Jump to content

Talk:António de Oliveira Salazar

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 177.19.68.90 (talk) at 23:45, 16 September 2020. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article


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]

Very much agree - reading this leaves one thinking that nary a soul in the world ever questioned the nobility of staying neutral in WWII. 2001:8A0:E974:F400:692A:3B06:D91D:4E81 (talk) 10:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I agree. I don't know enough about Salazar to evaluate, but the opening paragraphs of the articel seem alarmingly enthusiastic, and I am afraid it is biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:36D:119:4267:1874:4633:7C86:B940 (talk) 17:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was Salazar Fascist ? (Continues the interesting debate)

In the work “Neutrality by Agreement”, Professor Costa Leite, in order to explain the role of Salazar during WWII felt the need to explain that “It is a temptation to reduce complex phenomena to stereotypes…But if they [stereotypes] are convenient, they may also be extremely misleading. For example, the stereotype of dictatorship suggests that in the context of World War II, a dictator is on the side of the Axis pursuing an anti-Semitic policy. In practice, however, such a stereotype ignores national cultures, geopolitical alignments, and the origin and evolution of political regimes." A few left wing Portuguese scholars, many political activist connected with communist parties, have been labeling Salazar as fascist with the clear intent of trying to connect Salazar with Hitler and Mussolini. Unfortunately the strategy works and anyone trying to come with a balanced perspective on Salazar’s article is immediately accused of being a fascist, a Nazi, or fervent admirer of Salazar, becoming entangled in the stereotype. In this particular case there is an overwhelming amount of sources by reputed scholars that have studied the connection between Salazar and Fascism that coincide in the idea that the regime was not Fascist. A few examples are:

• Costa Pinto, António – “The Blue Shirts Portuguese Fascists and the New Stat”. The book is available online in the authors website. [1] [Costa Pinto is NOT an admirer of Salazar and in his book he explains how Salazar dismantled the fascist movement in Portugal

• Payne, Stanley (1995). – “A History of Fascism, 1914–1945”

• Gallagher, Tom (1990). "Chapter 9: Conservatism, dictatorship and fascism in Portugal, 1914–45". In Blinkhorn, Martin. Fascists and Conservatives. Routledge. pp. 157–173. ISBN 004940086X.

• Kay, Hugh (1970). Salazar and Modern Portugal. New York: Hawthorn Books.

• Wiarda, Howard J. (1977). Corporatism and Development: The Portuguese Experience (First ed.). Univ of Massachusetts Press. ISBN 978-0870232213.

• Carlos A. Cunha, ‎(2010) states "A comparison of Salazar's dictatorship with German or Italian fascism shows that Portugal was not a fascist state.

• Bernard Cook, (2001) states "he was not a fascist but rather an authoritarian conservative. "

• Portuguese Studies Review - Volume 2 - Page 109 (1993) "an authoritarian or clerico-corporatist state not a fascist one."

• Morgan , Philipp – “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.

• Sánchez Cervelló, Josep - also made a very clear judgement: "It was an authoritarian regime, with some similarities to the generic fascism though it cannot be confused with this one." You can read it using this link: Características del régimen salazarista, for those who cant read Spanish the abstract is translated to English.

• Albright, Madeleine in a recent interview to a Portuguese news paper on the occasion of the publishing of her book "Fascism: A Warning", said "Salazar was not a Fascist"[2]

In all this debate I have not accused any editor of sympathizing with anything or anyone. I have limited myself to the sources. I kindly ask other editors to follow the same path (in particular Carlstalk, an established editor that should know that this is not constructive) I am ok with the article saying that there are a few scholars in Portugal that still label Salazar and his regime as fascist (it is an undeniable fact) but the article should be clear about the fact that their opinion is NOT mainstream (another undeniable fact).--J Pratas (talk) 08:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

J Pratas, you are in no position to lecture me about what is constructive and what is not, given that I have personally experienced your outbursts concerning the former tagging of this article as well as your harshly expressed critiques of my editing of the History of Lisbon article. We agree that scholarly dissent by leftist historians against the consensus concerning Salazar has a place in the article, so there is no dispute about that between us. Will you present to your fellow editors just how you think "the fact that their opinion is NOT mainstream" should be communicated in this article, since opposing points of view should be described neutrally? Carlstak (talk) 12:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not lecturing anyone. Just resenting an unnecessary remark. I can't see in all this discussion anything I have written that justifies your remark Carlstalk. In any case you seem to be a reasonable editor, always honestly seeking a balanced neutral article, you also write better English much better than I do, So if you think it is important that the article says that, in Portugal, there are still a few Portuguese left wing historians that classify Salazar as a Fascist, please go ahead and insert it yourself in the article. I am supportive. And Carlstalk please accept my apologies for any past behavior that made you feel unconfortable.J Pratas (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind and considered response, J Pratas. Please accept my apologies as well for my emotional reaction. I respect your dedication to this article and its continued improvement; I know you have put much time and a great deal of hard work into it. I would indeed like to add some information on the points of view of left-wing Portuguese scholars and their assessments of the Estado Novo and Salazar. Perhaps someone would care to nominate the article for featured article status. I am preoccupied at the moment with my business, but I should be able to find some time to compose the material with sources this weekend. Best wishes, Carlstak (talk) 12:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Take your time. No need to rush. Here is another data point that you might find useful for your evaluation: Paxton, Robert O. 2004. The Anatomy of Fascism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Paxton says that: "Where Franco subjected Spain’s fascist party to his personal control, Salazar abolished outright in July 1934 the nearest thing Portugal had to an authentic fascist movement, Rolão Preto’s blue-shirted National Syndicalists. The Portuguese fascists, Salazar complained, were “always feverish, excited and discontented . . . shouting, faced with the impossible: More! More!” Salazar preferred to control his population through such “organic” institutions traditionally powerful in Portugal as the Church....His regime was not only non-fascist, but “voluntarily non-totalitarian,” preferring to let those of its citizens who kept out of politics “live by habit. (page 150)...The Estado Novo of Portugal differed from fascism even more profoundly than Franco’s Spain (pag 270) [3] J Pratas (talk) 07:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Carlstak, before you do the promised editing, you might like to know that a similar discussion is now taking place in Fascism in Europe's talk page. Maybe you can trigger a centralized discussion that will apply to all involved articles.--J Pratas (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, J Pratas. I'll consider how to approach that discussion. I intend to work on editing this article Friday, when I'll finally be free to give it my full attention. 20:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Carlstak it would be nice if whatever the editing or the consensus the articles on Salazar, Estado Novo, Fascism in Europe, Portuguese 1933 Constitution, etc. would be coherent. I don't know how to centralized discussion and it seems to be a feature reserved for administrators. Can you trigger a centralized discussion ?J Pratas (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do. I'm taking a break from my work at the moment, and I'll probably be too tired mentally this evening to do anything more than check my watchlist, cook supper, and drink a couple of glasses of wine.;-)
Carlstak find bellow a few more elements for your evaluation
  • Meneses, Filipe Ribeiro, "Salazar a Political Biography" says that "The obstacles in twinning the New State with fascism are self evident. Among other one can pick out the lack of mass mobilization, the moderate nature of Portuguese Nationalism, the careful and apolitical selection of the narrow elite that ran the country, the lack of powerful working class and the rejection of violence as a mean of transforming society. To include Salazar, given his background, his trajectory, is faith and his general disposition in the broad fascist family is at first sight to stretch fascism to a point where it becomes meaningless."
  • If you can read Portuguese Manuel Braga da Cruz claims that the Estado Novo and the Portuguese 1933 Constitution is fundamentally different from Fascism [[4]]
  • Luis Campos e Cunha says the same [[5]]
  • And there is a video in Youtube titled "Mário Soares diz que Salazar não era fascista nem corrupto"where Mário Soares says that Salazar was not exactly a fascist. Soares says that Salazar was a dictator, used censorship, and used the political police but that was all. J Pratas (talk) 08:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

J Pratas, having looked at the discussion at Talk:Fascism in Europe, I have no appetite to wade into that discussion; I would be surprised if a consensus is reached. The two opposing sides are intransigent, and no one will be convinced by argument. Besides, it is not for Wikipedia, speaking in its own voice, to decide whether the Estado Novo regime or Salazar himself were fascist, nor should it be, and thus it is self-evident to me that neither should be placed in the "fascist" category. I can read Portuguese, but I have no intention of making any value judgements about the relative worth of the arguments made by scholars "for" and "against" calling them fascist. It is a complex matter, no simple "yes" or "no" can do it justice. We all agree that scholarly opinion varies, and that the opposing viewpoints should be described neutrally. I believe that this article needs better representation of the leftist points of view for balance; consequently I will limit my editing to description of what leftist and Marxist sources (who have written mostly in Portuguese) have to say. Carlstak (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life

Finding myself in Lisbon, this well-sourced article has been very informative. But I wonder if it needs a brief, Personal life, section? I had to look outside Wikipedia to see that Salazar was unmarried and had no children. Did he have no personal life/interests at all? Where, for example, did he live during his long period in power? KJP1 (talk) 08:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC) ¨[reply]

KJP1, Thanks for the observation. A very valid point. I will work on this new chapter.--J Pratas (talk) 10:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
JPratas - That would be great. As I say, it’s a really good article and helped inform my visit to beautiful Lisbon. The Museum of the Resistance was particularly moving. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 15:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Were Salazar, and the Estado Novo under Salazar, Fascist ?

There is an endless dispute going on the article Fascism in Europe on whether Salazar and the Estado Novo should be labeled fascist or not. I know this has been extensively discussed on this talk page, and the Salazar's article is written according to what was discussed. But there are other articles like Fascism in Europe, National Union (Portugal), National Union etc. where that debate is still on and that debate is leading to inconsistencies among related articles.

So far what seems to be clear is that scholarly opinion varies on whether the Estado Novo and the National Union should be considered fascist or not. International scholars such as Stanley G. Payne, Thomas Gerard Gallagher, Juan José Linz, António Costa Pinto, Roger Griffin, Robert Paxton and Howard J. Wiarda, prefer to consider the Portuguese Estado Novo (Portugal) as conservative authoritarian rather than fascist. On the other hand a minority of Portuguese left wing scholars like Fernando Rosas, Manuel Villaverde Cabral, Manuel de Lucena and Manuel Loff think that the Estado Novo should be considered fascist. If this list of sources is fairly complete, it looks like the mainstream view of works published in English by independent international scholars says "NO". If you know of additional sources or should you wish to help in the debate please help on the Fascism in Europe talk page and also Estado Novo and National UnionJ Pratas (talk) 10:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral results

Hey everyone! I think it would be nice to add to this page an electoral results section, - like Cavaco Silva's. I do not have the time to do that in the next few weeks, but if someone wants to get started, the Portuguese Wikipedia has the information in pages that can be found in the following categories:

Education section

Hey so, I would suggest a few changes to the education section:

  1. The text would be more fact-based if the first sentence of the first paragraph of the section was completely deleted and the data were allowed to speak for themselves. Or, at the very least, if a citation was added to the First Republic militants (so one could know who they were, if they were in power during the 16 years of the First Republic, etc.) and the adjectives "more democratic" and "authoritarian" were removed, as a person who is reading the page certainly knows this already, and it seems to imply something about the performance of democratic regimes vs. authoritarian regimes, without actually spelling it out (is it that democracies function worse than authoritarian regimes? Or that it is counter-intuitive that an authoritarian regime increased literacy more than a democratic regime? - any of the two implications would require a citation at least).
  2. The whole section is mostly a copy-paste/summary of the Estado Novo (Portugal) page. Because this is the Salazar page, the content should be adapted to focus on what is related to Salazar, - not to Estado Novo more generally. For example, the data regarding literacy rates do fall within Salazar's reign (and it would be nice to have the section mention Salazar's goals for education, seeing as now it only talks about the First Republic's goals for education, - in a page about Salazar), but the sentence that starts with "In 1971" doesn't make much sense, as Salazar's political life ended in 1968, and his actual life ended in 1970, - so it should be removed or some citations added so one can see what Salazar would have to do with the recognition of Católica in 1971, (missing: the foundation of ISCTE in 1972), and the foundation of four universities in 1973.
  3. A citation is missing in the sentence: "which experienced one of the fastest growth rates of Portuguese education in history."

All the best!, 178.9.56.196 (talk) 08:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some facts and figures on literacy rates. The best source on this topic is the book Alfabetização e Escola em Portugal nos Séculos XIX e XX. Os Censos e as Estatísticas by António Candeias published by the Gulbenkian Foundation in 2004. It has all the numbers and statistics. The comparison with the 1st Republic is very relevant. So it should stay. --J Pratas (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Salazar was a fascist

There seem to be people in this chat who want to change history. My edit was undone by Cristiano Tomás where i stated that "Further criticisms suggest that his party, the National Union, held extreme far-right and fascist views.". Then I cited with a direct source where salazar himself states his ideology is "fascism". People want to claim he is not which could not be more farther rom the truth. Can I get consensus to revert back my quote? 75.63.30.84 (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The IP has misrepresented the source he cites. He says, "[S]alazar himself states his ideology is "fascism" ", but the journal article On Salazar and Salazarism by Michael Sanfey says no such thing. Rather, it says:
  • "Salazar did not allow all to compete (liberalism) but neither did he have a totalitarian ideology like fascism; he espoused Catholic "corporatism": state imposed collaboration of the social classes.
  • "In their essential design and purpose, while the regimes very much resembled each other, the Portuguese regime never relied, either in its foundation or development, on anything remotely like the Italian Fascist movement, which later became a party."
  • "Salazar did take strong action against real Fascists."
Carlstak (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Carlstak. Most scholars do not classify Salazar as fascist.
  • Stanley G. Payne thinks that Salazar' system might best be described as one of Authoritarian Corporatism or even authoritarian corporative liberalism. - (Payne, Stanley (1995). A History of Fascism, 1914–1945 (1 ed.). University of Wisconsin Press. ISBN 9780299148744.)
  • Historian Juan José Linz says that fascism never took roots in Salazar' Portugal - (Linz, Juan José (2000). Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes (1 ed.). Lynne Rienner Publishers. p. 226. ISBN 9781555878900. -
  • Robert Paxton says that "The Estado Novo of Portugal differed from fascism even more profoundly than Franco’s Spain. Salazar was, in effect, the dictator of Portugal, but he preferred a passive public and a limited state where social power remained in the hands of the Church, the army, and the big landowners." see (Paxton, Robert O. (2004). The Anatomy Of Fascism. NY: Alfred A. Knopf. p. 217. ISBN 1400040949.)J Pratas (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Madeleine Albright has recently publishd a book titled Fascism: A Warning" and in an intreview with a Portuguese journalist she said "Salazar was not a" Fascist" [[6]]J Pratas (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gonna cite some of the same sources which I cited on the other discussion:
1) Jorge Pais de Sousa - O Estado Novo de Salazar como um Fascismo de Cátedra
2) Manuel de Lucena - Interpretações do Salazarismo
3) Manuel Loff - O Nosso Século é Fascista. O Mundo visto por Salazar e Franco
4) Manuel de Lucena - A Evolução do Sistema Corporativo Português: O Salazarismo
5) Hermínio Martins, S. Woolf - European Fascism, pp. 302-336 -- 177.19.122.50 (talk) 05:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


This has been discussed one year ago. A long list of English speaking scholars saying that Salazar was not a Fascist has already been provided. So if there is no consensus you can not present it as a fact. On top of that another editor, (Carlstak, already told you that "the points of view expressed by (Portuguese) left-wing scholars belong in the article, but in my opinion it is over-reaching and simplistic to categorize Salazar as fascist.". Another editor, who happens to be an historian, (Rjensen, said the following: "There is a large polemic literature in Portuguese that is unfortunately spilling over here. It belongs in the Portuguese Wikipedia. Those polemics have not been generally accepted in the wider English language community of specialists on Portugal."J Pratas (talk) 09:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the status quo on Wikipedia is that Salazar and the Estado Novo were considered Fascists, and since no consensus was reached, thus it was agreed to maintain the status quo, dismissing Portuguese sources as "polemic" seems to be very biased Those polemics have not been generally accepted in the wider English language community of specialists on Portugal besides why do English speaking scholars have more value than Portuguese ones who have access to better information? This makes no sense. -- 179.180.141.189 (talk) 21:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1st) Yes there is a consensus. And the consensus is that there are different POVs so you cannot pretende to have a POV presented as a fact. 2nd)Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. [7], 3rd) To label Salazar as fascist has not been generally accepted in the wider English language community of specialists on comparative studies on Fascism. Below a non exhaustive list of sources that say that Salazar's regime was not fascist.

  • 1) Paxton, Robert O. 2004. The Anatomy of Fascism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Paxton says that: "Where Franco subjected Spain’s fascist party to his personal control, Salazar abolished outright in July 1934 the nearest thing Portugal had to an authentic fascist movement, Rolão Preto’s blue-shirted National Syndicalists. The Portuguese fascists, Salazar complained, were “always feverish, excited and discontented . . . shouting, faced with the impossible: More! More!”9 Salazar preferred to control his population through such “organic” institutions traditionally powerful in Portugal as the Church....His regime was not only non-fascist, but “voluntarily non-totalitarian,” preferring to let those of its citizens who kept out of politics “live by habit. (page 150)...The Estado Novo of Portugal differed from fascism even more profoundly than Franco’s Spain (pag 270)
  • 2) Manuel Braga da Cruz explains how the Estado Novo and the Portuguese 1933 Constitution is fundamentally different from Fascism [[8]]
  • 3) Roger Griffin, The Nature of Fascism (London: Routledge, 1993); page 266 - The National Union is classified "Conservative Right"
  • 4) Costa Pinto, "Salazar’s Dictatorship and European Fascism: Problems of Interpretation" (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996) Costa Pinto explains that The National Union is more a bureaucratic apparatus than a political party.
  • 5) Costa Pinto, António – “The Blue Shirts Portuguese Fascists and the New Stat”. The book is available online in the authors website. [9] [Costa Pinto is NOT an admirer of Salazar and in his book he explains how Salazar dismantled the fascist movement in Portugal
  • 6) A. James Gregor, Phoenix: Fascism in Our Time (New Brunswick, Transaction Publishers, 1999); - Author says that Portuguese Estado Novo was not Fascist because fascist has always been revolutionary, anticonservative, anti-bourgeois, etc.. somethin that the Estado Novo never was.
  • 7) Juan J. Linz, Authoritarian and Totalitarian Regimes (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2000); Michael Mann, Fascists (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, - On page 226 Author says that Fascism has never taken roots in the Portugal of Salazar.
  • 8) Roger Eatwell, ‘Introduction: New Styles of Dictatorship and Leadership in Interwar Europe,’ Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions 7, no. 2 (2006): 127–137;
  • 9) Payne, Stanley (1995). – “A History of Fascism, 1914–1945”
  • 10) Gallagher, Tom (1990). "Chapter 9: Conservatism, dictatorship and fascism in Portugal, 1914–45". In Blinkhorn, Martin. Fascists and Conservatives. Routledge. pp. 157–173. ISBN 004940086X.
  • 11) Kay, Hugh (1970). Salazar and Modern Portugal. New York: Hawthorn Books.
  • 12) Wiarda, Howard J. (1977). Corporatism and Development: The Portuguese Experience (First ed.). Univ of Massachusetts Press. ISBN 978-0870232213.
  • 13) Carlos A. Cunha, ‎(2010) states "A comparison of Salazar's dictatorship with German or Italian fascism shows that Portugal was not a fascist state.
  • 14) Bernard Cook, (2001) states "he was not a fascist but rather an authoritarian conservative. "
  • 15) Portuguese Studies Review - Volume 2 - Page 109 (1993) "an authoritarian or clerico-corporatist state not a fascist one."
  • 16) Morgan , Philipp – “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.
  • 17) Sánchez Cervelló, Josep - also made a very clear judgement: "It was an authoritarian regime, with some similarities to the generic fascism though it cannot be confused with this one." You can read it using this link: Características del régimen salazarista, for those who cant read Spanish the abstract is translated to English.
  • 18) Albright, Madeleine in a recent interview to a Portuguese newspaper on the occasion of the publishing of her book "Fascism: A Warning", said "Salazar was not a Fascist"[10]J Pratas (talk) 07:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus at all, you can clearly see on the result of the discussion which I linked, because of this it was decided that the status quo would be maintained, and the status quo was that the Estado Novo was Fascist, you're just distorting things to promote your agenda, Portuguese sources have better access to information than non-Portuguese ones, so they tend to have better quality in this case, while you mention some great sources, some of them, like Madeleine Albright, are not of equal or better quality, Madeleine Albright for instance, is not even an authority on Fascism or the Estado Novo or Portugal, she probably doesn't even know much about those subjects. -- 179.179.173.15 (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus is that there is no consensus. When there is no consensus we need to follow Wikpedia's Neutral Point of view policy and if different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, and we need to treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. It seems that on Feb 2nd 2017 an IP from Venezuela categorized Salazar as a Fascist Ruler without using the talk page, without providing any explanation and against all that had been debated it the article's talk page. It does not make any sense to try to hold on to this sneaky addition from the Venezuelan IP, that has gone unnoticed, calling it "status quo ante". The categorization of Salazar as a fascist is a minority view. J Pratas (talk) 08:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Estado Novo and Salazar were considered Fascist in Wikipedia way before 2017:
* Jun 2008
* Oct 2008,
* Nov 2009,
* Nov 2010,
* Aug 2011,
* Nov 2012,
* Aug 2013,
* Feb 2014,
* Nov 2015,
* Oct 2016,
* Dec 2017,
* Feb 2018,
* Feb 2019, -- 179.183.231.92 (talk) 06:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear IP. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies. When there is no consensus we need to follow Wikpedia's Neutral Point of view policy and if different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, and we need to treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.J Pratas (talk) 07:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You were stating that an IP from Venezuela categorized Salazar as Fascist ruler and that this was just an sneaky addition by that IP, then I showed you that Salazar was considered a Fascist here way before that, and now you come up with this? Again, since no consensus was reached, the status quo was maintained, and as you can see the status quo is that Salazar and the Estado Novo were Fascist. -- 186.213.22.136 (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus on categorizing Salazar as a fascist. Outside of Portugal the consensus is that Salazar was NOT a fascist, yet some Portuguese scholars, not all of them, think that Salazar was a Fascist. There is also no consensus among Wikipedia editors. In that case it does not matter the status quo ante, what prevails is the fundamental principle of Neutral Point of View. When there is no consensus we need to follow Wikpedia's Neutral Point of view policy and if different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, we need to treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. Fundamental principles are non negotiable and are not subject to any status quo ante that violates de fundamental principle. J Pratas (talk) 16:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have no proof that Salazar not being Fascist is the majority view among scholars, and your attempt to discard Portuguese scholars is completely ridiculous, and besides, how does classifying Salazar as a Fascist violate NPOV? If anything, your edits are far more POV, in fact, all your disruptive edits since April last year have been about imposing POV. -- 186.213.22.136 (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Portuguese history is not my specialism and I’m not competent to judge whether the weight of reliable sources does so describe him or not. That said, looking both at the article and the Talkpage, it is pretty clear, to me at least, that JPratas is determined that Salazar should not be described as a fascist, irrespective of the sources. As to their NPoV argument, I see on their own user page; “António de Oliveira Salazar - A man who was being unfairly accused of being anti-Semit(sic) and Pro-Hitler“. That looks rather like a POV to me. KJP1 (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Ad hominem is a term that refers to several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue.

The point is not what I think or what is my view. The point is what do reliable sources say? A long list of English speaking scholars saying that Salazar was not a Fascist has already been provided. As editor Rjensen already explained, "There is a large polemic literature in Portuguese that is unfortunately spilling over here. It belongs in the Portuguese Wikipedia. Those polemics have not been generally accepted in the wider English language community of specialists on Portugal."

Nevertheless I am perfectly OK with including in the article the POV from some Portuguese scholars. And one must have in mind that even among the Portuguese scholar community there is no consensus. There are many Portuguese with published works on the topic that argue that in their view Salazar was NOT a fascist. (examples: António Costa Pinto, Rui Ramos, Braga da Cruz, etc.) Even the former Portuguese Presidente Mário Soares said that in his view Salazar was not a Fascist.

I am not pushing for any POV to prevail over the other. I am perfectly OK with having both POVs represented. I have already done that in the article on the National Union (Portugal) where I wrote:

Scholarly opinion varies on whether the Estado Novo and the National Union should be considered fascist or not. Salazar himself criticized the "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. Scholars such as Stanley G. Payne, Thomas Gerard Gallagher, Juan José Linz, António Costa Pinto, Roger Griffin, Robert Paxton and Howard J. Wiarda, prefer to consider the Portuguese Estado Novo (Portugal) as conservative authoritarian rather than fascist. On the other hand Portuguese scholars like Fernando Rosas, Manuel Villaverde Cabral, Manuel de Lucena and Manuel Loff think that the Estado Novo should be considered fascist

What does not make sense is to try to impose a POV as a fact, when it clearly is not. J Pratas (talk) 07:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no ad hominem here, I'm just calling a spade a spade, your edits since April last year have clearly been disruptive and the purpose of them is to impose a POV, no reason to pretend otherwise, your attacks on Portuguese scholars are actual ad hominems, and how are you not pushing a POV over the other? You attack Portuguese scholars as biased and also you attempt to discard them for some reason, there's no reason to treat non-Portuguese scholars as superior especially when this is a subject about Portugal. -- 177.19.68.90 (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:António_de_Oliveira_Salazar&oldid=978791936"