Talk:Fascism in Europe/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Requested move

The article is largely about fascist ideology, and can probably be expanded to include non German or Italian proponents that were influenced by the two. It is not necessarily comparative.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support as well as the nominator's reasoning, the title sounds a bit textbook-y. PeterSymonds (talk) 07:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support - the current title sounds like an essay. Think outside the box 09:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I just redirected Italian fascism here based on a discussion on that talk page. Almost the entire article is uncited. Some good stuff, but it is an uncited Fork, and anything that can be cited belongs here.--Cberlet (talk) 17:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is Italian Fascism now directing to "European fascist ideologies?!!! Italian Fascism is about ITALIAN Fascism not European fascism!!!

Whoever made this link from Italian Fascism to "European fascist ideologies" has made a poor decision. I will revert this as soon as possible. It is unacceptable because no other academic source automatically links Italian Fascism to other European fascist ideologies. They call Italian Fascism what it is...Italian Fascism.--R-41 (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Please calm down. Most of the Italian Fascism page is uncited. The suggestion to redirect was made weeks ago. The decision of a number of other editors was to create this page. Try to work collaboratively.--Cberlet (talk) 02:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, get citations, restore the Italian Fascism article. This subject of the Italian Fascism article is very important and unique which should be its own article. If we scrap the Italian Fascism article into a page describing European fascist movements in general not enough information will be able to be put on the page, and the result will be a small generalization of Italian Fascism, in order for the article to give space to describe the other movements. Deleting the article to me seems to minimizing the view of the influence of Italian Fascism to just have it listed as one of many fascist movements while Nazism will remain having its own article. There is no reason to scrap the Italian Fascism article just as there is no reason to scrap the Nazism article. If the Italian Fascism article is scrapped, you must scrap the Nazism article as well, because its information is repeated across Wikipedia. It is important that it has its own article to explain in detail what Italian Fascism exactly was and especially what its impact on Italy and the world was. Certainly more citations are needed, but the scrapping of the article entirely is a very bad idea from my perspective. Furthermore, all this article talks about his relations between Mussolini and Hitler, it's more poorly done than the Italian Fascism article was, and there is a good deal of reason for having "European fascist ideologies" to be put into a subsection on the "Fascism" article. This article to me appears un-needed, the "Italian Fascism" article is needed for the reasons I explained above. --R-41 (talk) 02:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Please pay attention. There is already a page on the National Fascist Party of Italy, as well as Fascism and European fascist ideologies. There is no need for a badly written uncited page that is a POV fork.--Cberlet (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, it needs a re-write, not a scrapping. If anything, European fascist ideologies could be put into a subsection of the "Fascism" article. If there was a badly written page on Albert Einstein in which information on him was discussed in other articles would you scrap the Albert Einstein article and have it redirect into an article called "Physicists of the world"?--R-41 (talk) 02:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Once more, there are two articles for Nazi material, one the Nazi Party article and two, the article on Nazism. Should the Nazism article be scrapped?--R-41 (talk) 02:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Editors on the Fascism page created this page to make the subsection smaller. The Fascism page grew too large. We are shuffling pages and combining them. If they also get too large, we can create more pages. But for now, Italian Fascism belongs distributed with proper cites to National Fascist Party of Italy, Fascism and European fascist ideologies. Please learn to work collaboratively, or take a break from Wiki and regain your composure.--Cberlet (talk) 03:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do not patronize me. My concerns are legitimate. I work collaboratively best when people are cautious with what they do. My reaction was one of aghast because of how drastic and sudden the change was and how it was decided by only three people. You have not answered my question about what the implications of this may be on the article of Nazism. It is a European fascist ideology as well, should it not be put into this article? I doubt people would support that because of its individual importance. Furthermore like I said, there is an article on Nazism, the Nazi Party, and Nazi Germany - that's three pages on highly similar subjects, but each have or at least should have their own specific focuses. A bad article on Albert Einstein wouldn't result in its deletion because it is an important individual topic. Is Italian Fascism not an important individual topic? If so why? Please answer these inquiries, because deleting the Italian Fascism article will have consequences for other similar articles on Wikipedia which may end up being deleted for the same merits. For me, an article on the National Fascist Party should focus on the development of the party and primarily describe its internal structure and organizations attached to it. Italian Fascism should focus specifically on the ideology alone and the relevance of Italian Fascism to the development of other small-f fascist movements. The Fascist Italy topic is divided between Kingdom of Italy (1861-1946) and Italian Social Republic articles, these should focus on the impact of Italian Fascism on Italy. I have perhaps put too much detail into the Kingdom of Italy article which could be transferred to an Italian Fascism article. There's an entire encyclopedia on Fascist Italy available, it basically is the paper-bound Wikipedia for every bit of information available on Italian Fascism, and it is vast. Italian Fascism is one of the two most important fascist movements in world history (the other being Nazism), and for eleven years until Hitler's rise to power it was the dominant fascist movement in Europe. There are many books and other media which are entirely dedicated to studying Italian Fascism as an individual subject, not as one of a clump of a number of ideologies. This is my basis for an Italian Fascism article. You may be right that there should be a page for European fascist ideologies, but scrapping the Italian Fascism article will lead to the same build-up of material in the "European fascist ideologies" article as was the case in the Fascism article. An independent article for Italian Fascism seems reasonable to me, all it needs is good sources and more indepth material. Would that be acceptable?--R-41 (talk) 03:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not patronizing you, I am asking you to work with a group of editors with widely divergent politics to sort out a series of related pages, many of which have grown way to long to abide by Wikipedia standards. The procedure is to develop a strong, well-cited, section or sections on existing pages, build consenses for NPOV and scholarly cites, and then discuss moving blocks of text to new pages. The page on "European fascist ideologies" was originally set up to encompass material from several sections on several pages, and is, in fact, the place where we intend to discuss the differences and similarities between Italian Fascism and German Nazism. You would know this if you had read the discussion pages for the related pages over the past year...and yes, on controversial pages where there is a lengthy ongoing discussion you are supposed to read the discussion pages in detail before making major unilateral decisions. I am well-versed in the field of fascist studies, have published several scholarly journal articles on the topic, as well as several book chapters, and understand that Italian Fascism is an important area of research. Even so, I do not demand that only my POV, favorite authors, and arrangement of contents must be implemented. The note on Italian Fascism that it was destined for the scrap heap of Wikihistory, was clearly posted on that page's talk page for a long time. If you objected, you could easily have chimed in and joined a collaborative effort. So perhaps you could start by building up the text inside exisiting pages with cited material, go through some discussions, and then post a note that you plan to recreate the Italian Fascism page by pulling material from the exisiting pages. That is what we all have been doing, and while it sometimes gets fractious, in the end it all seems to work out. There is no emergency. Readers of Wikipedia can already find much cited NPOV material on Italian Fascism here. But a page that is 95% uncited text is not acceptable. The current mandate here, all the way up to Wales, is that uncited material must be pruned. Please join us in our collaborative effort on the fascism-related pages.--Cberlet (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

R-41, you know I completely disagree with you on many aspects of things but here I shall speak frankly. You see the problem here is Cberlet is a propagandist and an anti-educationalist, he has made a career out of that. Whilst you are anti-fascist, you have at least studied the topic of Italian Fascism and look to present it in a NPOV truthful manner; Barelet does not want that. I support not having Italian Fascism going to a redirect too and so there is no consensus to merge, since its such a major topic and the Italian variation is the original and most significant.

The best policy is to completely ignore that Chip Berlet is there. He knows absoutely nothing about Italian Fascism, his sole interest is to abuse Wikipedia's fascist articles to attack the right in the USA. He trolls these articles (albeit under calmly worded phrases and false claims of consensus) with said dubious motives attempting to blur the history of these subjects. Just carry on creating education information as if he didn't exist. Also please see Talk:Fascism for a section I have wrote on the movement. - Gennarous (talk) 00:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Ireland

why is there nothing about Ireland and the blueshirts? Lihaas (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Untrue unformation

I deleted part of the tex which reffered to "Chetnik movement under Milan Nedić" because neither was Chetnik movement ,in majority, under any sort of influence by Milan Nedić or his government, nor was it an uniform movement with any specific ideology. It's largest and most influental part, the so called "Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland" led by Draža Mihailović was for most part Royalist and in a war with Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. --178.254.154.94 (talk) 20:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Salazar's Estado Novo was NOT Fascist

The reliable sources agree that he 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."--J Pratas (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Unlike Mussolini or Hitler, Salazar never had the intention to create a party-state. Salazar was against the whole-party concept and when in 1930 he created the National Union he created it as a non-party. The National Union was set up to control and restrain public opinion rather than to mobilize it, the goal was to strengthen and preserve traditional values rather than to induce a new social order. Ministers, diplomats and civil servants were never compelled to join the National Union.--J Pratas

Historian Stanley Payne is also very clear on the Estado Novo and the National Union not being fascist. See Payne's coverage

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but Wikipedia articles are built on reliable sources. If no reliable sources (that is, papers/books published by people recognized in their field, in this case historians) claim that the Estado Novo was a facist regime, then the article only has to reflect that, no room for personal opinion allowed. We have in this very talk page an array of reliable sources that claim that Salazar's regime was not a fascist one; until reliable sources that claim otherwise are presented, inserting fascism into the article (or Caetano's article, for that matter) is indulging in original research. J Pratas (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

References

There is an overwhelming amount of sources by reputed scholars that have studied the connection between Salazar and Fascism that coincide in the idea that the regime was not Fascist. A few examples are:

• Costa Pinto, António – “The Blue Shirts Portuguese Fascists and the New Stat”. The book is available online in the authors website. [1] [Costa Pinto is NOT an admirer of Salazar and in his book he explains how Salazar dismantled the fascist movement in Portugal

• Paxton, Robert O. 2004. The Anatomy of Fascism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Paxton says that: "Where Franco subjected Spain’s fascist party to his personal control, Salazar abolished outright in July 1934 the nearest thing Portugal had to an authentic fascist movement, Rolão Preto’s blue-shirted National Syndicalists. The Portuguese fascists, Salazar complained, were “always feverish, excited and discontented . . . shouting, faced with the impossible: More! More!”9 Salazar preferred to control his population

through such “organic” institutions traditionally powerful in Portugal as the Church....His regime was not only non-fascist, but “voluntarily non-totalitarian,” preferring to let those of its citizens who kept out of politics “live by habit. (page 150)...The Estado Novo of Portugal differed from fascism even more profoundly than Franco’s Spain (pag 270)

• Payne, Stanley (1995). – “A History of Fascism, 1914–1945”

• Gallagher, Tom (1990). "Chapter 9: Conservatism, dictatorship and fascism in Portugal, 1914–45". In Blinkhorn, Martin. Fascists and Conservatives. Routledge. pp. 157–173. ISBN 004940086X.

• Kay, Hugh (1970). Salazar and Modern Portugal. New York: Hawthorn Books.

• Wiarda, Howard J. (1977). Corporatism and Development: The Portuguese Experience (First ed.). Univ of Massachusetts Press. ISBN 978-0870232213.

• Carlos A. Cunha, ‎(2010) states "A comparison of Salazar's dictatorship with German or Italian fascism shows that Portugal was not a fascist state.

• Bernard Cook, (2001) states "he was not a fascist but rather an authoritarian conservative. "

• Portuguese Studies Review - Volume 2 - Page 109 (1993) "an authoritarian or clerico-corporatist state not a fascist one."

• Morgan , Philipp – “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. p 177.

• Sánchez Cervelló, Josep - also made a very clear judgement: "It was an authoritarian regime, with some similarities to the generic fascism though it cannot be confused with this one." You can read it using this link: Características del régimen salazarista, for those who cant read Spanish the abstract is translated to English.J Pratas (talk) 07:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• Albright, Madeleine in a recent interview to a Portuguese news paper on the occasion of the publishing of her book "Fascism: A Warning", said "Salazar was not a Fascist"[2]J Pratas (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Despite the fact of all the above sources say that Salazar's regime was not fascist user Ec1801011 (that by the way seems to be also be using several IPs, namely 177.42.155.177) is now claiming again that Paul H. Lewis did consider Salazar a Fascist in his book Latin Fascist Elites.

This claim has already been rejected by user Rjensen in Salazar's Article Talk Page. [Rjensen] explained that "Lewis does not call Salazar a fascist. He says (p 7) "All three regimes came out of Latin cultural backgrounds and were popularly identified with the phenomenon of fascism.' Lewis on p 133 names several scholars 2 (Martins & de Lucena) say yes he was, 2 (Nolte and Cassels) say no he was not. Lewis does not pick one side or the other."

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but Wikipedia articles are built on reliable sources. If no reliable sources (that is, papers/books published by people recognized in their field, in this case historians) claim that the Estado Novo was a facist regime, then the article only has to reflect that, no room for personal opinion allowed. We have in this very talk page an array of reliable sources that claim that Salazar's regime was not a fascist one; until reliable sources that claim otherwise are presented, inserting fascism into the article (or other articles, for that matter) is indulging in original research. And if there are reliable sources that say that Salazar's regime was a fascist then the article will have to include both views, and not just one view.J Pratas (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

This page does not state that the Estado Novo was fascist, it simply states that Mussolini and Italian Fascism influenced Salazar's rule, the Blackshirts influenced the creation of the Portuguese Legion. Salazar was known to keep a portrait of Mussolini on his desk and used his Labour Charter and fascist corporatism as influence on how Portugal's economy was to be maintained. Please stop deleting content because of your own personal views. Personally I believe that Salazar WAS NOT as fascist, he attempted to stop the fascist activities of the National Syndicalists (even though he did wish to incorporate them into the National Union), did not implement full totalitarianism and distanced his regime from the Axis powers however that does not mean he did not take influence just like the regimes of Dolfuss, Metaxas and Franco hence why his regime is listed with them. Also I would like to make it clear that I do not use multiple IPs, this claim by User:JPratas is false. The sources provided by User:JPratas only prove that Salazar's regime was not fully fascist, they do not deny the influences which fascism had on the regime and so I will keep reverting disruptive changes made by this user until his changes are helpful and relevant. ec1801011 (talk) 11:02, 19 April 2019 (GMT)

If we all agree with the sources and there is no dispute going on the fact that Salazar was not Fascist then it does not make any sense to list the National Union under "a list of European regimes often described as fascist or being strongly influenced by fascism include". The statement is not aligned with the list of sources. The sources do not say stongly influenced say that the regime crushed fascism movement in Portugal and say the regime was authoritarian, not totalitarian and say the regime was non-fascist J Pratas (talk) 11:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

This is not about my POV or yours. It has to be about what do the reliable sources say. J Pratas (talk) 11:44, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Although Salazar was not a fascist I would still consider him as part of the same category as leaders like Franco and Metaxas, not fully fascist however undoubtedly influenced by fascism especially in the first years of the regime, and therefore still think it's relevant that they should be listed. However I have made note that Salazar was not fully fascist and also made note of his opposition to Portuguese fascism. The problem I believes lays with how the list of regimes is worded, these regimes should not be seen as completely fascist (It is my personal opinion that Mussolini's regime was the only fascist regime) however they are all related to fascism. If we could reach a consensus about the semantics of the regime list then perhaps we could conclude this back and forth. I would like to apologise for dismissing your edits as disruptive and admit that I have not communicated as I have refrained from using this talk page. Ec1801011 (talk) 14:16, 19 April 2019 (GMT)

This is the Wikipedia and it is not about what you "still think" or what I think. We are expected to add content that is supported by reliable source. The sources do not backup including the Estado Novo under a ""a list of European regimes often described as fascist or being strongly influenced by fascism". The fact that the Estado Novo, because it was inclusive, adopted some "clichés" from fascist movements does not mean it should be included in such a list. The same way that the fact that the Estado Novo had a constitution approved by popular vote and a president elected by popular vote does not turn the Estado Novo in a regime "strongly influenced" by democracy. The ideology was neither fascist nor democratic. J Pratas (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

The paragraph that I have been deleting is on the "Uniao Nacional" and if you read the sourced content I have just added to the article National Union (Portugal) you should agree with me that at least the National Union (Portugal) has absolutely nothing to do with Fascism. You are mixing National Union (Portugal) with Salazar and the Estado Novo and the National Union (Portugal) is just a piece of the Estado Novo under Salazar. According to Costa Pinto after its creation in the early 1930s the National Union (Portugal) embarked on a period of lethargy from which it did not emerge until 1944. This lethargy can be partly explained by the affirmation by the regime that it did not attribute great importance to it, beyond its utility as an electoral and legitimating vehicle. Appointment to lead the party meant either ‘retirement’ or a prestigious pause from government duties. The absence of youth was a characteristic of the National Union, particularly in the 1930s. At the first Congress, 68% of the delegates were over 40 years old. And yes The Estado Novo also created state bodies for propaganda, youth and labour, but they were not connected with the party. I encourage you to please read the Costa Pinto book before further editing. Costa Pinto is blunt, he say that Salazar "rejected fascism, its ideology, nationalism, integral corporatism, violence, militias as well as its charismatic leadership. On 28 May 1933, when the Fascists marched in Braga to commemorate the 1926 coup, Salazar denounced them as people who were “always agitated, excited and discontented” and who would “continue to demand the impossible: More! More!” (page 168) So I cannot see how you want to list lethargic party of old retired people, a party that only gained some life at the end of World War II !!!J Pratas (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Salazar and the Estado Novo were clearly influenced by Fascism, he even admired Mussolini, it is undeniable even if you don't consider him to be a Fascist, this just shows, once again, that you are going to reject any sources that goes against your POV, that is all what you really want, to impose your own POV on articles, i'm surprised you got away with all this, but you're just an edit warrior at this point, you've already demonstrated that you don't want discussion, so seriously stop doing this. -- 177.98.174.159 (talk) 20:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes you are right, Salazar admired Mussolini in the early days, but not when Mussolini clashed with the Catholic Church. Yes you are right when you say that the Portuguese Estado Novo copied some clichés from fascist regimes. And I have already included that in the article. On the other hand what all sources listed in this talk page say is that at the core the regime was non-fascist. Salazar said the same thing many times in many different speeches. He even exiled the leader of the fascist movement. What do you want to do with the long list of sources that are in the talk page all saying the same thing? Do you want to ignore them? Do you think that all the sources must be ignored just because you have a different POV? J Pratas (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

So basically, the difference between his regime and Mussolini's was that Mussolini's regime was more secular while Salazar's was more religious? A youth movement, a paramilitary, corporatism, a one-party state, etc, are not just some "clichés", they are all clearly Fascist characteristics, I already addressed this argument about the National Syndicalists so I not going to repeat what I said, lastly, you should not accuse others of doing what you are doing yourself, you are the only one ignoring sources because you have a different POV, Ec1801011 provided a source on Salazar being inspired by Mussolini, and you dismissed it, I presented some sources that considered Salazar a Fascist, and you also dismissed it as a "few left-wing historians", etc, so really what is the point in this discussion? It is clear that you're always going to find excuses to impose your POV, this is all pointless, and I'm not going to be foolish enough to participate in this show. -- 177.98.174.159 (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

What do you want to do with the long list of sources that are in the talk page all saying the same thing? Do you want to ignore them? What exactly is your proposal? J Pratas (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Why do you always ignore sources that go against your POV? That is what you did with Ec1801011's source on Salazar's inspirations from Mussolini, that what you did with my sources considering Salazar a Fascist, etc. And also, why do you keep copy and pasting the same thing on many other articles? -- 177.98.174.159 (talk) 22:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

It was not me who discarded the source provided by Ec1801011 it was user Rjensen because the source does not backup the content (I agree with Rjensen discarding the source) Regarding the two sources you have provided, a minority of left wing Portuguese historians, they are going to be included by an administrator. I hope that answers your question. But you have not answered my question: What do you want to do with the long list of sources that are in this article's talk page all saying the same thing? J Pratas (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

It was you who deleted Ec1801011's source, it is true that Lewis is neutral on whether Salazar is a Fascist or not, but he clearly mentions how Salazar was indeed, inspired by Mussolini, so his source does backup the content, as for sources who don't consider Salazar a Fascist, they should be considered yes, but then again so should sources who consider him a Fascist, and also, this doesn't mean that they should be copy and pasted at literally every article like you are doing, and once again, you are dismissing sources who disagree with your POV as a "minority of left-wing historians", and also, Madeleine Albright is not an authority on this subject, so she shouldn't be considered, in fact, in that book she considers "racism" to be a characteristic of Fascism, but it is only a characteristic of Nazism (which is a type of Fascism but not the only one), in fact, Mussolini himself criticized the racial doctrine of Nazism and only adopted racial laws in 1938, under pressure from Hitler, if she was any authority on this subject she would certainly know this. -- 177.98.174.159 (talk) 23:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

This dispute must come to an end now, blocks have been given and received and the page is currently on lock-down. There I provide a more concise paragraph to be featured beneath the regimes that uses the information provided by User:JPratas whilst also differentiating the Estado Novo from fascist regimes.

The Estado Novo regime, which was ruled by the National Union under António de Oliveira Salazar (1933-1968), was influenced by Mussolini's rule. It is clear that the regime, like many other dictatorships of the time, imported ideas and institutions from the existing fascist model. Parts of the corporatist legislation, the propaganda apparatus, use of the Roman Salute, the Legião Portuguesa and the Mocidade Portuguesa were based on the fascist example. However, despite this the regime was not fully fascist; being opposed to totalitarianism and finding influence primarily from Lusitanian Integralism. The regime also destoyed Francisco Rolão Preto’s native Portuguese fascist movement whilst Salazar openly stated his opposition to the label of fascist.

This paragraph will feature the relevant sources. Ec1801011 (talk) 23:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

This paragraph should not be included before a consensus is reached.

The paragraph has several problems. Examples

1) The National Union did not rule Portugal.

2) The paragraph is misleading and it does NOT reflect what the sources actually say. First of all the majority of sources say that the Estado Novo was NOT fascist, that Salazar refused the ideology and that Salazar crushed the real Fascists. That should be made clear in the article. Off course the article can also say that there are a few left-wing Portuguese historians that still claim that the Estado Novo was Fascist but these left wing historians are a minority. The article can also mention that some minor non-ideological aspects of the Estado Novo resemble some clichés of the Fascist Regimes, i.e. the propaganda apparatus, use of the Roman Salute, the Legião Portuguesa and the Mocidade Portuguesa were based on the fascist example but on the other hand Salazar was clear when he said "I hate the speeches, the verbosity, the flowery, meaning less interpolations, the way we waste passion, not around any great idea, but just around futilities, nothingness from the point of view of the national good.” Unlike Mussolini and Hitler, Salazar eschewed circuses and bread to win theadmira tion of his people (“One cannot charm and govern the crowds at the same time”); nor did he pamper them with increasing material prosperity. Last but not least the National Union was NOT a fascist movement. J Pratas (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Ec1801011 will you please remove the paragraph you have included in the article before a consensus is reached? J Pratas (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Have you even read the paragraph I wrote? I clearly state that Salazar's regime was not fascist but was inspired by fascism. At no point in that paragraph do I state the Estado Novo was fascist. There was only one fascist regime and that was Mussolini's regime in Italy, this fascism in Europe page is about regimes that were inspired by Mussolini's rule. It is factually incorrect to state that the National Union did not rule the regime, it was the sole legal party and possessed all seats in the national assembly from 1934 to 1973. Furthermore what frustrates me is that my margarita was a more condesned version of the paragraph you had wrote that I removed because it was simply too long. Ec1801011 (talk) 08:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Ec1801011 Yes I did read the paragraph and I recognize that you are trying to reach a consensus despite the fact that you did not wait for consensus to be reached. I have several problems with your paragraph.

• 1st) I think that the paragraph should either start with a clear statement that the Portuguese Estado novo was not Fascist or alternatively something similar to what Rita Almeida de Carvalho wrote saying that the international scholars and researches in comparative fascist studies do not consider the Estado Novo fascist but rather conservative authoritarian. However there are some Portuguese left wing historians that recognize the existence of a Portuguese fascist regime.

What I wrote above is not equal to saying what you wrote that "the regime was not fully fascist"?

• 2nd) I think that if we are going to list the features where the regime had some characteristics that resemble those of fascist regimes we also need to list those where it was fundamentally different. Among others one can pick out the refusal of a pagan Cesarism, the refusal of an ideology that advocated the supremacy of the state over the individual, the lack of mass mobilization, the moderate nature of Portuguese Nationalism, the careful and apolitical selection of the narrow elite that ran the country, the lack of powerful working class and the rejection of violence as a mean of transforming society, the lack of a powerful fascist party, etc.. And when we list features like the "Mocidade Portuguesa" and the "Legiao Portugues" as fascist characteristics we also need to explain that according to scholars these organizations were something that Salazar ended up accepting and tolerate rather than promoting. These organizations were created at the outbreak of the Spanish Civil war to protect Portuguese youth from communist ideologies. Unlike in fascist regimes these organizations were both created and ran by the government. Meneses explains that these organizations were not new in Portugal, Preparatory Military Instruction’s Societies were created through an ordinance of 1st June 1912, which published the respective regulation. 1912 was long before fascism was born. The PMI used uniforms and designed choreographies assumed the public display of a certain citizen profile, and the sharing of citizenship values dear to republicanism. In nature these PMIs were as fascist as the Mocidade Portuguesa or the Legiao Portuguesa because they were vert similar in the outside but they defend different core values in the inside.

• 3rd) It is inaccurate to say that the National Union ruled because it simply did not. In the Estado Novo's constitution (approved in a popular referendum) the president was elected by popular vote for a period of seven years. On paper, the constitution vested sweeping, almost dictatorial powers in the hands of the president, including the power to appoint and dismiss the prime minister. The president was elevated to a position of preeminence as the "balance wheel", the defender and ultimate arbiter of national politics. President Carmona, however allowed Salazar more or less a free hand since appointing him premier and continued to do so; Carmona and his successors would largely be figureheads as Salazar wielded the true power. Wiarda argues that Salazar achieved his position of power not just because of constitutional stipulations, but also because of his character: domineering, absolutist, ambitious, hardworking and intellectually brilliant. It was the premier that ruled not the National Union. The National Union was founded in 1930 during the period of the Ditadura Nacional. Officially it was not a political party, but an "organisation of unity of all the Portuguese". Salazar in the speech that launched the party was vague in terms of its role and he incorporated all the parties supporting the dictatorship, whether republican, monarchic or catholic. Its first organic principles expressly declared that “all citizens, regardless of their political or religious beliefs” would be admitted as long as they adhered to the principles of Salazar’s speech of 30 June 1930. Appointment to lead the party meant either ‘retirement’ or a prestigious pause from government duties. The absence of youth was a characteristic of the National Unionr, particularly in the 1930s. At the first Congress, 68% of the delegates were over 40 years old. According to historian António Costa Pinto The National Union is an example of extreme weakness among dictatorships with weak single parties. There was no internal party activity until 1933. From 1934 onwards, after the creation of the regime’s new institutions, the UN embarked on a period of lethargy from which it did not emerge until 1944. This lethargy can be partly explained by the affirmation by the regime that it did not attribute great importance to it, beyond its utility as an electoral and legitimating vehicle. So I fail to see how one can say that the National Union ruled.

Finally. I think that the Estado Novo does not belong to this article about Fascism in Europe because the majority of sources say it was not fascist. But if we are going to include something here it must be clear about the real relationship between the Estado Novo and fascism. The content should also be aligned with the content of other articles such as António de Oliveira Salazar, Estado Novo (Portugal), National Union (Portugal), etc. J Pratas (talk) 11:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

 Administrator note Two users already blocked, but the edit war continues. I, therefore, protected the page for 4 days. Please figure out the consensus on the talk page, or failing that, pursue dispute resolution elsewhere. El_C 00:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Sources

• Kay, Hugh (1970). Salazar and Modern Portugal. New York: Hawthorn Books. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Wiarda, Howard J. (1977). Corporatism and Development: The Portuguese Experience (First ed.). Univ of Massachusetts Press. ISBN 978-0870232213. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Should the Estado Novo regime in Portugal be considered a Fascist regime?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a rough consensus to oppose defining Estado Novo as a fascist regime in this article. While a raw vote count was tied at 3-3 (with an additional editor who voiced no-arguments but who did not vote making it 4-3), editors arguing against the inclusion of Estado Novo made more convincing arguments, demonstrating that reliable sources are divided on whether or not Estado Novo should be considered fascist. Both sides at times made original research arguments comparing or contrasting Estado Novo with various fascist regimes, which I summarily ignored in this assessment. This closure does not preclude the addition of content about Estado Novo in this article, such as a paragraph discussing the variety of opinion among RS (and it is my personal opinion that the article absolutely should contain some discussion of Estado Novo), but Estado Novo should not be presented as fascist alongside unambiguously fascist regimes such as Mussolini's. (non-admin closure) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC) Reversing closure: no consensus. After being contacted on my talk page, I learned that the other regimes included in the first section of the article also have contested relationships with fascism. Thus, it is not clear that mere source parity is enough to justify removing Estado Novo from the list. As a consequence, this discussion is now closed as no consensus. (non-admin closure) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

---

Should the Estado Novo regime in Portugal be considered a Fascist regime? --177.98.174.159 (talk) 03:31, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. While there are some differences in appearance, it nonetheless was a fascist regime. Roulao Preto might not have thought it was fascist enough for his tastes, but I don't see why he should be arbiter. Certainly, the preamble to the Portuguese Constitution calls it a "fascist regime" quite explicitly. Walrasiad (talk)

This statement should be supported by a reliable source. Manuel Braga da Cruz says the opposite --J Pratas (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[[3]]

The Portuguese Constitution does indeed call the Estado Novo a Fascist regime: https://www.parlamento.pt/Legislacao/PAGINAS/CONSTITUICAOREPUBLICAPORTUGUESA.ASPX — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.98.177.161 (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

No that is a one word in a primary source issued by the far-left regime that overthrew Marcelo Caetano. It is not a reliable secondary source. Rjensen (talk) 02:51, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• Edit: And I would stop citing Kay. I have that book, and certainly not RS. It was an apologist book written by an English journalist to defend the regime against critics of that time. Walrasiad (talk) 03:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

There more than 10 sources. Kay is just one of them. --J Pratas (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• Yes: Salazar may have rejected the label of Fascist, but he admired Mussolini and was largely inspired by him, and also adopted many of the characteristics of Mussolini's regime, such as a paramilitary organization, a youth movement, a one-party state, corporatism, his regime was not completely identical to that of Mussolini, but a regime doesn't have to be completely identical to Mussolini's in order to be Fascist (unless we are going to consider only Italy as a Fascist country), sure he might have persecuted the National Syndicalists, but this doesn't mean that he and his regime weren't Fascist, Stalin persecuted many Communists but this doesn't me he wasn't a Communist. -- 177.98.174.159 (talk) 04:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

This is POV not supported by sources. J Pratas (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

The Estado Novo did adopt many characteristics of Mussolini's regime, such as the ones I mentioned, how is any of this POV? -- 177.98.177.161 (talk) 02:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• Yes: Because of its particularities and differences from other fascist regimes, Estado Novo is sometimes called "a conservative authoritarian, pseudo-fascist, fascistized or para-fascist regime" by researchers. This seems to me to be an academic distinction that is needlessly complicated for practical use. If anything, it's a "subgenre" of fascism, but safely within its bounds. As per Wikipedia's definition of fascism, Estado Novo was fascist, even if it insisted it is not. PraiseVivec (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

The source that is being used says exactly the opposite. Read some lines below what the source really says.J Pratas (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• No: Many sources are provided in the discussion above that make clear that the regime was influenced by, imitated, and admired some aspects of other fascist states, but that does not equal "was fascist". It's possible that some other term (attributed), such as 'para/proto-fascist' would be justified, but not the 'blunt' one. Many of the arguments made by 'Yes' voters are pure WP:OR. Estado Novo may - in the opinion of editor's - meet the WP definition of fascism, but we go by what the majority of RS have said. Pincrete (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

What he meant was that Wikipedia doesn't adopt the standard that only Italy is a Fascist country, so just because a regime isn't completely identical to Italy doesn't mean it wasn't Fascist, which seems to be what some arguments against considering the Estado Novo a Fascist regime seem to be based on. -- 177.98.177.161 (talk) 02:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Of course WP doesn't think that Italy was the only Fascist state, it thinks that only a state that the vast majority of good sources have concluded was Fascist should be so described. That this regime had elements which were similair, elements that some sources have thought sufficient to describe as Fascist, deserves recording - the blunt label does not. It is undeserved and less informative than 'the bigger picture'. Pincrete (talk) 16:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

No because, among other things the source that is being used to support the Yes actually says NO. What Rita Carvalho really says is the following:

• 1) "This article challenges the common assumption of the fascist nature of the Portuguese Estado Novo from the thirties to mid-forties, while recognizing the innovative, modernizing dynamic of much of its state architecture"
• 2) "Although some Portuguese historians recognize the existence of a Portuguese fascist regime [Lucena, Rosas, Torgao] researchers in comparative fascist studies usually label the Portuguese New State as a conservative authoritarian,[Among many others, Roger Griffin, The Nature of Fascism (London: Routledge, 1993); Stanley Payne, A History of Fascism, 1914–1945 (London: UCL Press, 1995); António Costa Pinto, Salazar’s Dictatorship and European Fascism: Problems of Interpretation (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996); A. James Gregor, Phoenix: Fascism in Our Time (New Brunswick, Transaction Publishers, 1999); Juan J. Linz, Authoritarian and Totalitarian Regimes (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2000); Michael Mann, Fascists (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); Robert O. Paxton, The Anatomy of Fascism (New York: Vintage Press, 2005); Roger Eatwell, ‘­Introduction: New Styles of Dictatorship and Leadership in Interwar Europe,’ ­Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions 7, no. 2 (2006): 127–137; Arnd Bauerkämper, ‘A New ­Consensus? Recent Research on Fascism in Europe, 1918–1945,’ History Compass 4, no. 3 (2006): 536–566.] pseudo-fascist, fascistized or para-fascist regime".[just one source, Griffin]
• 3) "None of the comparative scholars consider that Salazarism was pursuing a Portuguese equivalent of a revolutionary national rebirth comparable to Italian Fascism and Nazism. However, this did not stop fascism from impacting the regime, sometimes blurring the distinction in cultural practice between fascistized authoritarianism and fascism."
• 4) "Radical innovation failed to be implemented because the Portuguese Estado Novo was never fascist in its essence, and could not provide the framework of political modernism and a modernist state"

And you can find bellow a non-exhaustive list of sources that support Rita de Carvalho's claim that the Estado Novo was NOT fascist.

• 1) Paxton, Robert O. 2004. The Anatomy of Fascism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Paxton says that: "Where Franco subjected Spain’s fascist party to his personal control, Salazar abolished outright in July 1934 the nearest thing Portugal had to an authentic fascist movement, Rolão Preto’s blue-shirted National Syndicalists. The Portuguese fascists, Salazar complained, were “always feverish, excited and discontented . . . shouting, faced with the impossible: More! More!”9 Salazar preferred to control his population through such “organic” institutions traditionally powerful in Portugal as the Church....His regime was not only non-fascist, but “voluntarily non-totalitarian,” preferring to let those of its citizens who kept out of politics “live by habit. (page 150)...The Estado Novo of Portugal differed from fascism even more profoundly than Franco’s Spain (pag 270)
• 2) Manuel Braga da Cruz explains how the Estado Novo and the Portuguese 1933 Constitution is fundamentally different from Fascism [[4]]
• 3) Roger Griffin, The Nature of Fascism (London: Routledge, 1993); page 266 - The National Union is classified "Conservative Right"
• 4) Costa Pinto, "Salazar’s Dictatorship and European Fascism: Problems of Interpretation" (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996) Costa Pinto explains that The National Union is more a bureaucratic apparatus than a political party.
• 5) Costa Pinto, António – “The Blue Shirts Portuguese Fascists and the New Stat”. The book is available online in the authors website. [5] [Costa Pinto is NOT an admirer of Salazar and in his book he explains how Salazar dismantled the fascist movement in Portugal
• 6) A. James Gregor, Phoenix: Fascism in Our Time (New Brunswick, Transaction Publishers, 1999); - Author says that Portuguese Estado Novo was not Fascist because fascist has always been revolutionary, anticonservative, anti-bourgeois, etc.. somethin that the Estado Novo never was.
• 7) Juan J. Linz, Authoritarian and Totalitarian Regimes (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2000); Michael Mann, Fascists (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, - On page 226 Author says that Fascism has never taken roots in the Portugal of Salazar.
• 8) Roger Eatwell, ‘Introduction: New Styles of Dictatorship and Leadership in Interwar Europe,’ Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions 7, no. 2 (2006): 127–137;
• 9) Payne, Stanley (1995). – “A History of Fascism, 1914–1945”
• 10) Gallagher, Tom (1990). "Chapter 9: Conservatism, dictatorship and fascism in Portugal, 1914–45". In Blinkhorn, Martin. Fascists and Conservatives. Routledge. pp. 157–173. ISBN 004940086X.
• 11) Kay, Hugh (1970). Salazar and Modern Portugal. New York: Hawthorn Books.
• 12) Wiarda, Howard J. (1977). Corporatism and Development: The Portuguese Experience (First ed.). Univ of Massachusetts Press. ISBN 978-0870232213.
• 13) Carlos A. Cunha, ‎(2010) states "A comparison of Salazar's dictatorship with German or Italian fascism shows that Portugal was not a fascist state.
• 14) Bernard Cook, (2001) states "he was not a fascist but rather an authoritarian conservative. "
• 15) Portuguese Studies Review - Volume 2 - Page 109 (1993) "an authoritarian or clerico-corporatist state not a fascist one."
• 16) Morgan , Philipp – “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. p 177.
• 17) Sánchez Cervelló, Josep - also made a very clear judgement: "It was an authoritarian regime, with some similarities to the generic fascism though it cannot be confused with this one." You can read it using this link: Características del régimen salazarista, for those who cant read Spanish the abstract is translated to English.J Pratas (talk) 07:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
• 18) Albright, Madeleine in a recent interview to a Portuguese news paper on the occasion of the publishing of her book "Fascism: A Warning", said "Salazar was not a Fascist"[6]

On the opposite side there are a few left wing Portuguese historians that think that the Estado Novo was Fascist

• Fernando Rosas a member of the Left Bloc - [[7]]. Rosas has recently published (2019) "Salazar e os Fascismos", ISBN: 9789896714840, Published by "Tinta da China".

Last but not least, anyone reading the primary sources (e.g. The 1933 Constitution, The Salazar speeches, the Salazar interviews with Antonio Ferro) will find a Salazar refusing fascism, Pagan-Cesarism, Totalitarian ideologies that put the state above the individual, etc.. And a Salazar that crashed the Portuguese Fascist movement and exiled its leaders. J Pratas (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• Some sources that say that the Estado Novo was Fascist:

1) Jorge Pais de Sousa - O Estado Novo de Salazar como um Fascismo de Cátedra

2) Manuel de Lucena - Interpretações do Salazarismo

3) Manuel Loff - O Nosso Século é Fascista. O Mundo visto por Salazar e Franco

4) Manuel de Lucena - A Evolução do Sistema Corporativo Português: O Salazarismo

5) Hermínio Martins, S. Woolf - European Fascism, pp. 302-336

Madeleine Albright is not any authority on this subject, and once again, it is true that Salazar rejected the label of Fascist, but yet he was inspired by it and adopted many of the characteristics of Mussolini's regime, and Stalin also persecuted Communists, but yet this doesn't mean he wasn't a Communist, Salazar may have persecuted the National Syndicalists, but this doesn't mean he and his regime weren't Fascist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.98.177.161 (talk) 01:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

~

Indeed it is undeniable that according to some sources the Estado Novo was Fascist and this is a POV. It is also undeniable fact (a fact not an opinion) that those sources are a minority and that those sources are mostly left wing Portuguese historians that were political activist that in their youth fought the Estado Novo and some of them lived exiled. Manuel Lucena was leader of an exile revolutionary front, The FPLN based in Algiers. Herminio Martins lived exiled in the UK. Fernando Rosas was a member of the Portuguese Communist Party and currently a member of the Left Bloc.

I am not saying that this POV should not be included in the article. What I am saying is that Wikipedia adopts a neutral point of view (NPOV), "which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." and therefore the other POV that says "NO" it was "NOT" fascist must also be fairly and porportionaly represented.

The discussion here should not be about what editors think but primarily about what are the existing views and how to represent them fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias.J Pratas (talk) 04:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

A last minor comment. Madeleine Albright has recently Published a book "Fascism: A Warning (2018)" and she is currently a Distinguished Professor in the Practice of Diplomacy at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service and has honorary degrees from from Brandeis University (1996), the University of Washington (2002), Smith College (2003), Washington University in St. Louis (2003),[128] University of Winnipeg (2005), the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (2007),[129] Knox College (2008), and Tufts University (2015).. Claiming that Albright's must be discarded is going to be a difficult.J Pratas (talk) 04:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Diplomacy has nothing to do with this discussion, in that book she claims that racism is a characteristic of Fascism when it is only a characteristic of Nazism (which is a type of Fascism but not the only one), Mussolini himself criticized the racial doctrine of Nazism and only adopted racial laws in 1938 under pressure from Hitler, this is more than enough to realize that she doesn't know anything about this subject. -- 177.135.52.200 (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Dr. Albright, born in Czechoslovakia, graduated from Wellesley College with honors in political science. She continued her education at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, received a certificate from the Russian Institute at Columbia University, and obtained her master’s and doctorate from the department of public law and government at Columbia University.J Pratas (talk) 09:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Adding another source, from a young Portuguese historian, a scholar, Source 19) Meneses, Filipe Ribeiro, "Salazar a Political Biography" says that "The obstacles in twinning the New State with fascism are self evident. Among other one can pick out the lack of mass mobilization, the moderate nature of Portuguese Nationalism, the careful and apolitical selection of the narrow elite that ran the country, the lack of powerful working class and the rejection of violence as a mean of transforming society. To include Salazar, given his background, his trajectory, is faith and his general disposition in the broad fascist family is at first sight to stretch fascism to a point where it becomes meaningless."J Pratas (talk) 06:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Those are rather superficial criteria. Fascism is a political ideology, not a type of parade or circus show. The extent to which the Salazar regime should be considered fascist should rest on more serious criteria, e.g. the position & role of the State in society, etc. P.S. - attempt to dismiss rather serious authors because they're "left wing" lends more suspicion to your motives than theirs. And no, it is not a "fact" they're a minority. Quite the contrary. Rather sad to have this discussion today of all days. :( Walrasiad (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

"Those are rather superficial criteria."--and instead we should use "the position & role of the State in society, etc" --it's the etc that shows that's a flip answer not based on any scholarship. we need to use modern reliable secondary sources of the sort J Pratas has actually quoted. A off-the top of the head answer that cites a clown show is not much help. Walrasiad did cite the manifesto of the revolutionary opponents in 1974 which devoted one word to Caetano (not Salazar) as a 'fascist'--that old rhetoric largely ended in 1989-91 when Communism collapsed in Europe. Let's go with modern scholarship please. Rjensen (talk) 20:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

*sigh*

"It is Salazar's corporativist view of the state and the totalitarian practice of his regime that are central to the arguments of those who argue that Salazarism was a form of fascism (e.g. Kayman, 1987; Lucena, 1979; Rosas 1989b and 2001). It does not matter if his supporters did not wear particular uniformed shirts or salute the leader with choreographed gestures. What matters is that Salazar held a view of the state that did not greatly differ from Perto and his Blue Shirts. Salazar presided over a regime which was deeply anti-left-wing and which sought totalitarian control of the state, taking command over the economy, forbidding independent trade unions, controlling he press through the SPN and ruthelessly punishing opponents. Moreover, as Rosas (2001) stresses, Salazar sought tight control over the educational system with the aim of ensuring that the next generation of Portuguese would be subservient to the regime. In our own work, we have suggested that Salazar's regime met a number of basic criteria of fascism" (Marinho & Billing, 2013)

etc.

Walrasiad (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Walrasiad, you are not being helpful. Your not adding anything new to the debate. We already know that Lucena, Rosas, Marinho etc.. have a POV that classifies the Estado Novo was fascist. And those sources are not being dismissed. But unless you are able to bring in more sources, so far, the scholars that say that the Estado Novo was fascist are a minority, are Portuguese and most of them left-wing. So, it is OK, the POV that says that the Estado Novo was fascist should be represented fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias. But the same goes for the long list of scholars whose POV say that the Estado Novo ideology was non-fascist. This POV should also be represented fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias.

Let us please be objective, stick to the sources and put aside any remarks on other editor's motivations. That is not helpful and is not part of the debate.

If you want to help please bring in more sources from modern scholars. Since this is the English wikipedia english is preferred.

By the way, I have just finished reading "Salazar e os Fascismos", 2018, by Fernando Rosas. Excellent reading. J Pratas (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

You think it would be more helpful if I ran up a random citations (including highly compromised pieces) and just label anybody who disagrees with me "right wing" authors? And maybe pluck fabricated stats and call them "undeniable facts"? Walrasiad (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Walrasiad says Fascism is totalitarian control of the state, taking command over the economy, forbidding independent trade unions, controlling the press ... ruthelessly punishing opponents. ...tight control over the educational system That sounds like China or North Korea or Saudi Arabia in 2019 and indeed any totalitarian regime. That's called totalitarianism. Italian & German Fascism was much more oriented to aggressive expansionist with a big military and threats to neighbors, wars and invasions all the time. Rjensen (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

So Fascism is just "aggressive expansionism with a big military and threats to neighbors, wars and invasions all the time"? The USSR did exactly that, does this mean the USSR was a Fascist country? And besides, very few territory was actually annexed into Nazi Germany, in most cases they just either imposed an occupational administration (civilian or military), or imposed puppet regimes, such as Vichy France and the Independent State of Croatia, and the only expansionist war Fascist Italy engaged in was in Ethiopia, and Italy already fought a war to colonize Ethiopia way before Fascism, and failed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.98.197.35 (talk) 22:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Fascism must be expansionist? Why? Portugal already had an empire. Should it have expanded for the sake of expanding? Do fascist states cease being fascist after they have conquered half the world? Walrasiad (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Do fascist states cease being fascist after they have conquered half the world? Portugal was pretty certainly not fascist when it conquered a good chunk of the world before 1550. Then it started shrinking. By the 19th century, this wreckage was severe – for example Britain and Germany had serious discussions about how to split up the Portuguese empire in the 1890s. So the expansionist urge had been dead for centuries in Portugal and Salazar did absolutely nothing to revive it, nor to build a military capable of aggressive activities. All fascist states were heavily militaristic and the expansionism of Mussolini and Hitler was the defining characteristic that frightened the rest of the world, much more than their youth clubs did. Rjensen (talk) 10:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Did nothing? Portugal has only one neighbor - Spain. And given that Salazar did send the Portuguese military over the border to depose the Spanish government and forcibly install a regime he preferred, then that checks your box. If he had more neighbors, maybe he might have toppled them too. And, of course, you cannot ignore the regime's stubborn single-mindedness to deepen the grip on the Portuguese empire - which eventually doomed the regime, much like Hitler's empire-building doomed his. And they had the same policy purpose. It was Salazar who initiated the lebensraum-style vision of planting poor Portuguese peasants on conquered African land as the policy answer to land hunger back home. If the Allies had been good sports and let Hitler keep Poland, like they let Portugal keep Angola, it'd be indistinguishable. Hitler himself thought as much, and believed the colony-holding Allies were being highly hypocritical.

No sources here just imagination. Portugal did not invade Spain -- it was neutral in the civil war and facilitated supplies in transit across Portugal to the nationalists. It did not send in any army units. Portugal had colonies all over the world with military units stationed there and never threatened any of these neighbors. -- instead they sometimes got threatened with invasion (Azores--see Operation Alacrity) or were invaded (eg Goa, East Timor, Macao). Compare Second Italo-Ethiopian War when Mussolini used his colonies as bases to invade Ethiopia in 1935. The central theme for historians is fascists idealized raw power, built up offensive forces, and used them to threaten and invade and defeat their neighbors (and other enemies esp Jews). Salazar's army never threatened. Best remember Czechoslovakia 1938 for comparison. In ww2 thousands of Jews escaped from the Nazis via Portugal. Rjensen (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Portugal was not neutral during the Spanish Civil War, it supported the Nationalists, to a lesser extent than Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy did, but they still supported them, and after World War II, Francoist Spain was the closest ally of the Estado Novo regime, Italy already invaded Ethiopia in 1894, way before Fascism, Nazi Germany annexed only few land into it, in most of those cases they either once belonged to Germany before, or were mostly populated by ethnic Germans who supported annexation, or even both, lastly, it is true that Portugal helped many Jews escape the Nazis during the War, but how is this relevant to this discussion? -- 177.135.52.200 (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Sure thing. And Russia was neutral during the Crimean disturbances. No interference. Never sent any troops, no sir. A few holiday-makers just got carried away with enthusiasm. Give me a break. Walrasiad (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Both Portugal and Germany used their militaries to meet their aspirations, without recalcitrance or apology. They just had different starting points of geographical happenstance, and thus different needs.

But those are very superficial things, of course. Militarism, and even colonialism, is not the same thing as fascism. Britain was a highly-aggressive and frightening colonial power, but that doesn't make it a fascist state. If you're going to take fascism seriously - that is fascism as a political ideology - then you should be able to look past the fancy-dress uniforms, and pay attention to fascist political ideas. What makes you a fascist is what you think, not what you wear. Walrasiad (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Walrasiad, Again. Please bring in the reliable sources. Again: Lucena, Rosas, Loff, etc. are NOT being discarded. The same way it does NOT make sense to try to simply ignore Paxton, Payne, Gallagher, Braga da Cruz, etc... like you have been doing over the entire debate. And I have restrained from citing Nogueira Pinto, Rui Ramos, etc. to avoid the debate between Portuguese left wing and right scholars. But you need to bring in reliable sources and not your view. You need to stop pretending that there are reliable sources that have an opinion different from your own.J Pratas (talk) 07:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

By the way. There is also an interesting video in the youtube titled "Mário Soares diz que Salazar não era fascista nem corrupto" where former Portuguese president Mario Soares says that Salazar was not exactly a fascist, that Salazar was a dictator but not Fascist.J Pratas (talk) 07:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Alas, I approach scholarship differently. I actually pay attention to their arguments, and evaluate their content, rather than just vomit names and make dismissive aspersions about authors that don't agree with me. It's a bad habit, I know. Walrasiad (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Ahhh! Ok. But that does not seem to be in line with Wikpedia's fundamental NPOV policy. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. What I have seen so far is what Rita Almeida de Carvalho says that the scholars that think that Salazar was a Fascist are all Portuguese. Until today I have not seen a non-Portuguese scholar classifying Salazar as a Fascist. If this is the case then the article should reflect that. No?

By the way, I actually like to read Rosas and Lucena. Have several of their books. But I know where they are coming from.J Pratas (talk) 16:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

And Portuguese authors are inferior beings and should not be read? When you stop dismissing authors because of nationality, or whatever other silly thing you imagine in their background, I'll be happy to discuss. But at this stage, you're not even trying. Walrasiad (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Portuguese scholars are not inferior and nobody suggested that, they are just being labeled as Portuguese (see Rita A Carvalho paragraph).What is evident so far is that scholarly opinion varies, and that the opposing viewpoints should be described neutrally. Unless someone can add new sources it seems clear that the majority of sources say "NO", while there is a minority that says "Yes". It is pointless to bring personal views, personal criteria and personal interpretations to the discussion because we must all follow the Wikipedia´s NPOV policy. So, are there any additional reliable sources? (No personal views please)J Pratas (talk) 07:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

(1) Let me highlight this: "scholarly opinion varies". Yes it does. And I have no problems with the suggestion that "opposing viewpoints should be described neutrally". I am happy to put all the asterisks, qualifications and reservations needed. And happy to discuss how that can be integrated here.

(2) But let me disagree about your "majority". First off, this is not majority vote - it should be weighed by convincing argument. One well-researched & reasoned piece like Rosas is worth ten times a piece of regime-era apologetic junk like Kay. And majority of sources don't say no anyway. You have attempted to dismiss Portuguese-language literature on weird grounds, because you know they don't conform to your view. You have proposed to rely on foreign writers alone, and ignored that foreign writers over-rely on the only English-language book on Salazar (Pinto's) which has very much the particular objective of pushing that thesis. Portuguese writers draw from wider Portuguese-language sources, and are not so beholden to Pinto.

(3) Finally, this section asks a question, it is explicitly asking for our opinion, and we are answering it. So please don't try to shut us up. Our view is not uneducated and we are discussing and evaluating the arguments. Happily the PIDE is not around, and we can. If you want to contribute to the discussion, I would be delighted. But your contribution so far is "Everyone must shut up and obey the authorities I list", and dismissing all counter-literature as "left-wingers". Maybe the PIDE is still around? ;)

(4) And if I can make one more stylistic request to all here, please don't splice your answers inside other people's answers, particularly when it breaks up paragraphs. It makes it harder to read, and harder to know who wrote what. Try to post below the entire post, after the signature. Thank you. Walrasiad (talk) 13:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful if you could please read some of the wikipedia guidelines

• 1) Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines asks you to please Stay objective: Talk pages are not a place for editors to argue their personal point of view about a controversial issue. They are a place to discuss how the points of view of reliable sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral. The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material. So I am not shutting up anyone I am just asking you to stick to the guidelines and leave personal opinions to personal talk pages. Anytime you bring in an opinion you should try to source it, that is all.
• 2) "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources" not on personal views, so what we are supposed to do is to bring in content that is supported by reliable sources. Until now you have been contributing with your personal view and you have not added any source. It would be really helpful if you could please add a list of reliable sources.
• 3) It would also be helpful if you could follow the guideline that says that please "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused on the topic of the talk page, rather than on the editors participating.". I am not saying "shut up" I am asking you to please follow a guiding principle and please stop using words and expressions like "silly", "vomiting" "PIDE is still around?"
• 4) Last but not least, so far I have not discarded any source, I just labeled some left wing portguese sources as Portuguese and left wing.(as Rita A Carvalho also did). The only editor that has attempted to discard sources has been you and the Brazilian IP 179.180.101.70 that has been blocked for vandalism, that is under a Sockpuppet investigation and that was able to recruit you to this discussion.

• 5) If we add Portuguese historians we should also add: Costa Pinto, Rui Ramos, Nogueira Pinto, Braga da Cruz, etc. that say "No", not fascist. Or are all these "junk". And what about Payne, Paxton, Gallagher, etc.. all "Junk"? all "silly"?

J Pratas (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Sources that consider the Estado Novo to be Fascist were already presented, and there are more, but you always dismiss them as a "few left-wing Portuguese historians", when you label them as that, the obvious intention is to discredit and dismiss them, you can try to deny that all you want, but the intentions are obvious, you've been blocked for edit warring, and I didn't recruit anybody to this discussion, in fact, I didn't even know about Walrasiad before this discussion, and nobody claimed that there weren't Portuguese historians who didn't consider the Estado Novo to be Fascist, he was just criticizing you because you dismissed sources (that go against your POV) because they were Portuguese. And since your biased conduct during this discussion (and during the entire dispute) is very obvious, it must come into scrutiny. -- 177.135.52.200 (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

No IP (blocked for Vandalism and Edit Warring, because of you several articles have been blocked to all IPs worldwide for 3 months which is regrettable). For the last time. I have NOT discarded any sources. Neither in this article nor in Salazar's article. I have even added the latest book from Fernando Rosas to the "No" list. All I said is that the sources that say YES are a few left wing Portuguese historians and that is what they are. They are indeed all Portuguese and they are not that many. There are sources saying that as well (eg. Rita A Carvalho). Now, one can also argue (like you and Walrasiad have been doing) that these Portuguese sources outweigh all the other sources. But unless you bring sources this will be your POV and Walrasiad's POV and that is not acceptable according to wikipedia's guideline. So, please bring in the sources and stop saying you are not adding the sources because they will be discarded because the only sources discarded so far was Kay (by Walrasiad) and Albright (by you).J Pratas (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@jpratas (to your first comment, got edit-conflict with your second):

(1) I have been on Wiki longer than you have, and have written and contributed to far more articles. I don't particularly appreciate your patronizing comment. That said, it is exactly what I am doing. I am evaluating and weighing various sources, and find the ones you cite wanting. The criteria they use for a slippery label is faulty, and other sources have better grounds and are better argued. It is perfectly acceptable for me to explain my reasoning for weighing them that way.

(2) Portuguese sources cited are reliable sources. You alone have decided to dismiss them offhandedly.;

(3) Admittedly it would be better. But unfortunately your patronizing replies and attempts to shut up other people rub me the wrong way. I would much prefer to reply to content, if you actually engaged and provided any content.

(4) Recruit? Dear heavens no. If you're curious, I tracked the activities of a little young fascist who keeps disrupting Portuguese history pages. And was led to the Salazar & EN pages and noticed your orchestrated campaign across them to whitewash the regime across multiple pages, and that you had now moved on to this page and this discussion.

(5) I have only asserted Kay is junk - which he is. Others are over-reliant one one source. There is much more variety, latitude and subtlety in this literature, which you are papering-over and ignoring. Walrasiad (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

in my opinion, the trouble with the Portuguese sources is that they are embedded in current Portuguese political debates, in which the academics are largely committed to a political party platform that makes their historic enemy into a fascist. That is they are locked into a political rhetoric that they can't repudiate without hurting their own local standing in current Portuguese politics. The Portuguese scholars are not writing for the world Republic of letters that is the basis for Wikipedia articles, and they get relatively little attention in the world of scholarship written in English, German, French or Spanish. let me make that specific, the indexing service "historical abstracts" indexes several thousand scholarly history journals around the world. The latest count gives 587 different articles that deal with Salazar. in terms of language here is the distribution: english (235); spanish (199); portuguese (59); french (49); italian (14); german (10); plus 14 additional articles in seven other languages. Thus Portuguese (including both Portugal and Brazil) only represents 10 percent of the scholarly literature, while English and Spanish dominate with 74 percent of the scholarship. I looked at abstracts of all the Portuguese articles, and 10 of them mention fascism. Three call him a fascist, but the rest do not do so. for example here's the abstract for the one article that goes into most depth on the issue: "Salazarism in recent research on European fascism: old problems, old answers?" By: Pinto, António Costa. Analise Social. oct1990, Vol. 25 Issue 4/5, p695-713. Language: Portuguese. Historical Period: 1930 to 1974. Abstract: Analyzes research on the Portuguese New State of Antonio Salazar, which suggests that his authoritarian regime differed from fascist states in Europe during the 1930's-40's. Salazarism did not have an expansionist ideology, a Fascist party organization, or an intensive political mobilization structure.

Wow. That's incredibly prejudiced. Portuguese scholars have the advantage of drawing on a variety of Portuguese-language sources, which foreigners usually do not. Again, the over-reliance of foreigners on Pinto's flawed biography is telling - many have read little else, and simply take its conclusions on board. That said, the nationality of a writer should not be the guide to judgment, but the actual content of what they write. I happen to find the arguments of the Portuguese scholars cited above better focused, better sourced, and far more compelling, regardless of whether they're Portuguese or not. Walrasiad (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@Walrasiad: No. Your attempt to discard sources is not accurate. Scholars like Payne, Wiarda and Gallagher can understand Portuguese have spent quite some time in Portugal and have studied in depth the Estado Novo and published long before Costa Pinto and all said "No". And you should read Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers and stop making the discussion personal. You should not be calling me " a little young fascist", that is way out of mark. Comparing editors to Nazis, Fascists, etc. in the wikipedia is a violation of the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy. J Pratas (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@Rjensen, you forgot to sign your post.And by the way, regarding your observation, curiously, Rosas in his new book feels the need to start the book by saying that he does not use history for political purposes...J Pratas (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

You are clearly a supporter of the Estado Novo, and you attacked other users many times, for example, you accused Walrasiad of being recruited by me, you accused me and Ec1801011 of being the same person, etc, and since you're insisting with this so much, perhaps we should look at the background of one your sources, Tom Gallagher:

http://powerbase.info/index.php/Tom_Gallagher

Or we can just check some of his tweets: https://twitter.com/cultfree54/status/1121792367642628096

https://twitter.com/cultfree54/status/1121055718982000640

He even seems to defend the Estado Novo regime on this one: https://twitter.com/cultfree54/status/1121406369687584775

"louche, high-living socialist", "liberal, secular, multi-culti agenda", "Greta Thunberg politics", etc, this is clearly right-wing language, in other words, he seems to be rather biased towards the right-wing, and also seems to defend the Estado Novo regime, so I wonder if you are going to apply your own standards to him. -- 177.135.52.200 (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes IP 177.135.52.200, According to Wikipedia standards Tom Gallagher is a respectable scholar and qualifies as a reliable source and a has a POV that should be respected as much as Rosas or Lucena. Turning now to a different topic: It would be less disruptive if you could please stick to a single IP or alternatively open an account. You were the only one so far that added sources to the discussion (thanks for that) and your contributions would be more efficient if you would use an account instead of a different IP each day.J Pratas (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@jpratas. I wasn't referring to you. But interesting that you thought I was. Walrasiad (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

As for Tom Gallagher, *shrug*. He points out some differences between Salazarism and more radical fascist strains. But he also casually calls the Salazar regime "fascist" at other times, e.g.

* T. Gallagher (1984) "Salazar's Portugal: the 'Black Book' on fascism", European Studies Review, v.14, p.486 ("Although Portugal was the only European country where the fall of fascism was accompanied by a thoroughgoing domestic revolution, the break with the past has not been as complete as some other post-fascist states.", etc., etc.).

Maybe he became crotchety in his dotage? Walrasiad (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@ Walrasiad Gallagher, "Portugal a Twentieth-Century Interpretaio" pages 64-74 says no.

• Gallagher thinks that"by appearing loyal to the style of corporativism while surreptitiously forsaking it substance Salazar stood to gain much. His governing system acquired the reputation of being a significant political innovation and not just another Latin régime personnel'
• "Perhaps in the long term there was never a systematic propagation of corporativism in Portugal because the traditional nature of society made a developed right wing ideology unecessary. The country had experienced neither reformation nor industrial revolution. With over half the population illiterate in the 1930s, traditional society had remained more or less intact as compared with Italy or Germany.
• Gallahger says that while Salazar was being depicted abroad as the guiding apostle of Portugal's corporative revolution. However, he was far from being the most committed advocate of the New State philosophy and also argues that Salazar decided to put on hold further coporativist reforms by removing Pedro Teotónio Pereira as corporations sub secretary. The clash between Salazar and Pereira started when Salazar "pushed through a decree-law giving larger business important autonomy in relations to the corporatitivst agencies.
• "...corporativism remained somewhat a "half-hearted affair", with the regime never making any real attempt to propagate and build up the theory systematically....To describe Portugal as corporative state even in the 1930s is perhaps a misnomer. Ultimately, the two primary elements that corporativist claim as the basis of their political philosophy were to be absent from Portuguese scene..... behind the facade of corporative
• Though paying some occasional homage to Mussolini, Salazar never let it be said that the portuguese corporative System was based on the Italian model. Features of the Italian model disturbed him, such as its populist character and Mussolini's "Pagan Cesarism"....The only influence acknowledged by Salazar was that of the papacy. Two encyclicals...
• Gallagher argues that the new legislation in practice obliterated trade unions because it "was more concerned with social control than working class justice".
• Gallagher ends saying that "Portugal, to paraphrase Marcelo Caetano, was corporative state in intention, not in fact. Perhaps if one had the ability to probe into Salazar's mind one would have found that it was not even that."
• and regarding the National Union Party, Gallagher says that "From the first day of its existence, back in 1930, it had possessed little power. Membership was insignificant. Government ministers did not need to belong.....there were often long periods of inactivity...J Pratas (talk) 08:02, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

and Wiarda "Corporatism and Development: The Portuguese Experience. The whole book say NO.

• "In the Iberian Latin context the "fascist" label has served often to obscure rather than assist our understanding of these systems, especially as the term implies a blanket condemnation." (p.5)
• "Iberian Latin model, here termed corporatist, conforms to neither the liberal-pluralist nor the "fascist"or totalitarian model....Fitting neither the liberal framework nor the fascist-totalitarian one, far more dynamic and change-oriented than often thought, the Iberic Latin model is a distinct type with its own philosophic traditions, characteristics..." (p. 27) J Pratas (talk) 08:33, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Wait, you were once trying to argue that the Estado Novo's corporatism was not the same as Fascist corporatism, yet now you are trying to argue that the Estado Novo wasn't even corporatist at all? Isn't this a huge contradiction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.33.127.176 (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

• No; there may have been fascist elements but it was not Fascism per se.

1. See https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5699/portstudies.32.2.0128?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents says only elements of Italian fascism.
2. Also see https://www.britannica.com/place/Portugal/The-First-Republic-1910-26 This one never says it was a Fascist government; "his progress, coupled with personal austerity and hard work, won Salazar the grudging collaboration of diverse parties and interest groups that included monarchists, conservative republicans, fascists, pseudofascists, nationalists, the church, business leaders, land barons, and the military establishment."
3. Also see http://repositorio.ul.pt/bitstream/10451/35277/1/ICS_RCarvalho_Ideology.pdf a scholarly study, fully footnoted. "Although some Portuguese historians recognize

the existence of a Portuguese fascist regime,2 researchers in comparative fascist studies usually label the Portuguese New State as a conservative authoritarian,3 pseudo-fascist, fascistized or para-fascist regime.4 ........... None of the comparative scholars consider that Salazarism was pursuing a Portuguese equivalent of a revolutionary national rebirth comparable to Italian Fascism and Nazism. However, this did not stop fascism from impacting the regime, sometimes blurring the distinction in cultural practice between fascistized authoritarianism and fascism.5" Peter K Burian (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if some sources don't call it a Fascist regime, this is a very weak argument, there is no need to repeatedly call it a Fascist regime, just like there is no need to repeatedly call Nazi Germany a Fascist regime, for example. Also, just because other factions supported or allied themselves with him doesn't mean it wasn't a Fascist regime, Mussolini also allied himself with liberals, conservatives, etc, for some time. The regime was born out of the 1926 Revolution, this is in itself, revolutionary, it was less revolutionary than Italian Fascism, but then again, Nazism was also less revolutionary than Italian Fascism in some aspects. Terms like "para-fascism", "semi-fascism", "pseudo-fascism", "fascisistized authoritarianism", etc, are bad terms, these terms seem to give the impression that Fascism is something monolithic and that it must be similar to Italy, like, what is even the line between Fascism and "para-fascism" or any of those terms?

Lastly, here are some Portuguese sources who consider the regime to be Fascist:

Jorge Pais de Sousa, https://storicamente.org/estado-novo-como-fascismo-de-catedra

Manuel de Lucena, http://analisesocial.ics.ul.pt/documentos/1223474660Y5fFJ3ke2Ya79VE3.pdf -- 177.19.114.76 (talk) 23:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@jpratas Those passages in Gallagher are entirely speculative and he says so. Doesn't change the fact that Gallagher himself calls it a "fascist regime" in other (later) articles I've cited above. So it doesn't preclude the label. As for the tiresome "Pagan Caesarian" thing from Ferro. Come on. Cite the preceding sentences too:

"Now obviously our dictator ship is similar to the Fascist dictatorship in its strengthening of authority, in the war which it declares on certain democratic principles, in its nationalist character, in its main tenance of the social order. It is different, however in its methods of renovation. The Fascist dictatorship is leaning toward a pagan Caesarism, etc."

Translation: "Oh everything about our regime is fascist, except we're more pious and moral". Self-lauding pap by a vain dictator. Should we take him for his word?

As for the semi-fascist, para-fascist, crypto-fascist, etc. whatever labels. *shrug* Nobody is arguing there are no peculiarities. Portuguese facism is different from Italian fascism, much like Italian fascism is different from German fascism. They're all fascist enough to be included in this article. As Torgal points out after considering the question in all number of dimensions:

(trans) "As a provisional conclusion, at least in its specific contours, we consider the Estado Novo as a "fascist" regime. We can call it a "portuguese-style" fascism, adequate to our own caracteristics as a rural people, with a rural mentality and catholic mindset, of a State that made its colonial Empire its great crusade. But all the symptoms of the Estado Novo approximate the characteristics of a fascist state, naturally different in some aspects more daring in German nazism or even in Italian fascism, just to talk of the classic cases" [Torgal p.87]

"Portuguese-style sausage" is still sausage, and "Portuguese-style fascism" is still fascism. Certainly fascist enough for inclusion in the article. If you're also including Dolfuss' Austro-fascism and other variants extremely similar to "Portuguese-style fascism", there's really no grounds to exclude Salazar's "Estado Novo" from the list. Walrasiad (talk) 09:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

It looks like there is a consensus that "scholarly opinion varies" and that "opposing viewpoints should be described neutrally" and that wikipedia will not have its own voice on this. Starting from this consensus and moving forward I suggest a paragraph similar to what Rita A. Carvalho wrote. She says that on one hand some Portuguese historians label the Estado Novo as a fascist regime [Lucena, Rosas, Torgao] on the other hand researchers in comparative fascist studies usually label the Portuguese New State as a conservative authoritarian,[Roger Griffin, Stanley Payne, António Costa Pinto, Juan J. Linz, Robert O. Paxton, Roger Eatwell, etc. ]. J Pratas (talk) 21:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Fascist Movements.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Semiprotecrtion re-applied

Which does not mean logged-in users are exempt from discussing their changes on the article talk page. Please tread lightly and use the talk page often. Thanks. El_C 17:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Isn't a three month-block too far though? I mean, was this article blocked for one week, two weeks, or one month before? I think this block should be reduced, and in the case of Franco's article that's even worse, especially considering all I was trying to do there was restoring the old photo, and you eventually restored it anyway, in that case I think that article should be unblocked. -- 179.186.154.173 (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

The reason why I wished for a different photo to be used on Franco's page was simply because it is taken from Franco's most famous photo that was also used in Francoist propaganda and is a photo commonly used for portraying Franco. Ec1801011 (talk) 19:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

If you're going to use that photo in Franco's page, could you at least use a better quality version?

Such as this one: http://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/1/17/Franco.PNG/revision/latest?cb=20071023143241 -- 179.186.154.173 (talk) 20:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

 Administrator note Well, Ec1801011, I can appreciate being bold, but after you've been reverted a few times, the thing to do is to take to the talk page and try to gain consensus for your change there. *** Sorry, IP, as mentioned to you here, we've had it on Wikipedia with the edit warring on these articles by multiple IPs. Any edit warring whatsoever. I protected several of these articles for 3 months and these two are no exception. And additional-related articles may be protected as well if and/or when the need arises. I'll consider reducing the protection to all of them when I feel confident the overacrhing dispute/s is resolved. El_C 20:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

If that's the case then, well, my edit on 17:24, 4 May 2019, which was reverted, was not the edit that was being disputed, so I was wondering if you could at least restore it. -- 179.186.154.173 (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd rather you gain the consensus for that first. Then I'd be happy to restore it. El_C 20:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

This is how that part looked when it first added to the article:

"After the Second World War the majority of fascist regimes were dismantled leaving only Iberia has the last European stronghold of the ideology."

11:42, 6 April 2019 -- 179.186.154.173 (talk) 22:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

It is my understanding that dispute/s pertaining to this (and other) edit/s are still being discussed. El_C 22:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, you're talking about the Rfc currently taking place right? Ok then, but just for curiosity, I'm mean, what will happen if we are not able to find consensus? Like I said, Wikipedia considered the Estado Novo regime to be Fascist for a long time, so I'm curious, what is going to happen in this case? -- 179.186.154.173 (talk) 23:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure. We'll cross that bridge then. I suppose we'll have to investigate further when "para-fascist" was removed and in what context. I, myself, am not familiar enough with the article's history to comment beyond that. El_C 23:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

" Wikipedia considered the Estado Novo regime to be Fascist for a long time," == I did a quick check and I do not find evidence for that. Of course a basic rule is that we cannot use Wikipedia itself as a reliable source. Rjensen (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Clearly your checking powers seem deficient. Since one month after this article was created in May 2008 beyond Italy & Germany, the Salazar regime has always been there. Random selection of diffs:

* Jun 2008

* Oct 2008,

* Nov 2009,

* Nov 2010,

* Aug 2011,

* Nov 2012,

* Aug 2013,

* Feb 2014,

* Nov 2015,

* Oct 2016,

* Dec 2017,

* Feb 2018,

* Feb 2019,

* The first attempt to remove Salazar's regime from this page was by JPratas one month ago (April 6, 2019).

And has been edit-warred ever since. Clearly the inclusion of Salazar's Estado Novo on the page is the status quo ante. It should be restored until consensus for Jpratas's controversial change is reached. Walrasiad (talk) 00:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

It looks like almost every item in that section has been expanded upon, however. El_C 01:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. Walrasiad (talk) 01:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

No --Salazar down to 2018 always got one unsourced sentence under a mukltinational list of countries "described as forms of, or strongly related to fascism:" That is a hedged and unsourced statement and not what I call a clear statement that it was true fascism. Rjensen (talk) 01:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

My point was merely to determine the status quo ante - his presence in this article. And he's been listed here since 2008, until one month ago. Your statement was deceitful. Walrasiad (talk) 02:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I mean, they have been expanded upon since. Not sure I can explain that any more clearly. El_C 01:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I am still mystified by what you mean. Try to use more words. Who is "they"? What did they "expand"? And how is this relevant to my point? Walrasiad (talk) 02:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Really? Look, I even linked it for you. What you are proposing to be restored has since been expanded, as well as almost all the other items alongside it. Just an observation. Clear enough? El_C 02:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

No, not clear at all. I am seriously having trouble following you. Maybe you're not a native English speaker and something is lost in translation? Or maybe I am just too stupid. But I really don't understand what you're getting at. Walrasiad (talk) 02:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Look, I'm trying to assume good faith here, but you have to work with me. What is it that you wish to see restored that isn't on the page right now? El_C 02:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Ah! I get it now. I apologize. I'm sorry. I gleaned from the discussion above that it had been removed for the duration of the lock, and must have overlooked it on the current page. Walrasiad (talk) 03:16, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

What he was demonstrating was that the Estado Novo regime has been included on the page for a long time, sure it has been expanded, but it still was included during those years, I really don't see how the fact that it was expanded is somehow relevant to this TBH. -- 179.186.154.173 (talk) 02:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

It's included right now, in expanded form — so what does he wish to restore? El_C 02:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

He was not wishing to restore anything, he was just demonstrating that the regime was included for a long time, Rjensen was claiming that it wasn't but he demonstrated that this is not true at all. -- 179.186.154.173 (talk) 02:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

S/he said, and I quote: "It should be restored until consensus for Jpratas's controversial change is reached." El_C 02:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, in that case he was referring to edits in other articles which considered the Estado Novo Fascist, not this one. -- 179.186.154.173 (talk) 02:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Him writing "from this page" and "on the page" is not indicative of that. El_C 02:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Well in this case the only thing I can suppose was that this was a writing mistake by him. -- 179.186.154.173 (talk) 03:00, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

A few points

• 1) The debate on Salazar being a fascist had already taken place twice and consensus had been reached on Salazar's talk page. First time 8 March 2016, and the second time 27 March 2019, with an administrator deciding that IP user 177.98.180.44 should be temporarily blocked for uncooperative behavior
• 2) After the consensus had been reached on Salazar's talk page, in April 6, I just removed the statement. "National Union in Portugal under António de Oliveira Salazar and Marcelo Caetano (1933–1974)" from this article. So if we want to reinstate this is what needs to be reinstated. No more no less.
• 3) Salazar, the Estado Novo and the National Union are all being placed in the same pot. I don't think there is any source saying that the National Union had the characteristics of a fascist party. And certainly the National Union is not a regime so it can't be listed as a regime. The regime was the Estado Novo. Therefore the statement does not make any sense.
• 4) It would be beneficial if this debate would take place in Salazar's article talk page, not only because it is where it started, but also because it is where it will get attention from editors that are specifically interested in Salazar and the Estado Novo.
• 5) The uncooperative IP that had been blocked continues to come back with slightly different numbers. This mutant uncooperative IP is so obsessed with linking Salazar with Hitler and Mussolini that he is now fighting to include the Portuguese Flag in the Blue Division. We all know that about a hundred Portuguese volunteers joined the Blue Division as did volunteers from Belgium, Russia, Italy, France, etc. and it does not make any sense to include flags from these countries in the Blue Division.--J Pratas (talk) 07:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
• 6) Last but not least, it looks rather odd that the real fascist movement in Portugal, the [National Syndicalists (Portugal)]] led by Francisco Rolão Preto is hardly mentioned in an article titled "Fascism in Europe¨J Pratas (talk) 13:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• 1) No consensus has taken place deciding that Salazar was not a Fascist, those discussions you mentioned are just not enough to be called consensus, I was blocked, yes, but then again, so was you.
• 2) Once again, no consensus has been reached, you just decided to remove it out of nowhere.
• 3) The National Union was the party of the regime, which is why it is being added, with the exception of the 4th of August Regime, all the other mentions on the list are parties of regimes.
• 4) There is no reason to change venues.
• 5) You are obsessed with trying to completely disassociate Salazar with Fascism, to the point that you once denied that there were Fascist influences in the regime, despite the fact that even historians who don't consider it to be Fascist say that there were Fascist influences, and once again, you were blocked as well. -- 177.98.184.219 (talk) 14:08, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Full protection re-applied

Enough is enough. There will be no third full protection. After this, edit warring will only be met with blocks. El_C 15:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Status quo ante for series of articles

Until consensus is formed (see Dispute resolution and Request for comment as resources), we're going to go with the status quo ante for all the articles which involve this dispute. El_C 20:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC overturned by closer

Since the RfC was overturned by the closer and re-closed as no consensus, I'm not sure what to advise further, except for the discussion to continue in hopes of resolution further down the line. In the meantime, the status quo ante is, again, to be in place while the discussion is undertaken once more, unless of course there is clear consensus to the contrary (which seems unlikely). El_C 04:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Moving forward

The point is that it's not feasible to just revert back and fourth indefinitely. I propose that, this article be placed under consensus required for all edits that are challenged. That way some changes can be added incrementally. This will have to be on a voluntary basis since I am unable to apply discretionary sanctions to the article. Otherwise, we're looking at edit warring with no end in sight. Can I persuade participants to subscribe to this new approach and make it binding here? El_C 04:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I also propose that this would be extended to the other articles which are at the heart of this dispute. Can I persuade participants to support that proposition, too? El_C 05:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Finally, if there is consensus among participants here that I failed or exceeded my mandate as the uninvolved admin, I am willing to withdraw from this dispute. El_C 05:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• El_C and all. I think that there is a consensus. The consensus is that scholarly opinion varies and opposing viewpoints should be described neutrally. Neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Starting from this consensus and moving forward I suggest a paragraph similar to what Rita A. Carvalho wrote.[8] She says that on one hand some Portuguese historians label the Estado Novo as a fascist regime [Lucena, Rosas, Torgao] on the other hand researchers in comparative fascist studies usually label the Portuguese New State as a conservative authoritarian,[Roger Griffin, Stanley Payne, António Costa Pinto, Juan J. Linz, Robert O. Paxton, Roger Eatwell, etc. ]. Does that make sense?J Pratas (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• A compromise that presents a split in the scholarly consensus (if that is, indeed, the case) sounds like a sensible plan. What do other participants think? El_C 17:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

no -- i don't see a split re "fascism" generally--which is the topic of this article. -- the split only applies to Portugal. In that country Estado Novo remains a hot political issue today in Portugal, more than a scholarly one. (Socialist (PS) party line is "fascism!" and they do not use a comparative context). Outside Portugal scholars do use comparative context re many countries and are in general agreement. Rita Almeida de Carvalho says the fascists elements are "superficial". I think the brief treatment of Portugal in this article does the job. [The National Union in Portugal under António de Oliveira Salazar and Marcelo Caetano (1933–1974) (Salazar rejected the label of fascist however his regime adopted many fascist characteristics with the Legião Portuguesa and Mocidade Portuguesa being the most prominent examples; after 1945 Salazar distanced his regime from fascism)[7] Rjensen (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Rjensen on the first statements but I don't think the article as it is now does a good job. This because the National Union is being listed as a fascist party and the National Union never had the characteristics of a Fascist Party. One thing is the Estado Novo and the other thing is the National Union. The National Union did not have the characteristics of a fascist or even para-fascist party. According Costa Pinto, there was no internal party activity until 1933. From 1934 onwards, after the creation of the regime’s new institutions, the National Union embarked on a period of lethargy from which it did not emerge until 1944. This lethargy can be partly explained by the affirmation by the regime that it did not attribute great importance to it, beyond its utility as an electoral and legitimating vehicle. The party had no real philosophy apart from support for the regime. The real fascist leader, Francisco Rolão Preto criticized the National Union in 1945 as a “grouping of moderates of all parties, bourgeois without soul or faith in the national and revolutionary imperatives of our time. As a result of its lack of ideology, it melted away after the Portuguese Revolution of 1974. So the National Union should be eliminated from the list. J Pratas (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

The National Union was set up to control and restrain public opinion rather than to mobilize it, the goal was to strengthen and preserve traditional values rather than to induce a new social order. Ministers, diplomats and civil servants were never compelled to join the National Union. (See Tom Gallagher, 1990, p.167) This had nothing to due with a Fascist Party.J Pratas (talk) 00:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

The National Union was the official party of the regime, and it was also the only party legally allowed under the regime, it is thus impossible to completely disassociate the party from the regime, regardless of how active it was, as for Rjensen's statements, I'm not a Left-Wing person myself, and I personally dislike the common Left-Wing tendency to call almost everything "Fascism", this certainly doesn't help, that doesn't mean though that arguments about the Estado Novo being Fascist should be completely disregarded, in this case there are clearly many similarities with Mussolini, Salazar himself admired him and was inspired by him, so this case is very different, also, using Rjensen's logic, you could easily make the argument that people who argue that it wasn't Fascist are doing so because they are right-wing and sympathetic to the regime, and as such, want to disassociate it from the stigma Fascism carries, Tom Gallagher (which JPratas is citing once again) for example, is clearly right-wing biased, as I showed in the RfC, so using this logic, who's to say that people who argue that it wasn't Fascist aren't doing so only because they are right-wing and maybe sympathize with the regime? -- 191.33.120.20 (talk) 01:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

This is not the time nor the place to express personal views. We must stick to wikipedia's policies and guidelines. We must stick to the reliable sources. The fact is that outside Portugal scholars are in general agreement that the Estado Novo was NOT fascist. So please restrain from repeating a personal point of view. Please stop discussing your own sympathies and stop making assumptions on the sympathies of other editors because that is not helpful. Above all, please add sources, other than the four Portuguese already quoted.J Pratas (talk) 07:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

By the way. Stanley Payne says that: Lucena once tried to define the Estado Novo as 'a fascism without a fascist party' yet for the strict analyst this must inevitably be something of a non- sequitur. So, even Lucena, recognizes that the National Union in itself had none of the characteristics of a fascist movement. J Pratas (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Where did Lucena say that? At least on the source I linked, what he said was that the Estado Novo was a "Fascism without a Fascist movement", in other words, he was addressing the argument that it wasn't a Fascist regime because there was no mass mobilization, and I wasn't expressing my own views, nor was I making assumptions on the sympathies of other editors, I was just criticizng Rjensen's statements, but yeah, I agree that this is not helpful and that we should stop it, however, this also means to stop implying that academics who argue that it was a Fascist regime are just biased Left-Wing Portuguese. And once again, the National Union was the official party of the regime, it was also the only legal party under the regime, for these reasons it is on the list, it is irrelevant how active it was, this attempt to disassociate the National Union from the Estado Novo regime is rather bizarre, honestly. -- 179.182.140.2 (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

First of all thank you for the more constructive tone. That is helpful. Let us try to enjoy the debate. In order to facilitate the debate I will try to reply point by point. So, what Lucena wrote was that Estado Novo was a fascist regime without a fascist movement (In the original: "fascismo sem movimento fascista"). This statement from Manuel Lucena has become quite popular and was quoted in multiple works. I think that the first time Lucena came up with this original formula was in "Evoluçao do Sistema Corporativo Português, p. 27 [9] Now Stanely Payne, that has often been mentioned as an authority on the topic of fascism comparative studies, Commented Lucena's statement saying that: "strict analyst this must inevitably be something of a non- sequitur". So, my point is that, if Lucena and international scholars agree that the Uniao Nacional was not a fascist movement we should exclude the Uniao Nacional from the discussion. Simple as that J Pratas (talk) 19:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

There are other Portuguese scholars, that say the exact same thing as Lucena. Another example: Manuel Villaverde Cabral, " Sobre o Fascismo...", p. 914.J Pratas (talk) 19:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I have no problem at all in accepting that there are Portuguese scholars that think that the Estado Novo was fascist. That is a fact, so it is not debatable. But I don't know of any non-Portuguese scholar, that has studied the topic, that says that the Estado Novo was fascist. If you know any international scholar that says it, please disclose it so that we can review the article accordingly. J Pratas (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, it is true that the National Union played a smaller role in their regime compared to other ruling Fascist parties, but they were still the official party of a Fascist regime, how is it possible for it to not be Fascist?

I do know that Gallagher (who you cited) once called it Fascist, as mentioned by User Walrasiad in the RfC, why he called it Fascist once I don't know why. -- 177.206.208.239 (talk) 07:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

According to scholars there are fundamental differences between the National Union and the Fascist Parties: 1) lack of ideology, to start with, 2) Created by the power and not to conquer power, 3) No mass mobilization, 4) A puppet organization, 5) a dormant organization until 1944, 6) As a result of its lack of ideology, it melted away, etc... This type of organization has absolutely nothing to do with a fascist movement. Not all organizations created under the Estado Novo need to be labeled as Fascist. J Pratas (talk) 16:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

1) Since it was the official party of the regime, technically the ideology of the regime was also the ideology of the party.

2) Please explain.

3) Irrelevant, this looks like one of the arguments used early in the discussion about the Estado Novo not being a Fascist regime because of the lack of a mass movement, this is a very superficial charactheristic and argument, and using this logic, you could argue, for example, that most Communist regimes in Eastern Europe weren't Communist, because Communism requires a worker's revolution, but yet most of them were imposed by a foreign power and had to brutally suppress the opposition in order to maintain power, etc.

4) Also explain.

5) Activity or inactivity is irrelevant when it comes to ideology.

6) If by "melted away" you mean disbanded, then the reason it was disbanded was simply because the Estado Novo was overthrow through a military coup, nothing to do with ideology.

I do agree with you that not every organization created under the Estado Novo should or can be labeled as Fascist, but I fail to see how the National Union is one of them. -- 179.179.161.29 (talk) 23:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Your text, as usual, is your opinion against the opinion of reliable sources. You should spend a few minutes reading the wikipedia policies and guidelines before starting to delete sourced content and before debating. Some things you should know:

• 1) Wikipedia depends on outside reliable sources for verification (see WP:Verifiability). While citations to non-English sources are allowed, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources,
• 2) As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone.
• 3) Opposing viewpoints should be described neutrally. Neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias.
• 4) While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity.
• 5) Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field.
• 6) After months of discussion what we have is a very long list of reliable sources, published in english language, that says that the Portuguese Estado Novo (Portugal) was NOT fascist. The list includes prominent scholars, recognized as experts on the topic, such as Roger Griffin, The Nature of Fascism (London: Routledge, 1993); Stanley Payne, A History of Fascism, 1914–1945 (London: UCL Press, 1995); António Costa Pinto, Salazar’s Dictatorship and European Fascism: Problems of Interpretation (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996); Juan J. Linz, Authoritarian and Totalitarian Regimes (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2000); etc, etc, etc. On the other side we have a minority view: A few left wing Portuguese scholars, publishing in Portuguese, that say that yes the Estado Novo was fascist.

It is about time that we apply the wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you cannot cite new sources, of non-portugueses scholars, english language preferred, then we must put an end to the discussion and follow the policies and the guidelines. The minority claim by some Portuguese scholars can be mentioned in the article but without giving a false impression of parity. J Pratas (talk) 05:26, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

J Pratas (talk) 05:26, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

That's not very good criteria. Most English-speaking scholars don't speak Portuguese nor have access to Portuguese material or scholarship. Indeed, they over-rely on one rather faulty English biography of Salazar. What makes them superior or special? Walrasiad (talk) 08:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

The need is reading not speaking a language. in the real scholarly world university professors hire graduate students who read various languages. Inside Portugal in recent decades "fascism" has a meaning that differs from what the rest of the scholarly world uses. (Because the Salazar regime is so recent P politics is polarized between fascism/anti-fascism in a way that is rare elsewhere.) Rjensen (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I understand the IP does not like Wikipedia's criteria and policies. But this is the Wikipedia and we do not discard scholars on the bases of what an IP editor thinks are the scholar's languages skills. Furthermore in this particular case it is not fair to say that scholars like Stanley Payne, António Costa Pinto, Linz, etc. are relying on one specific book because they are not. And in this case, it also happens, that scholars can understand Portuguese language. If you cannot cite new sources, of non-portugueses scholars, English language preferred, then we must put an end to the discussion and follow the Wikipedia´s policies and the guidelines.J Pratas (talk) 06:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

It is Antonio Costa Pinto's book that I am referring to, the only work on Salazar available in English. Yes, non-Portuguese-speaking writers are over-reliant on it. As to ending this discussion, I'm happy to end it. I don't see a point to parsing differences based on nationality, or inserting the private political opinions of the editors in the text. Walrasiad (talk) 14:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

There are many other works, by scholars, on Salazar or Portugal in the 20th Century, in English that don't rely on Costa Pinto. Below a few examples:

• Payne, Stanley G. A History of Spain and Portugal
• De Meneses, Filipe Ribeiro. "Review: The Origins and Nature of Authoritarian Rule in Portugal, 1919–1945," Contemporary European History (2002) 11#1 pp 153–163. online
• Meneses, Filipe (2009). Salazar: A Political Biography. Enigma Books; 1 edition. p. 544. ISBN 978-1929631902. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Gallagher, Tom (1990). "Chapter 9: Conservatism, dictatorship and fascism in Portugal, 1914–45". In Blinkhorn, Martin (ed.). Fascists and Conservatives. Routledge. pp. 157–173. ISBN 004940086X. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Wiarda, Howard J. (1977). Corporatism and Development: The Portuguese Experience (First ed.). Univ of Massachusetts Press. ISBN 978-0870232213. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

And authors like Stanley Payne, who wrote History of Fascism, 1914–1945 don't have any problems in understanding Portuguese. I agree with Rjensen when he says that labeling Salazar and the Estado Novo as fascist is limited to some Portuguese scholars, a country where Salazar and Fascism are still being used for political purposes. Fernando Rosas fought against the Estado Novo, belonged to the Portuguese Communist Party, was one of the founders of the Portuguese Left Bloc, etc.. . Villaverde Cabral lived exiled in France from 1963 to the 1974 because he fought the Estado Novo, Manuel Lucena also lived exiled in Rome and Argel and was a member of Movimento de Acção Revolucionária (MAR), etc... All these historians are labeled in Portugal as anti-Fascists. They were all forced to live their country and their homes because of their ideologies and because they disagreed with the Estado Novo. This makes them unique. So it is important to identify where are these sources coming from. We are not discarding them but we are not ignoring where they are coming from. J Pratas (talk) 12:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

It's ridiculous how you pretend this is not about discarding them, when it clearly is, if it wasn't, then maybe you should at least look on the background of some of your sources, for example, Tom Gallagher is clearly right-wing biased, as I showed on the RfC, Stanley Payne has contacts with Far-Right circles in Spain and was a friend of Francisco Franco's daughter, etc.

You're also bizarrely attempting to exclude Portuguese sources on a subject about Portugal by distorting a Wikipedia rule, and also, the strength of the arguments a source presents are also important, and so far, most arguments for the Estado Novo not being Fascist are rather weak, it mostly focuses on superficial things ("it wasn't a mass movement", etc), the arguments for it being Fascist so far are stronger, I've once seen some sources (I don't know if they were mentioned on this discussion or if any of the sources here argued this) arguing that the Estado Novo was not Fascist because there was no anti-Semitism and such, even though Fascism in itself is not an anti-Semitic ideology, Nazism (which is a type of Fascism but not the only one) is, should something like this be added to Wikipedia even though it is clearly historically incorrect?

And lastly, how exactly is the definition of Fascism in Portugal different than on other countries? -- 187.114.154.100 (talk) 18:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• There is no need to insult and use words like "ridiculous", "bizarr", etc.
• Again. This is the Wikipeida and we should seek NPOV. This is not about editor's own opinions is about what the sources say. English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources.
• If a particular POV is only supported by a minority and that minority is all from the same country and that minority only publishes in Portuguese then that is a relevant fact and the reader should know that so that the reader can make its own judgement. No point it trying to ignore it and no point in hiding it. Have in mind that one of the Wikipedia guideline to check the reliability of the source is to check if the author has a personal agenda on the topic. J Pratas (talk) 08:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Seriously? And who is to be the judge of this "personal agenda"? You? Don't make me laugh. Walrasiad (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Seriously. Fernando Rosas, joined the Portuguese Communist Party in the 60s. In the 70s he was editor of the Luta Popular newspaper ("People's struggle" in English) a newspaper connected with the Portuguese Workers' Communist Party In 1999, he helped found the Left Bloc a political party. In 2001 he ran for President of the Republic, supported by the Left Bloc, etc.. It seems quite clear that Rosas, a political activist, has a political agenda. Do you seriously dispute that? Note that I am not saying that Rosas should be eliminated, I am just saying that the reader is entitled to know where is Rosas coming from. That is all. Why hiding it?J Pratas (talk) 08:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

If that's the case, then people like Gallagher, Payne, Kay, etc, all have a political agenda, but of course, you real definition of "political agenda" is disagreeing with you, you also have no proof that the Estado Novo being Fascist is a minority POV, which probably explains your weird attempt to exclude Portuguese sources, it's so tiresome at this point honestly, but i'm very glad that you are finally starting to admit your real intentions. -- 191.34.187.54 (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

No. Payne, Gallagher, Linz, have not founded any political party, have not run for president and have not opposed the Estado Novo. I think we have all understood it all by now. The problem is that the IPs and Walrasiad want to try to hide that the yes is only supported by Portuguese scholars. Hiding is not a good option. J Pratas (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

No, that is not sufficient to allege that writings are anything less than scholarly, or to impute that there is a political agenda at play. No, you most certainly are not a competent judge of anything, scholarship or "political agendas". Your attempt to add asterisks in an effort to undermine sources, with no basis other than your prejudices, stinks to high heaven. The only one I am certain is writing out of bad faith, with a political agenda, is you. Walrasiad (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

All I am saying is that if a source like Rosas, a Communist, a founder of the Left Bloc, a political activist that fought the Estado Novo and has also run for president, if cited it must be identified as such. I am certainly not doing any judgement. I am just adding facts and will allow the reader to make its own judgement.J Pratas (talk) 20:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

No, that is simply your attempt to prejudice readers. It is unwarranted. Moreover, a clear demonstration of your bad faith here, and your own political agenda. Walrasiad (talk) 22:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."; or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...".J Pratas (talk) 05:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

You're joking right? Harry Magdoff is a Marxist economist. That is a school of economic thought, a method and approach to economics, which he uses in his work. It has nothing to do with political affiliation or any other activities in other parts of his life. If Rosas is using Marxist analysis, or any other approach, that is fine to mention. But that's nothing to do with your sleazy attempt to allege "political agendas". Walrasiad (talk) 05:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I am just quoting a Wikipedia`s guideline. I've just cut & pasted the entire text. The text is not mine it is Wikipedia's. J Pratas (talk) 13:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. And it has demonstrably nothing to do with the stunt you are attempting to pull here. Walrasiad (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

It is exactly because it has everything to do, that we are having the discussion. If it were irrelevant we were not discussing it. Off course it is relevant that Rosas portrays himself as an anti-fascist activist. He fought the Estado Novo, he was arrested by PIDE. How come the man can have a neutral point of view? J Pratas (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

It's funny how you don't think the same of Gallagher, who is very clearly right-wing biased, or of Payne, who was a friend of Francisco Franco's daughter, etc, it's so pathetic at this point, maybe we should just end this discussion since your dishonesty is now open for everyone to see. -- 191.34.187.54 (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@jpratas. That is rich. You are seeking to insert an unfounded allegation that their scholarship has a political agenda. Until I see a written assertion by the author himself, that his writing has that view and purpose in mind, I will take it you are talking out of your ass. It is abundantly clear your stunt here is ill-intentioned. You are peddling in insinuations to prejudice readers. If there's one person whose revealed he doesn't have a neutral point of view here, and has a political agenda, it is clearly you. Maybe I should go around Wikipedia asterisking your edits. Walrasiad (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

No need to insult. No need to use vulgar language. No need to make accusations. That is not helpful. Regarding your request you can read the a recent interview with Rosas. [10]. In this interview, the journalist asks Rosas if it is possible for a reader to trust an historian that his also a politician from the left bolq, a reasonable doubt, and Rosas answers that he tries to separate his life as a politician from his life as an historian. But Rosas also recognizes that as with anyone else his ideas might influence is objectivity. Both journalist and Rosas know that there is an issue. No point in trying to ignore the elephant in the room.J Pratas (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Are you kidding me dude? No one is making accusations except for you, and how is this proof of anything? The same thing can be said about Gallagher, or Payne, the friend of Francisco Franco's daughter, etc. -- 191.34.187.54 (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Here is another interview where Rosas is asked the same question. This time it is a Brazilian scholar that asks the question. And Rosas says: I am an historian with Marxist simpathies, I never hided it, and naturaly those simpathies are projected in the way of seeing things and read the reality (in the original :eu sou um historiador de formação marxista, nunca escondi, e naturalmente essa formação projeta-se na maneira de olhar e ler a realidade). Rosas does not hide it. (Source ROSAS, Fernando. Portugal, entre colonialismos e fascismos, na visão de Fernando Rosas. [Entrevista realizada em 24 de abril de 2018]. Revista Tempo e Argumento, Florianópolis, v. 10, n. 24, p. 582 - 604, abr./jun. 2018. Entrevistador: Reinaldo Lindolfo Lohn.) J Pratas (talk) 18:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Younger scholars like Felipe Ribeiro de Meneses, that can see Salazar and the Estado Novo with less passion are blunt. Meneses says that: as to include Salazar in the fascist family, I'll say that at first sight it does not make any sense (In the original; Quanto à inclusão de Salazar na "família fascista", digo que "à primeira vista" não faz sentido nenhum.)[11]J Pratas (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

He presented very weak arguments here, he said that people who think that the Estado Novo was Fascist only think so because it was opposed to Communism which is purely a strawman, and you could argue that this is politically biased itself. -- 191.34.187.54 (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, once again JPratas attempts to impose his own POV on articles and then endlessly edit war over it, mind boggling how he gets away with it, honestly there is just no point in continuing this discussion anymore. -- 187.114.153.112 (talk) 15:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

There is a list of IPs that seem to be all from the same location, Fortaleza in Brazil, that for the last three months have been deleting sourced content from the Wikipedia without using the talk page and without proposing alternative text. These IPs have warnings in their talk pages from many different editors and in some cases the IP got blocked. The main targeted articles are Fascism in Europe, Estado Novo (Portugal), National Union (Portugal) Below a non-exhaustive list of disruptive IPs. Under the circumstance it seems to make sense to protect the pages the IPs have been eroding. J Pratas (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• 187.114.153.112 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 177.19.118.126 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 177.42.155.177 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 177.98.174.159 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 177.98.180.44 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 177.134.129.207 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 177.206.208.239 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 177.207.14.18 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 177.207.150.217 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 177.207.103.80 ( (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · (.html RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 179.176.25.155 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 179.180.97.15 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 179.182.129.206 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 179.182.140.2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 179.183.150.60 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 187.114.154.100 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 187.114.153.112 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 191.34.187.54 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 187.114.154.100 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Well here we go again, every time you're not able to get your way you behave like this, accusing other users, calling for pages to be protected, etc, not the first time this happens, I'm tired of this honestly. -- 179.182.129.208 (talk) 00:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)