Talk:Manuel Fal Conde

removing inflammatory, unreferenced, misplaced, own-research claims
own research. Juxtaposing information that Fal was Carlist jefe with information on executions taking place in Navarre is own research with own suggestions advanced; as such it is inappropriate in wikipedia. References listed do not substantiate the passage, as they refer to repression in Navarre and not to Fal, see Dronda (p. 381 as in suggested in alleged reference): “en Navarra, controlada desde el primer momento por los sublevados, se llevó a cabo una desproporcionada represión que segó la vida de unas 3.000 personas.”

misleading suggestions. In Navarre the Carlists were controlled by Pamplona-based Junta Central Carlista, which was at odds with Fal-headed, Burgos-based Junta Nacional Carlista. The two juntas conflicted and competed for power. Fal had little control over what happened in Navarre - all that is noted in the article and referenced in footnotes. Hence, a suggestion that Fal influenced events in Navarre is – apart from being own research – also false.

misplaced. role of the Carlists in repressions carried out in Navarre so far has not been subject of scholarly study and no academic work specifies to what extent persecutions should be attributed to the Carlists, the Falangists, the military or “uncontrolables”. The fact that Fal had little control over the Navarrese Carlists makes the issue still less clear. Given all the above, the issue of Fal’s political responsibility should be flagged in the main text perhaps with more detailed references in footnotes – all that is in place. Discussion on Carlist role in repressions in Navarre (let alone advancing own suggestions) should take place in article on Francoist repression in Navarre.

charged, inflammatory language. „Brutal mass-killing campaign was unleashed” is not the language appropriate for wikipedia. There are other ways to deliver the same information, but with evaluation and indictment filtered out.

mistagging. There is no need to insert [who?] tagging into the sentence which claims that according to some scholars Fal tried to prevent executions of Basque priests. The note is fully referenced in the footnote; all it takes is to read until the end of the sentence.

--Dd1495 (talk) 16:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, let me put it this way. First of all, your charged, emotional explanation line does not say much to me and does not stick to WP guidelines. You have removed referenced valid information against WP policies. The WP reader has the right to get all relevant information to the matter that will help provide the criteria necessary to build a full picture. You have removed a "who" tag, added because it is not clear. I think I stated it clearly when I added it.


 * You quickly jump into deflecting his accountability ("nothing is clear"). Well, in that case, help by adding exactly the source, otherwise it may be taken as WP:OR, or as you put it, there is no reference substantiating that. Things are not very clear when it comes to details, since the far-right in Spain, unlike the Nazis in the Ardeatine_massacre (over 300 deaths, as compared to over 3000 in Navarre) did win the war, and were very effective in repression and spreading a desolate scenario of impunity and silence, to date.


 * The Ardeatine massacre is labelled as a mass-killing, and so it is used in other articles. 'Brutal' is used by reliable sources, and labelling repression against civilians in Navarre anything short of brutal is an understatement. However, there may be other adjectives powerful and descriptive enough as good as that. The mass-murder of civilians in Navarre is with no doubt a main and single event that deserves a place in the main text, for the implications towards the person in question with a highly relevant position. Now that does not mean, and I do not state, that he was the driving force behind them, but he was a main agent of the far-right insurgence in the same territory, and protested the mild nature of repression of Gipuzkoa during the same period. Carlists in Pamplona called for the extermination of Basque nationalists. O he did not know anything of anything? Really? The reader deserves the information there. If he was not in charge in Navarre at the moment, add the information, and I am fine with it. There is a certain point when a Junta takes over from the other (when?) Add the details, and I am fine.


 * However, you just made a sweeping edit removing all you did not like, instead of sticking to building, is not that easy? Let me remind you that this is a collaborative project, not an author's personal page or some kind of panegyric. Thanks for sticking to collaborative editing by suggesting ways to overcome specific difficulties found on the text. Iñaki LL (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as I see it the text is well-sourced, but the way to attribute sentences, like foot-notes 137-138-139 with its personal commentary style on the sources, or blurring lines between modern, reliable secondary sources, and primary sources, like first-hand accounts, is a matter of concern. Also, no doubt, repression in Gipuzkoa and Navarre is central and should be mentioned in the main text body, due to the varying degrees of Carlist involvement, relevant position of his, and his own statements (moral considerations aside, I would say, they are self-incriminatory at least for collusion), as well as the far-reaching consequences of repression on the society of those regions for decades after. Iñaki LL (talk) 11:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

-- all the above is proving that conclusions advanced by own research are right. The point is not whether they are right or wrong; the point is the above is own research. No source linking Fal and nationalist atrocities in Navarre is given. There are own conclusions advanced by juxtaposing arbitrarily chosen facts. Misplaced anyway - discussion on nationalist atrocities in Navarre should take place in a dedicated article. Repeated mistagging with no response to challenges. Reversal to inflammatory language - regardless of the source, it is not allowed on WP. Personal charges advanced against other editors.

Removing all own research, inflammatory, misleading, misplaced and mistagging contents.

--Dd1495 (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Pretty sad... First of all, I should remind you, this is not a personal page. Consensus building is the basis of the WP. First discuss, build consensus, then edit with consensual form. By the way, you have engaged in original research.


 * Anyway, I do not intend to litigate on the whole presentation, specially on the lead, although I disagree with it. The mass-killing of 3,000 people is nothing imagined, "Arbitrarily chosen facts?" Attempting a prophylactic approach as if nothing had happened is detracting key information. Many readers who come to this article are looking for that information, what his relation was to the mass-killing. Not citing the crime in this article is like not citing the holocaust and sticking to just frontline events in World War II sorry. A person is not detached from his immediate circumstances and context, and he was in charge of the Carlists, as well as masterminding the uprising. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Let me give my opinion and a suggested solution. I see that you want to include this sentence During the outbreak of the Nationalist uprising in Navarre, a brutal killing was unleashed against all civilian dissidence in the Navarre rearguard, taking a death toll of circa 3,000. which apparently has little to do with Fal's bio. I would accept that if you also accepted to include a mention to mass murder of Carlists in Vizcaya, Guipúzcoa or elsewhere (which apparently has little to do with Fal's bio as well). Would that be OK to you? This way the article could not be possibly considered biased.--79.148.213.115 (talk) 12:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sigh... You seem to be mimicking Db1495's claim, I urge you to auto-confirm yourself. For the tone, I take your statement is made out of despise and not out of genuine believe that your claim has anything to do with this page. We are talking about crucial events related the position of the character in question. See my comments above on the character's office and circumstances during July-October 1936. Iñaki LL (talk) 12:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * repeated advance of own research. Juxtaposing information A (referenced) against arbitrarily chosen information B (referenced) leads to information C (entirely unreferenced). By the same token one might juxtapose information that Fal joined ranks with the Nazis from Legion Condor and information that the Nazis invaded Czechoslovakia. Both are perfectly true – the suggestion advanced is controversial and might be discussed for years, just like all written above. Fortunately, WP is not about debating which suggestion is correct and which is not – if there are authors claiming Fal was responsible for Nationalist atrocities in Navarre, they should be quoted and this is it. Again repeated usage of inflamatory language. Removing own research, misplaced and inflammatory edits. --Dd1495 (talk) 09:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I toned down the statements, removed information to reach an agreement and you keep going with your hermetic position, showing total inability to build consensus, a basics of the WP. I do not see either a respect for timing; a discussion kicks off and comes to an end, and does not go for ever. On the subject, the problem is one of total impunity and silence on the mass-killing during decades for a start, also in bibliography. You cite he is being accused of "bloody repressions", but you do not cite directly what it is about, you cite Badajoz, and Basque nationalists in Gipuzkoa, but it is not clear whether the said "bloody repressions" refer to that. There is something phantasmagorical to it, something hidden. Many readers may come to this article looking for what his role was in the mass killing of Navarre.
 * To be honest, I do not know what you are talking about with the concatenation of events above. This character had a very defined role, was the main instigator of the uprising in Navarre, a chief executive Carlist, protesting for the "mild" nature of repression in Gipuzkoa (several hundreds killed in Donostia pistolero style), so he was oblivious to the killing in Navarre? What kind of commander could that be? At any rate, the killing should be cited whatever his exact accountability was, as compelling biographical circumstances for his role in that specific domain and position. It is referenced and it is relevant. Iñaki LL (talk) 23:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * repeated – time and again – advance of own research, backed by a number of own arguments.


 * I might engage in discussion whether the arguments listed above are correct and I might produce counter-arguments (e.g. that when Fal was in Pamplona mid-July the local Carlist jefe issued a circular explicitly banning all unjudicial reprisals; that when editing the Carlist militia rulebook, Ordenanza del Requeté, he included the paragraphs banning atrocities and revenge; that after few days of Civil War the Navarrese Carlism became an independent fiefdom of local leaders fronding against Fal and actually sabotaging his orders, and that because of that he had scarce influence on developments in the province). However, I will not advance my counter-arguments on Fal’s role, because I understand that WP is not the place for editors to discuss their views on history and its protagonists.
 * Removing own research, unreferenced, inflammatory, misplaced passages. ::::--Dd1495 (talk) 10:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I should ask you to stop edit warring. The arguments are clear, it is accurate, in the right context and place. Inflammatory may be your own intervention as far as I can see. There is nothing inflammatory but the very events. Plus this is not your personal page. Iñaki LL (talk) 07:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * removing inflammatory language, own research and misplaced speculations - as discussed above --Dd1495 (talk) 06:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please do not repeat the same thing, stick to details, WP is not a place where one makes their point and keep going with the editing, do engage in consensus building, do not edit war. Iñaki LL (talk) 07:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * removing inflammatory language, own research based, unreferenced and misplaced speculations; they are not covered by WP consensus guidelines--Dd1495 (talk) 13:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please do specify, and do not keep repeating the same thing. I removed adjectives and sentences to tone down and not dwell excessively on the context, did you try to build consensus? Nothing. Do you get bored engaging in talk page discussion? I do. Now this is not your article and not mine. Your statements make reference to bloody events without specifying, which leaves the reader with some knowledge on the topic wondering on the omission of this compelling info. (Trying to avoid inconvenient info?) This is not an article on Carlist internal affairs, but everything related to him. Circumstances are compelling, Navarre was the main Carlist focus, where he was conspiring against the Republic until the moment of the uprising. The sentence is in the right place and helps understand his current and later circumstances, even if it were to dismiss his participation in the killing. You may add the info above, why not add it in the main text? (Ordenanza del Requeté) Iñaki LL (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

removing own research, unreferenced, misplaced, inflammatory passage - once again, summary
I keep deleting what I consider unreferenced, own-research-based, misplaced paragraphs, and these paragraphs are repeatedly coming back, accompanied mostly by claims that WP is collective work and not my private business; moreover, I have noticed an intimidation attempt on my talk page. I am not sure what WP rules for escalation are, but I guess a couple of months of reverting edits back and forth is enough time to request some arbitration. Here go my arguments, almost all of them repeated (apologies), as I have laid them out earlier on this talk page.

General remarks

this article is not about a social phenomenon, a political party or an institution, it is about a person. I presume care and attention should be in use in case of writing every single WP entry, even those about phenomena, parties and institutions, when responsibility (or alleged responsibilty) for misdeeds gets nicely diluted among all those involved. However, my humble opinion is that in case of writing articles about persons special care and particular attention should be paid. Allegations, incriminations and associations which perhaps might be conditionally permitted in articles on parties or institutions (e.g. when quoted as widely in circulation and as forming part of popular reception) weigh differently in case of entries on individuals.

Regardless of internal WP rules and customs, there are external normative systems to be considered. Descendants of Manuel Fal are well and alive. His son, though senile, is still active in public space, e.g. when discussing street naming in Spain. I guess he and other descendants will not be happy to find that their ancestor is publicly referred to as implicated in mass murder. In the recent history of Spain there were cases of people suing other people and institutions for libels related to Civil War allegations, and there were cases of people winning such cases, including getting financial compensation. I think it is not irrelevant for this discussion to take into account whether Wikimedia Foundation is willing to test whether incriminations on its website will stand trial before the Spanish court.

„Own research” claim

I keep deleting a repeatedly inserted sentence which claims that the Nationalist regime is responsible for mass murder in Navarre during the Civil War. This sentence is by no means own research. It is referenced (though it can be referenced much better) and indeed in historiography there is no disagreement that massive Nationalist repressions amounting to atrocities took place in the province (the disagreement is about the scale, namely whether killing went into hundreds or into thousands). However, I am not aware of any scholar claiming that Fal was implicated, associated, entangled, linked, connected, involved or anyhow co-responsible for murders taking place. There is no reference provided which points to such a claim, either a scholarly one or otherwise.

I would say that while in general – e.g. in an article on Nationalist terror in Spain or in an article on Navarre during the Civil War – a referenced sentence acknowledging mass murder in Navare is not own research, inserting such a sentence in the entry dealing with Fal is own research. My brain might be failing me, but the only reason I can see to insert the mass murder sentence in the entry on Fal is to link Fal to mass murder – otherwise, what would be a purpose of inserting such a sentence? The intention appears to be clear also in the language used, which resembles a propaganda denunciation: I suppose in encyclopaedic English there are other expressions preferred to „brutal killing was unleashed”.

The counter-claim is that indeed, there is a link between mass murders in Navarre and Fal, that the mass murder sentence provides a background to Fal’s political activity, and hence that it does belong to the article. The logic is, as I understand, as follows: Fal was political leader of the Carlists, the Carlists were part of the Nationalists, the Nationalists performed atrocities in Navarre – ergo, Fal was implicated in the atrocities. True or not, this logical chain is still unreferenced own research. In a WP article I would expect that phenomena deemed relevant as a background are deemed so by a source author, not by a WP editor.

If an editor is free to pick what he considers a relevant background, we are bound for endless debates and juxtapositing of arbitrarily selected facts. Let’s imagine that someone might venture to see the whole thing in a bit wider perspective and note that in 1936 the Nazis re-militarised the Rhineland, in 1938 they swallowed Austria and in 1939 they broke Czechoslovakia. The logic would be: Fal was political leader of the Carlists, the Carlists were in one Nationalist military faction with the Nazis, the Nazis invaded Austria and Czechoslovakia – ergo, Fal was co-responsible for breakdown of peace in Europe. Makes sense? Well, maybe yes. And maybe not. Is WP a place to discuss this? Besides, the logical chain about Fal and Navarre might not look that logical upon close inspection, and I am prepared to deliver a number of arguments in this respect. However, this would be nothing but my opinion on what the relevant background is. I think WP is not about users discussing if and how certain facts were related – or is it? If an acceptable source claims that a certain phenomenon was relevant background to another phenomenon, let’s note it, let’s reference it and let’s call it a day.

No smearing libel incriminations, please

1. The link between Fal and mass murders in Navarre is at least disputable (A. atrocities were committed by the Falangists, the Carlists, the military, the mob - it is hard to distribute the blame properly; B. a few times, at least twice, Fal called for civilised conduct of war; C. Navarrese Carlist leadership was rebellious towards Fal and following his departure from Pamplona on July 25th he lost any control over the party structures there). 2. Even if we disregard all doubts and consider the implication legitimate, it remains unreferenced. 3. Even if we disregard lack of personal references to Fal and consider mass murder in Navarre a relevant background for Carlist politics in general, it still remains own research. 4. Even if we agree that an editor is free to select a general background without referencing, the sentence is misplaced, as it would be appropriate rather in a general article on White Terror or on Navarre during the Civil War. 5. Even if we disregard that the sentence is probably misplaced, it seems hardly compatible with caution due when writing about individuals, let alone when implicating individuals in mass murder. 6. Even if we consider it in line with WP standards that an article implicates an individual in mass murder on the „this was the general background” basis, the implication might be considered libel according to other normative systems, especially the Spanish juridical system.

I would say there is a bit too many problems with one sentence.

--Dd1495 (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * There are a number problems to be addressed, both content and formal. Spare me your unacceptable, confrontational stance, how do you even dare? We are talking about historic events, where hundred of thousands were left humiliated and obstracized with no memory up to date, with no accountability whatsoever for the perpetrators. I do not have time to read again all your long monologue-style addresses in the timing of your choosing, shows little regard to fellow wikipedians. Be aware that a discussion has a timing, which you have expanded sine die, plus reverted time and again. You have been warned not to do it, but you have done it again, right before you came back yesterday to discussion. That is a breach of the basics of WP, the consensus building, do note what WP is not a personal page. This is, no doubt, an emotional subject, and it is for me as well, but if you had offered a middle-of-the-road proposal for consensus, instead of sticking to a my-way-or-highway attitude, which comes across as fairly non-constructive and hermetic, this would have been worked out long ago. That is also apparent in other articles of yours, which have almost systematically rejected collaboration, even when it is about mere formal aspects, like layout, or picture choosing, like in Victor Pradera Larumbe.


 * This biography is an important piece in a wider jigsaw, that of the 1936 uprising he actively prepared and spearheaded in Navarre. Many readers (most...) may come here in search of his role in that uprising. While that is al so addressed, it takes aback that it is mainly about his internal Carlist activity, which is fine, but for most of the laymen concerned with general historic developments, he is remembered as a conspirator against the legal, democratic system, and remembered for his criminal statements on repression in Gipuzkoa, he considered "mild", just when mass murder was taking place in Navarre by his own party members. He was a major commander of the Carlists, and these major murderous events are compelling to his own biographical circumstances and decisions. I would not understand as a reader, not to even find a reference to them, looks like missing information. They are actually cross-referenced in your own notes. There may be missed important aspects you do not see on the moment, and others may try to improve. Thanks for sticking to constructive editing. Iñaki LL (talk) 08:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should the sentence in question be in or out?
Should the sentence "During the outbreak of the Nationalist uprising in Navarre, a brutal killing was unleashed against all civilian dissidence in the Navarre rearguard, taking a death toll of circa 3,000. " be in or out?

--Dd1495 (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)SIGNATURE
 * Comment - If it is to be added, since it is sourced, it should be neutralized. My suggestion, remove the word "brutal" as is is POV. Meatsgains (talk) 02:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Reword - I would agree with Meatsgains. It's a sourced fact, and should be included as a fact, but the sentence as written is filled with loaded language.  Strip out the emotional appeal, stick to the facts.  In addition to "brutal", "unleashed" is also a word filled with connotations that should be avoided to maintain NPOV.  I'm skeptical of "outbreak" as well, but I'm willing to accept that the word may be technically (and thus neutrally) accurate... but be careful with it all the same.  Since the sentence, as written, hinges on these words, it's going to need to be restructured. Fieari (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - I made my point above. It is fine with me to put it in another way, if brutal were considered a no-go on the WP. Other than that, it is sourced and the events are compelling to his biographical circumstances and war pursuit he was himself leading. I see no problem whatsoever with unleash or outbreak to be honest. Iñaki LL (talk) 08:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - Agree with Fieari, "outbreak" is a bit of a loaded term as well. I supporting keeping the sentence if "brutal" and "outbreak" are removed so we leave emotion out of it. Meatsgains (talk) 02:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems alright to include, but it definitely needs to be made more neutral. Just say something like, "During the Nationalist uprising in Navarre, 3000 people were killed to end civilian dissidence."  I'm not familiar with this, so I'm sure I got something wrong.  But the important part is to get rid of the POV wording. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello. I was brought here by the feedback request service. I suggest, "The Nationalist uprising in Navarre was violently suppressed, resulting in the death of about 3000 civilian dissidents in the Navarre rearguard". That is my understanding of the meaning of the proposed sentence, but it wasn't very clear.  As well, it would be good to include in the sentence a phrase telling who carried out the attack.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 05:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input, but this wound down and the issue is settled now. Any issue that may arise has a period of discussion and this is over. May I add, the proposed sentence does not make any sense. Iñaki LL (talk) 07:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Iñaki LL, I answered within minutes of receiving the request for comment. If the issue is settled, why is someone still sending out requests?&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 23:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not know. Maybe I am wrong but there is not an established timing for RfC, just the regular reasonable one for any WP dispute. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 07:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Just to make it clear, the only agreement reached in the above RfC was that the 'loaded' language of the proposed text should NOT be used. What text should be used (if any) was not resolved, or much discussed. Therefore editors are free to raise this issue here, and, if necessary to open a new RfC about this topic. Pincrete (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I have raised 5 arguments against keeping the sentence: 1) own research 2) unreferenced 3) misplaced 4) inflammatory 5) libellious. Out of these, one 1 has been addressed in discussion. Hence, I have allowed half a year for everyone to let the steam off, and now I am resolving to the disagreement resolution procedure again. I have just triggered the Third Opinion mechanism. --Dd1495 (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)