JPratas

What we decided

We already decided that centralized discussion will take place on the talk page of Fascism in Europe, for all those articles. Removing mention of the National Union (Portugal) from various articles, then, on the basis that it is not linline with that article is not an acceptable reasoning. Once consensus is reached, it will apply to all articles, including but not limited to the main NU page. Please keep that in mind and resist the need to put the cart (mainspace edits) before the horse (talkpage discussion). El_C 20:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Dear El_C, thanks for letting me know this. Can I suggest you to please make a similar heads up to other editors that are editing the article without consensus being reached? I also suggest that the main discussion should take place on National Union (Portugal) talk page. Fascism in Europe will never have more than a paragraph on Portugal.--J Pratas (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, I think everyone already knows. And no, we are not going to change venues: the RfC's conclusion will apply to all articles. I would think that while consensus is still ongoing, that the last older version before your changes is the status quo ante version and it's the one that should be up in the interim. El_C 21:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

El_C The problem is that some editors, for obvious lack of knowledge, are mixing up the Estado Novo with Salazar and with the National Union. While some Portuguese historians label the regime as fascist (which is not in line with what non-portugues historian say) you will not find any source saying that the National Union was a fascist party or movement, quite the contrary. --J Pratas (talk) 22:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

A distinction you're encouraged to make in the discussion — all part of resolving this dispute. El_C 22:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

El_C I have two asks for you

• 1) On April 6 after a consensus hade been reached in the Salazar's article talk page I've delete a simple, unsourced, sentence from the article Fascism in Europe. This triggered an edit warring. I have now tried to reinstate that very same sentence, with which I do not agree, but accept as the sentence pre-edit warring. However the reinstatement is being reverted. If we are going to wait for consensus shouldn't the pre-edit-warring statement prevail?
• 2) There is a disruptive group of IPs from city of Fortaleza in Brazil that have been maliciously removing sourced content from several articles and replacing it with unsourced content. Most articles are related with the Portuguese Estado Novo. The group of IPs has received several warnings and blocks in the talk page but the mutant IP keeps coming back. I think it would be good if you could please also please protect the following articles: List of fascist movements‎, Blue Division‎ , Category:Fascist parties and List of fascist movements by country

The suspicious IPs are:

• 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))
• 177.207.14.18 (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))
• 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))
• 179.183.150.60 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 177.98.177.161 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 177.98.197.35 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 177.135.52.200 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 179.186.154.173 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 177.98.184.219 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

‎--J Pratas (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

As I already mentioned, all those items have been expanded, so putting back a bare-bone one does not seem to enjoy consensus. But I fully-protected the page for a second time and you may now expect me to be outright draconian when it comes to undiscussed edits pertaining to this dispute. The time for being bold is long passed. Regarding your semiprotection request, I have semi'd two of the three articles and rollback'd the IP. El_C 15:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello JPratas. Thanks for making the list at Talk:Fascism in Europe/Archive 1#Disruptive IP. I went ahead and put new semiprotection on Estado Novo (Portugal) and List of fascist movements. Let me know if you see any further problems. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Thanks for creating Agostinho Lourenço.

User:MrClog while reviewing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

Please make sure to read MOS:CAPS (you make some mistakes on that part) and to add wikilinks to your article.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|MrClog}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

MrClog (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Salazar page

Dear JPratas, care to explain why you undid my changes to the Salazar page? Have a nice weekend! 178.9.136.118 (talk) 09:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

The Salazar`s page is heavily sourced and has been quite scrutinized and debated, if you want to delete content you should first use the article's talk page. If you think citations are needed, feel free to ask for them, but when doing so have in mind that according to Wikipedia's guidelines there is no need to verify statements that are patently obvious. For example, an editor should not demand a citation for the fact that most people have five digits on each hand. The same goes for the statement that in the 1970s several state-run universities were open across mainland Portugal (the Minho University, the New University of Lisbon, the University of Évora, and the University of Aveiro). Anyone can very easily check when were these universities founded. You can easily check either going to the article University of Aveiro and see for yourself or you can go to the University's website. Let me know if there is anything else I can help you with.--J Pratas (talk) 07:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Oki, thanks! 178.9.56.196 (talk) 07:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Warning

Please follow WP:BRD. --Asqueladd (talk) 20:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I understand that if bold edit gets reverted, one must seek a consensus for adding content, not to continue reverting. But in this case my bold editing was reverted without any explanation, and Wikipedia:Consensus policy also says that edit summaries are especially important when reverting another editor's good faith work. Repeated reversions are contrary to Wikipedia policy under Edit warring. Unexplained revers are not helpful. J Pratas (talk) 09:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

National Union

You have reverted my edits on the National Union article two times, I would like to avoid edit warring and all that pointless fighting, so I want to ask you what exactly are you objecting about my edits? I mostly just corrected spelling and removed some repeated content, so I'm really curious. -- 187.114.156.151 (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I have already explained that you have removed text such as the sentence "as fundamental differences between fascism and the Catholic corporatism of the Estado Novo". The sentence was in the lead section and in the article. The lead is supposed to be a summary, so there is no harm in a sentence being repeated in both the lead section and the article. But you removed the sentence from both palces. You have also removed the word "Portuguese" from the sentence "Portuguese scholars". If you want to make this kind of changes you need to use the talk page and achieve a consensus. J Pratas (talk) 10:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I removed the sentence but I replaced it with another one, as for the word "Portuguese", I removed it simply because it is biased to state that only Portuguese scholars consider the Estado Novo fascist, pretty sure we already taked about this back in the dispute we had regarding the Estado Novo, there's no need to start a dispute over something like this, anyway, are there any other sentences which I removed? -- 177.134.144.213 (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

There you go, you are providing the answer to your own question, you've removed a sentence (twice) and have inserted a new one that has nothing to do with what you've removed. If you want to remove sentences, ie. remove content, from an article that has been stable for months, and your editing is being reverted, you will have to take it to the talk page and first find consensus in the talk page. J Pratas (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Except that is not a relevant sentence at all, what is the point of starting a dispute over this? But since you're insisting, as a sort of compromise I'm thinking about maintaning the sentence in the lead, but also adding that he adopted many Fascist characteristics (which he did), while removing the second sentence, because of grammatical questions, what do you think about this? -- 177.134.144.213 (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

If you want to discuss content you should use the article' talk page, not my personal page.J Pratas (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

What do you think about it though? -- 177.134.144.213 (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

What I think is something for the article's talk page. Not here.J Pratas (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Would you mind if I made my proposed edits in order for you to check first? -- 177.134.144.213 (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I do not own wikipedia. Feel free to use the article talk page anytime you want.J Pratas (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

There is no reason to start a discussion in the talk page over something that is not relevant to the article, once again I didn't remove any information you added, as such this is a more appropriate place to discuss. -- 177.134.144.213 (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from António de Oliveira Salazar into Spanish Civil War. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 12:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, thanks for the heads up. In this specific case the content in António de Oliveira Salazar was introduced by me. So I am not sure if it makes sense to recognize my own work--J Pratas (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not mandatory if the copied prose is your own, but it might have been edited by other people since you wrote it. So it's not a bad idea to include the source article in your edit summary.— Diannaa (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Well Diannaa, in this case it is indeed my own writing. But thanks anyway, I did not know about that and will have it in mind for the future. --J Pratas (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aristides de Sousa Mendes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carlos Fernandes. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

National Union (Portugal)

Hello, could you intervene on the Portuguese's corresponding article (and also here : pt:Lista de partidos políticos em Portugal and pt:Ação Nacional Popular) to revert the changes of Ribeiro2002Rafael and Upoorde in particular and to align the Portuguese version with the English version (in which you remove far-right label against other editors) ? Ribeiro2002Rafael describes this change as being operated by "fascists and Nazis" who would like to whitewash the party.

PS : If you have the time and the possibility, I would appreciate it if you could intervene on the Spanish and French Wiki to remove the far-right label as you did on the English's corresponding article. 193.51.163.253 (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Fascism in Europe

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Fascism in Europe; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• Per WP:Verifiability, do not add information and then "add sources later". Add the information with the appropriate sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I've only noticed this message now. I believe I've clarified this. My apologies if it looked like edit warring. I was just adding the sources incrementally. Thank you for your patience. Let me know if there are sources you think are still missing.J Pratas (talk) 23:24, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

It did not "look like" edit warring, uit was edit warring, and now you're doing it again with another editor. Please stop edit warring, or I'll have no choice but to report you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Your help in reaching a consensus would be much appreciated. A consensus had been reached the "another editor" is basically deleting sourced content on Francoist Spain, and formatting, but he is arguing about Portugal, without citing any source whatsoever. Does not seem to make much senseJ Pratas (talk) 22:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

April 2021

Your edit to Portugal and the Holocaust has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 13:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Cite errors in Revolution of 1934

The article has some errors in the references. Can you please fix? Also, suggest installing a script to highlight such errors in the future. All you need to do is copy and paste importScript('User:Svick/HarvErrors.js'); // Backlink: [[User:Svick/HarvErrors.js]] to your common.js page.

1. Article cites "Payne 1993, p. 219" but no such work is listed in the bibliography
2. Article cites "Payne 1999, p. 228" but it is unclear which of the two 1999 books by Payne it is referring to -- Fascism in Spain, 1923–1977 or Spain's First Democracy?
3. Article cites "Payne 2008, pp. 100–103" but no such work is listed in the bibliography
4. Article cites"Preston 2012, p. 269" but no such work is listed in the bibliography -- or is it referring to ref #17 (which should be converted to a {{cite book}} format)?

Thanks, Renata•3 00:48, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Renata3: Thanks for the heads up. I´ve fixed it. Let me know if all is ok now. --J Pratas (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Francisco Franco

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Francisco Franco. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Violations of WP:TALK guideline

I'm going to assume good faith and presume that you missed my edit summaries here and here. Per WP:TALK: A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it. Using formatting to BLUDGEON the discussion is highly disruptive. Just state your argument in the same format as everyone else. Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Generalrelative This is a guideline, not a policy. But I am happy to follow the guideline. Thanks for the heads up.--J Pratas (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

A clarification on what is and isn't a valid argument

In your recent edit which reinserted disputed content into the article Francisco Franco, your edit summary read See Talk page - argumentum ad hominem, attacking attributes of the author making the argument, ie attacking Hayes, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. What Hayes says is widely accepted in the academia. I want to make it clear that this is not a valid argument for ignoring WP:ONUS. Criticizing the biases of sources is something we do all the time when determining the reliability and due balance of sources. Discussing these matters is absolutely not an ad hominem attack. Further, it is clear that the majority of those who have weighed in disagree with you here. Three separate people have cut this content since it was highlighted on the article talk page (Aquillion, AugusteBlanqui, and myself). Continuing to reinsert this language therefore constitutes a clear case of edit warring. You will need to actually persuade others that this content is DUE if you think it belongs in the article. Generalrelative (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

March 2022

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Francisco Franco. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Generalrelative (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Generalrelative this warning applies to yourself. You have been already reverted by me and Rjensen. You are deleting text just because you think that Hayes is biased. That is not enough reason, Hayes is a RS and you have not presented a single argument about the substance of what Hayes said. With that argument we would delete Payne (often accused of being fond of Franco), we would delete Preston (often accused of hating Franco), etc.. In this particular case eliminating the text does not make much sense because what Hayes wrote is not even controversial, as you can see in the additional sources I've provided. You should try to be a bit more constructive instead of behaving like an eraser.J Pratas (talk) 16:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

For the record, this is false. I was at no point reverted by Rjensen. I believe you're confusing me with Aquillion, who, along with AugusteBlanqui, has also edited to remove this undue material from the article. At this point, counting those who have either edited to remove this content or expressed on talk that they agree with its removal, the two of you are clearly in the minority, and will need to actually persuade others if you believe this material belongs in the article. Generalrelative (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Your edit to Francisco Franco has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

May 2022

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Portugal and the Holocaust. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. If another editor objects to your content, please go to talk and explain why your view is correct. Do not simply re-do it and then try to bury it beneath other edits. Otherwise, you push the article towards an edit war. Please read WP:BRD as previously asked. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Brigade Piron I took this to the article`s talk page. I suspect you misunderstood the use of primary sources. They are being used as complement to the secondary ones. And the issue is not contentious.J Pratas (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

February 2023

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Francisco Franco. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.

Here is the diff: [1]. If you think that people who disagree with you are "polluting" the page then you are not here to build a collaborative project. Generalrelative (talk) 03:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Stop trying to censor people. Stop trying to threaten people. Stop showing fascist tendencies. It is ridiculous. Trakking (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Generalrelative what you are pointing is by no means a personal attack. What I said is that the discussion has been polluted. This not a personal attack. The fact is that there are editors in the talk page that instead of focusing the discussion on the sources and the merits of the sources have been providing their personal opinions, have been quoting sources that say the opposite of what they claim, etc... and this behavior has been polluting the discussion. The discussion is not a person. So not personal attack here. I get the impression that you feel uncomfortable when a solid source like Paul Preston says exactly the opposite of what you are claiming.J Pratas (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

No, you said this discussion in this talk page has always been polluted by a bunch of editors that dont want to understand what Preston said, dont want Wikipedia to be sourced on good academic sources, but rather seek the easy insult. Not only did you use inflammatory language to describe those who disagree with you (if you know anything about the history of fascism, you know the rhetorical weight of terms like "pollution") but you explicitly accused us of acting in bad faith. I get all kinds of impressions about people like you, but per Wikipedia's policy of civility I keep them to myself. I suggest you do the same. Generalrelative (talk) 01:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Generalrelative, you are trying to turn into personal something that is not personal. A discussion is not a person. And yes there are have been a bunch of editors misquoting sources and yes there have been editors arguing with their personal views instead of sources, and yes, that has been disrupting, it has been polluting and contaminating the discussion. And no saying that the discussion has been contaminated or polluted is not a personal attack or inflammatory language. J Pratas (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

See my comment below. If I say that Portugal has been polluted by JPratas, it is no defense for me to say that Portugal is not a person. The personal attack consists in claiming that a person exerts a polluting influence. I will not continue this discussion but advise you to drop the stick before this becomes a disciplinary matter for you (again). Generalrelative (talk) 02:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Generalrelative I did not name any editor, I said a bunch of editors, which is different, you are the one taking it personally. You came to my personal page and accused me personally of using inflammatory language. And for me "inflammatory" falls into the same category of "polluted". The difference here is that I did not accuse any specific editor and you are the one that made it personal. J Pratas (talk) 12:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

The "anti-fascist" fascists strike

Thank you for your contributions in the talk page for Franco.

It is quite interesting, don't you think, that the same people who pretend to oppose fascism and who label non-fascists fascists are the same people who use fascist tactics like censorship and threats.

"The fascists of the future will call themselves anti-fascists…" Trakking (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Trakking, thanks for you support. It is sad that the discussion is not on what the sources say and how important are those sources. And claiming that one saying that a discussion is polluted is a personal attack, is absurd. A discussion is not a person J Pratas (talk) 01:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

See above. If I say that Portugal has been polluted by JPratas, it is no defense for me to say that Portugal is not a person. The personal attack consists in claiming that a person exerts a polluting influence. Generalrelative (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (second request)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from António de Oliveira Salazar into Portugal and the Holocaust. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 21:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, thanks for the heads up. In this specific case the content in António de Oliveira Salazar was introduced by me so I don't think attribution applies here.--J Pratas (talk) 07:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

That is correct; attribution is not required if you are the sole author. But it's useful information for patrollers and prevents you from receiving unneeded messages such as mine. Sorry for the mistake. — Diannaa (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Diannaa, my mistake. Sorry! Will do better next timeJ Pratas (talk) 13:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Conservatism in Portugal

Hello. Given your expertise on Portuguese politics, I wonder if you'd be interested in writing a section on Portuguese conservatism in the main article on Conservatism under "National variants". It is one of few (major) European nations that are not represented in the article. Some information about the major parties, perhaps the results in the latests election, as well as some historical background, would be needed. Trakking (talk) 09:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Trakking,

Apologies for the delayed response, and thank you for your kind invitation. I’m definitely interested in contributing to the section on Portuguese conservatism. While my current schedule is quite packed, I hope to find some time to work on this in the near future. I appreciate your patience and look forward to contributing when I can.

Best regards,J Pratas (talk) 19:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Estado Novo

Please refrain from edit warring again over these articles, you already tried before to gain consensus for these changes and failed, its time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. -- 2804:29B8:5183:100C:45A0:5B72:F1B4:BFF3 (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I want to clarify that my intention is not to engage in an edit war, but rather to ensure that the content on Wikipedia remains in line with its core principles, particularly the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy. Wikipedia's guidelines are clear that content should represent all significant viewpoints published by reliable sources, especially in cases where there is no consensus among scholars.

Regarding the labeling of the 'Portuguese Estado Novo' as fascist, it's important to note that this is a highly debated topic both in academia and on Wikipedia. Multiple reliable sources argue that while the Estado Novo shared some characteristics with fascist regimes, it does not fit neatly into the fascist category. Scholars like Stanley Payne, who is an expert on fascism, Robert Paxton, and Tom Gallagher, the only non-Portuguese academic biographer of Salazar, have all noted distinctions between the Estado Novo and classical fascism. Additionally, António Costa Pinto has pointed out that the Estado Novo was a more traditionalist and corporatist regime rather than a fully fascist one.

Given this ongoing debate, it's crucial that we avoid definitive labels that could mislead readers. Instead, we should present the different perspectives supported by reliable sources, allowing readers to form their own informed opinions.

I believe this approach aligns with Wikipedia's guidelines and would help maintain the integrity of the article. I encourage you to bring this discussion, along with any supporting sources, to the article's talk page, where we can collaborate on finding the best way to represent this complex topic. Wikipedia thrives on collaborative editing and balanced representation of viewpoints.J Pratas (talk) 19:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I know about the controversy over whether the Estado Novo is fascist or not. The thing is, the onus is on you to gather consensus for your proposed changes, but you failed twice before, so unless there is consensus over it in the future, these categories should stay.

I think the best approach would be to cite sources of both sides of the debate, while allowing the categories to stay unless there is consensus to remove them in the future. 2804:29B8:5183:100C:144C:5BAD:4A07:D843 (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I believe it's essential that any labels or categories used in the article are consistent with the article's content and reflect the broader scholarly debate. Given that the classification of the Estado Novo as a fascist regime is a matter of ongoing debate among historians, it is crucial that Wikipedia does not present this label as a settled fact. If there is no clear consensus in academia about the Estado Novo being fascist—and considering that scholars like Stanley Payne, Robert Paxton, and António Costa Pinto highlight significant distinctions—it would be misleading to use the fascist label definitively in the article. Wikipedia's guidelines emphasize the importance of neutrality and accuracy, and in cases where scholarly consensus does not exist, we should avoid using labels that could mislead readers. The fascist label has been on and off and it has been out since April 2024. Unless there is a shift in scholarly consensus or a strong case for its inclusion backed by reliable sources, we should be cautious in applying such a label. I suggest that we focus on presenting the various scholarly perspectives within the article content, allowing readers to understand the complexity of the issue. The label should only be applied if it accurately reflects a consensus in both the academic community and among Wikipedia editors. I’m happy to discuss this further on the article’s talk page to ensure we reach a solution that upholds Wikipedia's standards of neutrality and verifiability.J Pratas (talk) 04:05, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, it was already decided in the RfC that these categories should stay, unless there is consensus to remove them in the future. As such, they should be restored. 2804:29B8:5183:100C:E586:32DB:294:6F9F (talk) 03:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your continued engagement in this discussion. I’d like to address a few key points regarding the classification of the Estado Novo as a fascist regime. First, it’s important to note that the RfCs on this topic have been inconclusive, indicating that there is no strong consensus within the Wikipedia community to apply the fascist label definitively. This lack of consensus mirrors the ongoing debate in academia, where scholars continue to discuss and reassess the nature of Salazar's regime. Recent scholarship, particularly the biographies of Salazar by Tom Gallagher (Salazar: The Dictator Who Refused to Die, 2020) and Filipe Ribeiro de Meneses (Salazar: A Political Biography, updated edition, 2019), provide valuable insights into this debate. Both authors argue that while the Estado Novo shared certain authoritarian features with European fascist regimes, it also had significant differences that set it apart, particularly in its ideological foundation and long-term objectives. Gallagher, for instance, emphasizes Salazar's commitment to conservative, traditionalist principles rooted in Catholic social doctrine, which contrasts with the radicalism of classical fascism. Ribeiro de Meneses is crystal clear when he says ""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." Costa Pinto offers a blunt summary of the academic debate on whether the Estado Novo should be classified as fascist. He suggests that, although some elements of the regime were influenced by fascism, it does not fit neatly into the fascist category as defined by scholars like Stanley Payne and Robert Paxton. Costa Pinto’s work is often cited in discussions about the nature of the Estado Novo because it provides a balanced and well-researched perspective on this complex issue. Given the ongoing academic discussion and the inconclusive RfCs, I believe it’s essential that our article reflects the complexity of the issue. Rather than applying the fascist label definitively, we should present the various scholarly perspectives, allowing readers to understand the range of views on this topic. This approach aligns with Wikipedia's core principles of neutrality and verifiability, ensuring that our content accurately reflects the current state of scholarship. If there's a need to revisit the RfC or further discuss the use of categories in light of these recent sources, I am open to continuing this discussion on the talk page, not here.J Pratas (talk) 13:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

But the user who is proposing changes is the one who must gain consensus for his proposed changes. The Estado Novo was listed on Wikipedia as a fascist regime, you proposed to change this and failed, hence it should be listed that way, unless there is consensus against it in the future. 2804:29B8:5183:100C:6537:8683:874B:5EDA (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

That user is you. The article has been without the label since April, so it is stable and undisputed for a few months, if you want to place the label just open the discussion on the articles talk page.J Pratas (talk) 17:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

That's not true, you attempted to remove it again in April, and other users reverted you. You again didn't have consensus for such a change. 2804:29B8:5183:100C:3D44:2DA3:445B:2C28 (talk) 20:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia guidelines, categories must be accurate, neutral, and well-supported by reliable sources. As we've acknowledged, there is no consensus in academia on categorizing the National Union as a fascist party. In fact, the majority of reliable sources do not support this categorization. For that reason alone, the category should not be included.

Over the years, an IP editor has repeatedly tried to add this category without proper discussion, and it has consistently been removed by several editors. Consensus was never reached on this matter.

Regarding the onus of proof:

Even the guideline that places the onus on the editor seeking to remove a tag doesn't apply here because of the stability of the article. When an article has been stable for a significant period, as this one has since April, it suggests that the content has reached an implicit consensus among editors. Any attempt to reintroduce a previously removed category after such a stable period requires gaining explicit consensus through discussion, rather than unilaterally adding it back.

It's also important to note that another editor has already challenged your position and provided additional sources that do not support the categorization you want to impose. This further indicates that reliable sources and editors are not in agreement with adding this category.

Given these points, the category should remain excluded unless a clear and broad academic consensus emerges and there is agreement among the editors.

If you wish to continue this discussion, I suggest we do so on the article's talk page rather than on my personal page, because other editors have been taking a stand against what you are trying to do.J Pratas (talk) 04:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

"Without proper discussion" is laughable, we already had the RfC and also another discussion on the talk page last year, just because you didn't like how they went doesn't mean they didn't happen.

And "stable since April" is also laughable, you tried to remove the categories back then and other users reverted you, you just pretend discussions that didn't have result you wanted never happened, that's not how it works. 2804:29B8:5183:100C:AC26:3A2B:52BF:D4FD (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Where exactly is the RfC where consensus was reached?J Pratas (talk) 20:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

You failed to gain consensus for your proposed changes at least twice. 2804:29B8:5183:100C:AC26:3A2B:52BF:D4FD (talk) 21:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

It's important to consider the full context of how the fascist label has been included in the article over time. The argument that the label has become the status quo because it was there for a while doesn’t fully hold up when we look at the broader history of the article. The label was often added by anonymous IP editors without proper discussion or consensus, which doesn't align with Wikipedia's principles. The fact that these additions went unnoticed, under the radar, does not constitute a valid consensus.

Moreover, if we are to rely on the status quo argument, it’s worth noting that the label has not been present in the article since April. So, by that same logic, the current status quo is actually no label. This further highlights the need for a discussion that focuses on accuracy and reliable sources rather than on maintaining a position simply because it was there before.

Given this, I believe we should focus on ensuring that any labels used in the article are accurate, neutral, and well-supported by reliable sources, reflecting the current scholarly debate. According to Wikipedia guidelines, categories must be accurate, neutral, and well-supported by reliable sources. As you've acknowledged, there is no consensus in academia on categorizing the National Union as a fascist party. If you are citing an RfC where consensus was supposedly reached to include the fascist label, could you please point to the specific RfC discussion? To my knowledge, the previous RfCs were inconclusive, so it would be helpful to review the RfC you’re referencing.

If there’s a need to revisit this issue, I suggest we continue the discussion on the article’s talk page to reach a consensus that is informed by reliable sources and aligns with Wikipedia’s guidelines.

Thank you.J Pratas (talk) 12:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

You're just repeating the same stuff again and again. You failed to gain consensus, as such, the categories should not be removed. 2804:29B8:5183:100C:7C78:C3C7:2CCD:F24D (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The IP situation

Hello there. I did some digging regarding the constantly switching IPs that argue about Estado Novo and Salazar with you. It turns out that your troubles with these IPs started in September 2023 with this edit. This could coincide with user named KiKz Nightwing getting banned in August 2023. Whether it is KiKz or not, it is pretty certain that this is someone doing WP:BANEVASION, hence why they constantly switch IPs and argue about the same elements over and over again. The fact these new IPs are decently informed of Wikipedia's guidelines is another piece of evidence here.

So yeah - I've been quite suspicious about this situation and it became increasingly clear to me that this might be a sockpuppet situation. Per WP:BE, Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban or block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. In the meantime, you should make a case of either Sockpuppet investigation and/or Administrator incidents regarding these IPs badgering you about Estado Novo and "no consensus". Optionally, you should also make a threat proposing to make Salazar-related pages protected as to prevent IP edits. Brat Forelli🦊 21:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this is not true, I'm not a sockpuppet, and I don't even know who this user is. The reason my IPs keep changing is because of my internet, that is not my fault. And I'm not really very informed about Wikipedia's guidelines to be honest, I did learn about some of them throughout this dispute of course, but I'm not particularly well versed in them.

This dispute began in 2019, JPratas began to argue that the Estado Novo was not a fascist and that it shouldn't be labeled that way, I and some other users objected, eventually we held an RfC to decided whether it should be labeled as such or not, in the end it was inconclusive: [2]

However, it was decided that, until consensus for the proposed removal was achieved, the label would stay, since it was the status quo ante. The problem is that JPratas continued to attempt to remove them even after that. He shouldn't be doing this unless he gains consensus for it. 2804:29B8:5183:100C:45D4:1B8:5549:E829 (talk) 03:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

So you say you are the IP from 2019. Your IP addresses do seem to change all the time, drastically so too, which is a behaviour I only encountered in case of block evasion. One thing I do not understand - all IPs are from Brazil, but from drastically different parts of it. The 2019 one is from Cuiabá. This one from 2022 is an IP from Fortaleza. The one you used to reply to me here is from Salvador, Bahia. This would feel like you are randomizing your location. But sorry, let us leave the accusations of block evasion here since it is a different matter whatsoever (just keep in mind that if someone is doing block evasion, any edit they make can be reverted without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule per WP:BE).

Thank you for sending me the 2019 RfC discussion. The question on this consensus was - Should the Estado Novo regime in Portugal be considered a Fascist regime? That was the question of this RfC, that was the topic. The first verdict was a narrow consensus against. But after that Brazilian IP objected, the verdict was changed to no consensus. Or in other words, there is no consensus on whether Estado Novo should be considered fascist or not.

When reverting JPratas' edits, you say that it is because there is no consensus. And indeed, there was no consensus - no consensus for Estado Novo being considered a fascist regime. And this would mean that JPratas is in the right here. Because if you want to have categories and classifications to Estado Novo as fascist, then you would need a consensus that it is a fascist regime. But there is not one. There has not been a consensus that it was definitely non-fascist either, this is correct. What this means is that this is disputed. Which means, that such categories you add, that classify it as objectively fascist, must be left out.

Alright, you lastly speak of status quo ante. I see - I cannot say what the status quo was back in 2019 since I was nowhere near Salazar-related Wikipedia articles back then. But "no consensus" does not in fact support status quo - WP:SQS says: it's common though incorrect to later argue that consensus favors the status quo. Sorry. Brat Forelli🦊 10:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, maybe you should take a look at this section then: [3]

As one user there has shown, the Estado Novo was indeed for long labeled as fascist, so that is the status quo, it was decided that the status quo would be maintained until consensus for removing the label was achieved: [4] 2804:29B8:5183:100C:C45C:7C7B:3C82:A74A (talk) 02:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

The outcome of the discussion on the "Talk Page of the Article "Fascism in Europe" page did NOT result in a consensus to universally label the Estado Novo as fascist across all related articles. Instead, it led to a more balanced approach of including in that same article a paragraph that acknowledges the regime's complex nature—highlighting both its fascist-like elements and Salazar's rejection of key fascist principles. The regime adopted several fascist characteristics, with the Legião Portuguesa and Mocidade Portuguesa being the most notable examples; however, these institutions were largely symbolic and held little political influence.

This balanced paragraph that was agreed upon reflects these nuances, showing that while the Estado Novo incorporated certain characteristics associated with fascism, Salazar explicitly rejected the label and distanced his regime from fascism, particularly after 1945. This outcome does not imply that the fascist label should be applied automatically or universally across all articles related to Salazar, the Estado Novo, or the National Union.

In conclusion, the IP’s argument that the discussion supports categorizing the Estado Novo as fascist in every related article is not supported by the result. The consensus was to adopt a nuanced, balanced perspective that reflects the ongoing scholarly debate, not a blunt categorization.J Pratas (talk) 19:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Again, as you can see above, it was agreed that the status quo would stay until there is consensus for removing the label. That's not mutually exclusive with an approach presenting both sides of the argument. 2804:29B8:5183:100C:3566:F193:6085:720E (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

1. There is no consensus in reliable sources, and there is no consensus among Wikipedia editors to support the inclusion of the fascist label in this article.

2.Furthermore, on January 31, 2019, a Brazilian IP (likely the same as the current one) edited the article on Salazar to include the fascist label without prior discussion or using the talk page. This led to edit warring over the next day, and the IP’s edits were reverted by multiple editors. IP ended up being blocked. You can review the edit history here: [5].

In a similar manner, a few days later, on February 17, 2019, the same IP attempted to insert the fascist label into the article on the National Union, again without discussion or explanation. The edit was reverted by other editors, as can be seen in the article's edit history.

Thus, when the IP states that in May 2019 it was decided "that until consensus is formed, we’re going with the "status quo ante" for all the articles which involve this dispute," it is important to note that the "status quo ante" was no fascist label. J Pratas (talk) 04:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I checked that IP's history and this is actually quite enlightening. So the status quo ante IS no fascist label. Thank you for providing this information. Brat Forelli🦊 23:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Brat Forelli, for your thorough investigations and for taking the time to share your findings with me. I appreciate your effort in digging into the IP situation, which has been a source of ongoing concern and disruptive behavior. Regarding the status quo ante in early 2019 it is indeed as you say, Not fascist But Since 2019, additional scholarship has further solidified this view. In particular, Tom Gallagher, a British academic and expert on Portuguese history, published "Salazar: The Dictator Who Refused to Die" (2020), which reinforces the conclusion that Salazar was a dictator and autocrat but not a fascist. Similarly, Filipe Ribeiro de Meneses has revised his work on Salazar, "Salazar: A Political Biography" , also emphasizing that Salazar's regime did not fit the fascist mold. Both these works contribute significantly to the ongoing academic debate surrounding Salazar and reinforce the view that Salazar’s regime, while authoritarian, was distinct from fascism. To the best of my knowledge, there is indeed no major academic work with Salazar as the central topic that argues the opposite—namely, that Salazar and his regime were definitively fascist. In the academic community, those who argued that Salazar was fascist remain a minority, and their arguments are often linked to political motivations, particularly among Portuguese scholars. The overwhelming consensus among historians is that Salazar’s Estado Novo, while authoritarian, was not fascist, and this is reflected in the broader body of serious academic work. Once again, I thank you for your efforts in investigating this matter and bringing clarity to the discussion.J Pratas (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The Estado Novo was labeled as "fascist" since at least 2008, as one user in the discussion showed: [6] 177.37.138.8 (talk) 23:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Not true. Since 2008, in one specific article, the article Fascism in Europe the Estado Novo was included in a list of ideologies that were "described as forms of, or strongly related to, fascism". This listing was weak and unsupported by reliable sources. It's important to recognize that the inclusion of the Estado Novo in a broader article like Fascism in Europe, where it is mentioned as a minor point without extensive debate, is not equivalent to trying to apply the fascist label in the article on Salazar, where he is the central topic. In the former, the Estado Novo may be easily overlooked due to its peripheral role within a larger context, which can lead to the label going unnoticed by readers and editors alike.In the Salazar article, where Salazar's policies, governance, and ideology are the focus, any misclassification—such as labeling him as fascist—becomes much more glaring and subject to scrutiny. It’s crucial to make clear distinctions in how we approach articles where these labels are applied. In Salazar's case, most scholarly works do not support the fascist label, and thus, applying it here would be misleading, more noticeable, and inconsistent with academic consensus. That is why after extensive debate in 2019, the status quo in that article Fascism in Europe was replaced with a neutral and balanced paragraph, which better reflects the scholarly consensus.

Here is the agreed-upon paragraph:

"The National Union in Portugal under António de Oliveira Salazar and Marcelo Caetano (1933–1974). Salazar always rejected the label of fascist, criticizing the '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 organizing masses behind a single leader' as fundamental differences between fascism and the Catholic corporatism of the Estado Novo. However, his regime adopted many fascist characteristics, with the Legião Portuguesa and Mocidade Portuguesa being the most prominent examples, though these institutions were little more than window dressing and had no political influence. After the end of the Spanish Civil War, Salazar distanced his regime from fascism due to its pro-British orientation."

This paragraph accurately reflects the nuances of the Estado Novo, highlighting its authoritarian and corporatist elements while explaining why it does not fit neatly within the fascist label. It is essential that Wikipedia articles represent this balance and do not adopt sweeping generalizations without strong evidence.

I would like to clarify and reiterate that the status quo ante in the articles on Salazar, the National Union, and the Estado Novo has consistently been not to categorize them as fascist. Multiple editors in good standing have reverted attempts to add this label over the years, as it does not align with the consensus in reliable academic sources.

If you believe there are newer or overlooked sources that argue otherwise, I encourage you to contribute constructively by bringing those reliable sources forward. Together, we can ensure that the content remains neutral and consistent with Wikipedia’s guidelines of verifiability and neutrality.J Pratas (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

That's not true either, the category in question (which was created in 2016) was in the Estado Novo article since November 2017, and it was in the article too when you made you first attempt to remove the "fascist" label, so in other words it is the status quo.

Your attempt to remove Salazar's regime from the "Fascism in Europe" article was contested by other users BTW, you ended up being blocked for 2 weeks because of edit warring, which was later reduced to 3 days. 2804:29B8:5183:100C:7009:2F21:CA40:B47C (talk) 23:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

In 2019, the article Fascism in Europe included the Estado Novo in a list of European ideologies described as forms of, or strongly related to fascism. However, this mention, that had never been debated, was quite superficial—it did not explain anything about Portugal, Salazar, the Estado Novo, or the National Union. This was problematic because the Estado Novo is not even an ideology. It also failed to mention that Salazar consistently distanced himself from fascism, openly criticized both the ideology and Mussolini, even referring to Mussolini’s regime as 'pagan Caesarism.' Furthermore, all of Salazar's biographers agree that he was not fascist. After a long debate, the consensus was to include a paragraph in the article. However, this paragraph clarifies that it is the National Union (not the Estado Novo) was not exactly fascist in nature. This was the consensus. And since the 2019 consensus more biographies on Salazar have been published and revised and those works reinforce the idea that Salazar was not fascist. J Pratas (talk) 03:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

What we're discussing, is whether the status quo is "fascist" label or no "fascist" label, and as I shown you, the former is the status quo.

You're just repeating the same stuff again and again. 2804:29B8:5183:100C:C9B1:4082:EE76:BC46 (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Not so. The discussion you've beem mentioning specifically focused on the inclusion of the Estado Novo in the article "Fascism in Europe" and whether it belonged on the list of ideologies related to fascism. The outcome was clear: the Estado Novo remained on the list, but only with additional context explaining that Salazar consistently rejected fascist ideology, including his critiques of Mussolini. The idea that this result supports labeling Salazar or the Estado Novo as fascist in all related articles is a misinterpretation. In fact, previous discussions on Salazar's article resulted in a clear rebuke against such a categorization. It would be unreasonable to extend the outcome of one article's specific context to universally apply the fascist label elsewhere.J Pratas (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The result of the RfC was supposed to apply to all articles related to the Estado Novo. BTW, the inclusion of the label is the status quo in both the Estado Novo article, and the National Union one, since they were there before you began the dispute on 6 April 2019. 2804:29B8:5183:100C:C4F3:3C17:244B:5642 (talk) 06:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

The result of the RfC was that there is no consensus in the academia on labeling Salazar or the National Union as fascist.J Pratas (talk) 10:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

The result of the RfC was that there was no consensus, the closure also said that it is not clear that source parity can be used to remove the Estado Novo from the list. And again, it was decided that the status quo would apply, and the status quo is the inclusion of the "fascist" label. You're just distorting things as usual. 2804:29B8:5183:100C:91B9:C3C5:7741:95B (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your continued engagement on this matter, but it's clear that this back-and-forth is not productive, and repeating the same points here is not in line with Wikipedia’s collaborative editing spirit. As per Wikipedia’s guidelines, such content disputes are best handled on the article’s talk page, where all editors can participate, provide input, and help reach a consensus. If you disagree with the current state of the article, I encourage you to open a discussion on the article’s talk page, present your arguments, and seek consensus from the community. Bringing reliable sources and a constructive approach will help ensure that the article reflects all significant viewpoints. This will be my last message on this matter here, as my talk page is not the appropriate forum for these discussions. If you wish to proceed, please direct further comments to the article’s talk page, where we can engage with other editors and work towards a resolution in accordance with Wikipedia’s guidelines.J Pratas (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)