Talk:Spanish Military Union

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	European military history task force
	Spanish military history task force

Spain Low‑importance

	Spain portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

nice article, though I think a few things need some re-work. --89.66.186.86 (talk) 09:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to everything you have said is WP:V, the absolute cornerstone of this website. If your versions are correct then edit the article with the WP:RS to back you up but if they're not available then it remains. No need for an individual user to create so many sections on a talk page by the way, it makes it more difficult to follow. However I'll deal with each point in turn. Keresaspa (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

exactly the opposite. Detailing the issues one by one allows more clarity of debate, helps adhering to the point and - and perhaps most important - prevents sweeping, general "all you say is wrong/right" discussion.--89.64.7.66 (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

pro-fascist

„pro-fascist”, „closely associated with fascism”. UME was born as sort of a corporative professional organisation, a reaction against reforms intended to scale down the army. Over time it started to assume political shape, which has always remained very vague, though generally conservative, and it is perhaps all which can be safely said about is political program. Labeling it „fascist” looks like a typical catch of the present media war, waged in Spain as continuation of the Civil War --89.66.186.86 (talk) 09:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's sourced. Find sources that disagree and add them to but don't remove the one you don't like either. Assuming you unearth any rephrase it something along the lines of "a secret society characterised by some authors as pro-fascist [source already given], a characterisation disputed by others [source(s) that disagree". Keresaspa (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- it is sourced? where? which footnote? I do not see any reference backing the claim.--89.64.7.66 (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

to restore monarchy

purpose of UME was „to bring about restoration of the monarchy”. See above. By no stretch of imagination UME can be considered a monarchist vehicle. Many – I mean many, not an insignificant minority – of its members were republicans, many did not seem to have clear ideas and tended to accidentalismo --89.66.186.86 (talk) 09:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't state that at all. It says involved in a conspiracy to do so, which is then eleborated on later. That;s not an explicit claim that its entire membership was monarchist. Keresaspa (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- yes the article says this explicitly and in the very lead.--89.64.7.66 (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tarduchi

Tarduchi was „partisan for the Falange under „Miguel Primo de Rivera”. I think this absurd does not require elaboration. Falange was born few years after Primo’s regime had collapsed --89.66.186.86 (talk) 09:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

reference to the Falange is wrong and will be removed after I've finished replaying to all of thse. Keresaspa (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- thanks--89.64.7.66 (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

what two conspiracies?

„Conspiracies” section is so clumsy that initially I did not even understand what it tried to say. It took me reading the source to understand that according to one theory, there were 2 military conspiracies: one of UME and one „of the generals”, both allegedly amalgamated in the third conspiracy, this of Mola. Even if so, since the entry is about UME it would suffice to say that the UME conspirators put themselved as the disposal of Mola in the spring of 1936 --89.66.186.86 (talk) 09:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's all sourced and the written English is fine. Providing background details is also perfectly fine too as most people who read articles on Wikipedia are not experts and so need relevant information filled in. That's pretty standard round here. Keresaspa (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "written English is fine", routine is "perfectly fine" and "pretty standard" - congratulations on your self-confidence, wonder what the native English speakers would say--89.64.7.66 (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

killing list

UME „maintained a list of leading republican officers to be assassinated”. Source please? It is the first time I hear about it. Some authors claim the preparing the coup UME tried to identify officers most likely to mount a would-be opposition, but this is a far cry from a „killing list” --89.66.186.86 (talk) 09:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The source is at the end of the sentence although it uses the terms "black list", which I will substitute for "assassination list". Keresaspa (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not think that sort of "rounding up" things is welcome here, especially when it comes to killing people. Perhaps precise wording would be more appreciated--89.64.7.66 (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Castillo killing

UME was related to killing Faraudo and Castillo. Any source? Most sources blame Falange and only Falange for the killings. I have never encountered scholarly claim linking UME to the assassinations. Logic of this chapter is even more extraordinary, as it suggests that by killing the two, UME triggered the Civil War --89.66.186.86 (talk) 09:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again the article doesn't claim they were, it simply says people on the black list were killed without apportioning any blame. Keresaspa (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- agree, the article does not say it explicitly, but the logic is exactly this. UME maintained a killing list, and two men were killed afterwards. The sequence implies UME was involved in killing the two.--89.64.7.66 (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

disappearance

„The group disappeared after the war”. No way. It disappeared during first weeks of the coup. No-one has heard of UME in 1937 --89.66.186.86 (talk) 09:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That bit isn't sourced so can be removed. Keresaspa (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.64.7.66 (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

part of nationalist forces

„Members of this organization became part of the nationalist forces”. Yes, mostly. However, there were notable exceptions. Guess you would agree that the most notable army commanders of the Republican faction were Miaja and Rojo. So what? Both were members of UME --89.66.186.86 (talk) 09:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Change to "the majority of members...". Keresaspa (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- sounds much better, thanks. Still, I think it would be worthwile to include somewhere in the texts the names of Rojo and Miaja, as this would give the reader an idea of heterodox and somewhat vague political nature of UME. Of course, this would also help to dismantle the myth of Fascist or Falangist character of UME --89.64.7.66 (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

membership

„membership was now estimated at almost half of all serving officers”. March 1936 estimates were that 3,400 active officers had been enrolled, a figure far closer to one fourth than to a half; Busquets, the scholar quoted in the text, estimates it even at 10% --89.66.186.86 (talk) 09:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to the source given in that sentence. If there are others that disagree add them and mention the source disagreement ("According to de Meneses its membership was now estimated....However Busquets has stated....[source])Keresaspa (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- unfortunately googlebooks does not display the page in the source referenced, so I can not check. But will. --89.64.7.66 (talk) 16:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Falange link

„and included many who held dual membership with the Falange”. This seems to be sort of an obsession, with repeated suggestions that UME and Falange had much in common. Following the Primo times, which compromised the military politically, the officer corps in general preferred to stay clear of politics and professed sort of „state and order” ideology, though of course increasing numbers – still minoritarian– joined Right-wing and Left-wing parties. However, Falange was a third-rate grouplet and its influence on the officer corps was minimal. Except Yague I am not able to list any officer sympathetic to Falange --89.66.186.86 (talk) 09:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again it is sourced, so add any that disagree without removing the first one. Keresaspa (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- as above--89.64.7.66 (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Franco and UME

Franco „made direct contact with the group [UME] ... and made them part of his own plans”. I beg your pardon? This statement puts what is known about the conspiracy on its head. First, nothing is known about any Franco’s „own plans”, and all seems to indicat he had none, despite his later extravagant claims. Second, the passage suggests UME was sort of subordinated to Franco, while in fact until almost the very end Franco remained a vacillating general on the periphery of the conspiracy --89.66.186.86 (talk) 09:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Last bit of the sentence can be removed as it isn't in the source provided. Keresaspa (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- sounds somewhat better, thanks--89.64.7.66 (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]