Talk:António de Oliveira Salazar

"bourgeois"

Hi: I linked to Bourgeoisie because not everyone will know what is meant by "... were torn between supporting the regime and denouncing it as bourgeois." If Bourgeoisie is not the correct link, then what is? If there is no proper link, then the phrase "it as bourgeois" should be deleted and the sentence ended at "denouncing it." What do you think? Ballinacurra Weston (talk) 16:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the article really needs the link. Most readers interested in this specific article will know the term. Please read first Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking --J Pratas (talk) 06:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd prefer if the article would have Ballinacurra Weston's addition of link to Bourgeoisie at said mention of "bourgeois", if this counts as support. ACLNM (talk) 20:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

This article is biased and political

This article is clearly biased, whether you consider him a fascist or not, he was clearly a dictator, and not having it on the first lines for his introductions is re-writing history. For reference, you have the Portuguese version of this page that clearly states that he was a dictator and you have several articles that claim that. The Portuguese state also claims that. If Wikipedia is supposed to be apolitical then it should state what he was right at the beginning. From what you can see right now it seems like it's worded in a confusing way to benefit the British and the American political history who try to hide that they worked with a dictator Shexantidote (talk) 10:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

It is an interesting discussion and it is not black and white. On one hand it is widely accepted that the Estado Novo was non-democratic and the only Salazar's biography by a non-Portuguese academic, from Tom Gallagher, published in 2020, is titled "Salazar the Dictator who refused to die". On the other hand I have seen reasonable arguments explaining that the current Portuguese regime is less democratic than the Estado Novo. The thing is that having a democracy is not the same as having elections. Having periodic elections is not exactly a synonymy of democracy. In fact under the Estado Novo the 1933 constitution was discussed in the press and the academia for over a year and was approved in a referendum that has not been questioned regarding fraud. The referendum was clean as it could be and in Portugal, for the first time, women (not all) were allowed to vote. Under the constitution the president was to be elected by popular vote for a period of seven years. On paper, the new document vested sweeping, almost dictatorial powers in the hands of the president (Carmona, Craveiro Lopes), including the power to appoint and dismiss the prime minister (Salazar). The constitution opened the door for people to approach the president and ask the president to dismiss Salazar (Example - The Botelho Moniz constitutional "coup" in 1961). Salazar managed to stay in power because the elected president always opted to have him as prime minister. But the president(s) could have dismissed him. The Merriam Webster dictionary says that a dictator is a "person who rules a country with total authority and often in a cruel or brutal way" and Salazar does not fit in this definition, at least if you read Tom Gallagher's work or any other serious work.J Pratas (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I really don't see where it isn't "black and white" in a state that didn't defend human dignity. It's clear that it was sovereign state but not a democratic one. Yeah every president "elected" him but every election was rigged and any viable opposition was persecuted. He wasn't as harsh as dictators before but nonetheless he was one, which is the general consensus within portuguese academics, which non arguably have a leverage on this topic. The only debatable issue on Salazar was if was a totalitarian or an authoritarianism, but any leader on both types are dictators, they just differ in the intensity that they rob the human dignity of the citizens of the state they rule. Shexantidote (talk) 13:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

You are saying that all elections were rigged. Can you source that the 1933 Portuguese constitutional referendum was rigged ? and how? Or that the 1935 Presidential elections were rigged ?J Pratas (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

lol let me just quote the 1933 Portuguese constitutional referendum wiki page because I don't see where a referendum that doesn't allow everyone to vote and that is made to be confusing can be legitimate "The British Embassy also pointed out that Portugal's illiteracy made elections difficult and illusory. (...) There have been conflicting accounts of the results of the referendum. Michael Derrick, in 1938, gives 1,292,864 Yes; 6,090 against; 660 spoilt and 30,654 abstentions 30,654. Colonel Clement Egerton, in 1943, provides the same names as Derrick. Peter Fryer and Patricia McGowan Pinheiro state that official figures were 580,376 in favour; 5,406 against and 11,528 abstentions. Hugh Kay provides, in 1970, 719,364 favour; 5,955 against; 488,840 abstentions in a registered electorate of 1,214,159, in line with the results published in the Diário de Notícias of March 20, 1933.".

collapse ref list for page readability
References

I also don't see how Óscar Carmona just ran "unopposed" and managed to get the 100% approval on the very small group that was able to vote. Any of these things don't happen in any healthy democracy.

We can also add that this conversation is completely useless lmao because his own Wikipedia article clearly states time after time that Estado Novo was in fact a dictatorship and that he was a dictator, so please refrain from throwing your baseless and fascist arguments in here. Shexantidote (talk) 23:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

The wiki page you are using, where most sources were added by me, don't support your claim. The fact that not all citizens were allowed to vote does not convert the system into a dictatorship. In the US until 1870, only white men were allowed to vote. In the UK until 1918 only men were allowed to vote, and nobody is labeling the regimes as dictatorships. The 1933 referendum was by large the electoral process in Portugal until that day where more people were allowed to vote. Much more than in the First Republic which usually is labeled as democratic. In the 1933 referendum women were allowed to vote for the first time in Portugal, something that did not happen before, in the so called democratic first republic. There are no sources claiming the referendum was rigged or that the 1935 elections were rigged. Last but not least, go and read the Britannica Encyclopedia entry on Salazar, it does not say he was a dictator.

On another turn, restrain from starting to make personal attacks. That is out of mark. I am not even taking sides of this dispute. I just added food for thoughts. J Pratas (talk) 09:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

"don't support your claims" well in russia people also vote but I'm not sure if it's entirely democratic hmhhh. Also in 1932 all of the parties that weren't the one in power were banned so I'm not really sure on how that adds on to the "not a dictatorship" claim. Also the whole "food for thought" is completely useless because you're trying to distort with actual facts that are overall supported. Not sure what your goal is with that but it's clearly biased and political. Shexantidote (talk) 09:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

What is your goal Shex? An argument is either right or wrong, it can't be fascist. If you look at pages of other dictators (I looked at Castro, Khrushchev and Nasser), they are not listed as dictators on their pages. Chronicler87 (talk) 12:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

"On the other hand I have seen reasonable arguments explaining that the current Portuguese regime is less democratic than the Estado Novo"

I see you. I see what you, and i imagine some others, have been doing to this page.

Several of these page's entries read like a facebook page in support of salazar. And worse, several talking points seemed ripped straight out of the "Obreiro da Pátria" memorial website.

I will be dedicating substantial time to fix this in the coming weeks and months. All i can say for now is shame on you. And shame on this crowdsourced endeavor for letting such shameless malice to seep through Nhibs (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Again. I am not against labeling Salazar as dictator. In 1940, LIFE Magazine called Salazar “By far the best dictator” and “the greatest Portuguese since Prince Henry the Navigator” (1940: p. 65) . And Salazar did not believe in democracy. J Pratas (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

As he should be labeled, he was unabashedly a dictator and not a proponent of democracy. There is little to no disagreement, from Salazaristas to Communists, that he was a dictator (disagreement obviously arises as to whether that was a good or bad thing), but I don't understand why the label wouldn't already be included in the lead. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The current article makes no mention that he was a dictator until the fourth paragraph, and in the whole introduction it is only mentioned one further time at the end of the fifth. On both occasions, it uses the passive voice ("Despite being a dictatorship, Portugal..." and an inline quote which ends "the dictatorship which lasted 48 years"). Together, this has the effect of not only obscuring the fact that Portugal was a dictatorship, but makes it even less clear that Salazar himself was the dictator. Whether or not it goes in the first sentence (and I think it should), Salazar should definitely be described as a dictator, which places an appropriate degree of emphasis on his role.

The closest it comes to this in the opening paragraph is where it states that Salazar was "responsible for ... the corporatist authoritarian government that ruled Portugal until 1974". While this is accurate, I don't think "corporatist authoritarian government" is a term which has the same resonance as "dictator", and in any event they're not really the same thing. This also has the effect of obscuring Salazar's notability. Theknightwho (talk) 09:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I looked at some random dictators (Kruschev, Castro and Nasser) and none of their pages list them as dictators either? So what's the Wiki standard on this? Seems silly to label Salazar a dictator if the much more cruel Khruschev or Castro are not listed as dictators. Chronicler87 (talk) 12:11, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

our job is to summarize the reliable published sources--of which over 17,000 call him a dictator see https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=1%2C27&q=salazar+dictatorship&btnG=&oq=salazar+dictator for a list of these scholarly articles. Rjensen (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Jumping in to add my agreement with @Rjensen: what other articles do is not particularly relevant unless there is a broader policy in play, but no Wikipedia policy prevents a historical figure from being described as a dictator if that is what most reliable sources call them. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

It is a complete and utter travesty that this is even being discussed. He was a self-proclaimed dictator. And his repressive regime that jailed and murdered the opposition for decades and where he had de facto unilateral control unambiguously fits the definition of dictatorship Nhibs (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Name

Salazar's birth name was clearly António Salazar de Oliveira, does anyone have a source to back it up? Esszet (talk) 15:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

It could have been but it was not. In Portugal as in many other countries the last name is traditionally the father's name. The thing is that when Salazar was born the children were not registered. The only register that existed was baptism and that was non-government. Now in baptism the child received a name but not surnames. Officially he was baptized as Antonio, period. According to tradition when he grew up he would have been Antonio Oliveira because his father was Oliveira. But it seems that when civil registration started around 1910 he ended up being registered as Antonio de Oliveira Salazar (which is fine if you follow the Spanish tradition but it does not follow the Portuguese tradition). Anyway he was registered as Antonio de Oliveira Salazar, so that is what it is. J Pratas (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Alright, thanks, do you have sources for that? Esszet (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

More aptly, do you have any sources that "Salazar's birth name was clearly António Salazar de Oliveira"? Cristiano Tomás (talk) 19:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with him, I'd like to add it to the article. Esszet (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

There is a Salazar's biography from Jaime Nogueira Pinto ISBN 9789896262402 where the author explains what I wrote. Salazar was born to Antonio de Oliviera and Maria do Resgate Salazar. Thus Salazar was his mother's family name. Following the Portuguese tradition he should have been known as Antonio de Oliveira. But that was not the case. For some reason he ended up registered as Antonio de Oliveira Salazar Which according to Portuguese law at that time was also acceptable. Parents could chose the order of the family names.J Pratas (talk) 12:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@JPratas: I'm sorry, this completely slipped my mind. I'll add the following:

According to Portuguese naming customs, which place the mother's surname first, Salazar's name would have been "António Salazar de Oliveira" – a practice followed by his four sisters – but, for reasons that remain unclear, he chose to reverse the order of his surnames and become "António de Oliveira Salazar", which was allowed under Portuguese law at the time.

All I need is the page numbers, and I can add it to the article. Esszet (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@Esszet: you can find what you are looking for in this link https://books.google.pt/books?redir_esc=y&id=hewsI4PU6sMC&q=resgate#v=snippet&q=resgate&f=false - Salazar: A Political Biography By de Filipe Ribeiro de Meneses, page 4 - J Pratas (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I think that order of names was not Salazar's choice, or at least, there is no source saying that. It could have been a simple error when he was registered. J Pratas (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Alright, thanks, I made the change and added it. Esszet (talk) 18:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

How come all the positive statements were removed from evaluation?

Now all just the negative opinions are left....seems like it was done on purpose

Should be undone imo. Chronicler87 (talk) 23:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Took a quick look and it seems user "Ganesha811" has been defacing the article, stating that sources does not support (when in fact they do), that scholarship is "outdated" when it can only be right or wrong, and removing references that speaks against Salazar being a fascist, and removing positive evaluations from the legacy section. Chronicler87 (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Chronicler87: I did indeed make some changes to the article with the intent of improving its WP:NPOV. I reject the idea that this is "defacing" the article. I also do not think the rest of your comment accurately describes the edits I made, but if you have specific concerns about any particular material, bring it up here so we can discuss it. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, to start with, if you take a look at the change you made in which you state the source did not support increasing prosperity in Portugal in the 50s, that is clearly wrong, because the source clearly states that prosperity was increasing in the 50s. So your argument that the source didn't support the claim, and should thus be removed, doesn't fly. Same there is no good reason for any of the other changes you made. So I would clearly call it defacing, unless you can explain why you removed the good evaluations of Salazar and left all the negatives. Chronicler87 (talk) 01:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and I also reject that you improved the article based on a neutral point of view, you clearly removed all positive statements about Salazar and Estado Novo, such as the one about increasing prosperity among others. That is not neutrality. Chronicler87 (talk) 01:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

To respond to your two specific comments: I removed that sentence because the source did not support the claim made that either (it is unclear which) Stanley Payne or M. Anne Pitcher are "leftist historians." The quote, which accurately reflects Stanley Payne's opinion (but not Pitcher's!), is the perspective of one historian, and should have been noted as such and put in proper context. Ascribing his opinion to "leftist historians" is generalizing without reason and is not WP:NPOV. As to the Evaluation section, it is simply untrue that I removed all of the "good evaluations." The judgments of Samuel Hoare and Antonio Saraiva both read as positive. Frankly, the whole article needs serious attention. Some parts of it are about general Portuguese history or other members of his regime and do not really involve Salazar the individual. If you have any other specific comments, please bring them up as well. Ganesha811 (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the generalizing on "leftist historians", but are you sure that was not added later? Thing is, you could have removed just the "leftist historians", and left the rest, I don't understand why you removed the entire paragraph. You also did not specify this in your msg of removal, I simply believed you removed it because of the rising prosperity during the 50s was not supported in the source. I think there should be a mention of the rising prosperity in the 50s, because this as I understand is generally regarded as true. But ofc, this is just one example, I wish you could explain how scholarship can be "outdated" in the case of Wierda, while other older sources are left in, and how you made your selections in evaluation, to remove and shorten certain paragraphs, that seem to me to be overwhemingly the more positive statements. You made massive cuts in the article, mostly seeming to target the "positive" stuff. Chronicler87 (talk) 04:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I could have been clearer about the specific problem in that edit summary, you're right. The sentence struck me as part of a broader issue - you're right again that I generally found the article to have too positive a tone, and so my efforts were generally directed to removing flattering material about Salazar. This is not bias - it's simply a different point of view on what reliable sources report about Salazar and his regime. The article as I found it struck me as whitewashing the oppressive nature of his government while playing up economic achievements that were not really remarkable in the context of the broader West European recovery from the Depression and WWII. As to Dr. Wiarda's work, I think his optimism about the intentions of the leaders of the Estado Novo has been criticized by contemporary scholars like Meneses and Gallagher. Ganesha811 (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

But then you are admitting it, "too positive a tone". You are admitting that your intent was not to make the article neutral or remove "outdated" scholarship or whatever, you are just removing the positive statements. Also, the article is already lacking context as it is, Salazar during his entire rule imprisoned less people than the communist rule that were just a short period after him did, democratic Italy killed 158 of it's own citizens in the late 50s, not more than 60 portuguese people are calculated to have died in places like Tarrafal or for other reasons under Salazar (entire period of his rule). There has to be context to an article, why did Portuguese democracy fail? Salazar did not take power, he was invited by the military (that also blocked many of his decisions). If the article is to be neutral you have to leave positive evaluations and opinions in, and not just "shave" the article. I've read Gallaghers book, and he is not as negative about Salazar as you suggest, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember him attacking Wierda like that, Gallagher even got help from Pinto (among others), and Pinto is clear about Salazars economic achievements. Why is it your job to remove what is "flattering" (which basically only seems to be anything that is positive)? Chronicler87 (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

My intent was absolutely to make the article more neutral, as I found it more positive than reliable sources justified. If you have a source for your claims, you should cite it and add it to the article. As Rjensen points out above, referring to the Estado Novo as a dictatorship and Salazar as a dictator is fairly mainstream in contemporary scholarship - just as the mainstream consensus is that the regime was not fascist but "authoritarian conservative" or "corporatist." It's not surprising to me that we can disagree about how to present Salazar's government, since there are plenty of parts of it that mainstream historians argue about too. I'm not an expert on Portugal, though I have also read Gallagher's book, so I don't think improving this article is something I can do alone. I noticed you've mostly edited in talk space, not article space - if you want to make changes to the article, I think you should go ahead and do so. I'm not going to sit on the article reverting other people's contributions as they make them - I just wanted to try to bring NPOV to an article I came across that struck me as remarkably positive in tone about the leader of an authoritarian dictatorship. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't question that Salazar was a dictator, but this is about history, not whether or not dictatorship is right or wrong or inherently evil. You can't remove positive evaluations on a page just because the subject was a dictator. You have massively shaved the article of positive evaluations without bringing it to the talk page first, I think that's wrong. I don't think you have improved or brought NPOV, you have slanted the article. Can you honestly give me a good argument why certain statements should have been removed from the evaluation part, and others not? Other than your own politicial judgement or you considering them "too positive" whatever that means? I think you should revert the massive changes you made, and then discuss them on talk page instead. Chronicler87 (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Here is my argument - WP:WEIGHT is the main policy I used to guide my edits. Simply put, I felt that "positive evaluations" were over-represented compared to more negative ones. For any prominent historical figure, there are hundreds or more of fairly reputable sources, and of course not all of them can be included in an article for purposes of length. I could produce twenty glowing quotes from actual historians about Stalin to put on his page, but to do so while only providing 2 or 3 contrasting opinions would not provide an accurate representation of how he is viewed by most historians. It would make for a poor Wikipedia article. Similarly, I felt that the article did not accurately represent the range of views on Salazar accurately. However, as I said, I'm not an expert on Portugal and my fundamental interest in the page is not high, I just stumbled across it. I'm going to disengage from this discussion now. Ganesha811 (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Was Salazar a Dictator ?

In the first half of the 20th century dictators were quite common. Engelbert Dollfuss in Austria, Theodoros Pangalos in Greece, Primo de Rivera in Spain, Konstantin Päts in Estonia, Mussolinin in Italy, etc, etc, etc, and Salazar in Portugal In July 1940, Life magazine called Salazar "a benevolent ruler", described him as "by far the world's best dictator, he [Salazar] is also the greatest Portuguese since Prince Henry the Navigator", and added that "the dictator has built the nation". Life declared that "most of what is good in modern Portugal can be credited to Dr. Antonio de Oliveira Salazar (...) The dictator is everything that most Portuguese are not – calm, silent, ascetic, puritanical, a glutton for work, cool to women. He found a country in chaos and poverty. He has balanced the budget, built roads and schools, torn down slums, cut the death rate and enormously raised Portuguese self-esteem. (from: "Portugal: The War Has Made It Europe's Front Door". Life. 29 July 1940.)

In 2020 Tom Gallagher published the book "Salazar the Dictator who Refused to Die". In that book Professor Gallagher describes how Salazar’s constitution protected basic civil rights and that Salazar was scrupulous in his adherence to the law. Nevertheless, all political parties were disbanded. Oponents to the regime, including communists and the leadership of the far-right National Syndicalists, were imprisoned or exiled, and the secret police was quick to stifle organised opposition. Gallagher points to the similarities between Salazar’s regime and the authoritarian rule of Engelbert Dollfuss in another Catholic country, Austria. I understand that some editros might not like the tag, and the tag today has a different connotation that it had in the 1930s, but Salazar was indeed a dictator.J Pratas (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Exactly, if GladstoneRademaker and Roman Spinner would bother to do a quick Google Scholar search, Salazar+dictator they will find an overwhelming amount of research papers stating that he was indeed a dictator. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10].

GladstoneRademaker, what you are advocating is that Salazar regime was a "conservative authoritarian dictatorship" but Salazar itself is not a dictator?! What's the logical behind that, a dictatorship without a dictator? It seems you're the one who's emotional here... SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 15:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Roman Spinner Do you know how to use a talk page? Your current tactic is clearly not working because you keep getting reverted. Try to reach a consensus here, instead of making edits without any reliable source backing it up. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 20:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

He was unambiguously a dictator. This isn't remotely up for discussion Nhibs (talk) 20:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Main image

Official portrait by Manuel Alves de San Payo

This is the official image of this person, according with the Commons' information, used in many public buildings and institutions during the Estado Novo. I saw in the same article in Portuguese that it was treated to add this portrait but it was later reverted by @JPratas: due to "the previous photo has been stable for years" (Portuguese: "Revertendo para a versão com foto estável há muitos anos"). Also, I saw that this user havd reverted previous cross-wiki additions of similar photographs for the same article. Sincerely, I think that, if San Payo's portrait is the official as is it depicted in Commons, I think that it could be a great main infobox, at least, here in the English version of Wikipedia. The current one has good quality too, but in it Salazar is reading a book. Would be preferred ideally a proper staged portrait, if we have one, such as in the cases of other politicians i.e. Francisco Franco (contemporary with Salazar), Charles de Gaulle, Winston Churchill, Margaret Thatcher, Joe Biden or Marcelo Caetano (Salazar's sucessor as Prime Minister of Portugal)? Pinging @Orson12345:, @E-960:, @Stv26:, @GoodDay: and @Davidng913:, who I saw they contributed in similar changes and article's discussions about similar problems. Also pinging @Anjo-sozinho:, who I saw comes from Portugal to know what he/she thinks about this discussion. Hope that this talk could be a constructive and productive improval for this article. Thanks.
81.41.189.179 (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 Comment: I changed this message to prevent misinterpretations, because I didn't treating to declare all the politicians cited before as dictators. I'm sorry if my previous comment offends any user because it wasn't my original intention.
81.41.189.179 (talk) 00:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd rather not participate, as I don't fully agree with who you identify as dictators. GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree with @81.41.189.179:. I think the portrait of Salazar you propose is far better then the current lead image. If nobody else comments in a few days go ahead and make the change. Great job! --Orson12345 (Talk • Contribs) 20:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree too, it's a better photo. It shows his face clearly, unlike the one with him looking down at a book from far away.לילך5 (talk) 20:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I saw "such as in the cases of other politicians". I don't declaring Thatcher, Churchill, DeGaulle or Biden as dictators, I cited they such examples of politicians. The dictator which I cited was Franco. But sorry for my comment if it offended you. Thanks to @לילך5: and @Orson12345: for your comments.
81.41.189.179 (talk) 23:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not offended :) GoodDay (talk) 00:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clarify it :). I'd done some changes for prevent future confussions.
81.41.189.179 (talk) 00:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

The current photo has been stable for more than a decade and it is the same used for years in all wikipedias I don't see any need to make the change or even have a discussion. But changes should be made after consensus is reached. And that is not what the IP has been doing. The IP has been trying to change the photo in all wikipedias without any discussion or consensus. J Pratas (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Just because a bad photo was used for a while is not a reason to continue to use a bad photo.לילך5 (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

@JPratas: the new image proposed is much better and there has been a consensus there are three editors who agree to the change and one against the change which is you. Perhaps we could wait a few days to swap the photo to see if anybody else comments, if nobody comments we’ll make the change. I hope this is acceptable. Regards, --Orson12345 (Talk • Contribs) 21:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Note also that it was לילך5 who changed the image, not an IP as JPratas said. This appears to be a personal preference of this user. Not all the IPs do bad editions, and not always the IPs are behind the image changes. I restored the photo to as it was when לילך5 put it. --2.140.227.89 (talk) 12:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@Orson12345: your proposal seems reasonable. There is a process issue and a content issue. The process issue is that the photo should not be changed without and Rfc. Pinging a few editors that never edited the article and have them voting, is not the proper way to do it. If the photo is better or not, it is pretty much a personal opinion, so I am not going to delve into that. But yes, agree with your proposal.J Pratas (talk) 18:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@JPratas: I don’t think this situation warrants an Rfc. I think we can come to a compromise without it. I restored the previous image as per my proposal to wait a few more days to see if any other editors comment. If nobody comments by the end of the week than I’ll reinstate the new image. I believe this to be a good compromise. Regards,--Orson12345 (Talk • Contribs) 19:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense. I would just suggest pinging the top 5 editors of the article to get some votes J Pratas (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@JPratas: @Roman Spinner: @Rjensen: @Carlstak: @Cristiano Tomás: @SpaceEconomist192:. As per request I’m pinging editors who edit this page often to get there opinion of the main image. Regards, --Orson12345 (Talk • Contribs) 21:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not a make or break situation to me, but I personally prefer the proposed new image because it's an official portrait and shows his facial features better. Not to be flip, but I think Salazar looks a bit mannequin-like in the status quo image. Carlstak (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Sure, the proposed photo is more professional. I support the change. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 13:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

The new photo is perfectly fine. @JPratas: stability of an image for many years is no reason to create unnecessary deliberation on such a minor aspect of the article... Cristiano Tomás (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Official portrait by Manuel Alves de San Payo, 1950s

I didn't realise this discussion was on-going, so I apologise for changing the picture before participating here. To the best of my knowledge, there was not one "official" portrait photograph of Salazar, and certainly not one that lasted the whole Estado Novo period.

Several photographs show other, different, portrait pictures of Salazar being used in the way we would today call an "official photograph": see two examples of a different photograph being used in schools here and here; also the iconic photograph taken by Alfredo Cunha during the revolution of 25 April 1974 shows that Salazar's portrait on that was hung on the PIDE-DGS Headquarters was a different one (accessible here).

Personally, and on purely aesthetic grounds (which I understand is a personal preference) I propose this one I am showing to the right (or, as an alternative, the lower-resolution version here), also by San Payo, but as far as I could gather dating to the 1950s. -- RickMorais (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

RickMorais, I agree that's a good photo.---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 06:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Personal life

Apparently he never married and had no children. We need to state this explicitly somewhere. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Evaluation

Why was it deemed relevant to quote people praising this ruthless dictator who killed, tortured and imprisoned without term those who even dared speak against him?

Should I make a point out of it and go edit Hitler's or Mussolini's pages and add the same section to quote their contemporaries and/or modern neo-nazis or neo-fascists who praise them and pretend that is an "evaluation" of their rule and life? Nhibs (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)