Talk:National Union (Portugal)

message: The reliable sources agree that Salazar was not a fascist....and the article itself is full of details. here are quotes from five reliable sources: 1) Carlos A. Cunha, ‎(2010) states "A comparison of Salazar's dictatorship with German or Italian fascism shows that Portugal was not a fascist state." 2) Bernard Cook, (2001) states "he was not a fascist but rather an authoritarian conservative. " 3) Portuguese Studies Review - Volume 2 - Page 109 (1993) "an authoritarian or clerico-corporatist state not a fascist one." 4) António Costa Pinto - 1991 states "He was not a fascist, but a reactionary"  5) Fascism in Europe, 1919-1945 (Routledge Companions) by Philip Morgan (2002) states: "Lacking the impulse and will for wars of expansion, and the need, then, to organize their populations for war, where reasons why the authoritarian regimes of Salazar and Franco never became totalitarian.
The real Portuguese fascists were exiled. In 1934, Salazar exiled Francisco Rolão Preto as a part of a purge of the leadership of the Portuguese National Syndicalists, also known as the camisas azuis ("Blue Shirts"). Salazar denounced the National Syndicalists as "inspired by certain foreign models" (meaning German Nazism) and condemned their "exaltation of youth, the cult of force through direct action, the principle of the superiority of state political power in social life, [and] the propensity for organising masses behind a single leader" as fundamental differences between fascism and the Catholic corporatism of the Estado Novo. 
Salazar's own party, the National Union, was formed as a subservient umbrella organisation to support the regime itself, and therefore did not have its own philosophy. At the time, many European countries feared the destructive potential of communism. Salazar not only forbade Marxist parties, but also revolutionary fascist-syndicalist parties. In 1934, Salazar exiled Francisco Rolão Preto as a part of a purge of the leadership of the Portuguese National Syndicalists, also known as the camisas azuis ("Blue Shirts"). Salazar denounced the National Syndicalists as "inspired by certain foreign models" (meaning German Nazism) and condemned their "exaltation of youth, the cult of force through direct action, the principle of the superiority of state political power in social life, [and] the propensity for organising masses behind a single leader" as fundamental differences between fascism and the Catholic corporatism of the Estado Novo. Salazar's own party, the National Union, was formed as a subservient umbrella organisation to support the regime itself, and therefore did not have its own philosophy. At the time, many European countries feared the destructive potential of communism. Salazar not only forbade Marxist parties, but also revolutionary fascist-syndicalist parties. 
The corporatist state had some similarities to Benito Mussolini's Italian fascism, but considerable differences in its moral approach to governing. Although Salazar admired Mussolini and was influenced by his Labour Charter of 1927, he distanced himself from fascist dictatorship, which he considered a pagan Caesarist political system that recognised neither legal nor moral limits. Salazar also viewed German Nazism as espousing pagan elements that he considered repugnant. Just before World War II, Salazar made this declaration: "We are opposed to all forms of Internationalism, Communism, Socialism, Syndicalism and everything that may divide or minimise, or break up the family. We are against class warfare, irreligion and disloyalty to one's country; against serfdom, a materialistic conception of life, and might over right."
— Preceding unsigned comment added by JPratas (talk • contribs) 11:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salazar was NOT a fascist 

message: There is an ongoing dispute in the article Fascism in Europe on weather the National Union should or should not be considered as fascist and listed as such. That binary discussion does not justify the removal of large paragraphs of sourced content on this page. 
If those paragraphs are to be disputed they should be disputed on its own merits.
Wikipedia says 
* "It is preferable that good-faith additions remain in the article pending consensus"
*  Unexplained removal of content is when the reason for the removal is not obvious, and is open to being promptly reverted. 
* When removing a section of an article, it is necessary that it at least be explained, and in some cases, discussed
''
So please follow the guidelines.J Pratas (talk) 08:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally, the bold, revert, discuss cycle is something most editors would subscribe to (i.e. the onus being on the editor introducing the addition to gain consensus for it). Regardless, please stop edit warring, both of you. El_C 08:56, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I understand. But in this case there is no formal discussion. There is just an IP making unexplained content removal without using the article's talk page.J Pratas (talk) 13:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that the discussion is taking place centrally: at Fascism in Europe. El_C 13:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that one thing is a binary discussion taking place centrally: at Fascism in Europe on whether or not the Portuguese Estado Novo should be labeled as fascist or not, and a completely different thing is to delete text that should not be controversial. Example: Why is the sentence "Ministers, diplomats and civil servants were never compelled to join the National Union" being deleted? Why is it being contested? I don't know. Do you? J Pratas (talk) 08:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting sourced content without trying to reach a consensus 

message: *There are no sources stating that the National Union was far-right. Richard Grfiffiths, the source that is being used never says anywhere that the National Union was a far right party.
* There are studies on the real far right movements that existed in Portugal in the late 1920s and early 1930s. Example The Radical Right and the Military Dictatorship in Portugal: The National May 28 League (1928 -1933) Author(s): António Costa Pinto Source: Luso-Brazilian Review, Vol. 23, No. 1, (Summer, 1986), pp. 1-15Published by: University of Wisconsin Press J Pratas (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you cite any part of António Costa Pinto's book which says that the National Union or the Estado Novo weren't far-right? Technically the Estado Novo's ideology is the National Union's ideology. "Conservative" isn't incompatible with far-right at all, and the National Union being Fascist automatically makes it far-right. -- 177.19.122.50 (talk) 05:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Costa Pinto does not specifically say in the book that the National Union was not far-right, but he also never says it was. Can you present a reliable source saying it was? Technically the National Union aimed to unite people from a large spectrum of ideologies (monarchists, republicans, integralists, etc.. See for example, José Carlos Rates, one of the first General Secretaries of the Portuguese Communist Party, after the Party's foundation in 1921, joined the National Union in 1931, without abandoning his ideology, because he thought that the corporatist model was not incompatible with his ideas.J Pratas (talk) 08:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's not how Wikipedia works, if you want to make a claim, you need to have evidence (think of it as similar to the innocent until proven guilty process). Salazar also wasn't a Fascist, as you wrongly claim. Alfred the Lesser (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Far Right ?  

message: Any sources or consensus behind making such a change to the article? Alfred the Lesser (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political position: Right Wing 

message: Only people with some sort of historical revisionism in their minds can deny that the National Union was far-right. Its not literally speaking fascist like Italian fascist was but it copied some models from that regimen like the Legião Portuguesa and the Mocidade Portuguese, which were even condemned in Pope Pius XI encylic where he condemns Italian fascist. But that regimen was openly anti-democratic and to pretend that the pseudo-democracy that the Portuguese Constitution of 1933 enshrined wasn't far-right is absurd. How can a party who opposed free elections, multipardidarism, supported censorship and violated his own Constitution rights can be considered other thing than far-right?Mistico Dois (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Far-right party for sure