Talk:Francisco Franco/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

RfC Should the 1934 Asturias Revolution (also know Asturias miner's revolt, or rebellion) be labeled as "bloody" or "violent" in the lead section of General Franco's biography ?

The consensus is against the proposed changes.

Cunard (talk) 08:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the 1934 Asturias Revolution (also know Asturias miner's revolt, or rebellion) be labeled as "bloody" or "violent" in the lead section of General Franco's biography? J Pratas (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


I say YES Many sources either use words like violent, bloody, etc... or describe a series of killings, terror, pillages, etc. when describing the event.

  • Encyclopdia Britannica:
bloody uprising by miners in Asturias that was suppressed by troops led by General Franco.- [1]
  • Richard Eder Special to The New York Times, Jan. 15, 1970:
The bloody, and bloodily suppressed, miners' revolt of 1934 was a major step toward theirrecon cilable split of right and left that brought on the Civil War in 1936. [2]
  • Sarah Sanchez - Fact and Fiction: Representations of the Asturian Revolution (1934-1938):
By October the Alianza Obrera in Asturias had at their disposal three thousand organized and armed men dividing into squads, ready to take part in the fighting.....The revolution spread from Mieres, Campomanes and Lagreo to Oviedo, where the fighting was more most bloody [3] 

armed insurrection in the northern region of Asturias...in Asturias a full-scale civil war broke out....They murdered some 40 people, mainly rich citizens and several priests. The government declared martial law and sent General Franco to suppress the rebellion. [4]
  • Stanley G. Payne Spain's First Democracy: The Second Republic, 1931-1936 page 219
they officially declared the proletarian revolution, abolished regular money,  and also instituted a revolutionary terror that took more than a score of lives, mostly of clergy. [5]

"Thirty thousand workers had been mobilized for battle within ten days.... In the meantime, there was pillage and unprovoked violence on the part of the revolutionaries....the Bishop's Palace and much of the University at Oviedo were destroyed, including the library....a few businessman and about twelve priests were shot....the government was now faced with civil war" [6]
  • José E. Álvarez: "The Spanish Foreign Legion during the Asturian Uprising of October 1934
 "uprising turned into a full-scale social revolution which threatened the nascent Second Republic" [7]
  • Martin Blinkhorn :
"A full-scale revolt" [8]

--J Pratas (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Vatican News: "Cirilo Bertrán and 8 Companions, religious of the Institute of Brothers of the Christian Schools and Inocencio de la Inmaculada, priest of the Congregation of the Passion of Jesus Christ, martyrs (+1934, +1937)". Holly See. Vatican News. Nov 21, 1999.
Church recognizes the holiness of nine Brothers of the Christian Schools and of a Passionist Father. Eight of these Brothers formed a community which ran a school in Turon in the centre of a mining valley of the Asturias, in the north-east of Spain; they were martyred in 1934...At dawn on October 5th 1934, a group of rebels forced their way into the Brothers' school in Turón. The Brothers and the Passionist Father were imprisoned in the "House of the People" while waiting for a decision from the revolutionary Committee. Under pressure from extremists, the Committee decided to condemn them to death: religious had a notable influence in the country because a great part of the population sent its children to the Brothers' school



 It began on the evening of 4 October, with the miners occupying several towns, attacking and seizing local Civil and Assault Guard barracks...In the two weeks following October 5 a total of perhaps 40 persons were murdered...The principal victims, however, were priests. Several convents were unsuccessfully searched for arms, and priests trying to escape through the windows were shot like rabbits"  


"Recruitment offices demanded the services of all workers between the ages of eighteen and forty for the 'Red Army'. Thirty thousand workers had been mobilized for battle within ten days"

--J Pratas (talk) 08:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)



No. The changes JPratas was proposing are a misrepresentation of sources and a misrepresentation of the emphasis of the sources. A case of WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH, CIVIL POVPUSHING. Follow what the corpus of secondary sources do in terms of the cause-effect presentation when commenting on the Franco's role. Chiefly, sources do not call it a "bloody revolution" (a bloody revolution is the Chinese Revolution). That's not to say there are no alternatives for revolution if he/she thinks it may be a problem (including "rebellion", "revolutionary uprising", "full-scale revolt", "revolutionary strike", the later probably being the most established historiographic term, or, more idiomatically, "Franco led the brutal suppression of the violent miners' strike in Asturias."), although this may stem from personal insecurity (f.e. the French Revolution was indeed very "bloody" and no one is exactly suggesting to telegraph it in the first line of the former's article). However the edit JPratas has persistently trying to impose is not an improvement. Apparently he/she wants validation for adding an over-the-top combo ("bloody revolution" [sic]) as rhetorical device to whitewash the lead in hagiographic terms (in a kind of Theory of the two demons fashion). Secondary sources do not use "bloody revolution" (particularly as in as "(equally) bloody" as the repression, which it is the explicit purpose of JPratas here when trying to insert the adjective, even if academia disagrees) when succinctly presenting the miners' strike, the repression and Franco's role in the latter. 

"In October 1934, convinced that fascism was about to be imposed in Spain, the workers of the northern mining districts of Asturias rose in protest' at the entry of the CEDA into the government. Diego Hidalgo informally placed Franco in charge of the repression of the uprising". "Diego Hidalgo's total reliance on Franco effectively gave him control of the functions of both Ministries, a control which 'he exercised with notable ruthlessness".

"At Franco's initiative, they (the African Army) had been used violently to repress the workers' rebellion in the northern mining cuenca"
  • [11]; Paul Heywood. "Marxism and the Failure of Organised Socialism in Spain, 1879-1936".
"the socialist-led insurrectionary strike movement of October 1934 was a failure throughout all of Spain, collapsing rapidly everywhere except in Asturias, where it was brutally suppressed by Moorish troops led by General Francisco Franco"

"Asturian workers reduced by submission by the joint action of the Army, Navy, and Air Force under the overall coordination of General Franco, who used brutal mercenaries from Spanish Morocco"; "After the revolutionary uprising was put down...").

"These (Moroccan regulares) were Spanish's most battle hardened forces and sending them to deal with a strike, was, in operational terms, unnecessarily extreme reaction. For Franco, the repression of the Asturian rising represented both the subjugation of a hostile tribe and the salvation of the area in the name of Christianity. The rebels put up extraordinary resistance for two weeks, but could not hold out indefinitely against overwhelmingly superior forces." "The ferocity of the reprisals taken by government forces, particularly the Legionnaries and Regulares, aided by members of the Falange and of the CEDA youth movement, exceeded anything seen thereto." "'Even after the revolution itself had been crushed, 'cleansing operations' continued well into November."
  • [14]; Michael Seidman. "The Victorious Counterrevolution: The Nationalist Effort in the Spanish".
"Asturias miners rebelled against what they perceived to be the "fascist" orientation of the new right-wing government in Madrid. In several  weeks of intense action, 'General Francisco Franco and his African troops brutally suppressed them.
  • [15]; Judith Keene. "Fighting For Franco"
"In October 1934, in the Asturian miners' strike, when Franco was called in to put down the uprising, he did so with great ferocity using units from the army of Africa stiffened with Moorish Regulares, the first time they had been used on the mainland against Spanish citizens. Ruthlessly, he gave no quarter to strikers in house-to-house fighting."

"A two-week strike in the northern region of Asturias in October 1934 by miners armed with whatever they could lay hands on and taking on the police, had ended when it was bloodily suppressed by notably brutal troops specially brought in from Morocco by none other than the future dictator, General Francisco Franco. The repression was savage, often barbarous. Some 2,000 civilians were left dead, 4,000 injured and 30,000 jailed, many of them tortured while in prison."
  • [16]; Antonio Cazorla-Sánchez. "Franco: The Biography of the Myth":
"so-called Asturian revolution/"Atrocities were common with the government forces commiting most of them."
  • [17]; "Asturias Revolt/Bloodily supressed").
  • [18]; "Insurrectionary rising in Asturias region of Spain brutally suppressed by army led by General Franco"]
  • [19]; "grève insurrectionnelle d’octobre 1934. « La révolte des Asturies »" "Ils sont l’objet d’une répression sévère conduite par les généraux Franco et Goded")

--Asqueladd (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

  • No — according to sources, the suppression was much more bloody than the uprising (40 dead vs 2,000 dead). Secondly, the suppression is much more relevant to Franco's biography than the uprising. Perhaps a casualty estimate of the repression could be included in the lede. buidhe 10:02, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
* Those numbers are not accurate. According to Hugh Thomas, 2,000 persons died in the uprising: 230-260 military and police, 33 priests (from the legitimate republican side) vs 1,500 miners in combat and 200 individuals killed in the repression (Thomas|1977|p=136). Stanley Payne estimates that the rebel's atrocities killed between 50 and 100 people and that the government conducted up to 100 summary executions, while 15 million pesetas were stolen from banks, most which was never recovered and would go on to fund further revolutionary activity. (Payne|Palacios|2018|p=90)
The same day saw columns of miners advancing along the road to Oviedo, the provincial capital. With the exception of two barracks in which fighting with the garrison of 1,500 government troops continued, the city was taken by October 6. The miners proceeded to occupy several other towns, most notably the large industrial centre of La Felguera, and set up town assemblies, or "revolutionary committees", to govern the towns that they controlled. (Thomas|1977|p=131)
Within three days the center of Asturias was in the hands of the rebels. The revolutionary soviets set up by the miners attempted to impose order on the areas under their control, and the moderate socialist leadership of Ramón González Peña and Belarmino Tomás took measures to restrain violence. However, a number of captured priests, businessmen and civil guards were summarily executed by the revolutionaries in Mieres and Sama, and churches, convents, the Bishop's Palace and much of the University at Oviedo were destroyed, including the library. (Thomas|1977|p=132)
Taking Oviedo the rebels were able to seize the city' arsenal gaining 24,000 rifles, carbines and light and heavy machine guns.(Álvarez|2011) Recruitment offices demanded the services of all workers between the ages of eighteen and forty for the 'Red Army'. Thirty thousand workers had been mobilized for battle within ten days.(Thomas|1977)
In the occupied areas the rebels officially declared the proletarian revolution and abolished regular money.(Payne|1993|p=219)
According to Hugh Thomas and Anthony Beevor "The government was now facing a civil war". If this is not bloody, then what is? J Pratas (talk) 10:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • No. The uprising and its suppression may well be described as "bloody", however there is no need for such evocative language. I would suggest providing casualty counts that are factual in lieu of the evocative language.--Eostrix (talk) 13:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Eostrix just to clarify. In case we keep what you call evocative language you agree that both uprising and its suppression may well be described as "bloody", right? --J Pratas (talk) 17:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Possibly, though from what I see from the quotations above "violent" for uprising and "brutal" or "ruthless" for the suppression is possibly better. But it is best if value laden judgements are avoided and we stick to clear facts.--Eostrix (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I understand your point about being factual and I am ok with it Eostrix. But to be clear, your vote is "YES" with preference for the word "violent" in the case we were to keep evocative language. However you think that much better than using adjectives would be to use facts and figures. Right?
My vote is pretty clearly stated as No above.--Eostrix (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • No: Such wording is simply unnecessary, per User:Eostrix. Just click on the article link or find the casualty/fatality statistics, and it will be clear without any need for evocative language. This is an encyclopedia, not English literature class. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A few things needing to be fixed

1) The sentence "After serving in Morocco, he rose through the ranks to become brigadier general" is not correct. Franco did no rise through the ranks after serving in Morocco. It was while, not after. He rose very fast because he was on the front. 2) The sentence "In post-war Spain, Franco ruled with more power than any Spanish leader before or since" is pure speculation and not grounded on any academic work. It is also of no value. Do we really want to compare Franco with Felippe I? or Charles I ? and who had more power? 3) The paragraph "Domestically Franco lifted Spain out of its mid-19th century economic depression through technocratic and economically liberal policies, presiding over a period of rampant growth known as the "Spanish miracle". During the start of the Cold War, his regime transitioned from being openly totalitarian to an authoritarian system with limited pluralism and became a leader in the anti-Communist movement, garnering support from the West, particularly the United States" is in wrong chornological order. Cold war started first. 4) Scholars agree that before the 1936 coup Franco was mostly an apolitical disciplined military. He was not part of the conspirancy. He jointed last minute. This is an important trait that was lost in recent editing. --J Pratas (talk) 06:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I will do some minor edits to fix these points. But Franco's post-civil-war power is from Payne, who said that Franco ruled with, on paper, more power than any Spanish leader before or since, and that he was not even required to consult his cabinet for most legislation and did not even have a rubber-stamp parliaments (like Hitler or Stalin) --Havsjö (talk) 07:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
ThanksJ Pratas (talk) 12:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Copy-editing Lead Section Edits

Hi @Havsjö: it looks like we're both very close to having a nice, polished lead. We seem to be circling around a couple of edits and I'd like to hash them out here so the article edited in a more stable manner. First and foremost, this lead can almost certainly be refined to four tightly-edited paragraphs. The content is great, however the wording and amount of detail is problematic and more approbate for the body than the lead. Again, not a content dispute but copy-editing concerns. Great progress has been made thus far, lets figure out what to do with the legacy section and how to tighten the fourth paragraph. Here are some edits of yours I'd like clarity on:

You added: "He was devastated by the closing of his Academy"
Using the wording "he was devastated" is the mark of poor encyclopedic language and is discouraged on articles (and leads).
You added: "his regime transitioned from being openly totalitarian to an authoritarian system"
This would be better written as "his regime transitioned from being totalitarian to authoritarian". The current lead suffers from overly drawn out wording which can easily be trimmed.
You added: "Franco regretted the abolition of the monarchy and the establishment of the Second Republic in 1931
Again, unencyclopedic tone, better wording would be "Franco opposed the dissolution of the monarchy and the the Second Republic in 1931". This sentence is less wordy and conveys the same message.

Lastly, the legacy section:

You added: Franco remains a controversial figure in Spanish history and the nature of his dictatorship changed over time. His reign was marked by both brutal repression, with thousands killed, and economic prosperity, which greatly improved the quality of life in Spain. His dictatorial style proved very adaptable, which could introduce social and economic reform, and the only consistent points in Franco's long rule were above all authoritarianism, Spanish nationalism, National Catholicism, anti-freemasonry, and anti-communism.
Replacing: "Franco's legacy in Spanish history is controversial for its dynamic nature – specifically around nationalism, state religion, anti-freemasonry, and anti-communism – as well as for its balance between morbid repression and economic prosperity."
Note how this simpler sentence conveys the same information in less words and allows the lead to fall in line with the four paragraph suggestion of leads on Wikipedia. Also note that link to "legacy in Spanish history" – there's a lot of very interesting info about his legacy that readers can click on for more information that we don't have to spell out.

I think we can discuss these edits and come to a productive conclusion as we have for all our other edits. Also, if any of my copy-editing misses any historical details that are important let me know. My only objective here is to copy-edit – I'm not a historian. Let me know your suggestions, we're almost there! Donna Spencertalk-to-me⛅ 22:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@DonSpencer1: Thanks and thats good.Some things I think should be opinions/notes.
I removed the "devastated" from the "He was devastated by the closing of his Academy" after I saw you mention that
The "his regime transitioned from being openly totalitarian to an authoritarian system" I think could use the "limited pluralism" note, since its pretty special that the dictatorships unique way of "pluralism" existed at all (the "families" of the Movimiento Nacional)
Your proposed "Franco opposed the dissolution of the monarchy and the the Second Republic in 1931" maybe should include "establishment" of 2nd Rep (not too sure about this though)? Also, it should be a "milder" word than "oppose", such as "regretted" etc, since he continued to loyally serve until the coup much later, even if he wasn't to happy about the republics creation and political system. This word choice was discussed in TALK previously.
The final "legacy" sentence I think could be modified or rewritten. The shortened version does not really convey the same message as the original final paragraph does. The original says that the reason for controversy is because, due to the changing nature, the same ruling period contained both the killings + economic boom". Then notes that "it was very "adaptable", which is why it had such large reforms (social and economic only, Franco still always in charge), but that the only consistent points were those 5 things". The new one: Franco's legacy in Spanish history is controversial for its dynamic nature – specifically around nationalism, state religion, anti-freemasonry, and anti-communism – as well as for its balance between morbid repression and economic prosperity. seems to more say its controversial because it was "dynamic", or that it was controversial specifically around the 5 points, then noting "in addition" to its killings + economy. Even clarified, the killings/economy is not what I would call "balance" (lol). The original paragraph notes the "changing nature" because its started with the totalitarian White Terror and ended as much softened + the "spanish miracle", not a really a "dynamic balance" between the two, but a big shift. The original then notes that despite this big shift, those 5 things were consistent throughout (but not really the reason for controversy) ("National Catholicism" should be spelled out imo, as "state religion" becomes an easter egg link and Nat.Cat. was a big thing in itself). I think the sentence can be a sentence instead of the paragraph if its rewritten to convey this message. (Personally I think a paragraph capping of his life-summary with a short summary of his position in history is not out of order, such as on Mao Zedong's lede, but whatever) --Havsjö (talk) 07:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
@Havsjö: Very good. The more I look at Mao Zedong's the not half-bad it looks. So if we're going to keep a short paragraph about his legacy we should glitz it up with links to the articles legacy section and do some minor copy-editing for readability. Other than that I think we can trim the 3rd paragraph just a little more so it matches the length of the preceding two. For example:
The Organic Law in 1966 redefined Franco's powers and officially defined the office of Prime Minister.
How important is this? Does it need to be in the lead? In the preceding sentence we could link "resigned as prime minister" to Organic Law of the State to create resigned as prime minister and cut the sentence. Also changed National Catholicism to religious identity, would that work? Its just that it looks a little clunky to list four things in lowercase and have one in uppercase. What was National Catholicism, exactly? If you can find a definition a simple link would work well. Donna Spencertalk-to-me⛅ 14:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
The Organic Law put an institutionalized/official definition/limit on Head of State powers + Head of State/Head of Government (Prime Minister) separation. Maybe another word can be used to indicate this more than "redefine". He also remained as both Head of State and PM after this law until 1973, so he didn't resign as PM with the Organic Law. National Catholicism is basically what the wiki page of it says in the intro: "The hegemony that the Catholic Church had in all aspects of public and private life." --Havsjö (talk) 13:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
So is it important enough for the lead or can it be reserved for the body of the article? Likewise is "religious identity" an appropriate way to note National Catholicism in the lead per its article: "part of the ideological identity..."? Donna Spencertalk-to-me⛅ 17:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
@DonSpencer1: Personally I think National Catholicism should be called National Catholicism (maybe doesn't have to be capitalized), as Im not sure how suitable calling it "religious identity" is. As for the mention of the Organic Law, I think its can be included on the basis of showing the difference of his rule from the "more power than anyone before or since" after the civil war to the officially separated positions with legally limited powers of the Organic Law. This is also why I think it should say "limited/institutionalized Francos powers" rather than "redefined", to show the "point" of the mention of the Organic Law to demonstrate what his power-level/rule is like then vs before. --Havsjö (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Okay I've put "National Catholicism" in lowercase. You argument for keeping this wording seems to be more convincing for removing the sentence than keeping it. How about "remained head of state and commander-in-chief under the Organic Law of the State of 1966"? If readers want more information, such as its role in chaning Franco's powers, they can click on the link or explore further down in the article. Donna Spencertalk-to-me⛅ 21:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
@DonSpencer1: How about something like
In 1973 Franco resigned as prime minister, separated from the position of head of state since 1966, due to advanced age and illness, but remained in power as the latter and(/as well as) commander-in-chief. That trims it like you suggested, but quickly explains the related function/role of the law instead of just mentioning its name --Havsjö (talk) 09:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Thats perfect. The goal here is to have the same content with leaner wording. I'll throw it on the lead. Donna Spencertalk-to-me⛅ 20:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Franco's (alleged) early heroic resume?

I am reverting the statement that assets that ¨official biographers usually emphasize an alleged early heroic resume, but the simple consultation of his service record does not back such flattering assertions, and his promotions can be explained rather via intrigues or by buttering his superiors. This is a POV from Xavier Casals, and if a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Historians, including those who openly detest Franco, coincide in classifying Franco's early military resume as "outstanding". Find below a few examples. Many more can be added.

  • Paul Preston: Franco "was an outstandingly and able soldier between 1912 and 1926, a calculated careerist between 1927 and 1936. A competente war leader between 1937 and 1939..... For his bravery in a battle at Beni Salem on the outskirts of Tetuan on 1 February 1914 the twenty on year old Franco was promoted do Captain por "méritos de guerra"...it was about this time that that anecdotes begun to be told about about his apparent imperturbability under fire. He was said to be cold and serene under fire rather than reckless and brave.....he was shot in the stomach. Normally in Africa adbdominal wounds were fatal. That night's report referred to Captain's Franco incomparable bravery...his moorish troops believed that he was blessed with baraka, the mystical divine protection that kept him invulnerable...he was recognized to be a brave and competente soldier to be trusted under fire" (See Franco, de Paul Preston).
  • Hugh Thomas - He had a reputation for bravery and for good luck under fire. He rode with horses in battle. The efficiency of the foreign legion owed much to him
  • Javier Tusell - "Era uno de los militares más ilustres de la España de entonces...El triunfo profesional de Franco, indudable en ese momento, y difícil de contestar para cualquiera que pretendiera hacerlo desde una óptica política u otra, era el producto de valentia, pero sobretodo de la dedicación. La fama que tenía....era la de un profesional de las armas que no tenía una adscrición política. (Franco en la Guerra Civil-Una biografía política, Javier Tusell , Editorial: Tusquets Editores S.A. P. 15)J Pratas (talk) 09:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I think the distinction here is between his early career (prior to 1926) and afterwards. Paul Preston maybe describes this best - " a calculated careerist between 1927 and 1936".--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 09:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I see your point but Franco was promoted to brigadier general in 1926. This made him the youngest general in Spain, and perhaps, along with Major-General Joe Sweeney of the Irish Army, one of the youngest generals in Europe. The statement from Xavier Casals is on Franco's early heroic resume. And the section where it was included is on Franco's early path. The fact that Franco can be classified as a calculated careerist between 1927 and 1936 does not mean that his ¨early heroic resume¨ is fake and that "the simple consultation of his service record does not back such flattering assertions, and his promotions can be explained rather via intrigues or by buttering his superiors".J Pratas (talk) 09:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
The sources explains:
  • how his promotion to commander after the battle of Biutz was rejected because according to the investigation "he was the first wounded of the company so he could not have directed the assault nor taken part in acts of courage" (citing other secondary sources: Gabriel Cardona: military historian & Ricardo de la Cierva), yet he seeked a meeting with Alfonso XIII sending him a curriculum in 1916 so he could get the promotion anyways (citing secondary source: Carlos Blanco: military historian). This episode proved Franco the value of the "merit of well-conducted intrigues" in the military career (citing secondary source: Philippe Nourry: biographer of Franco).
  • It also explains the promotion to Captain.

--Asqueladd (talk) 09:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The fact that when Franco survived a gunshot wound to the abdomen and he did not get the promotion he thought he deserved and he tried to get it anyway does not mean that his ¨early heroic resume¨ is fake and that "the simple consultation of his service record does not back such flattering assertions, and his promotions can be explained rather via intrigues or by buttering his superiors" J Pratas (talk) 10:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
That's fantastic because then the problem is the poor phrasing I chose rather than a quality author and reliable secondary source based in facts and evaluations by other reliable secondary sources publishing in a peer-reviewed journal about the African period of Franco. So then I will start inserting "how his promotion to commander after the battle of Biutz was rejected yet he seeked a meeting with Alfonso XIII sending him a curriculum so he could get the promotion anyways, which he ultimately got, proving Franco the importance of the 'merit of well-conducted intrigues' in the military career". I will deal later with the captain promotion.--Asqueladd (talk) 10:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
The problem is not so much the poor phrasing but the fact that the statement is inaccurate.J Pratas (talk) 11:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Correct Death Date

It was brought to my attention this person died on November 19, he was dead at 6pm, can we put in parenthesis or? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proijects (talk • contribs) 09:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

New definition of Fascism

In a recent article, an author uses a definition of fascism developed by the writer and retired businessman, Laurence Britt. To develop his theory, Britt compared the regimes of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Salazar, George Papadopoulos and Suharto, all of which he deemed fascist. Can we now accept this new definition and change this article to reflect its findings? Please discuss at WP:RSN#Proud Boys. Note that while the source is used to label the Proud Boys as fascist, it could also be used as a source for other articles if it is deemed reliable. TFD (talk) 23:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Claim that Franco was not a fascist

The header says that: "Although often identified as fascist, very few scholars of the matter consider Franco's Spain such, usually recognizing it as conservative and authoritarian", but it seems that none of the sources which should support this claim say that, often saying the contrary. For example, Payne says the the process of defascistization in spain began after the death of Mussolini. The paragraph sentence itself seems to come from the Guardian article[20], but this article writes "It tells us of a Spanish right wing that has been able to embrace democracy but still rejects its memory, preferring that of a fascist regime responsible for a horrible war and years of repression.". The sentence is wrong IMO. Hervegirod (talk) 14:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

DarthKurgan (talk) 19:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)It seems to me that Franco would be better categorized as a "Monarchist" than a "Fascist". He stood for the ancient regime, the counter-revolution of the Throne and Altar you could say, whilst Mussolini or Hitler while we're at it were populist nationalists (It's the main reason you got guys like Julius Evola and Oswald Spengler being critical of them for instance) who did not much care for either of those institutions to put it lightly. The Falange were going for that and worked with Franco to in their minds protect their national sovereignty, but he wound up simply co-opting and then undermining them by the end. I'd make pretty much the same argument for Phillipe Petain and Hideki Tojo who also get classified as Fascists on Wikipedia. I'd list Miklos Horthy as well who is often put in the same boat like those the other guys, but he seems to have avoided the label here on Wikipedia. Lol.

The sentence has 4 references: 1) Payne's book titled Fascism in Spain, 1923–1977 (ahem), 2) the 2011 Guardian Op-Ed decrying revisionism, 3) Franco and the Spanish Civil War (p87 not available via Googlebooks, but "authoritarian" is applied to communists as well as "nationalists", the term slightly outnumbering "fascist" "authoritarian" and "conservative" in search results), 4) The transformation of Spain: from Franco to the constitutional monarchy which uses "quasi-fascism" and may be the only of the 4 to use the phrase "authoritarian and conservative". This is not 'most' by my counting and anyway doesn't belong in the lede. If revisionist estimations are to be included they ought to first have a paragraph in the body of the article. Sparafucil (talk) 09:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Let's look at some RS: 1) Payne, Fascism in Spain, 1923–1977 (1999) - Page 476 "This does not mean that Franco was ever a generic fascist sensu strictu [in the strict sense]. More than 20 years after his death, Franco has still eluded precise definition save in the general categories of 'dictator' and 'authoritarian.' Thus scarcely any of the serious historians and analysts of Franco consider the Generalissimo to been a core fascist" p 476 2) Franco and the Spanish Civil War - Page 87 https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0415239249 by Filipe Ribeiro De Meneses, ‎de Men Ribeiro - 2001 - ‎"Franco was not a fascist. There is an element of revolutionary politics in fascism, of wanting to provoke a dramatic change in society. That was not Franco's intention: on the contrary, he wanted to preserve Spain from change, or even to return it." Rjensen (talk) 10:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
While the RS quoted above are accurate, they are not representative of the debate that exists over this topic within the academic community. Elsewhere, Payne has describeed Franco as "semi-fascist" (https://books.google.com/books?id=rn6aBAAAQBAJ&q=semi-fascist#v=snippet&q=semi-fascist&f=false). Paul Preston, the most famous biographer of Franco, refers to him as a fascist leader throughout his many books. Helen Graham described Francoism as "the true expression of Spanish fascism." (pg. 139 https://www.google.com/books/edition/Interrogating_Francoism/A7jMDAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0). Ismael Saz, a Spanish historian of fascism, similarly describes Franco as a "fascisticized dictatorship" (https://ifc.dpz.es/recursos/publicaciones/32/79/03sanzhoya.pdf). If nothing else, this should be done for consistency sake as the page on Francoist Spain and other pages associated with this topic do describe Franco as a fascist leader. Personally, I would characterize the Franco regime as fascist, but I believe that the article should reflect the debate that exists over this. GimpyBee (talk) 00:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
It's true that Franco, Pétain and Horthy were not fascists, just conservative/reactionary Catholic nationalists. However, I'd argue that Tojo, really, was a fascist. What do you think? Ricardolindo2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
History has already decided Franco was a fascist, and that is backed up by hundreds of Reliable Source history books.50.111.3.59 (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
No. Franco's major biographers such as Stanley Payne, Javier Tusell, etc.. coincide in saying that Franco was not Fascist. Even Paul Preston that hates Franco says that he was not fascist. You can check here what Preston thinks: Preston, Paul. "Francisco Franco: is it accurate to call the Spanish dictator a fascist?". HistoryExtra. History Extra - The official website for BBC History Magazine. Retrieved 4 January 2021.
This is not an accurate representation of Paul Preston's argument. In the article you cite, Preston applies a very narrow definition of fascism that in which "the only indisputably fascist regime is Mussolini’s regime." This references a school of thought within history that would exclude even Nazi Germany from the category of fascism. Preston is cleverly mobilizing that argument, a minority view in history, to get around what he sees as a fruitless debate. By contrast, in 1985 he described Franco as having "undeniable fascist credentials" (https://www.historytoday.com/archive/franco-patient-dictator) As I point out above, Payne too is ambiguous, usually describing Franco as "semi-fascist" in most of his major works (eg. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40547965?seq=1). In the English and especially Spanish historical research, there is not consensus on this issue. GimpyBee (talk) 12:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Well. The fact is that Preston was crystal clear when in August 2020 he said “If you’re asking an academic political theorist what constitutes a fascist then you’d have to say Franco isn’t.”. This is not the place to speculate on the real Preston's intentions behind of what he said. As to Payne, what he really said was that "Franco was essentially a right wing nationalist authoritarian and cultural traditionalist who had little empathy for the most radical and distinctively fascist aspects of Falange cultural and doctrine. (See:PAYNE, S. (1987). Spanish Fascism. Salmagundi, (76/77), 101-112. Retrieved February 6, 2021, from [[21]]) J Pratas (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

We also have yet to mention Helen Graham, the last of the "big three" British historians of Spain, who also refers to the Franco era as displaying "all the hallmarks of the monolithic regimes imposed elsewhere by other fascist and quasi-fascist regimes" (url: https://issuu.com/376746/docs/the_spanish_civil_war___a_very_short_introduction_). There is clear disagreement amongst RS and this article ought to reflect that. GimpyBee (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Displaying hallmarks is not the same as adopting an ideology. Researchers in comparative studies on fascism tend to categorize Franco as authoritarian rather than fascist. Juan José Linz Sterling Professor Emeritus of Sociology and Political Science at Yale University has distinguished between authoritarian regimes, royal or military bureaucratic dictatorships, without ideology and based on political demobilization and restricted pluralism; and the totalitarian regimes of a single party, revolutionary ideology and promoters of mass mobilization. According to Linz the regime of General Franco, born of the Spanish civil war, would fall into the first category. See "Fascismo: Perspectivas históricas y comparadas"J Pratas (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't think it makes sense for us to debate whether fascism is best understood as an ideology or system of government, particularly when the definitions of both are so hotly contested (see Definitions of Fascism, which includes a quote from Franco himself describing his movement as fascist). Our job is not to resolve the debate over whether Francisco Franco is a fascist. It is to make sure that the Wiki page accurately reflects that debate, which is far from settled. It currently does not. I have already provided numerous RS that show this, but I will provide a few more here. The prominent Spanish historian Julián Casanova describes fascism as one of the "cornerstones of the New State (pg 291 et passim https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=KsRNmT9GzY0C&oi=fnd&pg=PR3&dq=julian+casanova&ots=s_a-1TnZ4S&sig=xv0kJHn8_l5-5Kl0CwiB4LaD5fE#v=onepage&q=fascism&f=false). Francisco Ferrándiz, an anthropologist who served on the government commission deciding the fate of the Valley of the Fallen also uses the term (eg. https://digital.csic.es/bitstream/10261/44258/1/Pol%20%26%20Soc%202011%20Guerras%20sin%20fin%20Final.pdf). So does the political scientist and public intellectual Vicenç Navarro (eg. http://www.vnavarro.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Franquismo-o-fascismo-%C3%BAltima-versi%C3%B3.pdf). As does the Spanish historian Francisco Espinosa Maestre (https://www.eldiario.es/andalucia/espinosa-maestre-derrotado-espana-perpetuo_128_2465204.html). I could go on and on, but I think my point is clear. There are plenty of very reliable RS that do consider Franco a fascist and that should be reflected in the article.GimpyBee (talk) 05:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, in Spain when people are looking for a quick and easy negative term to talk about Franco, then fascist, is a go-to term. George Orwell was right when he said that "the word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable"". And because of that there is an ongoing debate between some Spanish Historians, a debate that is more about political stands than history. George Orwell was right when he said that "the word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable"" and Orwell also said that he had "heard it applied to bull-fighting, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, etc.". Yes there is an ongoing fight in Spain, including some historians, over Franco being or not being Fascist. But that political fight belongs to the Spanish Wikipedia. Here, we are in the English Wikipedia, and the fact is that the majority of serious works in comparative research where fascism is a central topic, tend to label Franco as authoritarian and not as fascist. And this vast majority should prevail over a minority fringe point of view. Last but not least, even Julian Casanova, says that fascism ended in 1945. Yes, most historians recognize some pseudo-fascism in Spain until 1942. But Franco ruled Spain for 36 years, from 1939 till 1975, the first 3 years of "pseudo-fascims" are not representative to characterize the man as a fascist.J Pratas (talk) 12:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
GimpyBee, notice that Graham uses the term "quasifascist," while Payne uses the term "semi-fascist." That means there were elements of fascism, but not enough to label him fascist. Furthermore, Franco did not come from the Spanish fascist party, but came to power as a military dictator who brought together fascists, Carlists and other far right groups. TFD (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Just a note regarding this comment "Yes, most historians recognize some pseudo-fascism in Spain until 1942". The comment undersells the conceptualization of fascism for the regime. Plenty of (most?) recent historiography devoted to Spain (there is life beyond Payne and Preston, if not for the individual certainly so for the regime) recognizes a degree of fascitization/fascist trappings/et al. for the entire extent of the dictatorship (even Payne does, IIRC), not just "until 1942". Take for example Ferran Gallego (a preeminent scholar about Fascism in Spain) arguing for the full "Fascist" label for the regime (check "Fascistization and fascism: Spanish dynamics in a European process" [22], understanding the so-called fascistization as the local implementation of fascism). You also may read more of the likes of Ángel Alcalde or Ismael Saz, too. That is not that central to the debate on the label for the dictator, though.--Asqueladd (talk) 07:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit request

Recently, Fascist-related categories and a template have been removed from the article, while it is certainly true that there is controversy over whether Franco's regime can be called fascist, such a move should only be made if there is consensus for it, thus the removed content should be restored. -- 2804:248:fb2c:1d00:3096:645e:2a83:3683 (talk) 04:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done Reverted, warned. Interesting Geek (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

The Fascist-related categories have been removed again after being briefly restored, again, while it is true that there is debate over whether Franco's regime was fascist or not, a user should still seek consensus before making such a change, so unless this happens, the removed content should be restored again. -- 2804:248:FB2C:1D00:3155:5AF6:32E2:415B (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

 Question: Per the article, Although Franco adopted some trappings of fascism, he, and Spain under his rule, are generally not considered to be fascist; among the distinctions, fascism entails a revolutionary aim to transform society, where Franco did not seek to do so, and, to the contrary, although authoritarian, he was by nature conservative and traditional.[159][160][161][162] Stanley Payne notes that very few scholars consider him to be a "core fascist".[163] The few consistent points in Franco's long rule were above all authoritarianism, nationalism, Catholicism, anti-Freemasonry, and anti-communism. Should we really be placing this in fascism related categories, if he's specifically described as "generally not considered to be fascist." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:11, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
There is an increasingly widespread consensus that Francoism was never really fascism--J Pratas (talk) 17:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
This is a matter of controversy among scholars, there are those who consider him Fascist and those who don't, the same is true though for many other regimes that are often called fascist, which is why there should be a debate first before making changes, that he wasn't a fascist is far from consensus, so I think it would be more appropriate to modify the language of that section. -- 2804:248:fb2c:1d00:81e7:1dd9:b346:3cd8 (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
@ScottishFinnishRadish After a brief talk with Vami IV, I think adding the template shouldn't be unconstructive since the excerpt From 1937 to 1948 the Franco regime was a hybrid as Franco fused the ideologically incompatible national-syndicalist Falange ("Phalanx", a fascist Spanish political party founded by José Antonio Primo de Rivera) and the Carlist monarchist parties into one party under his rule, dubbed Falange Española Tradicionalista y de las Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional-Sindicalista (FET y de las JONS), which became the only legal party in 1939- would mean that his regime was a combination of ideologies. Now there is controversy among scholars whether he was a fascist, but it is agreeable that he had connections with dictators such as Mussolini and Hitler. Interesting Geek (talk) 03:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Researchers in comparative studies such as Juan José Linz, Robert Paxton, etc. all concur that Franco was not fascist. The same goes for Franco's biographers such as Stanley Payne and Paul Preston. There is not much controversy among the scholars that study fascism. Now, Churchill had connections with Stalin, and that does not turn him a communist. J Pratas (talk) 06:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Citing some scholars who don't think he was a fascist doesn't prove that there is no controversy, that is absurd. -- 2804:248:fba3:4300:2d0b:5f89:7d6b:4ba9 (talk) 08:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 Note: I'm closing the edit request while this is under discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources. Prominent scholars say Franco was not fascist. Paul Preston hates Franco but at the same time says that "there is an increasingly widespread consensus that Francoism was never really fascism". Until now no sources were added saying that Franco was a Fascist. I am not saying there aren't sources saying Franco was fascist but those sources aren't as relevant as the ones listed so far. But even if there is controversy, the controversy is enough reason to reject a blunt label.J Pratas (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Ernst Nolte considered Franco's regime to be an example of "early fascism", AFK Organski considered Franco's regime to be a "syncratic" system (The term he used for fascist regimes), etc, and no, most regimes often described as fascist are controversial, even Nazi Germany is controversial sometimes, this is not a reason to remove it. -- 2804:248:fba3:4300:c039:4238:5935:7983 (talk) 23:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Not so. Ernst Nolte considered the Dictatorship of Primo de Rivera, 1923-1930, to be "early fascism", not Franco. On the other hand, Paul Preston says that "there is an increasingly widespread consensus that Francoism was never really fascism". Tagging Franco has Fascist is a minority view. J Pratas (talk) 10:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
https://www.google.com.br/books/edition/Latin_Fascist_Elites_The_Mussolini_Franc/Vm5by1Najj4C?hl=pt-BR&gbpv=1&dq=nolte+early+fascism+spectrum+franco&pg=PA10&printsec=frontcover
And that quote is not proof that Franco being a Fascist is a minority view. -- 2804:248:f695:8800:7597:3340:ea7a:4b23 (talk) 07:35, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


You've used used Nolte’s as cited by Lewis. However in his master worke the controversial Nolte provided an insightful account of the ideological similarities between the Italian and German regimes, only to obfuscate his paradigm by including Action Française in his analysis. Linking Action Française with fascism or pre-fascims is clearly a minority point of view. The two most elaborate recent works on generic fascism, by Roger Griffin and Stanley G. Payne, have rectified to a large extent the inadequacies of previous comparative interpretations by Nolte through a significantly more elaborate theoretical paradigm of fascism and a notably wider pool of case-studies. Furthermore when Nolte talks about Spain and the influence of Action Française he referes mainly to Miguel Primo de Rivera's dictatorship in the 1920s. So, can you please quote Nolte? instead of Nolte quotes by someone else? Where does exactly Nolte say that Franco was fascist? or early fascist? J Pratas (talk) 06:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Because unfortunately I wasn't able to find a online copy of Nolte's book to quote him, Nolte's stance on the Action Française is irrelevant to this discussion, why do you always try to discredit or diminish sources who disagree with your POV this way? -- 2804:248:f695:8800:a8d5:58fb:bfbb:180a (talk) 07:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
If you don´t have access to the source, better not to use it. On the other hand, unlike Stanley Payne or Paul Preston, Nolte never produced any work where Franco and Francoist Spain are central.J Pratas (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
That doesn't discredit or diminsh Nolte, again why do you always attempt to discredit or diminish sources who are against your POV? -- 2804:248:f695:8800:b848:8877:bb0f:1a43 (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit request, 13 October 2021

The Fascist-related categories and template that were removed a few weeks ago (without consensus) should be reinstated, again it is true that there is controversy over whether or not Franco's regime was fascist, but the same is true for most regimes usually labeled fascist (other than Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy), before making such a move, there should be at least consensus for it, but there isn't one, it would be more appropriate to edit the parts on the article that claim Franco wasn't fascist to reflect the lack of consensus among scholars on this issue. -- 2804:248:f632:a100:51a2:547a:c7c8:7d8d (talk) 05:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This has been argued against, and removed by, multiple editors. No one has restored it yet, so please seek a consensus to re-add the categories and template. Edit requests are not to advance a slow moving edit war. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia rules state that the editor who made the change is the one who should seek consensus, the editors who removed are the ones who should seek consensus, otherwise it is a pointless rule. -- Special:Contributions/2804:248:f632:a100:79c9:43f6:e340:6133 (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
There are a number of editors who are removing it as well as arguing against it on the talk page, and currently the categories have not been re-added. That is a WP:IMPLICIT consensus. If you'd like to get a solid consensus, you should open a discussion and lay out your reasoning and sources. If that doesn't reach a consensus I suggest you start a WP:RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Actually only 1 user has removed the categories, I doubt this is enough for a WP:IMPLICIT consensus, in fairness though, I can understand not wanting to cause an edit war, I do think it would be more appropriate to restore the status quo until this debate is settled though. -- Special:Contributions/2804:248:f632:a100:79c9:43f6:e340:6133 (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Wikiblame is a bit flakey at times, but I see two times it was added, both times by an IP with no discussion. Here and here, and I'm still looking to see if I can find more. It is likely there were more additions and removals over time. These categories and template are clearly contentious, and should actually be discussed, rather than added and removed with no discussion over years. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2021

I'd like adding the term 'hard' to the note about 'repression of Asturias uprising/ revolution'; regarding the sentence about 'After initial reluctance, he joined the July 1936 military coup,..', the right sentence would be just ', ' official version, and untrue, was 'shortly after the murder of conservative politician José Calvo-Sotelo, Franco physically added himself to the army putsch general Mola was organizing'. As a matter of fact, the official version, Franco adding himself to the uprising organized by general Mola to restore Rule of Law, the leftists did not win the ballot that lead to abolition of monarchy in 1931, neither the far left 'popular front' won election in 1936, in spite of massive fraud they implemented, ballot acts, in the adminsitration archives, have been reviewed by Carmina Losa, historian in Universidad Complutense, Madrid, is a barefaced lie, as the 'Dragon Rapide' airplane that took Francisco Franco from the Canary islands to northern Africa was hired before murder of head of conservatives José Calvo-Sotelo. In accordance with Luis de Marimon, Spanish Air Force officer and historian, what changed the july 18, 1936 military pronouncement, one more in the times of Bourbon presence in Spain, into a bloody Civil War, was the arrival of 'International Brigades', around 50'000 men. In the beginning of 19th century, total Spanish army troops were 75'000; a permanent army did not exist in Spain, after roman power extinction, until king Alfonso X 'the savant' Thanks. Blessings + 83.51.135.59 (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Sources on Franco and Fascism

Here are some sources which discuss Franco and fascism:

Sainz Hoya pg. 58 talks about the developments in academia and also about the fascist influences in Franco's regime: https://ifc.dpz.es/recursos/publicaciones/32/79/_ebook.pdf

Helen Graham pg. 139 describes the Francoist regime as "in a way, the true expression of Spanish Fascism": https://www.google.com/books/edition/Interrogating_Francoism/A7jMDAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1

Ismael Saz pg. 55 describes Franco's regime as "fascistized by excellence": https://www.google.com.br/books/edition/Espa%C3%B1a_contra_Espa%C3%B1a/w8CXz1nMBLsC?hl=pt-BR&gbpv=1&dq=fascismo+y+franquismo+ismael+saz+pdf&printsec=frontcover

Francisco Cabo Romero compares some of the ideological aspects of Franco's regime with those of other Fascist movements (namely, the discourse of regeneration): https://www.revistaayer.com/sites/default/files/articulos/71-4-ayer71_ExtremaDerechaEspa%C3%B1aContemporanea_Cobo_Ortega.pdf

There are more sources around there, but the article gives the impression that most scholars agree that he and his regime weren't fascist, but that is far from being the case as it can be seen, those parts of the article should be changed to reflect the controversy in academia. -- 2804:248:f679:5100:74b8:a245:1938:154a (talk) 20:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

The IP has a point and has sources. However let us have in mind that even Ismael Saz, one of the academics picked by the IP has written that: "the conceptualization that has gathered a greater consensus in opposition to the general application of the concept of fascism is that of the authoritarian regimes of J.J. Linz". Linz argues that Franco's regime was authoritarian and not exactly fascist. Ismael Saz himself thinks that in order to classify Franco's Spain "the reference is found in those intermediate regimes, such as those of Romania, Austria, France of Vichy or Portugal, which we have seen referred to as para-fascist or fascistizados" and not Fascist. Last but not least, the article is about Franco, not about the regime. In order to stay in power Franco had to acknowledge and accommodate many different ideologies. J Pratas (talk) 09:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
True, but if his regime was fascist, then this means that at least one of the removed categories should be restored. -- 2804:248:f679:5100:49ab:ce9a:ca91:13ad (talk) 04:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
No because as Ismael Saz points out the greater consensus is that the regime was not exactly fascist but rather authoritarian, in line with JJ Linz classification. Paul Preston also says that "there is an increasingly widespread consensus that Francoism was never really fascism". I have not yet seen one source saying that the widespread consensus is that the regime was fascist J Pratas (talk) 10:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
And Sainz Hoya has stated that recently there has been a "reconsideration of the character of the fascist subject and the only party (the FET y de las JONS) in Francoism", those quotes you cited don't really prove anything. -- 2804:248:f69d:3800:38cb:7ee0:21ab:db38 (talk) 14:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit request

Content from the sources presented should be added in order to balance the article more, and the fascist-related categories should also be restored, as there was no consensus to remove them. -- 2804:248:f6f1:f000:959a:e9a3:30d1:60e1 (talk) 06:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Why shouldn't content from the sources that would balance the article more and reflect the dispute in academia not be added? -- 2804:248:f6f8:8100:205b:c938:25c5:f59d (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Then provide the prose with in-line citations you'd like added so other editors can look it over. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Helen Graham mentioning that Franco's regime was "in a way, the true expression of Spanish Fascism" could be one, another one could Cobo Romero's comparison with some ideological aspects of his regime with those of other Fascist movements, for instance he mentions that "In it's attempt to emulate Fascism, Francoism resorted to the sacralization and mystification of the motherland, raising it into an object of cult, and coating it with a liturgic divinization of it's leader" he also says that "the dictatorship worked on the reconstruction of an idealized and sublimated image of the Patria Hispana and it's past". -- 2804:248:f6f8:8100:205b:c938:25c5:f59d (talk) 00:45, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

+ 'expression of Spanish fascism' is a judgement, coarse propaganda, what you seem so greatly concerned about was just a paint coat, to hide the conservative educational program of regime where, btw, many companies not belonging to republicans and leftists were seized by administration, then sold to private owners different to original property, eg. 'Motores Elizalde', coal mines, usw. 'Fascism' is a purely Italian event, as a matter of fact, what terminated the remains of 'black shirts', the Mussolini's followers, after a british commando murdered Benito Mussolini, were the nazis. Mao Ze Dong referred to soviet communism as 'Social-fascists', and 'Social-imperialists', same did 'Le Libertaire' a Paris based anarchistic publication, back to 1936; they spoke also of 'good french imperialism and bad German imperialism', a LePen wrote there then. After the feb 1936 'coup d'etat' of far leftists, Lenin wrote 'Leftism, a childhood disease of communism', they made a goverment in spite of not having won the feb 1936 ballot, even with the massive fraud they implemented, acts were reviewed before 1990, the country was ravaged; during WW II, providing commodities to Spain was not a priority for any of contenders, Stalin survived thanks to double use technology and supplies from wasp, then the blockade of Spain forced by Stalin came in, no escape but 'Autarchy', the ideal situation for Democritus. Some in the regime wanted relieving the lack of everything with propaganda, big terms, but this was a mere anecdote, same as 'Movimiento Nacional' supposed to be a political party, never acted but as monitoring and control organism. Please don't be fooled by your own lies, your own propaganada, by silly cliches, far, far away from reality. Blessings +

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2021

Request: adding english translation of 'Caudillo': 'Chieftain', next to this entry in the beginning of Francisco Franco article 81.39.99.197 (talk) 11:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The article for Caudillo says it has no definite meaning. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

No definite meaning? Please consult Oxford english dictionary or any good repuation english dictionary, or simply enter 'caudillo', and 'chieftain' in an Spanish to english and backtranslation in 'Google translate', doing this would have cost you less time and less efforts than writing the denial note. Thanks. Blessings + — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.39.99.197 (talk) 11:52, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

[23] The term caudillo originates from the Spanish word for head, cabeza, and describes the leader of a political faction, often linked to a band of armed men. Used in Spain since the time of the Reconquista, the term became increasingly common in Spanish America during the wars of independence. It initially had the positive connotation of a man fighting in defense of his land, but it gradually became linked to authoritarian rule by a strongman and was used pejoratively.
[24] The caudillo of Spanish America was both regional chieftain and, in the turbulent years of the early nineteenth century, national leader.
[25] a Spanish or Latin American military dictator
[26] After all, caudillos -- Latin American "strongman" leaders
It does not appear that chieftain is the correct translation for the title of caudillo as used in this article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit request, 30 October 2021

I think the following content from some of the sources presented should be added to the article to balance it more:

Helen Graham on pg. 139 states that Franco's regime was "in a way, the true expression of Spanish Fascism": https://www.google.com/books/edition/Interrogating_Francoism/A7jMDAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1

Francisco Cobo Romero wrote an essay comparing some of the Francoist regime's ideological aspects with those of other fascist movements (in particular, the regenerative discourse), on pg. 123 (pg. 6 of PDF) he states that "In it's attempt to emulate Fascism, Francoism resorted to the sacralization and mystification of the motherland, raising it into an object of cult, and coating it with a liturgic divinization of it's leader", and that "the dictatorship worked on the reconstruction of an idealized and sublimated image of the Patria Hispana and it's past": https://www.revistaayer.com/sites/default/files/articulos/71-4-ayer71_ExtremaDerechaEspa%C3%B1aContemporanea_Cobo_Ortega.pdf

Those are some that could be added for now. -- 2804:248:f6f8:8100:90d9:c9f9:1c38:bfc (talk) 00:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Why shouldn't more sources be added to the article? -- 2804:248:f6f8:8100:90d9:c9f9:1c38:bfc (talk) 03:36, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
The first reason is that you didn't provide any prose to be supported by those sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
"Además, en su intento de emulación del fascismo, el franquismo recurrió a la sacralización y la mitificación de la Patria, erigiéndola en objeto de culto y revistiéndola de una litúrgica divinización de su líder."
"Por ello mismo, la dictadura se afanó en la reconstrucción de una imagen idealizada y sublimada de la Patria Hispana y su pasado." -- 2804:248:f673:4f00:491e:780e:bd41:3d12 (talk) 01:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit request, 20 November 2021

I would like to request a few changes on the 6th paragraph of the section "Spain under Franco".

First, I would like to request that the quote "Although Franco adopted some trappings of fascism, he, and Spain under his rule, are generally not considered to be fascist;" be changed to "There has been significant debate in academia over whether Franco and his regime can be considered fascist", in order to reflect the dispute in academia.

Second, the following quote should also be added "Helen Graham, on the other hand, states that his regime was "in a way, the true expression of Spanish Fascism"." (Source: Investigating Francoism, 2016, pg. 139)

Third, this sentence should be added as well "Francisco Cobo Romero notes that "in it's attempt to emulate Fascism, Francoism resorted to the sacralization and mystification of the motherland, raising it into an object of cult, and coating it with a liturgic divinization of it's leader"." (Source: El franquismo y los imaginarios míticos del fascismo europeo de entreguerras, 2008, pg. 123) -- 2804:248:f668:6e00:21be:e000:3128:22c5 (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Done the latter. Could you provide more bibliographic information (chapter, chapter author, isbn, et al) for the (alleged) Helen Graham quote? For instance, I see there is a book titled "Interrogating Francoism" published in 2016 (edited by Helen Graham), not one titled "Investigating Francoism". And according to this page 139 from that monography corresponds to a chapter authored by Ángel Viñas.--Asqueladd (talk) 23:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Yep, that is the book, I just mispelled the title, I apologize for it, it is also true that the article in question was authored by Angel Viñas, as for the quote, he states that "Thus the Franco dictatorship was, in a way, the true expression of Spanish Fascism": https://books.google.com.br/books?redir_esc=y&hl=pt-BR&id=A7jMDAAAQBAJ&q=true+expression#v=snippet&q=true%20expression&f=false
In case it is not appropriate though, I believe the source can be ignored. -- 2804:248:f668:6e00:21be:e000:3128:22c5 (talk) 00:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 Note: I'm closing this request while it's under discussion, per template instructions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit request, 1 November 2021

I would like to request a few changes on the 6th paragraph of the section "Spain under Franco".

First, I would like to request that the quote "Although Franco adopted some trappings of fascism, he, and Spain under his rule, are generally not considered to be fascist;" be changed to "There has been significant debate in academia over whether Franco and his regime can be considered fascist", in order to reflect the dispute in academia.

Second, the following quote should also be added "Helen Graham, on the other hand, states that his regime was "in a way, the true expression of Spanish Fascism"." (Source: Investigating Francoism, 2016, pg. 139)

Third, this sentence should be added as well "Francisco Cobo Romero notes that "in it's attempt to emulate Fascism, Francoism resorted to the sacralization and mystification of the motherland, raising it into an object of cult, and coating it with a liturgic divinization of it's leader"." (Source: El franquismo y los imaginarios míticos del fascismo europeo de entreguerras, 2008, pg. 123) -- 2804:248:f673:4f00:c957:a5ef:e88d:be8f (talk) 05:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. There are almost 600 editors with this page on their watchlist, and none have made this edit. I believe that shows there is no consensus for this edit at this time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
There are edit requests made around the same time as this one (and some, older) that have yet to be answered, that doesn't necessarily man that "there is no consensus" for this edit, also, what is wrong with adding content from new reliable sources? Why shouldn't it be done? The articles makes it look like scholars agree that Franco's regime wasn't fascist, but that is not the case, and there is controversy over it. No offense, but I think you have no idea what you're doing. -- 2804:248:f668:6e00:dc90:d91a:1d96:9708 (talk) 03:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
ScottishFinnishRadish I realize you're fairly new to the project but unless you believe the edit is controversial your request for consensus is misplaced. Given the lack of responses other than your own it'd be best if you could point to what you specifically consider controversial.174.90.223.208 (talk) 05:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit request, 1 February 2022

I would like to request that the Fascist-related categories and template, which were removed on September 27th, should be restored. They were removed without discussion and without consensus, and the user who removed them didn't even bother to participate in a discussion. I believe the way they were removed was very inappropriate, and as such they should be restored. -- 2804:248:f610:7400:88e4:531f:8cb:1ad0 (talk) 05:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I have done this - at the very least, there should be a consensus discussion before these cats are removed again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
The Tag was introduced in by an IP in January 5, 2020 without any consensus or any discussion. It was later removed by a registered user in September 2021 also without discussion. There is no consensus in the academia and there is no consensus in the Wikipedia When I look at Franco's major biographers it seems that they tend to agree on the not fascist. This is what Paul Preston said: “If people are looking for a quick and easy insult to those on the right, then fascist, is your go-to term,” he says. “If you’re asking an academic political theorist what constitutes a fascist then you’d have to say Franco isn’t.” A label should only be added if the label is consensual, which is not the case. J Pratas (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Incidentally, the January 2020 edit was not the first addition of "fascist" categories to the article. A random search shows that they were already there in November 2019, January 2018, and November 2016. The situation is obvious not nearly as cut-and-dried as you present it above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm aware of these things, and I'm aware that "Fascist" is a slippery term, and one often used as an easy pejorative, but I'm also aware that other scholars put him in the Fascist camp Don't you think that the article should have a section about whether Franco was a Fascist or not? Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I do agree and will be happy in getting sources for different POVs. Where I disagree is on placing a tag. A Tag should be consensual.J Pratas (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't see where there is a consensus for "fascist" categories one way or the other, so the best thing would be to find what the consensus is with an RfC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
BTW, don't I remember you making these same arguments concerning Salazar and Portugal, or am I misremembering and thinking of someone ese? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
and as I look further into the history of the article, I find that your edits consistently emphasize anything positive about the Nationalists and anything negative about the Republicans, so please don't present yourself here as a neutral party, you are very much a partisan. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct; comment on content, not the contributor. Wikipedia is written through collaboration. Bringing up conduct during discussions about content creates a distraction to the discussion and may inflame the situation.J Pratas (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Francisco_Franco/Archive_5&oldid=1142761393"