Contents

Talk:2018 vote of no confidence in the government of Mariano Rajoy

2018 vote of no confidence in the government of Mariano Rajoy has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: February 21, 2021. (Reviewed version).

A news item involving 2018 vote of no confidence in the government of Mariano Rajoy was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 1 June 2018.

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Spain High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

This review is transcluded from Talk:2018 vote of no confidence in the government of Mariano Rajoy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs) 12:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Impru20, I've decided to assess this for GA. Apologies you had to wait so long for a reviewer. Through an initial glance this article looks quite good. One item that caught my attention was that the lead used sources unique to the lead. This is sometimes (but not always!) indicative of information being included only in the lead, rather than the lead summarising article contents. I will proceed with a full review soon. Best, CMD (talk) 12:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: Many thanks for taking on the review of this article! Indeed it has been so long, but I still eagerly await for any suggestions required to improve the article to fully comply with the GA criteria. On the issue you hint, the lead does actually summarise article contents, though I typically tend to use sources from different items and this might have resulted in some unique ones being featured in the lead (this can be easily addressed if required, though). Thank you very much! Impru20^talk 17:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a(prose, spelling, and grammar): b(MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Some issues with prose, but overall format is quite decent.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a(reference section): b(citations to reliable sources): c(OR): d(copyvio and plagiarism):

   Sources are very well-presented.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a(major aspects): b(focused):

   Has broad enough coverage, tightly focused.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Appears broadly neutral.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Article is stable and deals with a very time-limited event.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a(images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b(appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Article has relevant images, mostly sourced from the Spanish Government. Captions are suitable.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I tend to make prose tweaks as I read, please feel free to revert/adjust these if they misunderstand the content. Some comments and questions below. CMD (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/questions

• The only source I am unsure of is historiaelectoral.com, although it is used for pure statistics.
• Instead of just mentioning the term "Gürtel case", the background could use a quick explanation of what exactly the Gürtel case is. It is unclear if the case is "the existence of an illegal accounting and financing structure", or if the financing structure is only one part of the case.
• "while considering that Mariano Rajoy had not been "truthful"", the word "considering" doesn't seem to fit well here, as it implies ongoing thought, rather than a judgement.
• "harshness" is another word that might be changed, as it has connotations of unfairness. "severity" may be one option to replace it.
• Should "Eduardo Zaplana had been arrested by" be "Eduardo Zaplana was arrested by"?
• The sentence starting with "Since the tabling of Podemos's motion in June 2017..." really need to be broken up.
• "who found himself in need of recovering the political initiative for his party". This feels like it was written with hindsight in mind, do the sources cited directly link the no confidence vote to his desire to regain political initiative?
• The paragraph beginning "Finally, on 23 May 2018" is another long multi-clause sentence that should be broken up.
• The "Legal provisions" section is written in past tense, but isn't this the current constitution?
• I suggest the Opinion Polls section goes between "Events" and "Aftermath".
• "Attempts to pressure the PNV saw the PSOE accepting to call an early election as a way to make it appear as if it was attempting to court Cs to its side". Having trouble figuring out exactly what this is trying to say.
• Why is the threshold 176 if the majority is 175? How does it win the vote but not succeed?

• Regarding the "Attempts to pressure the PNV saw the PSOE accepting to call an early election as a way to make it appear as if it was attempting to court Cs to its side" sentence, I'm not seeing the sources linking the Cs negotiations with the PNV.
• Still don't understand how a tie is considered a win.
• "Rajoy vindicated his seven year-timespan in government". "vindicated" seems like the wrong word. Defended? Extolled?
• "At lunchtime, Rajoy retreated into the Arahy restaurant close to the Puerta de Alcalá, where he would be staying until the night after receiving the confirmation from the PNV that they would be supporting the motion, not returning to the Congress for the second part of the debate." Not following the timeframe here. Did he receive the confirmation while in the restaurant? Was the plan to stay there or was it a decision made following the news?
• The long sentence starting "In contrast, the PP continued..." gets a bit complex towards the end, could it be broken up?
• Items in the lead not in the article body:
  • 30 May 1980 vote of no confidence
  • Rajoy's potential rejection of a third term
• The lead should include a brief mention of public support for the motion, as indicated by the Opinion polling section.
• The Aftermath section seems to jump over the question of early elections. Clearly the elections were early, taking place in 2019 rather than 2020, and if I remember correctly this was related to the no confidence events. The aftermath section should touch upon this.

Minor comments/questions (slightly beyond GA criteria)

• Is "Family photo" the right term for a cabinet photo?
• What is the reason some sources such as EFE, BBC News, Europa Press (self-published, not when an agency), LaSexta, EiTB are not italicised like others news sources?
• Conversely, I don't think "Congress of Deputies", "Official Gazette of the State", and "Electoral history" should be italicised.
• Shouldn't the d in eldiario.es be capitalised?

• I have taken the Opinion polling section as representative of public reaction and response to the motions for the broadness criterion (3a), but this article could use at least a paragraph giving a clearer picture of public opinion at the time.

Reply to questions[edit]

Hi again Chipmunkdavis! I will be addressing your comments and questions below:

Comments/questions

• The only source I am unsure of is historiaelectoral.com, although it is used for pure statistics. Yes, it is used for statistics only. The page is reliable, but if it poses a problem it can be removed, since it does not source anything that cannot be source with another source if required.
• Instead of just mentioning the term "Gürtel case", the background could use a quick explanation of what exactly the Gürtel case is. It is unclear if the case is "the existence of an illegal accounting and financing structure", or if the financing structure is only one part of the case. The Gürtel case is fairly complex: the particular piece whose ruling led to the vote of no confidence is the one encompassing the illegal accounting and financing structure, but it is not the only part of the case (however, sources do refer to the ruling as the "Gürtel case ruling"). This one is a hard one to convey since the whole corruption scandal is fairly large and complex, and covers multiple ramifications, many of which are still pending trial. As of now, the case overall is already summarized as "an illegal kickbacks-for-contracts scheme", and the ruling is the one confirming the existence of such paralel accounting structure. I am open to suggestions as to how better handle this, but keep in mind that delving too much into the case may bring the article out of topic.
• "while considering that Mariano Rajoy had not been "truthful"", the word "considering" doesn't seem to fit well here, as it implies ongoing thought, rather than a judgement. Seems ok. Changed to "judging".
• "harshness" is another word that might be changed, as it has connotations of unfairness. "severity" may be one option to replace it. Ok to the change.
• Should "Eduardo Zaplana had been arrested by" be "Eduardo Zaplana was arrested by"? Yes, this is a typo. Fixed.
• Sentences required to be broken up (which seems ok to me):
  • The sentence starting with "Since the tabling of Podemos's motion in June 2017..." really need to be broken up. Fixed.
  • The paragraph beginning "Finally, on 23 May 2018" is another long multi-clause sentence that should be broken up. Fixed.
• "who found himself in need of recovering the political initiative for his party". This feels like it was written with hindsight in mind, do the sources cited directly link the no confidence vote to his desire to regain political initiative? Aye.
• The "Legal provisions" section is written in past tense, but isn't this the current constitution? It is, but it does not mean it will necessarily be, since laws are meant to evolve. The tense is adapted to refer to the state of things at the time of the event, so that it is independent of any future (and unrelated) legal change.
• I suggest the Opinion Polls section goes between "Events" and "Aftermath". Seems ok to me.
• "Attempts to pressure the PNV saw the PSOE accepting to call an early election as a way to make it appear as if it was attempting to court Cs to its side". Having trouble figuring out exactly what this is trying to say. It was written this way as a result of a need to summarize the situation. In essence, Cs demanded as a requisite of support that the PSOE accepted calling an immediate general election afterwards, though in reality Cs was not supportive at all of the motion. The PSOE's true target was the PNV, whose votes were required, and which did not want an immediate election since opinion polls at the time gave Cs an edge, a situation which the PNV did not wish to happen. Thus, the PSOE's move to accept an early election to make it appear as if it was accepting Cs's terms, in reality helped turn the PNV in favour of the motion so that it did not depend on Cs's support, and thus prevent an early election.
• Why is the threshold 176 if the majority is 175? How does it win the vote but not succeed? The absolute majority is 176, 175 is exactly half of Congress, meaning a 175-175 tie is possible. On the possibility of winning but not succeeding, this is because the Constitution of Spain requires such a number for votes of no confidence, since these are constructive. Impru20^talk 19:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding the "Attempts to pressure the PNV saw the PSOE accepting to call an early election as a way to make it appear as if it was attempting to court Cs to its side" sentence, I'm not seeing the sources linking the Cs negotiations with the PNV. It is linked in several of the sources throughout the article, though I didn't want to refbomb any sentence beyond what was strictly needed. I have added one such source now.
• Still don't understand how a tie is considered a win. It's not. Either the motion's proponent secures at least 176 votes (the absolute majority), or he/she loses. A tie is not a win. 175 is exactly 50% (exactly half), whereas an absolute majority is 50%+1 (more than half). Not sure from where are you getting the confusion here though.
• "Rajoy vindicated his seven year-timespan in government". "vindicated" seems like the wrong word. Defended? Extolled? Seems fine. Fixed.
• "At lunchtime, Rajoy retreated into the Arahy restaurant close to the Puerta de Alcalá, where he would be staying until the night after receiving the confirmation from the PNV that they would be supporting the motion, not returning to the Congress for the second part of the debate." Not following the timeframe here. Did he receive the confirmation while in the restaurant? Was the plan to stay there or was it a decision made following the news? Rajoy's actual intention when he went into the Arahy is unclear, since it is not known for certain how aware was him at the time that he was about to lose the premiership. What sources confirm is that he went there at lunch, then received the call from the PNV that they were going to sack him out. The quoted text aims at not establishing any implication on whether Rajoy planned to stay at the restaurant from the beginning or if it was an improptu decision. Nonetheless, the reasons behind why Rajoy went to the restaurant in the first place are not relevant to the description of the event; the fact that he remained there after knowing that his downfall was imminent, unwilling to come back to Congress, is, as noted by the various sources and media reporting the events.
• The long sentence starting "In contrast, the PP continued..." gets a bit complex towards the end, could it be broken up? Sure. Done.
• Items in the lead not in the article body. Fixed.
• The lead should include a brief mention of public support for the motion, as indicated by the Opinion polling section. Fixed.
• The Aftermath section seems to jump over the question of early elections. Clearly the elections were early, taking place in 2019 rather than 2020, and if I remember correctly this was related to the no confidence events. The aftermath section should touch upon this. This is intended, because the April 2019 Spanish general election was not directly connected to the no confidence events (Sánchez triggered the election after he lost the vote on the 2019 budget and out of a desire to catch the parties in the right off-guard).

Minor comments/questions (slightly beyond GA criteria)

• Is "Family photo" the right term for a cabinet photo? Not sure why this term was used at the time. "Cabinet photo" seems about right to me, so I will be conducting the change.
• What is the reason some sources such as EFE, BBC News, Europa Press (self-published, not when an agency), LaSexta, EiTB are not italicised like others news sources? This is because they use the "publisher" parameter, rather than the "newspaper" one (since these are not actual newspapers). The latter of which leads to automatic italicisation.
• Conversely, I don't think "Congress of Deputies", "Official Gazette of the State", and "Electoral history" should be italicised. Neither do I, but this is so because they use the "website" parameter, which automatically italicises words. This was a result of this discussion here on how to use the cite web parameters.
• Shouldn't the d in eldiario.es be capitalised? At the time, the name of eldiario.es was still uncapitalised; its capitalisation being a fairly recent thing. Both would be ok and I wouldn't have any particular trouble in capitalizing it if needed. Impru20^talk 19:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I have taken the Opinion polling section as representative of public reaction and response to the motions for the broadness criterion (3a), but this article could use at least a paragraph giving a clearer picture of public opinion at the time. Done.

Cheers! Impru20^talk 18:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Chipmunkdavis: Ok, so today I have addressed the remaining issues, so they are now submitted for your consideration. Please give me any feedback you deem as appropiate. Cheers! Impru20^talk 12:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Impru, regarding "Not sure from where are you getting the confusion here though", my confusion is from the article text "meaning that Sánchez had 175 votes: enough to win the vote, but still one short of the legal threshold of 176 for it to succeed". Aside from that, I think my issues are either resolved/sufficiently explained. CMD (talk) 13:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Chipmunkdavis: Oh, I see it now. I don't know why that specific wording was used, so I've changed it to something less ambiguous to avoid similar confusions. Cheers! Impru20^talk 01:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Great, thanks for this enjoyable GAN discussion, and for the trip back to 2018. CMD (talk) 02:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  You are welcome! Many thanks to you por taking the time in carefully reviewing the article and help further improving it. ;) Impru20^talk 08:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I suggest changing the name of this article due to a slight inaccuracy. A voto of no confidence, at least in Spain, targets the prime minister, who is the one who must have the confidence of Parliament, and not the Government. Obviously, if the prime minister falls, the government falls, but until there is a new government it will continue as a caretaker government, but not the prime minister, who is forced to resign instantly.

Therefore, the title is not correct, and should be moved to "2018 vote of no confidence against Mariano Rajoy" or similar.

Thank you. TheRichic (Messages here) 17:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article 113.1 of the Constitution (in Spanish): El Congreso de los Diputados puede exigir la responsabilidad política del Gobierno mediante la adopción por mayoría absoluta de la moción de censura.

Article 114.2 of the Constitution (in Spanish): Si el Congreso adopta una moción de censura, el Gobierno presentará su dimisión al Rey y el candidato incluido en aquélla se entenderá investido de la confianza de la Cámara a los efectos previstos en el artículo 99. El Rey le nombrará Presidente del Gobierno.

The target, thus, is the government as a whole, not just the prime minister. The title is correct. Cheers! Impru20^talk 18:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]