|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to . If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Armada was arrested February 28, 1981, and sentenced to 6 years in prison. He was released December 24, 1988,
Alfonso Armada was released July 1, 1990.
Armada is mentioned in two paragraphs, with two release dates. Which should it be?::garryq 19:02, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
and the first time he is mentioned, "Armada was arrested February 28, 1981, and sentenced to 6 years in prison." his full name and wiki link is not given. There needs to be some introduction to say who this character is which precedes this mention. I googled his name but I couldn't find much. Does he even exist? dave 00:44, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Yes. I think he had been a teacher for the King or something. --Error 00:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Golpe a golpe
How is Un rey golpe a golpe restricted? I think I have seen it in hypermarkets. Or do you mean it is out of print? --Error 00:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This article uses a lot of presumptions and conjecture with little evidence. It needs major NPOVing and credible sourcing.
For example: and refused to use his power over the military to stop it.
This one sentence is full of POV. In reality
- Could the King have stopped it?
- Did he have sufficient military power to stop it?
- Did he believe that it was a credible coup plan or was it just in his view a group of nutters who would amount to nothing? (Coup rumours were ten-a-penny in Spain as elsewhere in the 1970s. There were similar rumours in Ireland, the UK, France, Italy, and even the US! Just because there was a rumour doesn't mean there must be a coup, which this article presupposes.)
That one line is so POV in itself in its implicit presumptions as to be mindboggling. It implies a negative judgment without once recognising that it might be criticising him for not doing something he could not do in any case.
But the article has an even more elementary flaw: It also needs to decide the basic question as to what is it actually about -
- Tejero, or
- the coup attempt
It starts off about him and finishes with unevidenced, unproven, rumour-based stuff about the King that doesn't mention the person this article is supposed to be about. Either it needs to be about Tejero, in which case the conspirary stuff and most of the rest of it has to be deleted, or it should be renamed as being purely about the coup attempt, with the biographical stuff about Tejero deleted.
As an encyclopaedia article it is poorly evidenced, POV-ridden, unfocused and fails wikipedia (and general accuracy and neutrality) standards in a host of areas. I've labelled this with the neutrality disputed tag. Right now it seems to come from the Oliver Stone school of 'put two and two together and get five' school of paranoia. Unlike his ridiculous JFK garbage, this at least can be fixed. But right now it is not fit to be treated as if it was a credible NPOV article when it fails the standard so abysmally. FearÉIREANN 06:55, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I agree to a large degree here. I just moved the coup to the 23-F, and removed Disputed from the Tejero article... --Vikingstad 14:41, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
- No, FearÉIREANN's criticism above would still apply. They should be separate articles. That said, there is information that was moved there that should remain here, specifically anything relating to Tejero's participation and judicial outcomes. --Dhartung | Talk 02:00, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
This article says he was a lieutenant colonel, but he's in the category 'Spanish generals.' I take it, therefore, that he either was a general, or he doesn't belong in that category. Can anyone confirm his rank?
Right, he was lieutenant colonel, in Spanish teniente coronel.
- The article says "Tejero was a lieutenant". But, isn't he now? Has he been demoted? Expelled of the army? The article doesn't say anything. MJGR 07:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- I would imagine that he was discharged from the army at the time he was sentenced; don't have a source for this explicitly but it is pretty standard practice! -- Blorg 11:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I haven't seen a serious discussion of any such theory, but it sounds frankly like "grassy knoll" claptrap to me. (Of course, if you're a grassy knoll adherent, this won't help you much.....). Nandt1 (talk) 12:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
P.S. This link knocks the question around a bit: http://wais.stanford.edu/Spain/spain_kingjuancarlos71903.html Nandt1 (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Was he really expelled from the Civil Guard after Operation Galaxia?
Our article claims that Tejero was expelled from the Civil Guard after the failure of Operation Galaxia. Can that statement be backed up with suitable citations? I ask for several reasons:
(1) The WP article on Galaxia states that neither he nor his co-conspirator "lost their military rank" after Galaxia's failure (and the other man was indeed subsequently promoted!). I am not a military man myself; perhaps one can keep one's rank and yet also be expelled...? What do I know?
(2) Our article's Box lists his years of service as 1951-1981. As Galaxia took place in 1978, these dates would imply he served up until the later attempted coup of "23-5" in 1981.
(3) In 1981 he is clearly wearing uniform and leading a largish contingent of men from the Civil Guard. I suppose he could conceivably have put the old uniform back on and called some old friends if already expelled, but I have always understood military men to disapprove of chaps wearing uniforms they are not entitled to? Nandt1 (talk) 12:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
The article on Tejero in Metapedia places his expulsion from the Guard after 23-5. I do not know if this is a sufficiently authoritative source to warrant adding such a reference to our article, but it is certainly supportive of the three reasons given above for doubting a post-Galaxia expulsion, and I propose to delete that statement from our article. Nandt1 (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)