Talk:António de Oliveira Salazar/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Constitutional Status

I think someone with the requisite knowledge should clarify in a few sentences how the government hierachy worked: for example, Salazar was clearly at the top of the hierarchy, but did he appoint the President, who then appointed a Prime Minister? What was the interplay between these groups? Were there technically elections, as least amongst Government MPs voting for PM and President? All of this is a little unclear in the article as it currently stands.38.112.81.103 (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

?

Salazar did in fact make catholiscim obligatory as much as he could. Obviously in a country where many are usually obligatory, but not always implemented, it is natural to happen exceptions. But as a bottomline, it should be considered that religion was obligatory, where teachers fiscalised who was baptised and so on... (Unicaunica 15:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC))

as a matter of fact the previous 1st republic made MANDATORY that everyone would be non-catholic , non-married-by-the-church , non-baptized and a hell lot of other non-catholic-everythings ... basically the 1st republic was nothing more than a (badly failed) atempt at usurpating each and every role of the catholic church in the ruling of portuguese affairs (don't misread this as any personal opinion from me ... just stating well proven facts ... one just needs to read the decrees passed by the 1st republican governments back in those days) Sotavento (talk) 11:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

As a Portuguese myself I find it amazing to see how many Portuguese are so much pro-Salazar in Wikipedia. I have to say I find it disgusting. Not only Salazar manage to keep the country underdeveloped (30% of iliterates in 1974) but also he implemented a propaganda policy, a sort of a mind-wash that tshpaed Portuguese mentality for the years to come. Portugal is still suiffering from what happened in the Salazar period. His ideas of the Portuguese, has a "kind", "innocent" and "unpreocupied" people brought us to where we are. Nowadays the average Portuguese has difficulties in believing in an honest, truly democratic state. It's like some people still fear the oppression so many people suffered during Salazar. Read "Portugal Hoje, o Medo de Exisitr", by João Gil.

the problem was not (100%) what Mr.Salazar did or didn't do ... the problem with portugal was preciselly he 0% of development that we started with in the first place (I would go as far as calim that we started with "minus" 100% of development) .. there was almot 0% literacy when "the man" entered his "ruling" ... last time I checked it was at about 60/70% when he (blessfully) passed away ... the things the PCP (and others) were trying to acomplish in that period were severelly repressed everywhere else (much more severelly repressed in the URSSS I would say) ... and one must remember that we had a 3 block world back then ... USA and alies , URSS and allies , protugal and the rest of the "nonimportant" ones. Salazar was as much a man of "vision" and "shortsighted" as anyother that preceded or followed in the portuguese government ... and I'm counting since the times of viriatus and D.Afonso Henriques to the current one (socrates). Sotavento (talk) 11:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

... And you could sign your name. What's the relevance of this book? The fact is that Salazar is part of Portuguese history, and made a valuable contribution in many things. He left power too late and did not understand that his regime could not outlive him. To confuse that with the usual cliches of "fascism" and in "forced underdevelopment" is (I think) a mistake we should be able not to make, almost 40 years after his death. I am 37 years old (and "old" by wiky standards) and definetly not pro-Salazar. To respect historical figures and to put their work in proper context is the right approach. I say the same about Alvaro Cunhal --BBird 22:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

A fervent Catholic, Salazar made religious education compulsory in schools and Catholicism was Portugal's official religion during his tenure. --> this is formally not true.

It is. Each and every classroom in the country had to have a crucifix next to his picture (and many still had it as recently as in the 90s). Scholar books, which were unique, were full of catholic imagery and commanded explicitly both students and teachers to abide Christianity. Cf. for instance p. 93 of one of said books, the 1st grade one, named Livro da Primeira Classe (Livraria Sá da Costa, 1941), which contains praying instructions. I translated a bit: «After the class: Teacher: We praise You, Lord, All: for all the benefits You have been giving us. Amen. Teacher: Bless, Lord All: Your Church, our Fatherland our Rulers our Families and all the schools in Portugal. Holy Father, Virgin Mary, Glory. In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Amen.» The Mocidade Portuguesa was largely based in the Estado Novo view of Catholicism. The very law that establishes the Mocidade Portuguesa (Dec 4th 1936) stresses this position (1st, par. 2): «The Mocidade Portuguesa shall grow in those under its filiation the country's traditional Christian education (...) and in no case it should admit an individual with no religion». The Mocidade Portuguesa was compulsory for youths between 7 and 14. Check CARVALHO, Rómulo, "História do Ensino em Portugal" (Gulbenkian), pp. 719-813. Feb 10 2006

I do not know anything about Portuguese schools as in the 1960s, but I do know that in the Free-State of Bavaria, "there is no church of state", "the education is based on the principle of confessional schools" (then, in 1968; now this passage of Constitution has been changed to "Chritian community schools"), a reading book for 9-/10-year-old schoolchildren was released in 1968 to begin with the poem: "Gott grüße Dich! No other greeting / can equal this in warmth. / Gott grüße Dich! No other greeting / fits as much in every time. Gott grüße Dich! If greeting so / comes from the very heart, / for God this greeting'll count as much / as any prayer counts." (Of course, it is in rhymes.) What follows is mostly legends, fairytales and parables, and poems all again, like on page five where a four-stanza poem finishes by: "Thus have I got just everything /o God, only from Thee! /Now give to me Thy blessing too / and, God, please stay with me." (I managed the rhyme!) The "school prayer" at the beginning of the day is compulsory up to today, the crucifix is compulsory up to today, and it's good it is so. I don't know anything about Salazar, but I cannot find anything bad about a school prayer as mentioned above. --84.154.59.116 (talk) 14:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

a single example of a (clearly) bad book doesn't make the entire library ... and by the way ... tolerance, governance and acceptance means that you do actually see what people do good and bad and act acordingly.

World War 2 is lacking information

I think the section on portuguese neutrality has to be expanded. It's a huge part of what Salazar did. Also, the information which *is* there is incomplete. His reluctance to go to war with Britain (by siding with the Axis) was also influenced by the Treaty of Windsor (which I believe is the oldest treaty in europe) which ensured that Britain would come to Portugal's aid if they were to be attacked (I think... it's been a long time since I researched this). Also, the article mentions him giving the allies Terceira island to use as a military base: when was this? In my memory of studying his neutral policies, Terceira was only given towards the end of the war. I think it makes a difference when he did it, because it shows whether he was being opportunistic (ie, he saw that an allied victory was inevitable) or a true allied supporter. Also, the tungsten trade deserves more than one sentence.

Because I'm not completely sure of my information, I'm not editing the page. If there's someone who knows what I'm talking about, please make the edits. gsillevis

Too much pro-Salazar?

(Unicaunica 15:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)) I find that is too much Salazar and it should be compared to the Portuguese one. Just to give an example: the honours that you state Salazar winning the Contest is taken out of the context. Really nationwide polls do not confirme him as the "major Portuguese". Who has done this change, specially giving the reasons for its victory (seriousness,...) is not being honest. Furthermore, Portugal was not the leading growing country at the time: see Maddison (2003).

http://www.rtp.pt/wportal/sites/tv/grandesportugueses/SondagemGrandesPortugueses.pdf

Unicaunica (Unicaunica 15:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC))

I confirm that, and after seeing that the text didn't change in a while I'm removing the section, since a stated above it is out of context (and for the other reasons mentioned previously), if anyone finds room for the tv contest information on the article (which I doubt because it is not relevant), and also makes point that the national pool (where he got only 6.6%, see above pdf) it would be ok, but for now the best is take out that information.

--Flávio 18:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this article is becoming too much pro-Salazar recently. The last couple of changes, for instance. Every older Portuguese knows about the "Colonial War" (Guerra Colonial), which my grandfather actually fought in... and, yet, they "weren't colonies, but overseas provinces"?!? What's next, Kuwait was an Iraqi province after all?

Just my thoughts. I won't be reversing the changes right now, unless they get worse (I think there were some attempts in the past to "change history" by saying Salazar wasn't a dictator, among others). Dehumanizer 11:47, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

They should be reverted, or at least substantially reworked, if you ask me. I thought about doing it, but settled for just making some minor fixes instead. Everyking 16:20, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On the question of whether the colonies were overseas provinces, perhaps they were overseas provinces in Portugese law. Nor would that be a unique arrangement. Most French colonies were simply colonies, but Algeria was considered as much a part of France as Brittany or Normandy, which is why, like Portugal, France fought so bitterly and so long to prevent Algerian independence, but allowed most of its colonies that weren't considered part of metropolitan France to go their way, or after relatively brief wars. To this day, French Guiana, a former colony in South America, is considered a part of France. The point here being, the article's description of Portugal's overseas holdings as having been overseas provinces rather than colonies should not be dismissed out of hand as pro-Salazar or colonialist propaganda; it may simply be a verifiable fact. 68.100.106.83

I'm pretty sure they were officially named provinces. I even think that Salazar at some point gave them equal status to normal provinces. In reality, however, this was all just cosmetics. Anyway, the history books I have seen usually call them colonies. In my opinion, it is ok to leave provinces in some instances, but the word colonies should also be used. They were called provinces, that's a fact, but they were treated as colonies, and that's a fact as well. Luis rib 02:05, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

They were overseas provinces under the Portuguese Constitution of 1933. There even was a Minister for the Overseas Provinces in the Estado Novo. --MiguelFC 16:26, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, in the 1971 revision of the Constitution (under Marcello Caetano) it's even said that they can be called "States, according to national tradition" (article 133.º) when the level of the society and administration justifies it. Basically, is the concept of Angola and Mozambique as the "new Brazils", heading for a white independence at some point in the future. Ricardo monteiro 12:26, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

The de jure status of the overseas territories should be contrasted with its de facto situation. In practice, most of the indigenous African and Asian subjects of Portugal continued to be second class citizens throughout the dictatorship. Dec. 23 2005

"Salazar's regime has been described by some sources as Fascist, but Salazar himself considered this to be inaccurate. His political philosophy was based around authoritarian Catholic social doctrine, much like the contemporary regime of Engelbert Dollfuss in Austria. The economic system, known as corporatism, was based on the papal encyclicals Rerum Novarum and Quadragesimo Anno, which was supposed to prevent class struggle and supremacy of economism." Well, Mussolini also used the Rerum Novarum as an inspiration. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism. It would be nice to know when Salazar repudiated the label of 'fascist'. Was it before the Axis began to lose WWII, or after? It would be even better to assess whether Salazar's Estado Novo satisfied the general characteristics of fascist regimes, rather than to trust the sugary words of dictators. --- The regime never called itself fascist. Serious not passionate comparsons may be made, but not base on cliches. --BBird 16:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote? What does it matter what dictators call themselves? Some of them have even called themselves democrats. While self-identification has its place in the article, it's best to base the classification of Salazar's regime on objective criteria.

"However, Salazar's regime was much less bloody than other European dictatorships, such as Franco's." On what data, exactly, is this statement based? Did the fact that Spain went through a Civil War before Franco came to power and Portugal didn't have anything to do with the imbalance in the respective numbers of victims?

"This was mostly because Portugal lacked the death penalty." Yeah, right. That never stopped PIDE from killing people. -- Its not at all comparable. Portugal was the first contry in the world to abolish the death penalty. this should tell you something. --BBird 16:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

No, it tells me and everyone else absolutely nothing about what happened a century later.

"Although a dictator and a supporter of Nationalist Spain (the planned rebel leader General Sanjurjo was authorized to fly from a non-military airport in Portugal, and Salazar sent aid to the Nationalists against the Republicans), he did not side with any of the contenders in the war." This seems like a non sequitur to me. What does supporting Nationalist Spain have to do with supporting the sides of WWII? Spain didn't enter WWII, either. -- learn a little history first before shooting blindly. Franco did met Hitler for a possible coalition. Salazar never did the same.

Such coallition never materialized. My point stands.

Portugal was a safe heaven for people (incl. Jews) escaping the War. Spain was not. --BBird 16:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

For a while, yes, and no thanks to Salazar, whose regime destituted people like Aristides de Sousa Mendes (see Portuguese Wikipedia) for helping Jews escape the Nazis.

"The Iberian neutrality pact was put forward by Salazar to Franco in 1939. Indeed, Salazar provided aid to the Allies, letting them use the Terceira Island in the Azores as a military base." Both Spain and Portugal, however, supported the Nazis as well as the Allies, and were clearly sympathetic to Nazi Germany for a while, until Germany started losing the war (at which point both regimes turned coats). See, for instance, http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/goldp6.html, http://www.adl.org/Braun/dim_14_1_neutrality_europe.asp, The article should make the double game of the two regimes clear. An dedicated article for that -- YES. This one -- NO. --BBird 16:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

To pretend that Spain and Portugal were unambiguously with the Allies from the onset of the War is misleading.

---According to Hitchcock "The Struggle For Europe" p. 278 - "Portugal remained neutral, though it was obliged by a previous treaty to allow British use of the Azores Islands." I don't know any more than that, but it adds a wrinkle to the phrase "provided aid to the Allies."

- There is and was an old treaty of mutual assistance dating back from the Napoleonic invasions or earlier. but it did not provide for any specific obligation to make this or that facilities available. Anyway the Terceira base was ceded to the US, which still uses this (a curiosity -- the pre-launch of the Iraq war was announced in that base by Bush & Blair in march 2003. BR --BBird 21:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

"Economically, the Salazar years were marked by immensely increased growth, from 1950 until his death, Portugal saw its GDP per capita rise at an average rate of 5.66% per year. This made it the second fastest growing economy in Europe behind Francisco Franco's Spanish Miracle." Economic growth is all very fine and good for the upper classes, but it should be contrasted with the appalling poverty of the majority of the Portuguese and their colonial subjects overseas during the Estado Novo. -- this is pure bs and demgogic crap. GDP growth shows improvement in living conditions. of course it does. --BBird 16:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence to back that dismissal of yours, or is it just "pure bs and demgogic crap"?

"Maybe due to its own rural origin, Salazar resisted to full scale industrialization, seeing it as a threat to rural values and communities." Or maybe it was because he saw it as a threat to the power of the small oligarchy which ran the country. Dec. 23 2005 -- uninformed speculation.--BBird 16:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, saying that "Salazar resisted to full scale industrialization, seeing it as a threat to rural values and communities" is indeed "uninformed speculation". It should be removed from the article. Dec. 28 2005

Salazar did resist industrialisation in the early years. Only afterwards did he allow for it. (Unicaunica 15:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC))

Economic section

The last part of the article, about the Portuguese economy, is too much simplistic and factually wrong. Ironically, the last days of Salzar are considered the golden age of the Portuguese economy. I have made two essays about the evolution of the Portuguese economy since 1910 and, therefore, I know more or less what I am talking about.

Portugal's golden age? That's a very enthusiastic description that will require extensive proof by outside sources and references. Also, in Salazar's last days, Portugal's economy was being progressively crippled by the colonial war. Furthermore, Portugal's performance has to be compared to the performance of other Western European countries over the same period (i.e. after WWII). I really doubt that Portugal can stand the comparison. Luis rib 18:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

According to The World Economy, by economic historian Angus Maddison, Salazar's Portugal does indeed stand comparison to other contemporary Western European economies. He calculates that from 1913 to 1950 Portugal's GDP per capita grew at a rate of 1.39% per year: average by contemporary West European standards. However, from 1950 to 1973, dates which entirely encompass the regimes of Salazar and Caetano, Portugal saw its GDP per capita rise at an average rate of 5.66% per year. During this period, Portugal was Western Europe's second fastest growing economy, after Spain (which had been undergoing an "economic miracle" since 1959).

This very enthusiastic description is the very same description that can be found in any essay on the Portuguese economy in the 60's. In 1968, the Portuguese PIB per capita grew almost 11% and in 1973 it almost reached 12% - never after it reached such growth levels. Besides, it was in the 60's that modern industrialisation effectively began, with the opening of the economy to the outside world and the first massive influxes of foreign investment. It was effectively Portugal's Golden Age, as far as available data concerns. --MiguelFC 20:37, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have to Disagree with the statement that the page is too pro-Salazar. I think it is mostly descriptive and nuetral, with the exception of the claim that Salazar admired Hitler. This I find a bit of a stretch. It is important to remember that Salazar was very catholic, while Nazism was essentially pagan and anti-catholic. Salazar made accomodations with the Germans more than likely because he had to, rather than wanted to. He also allowed the allies to use bases in the azores, and continued to operate under the historic military treaty with England. Both Salazar and Franco had quite a tightrope to walk in order to keep their countries out of the conflict, and that tightrope walk made necessary many strange contortions.

I find also the representation of Salazar in contemporary Portugal to be too poltiically flavored to be taken as objective. Especialy as most of those who held power in the aftermath of the carnation revolution are still alive- notably Soares. The fact of the matter is that Salazar, though distasteful to modern eyes, did accomplish a few worthwile things while in office. He was aslo responsible for a caountry whose backwardness and exposure to international financial markets where quite extreme. Hade he retired in 1945 he would likely be regarded as a rather heroic figure. Unfortunately for him and Portugal, he outlived his usefulness. However, he is a character that is neither black or white, but rather gray. "As a Portuguese" I am afraid that the previous writer has swallowed the modern representation of salazar, perhaps a little too completely. It is important to note that often Salazar is used to cover up the crimes or errors of the post-revolutionary figures. None of whom covered themselves with glory, particularly during decolonization.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.106.221.53 (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Removal of trivia

I deleted the Trivia segment because it was POV, even subtle - but it did seem anti-Salazar and there was no source to the quote nor has it ever been stated around Portugal, being a Portuguese native myself. Also I cannot see why this article would need a trivia section, especially seeing as there was simply one small sentence denoting to the fact of an old country woman without any sources. Piecraft 19:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi, the story of the old woman is depicted in a book by Portuguese author and journalist Fernando Dacosta; sorry, can't remember the title (he has a few on the subject) and I think - but not sure - that even Caetano tells the story in his Memoirs.

In my opinion, a "Trivia" section - whatever the name is - could have factoids like Salazar's nicknames (e.g. Botas, because of his orthopedic boots), the "The rules of Protocol not even God can change", etc. I don't think they're POV and certainly that wasn't my intention when I created it.

Ricardo monteiro 16:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Salazar and Hitler

Just a brief contribution for now, before I provide a more considered view of Salazar's early years (prior to WWII). Salazar loathed Hitler, whom he believed to be an anti-Catholic pagan who glorified the State. Whilst not wishing to become directly involved in WWII, Salazar actively preferred the Allies, and even offered them preferential trade deals on Wolfram and even granted the Americans use of the Azores archipelago as a military supply base: the Americans are still there now, with the Lajes base. At the time, the Portuguese regime recognised that the survival of its colonies and overseas possessions depended on both continued Spanish neutrality, and British naval protection.

Stewart Lloyd-Jones Director Contemporary Portuguese History Research Centre

I'm sorry Stewart Lloyd-Jones but you are grossly misinformed. Salazar's hero was Mussolini, and he was in very good relations with Hitler - thus the purpose Hitler even gave him a Mercedes limo as a gift for the commercial ties Portugal continued with Germany. Salazar wasn't stupid, simply cautious - this was why he helped the American as well - but continued at all times with neutrality between the opposing countries. But let's not beat around the bush, Salazar was a Fascist, and believed in the ideology, not only that but he also agreed with the principles and ideas shed by Mussolini along with Hitler. This is straight from the sourced - a Portuguese descendant of the Chief who was in command of the Pide - and a freind of Salazar's. 82.155.1.151 01:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Salazar was pro Hitler and detested the Democracies. Salazar was anti US as can be seen by his speeches and writings. The granting of bases in the Azores were to the British under limited conditions so as to prempt a planned US invasion of the islands by the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.97.245.84 (talk) 06:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

This is nonsense. Maybe yourfriends grandfather was admirer of Hitler (and there was a germanist faction in the regime, of course, as weel as anglophile). Salazar was not personaly admirer of Hitler nor Mussolini. Check history sources publicly available (inlcluding the foreign ministry archives).--BBird 10:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

If I remember right, I've read somewhere that prior to Hitlers confirmed death, Salazar publicly mourned his death, I even think national flag was in mid pole. Can anyone confirm this?

I think this is correct. This is a good point to show that Slazar rigid approach to rules sometimes played against him and his real options or convictions. asaik -- (i) (Nazi) Germany had diplomatic relations with Portugal, as a neutral country; (ii) Hitler died (rather comited suicide) days before German surrender -- Formaly a head of state with diplomatic relations with Portugal died, and the rules dictate(d) that is such case a formal mourning was to be taken. This is what he dis. An opportunist with never do that. Someone rigid about rules and formality would. --BBird 22:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You're making no sense, Salazar was an admirer of Hitler in certain aspects - not in the Nazi ideology but in Hitler's dream for a better Germany. Of course if anything Salazar mostly admired and respected Mussolini because of his Fascist vision. So far you have only proven yourself to be a hypocrite by stating he did not admire Hitler and then post some quotation detailing how he mourned his death. I think you need to get your facts straight. 82.155.82.215 19:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

To be frank I dont care much. the question is not of mouring or not. nobody in his right mind would support hitler when he was encircled by russians troops and comiting suicide. My oppinion and from what I read is that he was not an admirer of hitler in any way. --BBird 00:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

In respect to this article I have to say there are several inaccuracies of Salazar's belief which have been misrepresented by "false" scholars who are bent on creating Salazar into some evil dictator who was obsessed with the Church. Yes he was a follower of the Church but did not impose it, and yes he admired Hitler, but did not support his war. Even to this day those who supported Salazar continue to state that Hitler was a form of inspiration. Of course the major contributor was Mussolini. And it is wrong for this article to say that Salazar never stated he was fascist, he in fact spoke and declared himself a fervent supporter and follower of the ideology, not to mention the fact that the entire Portuguese system corresponded in the same respect as Mussolini's Italy - with only a few differences. Anyway I'm not going to bust chops too much seeing as this is afterall a Wikipedia article and therefore mostly inaccurate even with the references, which are mostly provided by anti-Salazarians. 87.80.126.226 20:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Excuse my ignorance, but was not Hitler's birthday an officially noted date in Portugal, under Salazar? Franco was not entirely a loyal follower of Hitler, so that Salar did not have much choice. Salazar was a "Minime" version of Franco, which probably placated Franco sufficiently to stop Spain from invading. His economic policies left Portugal as the mini-Africa of Europe, even well into the 80s. Salar was claimed to be an academic, yet his education policies meant that Portuguese degrees were not recognized in many other European countries, such as the UK and Germany.220.244.247.105 (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Marshall Plan

The article categorically states that Salazar refused financial aid from the Marshall Plan while this is definetely not true. Although Portugal did not receive any aid in the program's first and second phases (which were mostly destined at the countries which were directly ravaged by the war), it did receive almost 70 million dollars in the program's third phase (early 1950's). --MiguelFC 17:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It is true! Portugal has received some Marshall Plan help, mainly technical agriculture improvements, such as hybrid seeds.

I'll edit the article then. --MiguelFC 11:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Whats stopping you, then? Its 2007!87.194.57.165 23:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This is incorrect, Portugal did not recieve any assistance from the Marshall Plan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.97.245.84 (talk) 06:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Salazar and Mussolini

About the citation needed, you should correct the present one "I'm with Mussolini in Italy, but I can´t be in Portugal!". He presently said "I agree with Mussolini in Italy, but I can't in Portugal" (Concordo com Mussolini na Italia, mas não posso concordar em Portugal), from Franco Nogueira, Salzar, t.II : Os tempos aureos, Coimbra, Atlântida Editora, 1977, p. 178.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmestre.realpolitik (talk • contribs) 18:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Death

There is a France-Press Telex dated September 6, 1969 , censored, on the Galeria Virtual da Censura that contains an interview given by Salazar to a French reporter, where he not only believes to still be in command, still receives the ministers and states about Marcello that "it's too bad that he doesn't want to work with us in the government" .

Maybe there is something to be done to the article? The AFP telex is online here: http://www.imultimedia.pt/galeriavirtualdacensura/ under Politica/sindicatos, piece number 8

I have removed the last sentence, as it is hagiographic - Rothorpe 20:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Citations

I was looking through the article, and I can't find any citations.....are my eyes bad, or? Fephisto 16:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Salazar on time45.jpg

Image:Salazar on time45.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

References needed

This articles is mightly missing references. Please help if you know of any.--Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves ^{talk / contribs} (join WP:PT) 15:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

POV!

If a large number of people elected him "the greatest Portuguese" in history, how can we say "there is a general consensus among a majority of the Portuguese that Salazar's rule was a dark period in the nation's history", without providing a source? Jcmo (talk) 10:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Salazar on time45.jpg

Image:Salazar on time45.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok Was Salazar New State considred Facist?

Wondering if Salazars New sate was considered "Facist" by the U.N. Or wa sit tolorated because of its strong anti communist feelings? Thanks! Andreisme (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I can´t see how not.LeonelMarques (talk) 03:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, I don't think that the UN had a definition of fascist which it applied to nations. However, it does have an official definition of racism, which it may or may not have applied to Portugal's colonies.

Salazar viewed Mussolini as an inspiration but disapproved of Hitler. In that sense he could be considered a fascist but not a Nazi. Of course, after WW2, when Fascism became a swear-word, many fascists reinvented themselves as "anti-communists" and did not want to be associated with fascism (which is not to say that all or most anti-communists were fascists). BillMasen (talk) 22:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

New Section or sub section

I am planning to add some information regarding about how seminar and reading Leo XIII writings allegedly may have influenced Salazar´s thinking. Will be quoting "os anos de salazar - o que se contava e o que se ocultava durante o estado novo, António Simões do Paço, Centro Editor PDA". Any suggestion?LeonelMarques (talk) 04:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Good English language works on Salazar?

Unfortunetly Portugal often gets overlooked in the English speaking world and there are hardly any books about Salazar. There is this Portugal of Salazar by Michael Derrick, but this is from 1939, so it does not cover the entire period of his governance. We need a good list of resources to build the article. - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, you could start by learning Portuguese. There is an awful lot of good and up-to-date bibliography available. I hope you're not suggesting that knowledge that is not available in English is not knowledge worthy of appearing in the EN wiki! Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.90.210.194 (talk) 14:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Photograph

When I last visited this article I seem to remember that it carried a photograph of Salazar. What happened to this?Geoff Powers (talk) 10:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

There's an obvious lack of neutrality in this article. I know most of the information available is anti-Salazar, but people should be more careful in keeping the article neutral and put personal opinions/grudges aside. History is written by the winners but there is two sides to every story and wikipedia should thrive to be as neutral as possible.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.95.171.206 (talk) 03:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This page reads like an except from "the lives of the saints," it is so hagiographic. It seems to be an attempt to rehabilitate Salazar's reputation, or answer the criticisms made during the immediate post-regime period rather than a neutral, "just the facts" presentation of the topic. TheCormac (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

POV tag

I ask all fellow wikipedians to check the new references added to the article and reconsider its POV status.Excelsior Deo (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Excelsior Deo, as the person who added the POV tag, I've just been through the page again and pulled together all the examples of what I think are undeniably WP:POV:

the good image he was able to build as an honest and effective finance minister...and shrewd political positioning

Salazar was able to co-opt the moderates of each political current while fighting the extremists

The basis of his regime was a platform of stability. Salazar's early reforms allowed financial stability and therefore economic growth. After the chaotic years of the Portuguese First Republic (1910–1926) when not even public order was achieved, this looked like an impressive breakthrough to most of the population, Salazar achieved then his height in popularity.

In 1960, at the initiation of Salazar's more outward-looking economic policy

Had Salazar been assassinated, it would have thrown the country into incredible turmoil, which would be a fertile breeding ground for Communism.'

NPOV means you can't tell what viewpoint the author is writing from, that is not true of any of the above sentences. I think most of them could be rewritten in a neutral tone.

The page also has a major problem in being almost entirely unreferenced, I've highlighted some of the most glaring examples with citation tags. Haldraper (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both the criticisms above. A strong "cheerleader" POV is pervasive throughout this way too lightly referenced article.TheCormac (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Introduction/1st paragraph

The introduction could as easily go to the recycle bin: served as the Prime Minister of Portugal(president of the council of ministers)

from 1932 to 1968. He also served as acting President of the Republic for most of 1951. He founded and led the Estado Novo ("New State") the "estado novo" was created by the dictatorship in 1926 and Salazar was invited to rule only in 1932 by the dictator (wich then became it's first president)

, the authoritarian, right-wing government that presided over and controlled Portugal from 1932 to 1974. there were no such thing as right/left wing in that period ... in fact it was a centre union of sorts

Salazar's program was opposed to communism, socialism, and liberalism. the concept of comunism of that time was the kind that placed bombs and killed people in the streets ... it should be opposed , and in fact still is oposed today ... the notion of "socialism" is not of that time (back then socialism only mean't soviet socialism)
It was pro-catholic, conservative and nationalistic. only because the 1st republican regime LITERALLY tried to KILL those 3 concepts ... and it try to achieve that by the same methods that the "estado novo" used .. in the end it was just a small step back after a great leap forward ... a leap that was given in the WRONG direction and right onto an abiss filled with a pure hell.

Its policy envisaged the prepetuation of Portugal as a pluricontinental empire, again it's a wrong statement ... it CREATED the concept of the portuguese empire ... period ... there was no such thing as an "empire" prior to the estado novo propaganda dreams ... and this is where most anti-salazar people get their teories undermined.

financially autonomous and politically independent from the dominating superpowers, and that was ... bad ??? 
and a source of civilization and stability to the overseas societies in the African and Asian possessions.[2][3][4] actually there was a great deal of regionalization and development in the african/asian regions 
Salazar's regime and its secret police repressed elemental civil liberties and political freedoms in order to remain sole ruler of Portugal, avoiding communist influences and the dissolution of its coveted empire. biased to the core aren't we ???

... if it were not from the external forces pernicious influences in the internal afairs of portugal things would (more than) probably end up much better to each and every portuguese "region" (be it in europe or everywhere else) Let me get a small resume ... by 1961 there were early talks/preparations of regionalization (preparations intended for FULL independence of every overseas territory by as alte as 1965) ... the indian invasion of Goa resulted in the FACT that by 2010 that ex.portuguese province is one (if not THE) most economically developed Indian region ... the french influenced civil war insurgencies in africa (and in europe) led to the consequence that instead of a pacific 1965 DEVELOPED africa we ended up with more than 30 years of killings there. Comunists (and comunist sponsored) were still placing bombs as late as 1984 (a full 10 years into the post-democratic regime was established) ... and ALL the things that were considered Bad back then are still illegal nowadays ...begining with movements planing to overthrow the regime(wich was what comunists were doing all along) In the end we got a "estado novo" wich spent the vast majority of it's existance either fighting to recover from the demential self-destruction of whatever was there just because it was build by the king/church (1st republic) or fighting external influences wich tried to destroy the nation-state and any other options (indian-way and french-way were the worst option in both cases) And this lead's us to the Dr.Salazar itself ... he was just a guy from the "province" who didn't like the fast pace of the capital but "tolerated" those young guys with crazy ideas (such as Duarte pacheco and his nationa infraestructure plans , the other ones with the industrialization projects , the new kid "Soares" with his regionalization plans , and many many others) ... we had a lot of rulers with that kind of vision (or lack of) ... not just Salazar. Sotavento (talk) 12:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Salazar was a Dictaor Yet

Salazar was a Dictator yet he saved by allowing jewsih refugess etc into Portugal and Portuguses terriorty many!VICTORMOI (talk) 04:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It was not Salazar's will to allow Jews into Portugal, that was the work of one of his ambassadors in France, check your history...Undead Herle King (talk) 11:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The Talk page is not a place for discussing the topic of the article in this manner; it is for discussing the accuracy, neutrality, readability, referencing and similar issues.TheCormac (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Economic Policies section

The Economic Policies section makes some highly dubious statements. It makes it looks like Portugal under Salazar's rule had a booming economy. If it is really true, where did all that growth go? When I was a kid in the early 1970s the majority of the country was still without electricity or running water, there were hardly any roads in acceptable conditions, most portuguese people had only primary school education level. From 1960 to 1975 more than 1 million portuguese (more than 10% of the population) emigrated to other european countries for economic reasons. I think this whole section is a fraud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.23.212.22 (talk) 12:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering myself about this (unreferenced) sentence: "From 1950 until Salazar's death, Portugal saw its GDP per capita rise at an average rate of 5.66% per year." Assuming the figure is correct, the obvious question is whether that is what the article calls: "immensely increased growth." Certainly many would be pleased with that average in today's recessionary times, but how does it compare to the growth rates of other European and Industrial countries during the same period of sustained post-War boom? (I suspect it is not so impressive, but I'm not expert.) The article needs to put this information in context for it to mean anything. TheCormac (talk) 18:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

As commonly stated in Economy books, the whole point is that he made the economy boom "by the books" at the expense of actually using that growth on the public. The country grew, not the people, per se. Obviously need sources for this, but this is the general opinion I've always heard.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.155.164.113 (talk) 13:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Antonio Salazar-1.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Antonio Salazar-1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The greatest portuguese since Henry the navigator?

In the article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristides_Sousa_Mendes ) "the greatest Portuguese since Henry the Navigator" is attributed to Life magazine about Aristides de Souza which makes much more senses that attirbuting it about António de OliveiraUndead Herle King (talk) 11:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The source given in this article, apparently a facsimile of Life's issues from 29 July 1940, reads: «Salazar [...] he is also the greatest Portuguese since Henry the Navigator». One of the references given at Aristide sousa Mendes simply quotes that one. So it looks like it is Aristides Sousa Mendes article that is wrong. - Nabla (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The page cited in this article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Os_Grandes_Portugueses ) clearly states a different opinion about the 2007 TV program that voted Salazar the greatest Portuguese. That article shows clear evidence that the voting was flawed. This should also be reflected on this page. Overall I find this article to be rather biased in favor of Salazar. If the similar bias happened on other fascist dictators' pages it would have been erased by now... 109.155.221.211 (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Jargon & Opaque Language

In addition to the glaring POV flaws pointed out by others, this article is poorly written for the wiki user. English language WIki is meant for general reference for anglophones, but to understand some of the passages in this article you would need to be fairly fluent in Portugese history. For instance: " Its policy envisaged the perpetuation of Portugal as a pluricontinental empire under the doctrine of lusotropicalism..." contains two Portugese specialty terms. The sentence it is part of requires a lay reader to use the hyperlinks to read four other pages just to decode its meaning. This is just bad writing and clearly not in compliance with wiki style guidelines.TheCormac (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

101th President?

Someone should change that to 101st, in the info box on the right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.63.243 (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Pov issue with intro

The line in the intro section "Salazar was one of the most gifted men of his generation and a man hugely dedicated to his job and country." Is very much a POV even if sourced. if it was attributed to someone notable rather then in the voice of Wikipedia then it would be more acceptable. Even then, the whole paragraph seems to be about making him look like a better dictator then most by only quoting people who seems to praise him. There should be some quotes from notable people who have less favorable opinions of him included in the intro. --67.101.209.154 (talk) 04:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I concur with this and the other statements on this talk page about the heavy pro-Salazar bias in this article. I urge any qualified editors to create a more balanced article. Beebop211 (talk) 02:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The entire article is littered with pro-Salazar, the criticism section is miniscule and not even that strongly worded; the article seems to forget the other side of the argument which is that Salazar's regime pretty much destroyed the Portuguese economy towards the end of his rule. Also, he had secret police on the go and anyone who tried to form a union would be "disappeared", he was an all-round nutter to be honest.

Anyway, I'd love somebody to clean this up, it's definitely casting him in a favorable light. Perhaps some translated text from the Portuguese wikipedia's article which seems to be more balanced? Robitski 31.53.125.218 (talk) 01:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It will always be debatable if the article represents fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on the topic. Prevailing views will come in and out of fashion, as each generation presses Salazar into arguments that we can't foresee, but there will always be a cacophony of dissenting voices. If someone thinks that the article could benefit from adding other well sourced significant views then the solution is quite simple: just add those well sourced significant views. The solution is not to "clean up" well sourced significant views that are not appreciated by a faction.

However facts are fact and the statement: “Salazar's regime pretty much destroyed the Portuguese economy towards the end of his rule” is groundless.

There was a striking contrast between the economic growth and levels of capital formation in the 1960-73 period and in the 1980s decade. Clearly, the pre-revolutionary period was characterized by robust annual growth rates for GDP (6.9 percent), industrial production (9 percent), private consumption (6.5 percent), and gross fixed capital formation (7.8 percent).

By way of contrast, the 1980s exhibited a pattern of slow-to-moderate annual growth rates for GDP (2.7 percent), industrial production (4.8 percent), private consumption (2.7 percent), and fixed capital formation (3.1 percent). The Portuguese economy had changed significantly by 1973, compared with its position in 1961. Total output (GDP at factor cost) grew by 120 percent in real terms. The industrial sector was three times greater, and the size of the services sector doubled. The composition of GDP also changed markedly from 1961 to 1973. The share of the primary sector (agriculture, forestry, and fishing) in GDP shrank from 23 percent in 1961 to 16.8 percent in 1973, and the contribution of the secondary (or industrial) sector (manufacturing, construction, mining, and electricity, gas and water) increased from 37 percent to 44 percent during the period. The services sector's share in GDP remained constant at 39.4 percent between 1961 and 1973. Within the industrial sector, the contribution of manufacturing advanced from 30 percent to 35 percent and that of construction from 4.6 percent to 6.4 percent.

A recent article in the online magazine American.com measures economic performance against the degree of political and civil freedom existing in various nations. The conclusion is that in the last 15 years, the economies of nations ruled by despots have grown at an annual rate of 6.8 percent on average -- two and a half times faster than politically free countries. Those autocracies that have opened their markets in recent decades but continued to restrict or prevent democracy -- China, Russia, Malaysia and Singapore, for example -- have done better than most of the developed or underdeveloped countries that enjoy a considerable measure of political and civil freedom.

It would be silly to deny that a dictatorship can boast sound economic results. Any political system, free or unfree, that removes some obstacles to entrepreneurship, investment and trade, and makes a credible commitment to safeguard property rights to a certain extent will trigger a virtuous economic cycle. Spain's Francisco Franco, Portugal’s Salazar and Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew discovered that in the 1960s, as did China's Deng Xiaoping at the end of the 1970s, Chile's Augusto Pinochet in the 1980s and many others at various times. If economic growth justifies oppression…it is another debate. Facts are facts and Wikipedia should stick to facts.JPratas (talk) 12:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you specifically think, because that's the problem here. The opening is four paragraphs long and literally has ONE sentence detailing the other side of the argument; every article needs both sides of the argument to show an unbiased view.

There needs to be more citations, too; there's a sentence that claims Salazar died "a poor man after forty years of public service" which A) sounds promotional and B) sounds HIGHLY UNLIKELY.

I'd like to point out I know several people who lived during his rule and certainly have their say on the subject, which is that he was a power-hungry tyrant. He crushed anybody who tried to form a trade union with brutal force, with secret police. The economic growth only benefited the upper-class and upper-middle-class, while the poor and lower-middle-class starved and suffered. Robitski 31.53.125.218 (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, I fixed the beginning somewhat, giving a more balanced view and removing a few completely untrue claims (i.e that Portugal was a "civilizing force to Africa", which it really wasn't). Tell me what you think, anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robitski (talk • contribs) 02:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

If someone thinks that the article could benefit from adding other well sourced significant views then the solution is quite simple: just add those well sourced significant views. The solution is not to "clean up" well sourced significant views that are not appreciated by a faction. Saying "I know several people who lived during his rule and certainly have their say on the subject" is not enough. I also lived under Salazar's rule and that is also not enough to include my view on wikipedia. JPratas (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I would like to back up JPrata's claims about the economy with this important graph, that you can easily find by searching for images of "dívida pública Portugal". The sources (to be worked on) are "Mata and Valerio (1992), Neves (1994), INE, Santos Pereira (2011)". I always wanted to add the graph to article, but do not know how to add images and do the proper job. If you can interpret, notice how the lowest debt corresponds exactly to the years of Estado Novo, from the exact moment it started to the exact moment it ended, and from there on going on a debt rampage. The Portuguese article is the one that was extremely biased when I read it several months ago and could not, the way it was, serve the truth. 2001:8A0:430C:B01:99BD:DC4E:2118:4B0 (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

writings

The article mises on S writings, if there is any. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.203.109.157 (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Colonial Act

Removed sentence from lead section and added a lot more information to the "Colonial Views Section".

The sentence is not appropriate to lead section because there is absolutely nothing remarkable or unique about Salazar's 1930 Colonial Act. On a Portuguese context It was not much different from the First Republic policies and it faced no opposition. On a global context it was based on the idea of assimilation, an ideology also found in the French colonial policy of the 19th and 20th centuries. In contrast with British imperial policy, the French taught their subjects that, by adopting French language and culture, they could become French.

The sentence must be put in this context and it does not make sense to put it in the lead section. We could also add a sentence to the lead section saying that "It was under Salazar that africans were given full Portuguese citizenship in 1961", but this type of short sentences, outside of context, can be extremely misleading...

In addition, the word "forbade"is inaccurate. --JPratas (talk) 06:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the article has some WP:BALASPS issues, and at this point reads mostly like hagiography written by apologists for Salazar, especially the lede which sounds like a glowing encomium of the man. It seems seriously out of balance. Carlstak (talk) 02:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

the lede is balanced pro and con -- it is not a "glowing encomium" to say "Salazar's policies from the 1930s to the 1950s led to economic and social stagnation and rampant emigration, turning Portugal into one of the poorest countries in Europe" Rjensen (talk) 11:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I very much disagree. That is only one clause of a sentence in a rather long lede that imputes any counter-balancing negatives, and even it is qualified by a "however", followed by ""that industrial growth throughout the 1950s and 1960s was generally quite positive and, given Portugal's basic problems, could probably have only been improved slightly by a more creatively liberal regime." Which is debatable, and mere speculation. I'll open an RfC later. Carlstak (talk) 12:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Rjensen. I also think that the sentence that says that Salazar "was the virtual dictator of the country in the manner of Spain's Francisco Franco and Italy's Benito Mussolini." is out of mark. Franco was a military that took power using brutal force while Salazar was a scholar that was invited to become prime minister by an elected president. Yes his constitution is corporative and autocratic but still is, until today, the only constitution in Portugal that was approve by direct vote. And yes Salazar admired Mussolini in many aspects, but he also distanced himself from Mussolini, his paganism and cesarism. Neither Franco nor Mussolini ever resigned...J Pratas 15:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Article is horribly biased in a pro-salazarist way

I fail to see how someone considers that edits like the following are pro-Salazar!

• “Under the Colonial Act African Natives could be forced to work. By requiring all African men to pay a tax in Portuguese currency the government created a situation in which a large percentage of men in any given year could only earn the specie needed to pay the tax by going to work for a colonial employer. In practice this enabled settlers to use forced labor on a massive scale leading many times to abuses and horrific results.”
• “when the system was finally abolished, and citizenship was granted to all Africans, less than one percent of the African population had been assimilated”

However, as Hugh Thomas once said, on Cortés, “trying to find morality in the past doesn’t help the historian in his work”.J Pratas 15:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I suppose you suffer from amnesia because you wrote this: "Salazar's rule was corporatist, conservative, and nationalist in nature, defending Portugal as Catholic. Its policy envisaged the perpetuation of Portugal as a pluricontinental nation under the doctrine of lusotropicalism, with Angola, Mozambique, and other Portuguese territories as extensions of Portugal itself, with Portugal being a source of civilization and stability to the overseas societies in the African and Asian possessions."128.65.232.111 (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

In my humble opinion the Portuguese “Colonial Empire” was nothing but a myth. By 1940 there were only a few thousands white settlers in Angola (c. 30 000) and even less in Mozambique (c. 15,000). And the way many of those people treated the natives was horrific, as Hugh Thomas once said, on Cortés, “trying to find morality in the past doesn’t help the historian in his work”. And in this particular case Salazar, in the 1930s was not very different from the first republic or different from his opposition or from many other European nations.J Pratas 16:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Rui Ramos criticism of Salazar

Historian Rui Ramos does have a negative view of Salazar regimen like this article shows. He notices some positive aspects but his overall balance is negative. Some of his criticism could be translated to be added to the article. [1]128.65.232.111 (talk) 15:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

BLP?

"We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Does the article matches this?128.65.232.111 (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

In general the article references a solid bibliography. Any specific concern? J Pratas 16:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The text removed had negative allegations about a living person--an editor here. Rjensen (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

That would come under WP:NPA not WP:BLP. It had nothing to do with the biography. There can be no BLP issue for Salazar, long dead as he is. The comments, while clearly antagonistic and a violation of NPA, had some (possibly) valid points in them. IP editors have every right to edit, and voice complaints. Having their contributions in both the talk and article spaces reverted seems overzealous. This article seemed stable for a while, until recent activities. Perhaps some discussion is what is needed - and that can't happen if their comments are deleted. ScrapIronIV (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

the WP:NPA rule says "Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor." which is what happened. the BLP also applies for there were unsourced allegations as well. Rjensen (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I am certainly not trying to be argumentative, and you absolutely have the right to remove derogatory comments per WP:NPA. You are an editor in good standing with a long history of contributions. I am certain we would agree in principle on many things. My question is really whether we are throwing out the baby with the bathwater here. There are valuable statements that have been removed for the sake of a few words that could be considered insulting. I am not Portuguese, nor a proponent of any governmental style there, but I am seeing a bias being inserted here. I don't think that it can be ignored, and some of the IP editor's comments should perhaps be maintained. Deleting them wholesale does not allow uninvolved editors to evaluate them for their merit. I don't have the luxury of years of experience with social media/wikipedia politics to fall back on, so I trust you will take my words as they are meant - an invitation to dialogue, and see if this article can get put back on a more encyclopedic tone. There seems to be a battle of ideologies going on here, and maybe we can work together to get it back to a more neutral and stable state. ScrapIronIV (talk) 19:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Does this belongs to the article?

"Since the fall of the Estado Novo in 1974 and until 2014, Portugal experienced twenty five governments in just forty years of democracy. After the forty years of unusual financial stability during the Estado Novo the Portuguese economy experienced again budget problems, external debt problems and financial turmoil. Since the carnation revolution Portugal has had three economic programs that were supported financially by the IMF. In 1977-78, Portugal requested assistance to mitigate deficits and sharp increases in unemployment. In 1983, Portugal requested again IMF support to cope with a recession, high interest rates abroad, trade imbalances, and high deficits. In 2009 Portugal's budget deficit hit a record 9.3 percent of GDP. In 2011 the Portuguese economy collapsed sparking a sharp rise in borrowing costs which forced Lisbon to seek a bailout. Portugal then agreed a three-year, 78-billion-euro ($116 billion) bailout with the European Union and IMF. In 2013 Portugal recorded an all time high Government Debt to GDP of 129 percent of the country's Gross Domestic Product." This article is just about Salazar its not about Portugal after the fall of fascism and even Salazar wasnt the last dictator of the Estado Novo, because after him it came Marcello Caetano.128.65.232.111 (talk) 15:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I would say yes. One or two paragraph of the situation Salazar encountered in 1928 and a single paragraph of what happened after him provides context. Why deprive the reader of a short paragraph with undisputable facts? Why try to hide it? J Pratas 16:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

This is only about Salazar, there was really another Council President after him, that was Marcelo Caetano, from 1968 to 1974. I don't see the need to tell the entire History of Portugal afterwards. specially from the pont of view of those who still miss and admire Salazar, and I would like to add that there isn't a single important political party in Portugal that claims to follow Salazar ideology or legacy, unlike what happens with other far-right ideologies in some countries of Europe.2001:8A0:7D67:9601:40E3:F4DD:4D79:9B3 (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

This article has Balance issues, and needs rewrite

I read Portuguese fairly well, and I intend to start immediately translating some of the material from the Portuguese article, and add it to this one, which has some serious issues. I have a big project going now, so it may take a little while, but if anyone wants to check my translating skills, and my use of sources, please look at the History of Lisbon, which I recently completely rewrote with content mostly translated from the Portuguese version, with over 475 citations added, plus the majority of the content after the First Republic section written by me, because that is where the Portuguese version ends. This English version of the Salazar article as it stands now has WP:BALASPS problems, and overall, reads pro-Salazar. Carlstak (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Seriously! I've read a lot of articles on Wikipedia and this is by far the most fluffed up article about anyone I've ever seen. The fact that's it's literarly about a dictator just makes it even more tragic. Jbenjos (talk) 13:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, but don't swing the pendulum too far. Calling Fernando Rosas a historian and presenting him as a neutral source, when in fact he was a political opponent of Salazar is highly violatory of policy – NPOV. 58.7.138.46 (talk) 14:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Jbenjos: Have you read any biographies of Salazar? I've read three, all in English albeit, and various other articles on he and his government and economic policies, and I would say this article reflects the historical consensus quite well. 58.7.138.46 (talk) 14:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)`

• The main issue here is this guy was literarly a dictator. We need more politicial opponents of Salazar in this article, setting the tone of the article. I'd like to see this article read a little more like Adolf Hitler or Stalin, and less like Mother Teresa (although, that article is far more criticial!!!). Jbenjos (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
• By the way I didn't even add that statement, it was already in the article. By removing literarly the only anti-Salazar opinion in the lead, you are working to make the article even MORE pro-Salazar then it was before! And if you are like trying to improve this guy's image, this kind of attitude of excessive whitewashing doesn't work. If all this article is a puff piece of this guy's accomplishments all you are doing is making him out to be more of a douchebag then a balanced article would. This no way any layman will trust anything written in this article because of this, even if it may be true!! This is because the article is so comically supportive it's like reading a biography of Kim Jong Un written by the North Korean propaganda ministry. There is many biased articles in Wikipedia written with some kind of agenda in mind, but they usually have a kind of intellectual subtly that this article completely lacks. It sticks out like a sore thumb and completely makes this article useless as an encyclopedic account. Jbenjos (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Salazar's memory continues to be a contentious issue in Portugal, so that debate belongs in the Portuguese language Wikipedia where people can appreciated it much better. That is not the case for the English-speaking world, from my reading of the literature. He was an ally of Britain and the United States in WW2 and NATO, and under his dictatorship Portugal avoided the disasters that hit hard the nearby countries of Spain, France, Italy and Algeria. Rjensen (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

As an English speaker knowing almost nothing about this guy reading this article makes me super suspicious of this man - like he has supporters trying to hide a serious genocide or something. Why you say? Because here is a man that's a dictator (and you won't be able to whitewash that, it's basic knowledge) being treated better in his article then a person who dedicated her life to charity. That sticks out. This insanity clearly needs to be fixed, and the pro-Salazar folks need to relax and stop reverting anything negative and let people fix the article a bit by adding negative opinions (yes, even from his "politicial opponents") in front and center positions in the article. Then we'll have an article that won't have most of the threads in the ta, lk page complaining about NPOV. Jbenjos (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen, Then your reading of the English literature on the subject is limited. For starters, here are links to books in English which indicate otherwise concerning Salazar, his secret police, and the Estado Novo: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. One wonders where you're coming from, with such a preponderance of evidence, here and elsewhere, against what you say. There are many more examples of such books written in English. Carlstak (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

There is a large polemic literature in Portuguese that is unfortunately spilling over here. It belongs in the Portuguese Wikipedia. Those polemics have not been generally accepted in the wider English language community of specialists on Portugal. Your selection of google cites is not very useful....They each have a few words or at most a couple of paragraphs on Salazar & add nothing that is not already in the article. Rjensen (talk) 14:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't pretend to be a professional historian, so I appreciate your response. I realized that those were not the best sources, and perhaps I responded in haste. Thank you for your feedback. Carlstak (talk) 01:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Carlstak On top of what Rjensen already commented on the poor quality of the sources you are suggesting to google-into the article I would like to add that I’ve been reading your recommended article History of Lisbon‎. I must say it was quite poor. It is obvious that you don't know the history of the city or the history of Portugal. Most of the content is generic, not at all about Lisbon, and belongs to other places in the Wikipedia. I’ve done some major rework on the “New State” section of your History of Lisbon‎ and will help to improve the article. It was bold editing, not battling, I hope you will admit that it is now a decent starting point on the History of Lisbon. I recommend you not to waste too much time on translating the Portuguese Wikipedia. Unfortunately it usually isn’t a good source. If you want to further explore the "dark" side of Salazar I would recommend, for example, American historian Douglas Wheeler. (In the Service of Order: The Portuguese Political Police and the British, German and Spanish Intelligence, 1932-1945). A POV but from a reputed scholar that has studied Portugal in depth.J Pratas 17:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

It is amazing how you’ve produced a whole section on the history of Lisbon under the New State and left out completely Duarte Pacheco, his Lisbon Master Plan and the architects he hired such as Alfred- Donat Agache. Instead you’ve inserted text on Salazar, Fado, Colonies, etc..Again you should not be editing things you just don't knowJ Pratas 17:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

JPratas Hmm, that seems a rather harsh judgement of a good-faith effort to expand the English version of the History of Lisbon. Look, I agree that the Portuguese version was not so great, but by the the time I realized how bad it really was, I had already invested some effort in the translation of the article as a sort of training, if you will. Also, I wasn't suggesting that RJensen should include those sources in the Salazar article, although I didn't make that clear. I responded reflexively, and was just trying to show that Salazar as "repressive dictator" is present in American consciousness. Sure, they were more pop than academic, and inadequate. Not disputed. I think if you check my sources for the History of Lisbon, you will see that I used academic sources as far as possible. I don't pretend to be an authority, by any means. I admit that I came off rather pretentiously in addressing RJensen, and I'm sorry about that. Still, can't I get some credit for a good-faith effort, deficient as it might be, to improve the scant History of Lisbon article as it existed previously? I think I followed the Portuguese article pretty closely, for the most part, except for some obvious errors or biased statements that I tried to correct, so it seems that your harsh criticism is more a criticism of the Portuguese Wikipedia article than of me. It was a translation, after all, for better or worse. Also, I am aware that the sections I wrote were somewhat thrown together, but at that point, I just wanted the project done and to get something up, for a sense of closure, if nothing else. So give a guy a break, why don'cha? Carlstak (talk) 01:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I welcome your help in improving the History of Lisbon article. It seems petty, almost bizarrely so, to condemn me for not mentioning Duarte Pacheco; I never said the article was complete or couldn't be improved. At least there is more there now for you to criticize or deconstruct. Carlstak (talk) 01:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

P.P.S. I still think the Salazar article reads pro-Salazar overall.

CarlstakFirst of all a word of appreciation for the acknowledgments and this clearly (yet first) cooperative move from your side. It really is much nicer when editing turns into a place of cooperation and pleasure instead of a battlefield for ideologies. Although I think that you seem to be too much influenced by pop-literature on Salazar and haven’t read major works on Salazar like Hugh Kay’s or Howard J. Wiarda’s, I do think you have a point on saying that as of today the article reads too much pro-Salazar. In my view that is because the article is still incomplete regarding the 1950s and 1960s because I did not have time yet to dedicate to it. However, as to the 1930s according to American scholar J. Wiarda, despite the problems and continued poverty in many sectors the consensus among historians and economists is that the Salazar’s 1930s brought some remarkable developments in the economic sphere, public works, the social services and in terms of governmental honesty, efficiency and stability. That is why Salazar was honored with Academic degrees from Fordham University 1938, Oxford University 1940, and Life Magazine called Salazar "the greatest Portuguese since etc. As to the 1940s his shrewd policies and works were praised by diplomats like Carlton J. H. Hayes, Samuel Hoare, 1st Viscount Templewood, and also several scholars. The problem with the article is the 1950s and 1960s where despite the outstanding economic achievements (both relative to the past and relative to the EC of that time); there are some “darker” spots that are missing in the article. Examples are: i) The Delgado case; ii) The PIDE and the report “Prisons and prisoners in Portugal / an independent investigation by Lord Russell of Liverpool” Edward Russell, 2nd Baron Russell of Liverpool, etc.. (At this time Salazar was already over 70years old...) I intend to get there if you please allow me sometime. But don’t expect the article to be a blanket condemnation of Salazar. And have in mind what professor Howard J. Wiarda said: “The corporative system of Salazar and Caetano was far more social justice oriented than it is often portrayed, and the use of the “fascist” label serve more to perpetuate myths about the regime than to illuminate its actual assumptions and works”. I have in my personal library all the books that are quoted in the article. Those are good solid books by reputed scholars. I can help. We can build an article based on solid sources. I would like to avoid a patchwork article base on a wide selection of google cites each having a few words or at most a couple of paragraphs on Salazar. If what I just said makes any sense to you then I suggest you un-tag the article, close the dispute and start working on improving it. Your late actions have brought nothing but a terpidation that serves no purpose.J Pratas 10:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

JPratas, if you will remember, I have made cooperative edits on the Salazar article, making minor copy edits and adding at least one source to material you added. I respect your wider knowledge of the subject, but I would like to make clear that my additions of cites to the History of Lisbon are not just Googled cites {it may appear that way because I use the Wikipedia citation tool for Google books to quickly generate wiki markup for cites), and please do not conflate them with the quick cites I made above, which are. I know that article is not relevant to this one, except for the New State section, but you did critique it here. I did not have time to read each entire book cited for the History of Lisbon article, but I made every effort to at least read the pertinent chapter. You can see that the preponderance of citations I added to that article are academic ones, mostly published by universities and other scholarly sources. I also want to clarify that I would never suggest that those quick cites I made above in addressing Rjensen should be added to the Salazar article. They are not suitable for that purpose. I used them just to show that there is a general awareness among people outside Portugal, who care about history at all, of Salazar as a repressive dictator, those people probably being unaware of the nuances that a scholar would appreciate.

Also, please understand that I did not re-add the neutrality tag to the Salazar article. Some other editor did that. I did remove it once accidentally, but quickly re-added it because I did not feel it was my place to remove it from the article, and I do not think I should remove it now, because I didn't put it there. Someone else re-added it after it was subsequently removed again, as I remember. It appears that you have taken offense at that readdition; please don't blame it on me. I made a request for comment on this talk page to solicit some comment from other editors who might have something worthwhile to add to the discussion, willing to accept whatever the consensus should be. I would be happy to cooperate with you in improving the article, as I did when you thanked me for a copyedit and source added, a little while ago. Regards, Carlstak (talk) 13:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Carlstak, I understand your comments and there are absolutely no resentments from my side. Your are an editor in good standing. I appreciate your cooperative approach. I had stopped editing because I don’t like to get involved in edit warring. Since the “dispute” with you seems to be over I will be back to editing. I will be taking into consideration your opinion on the article being pro-Salazar and will be adding some material on what is widely accepted to be the dark side of Salazar. I hope I can keep on counting with your opinions, reviews and editing. The article is C-rated and I would like to uprate it. With your help will be easier.J Pratas 14:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

JPratas, I look forward to working with you. Best regards, Carlstak (talk) 04:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Regards to Fernando Rosas

See this. I don't even know this guy or wrote that statement. It was already in the article, I just made it more prominent. I don't agree with removing the sole negative opinion in the lead. Jbenjos (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

This is your edit, MADE TODAY, that calls Fernando Rosas a "historian", rather than a longtime political opponent of Salazar, and states his policies "turn[ed] Portugal into one of the poorest countries in Europe.", which is biased bullcrap POV that you are pushing because, as you've stated, you think Salazar is Hitler. 58.7.138.46 (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Fernando Rosas is a founder of Bloco de Esquerda (Left Block) a merger of two Trotskyist parties - the Internationalist Communist League (Portuguese: Liga Comunista Internacionalista or LCI) and the Workers Revolutionary Party (Portuguese: Partido Revolucionário dos Trabalhadores or PRT). He is also an historian and his POV are valid. But nevertheless POVs. J Pratas 16:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

MISLEADING STEREOTYPES

"It is a temptation to reduce complex phenomena to stereotypes. In a world of intricate relationships and overflowing information stereotypes promise to simplify the diversity of human experience into a handful of accessible notions. But if they are convenient, they may also be extremely misleading. For example, the stereotype of dictatorship suggests that in the context of World War II, a dictator is on the side of the Axis pursuing an anti-Semitic policy. In practice, however, such a stereotype ignores national cultures, geopolitical alignments, and the origin and evolution of political regimes. Salazar, the Portuguese dictator, was aware of the power of ideological stereotypes, and he was careful to stress the difference between the internal characteristics of his regime and his foreign policy."

in Leite, Joaquim da Costa. "Neutrality by Agreement: Portugal and the British Alliance in World War II." American University, International Law Review 14, no. 1 (1998): 185-199.

Available online.

You can find similar introductions in Hugh Kay's book on Salazar or in Wiarda, Howard J. (1977)"Corporatism and Development: The Portuguese Experience".

If you don't know the man you should not be editing just because you don't like the word "dictator".--J Pratas 16:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Is the António de Oliveira Salazar article seriously out of balance and violating neutral point of view (NPOV) policy?

There has been an ongoing dispute about the neutrality of this article for quite a while now. Should more effort be made to indicate the relative prominence of opposing views? Carlstak (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

RFCs should be pointed. This one isn't. 216.8.142.143 (talk) 14:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The current article seems to be far too biased. The lead contains multiple accounts of writers who praised aspects of Salazar's rule but does not show how prominent his defenders are compared to his critics. I'm not an expert on Salazar, so I can't judge what he was like at economic management, for example. Rather than dive into the edit war, I will propose a rewrite here:

António de Oliveira Salazar GCSE, GCIC, GCTE, GColIH (Portuguese pronunciation: [ɐ̃ˈtɔniu dɨ oliˈvɐjɾɐ sɐlɐˈzaɾ]; 28 April 1889 – 27 July 1970) was a Portuguese politician who served as Prime Minister of Portugal from 1932 to 1968. His Council of Ministers briefly served as acting President of the Republic in 1951; he was never President of the Republic, but was the virtual dictator of the country in the manner of Spain's Francisco Franco and Italy's Benito Mussolini. He founded and led the Estado Novo (New State), the authoritarian, right-wing government that presided over and controlled Portugal from 1932 to 1974.

Opposed to communism, socialism, anarchism and liberalism, Salazar's rule was corporatist, conservative, and nationalist in nature, defending Portugal as Catholic. He did not identify as a fascist. Under his foreign policy, Portugal was neutral during World War II and was the only non-democracy to be a founding member of NATO. He supported the Portuguese Empire at a time when other European countries were implementing decolonization and sent the Portuguese military to fight anti-colonial nationalist movements in the Portuguese Colonial War. The Estado Novo ideology envisioned that the colonies (Angola, Mozambique, and other Portuguese territories) would be extensions of Portugal itself.

The next paragraph(s) would discuss the following points:

• • Overall, he has a better reputation than most comparable dictators.
  • He was praised by some for bringing 'stability', compared to the Portuguese First Republic.
  • He was still a dictator, and political repression happened while he was in power.
  • His regime was socially conservative.
  • Some have praised his economic management.
  • Others (mainly on the left) have criticised it.
  • He was named the Best and Worst Portuguese Ever in Portugal, showing how he has a mixed reputation.

Any mention of his personality and character would be better mentioned further down in the article rather than in the lead. Anywikiuser (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I made some changes in the proposed draft above--The key has to do with the false comparison with Spain, Italy and Germany. Salazar did not create a totalitarian political party on the fascist/ Nazi model. The other European powers, such as Britain France and Belgium, were forced into decolonization against their will. Rjensen (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd rather keep my original post displayed as it was, so I'll post your proposed revision below instead:

António de Oliveira Salazar GCSE, GCIC, GCTE, GColIH (Portuguese pronunciation: [ɐ̃ˈtɔniu dɨ oliˈvɐjɾɐ sɐlɐˈzaɾ]; 28 April 1889 – 27 July 1970) was a Portuguese politician who served as Prime Minister of Portugal from 1932 to 1968. His Council of Ministers briefly served as acting President of the Republic in 1951; he was never President of the Republic, but was the virtual dictator of the country, While he never built a totalitarian ruling party along the lines of the fascists. Salazar founded and led the Estado Novo (New State), the authoritarian, right-wing government that controlled Portugal from 1932 to 1974.

Opposed to communism, socialism, anarchism and liberalism, Salazar's rule was corporatist, conservative, and nationalist in nature, defending Portugal as Catholic. He did not identify as a fascist. Portugal gave cautious support to the Allies during World War II, but remained officially neutral because of the threat of invasion from Nazi Germany. It provided a major air link between Britain and the United States, and provided refuge for numerous refugees, including Jews fleeing the Nazis. Salazar was welcomed by NATO as a founding member in 1949. Salazar promoted the Portuguese Empire at a time when other European countries were forced into decolonization. He sent the Portuguese military to fight anti-colonial nationalist movements in the Portuguese Colonial War. The Estado Novo ideology envisioned that the colonies (Angola, Mozambique, and other Portuguese territories) would be extensions of Portugal itself.

And to discuss your points. I'm open to having Salazar's role in World War II discussed in more detail in the lead, but I'm wary of making the lead excessively detailed. I'm also open to adding a stronger emphasis that Salazar was 'milder' than the actual fascist dictators, which may fit better into the third/fourth paragraphs. I don't think it should say that Salazar was "welcomed" into NATO - that seems like needless POV. I also disagree that it needs to be said that other European countries were "forced" to decolonise. Anywikiuser (talk) 22:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia takes a Broader international view of Salazar's Portugal than residents of Portugal do-- his role in WW2 and NATO is thus much more important in this article. Salazar did not force his way into NATO, he was unanimously invited, and there was no controversy about it--. That's what it is like to be welcomed into a private club. NATO Was essentially anti-communist, and Portugal had a very good record in that regard. Rjensen (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

In my view the following facts should also be in the lead

* Portugal was a founding member or EFTA together with Austria, Britain, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland

* Also founding member the of Convention on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

* Under Salazar, despite the fact that Portugal did not reach EU levels and was still poorer than most western EU economies, it was the only period in the XX century ,and probably in the Country's history, where the Portuguese economy consistently grew faster than EU's avg. Portuguese economic growth in the period 1960–1973 under the Estado Novo regime, created an opportunity for real integration with the developed economies of Western Europe. In 1960 Portugal's per capita GDP was only 38 percent of the European Community (EC-12) average; by the end of the Salazar period, in 1968, it had risen to 48 percent; and in 1973, under the leadership of Marcelo Caetano, Portugal's per capita GDP had reached 56.4 percent of the EC-12 averageJ Pratas 07:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• I generally concur with Anywikiuser's observations and rationale, without prejudice for/against that editor's exact wording. (I don't know much about the subject, just have encyclopedic neutrality concerns.) Pratas's first bullet point, about EFTA, doesn't seem salient, since this is a bio article, not an article about EFTA or Portugal. Same goes for the second one. The third point seems superficially relevant, but WP attributing Portugal's economic growth to Salazar would be original research and supposition. I do agree with Rjensen that WP's view on the subject is broader than that of the typical Portuguese national. This doesn't necessarily mean that a bunch of stuff about NATO, EFTA or the OECD has to be in the lead, though. Only what's integral to the lead's role as a concise summary of the subject.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand and appreciate all points, and appreciate the interesting debate, despite the fact that Rjensen seems to be the only editor knowledgeable on the subject. Without prejudice to the exact words used in the lead section I do think that the lead section should be able to touch some of the key points that make Salazar unique and help to explain why he was able to stay in power for the rest of his life. I) He was a modest, quiet, and highly intelligent gentleman, a scholar, literally dragged from a professorial chair, to straighten out Portugal's finances; Salazar lived a life of simplicity, dying as a poor man after 40 years of public service; ii) He is not exactly a dictator (authoritative is the most used work in English literature) because he did not take power, he was first invited by a military dictatorship and later invited by an elected president (President Carmona a free mason ideologically far from Catholic Salazar); and resigned several times iii) He deliberately designed a unique corporative constitution (the only Portuguese constitution approved by direct vote) that gave the elected president the power to nominate a premier with executive power, he stayed in power because the president (and popular will) always wanted him to; iv) Because of all of the above he did not experience the same levels of international isolation as its Spanish neighbor following the Second World War that is why it is important to mention that under Salazar Portugal joined Nato, EFTA, etc. Any Thoughts? I would suggest Rjensens to make an updated lead text proposal. J Pratas 14:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

OK. Here are some of the points I think the lede and text should include: Salazar ran a one-man dictatorship in which he basically made all the decisions. His security system was moderately tight, with censorship; it was operated by the Army. He did not systematically kill or harass or exile his opponents, but he did defeat them in rigged elections. He did not operate as leader of powerful political party, as in USSR, Spain, Italy or Germany. He lived modestly, rejected any cult of personality, was not highly visible as a political leader, and did not tolerate financial corruption by his family or friends. He was neutral in World War II, primarily because he feared a German invasion. He displayed a strong leaning toward Britain and the US especially in the matter of airfields in the strategic Atlantic islands he controlled. He was welcomed by the United States and UK into NATO, because of his strong anti-communism, and Portugal's strategic position regarding the Atlantic and Africa. Portugal for centuries was the among the poorest in Europe, and remained poor but it did improve its relative standing compared to other European countries during his 4 decades of rule. Portugal maintain a colonial empire longer than anyone else, but it faced the same sort of turmoil as happened in major parts of the British and French empires (such as India, Malaya, Kenya, Vietnam and Algeria.) He left power in 1968, but his reputation inside Portugal has been highly controversial. He comes under systematic attack from the left and from activists who demand a Portuguese commitment to democracy and the 21st century. The key point is that he did not believe Portugal could operate as a democracy, and political activists in 2015 have to refute that position. His reputation in Britain and the United States is generally favorable among historians, who emphasize that under his leadership Portugal avoided the disasters that hit Spain, France, Algeria and Italy. Rjensen (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a fair and balanced portray and very much in line with major works on Salazar coming from the Anglo-Saxon scholars. I would just add that yes “He was neutral in World War II, primarily because he feared a German invasion” but also because his position was hopeless and Britain was not in a position to help him either. Additionally his role in keeping Spain out of the Axis influence is also generally recognized as key and the same goes to providing an escape route to thousands of war refugees.

There is another key point, mentioned by Howard J. Wiarda. That Salazar´s power did not come from the constitution (because in theory the elected president could remove him anytime) but rather from his strong personality (dominant, intelligent, hardworking, incorruptible) combined with popular recognition.J Pratas 18:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

This is all great progress! Very well. I am, however, concerned to see this important article tagged for neutrality, for so long. It was the last place of hope for one to find truth and should be worked out quick. In Portugal, people are everyday brainwashed with questionable propaganda. See this work done officially in a Portuguese school by 9th graders under the coordination of the librarian team and several teachers, including the History teachers of the school. In painted panels, for a start, they wrote: "Era uma vez uns senhores que mandavam neste país / [E]xploravam e [op]rimiam o povo"; translated (as I can) to "Once there were some men that ruled this country / They exploited and oppressed the people". This is a simple example of current indoctrination in schools, by the Ministry of Education and Science. Do the involved qualified teachers have the proof for Estado Novo's men meanly exploiting the country's people for their advantage or does it require a stretch? Here we have a non-Portuguese article. And that means the free and full possibility of a truthful article that can remain out of the tentacles of intellectual corruption of the indoctrinated. As JFK would say, no editor should fear a public scrutiny of his work. For from that scrutiny comes understanding, and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. With your help, we can tackle the tremendous task of informing the people fairly and correctly. So do not let this pass aside and succumb to the mishaps of the tribulated article. Apologies if not being too overly useful, but it is what I have to tell you. 2001:8A0:4301:A101:95:EC60:2911:8EAE (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

This is Pooja Kumar

Oliveira Salazar, this is Pooja Kumar. I have tried to make changes to a page that represents me but you continue to change or revert it back to whatever you have created. My wikipedia needs to properly reflect me with accurate information. I need you to release all rights to the page and allow for edits. Your immediate attention to this matter is necessary and greatly appreciated. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poojakumar4 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Hitler

After the attempted assassination of Salazar, it was Hitler you gave Salazar a Mercedes Benz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.149.96 (talk) 08:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

No it was not, as it explains in depth here. Also, as the title of this section indicates, that is just plain sensationalism.

British English and major clean up coming soon

Carlstak, in a previous edit you stated there was a precedent of British English and changed the entire article's "recognize" to "recognise". Now you're reverting yourself. :) According to the guidelines, let's stick to British because of the article's context. The Anglo-Portuguese Alliance is mentioned throughout and plays a role.

Also, I have a major cleanup coming soon that I've been making for days, and changes so many things, but just can't publish due to it's nature. These edits are causing conflict, I'm trying to incorporate them. Could you leave them for after I publish it? I'll try to be fast. The under construction template is not helpful at all... Sorry. 2001:8A0:4312:CC01:4D29:1C85:F7EF:752F (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I was editing while you made these changes, and had just done some more copy-editing before you submitted them. Sometimes it's hard to keep up with the precedents of British or American English, both of which I use in my writing. Also, both forms were present in the article before I edited, adding to the confusion. Are you saying that the "under construction" template doesn't work? Carlstak (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry! I just saw this. I had been working on the after the war period. Including some material such as the Delgado's case as I had promised I would do. I hope that with new material Carlstak starts to see the article as more neutral. But with " major cleanup coming soon" I will step aside and wait for the clean up.J Pratas 15:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Important clean up of April 2015

I took the liberty to refresh the article in a somewhat bold manner, with several edits starting in the 24th and culminating in this last one. I revised it, doing copy editing, properly structuring it and revamping it. I worked almost without having added or removed any content! Mostly using only what was already provided. I strongly believe progress was made in this article, which is now clear in presenting the information it had. I probably advise reading the article from top to bottom, despite how much consuming it may be (and also may still need bit of polishing). Reading fast and skipping may not help... :)

Organising content by topics

I felt it was more appropriate to organise the article by topics rather than chronologically. The chronological organization is still present, only within each topic. This has the advantage that the many things that are spoken of no longer overlap each other in a confusing manner. It's talking of the war, then it's talking of the Church, then a bit of Franco, and back to war, but already mentioning the Church... Indeed, things are linked, however, a topic organization better accommodates information in a more efficient manner. The reader gets to fully understand one thing at a time (namely grouped by policies on war, economy, religion...), sacrificing a bit of chronological order of all events put together. I defend this and it's how I put it. It's also somewhat mentioned in Wiki guidelines: "The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material".

Organising critiques

The way it was – The article had the critiques made to Salazar unorganized. This fact, was probably getting on the way of the delicate neutrality issue. It was repeating Life's full praise copied and pasted in several sections. It had comments from figures a bit randomly scattered, and repeated too, in a couple of places.

The way I placed it – Each critique undoubtedly belongs in a proper context, in its own section. As a result, each critique was moved to its proper context and section. Economy critiques in the economy section, war praise contextualized in the war section and so on. Critiques are seldom repeated in the article and never placed elsewhere other than their proper section.

World War II critiques – Salazar was praised for neutrality; there was such a feedback, it can be found in its own individual section: under World War II neutrality, the Responses section. The whole World War sections should be read in order to understand why he was praised. This was previously scattered through the article before I started editing. Without its due context, contributed to the separate neutrality issue, as Salazar was unorderly praised.

Character and work critiques – A new section that I created, at the bottom, to accommodate comments regarding Salazar's character and the general work he devoted to his country. Previously scattered and repeated in some places, adding to pov. Now it's made clear what this praise is about. It probably can't just be ignored and left out, and, as no one will say Salazar was dumb, a thief, lazy traitor and so on, there is no neutrality issue in this section, just facts clearly identified as being about character and not regime censorship for example. You can find things like censorship in the 'Securing the regime' section.

Interlaced critiques – When a critique spills over to other fields aside of its own, the part of the critique that interpolates to other fields is referred in a brief manner in such other fields. The full critique may be indicated as a footnote essentially taking readers to read it fully. Lord Templewood (Hoare) and Life are tricky examples that praise Salazar's character but make reference to other points, thus being referred in those points too. I attempt to never duplicate the full praise, as it was before the change. It's tricky indeed to deal with these quotations.

The revamped lead

The lead is meant to be generated mechanically. Whatever the content of the article is, it's automatically summarized in the lead. This new picture of an organized article eases the mechanical task. The lead is not supposed to have a selection of quotes at all: it's about summarizing the sections of the article. And that's what I did in these terms here presented. I understand the delicate lead is (not alone) under fire from the neutrality issue, but this had be to done. I certainty fiercely defend the revamped lead. :)

The old lead - here it is for comparison.

António de Oliveira Salazar GCSE, GCIC, GCTE, GColIH (Portuguese pronunciation: [ɐ̃ˈtɔniu dɨ oliˈvɐjɾɐ sɐlɐˈzaɾ]; 28 April 1889 – 27 July 1970) was a Portuguese professor and politician who served as Prime Minister of Portugal from 1932 to 1968. His Council of Ministers briefly served as acting President of the Republic in 1951; he was never President of the Republic, but was the virtual dictator of the country in the manner of Spain's Francisco Franco and Italy's Benito Mussolini. He founded and led the Estado Novo (New State), the authoritarian, right-wing government that presided over and controlled Portugal from 1932 to 1974. In 1940, LIFE called Salazar "the greatest Portuguese since Prince Henry the Navigator" and Oxford University conferred him the Honorary Degree of Doctor of Civil Law.

Opposed to communism, socialism, anarchism and liberalism, Salazar's rule was corporatist, conservative, and nationalist in nature, defending Portugal as Catholic. Its policy envisaged the perpetuation of Portugal as a pluricontinental nation under the doctrine of lusotropicalism, with Angola, Mozambique, and other Portuguese territories as extensions of Portugal itself, with Portugal being a source of civilization and stability to the overseas societies in the African and Asian possessions.

Historian Neill Lochery claims Salazar was one of the most gifted men of his generation and hugely dedicated to his job and country. According to Lord Templewood, Salazar was a learned and impressive thinker and a man of one idea, the good of his country. “Salazar detested Hitler and all his works” and his corporative state was fundamentally different from Nazism and Fascism. Historian Carlton Hayes, who met Salazar in person, also describes him as someone who “didn't look like a regular dictator. Rather, he appeared a modest, quiet, and highly intelligent gentleman and scholar (...) literally dragged from a professorial chair (...) to straighten out Portugal's finances.” Salazar lived a life of simplicity, dying as a poor man after 40 years of public service. Portuguese right-leaning or conservative scholars like Jaime Nogueira Pinto and Rui Ramos, claim his early reforms and policies allowed political and financial stability and therefore social order and economic growth, after the politically unstable and financially chaotic years of the Portuguese First Republic. Even the communist historian, António José Saraiva, a lifelong opponent of Salazar, recognises that “Salazar was undoubtedly one of the most remarkable men in the history of Portugal and had a quality that not all remarkable men have: the right intention”.

On the other hand, historians like leftist politician Fernando Rosas claim that Salazar's policies from the 1930s to the 1950s led to economic and social stagnation and rampant emigration, turning Portugal into one of the poorest countries in Europe, however, recognising "that industrial growth throughout the 1950s and 1960s was generally quite positive and, given Portugal's basic problems, could probably have only been improved slightly by a more creatively liberal regime". From 1960 until Salazar's death economic growth and levels of capital formation were characterized by unparalleled robust annual growth rates of GDP (6.9 per cent), industrial production (9 per cent), private consumption (6.5 per cent), and gross fixed capital formation (7.8 per cent).

In March 2007, Salazar was elected the "Greatest Portuguese Ever" with 42 per cent of votes on the RTP1 TV show Os Grandes Portugueses as well as "Worst Portuguese Ever" on the parody show "Axis of Evil" from rival channel SIC Notícias.

The new lead – the revamped lead corresponds to the also revamped article (includes improvements that followed)

António de Oliveira Salazar GCSE, GCIC, GCTE, GColIH (Portuguese pronunciation: [ɐ̃ˈtɔniu dɨ oliˈvɐjɾɐ sɐlɐˈzaɾ]; 28 April 1889 – 27 July 1970) was a Portuguese politician and professor who served as Prime Minister of Portugal for 36 years, from 1932 to 1968. He was Portugal's virtual dictator, in the manner of Spain's Francisco Franco and Italy's Benito Mussolini. Salazar founded and led the Estado Novo ('New State'), the corporatist authoritarian government that presided over and controlled Portugal until 1974.

Salazar had experienced the nation under the chaotic Portuguese First Republic (1910–1926), described as 'continual anarchy, government corruption, rioting and pillage, assassinations, arbitrary imprisonment and religious persecution'. After the 28 May 1926 coup d'état, with President Óscar Carmona's support, Salazar was eventually persuaded to a political charge, although entirely reluctant. His Estado Novo would come to allow him vast power over Portugal. Opposed to communism, socialism, anarchism and liberalism, Salazar's rule was corporatist, authoritarian, conservative and nationalist in nature.

Salazar handled the regime and the nation's stability by tightening his rule. He used police, censorship and suppression to counter disorder and opposition, especially that related to the communist movement. He supported Francisco Franco in the 1930s against the left-wing groups. Salazar was widely praised for astutely keeping Portugal neutral during World War II, effectively saving the country from probable devastation and allowing European refugees a sanctuary. His territorial policy envisaged continuing to develop Portugal as a pluricontinental nation, under the doctrine of lusotropicalism, with the Portuguese territories of the time, including Angola and Mozambique, as extending and being an equal part of Portugal's original land, which served as their source of civilization. Salazar wanted Portugal to be relevant internationally. Through his government's policy, the country came to be welcomed and recognised in the international community, participating comprehensively in several organisations, such as the North Atlantic Alliance (NATO). Having a background in law, finance and economic policy, Salazar guided Portugal to variable economic growth, which was ultimately unprecedented, and increased literacy levels. Catholicism was favoured and Salazar advocated the nation has such, though freely. He argued the role of the Church was social, not political, and enabled the Concordat of 1940.

Some historians prioritise Salazar's securing of the regime and nation's stability. Nonetheless, taken separately, his character and work devoted to his country were widely well-regarded. Salazar is described as a scholar, humble, respectful, ascetic, incorruptible and at the same time, intellectually brilliant and gifted. Salazar was hardworking and judged by many commentators to have the right intent. He lived a life of simplicity, dying relatively poor after 40 years of public service in politics. Today, Salazar remains a controversial figure. His Estado Novo persisted under the direction of Marcelo Caetano, who had a major supportive role in the regime. It was then superseded by the Carnation Revolution and resulting turmoil.

Backing up my changes

Here I give some commentary on some changes, backing up reasoning behind the new lead. First, remember the lead is a summary of the article's sections and main points. Note how the new lead follows the table of contents very closely. Brief, clear and to the point. As it should be, a proper summary.

I bet high on the "Politics and Estado Novo: Background" section. This newly separated section gives extremely important context.

I thought "rise to power" sounded like he had to kill many to impose himself at the top. Instead I used "early path". How it really went is important for the lead and is properly summarized.

"Securing the regime" is the "extremely evil and horrible dictator" section. What all the opposers of this article want... And the cause of controversy... Sigh. Remember I only revamped the article, I didn't add nor remove anything (almost). Damm LIFE just had to ruin it a tiny bit by inciting more controversy. :P

For colonial policies, I used the old lead instead of writing something entirely new on my own, but tweaked it. I have this impression that Salazar didn't like the term "colonies" so I wrote "territorial policy" in the lead. It's just an impression I have from somewhere, but it's irrelevant and maybe even good to diversify vocabulary.

On economic policies the old lead really failed, at least to me, giving a wrong idea of what happened. Now it's written: Portugal experienced variable economic growth, ultimately unparalleled, and increasing literacy levels. 1. There was economic growth. 2. It varied on how much. 3. It was bigger in the end. See, it's not that hard. :) No figures are mentioned, saying 'industrial production (9 per cent), private consumption (6.5 per cent)' and so on is absolutely intricate detail for a lead.

International relations is a new section! I foresaw this section was coming, but was going to leave it for later... Pratas took things in this direction, so I anticipated it and included this new section right in this update. It doesn't even have references! You could add them. I still have to finish it as I have a bit more to say. You can edit it though. There is like one (or two) more sections still to be added...

Some prioritise his securing of the regime and nation's stability. His securing of the regime's stability and the nation's stability. Both is what I mean, so don't jump on changing that. This sentence is merely here to fight off neutrality. I could even raise points against it... But anyway, I hope it does the job. It's saying something in the direction of what opposers want to hear.

Against quotes in the lead

I am against those praise quotes in the lead in this case. And the honorary degrees. The lead is a summary. Placing all the quotes is far too much, placing just one is unfair, as they all deserve equal mention, both from the public and the experts with their knowledge. You can't put all, you can't put one. What to do? Summarize the overall idea that is being expressed. A brief summarized average of what everyone says, which is obvisoulsy on average positive. No details are ever mentioned in the lead. That's for the main section. When you do this apanhado geral the result is the new quote-less lead: Salazar's character and work devoted to his country were widely well seen. He is described as a scholar, humble, respectful, ascetic, incorruptible and at the same time, intelligent, intellectually brilliant and gifted. Salazar was hardworking and was said to have the right intent. Plain and to the point, it effectively explains what "by far the very greatest Portuguese ever of all times" means in a technical encyclopedic manner, rather than a colloquial showbiz one.

Also World War II - Salazar was widely praised as he astutely had Portugal neutral during World War II, effectively saving the country from devastating effects and allowing refugees to have a place to escape to. The Responses section is correctly summarized as "widely praised". Plain and simple. He. Was. Praised. It's in there. No need for quotes, at all, in the lead.

Let me grab the opportunity to say, for neutrality, if you don't like it, find sources that prove people hated his decision, and instead, wanted war and destruction, showing how Salazar acted wrongfully in his decision. And also bring sources for how Salazar was dumb, a thief, lazy traitor and so on. Can that be found? Probably not. :)

Some guidelines

Don't forget to use British English because of the Anglo-Portuguese Alliance. And that means 'British quotation marks' instead of "american quotation marks". I tried to follow number guidelines WP:NUMERAL, apparently meaning the 'First Republic had eight Presidents and 44 cabinet reorganizations'.

Future plans

Right now, I really can't contribute too overly much. Just a bit here and there. However, if this goes well, and only if it goes well, I sort of have these plans.

• Cope with possible responses to this.
• Finish polishing this, it was rushed! But now, I can take it easier.
• Add the remaining section or two. International relations was antecipated, so that one is out. And obviously, without further ado, 'Salazar's Gold', (the country's savings he made). You can edit ahead all you want, though.
• Make and present here a list of doubts I have and things that need clarification. I'm noticing they are disappearing though.
• Start thinking of the requirements for a B class... Hey, carriage ahead of horses.

In closing

The discussion of whether there exists negative criticism to add is a completely separate one, but that can now benefit from this clean up of the existing content. I'm very satisfied with how it was and what it became. All this may not make much sense or not seem like a big deal to those who did not fully read the old full article, how it wasn't flowing and piecing together, but it's what I felt when reviewing it. I have a lot to more to say and to do, but currently can't... I know I'm talking by the "cotovelos". Sorry a bit :) You are now free to edit without worrying for an edit conflict, I never wanted to hold an edit like this, it just slipped due to the nature of the clean up.

Any possible responses, I would appreciate they were placed bellow my signature. Thank you very much and sorry for the delay, tedious reading and eventual errors.

2001:8A0:432C:F01:F032:6FB5:F2F3:EA70 (talk) 23:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Carlstak when he says that: "Lede looks much better with recent changes". I think the whole article has improve a lot. The clean up was needed.

Since you have plans for the future, and your work is commendable, I will continue restrain from editing.

I own almost all books used as "sources". Let me know if I can be of any help.

However I would like to do some major rework on the "Religious Policies"section. The section is quite poor and confusing. For instance it does not even mention the "Concordata". Agree?--J Pratas 08:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Please don't stop editing. I work, as you can see, with what is provided, your contributions are essential for the article. Go ahead and contribute fully (no more conflicts now), in all aspects you want, and I will copy edit if needed, as it has been until here.

Thank you for your regards in relation to my work.2001:8A0:432C:F01:B4F7:B568:55BC:A85B (talk) 10:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the rewrite so far has vastly improved the article; now invested editors can move forward to improve it. Well done. Carlstak (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. 2001:8A0:432C:F01:1DAC:CC38:670:42B5 (talk) 15:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Professor VS economist

Here I'm discussing a little problem of the lead, as I said I was going to defend it... Originally the lead said Salazar was a 'politician and professor' ending up changed to 'statesman and economist'. Statesman is, perhaps, more suitable than politician. Economist is the problem. The article states:

Salazar was not an economist as economics in its modern sense was a relatively new academic discipline in Portugal and not taught at the time as an independent field in the University of Coimbra. The first modern Portuguese university degree in economics was created in 1949, by the modern-day Technical University of Lisbon (ISEG/UTL) and the University of Coimbra only founded its own autonomous School of Economics (FEUC) in 1972. [different section] During [the] student years in Coimbra, he developed a particular interest for finance, becoming a law graduate with distinction and specializing in finance and economic policy at the Law School. In the meanwhile, became an assistant professor of economic policy at the Law School.

Saying he was an economist in the lead has this problem. It sort of goes against the article. I left economist, not to edit war, but it needs to be checked by someone. 2001:8A0:432C:F01:1DAC:CC38:670:42B5 (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Saying that Portugal had no economist before 1949 is pretty silly-- it had no formal economics PhD, but the economist when other departments, especially in law faculties. That was a common situation in European Continental universities at the time. It's an unsourced claim about the 1920s and I dropped it. Rjensen (talk) 09:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm certainly not an expert on the subject, but for what it's worth, the Encyclopedia Britannica (not that it's necessarily the ultimate authority or even always correct) describes Salazar as a "Portuguese economist, who served as prime minister of Portugal... Salazar...was educated at the seminary at Viseu and at the University of Coimbra. He graduated from there in law in 1914 and became a professor specializing in economics at Coimbra."

Also, this (copyedited by me) passage from the article seems self-contradictory: "Religions other than the Catholic faith had little or no expression in Portugal. Throughout the period of Salazar's Estado Novo there was no question of discrimination against the Jewish and Protestant minorities, and the ecumenical movement flourished." Not sure what the intended meaning is. If other religions had little or no expression in Portugal, how did the ecumenical movement flourish? Carlstak (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Carlstak, about the religious aspects of the article, namely in the lead, I can explain my understanding of what was stated in the article and from what I know. Note that I'm not an expert. The article would have to improve clarification in case this is misunderstood.

The Portuguese people are Christian. They have been for many centuries. Even with today's decrease, 80% to 90% of the population is still Christian. At the time of the Portuguese First Republic, some of the population was likely strongly Catholic. This is what the article likely tries to explain at several instances. This is what is said in the lead 'Catholicism was favoured [naturally, by the Portuguese people]. This view is not related to what the government of Portugal chooses and is not related to what the government tells the people. Salazar was Portuguese. In terms of religion, he had the same opinion of the Portuguese people: Salazar defended that the Portuguese people should indeed follow the Catholic Christian religion, the way they were genuinely already doing on their own. This is mentioned has... 'Salazar advocated the nation has such [Catholic, obviously]'. Finally the dictator did not force people to be Catholic. There was a possible minority of people who did not follow the Catholic religion. The Portuguese people that were not Christian were not forced to follow the Catholic religion. The people were free to follow whatever they wanted. They had liberty. Appears in the article when it says people were free to opt out their kids of religious teachings, for example, and also when it says the constitution did not formally enforce the Church, although that would need to be explicit and it's not clearly stated, thus leaving doubt. Now it also appears when it says other religions were tolerated. That other religions were not expressed, it's obvious to me. The Portuguese people were (freely on their own) Christian so even if they could, they did not express themselves has Buddha for example. The people did not express, follow or believe other religions, despite being able to.

Although it's only going to make you confused, Salazar himself stated Portugal was born in the shadow of the Catholic Church and religion, from the beginning it was the formative element of the soul of the nation and the dominant trait of character of the Portuguese people.

I'll say have Pratas explain what was going on. He likely knows a whole lot better. I'll also say I don't agree with "The New State favoured Catholicism and Salazar advocated for it". It does not correctly express what I here attempted to explain, regardless of how much standard English is or not involved. I know this is likely not standard English for you, but never in my entire life did I find a single person who had trouble understanding my English. I have spoken to many people in English, including with natives in person, and everything was always understood. I naturally start questioning if there are truly grammatical problems (minor ones, eventually) or if it's a matter of comprehension. ::2001:8A0:4304:8101:E981:3FC7:F236:8782 (talk) 09:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect, "Catholicism was favoured and Salazar advocated the nation has such, though freely." is garbled English and its meaning is not clear, though it may be "obvious" to you. Please don't take this personally, I'm not criticizing your command of English. I do somewhat resent your imputation that the problem is my comprehension. You are quite mistaken on that point. Please do not condescend to me with statements like "Although it's only going to make you confused", which I find insulting, even if that is not your intent. Carlstak (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Salazar was a professor for only a few years, when he was out of power. He was an economist throughout his whole career-- he really did not need a graduate degree from MIT to be an economist. He was a professor of economics at the University, where he taught economics; he was Minister of finance, and enjoyed spending his time as Prime Minister with a lot of economic data. Indeed he lived before the spreadsheet & the computer, and he was not a theoretician but rather a practicing practical expert on the economy. Biographers and specialist on the history of Portugal routinely refer to him as an economist, and so should we. Rjensen (talk) 09:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Correct Rjensen. And according to the Coimbra University´s website Salazar was Professors of "Economia Politica", "Ciência das Finanças" and "Economia Social" see here:[10] J Pratas 10:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The lead is a summary of the article. It cannot state something different from what is in the body. I was to explain this when I made the clean up but ended up not saying... It means that when someone objects something, it has to be changed in the main article so it can be mechanically updated in the lead. Changing the lead and leaving the article saying otherwise only takes me to revert the edit. Now that the information was changed on the article, it makes sense to say 'economist' in the lead, but only now. The way it had been done was contradictory and against a summarizing lead. Issue resolved. 2001:8A0:4321:1A01:2C14:6C84:C76A:77D1 (talk) 09:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The religion issue needs better coverage

The religion issue needs better coverage. The First Republic was intensely and primarily anti-clerical. They were secularists and indeed were following liberal tradition of disestablishing the powerful role the Catholic Church once held. That was one of its central policies, & it alienated a large mass of Catholics. Stanley Payne points out Afonso Costa was the key player: He directed the assault on the Republicans' bete noir, the Catholic Church. "The majority of Republicans took the position that Catholicism was the number one enemy of individualist middle-class radicalism and must be completely broken as a source of influence in Portugal." (Payne 2: 559) Salazar explicitly reverse the policies, thereby building himself support among pro-clerical Catholics. Rjensen (talk) 09:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree Rjensen, . I just provided a starting point. Why don't you go ahead and improve it?J Pratas 10:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality Disputed ?

Is the neutrality of the article still being disputed? If yes pls explain and help improve the article.J Pratas 15:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

At this point, after the comprehensive overhaul of its layout, this extremely long biographical article is much better-organized and easier to read. The lede is also much improved with the removal of extraneous quotes and laudation, which created an overwhelmingly unbalanced initial impression. However, the "Perception" section still consists entirely of laudatory quotes and remarks, without a single contravening quote or remark (except for a mention of his being chosen 'Worst Portuguese Ever' on a parody show, hardly a respectable source). This leaves the article unbalanced, as a section that one would expect to broadly represent worldwide public perception of Salazar, for better or worse, should include some of the many critical appraisals of the man and his regime. Without those, the article is decidedly not yet neutral in its representation of judgements of his character. Carlstak (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I will work on it.J Pratas 20:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

But that means you consider the Perception section as not neutral. One is section is not and does not make the article. Following your consideration, it's only the Perception section that should be tagged and not the entire article. 2001:8A0:4304:8101:D9F4:F121:944D:5CEC (talk) 14:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. In its present state, I believe the rest of the article presents a neutral point of view. Although I did not originally place the article neutrality tag, and merely restored it after accidentally deleting it, I will now boldly remove it and place a neutrality tag on the "Perception" section. Carlstak (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I gave this issue some thought. I think that testimonials such as the one from historian Carlton J. H. Hayes and the ones from diplomats Samuel Hoare, 1st Viscount Templewood and George William Rendel are extremely relevant for the article. These people actually knew Salazar in person and had to deal with him as a politician in extremely critical times. They all say that they prefer parliamentary democratic regimes as opposed to authoritarian regimes, yet they recognize Salazar's qualities and recognize his achievements. Their testimonials are somehow neutral as they are not blank appraisals (maybe this can be made more clear in the article). However the difficulty I have is that it is not easy to find significant testimonials, equally relevant, condemning Salazar unless they come from his political opponents (e.g. Nehru, Mario Soares) but coming from political opponents the testimonials are not similarly relevant. Thoughts ? J Pratas 07:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be an opinion here that if something doesn't have good and bad things then it's not factual. This is a quite poor complete lack of rationality and in this case would show a bias against Salazar's character. Wikipedia needs to accept that not everything in the world is made of half bad, half good aspects. As I had stated before, the facts show that Salazar was not dumb, a thief, lazy traitor and so on. I seems it's necessary to forcibly make that up just to call it 'neutral' when in reality it would be lying. I am against claiming this tag here, as the section correctly shows an international view on Salazar. The only thing that could be adjusted is to take it a bit more in the direction of describing the perception in an encyclopedic way, instead of citing quotes in colloquial speech. I would be picky on those changes, though. (And anyway it's not a neutrality problem.) 2001:8A0:4321:1A01:2C14:6C84:C76A:77D1 (talk) 09:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the statement that it makes no sense to try to include an equal amount of negative quotes in order to try to reach a NPOV. But I would not remove the quotes. I think that quotes are important because these ones in particular eliminate a lot of fuzzy and poorly sourced allegations of Salazar’s sympathies towards Hitler that unfortunately have spilled over to this article’s talk page. These are written testimonials by people who were directly involved. They offer an insider's view and a straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be easily verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. Any reader making an honest attempt to know more about Salazar will benefit from knowing these important quotes. So the quotes should stay.J Pratas 10:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow, IP user. Your tone has certainly changed since your recent overhaul of the article's organization (much needed, in my opinion). Previously you were conciliatory, now you seem to have abandoned collegiality and hurl combative phrases like "quite poor complete lack of rationality." You don't dictate what Wikipedia should or shouldn't do. The section as it stands is unbalanced. It completely ignores critical scholarly views of the Estado Novo and Salazar, and gives the impression that there were no dissenting views of either, as if Fernando Pessoa never wrote a line. There is a neutrality issue with the section because of a lack of balance. I quote from WP:BALANCE, part of WP:NPOV policy: "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." Carlstak (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Carlstak you are taking things very personally. There is no need for resent. I'm not here to personally attack anyone, despite what the appearances may make it look, nor I have anything against anyone of good faith, such as you. :) Cheers, dear contributor. 2001:8A0:4321:1A01:2C14:6C84:C76A:77D1 (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not taking it personally. You are using harsh, non-collegial language here, and that is not conducive to reaching consensus. Please read addition I just made in my above response about neutrality of disputed section before I saw your prompt reply. Carlstak (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Carlstak I understand your point, I appreciate it and agree with it. We can balance the section or re-think it. Let us all work together to improve the article. Why don't you go ahead and include some additional quotes you think will balance the section? J Pratas 17:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, JPratas. I'm working on it, and will update soon. Carlstak (talk) 14:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Article too Pro-Salazar

The article is biased. It uses a quote about the I Republic, 'continual anarchy, government corruption, rioting and pillage, assassinations, arbitrary imprisonment and religious persecution', without any source given. It fails to mention the political persecutions and sanitation of the public function, military, in his regimen, specially in the 1930s and after the political opening of 1945, when the Democratic Opposition came to legality, or in the crimes and murders committed by his political police, the PIDE. The infamous Concentration Camp of Tarrafal in Cape Verde, for political prisioners, the "slow death camp", is mentioned in a very politically correct way: "Salazar established prison camps for opponents of the Estado Novo, including Tarrafal in the Cape Verde Islands. Prisoners included anarchists, communists, anti-colonial agitators and guerrillas from Portugal's African colonies. People were held for many years and some died in prison." Portuguese historiography nowadays has a overwhelming negative opinion about Salazar and his regimen. The historical revisionism that the article shows what happens when far-right people try to rewrite History.128.65.232.111 (talk) 14:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The article and its neutrality have been extensively discussed in the talk page until a consensus on neutrality has been reached. Nothing is ever closed and the discussion can be reopened but it should be done in an orderly manner.

The quote that is supposed to be unsourced is sourced from Hugh Kay's book, page 26, and it can be easily sourced from many other reputed sources.

The article tries to describe facts in a neutral way and let the reader draw it's own conclusions. A lot can be added on Tarrafal. The frist prisoners that were sent to Tarrafal were those that participated in the 1936 mutiny and attempted to sail the ships out of Lisbon and join the Spanish Republican forces. In many other countries they would have been accused of treason and would have been punished by death. Probably the most extensive research on Tarrafal is the book from Cape Verdean journalist and author Jose Vicente Lopes ( TARRAFAL - CHÃO BOM: memórias e verdades) . In that book Lopes say that the International Red Cross was positively surprised with the conditions of the camp. The Red Cross was surprised with : the weekly tours to the Tarrafal beach (nowadays a popular Paradise Beach Resort), access to cinema, library, hospital, etc. (in Portuguese "as idas semanais ao mar dos presos, as sessões de cinema, a biblioteca, as consultas ao Hospital da Praia, a possibilidade de estudar e fazer exames".)

Angolan writer José Luandino Vieira, who served a long sentence in Tarrafa,l said in a recent interview that while at Tarrfal he was never beaten and was always treated with human respect ("Nenhum me tratou com falta de respeito humano"). If you can read Portuguese you can read it here [11]. Vieira's testimonial is very much in line with the book from José Vicente Lopes.

It is impossible to say good things about Tarrafal but not all things that are said about Tarrafal match the testimonials of reputed prisoners.

I am sure you can also find a lot of literature painting a much darker scenario. But we should leave the Tarrafal debate to the article on Tarrafal where all different views have a space. J Pratas 12:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Removal of a refugees picture

Rjensen, I saw that you removed the picture of refugees in Belgium saying it had no connection to Salazar or Portugal. It was placed in the refugees section which speaks of how a large number of war refugees crossed Europe to find shelter and escape through the country. As a result, this section would be better accompanied of a picture of such refugees. But we cannot find pictures on Wikimedia specifically of refugees in Portugal. Alternatively, and also quite adequately, a specific picture of World War II refugees with the thought of heading to Portugal in mind would serve, but it's also not available. Only general pictures of World War II refugees with unknown thoughts as to where they will head are available, such as the one that was in Salazar's article. It is of May 1940 in Belgium, when the country was invaded by German forces. Like many across Europe, from the war situation these people would be searching for a place to go. I say this because it is not known if this particular family decided to head to Portugal, but in the absence of more specific pictures, this one is a great equivalent replacement. It relevantly shows the kind of people presented in the section, on what situation they encountered themselves to make the move and how they generally appeared like, this in a valid equivalency way, as a World War II refugee of a particular case will have huge similarities to a World War II refugee of another case. The picture of the refugees in Belgium is further adequate as it shows three children: the section explains how once 5,500 affected children were transported and sent to the foster care of Portuguese families. It is on context and a perfect equivalent at least. The picture is featured in the article of the Portuguese man Aristides de Sousa Mendes, who worked in France, and where it would be equally irrelevant and should be removed. However, it did not keep the article for being rated a class-B (unlike Salazar's article quality). I do not find reasoning to remove this relevant picture. 2001:8A0:4321:1A01:2C14:6C84:C76A:77D1 (talk) 15:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Rjensen. If we were to add photos of refuges it should not be in Belgium. There are thousands of photos taken in Portugal and Lisbon. Here you can find some examples [12], [13]

hi @JPratas you seem not to be familiar with how Wiki works with pictures! You can't just use any from the internet at random. Only pictures pictures from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page can be used! None of those "thousands" you say can be used on Wikipedia. That way, this call seems logicaly argumented, good I spotted it 95.93.94.132 (talk) 10:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

As this particular image is not clearly associated, I will be removing it. There is no consensus to include this picture; if another is found, then a new discussion can be held. An image for a biography must have a clear connection with the subject. Scr★pIron^IV 12:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Far-right revisionism beyond any doubt

I am shocked by the hypocrisy of the user JPratas who now claims that the Tarrafal Concentration Camp had "human" conditions. All the serious documentation about Tarrafal, before it reopened in 1961 for African politican prisioners, should that this is far from the truth: [14]128.65.232.111 (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

First of all insults should not be used in Wikipedia.

Second, I am just quoting some valid sources such as 1) the extensive book from Cape Verdean journalist Jose Vicente Lopes ( TARRAFAL - CHÃO BOM: memórias e verdades) and 2) the live testimonial from José Luandino Vieira

Third: the debate about Tarrafal belongs to the Tarrafal talk page

Forth: The source you are quoting might have some "truth" in it but looks very much like a student's blog. Not very suitable as a source (Mistico)--J Pratas 14:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Small change in the lede to clarify that Salazar supported Franco in the Spanish Civil War.

I have modified the lede to state that Salazar supported Franco in the Spanish Civil War. The old sentence "supported Franco against left wing groups" seems to suggest that Franco was facing some small opposition, not half the spaniards. I think that explicetly referencing the Spanish Civil War is clearer and more precise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.0.53.144 (talk) 20:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Was PIDE inspired by Gestapo?

The article claims the PIDE was inspired by Gestapo. Is that a fact? Could this claim be backed by a reference?

78.247.149.147 (talk) 08:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

According to Douglas Wheeler the answer is: No.

See "In the Service of Order: The Portuguese Political Police and the British, German and Spanish Intelligence, 1932-1945" available online. It seems that the head of PVDE, Agostinho Lourenço was above all inspired by British Models. Of course there were contacts with the Gestapo, specially during the Spanish Civil War and the PVDE suffered both from Gestapo and British infiltrations during WWII. Note that contacts between police and army at country level were a regular practice. For instance Humberto Delgado visited Germany during the war.

Use of labels such as "fascist"and "gestapo"serve more to perpetuate myths about the regime than to illuminate its actual assumptions and workings (see Wiarda, 1977, preface, page xi)

See Wheeler, Douglas L. (1983). "In the Service of Order: The Portuguese Political Police and the British, German and Spanish Intelligence, 1932-1945". Journal of Contemporary History. 18 (1). Sage Publications, Ltd.: 1–25. doi:10.1177/002200948301800101. Retrieved 10 May 2014.J Pratas (talk) 16:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

My memory may be failing me, as it was some 30+ years ago, but I recall reading at some book that it *might* have been the other way around. It is somewhere at my parents house, maybe I'll try to track it down someday... Though, if the dates on WP's articles are correct - bothy formed in 1933 - it is more likely to have been mutual influences rather than one learning from the other. I also note that JPratas uses the commom technique of calling to the discussion something that is at most tangential to it, associating Delgado and Nazi Germany - Nabla (talk) 10:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The simple fact is that Lourenço began in 1932 to make PVDE a more “professional” police, before any Portuguese contacts were possible with Nazi Germany, and before Gestapo was created, therefore it is impossible that PVDE was inspired by Gestapo. Could this "inspiration" have arrived in the late 1930s? Professor Wheeler is inclined to say "No". Off course in 1983 Wheeler could have been wrong . In fact any book +30 years old could have been wrong on this issue as it was only in 1995, that Salazar's files were opened. But after 1995 I have not seen anything new being published on this alleged Gestapo inspiration. It is reasonable to assume that if any interesting (other than the usual) connections between the Gestapo and PVDE were found they would have been extensively publicized by Salazar’s detractors. That has not been the case. As far as I know the only new material that was found was on the episode related with contacts between the Duke of Windsor and the Germans, and that new material shows a PVDE's pro-British conduct. Furthermore the latest work on Salazar, by Ribeiro de Menezes still uses Wheeler as the source when he talks about PVDE. What we know for a fact is that Agostinho Lourenço, head of PVDE, had fought Germany in WWI, was made a Commander of the Royal Victoria Order in 1931 and acted neutral or slightly pro-British during WWII. The article by Professor Douglas Wheeler says that: “An Analysis of Lourenco´s career suggest strongly that British Inteligence Services’ influence had an impact on the structure and activity of PVDE…he had earned a reputation with British observers, recorded in a confidential print generated at the British Embassy, which suggested a “pro-British” bias on his part....Lourenço began in 1932 to make PVDE a more “professional” police, before, it should be noted, any Portuguese contacts were possible with Nazi Germany...Lourenço, continued to MI6 assets after the war ended; part of the relationship involved the international police organization, INTERPOL, (International Criminal Police Organization) of which Lourenço became one of the first post-war Directors…[he] kept up friendships which went beyond professional duty with more than one British Intelligence Officer after the war. Wheeler also says that he believes that references to “Gestapo-trained” or “modelled” are “less than half truth and more than a simple lie”. J Pratas (talk) 13:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Lourenco was head of In­terpol (President) for five years after 1956.J Pratas (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Salazar isn't fascist

I wanted to add him to our Fascist Ruler category,but you removed it. (I believe) that he's got all of the qualifications. He's corporatist, statist, authoritarian, nationalist,etc. I just want to know why isn't in that category? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakester499 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

We can distinguish between the ruler and the regime. Portugal was not a fascist state because it was not ruled by a fascist party. Hitler and Mussolini took control of just about everything down to the local & neighborhood through their party & secret police. Salazar was not a flamboyant demagogue like Hitler and Mussolini, the regime rarely indulged in mass rallies and marches that appealed to a fascist-minded citizenry. It did not use propaganda and new organizations to reshape students, housewives etc. It did not try to control youth groups, church groups, universities and unions (it closed unions--Hitler took them over and made them instruments of the party). Looks more like a traditional one-man dictatorship. Rjensen (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks--Jakester499 (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)