Jump to content

Talk:António de Oliveira Salazar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template:Vital article


Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:António de Oliveira Salazar/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I think there should be a little more detail on the chages that Salazar made in 1933 when he became a dictator. just a brief summing up- bullet points 87.194.57.165 23:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 23:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 08:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on António de Oliveira Salazar. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The refugee section is illegible

I'll refrain from judging the actual veracity or objectivity of the article because I don't know the subject nearly well enough but some paragraphs are illegible. In particular many run-on sentences abusing comas to the point where you can no longer match the subject with the verb, for instance this beast of a sentence:

The Portuguese consul general in Bordeaux, Aristides de Sousa Mendes, helped several, in appeasement to Hitler, the Portuguese dictator, António de Oliveira Salazar, issued his "Circular 14", decreeing that no Jews or dissidents were to be granted passage to Portugal, after further defying his government, by assisting at the border, Sousa Mendes was ordered to return to Lisbon by a seething and upstaged Salazar who declared him mentally unfit, He was stripped of his diplomatic status, his pension and his right to practise law, his original profession.

I read it several times and I'm still not certain of what it means. It looks like something spewed by a bot. At least I learned that Hitler was a Portuguese dictator.

Given my lack of knowledge in the subject I don't feel capable of rewriting this entire section but frankly it's rather appalling.

--82.121.74.176 (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The entire section doesn't need to be rewritten; the substandard material needed to be removed. It's a good idea to check the revision history when an added text is so unintelligible that it indicates the contributing editor probably does not use English as his first language, especially when the surrounding text is fine. Carlstak (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on António de Oliveira Salazar. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

I think this is an excellent article, but I'm a little but concerned about its neutrality. For example, the evaluation section seems to me to consist almost entirely of positive comments. Perhaps these could be balanced by some more negative assessments. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 05:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

a fascist? reliable sources call him an authoritarian conservative who never became totalitarian

The RS agree that he was not a fascist....and the article itself is full of details. here are quotes from five reliable sources: 1) Carlos A. Cunha, ‎(2010) states "A comparison of Salazar's dictatorship with German or Italian fascism shows that Portugal was not a fascist state." 2) Bernard Cook, (2001) states "he was not a fascist but rather an authoritarian conservative. " 3) Portuguese Studies Review - Volume 2 - Page 109 (1993) "an authoritarian or clerico-corporatist state not a fascist one." 4) António Costa Pinto - 1991 states "He was not a fascist, but a reactionary" 5) Fascism in Europe, 1919-1945 (Routledge Companions) by Philip Morgan (2002) states: "Lacking the impulse and will for wars of expansion, and the need, then, to organize their populations for war, where reasons why the authoritarian regimes of Salazar and Franco never became totalitarian. p 177. Rjensen (talk) 06:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I read a Salazar biography (can't remember which, possibly one you mentioned) a few years back and I seem to remember the author agreeing with the quotes above. We should try to stick to the scholarly definition of fascism and not just use it as a synonym for right-wing authoritarian. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It all depends on the definition of Fascism. There is very interesting article by George Orwell, titled "What is Fascism?" where is says that: "It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else." I suspect that the editors that have been trying to label Salazar as fascist are probably having in mind the bull fighting or maybe Fatima.J Pratas (talk) 16:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Salazar admired Mussolini and was inspired by him, he adopted corporatism, a one-party state, a youth organization similar to that of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, etc, the difference between his regime and that of Mussolini is that his regime was more religious while Mussolini's was more secular, he criticized fascism but it seems that for him fascism is something that applies solely to Italy, AFAIK Wikipedia does not adhere to the notion that only Italy was a Fascist country, also Fascist movements and regimes had differences between them, they weren't completely identical to Italy, the best example of this is Nazism and Nazi Germany. -- 177.207.14.18 (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Salazar's corporatist state had some similarities to Benito Mussolini's Italian fascism, but considerable differences in its moral approach to governing.[1] Although Salazar admired Mussolini and was influenced by his Labour Charter of 1927,[2] he distanced himself from fascist dictatorship, which he considered a pagan Caesarist political system that recognised neither legal nor moral limits. Salazar also viewed German Nazism as espousing pagan elements that he considered repugnant. Just before World War II, Salazar made this declaration: "We are opposed to all forms of Internationalism, Communism, Socialism, Syndicalism and everything that may divide or minimise, or break up the family. We are against class warfare, irreligion and disloyalty to one's country; against serfdom, a materialistic conception of life, and might over right."[3] All you have to do is read Salazar's book, "Como se Levanta um Estado", published in 1936, to verify that this statesman was by no means a fascist. The real Portuguese fascists were exiled. In 1934, Salazar exiled Francisco Rolão Preto as a part of a purge of the leadership of the Portuguese National Syndicalists, also known as the camisas azuis ("Blue Shirts"). Salazar denounced the National Syndicalists as "inspired by certain foreign models" (meaning German Nazism) and condemned their "exaltation of youth, the cult of force through direct action, the principle of the superiority of state political power in social life, [and] the propensity for organising masses behind a single leader" as fundamental differences between fascism and the Catholic corporatism of the Estado Novo. --J Pratas (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There were differences between his regime and Mussolini's of course, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't Fascist, like I said, his regime was more religious while Mussolini's was more secular, he might have criticized Italian classical fascism but he was inspired by it and admired Mussolini and copied many of Mussolini's regimes features, basically making it a Clerical fascist regime, he claimed that fascism was a political system that didn't recognise neither legal nor moral limits, but yet his regime tortured and killed thousands of his political opponents, isn't this the very definition of not recognizing "neither legal nor moral limits"? I don't see how his views on Nazism is relevant for this subject, and just because he persecuted other Fascists doesn't mean that his regime wasn't Fascist, Stalin persecuted many other Communists but that doesn't mean that Stalin's regime wasn't Communist. -- 177.207.14.18 (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is your opinion and your entitled to have it, however this is the wikipedia, so if you want to make a point you need to support it with reliable sources. In this talk page alone there are seven solid sources, from historians, from different nationalities, all analyzing the topic and saying that the Estado Novo was not fascist. Bring in the same amount of sources, with the same caliber, and the article will be revised accordingly. Please don't bring in popular literature or biased sources.J Pratas (talk) 08:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike Mussolini or Hitler, Salazar never had the intention to create a party-state. Salazar was against the whole-party concept and when in 1930 he created the National Union he created it as a non-party. The National Union was set up to control and restrain public opinion rather than to mobilize it, the goal was to strengthen and preserve traditional values rather than to induce a new social order. Ministers, diplomats and civil servants were never compelled to join the National Union.[4]--J Pratas (talk) 09:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but Wikipedia articles are built on reliable sources. If no reliable sources (that is, papers/books published by people recognized in their field, in this case historians) claim that the Estado Novo was a facist regime, then the article only has to reflect that, no room for personal opinion allowed. We have in this very talk page an array of reliable sources that claim that Salazar's regime was not a fascist one; until reliable sources that claim otherwise are presented, inserting fascism into the article (or Caetano's article, for that matter) is indulging in original research. RetiredDuke (talk) 11:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Paul H. Lewis, a political scientist, did consider Salazar a Fascist in his book Latin Fascist Elites. The Mussolini, Franco and Salazar Regimes (2003), does this count? But anyway, I wonder which standards those historians used to not consider his regime Fascist, a regime doesn't have to be completely identical to that of Mussolini or Hitler in order to be Fascist.

Sources

  • Kay, Hugh (1970). Salazar and Modern Portugal. New York: Hawthorn Books. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Wiarda, Howard J. (1977). Corporatism and Development: The Portuguese Experience (First ed.). Univ of Massachusetts Press. ISBN 978-0870232213. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Gallagher, Tom (1990). "Chapter 9: Conservatism, dictatorship and fascism in Portugal, 1914–45". In Blinkhorn, Martin (ed.). Fascists and Conservatives. Routledge. pp. 157–173. ISBN 004940086X. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Edit warrior IP blocked for 31 hours

Uncooperative IP user 177.98.180.44 is temporarily blocked. Carlstak (talk) 01:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Kay 1970, pp. 50–51.
  2. ^ Wiarda 1977, p. 98.
  3. ^ Kay 1970, p. 68.
  4. ^ Gallagher 1990, p. 167.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:António_de_Oliveira_Salazar&oldid=891461774"