Talk:Miguel Primo de Rivera

message: 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). 82.41.79.253 20:53, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other 

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 18:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: 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.
--69.118.102.57 (talk) 03:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.  2.127.36.199 (talk) 13:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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! 79.154.191.129 (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias? 

message: 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:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#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)
replies: text: 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. 79.154.191.129 (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: "He showed courage and initiative in battles against the Berbers of the Rif region"
By large-scale gas warfare against civilians, according to German WP:
"für die flächendeckende Vergasung der aufständischen Rif-Kabylen und Zivilbevölkerung um Al Hoceïma verantwortlich." 2A02:AA1:1017:3AE:256D:697F:AEC4:555F (talk) 10:42, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Passage can (and should) be reworded (and sourced), but merits and promotions in that context prolly refers to Primo de Rivera's deeds in the 1893 Melillan campaign. Connection to war crimes pertaining use of chemical warfare on civilian population during the Rif War (in the 1920s) can be dealt with latter in a different place, even if the initiative predates the 1923 coup d'etat, IIRC.--Asqueladd (talk) 11:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  courage and initiative 

message: Whether or not Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera was a fascist is a matter of scholarly debate and should not be presented as fact. The term "far-right" is much more accurate. JoshuaEriksen (talk) 01:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: He was a fascist, Joshua, and sources describe the subject as such.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Different sources say different things, since it is a matter of scholarly debate. The definition of fascism is also very broad and blurry, especially in these edge cases. Jose Antonio on several occasions stated that his movement was not a fascist movement, hence the term "Falangism." JoshuaEriksen (talk) 22:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small detail about the definition of "fascism" 

message: He is a marqués. He is not French.
Should he be a marquess in English?
99.228.43.228 (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Continental nobiliary titles often (if not generally, in the case of Spain) use the French spelling in English-language sources. Just check out there.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: His son and successor José Antonio Primo de Rivera's article uses the English spelling. Which sources in this article use the French spelling? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:29, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: In a non-exhaustive search, English-language sources using the French spelling include tertiary and secondary sources including the monography about the dictatorship by Shlomo Ben-Ami cited in further reading. As I have said this is not particular for this individual but for Continental peerage in a general sense. The article about the son perhaps should be modified too, I haven't look closely into it, and this is not the place to discuss it, either way.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marquis?