User talk:Asqueladd

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

Archive: I · II · III · IV

BS-0 This person does not understand Bullshit (or understands it with considerable difficulties or does not wish to communicate in Bullshit).

Hi! Comment below. The message stacking is top-bottom..

Pfeil unten.svg                                    Pfeil unten.svg                                    Pfeil unten.svg                                    Pfeil unten.svg

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Nice job on your work with Spanish politics and such in addition to your occasional translation. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 21:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Asqueladd. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Franco & "Ground Hog Day"[edit]

I thought it was Attic Salt who reverted my change from "fascists" to "Falange Espanola" for the sentence, "In April 1937, Franco merged the fascist and traditionalist political parties in the rebel zone, as well as other conservative and monarchist elements, into FET y de las JONS, outlawing the rest of political parties and thus Spain became a one-party state."

My problem is with using the generic word "fascist" rather than the party's correct name, "Falange Espanola." Manalojo may have the same objection. To conflate FE with Hitler's National Socialist German Workers' Party or Mussolini's Partito Nazionale Fascista creates only confusion. My suggestion is instead, since FE was uniquely Spanish, for greater precision to use the party's name in the sentence instead of the charged word "fascist," and of course link FE to its page so the reader can see for himself how different this party was from in particular the National Socialist German Workers' Party. All historians agree FE represented a unique brand of "Spanish Catholic authoritarianism," to conflate, even inadvertently, FE with Hitler's neo-paganism and racism is a disservice to the reader.

I also added for my original revision "thus Spain became a nominally one-party state." Manuel Fraga claimed even Franco at times treated El Movimiento as a joke. But, if you really object to "nominally" I have no problem with its removal.

I would like to work with for an agreed amended version for the sentence in question. (talk) 03:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

 Answer I think this is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I don't know where did you get the crackpot idea that "Falange" were "catholic authoritarian conservatives" in opposition to being "Fascists", at odds with the entire body of academia. I don't agree at all with dropping the "Fascist" bit (that can be easily sourced as you can see in the talk page) from that part of the lead. FE de las JONS was a Fascist party as in Griffin's "palingenetic form of populist ultra-nationalism which seeks the rebirth of the nation through a radical social, moral and political revolution"" or whatever definition you could come up with... And that's what sources do in the context of the April 1937 decree of unification: label FE de las JONS as fascist (even right wing revisionists like Stanley G. Payne). Every authorative scholar recognizes FE de las JONS in the scope of Fascist momentum of the 1930s, not limited by the way to Germany and Italy (see Romania, f.e. for a particularly religious one). Additionally you can re-read the several definitions of Fascism: "neo-paganism" is not a core feature of Fascism in any of them. Despite being casually called simply "Falange", party real name wasn't "Falange Española" back then. That party merged in March 1934 with the Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional Sindicalista to form the "Falange Española de las Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional-Sindicalista" (FE de las JONS). We are not even entering the issue of the fascistization of the rest of the right wing parties (particularly Renovación Española, and the youth wing of the CEDA)... That's were there are juicy contrasting interpretations depending on the author. But not here. Really. The Fascist character of FE de las JONS, is cut and dried as far as the entire corpus of sources go. You can stick to your personal views if that makes you feel better of course, but please don't distort the entry with them.--Asqueladd (talk) 05:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Franco Page Revisions[edit]

Asqueladd: Someone under the screen name of ShuffleboardJerk reverted my revisions. Apparently ShuffleboardJerk did not read the Francisco Franco talk page before undoing my revisions? These revisions were only made after much discussion on the Franco talk page. I have asked ShuffleboardJerk to undo his revisions. I may now become a registered user. Don't we agree there is no authority for 400,000 post-CW executions and/or prisoners "worked to death"? And, as shown for the talk page, I have no real problem with your proposed substitution sentence except to wonder how many readers will know what 'Arendt-style purgatory' really means? I look forward to working with you further to improve the Franco article.

Awaiting your reply. (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Have you consulted the cited sources? I think there might be a slight problem of {{weasel inline}}, but I wouldn't think what the lede was trying to state is anything particularly unreasonable/absurd. But anyways, Javier Rodrigo is a quality source and "in topic". I suggest you to look into that comprehensive source,[1] before claiming/pretending there is no authority for the sourced content. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  1. ^ Rodrigo, J. (2005) Cautivos: Campos de concentración en la España franquista, 1936–1947, Editorial Crítica. ISBN 8484326322

I thought for the talk page you said you could find no authority for 400,000 post-CW executions or prisoners "worked to death"? At a minimum the 400,000 dead statement should at least be balanced by also citing what Thomas, Payne & even Preston estimate for this number? And, isn't this number more properly and already thoroughly discussed under the section entitled, "From the Spanish Civil War to World War II." This article is presently rated Class-C by Wikipedia.

Awaiting your reply. (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say that. I said that if that content is ultimately removed (intertextually, not explicitly, if the cited sources don't happen to verify the information, I dunno) I proposed another alternative phrasing that is verifiable. But if nobody cares to read the cited sources in order to verify the citation, it becomes difficult to do so (remove content backed by authoritative sources). AFAIK Preston and Payne don't estimate the numbers of prisoners in the entry (currently). They only deal with executions during the war and the most inmediate post-war period (certainly not until 1947). In any case I can agree the expression worked to death (I don't know if it's a literal citation) can be understood as weasel. The most comprehensive study on Francoist concentrations camps should be just fine in terms of being an "authoritative source" on the issue of how many people died and was imprisoned in those concentration camps.--Asqueladd (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Please propose how you would like to reform the sentence in question. I think we can agree to a fairer and clearer version for this sentence. I have no real problem with as many as 400,000 prisoners post CW even though this number does conflict with both Thomas & Payne. And, would you like to now move back to the Franco talk page? (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I've just confirmed that there is no mention to a potentially weasel "worked to death" in the lead, so my only suggestion is that you need to consult the sources of that heavily sourced passage (particularly the Javier Rodrigo bit), before modifying it in any substantial way. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 14:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited EFE, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page El Periódico (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Could you....[edit]

...check this out and, if you want, give some input. Saludos, Maragm (talk) 09:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)