Talk:Francisco Franco

Objectivity Improvements

There are some glaring failures of objectivity in this controversial article. (Content must be written from a neutral point of view.)

For example, Hitler's policy is described as "shrewd and pragmatic": "A hundred per cent Franco's victory was not desirable from a German Point of view; rather were we interested in a continuance of the war and in the keeping up of the tension in the Mediterranean."[89]

Yet Stalin's Politburo - espousing virtually the same sentiment - is a "shocking" "Machiavellian calculation": "it would be more advantageous to the Soviet Union if neither of the warring camps gained proponderant [sic] strength, and if the war in Spain dragged on as long as possible and thus tied up Hitler for a long time."

spelling error

instead of frente nacional it should be front nacional. this appears in the section headered 1936 general election which is under his military career under "during the second spanish republic". I would edit this but apparently I cannot TDD24 (talk) 12:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Paragraph doesn't fit the tone of the article

This paragraph in question in section "Spain under Franco":

All in all, some authors have pointed at a purported artificialness and failure of FET JONS in order to de-emphasise the Fascist weight within the regime whereas others have embedded those perceived features of "weak party" within the frame of a particular model of "Spanish Fascism". However, new research material has been argued to underpin the "Fascist subject", both on the basis of the existence of a pervasive and fully differentiated Fascist falangist political culture, and on the importance of the Civil War for falangism, which served as an area of experience, of violence, of memory, as well as for the generation of a culture of victory. Under the perspective of a comparative of European fascisms, Javier Rodrigo considers the Francoist regime to be paradigmatic for three reasons: for being the only authoritarian European regime with totalitarian aspirations, for being the regime that deployed the most political violence in times of rhetorical peace, and for being the regime deploying the most effective "memoricidal" apparatus.

I contend that it is a poorly written academic exercise that doesn't fit the tone of the rest of the article. It uses classic bloated language to seem intellectual when it really doesn't say much. I feel the article is not better with this paragraph, and would be much better without it. The rest of the article is very straight forward, and this seems more like a critical analysis than a historical review. Angryapathy (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC) Angryapathy (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I contend that it is a poorly written academic exercis I am persuaded to think that it is indeed poorly written (that can be sorted out by reading the source and copyediting). I don't think it is an academic exercise, but a NPOV exercise on explaining how different authors approach a historiographical issue. that doesn't fit the tone of the rest of the article I don't know but the tone of this article has been chiefly hagiographic for a while so I don't see a problem with it.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I am assuming you are the one who wrote this section, correct? This should help other editors understand your position on the paragraph. Angryapathy (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I have to check, but yes, I perhaps wrote it fully or partially. I can also claim that 1) this was not solely created from a 2013 source (but from two sources) 2) I am not the author of any the sources. This should help other editors understand your prior unsubstantiated and innacurate prejudices about the content. Now, I invite you to read the sources and explain why content based on research articles explaining historiographical approaches to an issue are not helpful on principle. Other than that, 1) I understand that there might be rightful issues about the poor quality of writing and that 2) concerns about the relevance of the sources 3) the whole section possibly being a better fit for "Francoist Spain" than for this article? --Asqueladd (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

In the future, you should be more upfront about whether you personally created the content. It creates a false impression that you are indifferently defending information in the article rather than you're own personal contributions. The edits were made over a year ago and do not show up in the previous 500 edits.

As for verifying the sources, I do not speak Spanish, but I do speak English. And as an English speaker, I can tell you that this paragraph does not fit the tone of the article. Angryapathy (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Sanz Hoya, how would you write about how different authors have weighed on the fascistization of the regime and how new research have moved on from a previous "narrow"/"schematic" understanding of fascism (as per the source the explanation about the balance "between the traditional views and the historiographical renewal"? And regarding Javier Rodrigo, which is exactly your problem with the properly attributed assertion?--Asqueladd (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I've said everything I need to say about this. If other editors see this section and agree, then the paragraph will be edited or removed. Arguing with you about it is a waste of time. Angryapathy (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear, in the future, other than for respecting a creative commons license, I won't be self-attributing any piece of Wikipedia content because it goes against the Wikipedia ethos (articles are not signed).--Asqueladd (talk) 18:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense, but sure, that's your choice. Angryapathy (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

It does not make sense to you, it may make sense to other editors. Just try to stay civil. Also, focusing on the editor and not the content is also discouraged on here.--Asqueladd (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)