Talk:Requeté

The article says that the requetés wore either red berets or Pythygarian caps. Google doesn't reveal any other instance of the word Pythygarian. Is it a bad memory of Phrygian, mixed up with Pythagorean, or what? [That should have been changed since it´s not there any longer]

The word "requeté" seems unlikely derived from the word requête since in the same article in spanish there is a complete different explanation for the origin of the word and it seems more reliable since it´s a historical study from 1946 instead of an encyclopedia from 1965 that is probably obsolete. So I remove the text into parenthesis waiting for someone to translate the explanation from the spanish version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.83.80.43 (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's the removed part from the article in case someone thinks it should be restored:

(from the French requêté, “hunting call”^[1]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.83.80.43 (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

To whoever has restored the reference to the french term requêté, if it´s not too much to ask, it will be better if you explain here why you did so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.83.80.43 (talk) 11:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

this entry has not been edited for almost 10 years and remained a rather chaotic assortment of various statements. Today I have tried to introduce some order by: 1) adding sections; 2) moving mixed up sentences/paragraphs to appropriate sections; 3) adding minimal info related to periods ignored. I have not tried to polish anything, e.g. fix unclear statements, add further detail, remove unreferenced info etc, so there might be (and probably is) lots of rubbish there.

Have also added 2 tables on military engagements during the civil war.

--Dd1495 (talk) 10:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I think the article as a whole is good and deserves merit. However from my point of view there's a clear bias when dealing with the Francoist era. Dd1495 completely assumes the point of view of Manuel Martorell, a left wing historian that claims that in the late 50s and 60s most young Carlists were not interested in Requeté and overemphasizes the influence of AET, which allegedly wanted to do away with stuff in order to modernize the movement. There are other authors who disagree with that theory and say that only a few guys guys that composed Carlos Hugo's secretary were advocating those changes. Requeté was actually flourishing in the 50s and 60s among young people and Huguist influence before 1965 was very minor.--Raderich (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello Raderich. Aren't you a bit cavalier when tagging the section as biased?

• my edit is based on academic historiographic works, produced by people who have earnt their scientific credentials as PhDs or university professors; I have tried to reference all claims I make
• you stigmatize historians you do not like as "left wing", apparently to demonstrate that they are either biased or incompetent. To me branding historians as "Traditionalist", "post-Francoist", "Marxist" or "left wing" seems to be a rather pathetic and unfair practice of trying to disqualify historiographic opinions you disagree with on political and personal ground
• I refuse to enter the discussion whether a historian - in this case Martorell Perez - is left-wing, right-wing or whatever as irrelevant. However, it seems that his works can not be dismissed as partisan as they are appreciated also among the Traditionalists. His book - based largely on the PhD thesis I quote - received Premio Larramendi, awarded by the institution set up to stand for Traditionalist cause
• Martorell Perez is not the only scholar I quote. I refer also Vazquez de Prada, Rodón Guinjoan, García Riol, Miralles Climent, Villanueva Martínez and others. And if if you want to play the nasty game of sticking labels, some are actually die-hard right-wing fundamentalists, like Bartyzel
• application of the tag is recommended when there is "a serious issue of balance". I have somewhat different idea as to what is "serious". If I had written that requete was an authoritarian, post-fascist organization bent on terrorising political opponents, this would have probably qualified. If I had written that requete was an anti-Francoist organization which worked to overthrow the regime, this would have probably qualified as well. But the question you raised is nowhere near in terms of its weight. If this is "serious", than I wonder how I should categorize the 2 examples I gave. If this is serious, probably every other section of this article needs to be tagged as well. Maybe members of Ateneo Basilio Lacort will take your tagging as an invitation and in line with your serious-issue-standards, they start tearing the section on Civil War to pieces
• when I see a WP entry which I care of, related to the issue I feel competent, and which seems in need of corrections, I sit down and I make them. I do not think this is a totally uselss method, and I can't help the feeling it is perhaps somewhat more constructive than tagging
• I would normally expect that in case you charge the author of biased sourcing, you provide references for alternative opinions. However, you tag a referenced section based on a few academic works just because you believe that "there are other authors", and you do not make a smallest effort to provide any evidence. Do you believe this helps?

My first instinct was to remove the tag immediately as unfair; it equals days of reading, making notes and composing the text with a bare "there are other authors" (some 10 minutes of work, plus talk page). However, it seems that unfortunately, according to WP rules I am not allowed to remove the tag unless there is a consensus on talk page. Am not really sure how to move on, as I do not see points of convergence. Any ideas? Hope it will not end up before the Arbitration Committee. Regards, --Dd1495 (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry if the tagging annoyed you, but I think it was necessary in order to set up a debate and solve this issue. In other cases my objections went almost totally ignored.

First of all, Martorell Pérez is not an unbiased historian. He's got a clear leaning towards Hugues de Bourbon-Parme (he has dedicated him a few hagiographies). A man who supports the outlandish theory that "Traditionalism" was an ideology adopted by Carlists in the 1930s and that Carlism and Traditionalism were in fact very different things is not an un-biased historian approaching Carlism. I said "left wing", but I should have rather said "Huguist".

Now, his theory that most Carlists (or at least most young Carlists) wanted to change the movement's ideology in the 50s and 60s has no real grounding. Can you please specify where exactly other serious historians claim this? While virtually all of "progressist Carlists" were young (I won't dispute that), that doesn't mean by far that most young Carlists were progressist. I think there's a big difference there. I'd like to see your numbers to support that claim as a proven fact. If what you're refering to is not a fact, but somebody's opinion, you should then say something like: "According to Martorell, there was a generational gap.... But according to e.g. Santa Cruz, it was only Hugues' secretaries that advocated unprecedented changes that most Carlists disagreed with....." That's the way to uphold the neutral point of view.

Caspistegui, who is a serious un-biased historian that has studied this period, says that the so called "progressists" were a minority within Carlism (Javier Caspistegui, El naufragio de las ortodoxias, 1997, p. 87). But the funny thing is that even José Antonio Parrilla, who was one of Hugues' secretaries in the 1960s, admits that same thing (Javier Lavardin, Historia del último pretendiente a la corona de España, 1976, p. 281). But you make no mention that this was a minority current within Carlism.

A movement that goes from ca. 100,000 adherents in the late 1960s to ca. 5,000 in the early 1970s (Caspistegui, pp. 309-312.) seems to me that has lost a lot of people, both old and young. You could argue that that's just my opinion, but I'm not asking you to write down my opinions, I'm just asking you not to give yours as a proven fact while ignoring other info.--Raderich (talk) 00:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

By the way, you proved my point when you wrote "historiographic opinions". Please make it clear that this is Martorell's opinion and that's it. But let's forget about Martorell and the theory of "progressism" being predominant among young Carlists for a moment. What about assumptions like «There are no numbers available, though it seems that membership kept dropping and the organization played little role in the Carlist machinery». No source? Then this is just your opinion. Same story with «In the late 1950s Requeté, increasingly perceived as an antiquated section of Carlist machinery, was getting more and more sidelined». I checked Vázquez de Prada p. 405 and she doesn't say that. Another example: «however it is not clear whether in both cases the individuals in question were actually members of the Requeté organisation or rather ex-combatants and party militants.» Why are you assuming that ex-combatants weren't "actually" members of the Requeté organisation and why are you assuming that it is not clear whether they were just uniformed militants without any Requeté structure? Where's the source? There are plenty of assumptions like these, which are easy pathways to error. If I started this debate instead of rewriting everything was out of respect for your work. However, since I want a calm talk, I have removed the tag. I'd be grateful though if you added those "according to X" and "percieved by X" and addressed my other objections as well.--Raderich (talk) 01:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

lots of issues. Please allow a while before I try to structure it somewhow. Will attempt to break it into specific threads one by one. Regards, --Dd1495 (talk) 18:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• your major point is that the Huguistas were a minority within Carlism, and to prove it, you refer Caspistegui, Santa Cruz and Parilla. This might be true. However, nowehere in the WP entry I claim that the Huguistas were a majority (or minority, for that matter). It does not seem to be a sufficient reason to tag the section as biased.
• your crusade against Martorell Perez and your bid to disqualify him appears to have nothing to do with WP rules. Martorell Perez is a PhD, author of a few books, and his political views do not substantiate the claim that whatever is based on his writings is biased. I am not aware of a WP rule that information provided by 1 scientist is not sufficient to back claims made in WP, and there must be more of them sourced.
• I have removed the sentence on decreasing membership, which was not properly referenced. Irrelevant to this discussion anyway, as releted to own research, not bias
• I have referenced the section on antiquated machinery. It was not referenced, and the Vázquez de Prade footnote you point to was attached to the following statement. Irrelevant to this discussion anyway, as releted to own research, not bias
• as to requeté ex-combants I am not making any assumptions, quite to the contrary, I am trying not to repeat statements based on assumptions. Many authors – especially those related to Carlist propaganda – repeat claims about “requetés” doing this or that in the 1940s or 1950s. It is not clear who they are referring to. If to wartime ex-combatants, they should be referred as ex-requetés. Were they new recruits? Maybe, but this we do not know. Hence, I am trying to make my narrative clear and not to mislead the reader into believing that people referred as engaged in street-brawls in the 1950s were members of the Requeté section. Irrelevant to this discussion anyway, as releted to own research, not bias
• I am under impression that the only narrative which would seem unbiased to you should claim enthusiastic and growing Requeté membership in the 1950s (“Requeté was actually flourishing in the 50s and 60s among young people”). I have never found information supporting this, and in numerous sources (quoted in the text) I found information to the contrary. --Dd1495 (talk) 13:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Raderich deleted a paragraph claiming it is based on User-Generated-Content. I think the charge is not applicable.

Let’s assume I wrote a WP entry with the text like “Currently the Requeté organization in Spain is headed by Comandante General and it operates in numerous locations according to own rules and regulations”, all referenced in FB posts, Twitter twits etc. This would certainly qualify as User-Generated-Content.

However, this is not what I did. I pointed to existence of numerous social media profiles which claim Requeté identity. I have not advanced any conclusions whether they are, they are not, or they perhaps are Requeté. Following a long article, which traces the Requeté history over some 100 years, at the end I note that some individuals or groups still pose as requeté. I do not repeat the claims these people make as facts, referred in the WP article, which is the point of user-generated-content issue. Rgds, --Dd1495 (talk) 14:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the charge is totally applicable. Let's check what WP:USERGENERATED says:

Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal and group blogs (excluding newspaper and magazine blogs), content farms, Internet forums, social media sites, video and image hosting services, most wikis (including Wikipedia), and other collaboratively created websites.
Examples of unacceptable social media sites are Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Instagram, Reddit; IMDb, Ancestry.com, Find-a-Grave, and ODMP.

Your sources in that last paragraph are Youtube, Facebook and Twitter pages and hashtags. That has nothing to do with an encyclopedic work, that's a joke. Anybody can say whatever in the social media and that doesn't make it suitable for Wikipedia. How can you even know that those groups exist outside of social media? Adequate sources are missing. Please read Wikipedia:No original research.--Raderich (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

--

Hello Raderich. I am afraid you are somewhat cavalier when pronouncing on WP rules.

• „That has nothing to do with an encyclopedic work, that's a joke”. Well, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and similar are no joke; they are powerful platforms of communication, and many perfectly encyclopaedic topics might be related to such sites. Indeed, ignoring the social media dimension might in fact render an encyclopaedic entry incomplete. Some WP entry are actually focuses on social media, e.g. Barack Obama on social media

• Sure, as you write, “anybody can say whatever in the social media and that doesn't make it suitable for Wikipedia”. However, please note I am not repeating whatever people say in the social media as facts. I am pointing to a certain political thread being present in social media, and referencing my claim in appropriate footnotes.

• “How can you even know that those groups exist outside of social media?” This is irrelevant. If a certain group exists only in social media, this group might still merit attention. Requeté as a phenomenon underwent massive changes. Maybe it has now transformed into a social media group? I do not know, but in cyberspace the requete phenomenon does exist.

• Since you were kind to copy-paste some rules from WP policy pages, I will also copy-paste some: “Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and the article is not based primarily on such sources”, please see here

• Last but not least, please note that in WP there are abundant references to social media. And not just in any article; also entries released as featured articles might not only refer to Twitter, Facebook or YouTube, but claims made are footnoted by links to these social media. Repeat, I am talking featured articles, pieces splashed on WP front page, “the best Wikipedia can offer”, models to follow: Jill Valentine, Ray Emery, Gwen Stefani, Lady Gaga or Hrithik Roshan.

rgds,--Dd1495 (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

--

Hello, I'm here from WP:3O. I'm looking at the paragraph as it existed here. We can't use user generated content like this. WP:SELFSOURCE doesn't apply so much here, for two reasons. First, they aren't purely about themselves. Let me give you an example: Arrival of the digital era and the social media has produced a resurgence of individuals or groups posing as “Requeté”. This sentence makes many claims that can't be backed up by WP:SELFSOURCE. First, that this resurgence was produced by the digital era and social media. Perhaps they existed the whole time, and only now are on Facebook? We would need a WP:RS to back up this statement. How do we know that this is a resurgence in the first place? I'll even go further: how do we know that these are all real Facebook accounts and not just one person making many accounts to make this appear bigger than it is? Obviously, I don't actually believe that, it's just an example, but it demonstrates why Facebook isn't a reliable source. This also ties into the fourth part of WP:SELFSOURCE: There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. If we have WP:UGC, there is a very reasonable doubt as to its authenticity, because anyone could create accounts and write whatever they want on there. An example of how we use WP:SELFSOURCE is when a celebrity (such as in the examples you linked) might make a statement like "I was born in XXX city", we could cite that since we have reliable sources demonstrating that those are in fact their social media accounts, therefore meaning that we have no reasonable doubt that it was actually that person who said those things. If a certain group exists only in social media, this group might still merit attention. Sadly, we would have to wait until a reliable source wrote about these social media groups. Leijurv (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Let me give a specific example about this. If we had an article about someone in Spain, and they posted that they think of themselves as Requeté, we could mention that on their page per WP:SELFSOURCE. The key difference here is that WP:SELFSOURCE practically can only be applied to people or entities that have an official online presence, otherwise it becomes very difficult to satisfy the fourth criteria of WP:SELFSOURCE, which is There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.

Another thing after reading some more: Individuals who sign these notes assume a military tone,[423] appear to be aligned with the claimant Don Carlos Javier, lecture competitive Traditionalist groupings on rights to use the Requeté symbols or uniforms and imply that the organization is still operational.[424] This seems to my eyes to be WP:SYNTH. You're interpreting these sources to say that source A seems to be aligned with source B. This is to be avoided, you'd need to find a source that explicitly states this alignment. WP:TRUTH. Leijurv (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I am going to clear the 3O request as Wikipedia policy is very clear as noted here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#User-generated_content Galendalia Talk to me ^{CVU Graduate} 19:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Raderich, you have inserted the original research tag. In such case, I would expect some explanation. I find it somewhat odd that a WP entry, referenced in 465 footnotes, is considered "original research". rgds,--Dd1495 (talk) 06:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

It made reference especially to that last paragraph which you insisted in keeping. But you know that including a thousand footnotes doesn't implpy that there's no original research. Leijurv has explained very well why. By the way, could I know why you deleted my contribution? I understand that you wanted to rewrite everything to fit your own style, but relevant contributions from other Wikipedians should be kept. You make a huge effort, but Wikipedia is made by all of us together. The articles don't belong to any particular editor.--Raderich (talk) 07:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I've just completed a close read through and copyedit of the article. There is actually a large amount of WP:OR, mostly taking the form of WP:SYNTH. I'll pull out a handful of examples that I tagged in the article, and explain why I did so. I picked about "one"-ish example from each "category" that I saw. Hope this is helpful for writing articles in the future!

There is information suggesting that fairly frequently requeté appeared uniformed, though it seems also that police or Guardia Civil approached half-military gear as threat to public order, and organized groups of adolescent boys were permitted to operate – e.g. to exercise marches – only when unarmed and in plain clothes.[175] Partial and sporadic data provides evidence that at least some elements of organized structure, including military ranks[176] and hierarchical command layers,[177] have been introduced; there are also unconfirmed news about expulsions from the organization.[178] This is the clearest example of WP:SYNTH. You're pulling in information from many many different sources and drawing your own conclusions like fairly frequently, it seems also, and especially partial and sporadic data. We would want to wait for a WP:RS (one could imagine a history textbook) pulling these sources together and drawing these conclusions. Doing it yourself while writing the article is WP:OR and is to be avoided.

It is neither known to what extent the deteriorating militancy resulted rather from other processes, like general downturn of Carlism in Catalonia, outpaced by republican, Catalanist or Anarchist organizations. This is WP:OR. You couldn't find sources demonstrating this, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist. We can't really say that it "isn't known" unless we actually have a cited source saying that this isn't known.

At that time there were also first references to requeté against the Fascist backgroud.[193] This is a very common mistake to make (and one that I've made myself). These might be the first references that you were able to find during your research, but that doesn't mean that they are truly the first references that exist, comparing requeté to fascism. Generally, statements like this are only to be made in Wikipedia articles if you have a WP:RS actually explicitly stating "this is the first such reference".

Overall, this article is quite good. Probably, 95% of what it says is well supported by the sources. The remainder makes a few leaps that we should try to avoid. Leijurv (talk) 07:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

An edit I'd like to make: I wrote this without actually checking if "you" (Dd1495) wrote any of these things. Please read "you" to mean the author in a more general sense, not necessarily you personally :) Leijurv (talk) 07:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Leijurv, thanks for sharing your opinion. Could you please advise what is the WP policy as to statements which are own research? I understand that by default they should be deleted and would be more than happy to do it. Could you confirm please. Rgds, --Dd1495 (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

One more thing, Leijurv. You claim 95% of the entry is OK, but it still merits the own research tag. Could you please advise what do you think is the "properly referenced threshold" a WP entry should meet in order NOT TO BE tagged as own research? Or perhaps there some rules for this? rgds, --Dd1495 (talk) 13:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's correct that this is just my own opinion. For example, I don't read Spanish, so for all I know there are sources out there that you could find and use to perfectly substantiate every claim you make. Sadly I won't be much help though.

"No original research" is actually pretty high up there. It's one of the three core content polices. While it's tagged right now, that's sort of a "to do list". There are, for example, hundreds of thousands of articles that have the "[citation needed]" on some pieces of text. These flags exist for a reason, which is that the person who placed the tags is unsure if the content is maybe verifiable. Maybe there is a source, and they just forgot to cite it right there.

However, if it becomes clear that there is no source, and it really just is WP:OR, then yes it should be deleted since WP:OR isn't permitted on Wikipedia.

If you want to read about it, I'd point you towards Template:Original_research_inline. The intention of this tag is to nudge fellow editors who may inadvertently (or otherwise) introduce text that appears based upon original research, into supporting such text through demonstrating its previously researched origins. This tag provides a good faith means for editors to allow given text of fellow editors to remain temporarily in a given article until such time as the text's previously researched origins are supported. In the event that researched origins for the text are not produced after a relatively small passage of time (i.e., no more than a few days), the tagging editor would generally be right in assuming that it could be edited or otherwise removed from the article to comply with Wikipedia:No original research.

However, in practice, Wikipedia has no deadline. By which I mean: I'm not threatening to remove these bits of the article (someone else might however). To be even more clear: I don't personally agree with the (i.e., no more than a few days), and I agree more with the WP:DEADLINE essay. I'm just pointing out that I don't think they're well supported. It's just a nudge to ask you to try and find a proper source for those claims, or if you can't find one, to edit down what's said in the article to just what you can support with sources.

Regarding the threshold: any amount of original research within a sentence can merit the template:^{[original research?]}. I actually just looked and I can't find a policy on when it's acceptable to put the cleanup tag at the top of the article. I personally do it if I find examples sprinkled throughout the article, and won't if it's, say, all confined to one paragraph. Knowing Wikipedia, the true threshold is likely just "whatever consensus on the Talk page dictates".

There is a different warning for a lack of sources, it's Template:More_citations_needed. To be clear, I'm not claiming that this article isn't properly referenced. It has an impressive number of citations, very granularly, with explanations. But WP:SYNTH can't be fixed purely by adding new sources, it can only be fixed by revising what you say so that it only states what's supported by sources. Also see: Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not

In the end, I did look through the history and I do want to say that you made this article MUCH much better from its previous stub state that I'm looking at here. You're undoubtedly WP:HERE so please don't take this as a criticism of you as a contributor, all of this is really appreciated :) Leijurv (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Leijurv, thanks again for your kind input. When answering my question as to what is the "properly referenced" threshold you say that "knowing Wikipedia, the true threshold is likely just 'whatever consensus on the Talk page dictates'". So, here we are, on the talk page, discussing the issue. On June 6 you added the "own research" tag, so I understand that according to you, a 95% properly referenced article is not referenced well enough to be spared the tag. Then, please let me ask you not about a WP policy, but about your personal opinion: what is the threshold you think this article must meet to have the tag removed? rgds, --Dd1495 (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I've found this guide for you: WP:WTRMT

I alluded to this earlier, but I'll make the way that I approach it perfectly clear. If I find a single instance of OR, I'll use the inline tag. If I find multiple in a single paragraph, I'll put the maintenance template at the top of the paragraph. If I find multiple in a single section, I'll put the maintenance template at the top of the section. And if it's spread out across multiple sections, I put the template at the top of the article.

What I am saying is: if I see any amount of OR, I will tag it. And I will add the maintenance template to the "tightest" scope that applies to what I found.

I think the answer to the question that you may be implying is: no amount of OR is acceptable in an article. Zero percent. One of the core content policies is WP:V.

And there is a difference between a statement that a citation is just missing from (e.g. deserving the [citation needed] tag), and a statement that is clearly created from a combination of multiple sources in an unacceptable form of WP:SYNTH. The reason is that in the first case, it's just a matter of finding the source, whereas in the second case, the statement needs to be rewritten to only what's directly supported by the sources.

And you're really close! Just a few things to either find a source for, or remove from the article. Leijurv (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

hello Leijurv, thanks for your kind and in-depth explanation! I think I will follow your suggestion; I will inspect all entry and from now I will be deleting whatever seems to be own research. Regards, --Dd1495 (talk) 12:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Whenever you have adequate sources, I suggest you just stick to whatever the source says, instead of coming to your own conclusions as explained in WP:SYNTH. Also, instead of relying on a single biased source that is constantly trying to "prove" some theory, you could use more balanced sources and that would be much better. I just found another example of OR. In the section "Recent times (1980s and afterwards)" you write: "Asociación Juvenil Tradicionalista, a feeble and shadowy structure associated with Don Sixto...", but when checked with the source, one finds out that it doesn't say that at all. What it actually says is that around 50 young requetés were members of this organization. You just assumed that 50 young guys make it a "feeble and shadowy structure". On the other hand, J.C. Clemente (in his book "Carlos Hugo de Borbón Parma: Historia de una Disidencia. Planeta. ISBN 84-08-04013-8" p. 148) says that "GAC" was a marginal group, but you chose not to mention that. You see? No source says AJT was a "feeble and shadowy structure" but you decided to write that just because you wanted. On the other hand, a source says that "GAC" was a marginal group, but instead you claim it was "a violent, paramilitary arm", which gives the impression that it was actually a big group (and that it also had something to do with Requeté), in spite of what Clemente, Caspistegui and others say. Besides, a "paramilitary arm" of what? You also wrote that it was not endorsed by Carlos Hugo's Partido Carlista, so it doesn't make any sense. Not only there's an Original Research problem but also a bias problem. You're often assuming that all those groupings related to Carlos Hugo were much bigger than those that broke away with him. This is something recurrent in your other articles as well.--Raderich (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

you are absolutely right, Raderich. I now see that the article is actually stuffed with own research. As pledged above, I will be now reviewing it and removing all own research. Your assistance will be much appreciated. Regards, --Dd1495 (talk) 08:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Leijurv, Raderich. I have commenced the process of cleaning this article from own research. The first step was removing all sentences quoted in this discussion as samples of OR. Will proceed to track and remove other cases. Regards, --Dd1495 (talk) 10:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

As a second step in the process of removing own research, I have deleted the section which lists Requeté battles during the Civil War. It is entirely based on own research. The source quoted is the book of Julio Aróstegui, a 970-page volume divided into 44 sections, each of them dealing with war history of one requeté unit. The book contains no table in the like, no list of battles, no OdB and similar synthetic information – it is all mine. Originally I have scanned the book and plotted the war itinerary of every unit on an Excel matrix, units in rows and battles/engagements in columns. At the end of the day, it was enough to add the totals and get the list of 10 largest requeté engagements. Then I re-read the book in detail, this time focusing on paragraphs referring to specific battles/units, to get information on losses, duration and so on. Based on the above, I have produced a table. I now realize that the whole process seems to be a good example of own synthetic work, based on scientific source, but with data heavily processed, and with many assumptions added (especially when it comes to estimating KIA and overall losses). I do not see any way that this section can be improved, because it is very based on the logic of own research. Hope the entry looks much better now. Regards, --Dd1495 (talk) 09:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I knew that you weren't sincere when admitting your own errors. You're clearly acting out of revenge (it's not the first time you do this), perhaps with the expectation that somebody else will jump in to support anything you want to do or that we'll pity you and say "all right, do whatever you want to do, the article is all yours since you had improved it after all". That won't work, let me tell you why: Wikipedia pages have multiple authors, not a single one. Anybody can help improve them. Both Leijurv and I were kind enough to add tags and point out errors instead of rewriting everything which could lead to edit warring. For me the only exception was the last paragraph, which had clearly no place here, because social media aren't reliable sources.--Raderich (talk) 13:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

By the way, even if you have created those other sections, you have to search for consensus if you want to delete them. The work you publish in WP does not belong to you (at least not exclusively).--Raderich (talk) 13:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Raderich. Grateful for matter-of-fact comments on the content. Speculations on intentions or psychology or character or general comments about one of the WP editors are out of place here. Regards, --Dd1495 (talk) 08:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes Dd1495, that could very well be synthesis. Please take a look at the very first example "Synth is not useless" here. This textbook example is that you shouldn't do your own mathematics on battles / war history / etc, when you're pulling from multiple sources that may define the numbers in different ways.

On the other hand, it sounds like you're pulling from just one source. You can pull information from different places in the same source. Consider these: Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_numerical_summarization and Wikipedia:About_valid_routine_calculations. If you, for example, read through a single history book and created a table of battles with one row per paragraph, that's almost certainly completely fine. You're just reporting what the source says, in a different way. If you sum up or perform unobjectionable and simple otherwise "routine" calculations on the data, that's also likely fine. So if this table is sourced from that one 970-page book, it can't be WP:SYNTH since it's just one source. And if you are just performing "routine" calculations on the table, then that's also fine (not WP:OR).

I won't comment on what Raderich wrote other than to say that I don't entirely disagree and it's disappointing to see. :( Leijurv (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research#Simple_calculations and Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research#Compiling_facts_and_information Leijurv (talk) 17:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Leijurv, as usual, I am grateful for your comments. Most of them refer to numerical calculations I made, which are minor element of the tables here (by the way, they are not "routine" or "unobjectinable" calculations; they are assumptions, extrapolations, intrapolations, deductions etc). However, your main point is that the tables which are "reporting what the source says, in a different way" are OK. However, the tables I originally produced are in no way "reporting what the source says". At no point the author of the book, Arostegui, lists 10 most important Requete battles. In his narrative he lists tens (hundreds?) of engagements. If I were to "read through a single history book and created a table of battles with one row per paragraph", the table would extend to 50-80 entries. Choosing just some of these battles is my own work based on my own criteria and my own calculations. It is my creative work, to some extent based on the source. Or no?

ferret has kindly warned me that in case of what he/she calls "disruptive editing" instead of engaging in discussion on a talk page I would be blocked. I am not entirely sure what he/she means by "disruptive editing" and whether this lengthy discussion is not enough to warrant editorial changes. A block warning following one edit seems excessive and looks like a unfair action to me. Since obviously I do not want to get blocked, for the time being I will delete the numericals as pulled out of the hat. Awaiting your comments. Regards, --Dd1495 (talk) 08:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

We all decide what information to pull from sources. Please see: Wikipedia:Editorial discretion. It is perfectly acceptable to write in the text of the article right before your table something along the lines of According to author Arostegui, these were the 10 largest requete battles by number of combatants (or whichever metric you chose, number of deaths, casualties, anything) You do not need to include every battle listed in the source, you're simply applying editorial discretion, something I believe to be a form of creativity. Remember that in the end you are writing the article based on sources, an inherently creative act. There are just a few guidelines about not going too far above and beyond what's supported by the sources you have.

I can't speak to ferret's warning since he's an admin and I am not. In general you should indeed avoid deleting large parts of the article such as you did, without first asking on the talk page. I could have provided this explanation about numeric calculations and editorial discretion etc that I'm giving you now, and that warning could have likely been avoided. I wouldn't worry too much about it though. Hope this helps! Leijurv (talk) 09:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

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

• Originally I have inserted a note on a first identitied, 1922-dated reference to Requete against the Fascist backround.
• Leijurv has kindly noted that this is original research, - is a very common mistake to make (and one that I've made myself). These might be the first references that you were able to find during your research, but that doesn't mean that they are truly the first references that exist, comparing requeté to fascism. Generally, statements like this are only to be made in Wikipedia articles if you have a WP:RS actually explicitly stating "this is the first such reference".
• I asked whether OR should be removed.
• The answer from Leijurv is that yes, OR should go.
• I have deleted the statement on Fascism.
• Someone has reinstated this - no word of explanation, no nothing.
• I am deleting the statement again. However, I am totally bewildered now. Would not be surprised if I am now blocked for "disruptive editing". If someone intends to re-insert the statement, please discuss with Leijurv why he might be wrong. Regards, --Dd1495 (talk) 09:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think ferret read carefully through everything you removed from the article. But in general it is better to reword than to delete. I believe (I am unsure though!) that you can replace "The first mention" with "An early mention" or "One of the earliest mentions". Or if you want to be completely accurate, you could certainly simply say "In 1922, requete was compared to fascism" and not say anything about it being early. The reader can realize that it's early from the placement in the chronological timeline of the article.

no word of explanation He wrote Disruptive pointy removal of sourced content, far too broad to seriously be OR removals. This is referring to WP:DE and WP:POINT. Generally it is better to simply reduce the sentence down to what is directly supported, than to delete it.

WP:POINT says If you think someone unfairly removed "unsourced" content... do find a source for it, make the referencing clear if it was already present, or explain why the content in question shouldn't require a cited source. do not summarily remove from the page everything which appears to be unsourced. Which does describe what's happening here. Don't delete, just reword it to be accurate to the sources you have, is my suggestion. Leijurv (talk) 19:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

You weren't reverted and warned over a single edit, but a large (over 20,000 bytes!) worth of deletions across nearly a dozen edits, including dozens of accompanying sources. If a legitimate removal of a piece of OR was included in that, your changes were far too large for me to easily determine or pick out the one good piece. You aren't going to be blocked for discussing and properly removing OR. -- ferret (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

This deletion is clearly unjustified. You wrote "removing OR; Asociación Juvenil Tradicionalista was a separate organisation and linking it to Requete is own unsourced speculation". However, unlike the Communist organization GAC, which has nothing to do with Requeté, the source here does say that the members of AJT were requetés. So what you wrote to justify the removal was wrong. The only thing that was OR was the assumption that it was "a feeble and shadowy structure", which is nowhere to find in the source.--Raderich (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I rather feel it is clearly justified. A source - not in itself very credible, a monarchist daily ABC - states that in the entire Spain there were "half a hundred" of AJT militants, referred to as "young requetes". The word "requete" appears to stand for a Carlist militant, perhaps uniformed and perhaps within some disciplined structures, but not neccessarily a member of "requete" section of any organisation. Besides, the source refers to AJT with some disregard, as to a makeshift, murky structure. If you call this source as an authority, why do you challenge the description of "feebly and shadowy", which clearly emerges from the ABC article in question? 50 members across a 35m country rather merits the name of a "feeble" structure, I would say, rgds, --Dd1495 (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Obviously you still don't get it. 50 people doesn't imply a "feeble and shadowy" organization. You have no idea whether these guys came out from a single town or a dozen of towns, you know nothing about how they organized, how they acted, etc. (or if you do, you didn't include your sources for that) but you insist on coming to your own conclusions. Could you perhaps put off your detective hat and once for all limit yourself to say what the source says? You don't even have to delete your 110 extense Wikipedia articles (which is a tremendous work and everybody will agree on that). If you wanted them not to be OR, you'd just have to reword some parts. And if, in addition to that, you want them to be neutral, you should quote as simple theories and not as proven facts what are just that, theories. I don't think it's that difficult, honestly.--Raderich (talk) 12:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Raderich again inserted a "biased" tag. And again, the only justification is that reportedly, "There are authors who dispute many of those claims". I can not help the feeling that it should take more than an unsubstantiated claim to litter a large section, extensively based on footnoted references, with tags.

This is not a Carlist propaganda site, where a historian might be freely stigmatized as biased because he is active in left-wing organisation, or well-documented information on requete crimes and atrocities is dismissed as tendentious.

If one thinks a section is based on one-sided sources or references, than I think a re-edition with another set of sources and references is needed, not tags repeatedly splashed for the sake of advancing agitprop which suits a political group referred. Regards, --Dd1495 (talk) 09:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not me who calls you biased. You're calling yourself biased. That's what you wrote in May, when I objected your previous bias: "If I had written that requete was an authoritarian, post-fascist organization bent on terrorising political opponents, this would have probably qualified." And that's precisely what you did afterwards, just to have your stupid "revenge" because I dared change anything of "your article". Of course, you picked far-left authors (some of them aren't even historians) to fit your narrative. Your work is simply not serious, no matter how many notes you add. In fact, it's mostly these notes that make it unserious and unprofessional. You love using blogs and stuff like that as sources. You learnt nothing about Original research and you simply don't want to. You don't even understand Spanish and that makes you make ridiculous errors all the time. All your articles are filled with errors. And your English is deficient too.--Raderich (talk) 03:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

please try to adhere to the point. What is the historical narrative (opinion, perspective, view) which is ignored in the article, so that it merits the biased tag? regards, --Dd1495 (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

It's been almost two months since my last intervention. I waited that long because I think this needs a calm and unbiased talk. Dd1495, it never was my intention to offend you or diminish your work. Quite the contrary, I always wanted to help, especially given that you don't speak Spanish (as you have admitted yourself) yet most of your sources are in Spanish. You clearly need help here and it would be wise of you not to reject it.

Now, do you think that you could have a second look at your "Civil War (1936–1939): repression, crimes and atrocities" and adjust it to a neutral narrative? You clearly chose sides when you wrote it and for whatever reason you painted Requetés as monsters. You have now the chance to pick other sources as well. A whole section with far-left media propaganda has little to do with history. That's called politics. I don't know if you're a far-left activist or not and I really don't care too much, but this section is clearly militant.

Of all the exaggeration and sensationalist account that you brought in, I find one particular claim especially unfounded, namely the idea that requetés raped women during the war. I checked two of your sources and none of them supports your claim. The third one needs further reference. Let's analyze all of them:

1) One of your sources is "“los requetés me pegaron bien, con verga”, Badiola Ariztimuño 2015, p. 132" (which seems to be taken from this link). The claim is found nowhere in the text. Given that fact that you don't speak Spanish, you may have thought that this woman (Pilar Garciandia) was saying that she had been beaten up with by some requete's penis, while in fact she was saying that she had been beaten up with a cane. The word "verga" in Spanish has both meanings (penis and cane) but she's clearly talking about a cane in that context and that's what anyone who speaks Spanish will say (please ask somebody if you don't believe me).

2) Another of your sources is "Sánchez Ruano desmiente el mito del 'moro' en la Guerra Civil, [in:] El Mundo 22.06.04" (which seems to be taken from this link). The article is just a quick book review. According to the author, a woman was raped and murdered and Moroccans were blamed for it. But he claims that Morocans didn't do it because, according to her niece, they left a gold tooth. Hence, the author concludes that she was raped by requetés. And that's what makes you also conclude that requetés raped women in the Spanish Civil War. Seriously? That's all you have?

3) Your remaining source is "Paul Preston, The Spanish Civil War, London 2007, ISBN 9780393345827, available here". However, you didn't specify the page where that claim is made. Could you please let me know? I'd like to check it. Thank you.--Raderich (talk) 01:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, @Raderich:. I also think that (in that context) 'verga' seems to refer to a cane. But is Mikelarena Peña (the author comprising the bulk of sourcing for the disputed section) a far-left propagandist according to you? I cannot presume his ideology, but he seems to be an authoritative historian vis-à-vis rebel repression in Navarre (we can discuss if the topic merits a standalone article and whether if this article can profit from that in regard of cascading content or not).--Asqueladd (talk) 14:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Asqueladd:. It's good having you here, since you speak Spanish and you're a user who follows the rules. I don't know about Mikelarena, but for instance this blog is clearly propaganda that should have no place here. The problem of that section is the bias. No context is given, there's just the will to paint Requetés as a whole as evil murderers. What if I added a section like that e.g. on Federación Anarquista Ibérica? It would probably be considered biased. Anyway I think that you probably won't agree with me on this, but perhaps you can agree with us that Dd1495 should stop original research once and for all. Adding a thousand notes doesn't fix the problem. Besides, I am convinced that he only wrote that section in order to have his little revenge against me (since he knows that I want a fair depiction of Carlists), just because I deleted a paragraph that used Facebook and Twitter accounts as references. That's not fair play. It's not the first time he does something like this, he was even banned from Commons for doing something similar (Intimidation/harassment: creating hundreds of bad DRs for revenge).--Raderich (talk) 10:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Raderich: If that's the case (revenge)... well that would be mean from Dd1496. As you may guess I am not particularly familiar with the details of the rebel repression in Navarre. If I wanted to write about that, I would start by identifying the reliable, scholar, authoritative, relevant and up-to-date sources (I stand by the hypothesis the socalled "Mikelarena Peña (2015)" does not look like a bad start, unless you tell me something dramatic about him). In any case, besides some "charged" passages in regard of tone, I see a section about a time period very focused on rearguard repression and mostly in Navarre (that's IMO, where some unbalance may stem from: hence I wonder if an standalone article about the topic may solve some "strains" here, as this is not an article about that exactly). I would focus on that to move forward. While for paramilitary troops certainly rearguard repression is supposed to be very central to their efforts during a civil war, there is possibly more to talk about them. Of course, "Facebook" and "Twitter" sourcing (and possibly another low-quality sources?) should be rightly removed from the article. As you may know I also hold the opinion that some articles about Carlism in the English Wikipedia have too much of an essay-like approach (as in drawing abusive synthesis/OR from the sources, whether primary or secondary). Prima facie (pending actual consultation of the sources), I'd say the disputed section does not look particularly guilty of that, though. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your insight, Asqueladd. I am in favour of moving that section to Victims of Civil War in Navarre, which clearly needs extension. Anyway, repression performed by requetés may also be referenced to here (with perhaps a link to that other article), but some talk about the repression suffered by requetés would be nice too. Regards.--Raderich (talk) 09:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Nice. Do you plan on refocusing/renaming that article of Victims of Civil War in Navarre? It is my understanding that nearly the entire repression in wartime in Navarre was carried out by rebels. Still, admitting this article may be enhanced from new content discussing other issues and locations for balancing aspects, we have the issue of what part of the current content is due to remain here.--Asqueladd (talk) 14:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that nearly the entire repression in wartime in Navarre was carried out by rebels, and requetés played indeed a major role in the rebellion there, but if there's a different article that deals with that issue, there's no need to have such a huge section in this article, which in my opinion should focus more on the militia aspect. That's why I think this section would fit better there. I don't intend to refocus/rename that article, but I'm open to any suggestions.--Raderich (talk) 02:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

One of the users keeps trying to marginalise sections related to requete crimes on the grounds that they are based in "far-left sources". This is editing by stigmatizing. Unreliable sources should be avoided, but their reliability is not established on the basis of their being far-right or far-left. If one feels a section is unbalanced and does not properly reflect all views, perhaps the best way is to add the opinions which are allegedly missing. regards, --Dd1495 (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Please see WP:BIASED, WP:DUE, and WP:WIKIVOICE. Dd1495 you are correct when you say that reliability is not solely established on the basis of being far-left or far-right. However, sources that consistently show bias can be considered unreliable or even WP:DEPRECATED. This can happen even if the bias is purely political bias. You can see a list of such sources at WP:RSPSRC. That aside, when I read Raderich's original statement, I don't think they are trying to say that. Raderich states that you have chosen far-left sources, but the actual specifics they bring up are not connected to such bias: The claim is found nowhere in the text. Given that fact that you don't speak Spanish, you may have thought that this woman (Pilar Garciandia) was saying that she had been beaten up with by some requete's penis, while in fact she was saying that she had been beaten up with a cane. The word "verga" in Spanish has both meanings (penis and cane) but she's clearly talking about a cane in that context and that's what anyone who speaks Spanish will say (please ask somebody if you don't believe me). This is claiming you have misinterpreted a Spanish word, and has nothing to do with far-left/far-right. The article is just a quick book review. According to the author, a woman was raped and murdered and Moroccans were blamed for it. But he claims that Morocans didn't do it because, according to her niece, they left a gold tooth. Hence, the author concludes that she was raped by requetés. And that's what makes you also conclude that requetés raped women in the Spanish Civil War. Seriously? That's all you have? This is suggesting you are making too broad of a claim than what is actually supported by the source, and has nothing to do with far-left/far-right. And the last question is looking for a page number since Raderich cannot find what you try to cite.

If you still disagree about which sources are reliable, there is a noticeboard for exactly this question: WP:RSN You could consider bringing the sources where you continue to disagree after discussion to there (by which I mean: not yet for those I mentioned, as all I've seen is Raderich bring up questions and Dd1495 not yet addressing those questions).

Another option is WP:NPOV/N in case the sources are reliable, but you believe the weight given to one side is undue.

And finally, consider WP:DRN if all else fails. But please go through WP:DR before that, through further discussion on this talk page.

Hope this helps! Leijurv (talk) 22:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Raderich: ? Leijurv (talk) 05:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

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

a user has opened a new section titled "In literature", where he/she put the following: "The Requetés appear as antagonists in William Herrick's novel "Hermanos!", centering on a unit of the International Brigades in the Spanish Civil War. In a crucial scene, one of the book's American protagonists is captured and killed by Requetés and his body mutilated - which precipitates some of the plot's main events." No references are provided.

There are tens if not hundreds of literary works which dwell on requete during the civil war, and some are treated in Carlism in literature entry. To single out one barely known work as the only one featuring in the "literature" section seems unrepresentative to me. I am deleting this section, copying its content for would-be future usage here. However, a section on requetes in literature should be somewhat more mature, if it is needed at all, given there is a separate entry on Carlism in literature. Regards, --Dd1495 (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Have inserted a brief mention on Herrick and his novel in the Carlism in literature entry. Anyway, thanks for a hint. --Dd1495 (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)