.Walkuer (talk) 09:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

So, if Sánchez's term began on June 2, how can Rajoy's term have ended one day before? There can't be a power void. The same arguments you used are the ones that I have used in my own discussion with Impru20, and seem pretty logical, but he insists on keeping June 1 as Rajoy's term end date, even though, as you previously stated, the President of the US is still the President once a new President is elected, and continues in office until the President-elect is sworn in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.156.8.194 (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Do not spread discussions from other talk pages throughout Wikipedia. Talk pages are for discussing the specific article, not for general conversation about the article's subject or much less other subjects. See WP:TALK#USE. Thank you. Impru20^talk 16:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

It's just for other users to see it. In the other talk page, you're the only one who answers and you've left pretty clear that you're not going to change your viewpoint, even if I have provided different sources stating that Rajoy's term ended on June 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.156.8.194 (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

For "other users to see" there is already the discussion at WP:RSN, where other users are giving their input (even if you do not like it). Bringing an unrelated talk page discussion into off-topic just to satisfy your personal purposes goes against Wikipedia guidelines on the use of talk pages. Please, refrain from that. Wikipedia is not a forum. Thank you. Impru20^talk 17:12, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I do like it. But there is only one user who's given his opinion, and he's finally said that it's time for others to join the discussion, but you're constantly interrumpting in an attempt to prevent other users from expressing their opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.156.8.194 (talk) 17:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Why isn't this Pedro Sánchez (politician)? Judging from Pedro Sánchez, there is no chance of significant confusion. --Nemo 12:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Nemo bis There appears to be a Peruvian minister of the same name. I'm not sure what the protocol is then - being head of government in Spain is clearly more notable than being a minister, but the Peruvian is still a politician called Pedro Sánchez Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 1 May 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: There is consensus that the politician is the primary topic and so the article has been moved — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

---

• Pedro Sánchez (politician) → Pedro Sánchez
• Pedro Sánchez → Pedro Sánchez (disambiguation)

– Being Prime Minister of your country probably makes you more notable than all your namesakes. Unreal7 (talk) 16:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Yeah, at this point he surely meets the bit of WP:COMMONNAME. However, there are other naming criteria, particularly WP:PRECISE, which the proposed name would fail to comply. "Pedro" and "Sánchez" are very common names in Spain (maybe not as extreme as John Smith, but you get the point). "Pedro Sánchez" would fail to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, as there are many people with such a name (indeed, just in Wikipedia there is a long list of people named like that, as seen here). Impru20^talk 16:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• Agree I agree. I do not believe that there is currently a better known Pedro Sánchez and most of the Pedro Sánchez that appear on the disambiguation page use their second surname (for their page's title). The information of "Pedro Sánchez" should go to "Pedro Sánchez (disambiguation)". TheRichic (Messages here) 17:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

The argument about the second part of a Spanish surname is misplaced. It is a matronymic, and is used for convenience in disambiguation in English and Spanish Wikipedias. They are all likely to go by Pedro Sánchez in real life. The politician's full name is Pedro Sánchez Pérez-Castejón. Narky Blert (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support. This seems like the clear primary topic. Nohomersryan (talk) 19:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• Mild support. (Tentatively) this looks like the primary topic. If an article for Napoleon Dynamite's character is ultimately created, this may be revisited.--Asqueladd (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support. The pageview statistics are quite convincing, with the politician representing 97% of views (remember to subtract out irrelevant project-space links). I see no qualitative reason to believe that any of the others have more long-term significance than the politician. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support. per the reasoning of Mr. King of Hearts. Teammm ^talk
  _email 19:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support. I second TheRichic. GEORGIAN^{Go Dogs}
• Support. I follow the reasoning of TheRichic & King of Hearts.. As Prime Minister of Spain he's the most prominent of the Pedro Sanchez's so the main article should be his. -- fdewaele, 5 May 2019, 20:25 CET.
• Support per nom and above Colonestarrice (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

New Government

@User:Thinker78 actually, the government website is outdated. As per news, this Saturday Sánchez changed half of the government, in particular Calvo is gone. I guess government IT dep doesn't update the web on weekends :) Birdofpreyru (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

But that applies to appointments too Birdofpreyru. The new ministers were announced yesterday, but they haven't been published in the BOE yet, so they are still not effective. This means the previous officeholders are still in office until the appointments come into force, which will probably happen tomorrow. Impru20^talk 20:36, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Ogh... indeed :) Birdofpreyru (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

I propose that section President of the Government of Spain be split into a separate page called Presidency of Pedro Sánchez. The content of the current page seems increasingly off-topic and just a list of issues rather than a concise, cohesive view of his term. This section is large enough to make their own page, and creating such a page would encourage more focused editing on the topic in both pages. Notifying recent frequent/sizeable contributors: @TheRichic and Asqueladd: A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 09:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I think the split might be a good way forward. While they are common in articles about politicians, the sub-section structure of a given mandate in "policy areas" of sorts (I personally don't favour them), can create a lack of focus in biographical articles, to which unbalance, haphazardness and the loss of a chronological "sense" may also add up. IMO, the key discussion revolves around the nature of the content that should remain in the article vis-à-vis Sánchez's rule as prime minister (it would prolly need some discussion here). And last but not least, given that Sánchez is the head of government ("prime minister"), I wonder if "presidency" is problematic in English in regard of the title for the intended article. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree with everything Aasqueladd said. Premiership better than Presidency. TheRichic (Messages here) 16:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your argument on "Premiership" rather than "Presidency"—just a case of a false friend from my native spanish. My proposed categories to keep on parent article:

• Foreign Policy

• EU (I'd include immigration here, but am open to discussion on that)

• Domestic Policy
• Economic Policy
• COVID-19

What do y'all think @Asqueladd and TheRichic: A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 16:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd say rather than "keep some sections, split others", split all sections from "President of the Government of Spain" into new article as is, and in the orginal article leave a very brief summary of all split sections, like ~1 sentense per each split paragraph, so that remaining "President of the Government of Spain" section in the original article is just a few paragraphs giving a brief overview of most important events/policies, but without a strict chronological orders / exact dates, and anybody wanting details should be forwarded to the new split article. Birdofpreyru (talk) 01:29, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Fair, that sounds like a good idea to me as well Birdofpreyru A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 06:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I have hinted my preference is that of a single chronological line, but, in any case, I am not willing to involve a lot in this of as of now. I've no outright rejection to that scheme in order to start with something. What content do you mean by immigration? The current content about immigration seemingly concerns the Aquarius incident only. But I am not sure it is particularly central to his "premiership" as a whole, nor particularly representative of the migration policies during Sánchez premiership not to say particularly notable vis-à-vis foreign relations (some verbal spat coming from Twitter from an Italian deputy prime minister and some praise from other leaders?). I mean, we would probably need sources weighting the foreign affairs measures as a whole (for every section, really), but I would probably think that a mix of the Morocco crisis (not mentioned in the article at all!!) and intergovernmental role/participation into the EU recovery measures are the most central ones in the scope of foreign affairs, don't you think?--Asqueladd (talk) 09:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

That's why I said probably not strictly chornological. Regarding immigration I'd just leave in orginal article smth like "Sanchez Government favoured immigration and reception of refugees, including volunteering to welcome people rescured far from Spanish shores." (Aquarius, and I belive there was a bunch of similar less resonant events through recent years, but exact dates and list of events look exceesive for main Sanchez article). I'd also say "including illegal immigration" but I guess you won't agree to that :) Birdofpreyru (talk) 11:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Favoured immigration and reception of refugees (when Spain has among the lowest % of acceptance of asylum requests in the EU, the Government of Spain orders to raise the height of the wall of Ceuta and Melilla, the Spanish administration cage irregular migrants into CIEs and tried to secure repatriation flights to Senegal and the Ministry of the Interior tried to expel Moroccan children en masse from Ceuta contravening legislation?). What world are you living in? In addition to being bad original research and counter-factual, it reads very amateurish, like a dogwhistle in weasel wording. But I guess you already know that. Up to this point, there is probably a need of to see if dogwhistling about migrants for fun is justified per weight on the basis of holystic sources about the topic (Sánchez premiership as a whole). Possibly Marlaska's article is more fitting WP:WEIGHT-wise.--Asqueladd (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

By favoured immigration and reception of refugees I mean that whenever Sanchez talks on the topic he is all for that, along with mainstream PSOE and UP. So, I'd say this is his policy, proclaimed on may occasions. Whether the end deeds are where his mouth is, that is a different question. No surpise there for me: left-wing historically has big mouths, but fails to deliver on promises cause most of their discourse has little to do with practical reality. Birdofpreyru (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Honestly ever since I moved away from Spain I haven't kept up with what issues are important, but Asqueladd's opinion on immigration in the article is pretty convincing. It seems there is consensus on splitting, in any case. I'll go ahead and do that later today and users can constructively decide via edits and talk later imho A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 13:22, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Go ahead, Santacruz. Regarding what I stated above, I mean, compared to the EU COVID-related recovery money ruckus and the standoff with Morocco in a wider sense (possibly also adding the agreement on the Gibraltar's post-Brexit horizon and maybe the Afghanistan evacuation), the rest of foreign issues such as the reaction to the 6 January attempted Capitol assault in Washington, the Guaidó and Delcy incidents, the dissonance with Mexico vis-à-avis post-colonial narratives, the positioning vis-á-vis the Argentine IMF debt restructuring, positioning vis-à-vis the Turkey-Greece conflict, vaccine diplomacy in Latin America, the December 2019 incident between the Bolivian police, and Spanish and Mexican diplomats in La Paz (Bolivia), the Airbus-related Trump fees levied into Spanish agricultural products, the UME units sent to Turkey and Greece to help in firefighting, the Sánchez's African tour in Angola and Senegal (including the failure to secure repatriation flights), the lodging of Venezuelan opposition leader Leopoldo López at the Spanish embassy in Caracas, the González Laya's spat with Ortega's Nicaragua, the calling out of Hungary's anti-LGTBI legislation... might be, unless a source prove otherwise, secondary foreign affairs-related issues of the Sánchez premiership (not to say Sánchez himself as articles about concerned ministers may be a more suitable location) and arguably unnecessary here. And the foreign affairs projection of the Aquarius might be secondary to the secondary.--Asqueladd (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much for this fantastic summary. I'll add those sections as empty to the new article and will work on adding to them. Feel free to do the same if you want. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 16:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Good beginning of the splitting. One point I believe the remaining text in the original article misses is to mention that there were two general elections in 2019 (spring and november), much because of Sanchez ambitions to avoid coalition goverment with Cs, and hoping to win majority in repeated elections in autumn. Which did not work, forcing him to make a deal with UP, breaking all his electoral campaign promises to not join lines with them. Birdofpreyru (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Pedro Sánchez estado de alarma.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

"Controversy: Saudi Arabia"

Besides the unorthodox heading which looks like an action movie, is this really an appropriate section per WP:CSECTION? I imagine that in five years, he performed many actions that were "controversial", such is politics, so this looks like a WP:COATRACK for someone particularly miffed by the arms sale. Vox and PP probably disagreed with 99% of everything he ever did, so all of that could be called controversial, but would be WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I moved this into the foreign policy section. Wikipedia sections should include all relevant information on a topic, instead of spinning off some information to a separate section to highlight how bad it is. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

....