Talk:1981 Spanish coup attempt

Comments

The dispute tag was there because there was a dispute, and remains a dispute over content. Someone moved part of the text and in the process either removed or moved elsewhere the reason for the dispute. But the article is littered with unsubstantiated POVs. FearÉIREANN 00:11, 2 May 2005 (UTC).

I have rewritten article, removing what i see as the POV and speculation in it. I have removed the tag because I don't believe the article now merits it, --SqueakBox 00:28, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

I assume you mean this pasted below, taken from Antonio' Tejero's talk page. In my opinion this article should be moved back to Tejero. What do others think? --SqueakBox 00:36, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

From Talk:Antonio Tejero

This article uses a lot of presumptions and conjecture with little evidence. It needs major NPOVing and credible sourcing.

For example: and refused to use his power over the military to stop it.

This one sentence is full of POV. In reality

• Could the King have stopped it?
• Did he have sufficient military power to stop it?
• Did he believe that it was a credible coup plan or was it just in his view a group of nutters who would amount to nothing? (Coup rumours were ten-a-penny in Spain as elsewhere in the 1970s. There were similar rumours in Ireland, the UK, France, Italy, and even the US! Just because there was a rumour doesn't mean there must be a coup, which this article presupposes.)

That one line is so POV in itself in its implicit presumptions as to be mindboggling. It implies a negative judgment without once recognising that it might be criticising him for not doing something he could not do in any case.

But the article has an even more elementary flaw: It also needs to decide the basic question as to what is it actually about -

• Tejero, or
• the coup attempt

It starts off about him and finishes with unevidenced, unproven, rumour-based stuff about the King that doesn't mention the person this article is supposed to be about. Either it needs to be about Tejero, in which case the conspirary stuff and most of the rest of it has to be deleted, or it should be renamed as being purely about the coup attempt, with the biographical stuff about Tejero deleted.

As an encyclopaedia article it is poorly evidenced, POV-ridden, unfocused and fails wikipedia (and general accuracy and neutrality) standards in a host of areas. I've labelled this with the neutrality disputed tag. Right now it seems to come from the Oliver Stone school of 'put two and two together and get five' school of paranoia. Unlike his ridiculous JFK garbage, this at least can be fixed. But right now it is not fit to be treated as if it was a credible NPOV article when it fails the standard so abysmally. FearÉIREANN 06:55, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree to a large degree here. I just moved the coup to the 23-F, and removed Disputed from the Tejero article... --Vikingstad 14:41, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

translation confirmation

I translated the reference of "los reyes" (the kings) to "the royals" as an interpretation that this is an informal way to refer to the members of the royal family or their emissaries. I was not so confident about this though, can anyone confirm it? -thanks,  EN1-UTE- (Talk) 21:43, 15 November 2024 UTC [refresh] </nowiki> -->Onceler (Talk) (Mail)   22:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's an informal use meaning the royal family, but it doesn't seem appropriate here either in style or meaning. I'd go for "the royal family" for the whole family, but actually "los Reyes" just means "the King and Queen", doesn't it? Flapdragon 00:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

International reactions?

Reactions in other countries? Who supported the coup? Who condemned it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.26.120.40 (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Political Consequences

This article or perhaps Spanish_transition_to_democracy needs more discussion about the political repurcussions of the coup. I had understood that the failure of the coup and King Juan Carlos' steadfastness resulted in a rallying of support for the efforts to democratize. Alcuin 04:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Was Tejero the leader

The article stated that Tejero was the "leader" of the coup. I've changed it to "most visible figure" as the 23-F is mysterious enough as to make it impossible to know who was the real leader. MJGR 07:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

{{unreferenced|date=August 2006}} tag

I've added the unsourced tag because the article doesn't mention any of its references. At the bottom it states it's based on the Spanish Wikipedia entry, but it has no outside references either. MJGR 07:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

stilted language

The language of this article is quite stilted in places, probably due to a poor translation. Effort should be put into improving it. Teemu Leisti (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually stilted is an understatement … in places the language is so impenetrable as to make it impossible to know what is intended.Pincrete (talk) 22:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

General Saez de Santamaría

Is Saez de "Santamaría" not "Santa María" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.126.1.254 (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Operation De Gaulle???

I've searched for any source about it, in Spanish or English, and I've been unable to find even a word about it. Extraordinary statements require extraordinary evidence, so I think it should be referenced or erased.85.136.199.112 (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

All of that material was added by an unsigned in user at 85.54.74.52. He included a vimeo link and a mention of a book. I looked at this page's sister on the Spanish wikipedia, and "Operation De Gaulle" seems just to refer to this operation generally, rather than to some specific conspiracy theory. The conspiracy nonsense was started by a "Jesús Palacios" who wrote a book on it, "23-F. El rey y su secreto". I have no reason to believe anyone in the Spanish speaking world takes this seriously. There was only one link on the Spanish page, that our page has as well, SPAIN: King Juan Carlos (plot theories). Given how their page has it, I've left this alone, however everything added by 85.54.74.52 I deleted.

Wingedsubmariner (talk) 05:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Western Europe??

Last sentence of section Consequences:

To date, 23-F has been the last coup attempt in the history of Western Europe.

But the article Western Europe claims that Spain is in Southern Europe... ! (??) HUH!!? Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 15:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Plagiarism from Javier Cercas

Parts of the article are directly lifted from the translation of Javier Cercas' book 'The Anatomy of a Moment: Thirty-Five Minutes in History and Imagination.' Although excellent as a source, this needs to be rectified. 79.154.191.129 (talk) 18:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)