Talk:Miguel Primo de Rivera

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Article Issues[edit]

  • I have placed an "article issues" template on the main page of this article. Several items need to be addressed with this article:
  1. It needs to have more references and inline citations (it presently has two of both).
  2. NPOV is a big problem with this article and it could need a rewrite (see: "infrastructure for his economically backward country")
  3. The article has an "essay-like" tone to it and is not in encyclopedic form. Again; NPOV needs to be addressed with this article.
  • Also: I removed the dead link to Bartleby's, and moved all of the un-cited "reference" material into a "See Also" section (which I created).


Why is there a link to Primo de Rivera just at the beginning ? The only use I can think of such an article is to disambiguate btw Miguel and Jose Antonio P. de R., but it shouldn't be linked from here anyway (since we refer to J.A. later anyway). 20:53, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Catalan wasn't banned and nor was the sardana, although some poorly researched history books (eg Kaplan, Red City, Blue Period: Social Movements in Picasso’s Barcelona) claim without documentation that they were. Kalebeul (talk) 19:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The article states that Catalan was banned in churches, which is not the case. The regime attempted to replace Catalan clergy suspected of being separatists, or of fomenting separatism, and language was central to this issue. It carried out this policy without the support of the Vatican, and so with limited success. Language became an issue of dispute between the dictatorship and the Catalan Catholic Church, but it was not banned in church. [see: William J. Callahan, The Catholic Church in Spain, 1875-1998, (Catholic University of America Press: 2000) pp158-161]. With regard to sardanas the Civil Governor of Barcelona, General Losada, did ban one particular type, which he witnessed being used as a Catalan nationalist anthem (or so he believed). He banned it in public places. I know of no evidence of a blanket ban on the dances. [see: Josep M. Ainaud de Lasarte, El Llibre Negre de Catalunya, (La Campana: 1995) p52]. (talk) 14:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008[edit]

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 18:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


This article seems incredibly favorable for a commonly described dictator, there aren't any negatives written about, and his fall from power goes almost completely unmentioned. -- (talk) 03:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that Primo is presented in a positive light here. His repression of Catalonia in particular was harsh, and if explored just a little more deeply, would provide more balance to the article. The pacification of Spanish Morocco was less widely praised than is suggested. (talk) 13:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree, this reads like a very biased and hopelessly old-fashioned hagiography, sentences like "Grateful Spaniards rejoiced to think etc. " don't belong here! (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Who are these "many Spaniards" under Franco who looked back with fondness at Primo Rivera's regime? That needs attestation, and the comparison seems unnecessary anyways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I have to disagree! Had he been as weak, inept and incompetent as is implied in the main text, how could he have led a coup and remained in power for seven years? As for discrediting the monarchy, we can understand that some monarchists would take such a view, but had the Spanish monarchy not been long discredited, would Primo de Rivera have come to power in the first place? It simply reads like a poor article. What is most worrying is that given the significance of this period in the build up to the Spanish Civil War no one seems to give a damn about it. Are there no Spanish historians? Optymystic (talk) 19:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Consider the discussion hereby no longer dormant, furthermore the discussion is not only regarding the facts but more fundamentally about the tone of the article which is clearly inappropriate. (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)