Talk:Antonio Tejero

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

	Spain Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Armada was arrested February 28, 1981, and sentenced to 6 years in prison. He was released December 24, 1988,

Alfonso Armada was released July 1, 1990.

Armada is mentioned in two paragraphs, with two release dates. Which should it be?::garryq 19:02, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

and the first time he is mentioned, "Armada was arrested February 28, 1981, and sentenced to 6 years in prison." his full name and wiki link is not given. There needs to be some introduction to say who this character is which precedes this mention. I googled his name but I couldn't find much. Does he even exist? dave 00:44, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I think he had been a teacher for the King or something. --Error 00:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Golpe a golpe 2 POV? 3 23-F 4 rank

[edit] Golpe a golpe

How is Un rey golpe a golpe restricted? I think I have seen it in hypermarkets. Or do you mean it is out of print? --Error 00:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV?

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)

[edit] 23-F

I think the article 23-F, which was material from here, be moved bck here. What do others think? --SqueakBox 00:37, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

No, FearÉIREANN's criticism above would still apply. They should be separate articles. That said, there is information that was moved there that should remain here, specifically anything relating to Tejero's participation and judicial outcomes. --Dhartung | Talk 02:00, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] rank

This article says he was a lieutenant colonel, but he's in the category 'Spanish generals.' I take it, therefore, that he either was a general, or he doesn't belong in that category. Can anyone confirm his rank?

Right, he was lieutenant colonel, in Spanish teniente coronel.

The article says "Tejero was a lieutenant". But, isn't he now? Has he been demoted? Expelled of the army? The article doesn't say anything. MJGR 07:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I would imagine that he was discharged from the army at the time he was sentenced; don't have a source for this explicitly but it is pretty standard practice! -- Blorg 11:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)