Talk:Requeté

message: The article says that the requetés wore either red berets or Pythygarian caps.  Google doesn't reveal any other instance of the word Pythygarian.  Is it a bad memory of Phrygian, mixed up with Pythagorean, or what?
[That should have been changed since it´s not there any longer]
The word "requeté" seems unlikely derived from the word requête since in the same article in spanish there is a complete different explanation for the origin of the word and it seems more reliable since it´s a historical study from 1946 instead of an encyclopedia from 1965 that is probably obsolete. So I remove the text into parenthesis waiting for someone to translate the explanation from the spanish version.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.83.80.43 (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: this entry has not been edited for almost 10 years and remained a rather chaotic assortment of various statements. Today I have tried to introduce some order by: 1) adding sections; 2) moving mixed up sentences/paragraphs to appropriate sections; 3) adding minimal info related to periods ignored. I have not tried to polish anything, e.g. fix unclear statements, add further detail, remove unreferenced info etc, so there might be (and probably is) lots of rubbish there.
Have also added 2 tables on military engagements during the civil war.
--Dd1495 (talk) 10:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: my edit

message: hello, could I please ask why someone repeatedly reverts the Lacar standard photo to vandalized Leiza plaques photo? I have not seen any explanation or discussion on talk page. Regards, --Dd1495 (talk) 09:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: changing photo

message: This deletion is clearly unjustified. You wrote "removing OR; Asociación Juvenil Tradicionalista was a separate organisation and linking it to Requete is own unsourced speculation". However, unlike the Communist organization GAC, which has nothing to do with Requeté, the source here does say that the members of AJT were requetés. So what you wrote to justify the removal was wrong. The only thing that was OR was the assumption that it was "a feeble and shadowy structure", which is nowhere to find in the source.--Raderich (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I rather feel it is clearly justified. A source - not in itself very credible, a monarchist daily ABC - states that in the entire Spain there were "half a hundred" of AJT militants, referred to as "young requetes". The word "requete" appears to stand for a Carlist militant, perhaps uniformed and perhaps within some disciplined structures, but not neccessarily a member of "requete" section of any organisation. Besides, the source refers to AJT with some disregard, as to a makeshift, murky structure. If you call this source as an authority, why do you challenge the description of "feebly and shadowy", which clearly emerges from the ABC article in question? 50 members across a 35m country rather merits the name of a "feeble" structure, I would say, rgds, --Dd1495 (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously you still don't get it. 50 people doesn't imply a "feeble and shadowy" organization. You have no idea whether these guys came out from a single town or a dozen of towns, you know nothing about how they organized, how they acted, etc. (or if you do, you didn't include your sources for that) but you insist on coming to your own conclusions. Could you perhaps put off your detective hat and once for all limit yourself to say what the source says? You don't even have to delete your 110 extense Wikipedia articles (which is a tremendous work and everybody will agree on that). If you wanted them not to be OR, you'd just have to reword some parts. And if, in addition to that, you want them to be neutral, you should quote as simple theories and not as proven facts what are just that, theories. I don't think it's that difficult, honestly.--Raderich (talk) 12:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  AJT 

message: the editor claims in the lead - which is supposed to be a summary of undisputed information presented further on - that the history of Requete falls into 7 chapters. There is no referenced author and no source which claims so. This is nothing, but a conclusion advanced by the editor and based on his/her understanding of the literature. I understand that some "editorial discretion" might be allowed here and there, but I doubt that free reflections of WP editors can be legitimately splashed in lead as summary. Deleting own research (actually, this is no own research, just own reflection, own conclusions, own synthesis). Even some of the 7 phases claimed are poorly researched and not backed up by sources. Regards, --Dd1495 (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: Raderich again inserted a "biased" tag. And again, the only justification is that reportedly, "There are authors who dispute many of those claims". I can not help the feeling that it should take more than an unsubstantiated claim to litter a large section, extensively based on footnoted references, with tags.
This is not a Carlist propaganda site, where a historian might be freely stigmatized as biased because he is active in left-wing organisation, or well-documented information on requete crimes and atrocities is dismissed as tendentious.
If one thinks a section is based on one-sided sources or references, than I think a re-edition with another set of sources and references is needed, not tags repeatedly splashed for the sake of advancing agitprop which suits a political group referred. Regards, --Dd1495 (talk) 09:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not me who calls you biased. You're calling yourself biased. That's what you wrote in May, when I objected your previous bias: "If I had written that requete was an authoritarian, post-fascist organization bent on terrorising political opponents, this would have probably qualified." And that's precisely what you did afterwards, just to have your stupid "revenge" because I dared change anything of "your article". Of course, you picked far-left authors (some of them aren't even historians) to fit your narrative. Your work is simply not serious, no matter how many notes you add. In fact, it's mostly these notes that make it unserious and unprofessional. You love using blogs and stuff like that as sources. You learnt nothing about Original research and you simply don't want to. You don't even understand Spanish and that makes you make ridiculous errors all the time. All your articles are filled with errors. And your English is deficient too.--Raderich (talk) 03:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: please try to adhere to the point. What is the historical narrative (opinion, perspective, view) which is ignored in the article, so that it merits the biased tag? regards, --Dd1495 (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Repression, crimes and atrocities

message: ? Leijurv (talk) 05:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a better version. Let's see what the main contribuitor of this page, Dd1495, has to say. We can discuss any improvements with him instead of forcing them. I regret my aggressive editing behaviour 2 years ago.--Raderich (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why? 

message: a user has opened a new section titled "In literature", where he/she put the following: "The Requetés appear as antagonists in  William Herrick's novel "Hermanos!", centering on a unit of the International Brigades in the Spanish Civil War. In a crucial scene, one of the book's American protagonists is captured and killed by Requetés and his body mutilated - which precipitates some of the plot's main events." No references are provided.
There are tens if not hundreds of literary works which dwell on requete during the civil war, and some are treated in Carlism in literature entry. To single out one barely known work as the only one featuring in the "literature" section seems unrepresentative to me. I am deleting this section, copying its content for would-be future usage here. However, a section on requetes in literature should be somewhat more mature, if it is needed at all, given there is a separate entry on Carlism in literature. Regards, --Dd1495 (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Have inserted a brief mention on Herrick and his novel in the Carlism in literature entry. Anyway, thanks for a hint. --Dd1495 (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: In literature