Jump to content

Talk:Francisco Franco/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Nationalist Front?

How can I say that no one in Spain, from the Franco regime or from the Republican-leftist side, ever used the term: 'National Front' for those who participated in the July 18, 1936 uprising? I am a witness of most of these days, content of newspapers and other information sources is easily available on the web, I won't cite comments from my relatives that were alive before and during 1934-39 revolution; so, it's those who invented this coarse propaganda, perhaps attempting to link the XX and XXI century French 'National Front', with the Spanish Civil war events, who must provide evidence for their statement, no reference for this is cited in the article, this is a wrong, fake statement or term. Have a look at Francisco Franco article in Spanish Wikipedia, you'll see that the date of Oct 1, 1936 for general Franco being designed, not self designed, head of army, government and state, is accurate. In emitting libels, you must be careful differentiating truth from your own propaganda, not believing in your own lies. Sorry, the text that was preserved by General Ization, against all evidence, contains judgments, not facts, and judgments from one side of conflict, it's propaganda, not history. I guess that 80 years after conflict in Spain concluded, and 44 after Franco ceased any political activity, is enough to accept what reality is, was. Once again, Wikipedia has a hard wing censorship system, that militates against truth. Please correct! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hijuecutivo (talk • contribs) 14:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@Hijuecutivo: What is your relationship to the account Jgrosay? General Ization Talk 14:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

En el día de hoy, cautivo y desarmado el Ejército Rojo, han alcanzado las tropas nacionales sus últimos objetivos militares. La guerra ha terminado. El Generalísimo Franco Burgos, 1° de abril de 1939. Signed by Franco himself. Último parte de la guerra civil española

"the [Spanish Civil] war, which claimed half a million lives"

This is a gross mistake. The most recent and serious figure is a total of roughly 300,000 deaths all along the war; half of them in direct war actions and the other half in political repressions in both sides.

Please, fix it. 

87.125.218.89 (talk) 09:53, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
The death toll for Spanish Civil war is still a highly controversial topic, and the estimates varies greatly. ~300,000 deaths is just one of the estimates Hervegirod (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Ok. So, reflect that anyhow in the article.
"The [Spanish Civil] war, which claimed half a million lives" is just as wrong (or accurate) as any other figure. Isn`t it?
Therefore this sentence must be rewritten in a different way. Do you agree? --47.62.217.18 (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Captain Henderson: Also, does that toll take into account civilian casualties? You could get a more accurate number of battle deaths by accessing the ICOW International Conflict data set, but it won't account for civilian deaths as they only measure battle related casualties.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Military

The entry currently opens with a "was a Spanish general who ruled over Spain as a military dictator." I think military may be dropped as it is a moot point (the current reference does not back up anything, in any case). To the extent military dictatorship may just simply mean rule enforced by a dictator who happens to come from the military emphasizing a "military" bit is somewhat redundant as the fact that he was a General is included in the same statement. In the other hand, late Francoism featured less military personnel than early Francoism, which also got to feature Fascists and Catholic elements other than military personnel anyways to be unmistakably called a "military junta". Straight "dictator" is just fine, more succint, and "dictator" is way more used by scholars than "military dictator". Conversely, that scholars argue the regime was a Fascist, Para-Fascist or fascistized dictatorship at least at some point, may muddle up (more) "military dictatorship" and the straightforward description of the dictatorship's leader as military. Opinions?--Asqueladd (talk) 10:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@Asqueladd:, Mnmh, I don't know. It's a knotty question; Franco's in a grey area, along with Cromwell and I guess Mao and so on. At one end of the spectrum you have a manifestly party dictator like Hitler... Lenin too, and Mussolini. Civilians. At the other end you when some generals take over with a coup... Miguel Primo de Rivera and etc etc. So, Franco was a top general, he did end up in charge because of that. He wasn't really much of an ideological thinker I don't believe. The Falange and the Church and the landowners were along for the ride, but it was all done because of the soldiers. Sure there was more ideology than "I like running things and I have soldiers", but I think most military dictatorships have some kind of ideological window-dressing -- "National Renewal" or whatever. The Argentine generals called their regime the "National Reorganization Process".
Franco did remain in power for forty years. I guess over that forty years he developed more levers of power than just having his soldiers shoot people. But isn't that pretty much true of any junta that stays in power that long, maybe? The Greek military junta of 1967–1974, if it was still somehow in place... would we still call it a "military dictatorship"? Possibly not. There's a certain point where it's no longer a "military government" but just "the government", maybe. Is this kind of what you're saying?
Anyway, of course the main decider is what notable sources say. You said that "dictator" is way more used by scholars than "military dictator", and if that really is true (but how do you know?), that is game set and match I would think. Herostratus (talk) 06:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Herostratus. It probably is a knotty question as partially falls into the grey area of the evidence we can gather from academic sources and to what extent we Wikipedians we interpretate from it. He is casually mentioned just as dictator in an overwhelming way when adressed by academic sources in opposition of military dictator. That's obviously not necessarily enough evidence to be a direct refutal to military dictator (as the later is a subclass of the former), but, albeit entailing an interpretation, it is an indirect evidence and the first hint. I'd say it happens the same in the scope of presentation of the topic (him or the regime) by scholars. The third point would be the (mentioned above) variable understanding of the nature of the regime in historiography (this can be explicitly sourced, which mainly deals with the level of fascistization of the dictatorship, but that may have direct and indirect implications to the military label). By the way, Francoist Spain's infobox in regards of government type would need a reworking too, as it's over-the top, and in that case going the other way than here, emphasizing the totalitarian one-party facet of the dictatorship ("totalitarian dictatorship with party supremacy" of sorts) rather than the military aspect of it (let's say "dictadura castrense"). With no rush, I will try to look for some scholar sources dealing explicitly with the military nature bit, rather than the fascistization of the dictatorship (although the "historiographic discussion juice" falls mainly in the later, so I am somewhat sceptical). Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 18:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

title and honorary prefixis in lede before name and above photo

I thionk there is no need, and it makes no senseintroducing him with his Spanish military title and honorary prefixis. This can be mentioned in the main body, among other details. This is an encyclopedic, not a honorific article. Not even the pope has this, and most politicians which happened to have a military rank, either:MOS:HON Gabel1960 (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Header typo

"Upon his rise to power, Franco implemented policies that repressed political opponents and dissenters, were as many as between 60,000[6][7][8] and 400,000 died[9][10][11][12][13] through the use of forced labor and executions in the concentration camps his regime operated."

Instead of "were" (where), how about "under which", to indicate the concurrence of these fascist policies and his political murders?

- Schuylerl (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Add a few things to the lead section

I have added to the lead sectiont text saying that Franco "distinguishing himself with bravery and professionalism. In 1916 Franco was shot and badly wounded in the stomach, with the bullet penetrating all the way to the liver and had to return to Spain. By 1920 he returned to action in Morocco as second in command of the Spanish Foreign Legion, and three years later took full command. In 1926 he was promoted General at age 33, the youngest in Europe". Not sure what is the problem with this text, and why it is reverted. These are facts. Easy to source if required.

Also added a paragraph on the 1934 Asturias Revolution: "where the left wing revolutionaries, fighting a democratic elected government had killed in cold blood thirty four priests, six young seminarists with ages between 18 and 21, and several businessmen and civil guards. Atrocities were committed by both sides ", this is important for the reader to understand the full story of events. There was a repression of an extremely violent non-democratic revolutionary movement. Scholar Stanley Payne says that the repression was mild. For more info read Cueva, Julio de la Cueva, Religious Persecution, Anticlerical Tradition and Revolution: On Atrocities against the Clergy during the Spanish Civil War, Journal of Contemporary History Vol. 33, No. 3 (Jul., 1998), pp. 355-369 Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd.--J Pratas (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

It is WP:UNDUE and brings WP:BALASP issues in the lead. There is certainly no historiographical consensus on the "ruthless crushing" of the strike enacted by Yagüe and Franco in Asturias being "mild". In addition, that you think you "can source something" about whatnot does not make the content automatically suitable for the lead of a biographical article.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Exactly. Some historians like Stanley Payne say "mild" and some others say "brutal". That is why I did not use "mild" in the lead. However there is a lot of text you are deleting without explaining why. What exactly is your point? J Pratas (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE and WP:Lead fixation. The lead of this biographical article is not a place to settle personal views about third parties and events but to relate strictly to Franco in the way sources present Franco, not to "fix" whatever aspect of Spanish history you are hellbent onto "fixing". If there is anything to add vis-à-vis that event in the lead (that is, something actually related to Franco, it is his personal insistence onto using the Army of Africa for the repression as Preston highlights [1])--Asqueladd (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Two paragraphs have been removed. One of them without any explanation. It is a simple factual paragraph. Should not be controversial. What is wrong with the paragraph to justify removal?
The second paragraph, seems to be controversial. But it is neither an opinior nor a view. It is factual. Saying that "the left wing revolutionaries, fighting a democratic elected government had killed in cold blood thirty four priests, six young seminarists with ages between 18 and 21, and several businessmen and civil guards. Atrocities were committed by both sides "' is listing facts. I am ok with removing from the lead the crush of the 1934 revolt, but, if we are going to include it, and tagging it as brutal, we must also include what exactly was brutally crushed. (Someting that Preston managed to ignore but other scholars like Payne did not) J Pratas (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Because the bit you added does not belong here, in the lead about Franco. That may belong elsewhere (for example the article about the revolutionary strike). The article of Franco (particularly the lead) or any other biography is not to be used to present the history of Spain from a certain point of view but to summarize the individual and his actions (the motif behind is inconsequential). I get it is described as "brutal" (going further than "ruthless" or "heavy-hand"), because the retribution from those holding the monopoly of violence was so ruthless, that for many of the working class it became a rallying cry for a wider confrontation with the Right (although that is not strictly about Franco). Going back to things strictly about Franco and the repression of the strike (that displayed a "ferocidad inusitada") is the fact that Franco described the repression (that left over 1,200 deaths, 80% of them revolutionaries) as a "guerra fronteriza" against foreigners, dissociating (according to Eduardo González Calleja) "Asturians" from the General category of "Spaniards" (González Calleja, 44 [2]), like if it were a colonial war, like the one against Riffian tribesmen (I may add, that one in where Legionaries posed for photographs next to dismembered Moor heads just for fun). In any case, "ruthless" (also heavily used in sources) instead of "brutal" also does it for me, if you ask. In addition IIRC, you added a tweak including in the bit where it was stated he took no action against the new Republic (in 1931), something in the lines of an extremely inane "he never did whatnot (opposed the Republic)", when he actually participated in the military coup against the Republic in 1936. A ludicrous level of selfgratifying phrasing that inane "never", isn't it?. I also see you wasted quite a lot of space adding details about the trace of a bullet in the guts of someone (well, kudos to you, unlike the bit about Asturias this is indeed about Franco; however, particularly as no consequence is extracted from the trajectory of the bullet (I read somewhere he lost one of his nuts, although it's probably only a rumour), you may concede that delving about it in the lead looks a lot like fancruft). And yes, also the flattering "professional" adjective you included is a weasel word/empty signifier, as, aside from apparently unsourced (first red flag), it is not clear what being "professional" means for a member of the Army of Africa in the 1920s).--Asqueladd (talk) 21:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

A few bullet points to make the debate easyer and facilititat an answer where an answer is required

  • My edits have been reverted ignoring Wikipedia:Consensus policy that says that edit summaries are especially important when reverting another editor's good faith work. Repeated reversions are contrary to Wikipedia policy under Edit warring. Bold editing is accepted by wikipedia and that is what I have done. What is against the policy is to revert without explaining why or traying to reach any consensus.
  • After several unexplained reversions a long text was written to try to justify that the way Franco handled the 1934 non-democratic revolution was indeed "brutal". However my text was clear about that, my text said that "Atrocities were committed by both sides". Atrocities is stronger than brutal. No one is denying the brutality. That brutallity was applied is not being disputed. The point here is: "both sides". All I am claiming is that if we are going to include in the lead section that Franco used brutality we also need to include that he was smashing something brutal as well. If six young seminarists, ages beteween 18 and 21 were murdered cold blod, and 150 to 200 people shot cold blod, it is obvious that the miners were brutal as well. The Encyclopædia Britannica says "bloody uprising of Asturian miners". A small sentence like "Atrocities were committed by both sides" will do.
  • It seems undisputed that Franco as a young military was extremlly brave, he was a man of action and in 1916 he seriously wounded by a bullet in the abdomen. I cannot see in the lead section anything about Franco's undisputed phyisical bravery. He was made the youngest general in Europe, not by chance, but because he was a man of action. The lead section does not mention that and it should.
  • Franco was a military apolitical and professional. This are important charctersitics of young Franco and I cannot see that in the lead section. It does not take more than a short sentence to say that until July 1936 Franco had been apolitical and professional. (Payne & Palacios say "Desde el advenimiento de la Republica se habia mantenido en una posición de disciplinado profesionalismo, reconociendo su apoyo y sin fisuras a la monarquia hasta el final, y ahora obedeciendo al nuevo order establecido. Con ello reafirmaba sus princípios fundamentalmente conservadores, al tiempo que subrayaba un credo de profesionalidad apolítica, con independencia de cuales fueron sus sentimientos personales. Fue una posición que mantendría durante algun tiempo y que no abandonaria del todo hasta cuatro dias antes del comienzo de la guerra civil." page 95). The The Encyclopædia Britannica says that "Franco accepted both the new regime and his temporary demotion with perfect discipline."
  • Disciplin and professionalism were fundamental charcteristis of General Franco. Professional is not a weasal word. See for example this extract from the Encyclopædia Britannica: "At a time in which many Spanish officers were characterized by sloppiness and lack of professionalism, young Franco quickly showed his ability to command troops effectively and soon won a reputation for complete professional dedication"

As I have shown the lead section has room for improvement, ignoring that does not serve wikipedia. I hope that those that have been reverting will propose some improvements to the text and not just opt for simple unconstructive removals. J Pratas (talk) 06:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Look. "WP:UNDUE" and "not (suitable) in this lead" are rationales that were already provided to you. Don't victimise. Regarding Asturias, you are still are unable to deal with the problem presented to you. The lead is about Franco, not to settle your views about the history of Spain, nor to rant about "very bad/very fine people on both sides", false balance and whatnot. In any case, you may bring the alleged citation explicitly linking the biography of Franco with any sort of "mild" repression, because the statement "Franco took part/led the mild repression of the Asturias strike" when it comes to biographically summarize Franco is utter WP:FRINGE at best. When reliable sources comment on the role of Franco (the focus of the entry) in the strike, they overwhelmingly highlight he took part in the ruthless/brutal/heavy-hand repression of the strike (no surprise, it looks sensible that sources don't consider as "mild" a repression framed (by Franco, btw) in terms of a colonial war and leaving over a thousand corpses in the ditches). The information you are keen to insert utterly tangential to this bio's lead is expected to be provided in the article about the Asturian miners' strike of 1934 (and as such it is linked in the lead). As far as I am concerned you can term here inline the strike as revolutionary, but what you did in the lead was way over the top and absolutely unacceptable: WP:SOAPBOXING. Period.--Asqueladd (talk) 18:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't know what point are you trying with the apolitical bit either. That he accepted the new regime in 1931 is already stated in the lead, so I don't know what's the fuzz about this alleged personal trait. In the context of the 2nd republic he was a CEDA voter and he later intended to run as candidate of the right-wing bloc in the 1936 repetition of the general election in Cuenca. That he decided to join the putsch relatively late is a detail that can improve the lead if added (contemporary generals attributed indecisiveness to Franco in this regard, to the point fellow putschists nicknamed him Miss Islas Canarias because of the mix of hesitation&teasing). However, suggesting he was a clean slate void of any political idea until just 4 days before the coup d'etat is your misconstructed opinion and the latter should not be included in the lead.--Asqueladd (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • According to your own sources "The uprising turned into a full-scale social revolution which threatened the nascent Second Republic" (see José Alvarez). The Encyclopædia Britannica calls it "bloody uprising of Asturian miners". Stanley Payne says that in Oviedo "they declared the proletarian revolution, abolished money and instituted revolutionary terror that took aproximately 40 lives, most of them clergymen...deaths among army and policemen totaled 450". So all I am saying is that instead of saying "in 1934 led the brutal suppression of the miners' strike in Asturias," the article should say "in 1934 led the brutal suppression of the miners' bloody uprising in Asturias". That is all.J Pratas (talk) 19:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
The content of the sources I brought is precisely why I have written you can label the strike as "revolutionary" AFAIAC, leading to something like "in 1934 led the ruthless suppression of the miners' revolutionary strike in Asturias". That is all.--Asqueladd (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
It seems we were having a communication problem. What about adding that as a result Franco ended up being was decoreated and was appointed chief of the Spanish army’s general staff. Being appointed chief of the Spanish army’s general staff seems important enough for the lead section. J Pratas (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
It is not clear that (potential reputation among the rightist camp notwithstanding) becoming Chief of the army’s general staff was a direct consequence of his role in the quelling (as in "instant reward"), but rather a direct consequence of the entry of the CEDA in the Ministry of War (Gil Robles) later in 1935. Feel free to look up for sources making a causal attribution.--Asqueladd (talk) 05:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
The lede of this article is far too long, with too many details. I am not sure the English is entirely up to par either. The lede should briefly summarize the content of the article, not be the article itself. I recommend a certain amount of slash and burn to the lede, perhaps moving some of the text to the sections below, if it is not duplicated there. Bdushaw (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
@Bdushaw: I wrote the lede for the article. I based it after the lede of Mao Zedong: Summarizing the important big steps through his early, middle and late life, followed by a brief modern "evaluation"/view of him. Although this type of lede also exists on most historical figures articles. Basically: military career in morocco -> in the republic, Asturias strike -> coup and civil war -> early dictatorship and WW2 -> US ally and dictatorship seeing a lot of change -> continued softening of dictatorship and becoming old and sick -> death and legacy. --Havsjö (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Despite the lede currently being a paragraph or so longer than conventional, I suggest not to trim just for the sake of it. I am also against expanding the lead adding the recently proposed content... just for the sake of it too. Paragraph 4 (and partially paragraph 5) is the one delving more about the dictatorship rather than Franco, but if it is the aim of a proposed trim, it should be handled with care and with the proposal evaluated here accordingly. The article is 140,121 bytes in size: the lede is hardly the article. We can discuss about the former's size and how it can be synthesized without making outlandish exaggerations. I cannot comment on the English quality in the lede. --Asqueladd (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I am back just cleaning up some English in the text of the article. I make no argument (this topic is too hot for my taste!), but regarding the lede, a lede of a Wikipedia article is meant to be brief summaries of the contents of the article. For me, I have generally refrained from writing the lede of an article until the article was mostly finished. So as a general suggestion, a guiding question would be: Are the points of the lede the principal points described in the article? I have NOT looked at it all carefully, but that said, it seemed to me the lede was developed separately from the article, with extraneous minor points cluttering it up. If one were to write a completely new lede (merely as a thought experiment!) by going through the article and picking up the main points of each section, how would that compare to the existing lede? Perhaps these comments are helpful; hopefully not a waste of time. Bdushaw (talk) 21:59, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Well, OK - Having read the lede carefully, thought about it, and learned a bit more about Franco, I retract the above. I think I was partly intimidated by that large initial paragraph covering disparate topics. I've now broken that paragraph into logical parts, and realized that each of these parts are major elements of Franco's biography. The later paragraphs of the lede could do with some similar adjustments, perhaps. I hope this is OK! Bdushaw (talk) 14:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
I've copy editted the lede a bit more - I just note that my aim is not to change the content, just clean up the English and perhaps remove non-essential/extraneous phrases. If you object, just correct it - no argument from me! Bdushaw (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Suggested lede change

I've made mere editorial changes up to now, but a more substantive change occurs to me. Noting the nature of some of the discussion above, I bring the issue here for a consensus first. I've noted that the lede pertaining to the Civil War does not mention the support from the fascist powers - Germany/Italy, which was substantial. I would like to insert a sentence in that paragraph (after, e.g., "precipitating the Civil War") to that effect. (I am even wondering if Guernica ought to be mentioned.) With that introduction, the sentence later pertaining to Franco's support of Axis powers during WWII can be made more sensible/succinct. Bdushaw (talk) 13:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

When I wrote the lede before I tried to limit too much info about the civil war, as the previous lede was basically 95% only about the civil war (and not about Franco/Franco in the civil war, which is why I totally rewrote it). I put the info about Italy and Germany having supported him during the civil war in the section about WW2, since the WW2-section "unavoidably" involves mentioning them and this would be a good time to tie in info about their previous support (being "repaid") without repeating the same info. Especially since this section would be so shortly after it being brought up in the civil war-section. But if this point is decided to need more emphasis I have no real objections, only wishing it is woven in nicely and not just the same statement "duplicated". --Havsjö (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Well, I've approximated what I had in mind with the recent edits - see what you think. Revert or edit as you think best! Writing a decent lede is not easy. Bdushaw (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Greetings! Fully agree with Bdushaw. Both the article and lead section still need a lot of rework. As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate. Current article has ten paragraphas which is way more than four (the recommended upper limit) I suggest we first read the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section and agree on the four pargraphs and key points on Franco. For example: 1- Early life and brilliant military career 2- During the Republic 3-During Civil War, 4-Dictator) J Pratas (talk) 07:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Just a small note: It was actually far fewer paragraphs before, which were later split up --Havsjö (talk) 08:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Some general comments on the lede. For me, at least, it was a useful exercise to separate the various paragraphs - doing so allowed me to see that there really wasn't much extraneous in the lede. Each (small) paragraph encompasses a major chapter in the story of Franco. With respect to the guidance - true, four paragraphs are normal, but this is not a normal encyclopedia article. The story of Franco is lengthy indeed - it may be appropriate, in fact, to break the article into separate articles (e.g., JPratas ordering) and have a quite brief overview article as a road map; we eventually broke the Discovery of the neutron article away from the neutron article, for example. That said, I wouldn't object to a consolidation of paragraphs now. It's not easy - JPratas suggests a chronological order, but there are also issues of governing style, evolving political views, Franco's influence on relations of Spain with other countries, legacy, etc.; there are other factors than chronological, perhaps. And, small grammatical point, I believe hyphens are to be avoided - that's a slightly informal style that is not quite appropriate. Best to all for 2020! Bdushaw (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
the four paragraph guideline is merely a suggestion--and it applies to 95% of Wiki articles but NOT to all of them. in this case a short lede will short change readers and they will miss key aspects Rjensen (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Rjensen I am fine with not following the suggestion of four paragraphs, but still, the lead section needs revision to be in line with the article and also with most important biographies on Franco (Presto and Payne). Example: The lead says that Franco "As a conservative and a monarchist, Franco opposed the abolition of the monarchy and the establishment of the democratic secular republic in 1931.". This is not accurate. Franco did not take any action agains the abolition of the monarchy. Another example: The lead section says that "When the leftist Popular Front won the 1936 elections, Franco joined other generals who attempted a coup against the Republican government the same year.". It was not that simple. Payne & Palacios say that the 1936 elections were rigged, the government took power illegally, giving place to chaos, violence, assassinations, religious intolerance, etc.. and that still Franco stood outside any conspiracies. According to Payne it was the assassination of Calvo Sotelo, by the police forces, that convinced Franco decision to finally join the coup that was being ill planed by Gen Emilio Mola. J Pratas (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
lede can indeed be impro ved but in my opinion don't shorten it. Rjensen (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I've cleaned up some of the recent edits, hopefully ok, but there is a logical problem I don't know how to resolve. The Civil War paragraph has "Franco did not take part in the conspiracy..." followed by "Franco joined the coup..." - is it that Franco was not part of the initial coup, but then became involved once Civil War was apparent? Bdushaw (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Bdushaw, according to Javier Tusell, the conspiracy was led by Gen Emilio Mola and the figure-head was to be Gen Sanjurjo. Franco did not take part in the organization, and up to the last minute Gen Mola did not know if Franco would join or not. When the coup was perciptated by the assassination of Calvo Sotelo, Franco finaly took sides.--J Pratas (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
"did not take part in the conspiracy" is probably ambiguous enough to call it an exaggeration. He was very much aware of the pustchists' plot. The key point is the indecisiviness to actually join the putschists until a moment close in time to the coup and the fact that he did not mastermind it.--Asqueladd (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Asqueladd what you say is correct. According to the sources I've used indeed Franco was very much aware of the pustchists' plot. The key point is the indecisiviness to actually join the putschists until a moment close in time to the coup and the fact that he did not mastermind it.J Pratas (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

A comment on NPOV?

The latest text additions to the lede have added the following phrasing: but he did not took part in the illegal repressive activities.[6] It was the Republican General, López de Óchoa, a freemason who had been appointed by President Alcalá Zamora to lead the repression in the field, that permitted innumerous atrocities. I know not much of the details of Spanish politics and the Civil War, but know it to be complicated and full of disagreement and passion. The issue is still, sadly, front and center in Spanish politics today. It will be difficult for this article to maintain NPOV. The text above has an odor of POV, I suggest it be deleted. The text reads defensive of Franco and has a curious extravagance (for lack of a better word) about it. "illegal repressive activities" when just "repressive actions" would do, pointing out that López de Óchoa was a freemason (in the lengthy lede on Francisco Franco?), who appointed him (Franco was in overall command, yes?), culminating with pointing out, redundantly, the "innumerous atrocities". A phrase written from a view point, seems to me. I do not mean to single out the author, but to note generally how difficult it will be to achieve NPOV with this article. I think I will stand aside - I didn't really want to get involved with this article, I just have a compulsion about writing text a little better. Bdushaw (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Bdushaw Thank you for your editing and thank you for rasing your concerns regarding a possible neutrality violation. I've edited based on the sources I have (Stanley Payne and Javier Tusell). According to Stanley Panyne & Jesus Palacios, Diego Hidalgo y Durán, Minister of War, wanted to send Franco to Asturias to solve the insurrection, however President Alcalá-Zamora thoguth that it was better to send someone completelly identified with the Republic (Franco was know to have some simpathies towards Alfonso XIII) and that is why Lopéz Ochoa assumed the command. Javier Tusell says that "Quienes tolearon el empleo de procedimientos extralegales en al frente fueron Generales republicanos como Lopéz Ochoa." The translation would be something like:"The ones who tolerated ilegal procediings in the front were republican generals such as López Ochoa". According to Paul Preston López Ochoa did not want the attrocities but he lacked leadership to prevent them, however the left always blamed López Ochoa for the attocities and he was arrested in March 1936 (a few months before the begining of the civil war) and was beheaded, his head was stuck on a pole and paraded(See: The 'Red Terror' and the Spanish Civil War: Revolutionary Violence in Madrid. - Cambridge University Press - Julius Ruiz) If there are other sources, by reputed scholars, that say something different then, it goes without saying that, the article must be adapted to accomodate other POVs. Thank you again for your editing.  'J Pratas (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
It is simply character whitewashing and the bit about the Republican freemason general ("Republican" "freemason", really?) is a dogwhistle (well, actually a very audible dogwhistle) that has no place in the lead and probably nowhere in the article. There are several sources dealing with Franco and Asturias linked and sourced in this talk page but JPratas seems to ignore the treatment of those sources.--Asqueladd (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I re-trimmed the lede of the large additions. It became way, way too detailed and included unnecessary details not related to Franco, often with a NPOV-twang to them, such as the aforementioned "freemason general" etc, or the "need" to mention Soviet support for Republicans when Italian/German for Franco is mentioned (in Francos article). That support was btw trimmed too, as the Italian/German/Spanish "friendship" is not only just a "civil war fact", but a fact of the whole "era/period". So its mention in the WW2 section. This is still within the same "period", where their "significant support" in the civil war (tying together with the "era") is called-back too, it should be enough instead of mentioning the same thing so close to each other. To trim WW2 to only "axis powers" does not make it the red-thread immediately obvious. --Havsjö (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
There is no need to use words and expressions such as "whitewashing", "Dog-whistle", etc... I've just replaced unsourced content with content sourced on reliable sources such as Tusell, Payne and Preston. You should not delete sourced content that has already been revised by more than one editor without a discussion point by point. That is not constructive at all. Please raise your concerns point by point and let us try to reach a consensus. J Pratas (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Really, mate. If I have to explain why adding junk editorialising through a random mention to a "republican freemason general" (in the context of the Republic, no less) in the lead of the biography of a third party is wholly unappropiate, this is a textbook case WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. The thing is that I have already offered you multiple sources presenting how several reputed sources succintly present Franco vis-à-vis the Asturian repression but apparently you didn't read those. What's so difficult to understand not every random detail (further distorted by you) you may source may have a place in the lead?--Asqueladd (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
No nead to label work by other editors as junk. The way it was written it looked that Franco was responsible by the attrocities. Javier Tussel says that it was the Republican General, Lopez de Ochoa. If this is not an important point of the lead, then we might discuss removal, what is not acceptable is to stick to what seems to be an unsourced innacuracty (That Franco was responsible for the attrocities).--J Pratas (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Do you want a succint presentation of "Franco and Asturias" taken from a general history of the West by no other than Ian Kershaw to get the gist of what actually matters in a brief presentation and what entails personal editorialising and the addition of WP:UNDUE stuff and biased and twisted details entailing overtelling by the editors? If so:
"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." (To Hell and Back: Europe 1914–1949)--Asqueladd (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
No one is denying the attrocities that were committed. The point here is that Tusell says that the events were Lopez Ochoa' fault, not Franco, and that López Ochoa was appointed because Prezident Alcala-Zamora did not want Franco running the operations. Lopez Ochoa defended himself saying he had no control over his own troops J Pratas (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
A side point. Kershaw, unlike Tusell or Payne is not an hispanist. What Kershaw calls a strike was in fact a revolutionary uprising trying to overthrow an elected republican government. The bloody uprising was at national level. In Asturias the revolutinoaries declared a proletarian revolution, abolished money and instituted revolutionary terror that took aproximately 40 lives, most of them clergymen...deaths among army and policemen totaled 450. The University building was badly damaged, with the irreplaceable loss of much of its library. The Cathedral and the center of city were heavily injured. But this is not the point, the point is that Tusell blames López Ochoa, running the operations in the field, not Franco. --J Pratas (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Lead Section, Improvement opportunity 5 - Lack of a political project

Another important thing that is missing in the lede is that Franco did not (nor the other military) have a common political project or a precise ideology. During the first months they just wanted to overthrow the government, win the war and assume power. Javier Tusell says that Franco's lack of intelectual baggage and lack of preciss ideology, other than repudiation of bolshevism and his hate for freemasons, gave him latitude to adapt and survive for decades. This is an important point. J Pratas (talk) 09:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


Lead Section, Improvement opportunity 3 - During World War II, he espoused neutrality ?

The lead section says that

"During World War II, he espoused neutrality as Spain's official wartime policy,"

This sentence should be clarified. As soon as Italy declared war on June 10, 1940, Spain declared non-belligerency, which meant, in practice, supporting the Axis countries. After the meeting in Hendaya between Hitler and Franco, on October 23, 1940, Spain signed the Protocol of Hendaya. In the third point of the Protocol, Spain joined the Steel Pact-the political-military pact that Germany and Italy signed in March 1939. On paper, Spain pledged to enter the war at a mutually agreeable time. As Stanley Payne demonstrates, Franco had hoped and expected to join in the war later, under more favorable conditions. Throughout the war Franco maintained his policy of German-friendly “nonbelligerence”. According to Payne through the first half of 1944, Franco sought to maintain the status of Germany’s “last friend.” Probably the word nonbelligerant (the word chosen by Franco himself) does a better job than the word neutral.Or at least the lead should say that Franco played an ambiguous role.J Pratas (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

The full sentences clarifies this as it says he/spain still supported the axis powers in various ways. But spain was still neutral throughout the war and never joined --Havsjö (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Nonbelligerant is slightly different from neutral. And let us not forget the Blue Division.J Pratas (talk) 08:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, their status wavered from "neutrality" to "non-belligerency" at different points. But to just flatly state their situation in the lede of an article not about Spain in WW2: "Spain was neutral, but still supported the axis" shows, without semantics, the fact that Spain did not join WW2 (as they never did), but that it still clearly supported/leaned towards the Axis (and also relates this to the Axis support for him previously) --Havsjö (talk) 10:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Lead Section, Improvement opportunity 7 - Chief of Staff of the Army (Spain)

Franco became Chief of Staff of the Army (Spain) in 19 May 1935. He was discharged in 23 February 1936, as soon as Azaña assumed power (Azaña assumed power before the electoral process had ended). Becoming Chief of Staff of the Army (Spain) is important enough to be mentioned in the lead section. J Pratas (talk) 10:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


Lead Section, Improvement opportunity 4 - Franco join the coup in the last minute

The lead section says that When the leftist Popular Front won the 1936 elections, Franco joined other generals who attempted a coup against the Republican government the same year.

This sentence is inaccurate and misleading. It looks like Franco joined the coup as a reaction to the elections. The elections were in February, Franco only decided to join the coup, last minute, in July, when the insurrection was triggered as a reaction to violence and caos. He was aware of the pustchists' plot. The key point is the indecisiviness to actually join the putschists until a moment close in time to the coup and the fact that he did not mastermind it.J Pratas (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion: "Franco, after months of hesitation/indecisiveness/etc, joined other generals who..." ? --Havsjö (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I still think it is important to say that he did not took part in the organization (Emilo Mola did and Sanjurjo was supposed to be the figure head). Also important to say that Franco joined after it started. When he had no option but to take sides.J Pratas (talk) 09:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
IMO: Some details I think is just "too much" for the lede. They can be in the article body, but the mention of this one part in the full overview of his life has "the the gist of it" in regards to the big picture: that Franco joins a coup, although it was led/done by others and he was hesitant to join for a long time. To include all details and nuances becomes too much for the lede, this is just one point/section of his whole life listed here. --Havsjö (talk) 10:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Sidenote: Same with the WW2-part, its just one section of his whole life, and the gist of it is: Spain = neutral, but support Axis still. Are details about "well, they changed from "strict neutrality" to "non-belligerence" and then back" really important in the big picture of "Spain was neutral" for this one paragraph of the lede not even about WW2 (keeping in mind the axis support is still mentioned). --Havsjö (talk) 10:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Lead Section, Improvement opportunity 10 - How Franco assumed the leadership

The lead section says that

With the death of the other leading generals, Franco became his faction's only leader and was appointed Generalissimo and Head of State in the autumn of 1936.

This sentence is not accurate. Franco was chosen as chief military commander at a meeting of ranking generals at Salamanca on 21 September, now called by the title Generalísimo. (Beevor (2006). p. 143) Then Franco won an important victory on 27 September when his troops relieved the siege of the Alcázar in Toledo. Franco proclaimed himself Caudillo (Beevor (2006). p. 121). On 1 October 1936, General Franco was confirmed head of state and armies in Burgos. Before Franco officially assumed full control it was Miguel Cabanellas , dueto his seniority, that was president of the Junta de Defensa Nacional. It was the Junta that on 21 September 1936 proclaimed Francisco Franco chief military commander - though Cabanellas was the only one who dissented to this choice. At that time Emilio Mola was still alive and Sanjurjo had died in an acciedent before the coup. The way it is written it looks like after the coup several leading generals died and Franco assumed leadership. That is not the case. Nobody died and Franco was elected.J Pratas (talk) 11:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Lead Section, Improvement opportunity 9 - White Terros vs Red Terror

The lead sentence presents several numbers and sources on the death toll caused bt Franco's side but says nothing about the number of deaths and repression on the Republican side. This is unbalanced. According to the book The 'Red Terror' and the Spanish Civil War: Revolutionary Violence in Madrid Approximately 50,000 Spaniards were extrajudicially executed in Republican Spain following the failure of the military rebellion in July 1936. This mass killing of 'fascists' seriously undermined attempts by the legally constituted Republican government to present itself in foreign quarters as fighting a war for democracy. (The book is written by Julius Ruiz, Oxford Phd, Post Doctoral Fellowship at King's College London, Professor at University Edinbrough)J Pratas (talk) 10:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

But this is about Franco, not about the civil war or the red/white terror. Does Mao Zedongs lede mention KMT "white terror" when bringing up the deaths from his policies? This is not the place to compare atrocities, but to give an overview of Francos life and actions. --Havsjö (talk) 11:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I know, but you have to explain what was he fighting against. Just mentioning the attoricities and the killings committed by Franco' side is unbalanced. It does not require that much additional text to balance it.J Pratas (talk) 11:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Lead Section, Improvement opportunity 1 - Franco and in the transition to the Republic

The lead section says that

"As a conservative and a monarchist, Franco regretted the abolition of the monarchy and the establishment of the democratic secular republic in 1931. He nevertheless continued his position in the Republican Army."

A few comments:

  • 1) On January 4, 1928, by Royal Decree, Franco was named the founder and Director of the General Military Academy in Zaragoza.(Preston, 79). This is a key event in Franco' life and definetly should be included in the lead section.
  • 2) Rigth after the Republic was established, in June 1931, Azaña ordered the closing of the General Military Academy, (Preston, 108-109) Franco was devastated. (Preston, 109) However, he obeyed Azaña's commands at the time and closed the Academy. After the war Franco would reopen his much beloved institution.
  • 3) It is not accurate to say that Franco "nevertheless continued his position in the Republican Army". In fact In his closing speech Franco stressed the Republic's need for discipline and respect. Azaña did not like the speech and entered an official reprimand into Franco's personnel file and for six months Franco was without a post and under surveillance. (Payne|Palacios|2018|p=74) Franco was dropped to the end of the list of Brigadier Generals.

"Discurso de Franco a los cadetes de la academia militar de Zaragoza" (in Spanish). 14 June 1931. Retrieved 21 July 2006.

Suggestion: "Franco was in 1928 named/made (founder? and) director of the General Military Academy in Zaragoza." (I guess in the end of the "early life/kingdom" paragraph?) and then:
"As a conservative and a monarchist, Franco regretted the abolition of the monarchy and the establishment of the democratic secular republic in 1931. (In the new Republic) he (was devastated when he) lost his position in the GMA but nevertheless continued his service in the Republican Army.
This includes the info about the GMA and has the more accurate "continued service" than "continued position" --Havsjö (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


It looks better. But if you want to be shorter in words, to avoid long lead, maybe you don't need to say that the monarchy was abolished and the republic was established. You can just mention the establishment of the second republic. To help you with the revision, see, for example, what Preston says "The coming of the democratic Second Republic in 1931 was something of a set-back for Franco. To his intense chagrin, the Zaragoza Academy was closed and he was left for eight months without a posting until, in February 1932, he was made military governor of La Corufia. Neither that posting, nor his promotion one year later to be military commander of the Balearic Islands, diminished his hostility to the democratic regime" . I would say you should proceed with the editing. J Pratas (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Lead Section, Improvement opportunity 8 - Axis support and the Soviet Union support

It was Franco who got in touch with Italy and Nazi Germany in order to get support. He played a decisive role in getting this support. It was this support that permitted him to air-lift the North African troops to mainland. The other side was supported by the Soviet Union, deeply hated by Franco. This should be mentioned in the lead. Currently the lead just says that Franco supported the Axis during ww2.J Pratas (talk) 10:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

It says he supported them since they had supported him in the civil war. It ties back to their support then and the Spanish/Italian/German "friendship" of that whole period as the Axis support for Franco was not just isolated to the civil war, and otherwise the mention of this becomes duplicated in the subsequent paragraph. --Havsjö (talk) 11:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I know. And we are not disagreeing on content. In my view it is important to mention it in chronological order for two reasons. The first is that this first major air transportation of troops in history was absolutely decisive to the civil war. The secong being that scholars like Stanley Payne have seen in this event important characteristics of Franco' personality. Payne Says that Franco, by sending representatives to Rome and Berlin, acted as a major leader of the movement and not as a regional subordinate. Payne also uses this example to say that Franco was the last General to join the coup, but once he did it he "acted with complete resolution and self confidence". Someone with writing skills should be able to capture this in a short sentence. There are other editors that also expressed the opinion that this is important. Maybe we can wait for other opinions.J Pratas (talk) 11:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


Paul Presto says something similar to Stanley Payne. Preston says that ¨Franco was slow to commit himself to the military uprising plotted in the course of the spring and early summer of 1936. When he finally did so, a mere five days before the Civil War broke out, it was to take over the most efficacious units on the rebel side-the Spanish Moroccan Army....Franco displayed what were probably his most valuable and inspirational qualities as a military leader--his glacial sangfroid under pressure, his unshakeable resolve and his infectious optimism"

It would be great if you could use (like Preston and Payne) the events to mention some traits of Franco's personality , rather than just citing the event.J Pratas (talk) 18:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


Look. this is what Preston says: Both Hitler and Mussolini separately decided to help the Spanish Nationalists. Their decisions to do so were ultimately determined by considerations of their own interests. However, that they should both decide to target their assistance on Franco was a reflection not only of his manifest efficacy but also of the force of conviction with which he persuaded the representatives of both Fascist Italy and the Nazi Auslandorganization that he was the rebel to back. His rivals, General Emilio Mola in the north and General Gonzalo Queipo de Llano in the south could not match Franco's ability to secure foreign backing

Lead Section, Improvement opportunity 2 - Franco's family had been naval officers for six generations, some with the rank of Admiral,

The lead section says that

"Franco was born in Ferrol, Spain, as the son of upper-class parents with strong connections to the Spanish Navy. Franco, however, joined the Spanish Army as a cadet in the Toledo Infantry Academy "

  • 1) "parents with strong connections to the Spanish Navy" is a sentence that falls short. It was not just parents with connections it was more than that. His family had been naval officers for six generations, some with the rank of Admiral, ending in Franco’s father, who achieved the rank of "Intendente General", similar to vice admiral .
  • 2) The Lead should say that Franco hoped to follow in the footsteps of his ancestors, but in 1907 the Spanish government, crippled by the Spanish–American war, suspended the admission of new recruits to the naval academy, forcing Franco to join the army academy instead.

For sure there is a way to capture all these key facts in a condensed paragraph. J Pratas (talk) 11:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I would say words "strong connections to the navy" adequately encompass the, well, strong connections to the navy you mention (with more details you mention for the article body). The second sentence could perhaps be changed to:
As a result of the (Spanish navy being crippled by the) Spanish-American war, Franco was, however, forced/a "milder" word? to join the Spanish Army as a cadet in the Toledo Infantry Academy in 1907, graduating in..." ? --Havsjö (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for reading my comments and for trying to improve the article. I still think that a sentence that says that Franco's family had been one of naval officers for six generations says a lot more and is more precise than saying that his parents had strong connections to the navy. For two reasons. The first reason is that it was not only Franco' parents that had conections. The second reason is that it is very clear and precise about what kind of conections are we talking about. The word connections can mean many things. They could be ship builders. Why not opting for the sentence that really says it all withouth ambiguity? J Pratas (talk) 08:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
The sentence "son of upper-class parents with strong connections to the Spanish Navy." does not capture the reality. Some people say that John F. Kennedy was a son of someone connected to the mob, and that does not mean that his father belonged to the mob. A person can be connected to the Catholic Church and not be a priest or a member of the church. There are sentences about the same size that provide a lot more info to the reader. Examples:
  • born to a seafaring family. His family had been naval officers for six generations, ending in Franco's father, Nicolás Franco y Salgado Araújo.
  • born into a seafaring family. His family had been naval officers for six generations, including several ancestors holding the rank of Admiral.
  • He was born into a seafaring family of long standing; six ancestors of his ancestors of his family had been naval officers, several holding the rank of Admiral
  • Franco's family were upper class and with a strong tradition of serving in the Spanish Navy.
  • ..of a middle class family with a long tradition of naval service.
  • Like four generations and his elder brother before him, Franco was originally destined for a career as a naval officer, but reduction of admissions to the Naval Academy forced him to choose the army.
  • His paternal family had had a tradition of naval service going back to the early eighteenth century
  • etc.

All these sentences capture the idea of family tradition, for many generations + Admiral ranks. Something that the word connection does not capture at all. And it does not require that many additional words, just refrasing. --J Pratas (talk) 11:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Lead Section, Improvement opportunity 6 - Franco' role in Asturias

The lead section says that 

In 1934 Franco led the brutal suppression of the miners' revolutionary strike in Asturias, which sharpened the antagonism between Left and Right in the country.

This sentence has several problems

  • 1) Franco was not the leader. President Alcala Zamora did not want Franco to assume leadership. The President forced the appointment of Lopez Ochoa because Lopez Ochoa was more identified with the Republic than Franco. Franco was a special advisor to war Minister Hidalgo. Hidalgo had executive power and operations in the field were conducted by Lopez Ochoa and other military. Lopez Ochoa became known as the "butcher of Asturias", which according to many scholars is an unfare accusation, Lopez Ochoa tried to minimize bloodshed, but in many case he lost hand of events. Lopez Ochoa ordered the killing, without any trial, of some of his men that had committed attrocities.
  • 2) Franco and Gen Goded adised Hidalgo to bring in the battle-tested 'Army of Africa', composed of the Spanish Foreign Legion and the Moroccan Regulares. Historian Hugh Thomas asserts that Hidalgo said that he did not want young inexperienced recruits fighting their own people and he was wary of moving troops to Asturias leaving the rest of Spain unprotected. Bringin in the army of Africa was not a novelty. In 1932 Manuel Azaña also called the Tercio and the regulares from North Africa.
  • 3) It was not a strike that was ruthelessly crushed. What was brutally crushed was an "uprising turned into a full-scale social revolution which threatened the nascent Second Republic" . (see: "The Spanish Foreign Legion during the Asturian Uprising of October 1934" [3]
  • 4) I am not denying that atrocities were committed, just think that Franco's role needs to be cleared. Also the article needs to be precise about what was being brutally crushed. J Pratas (talk) 10:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

It was a full scale civil war hich threatened the nascent Second Republic

  • Hugh Thomas: "the government was now faced with civil war" [4]
  • Antony Beevor JANUARY 12 2008: "The revolutionary general strike collapsed rapidly, but in Asturias a full-scale civil war broke out" [5]
  • José E. Álvarez: an "uprising turned into a full-scale social revolution which threatened the nascent Second Republic" . (see: "The Spanish Foreign Legion during the Asturian Uprising of October 1934 [6]
  • Martin Blinkhorn : "A full-scale revolt" [7]J Pratas (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
@JPratas: I (re)added emphasis on its degeneration into revolution/war. While the cites emphasizing how the army vs rebels had become a full battle vs the original strike, to just call it a "full scale war" there leads one to believe this is basically the Spanish civil war kicking off, its just is too big words to use so quickly. Especially since its apparently "only" "suppressed" or "put down" by the army. Becomes almost misleading to call such events a "full-scale war" which leads a readers thoughts to tanks, planes and armies battling for the country. --Havsjö (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
It was not a strike that degenerated into a revolution. It was a revolution that degenerated into a civil war. Please read carefully , for instance, Hugh Thomas. Hugh Thomas says a that it was a "full-scale working class revolution......The governement was now faced by a civil war¨. I am ok with you making sure that the reader is not led to believe that it was the Civi War kicking off but that is no reason for giving the impression that it was a just a strike. Please change the text accordingly J Pratas (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
@JPratas: I am not 100% on everything surrounding these events, but how can it be so "clearly" a civil war (as in, a fully fledged WAR) when its often referred to as a "(revolutionary) strike" as well? Such opposing views makes this a bit confusing. From how I understand this is basically a "strike"/revolt which escalates into rebels battling with the army sent to put them down, which is then "suppressed" by army+gendarmerie (as if it is a revolt or similar, compared to an enemy force in a war) with minor violence occuring in other regions outside (aside from the events in Catalonia). If this is accurate, how is the Asturias stuff not accurately summed as a "full revolution breaking out"? This is also what most of the cited authors say above: "full-scale civil war (in Asturias, i.e. not just "a" civil war)", "full-scale revolt" "full-scale social revolution" --Havsjö (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Also, currently it it says "In 1934 Franco led the brutal suppression of the miners' strike, which had rapidly turned into a full revolution, in Asturias". This uses the term "miners strike" as this is the name of the article it links to, with the explanation that this "strike" had quickly become a "full revolution". As mentioned it seems to me this is an accurate description backed by the historians and placed somewhere between the perhaps overly extreme/mild terms "civil war" and "strike", but the currently remaining mention of "strike" is there due to events being known by this name... --Havsjö (talk) 21:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
I added a link on the "full revolution" to the Revolution of 1934 article, this would also show how it had become a revolution which affected other parts of the country too. --Havsjö (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Again. Please read Hugh Thomas or Anthony Beevor. (You can read both online, Just follow the links). Franco did not suppress a strike. According to Hugh Thomas "It was a full-scale working class revolution"' and Beevor says "in Asturias a full-scale civil war broke out. The insurgent miners captured several towns, including the provincial capital of Oviedo, which contained a 1,000-strong garrison. They murdered some 40 people, mainly rich citizens and several priests. The government declared martial law and sent General Franco to suppress the rebellion. The cruiser Libertad shelled the port of Gijon and the antiquated Spanish air force bombed Oviedo and the mining areas. ::::::::Hugh Thomas and Anthony Beevor are amongst the most respected historians in the topic. I fail to see why are we having a debate. --J Pratas (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Well I was just "curious" as the what exactly went down for these events to have such different names. But anyway, the main point is it currently says it was a "full revolution" (with a link to the 1934 revolution article) which was suppressed, is this not satisfactory? --Havsjö (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
No. It was not a "miners' strike", "It was a full-scale working class revolution" (Hugh Thomas). Not just miners and not exactly a strike but a revolution that broke as a strike in Madrid and spread all over Spain. Catalonia declared independence. There are other entries in the wikipedia for the same event. See this one: Revolution of 1934. Encyclopedia Britannica's entry is:October Revolution. Paul Preston calls it Spain's October Revolution. es:Adrian Shubert published "The epic failure: the Asturian revolution of October 1934" . --J Pratas (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Thats exactly what I said.... quote fro my previous message: ""full revolution" (with a link to the 1934 revolution article)", the very same revolution of 1934 article you mentioned now. Full revolution is what is in the article right now added by me. --Havsjö (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Nope. That is not what the article is saying. The article is now sayy "In 1934 Franco led the brutal suppression of the miners' strike, which had rapidly turned into a full revolution". And what the sources say is that "In 1934 Franco led the brutal suppresion of a full-scale working class revolution that had turned into a civil war". If you don' want to use ther expression "civil war" you can replace it by something like "armed conflict". Saying that it was a strike that had turned into a revoluition not only is not what the sources say, but also does not describe the events. There are many full revolutions in history that were not violent. --J Pratas (talk) 05:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The term "miners strike" is still there by virtue of that being the common name of the event, and indeed the article of the event it is linking to. The immediately following explanation/description of the event as not a mere strike, but a "full revolution" (with a link to the appropriate article showing the nationwide revolution) seems to fall in line with the majority of cited authors description which you also argued for: Thomas "full-scale working class revolution", Encyclopedia Britannica "October Revolution", Preston: "Spain's October Revolution", Shubert "revolution of October 1934". The event is clearly described and "classified" in the lede as a "full revolution" (with appropriate link), the term "miners strike" is again only there, as I mentioned in my original responses, by virtue of this being the name for the event and its article: "He had to put down [event], which was a [description of event]". --Havsjö (talk) 09:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Franco did not crush a strike, saying that is wrong and misleading. As Anthony Beevor says "The revolutionary general strike collapsed rapidly, but in Asturias a full-scale civil war broke out". The strike collapsed so it did not need to be crushed. What Franco crushed was a bloody revolution against the Republic. That is what the sources say. The common name of the event is "October Revolution" `[8], [9], [10]J Pratas (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
And the event that was suppressed is indeed currently described as a full revolution. So am glad consensus was found here --Havsjö (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
No we do not have consensus. For two reasons. First the sentence "Franco led the brutal suppression of the miners' strike, " is inaccurate because Franco did NOT suppress a strike.
Second it was not a just a full revolution. It was bloody, violent, etc or as Hught Thomas puts it it was a civil war. Have in mind that a "full revolution" can be a Nonviolent revolution.
Please show a little flexibility. It seems that you are ok with the sources (Thomas, Beevor, etc.) but what is written is something different.--J Pratas (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
the description can be changed to "violent revolution" or "full-scale revolution", sure. But again and again: the "miners strike" is the name of the event. There description/explanation put inside the very sentence explains that this event is about a full revolution and not just a strike. Its like if it said "Mr. X was a leader in the November Events, an armed confrontation between faction X and Y" and saying "It wasnt just some "events"! It was an armed confrontation or battle according to these sources!". Or how about "Napoleon then took part in the Hundred Days, his final military campaign", with disputes of "It wasnt just any "100 days", it was his final campaign!" --Havsjö (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
The sentence, the way it is written is incongruent. It is like saying that a fire fighter extinguished a small fire that later developed into a major fire. Franco did not crush a strike he crushed a violent revolution. Pay attention to what Beevor says :  in October 1934, when socialists and communists began a revolutionary general strike in Madrid and an armed insurrection in the northern region of Asturias.....The revolutionary general strike collapsed rapidly, but in Asturias a full-scale civil war broke out...Franco’s foreign legion and Moroccan troops crushed the rising within a week". You just have to rephrase. Beeveor never says that Franco crushed a strike. (and you do) --J Pratas (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Was the Asturians 1934 rebellion bloody? What do the sources say?J Pratas (talk) 07:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Sources either use the word booldy or describe a series of bloody events (killings, murders, etc. )

  • 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 [11] See: Sarah Sanchez - Fact and Fiction: Representations of the Asturian Revolution (1934-1938)
  • decribes the boody encounter which the miners had in each of these palces - Sarah Sanchez - Fact and Fiction: Representations of the Asturian Revolution (1934-1938) Page 215
  • The bloody, and bloodily suppressed, miners' revolt of 1934 was a major step toward the irrecon cilable split of right and left that brought on the Civil War in 1936. By Richard Eder Special to The New York Times, Jan. 15, 1970 [12]
  • bloody uprising by miners in Asturias that was suppressed by troops led by General Franco.- Encyclopdia Britannica [13]
  • 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. [14]
  • 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. Spain's First Democracy: The Second Republic, 1931-1936 by Stanley G. Payne page 219 [15]

--J Pratas (talk) 07:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Yet none "bloody revolution". WP:SYNTH: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. But WP:YOUDIDNTHEARTHAT--Asqueladd (talk) 07:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
All sources describe events that involved killings, murders, etc.. something that can be summarized as "bloody". The word bloody was in fact used by many sources to characterize the same series of events, so there should be no dispute in using the word "bloody". As to the events some authors use the word "revolution", while others use words such as: "rebellion", "revolt", "uprising", etc... Either a "rebellion", "revolt", "uprising" a "civil-war" or "revolution" the fact is that it was "bloody".--J Pratas (talk) 07:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
"bloody revolution", "bloody uprising" ( Encyclopdia Britannica), "bloody revolt"(NY Times), "where the fighting was more most bloody" are all similar, they basically try to describe the same thing. This is not WP:SYNTH becasue I am not combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. All sources describe a bloody event. All sources are in agreement. They just use different wording meaning the exact same thing. --J Pratas (talk) 08:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I think we have some problem here with civil pov pushing. As you're clearly keen onto google searching "bloody" after having looked for "revolution" (which separatedly it is something we may have to dealt with, the synth escalation part not so much) you may well look to other descriptions by secondary sources:

  • [16]; Ellwood (Franco biography): "miner's strike"/"ferocity of reprisals"
  • [17]; Seidman; "Asturian insurrection"/"brutally supressed",
  • [18]; Keene: "Asturian miners' strike"/"Franco was called in to put down the uprising, he did so with great ferocity")
  • [19]; Cazorla: "so-called Asturian revolution/"Atrocities were common with the government forces commiting most of them."
  • [20]; "Asturias Revolt/Bloodily supressed").
  • [21]; Heywood, "Socialist-led insurrectionary strike", "brutally supressed by Moorish troops led by General Francisco Franco")
  • [22]; "Insurrectionary rising in Asturias region of Spain brutally suppressed by army led by General Franco"]
  • [23]; "grève insurrectionnelle d’octobre 1934. « La révolte des Asturies »" "Ils sont l’objet d’une répression sévère conduite par les généraux Franco et Goded")
  • [24]; Volodarsky: "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...")
  • [25] Preston (Franco as military leader) "Hidalgo placed Franco in charge of the repression of the uprising" "a control" (of the joint responsibilities of War and Interior during martial law) "which he exercised with notable ruthlessness"
  • [26] Graham: "At Franco's initiative, they (the African Army) had been used violently to repress the workers' rebellion in the northern mining cuenca"

This is becoming a bit silly. You clearly do not like the kind of balance historians often do when succintly putting together the cause and the effect (you have made that clear), and you want to create your own historiographical balance adding stuff to the cause with your own synthy creation ("bloody revolution") relying in synth to counter what you think it is unfair (some adjective usually accompanying the effect compared to the cause relying in the choice of noun to account for its nature when both things are succintly put together) because you may have to right some great wrong. That is not ok, mate. I do not have a simple solution. This is not an easy thing to figure it out, but it is not going to be solved with you creating your own terminology.--Asqueladd (talk) 07:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

No POV here whatsoever. In same cases you have different POVs. In this specific cases all sources describe a bloody event. That is all. No need bring in lots of sources saying that the supresion was also bloody. NY Times is clear: 'The bloody, and bloodily suppressed, miners' revolt of 1934. Are you really debating that the even was not bloody?--J Pratas (talk) 09:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I am not trying to proof anything. I am approaching this trying to reflect on how the scholarship (reliable secondary sources, non-primary, non-tertiary) succintly present the cause-effect, which you should do too. Simply, your recent edit does not look like an improvement in that regard when trying to reflect on that balance.--Asqueladd (talk) 10:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

JPratas, you have a good library of sources, but I must say I think you have some problems in "translating" them into writing in a neutral/"academic"/"matter-of-fact"ly way. You have quite dramatic way of writing, which doesnt always feel fully suitable. When the lede was revised by you with a "free hand" you, in this summary of Franco, write like: "miners' bloody revolutionary uprising in Asturias,", "but [Franco] did not took part in the illegal repressive activities." and add "It was the Republican General, López de Óchoa, a freemason who had been appointed by President Alcalá Zamora to lead the repression in the field, that permitted innumerous atrocities." As well as wanting to keep everything "fair", even if the focus is not on those things. Aforementioned sentences suffer from this too, but so does suggesting to add info about the Red Terror to be "fair" vis-a-vis Francos repressions, or USSR support for the Republic to be "fair" vis-a-vis Italian/German support for Franco. And just minor choices of words/sentences in various places which feel a bit oddly "dramatic", even if they are not wrong/false. "Born into a seafaring family, with six generations of naval officers", "rapidly advancing through the ranks for bravery in combat and an assiduous attention to detail in logistics", "supported the crown" (instead of, perhaps, "the monarchy"?) Some of these things might seem nit-picky or irrelevant (and which they are, really), but the previous mentioned things about Asturias are far too much. Maybe its just my personal view that Wikipedia should be kind of "dry" to read? Just "stating facts" about the topic in a plain manner. But some things go to far and also stray from the focus of the article for the sake of "fairness" --Havsjö (talk) 10:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Let us not mix a lot of issues in the same discussion. Otherwise we will be all lost. Let us also not get personal and start making assumptions and judgements. I have always been trying to focus on the topic and on what the sources say. I have not accused any editor of anything. Wikipedia says that we should all ¨Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct; comment on content, not the contributor¨
Now, regarding the Asturias event. ALL the sources say that there was an extremely violent and bloody armed revolt against a legitimate republican government. Period. This is what Franco was called in to crush and this is what the article should say. If we cannot agree no this let us escalate or open the discussion --J Pratas (talk) 11:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
The proposal creates a WP:OR balance trying to make a point. Per on how the corpus of secondary sources briefly presents the situation the lead does not need any fixing in the sense it has been proposed (particularly as it goes at great length to combine a WP:SYNTH & WP:UNDUE approach, even with primary and tertiary sources).--Asqueladd (talk) 11:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I am sorry but disagree. No original research here whatsoever. It is just a simple fact extensively sourced. The Asturias event was extremely violent, a lot of people were killed. I don't think there is a simple source saying it was not violent. Is there? It was not exactly like he Prague Spring was it? I will wait for other editors to jump in because I feel we are circling, and arguments are not resonating. Then, if no success will proceed to dispute resolution.--J Pratas (talk) 12:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)  
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Francisco_Franco/Archive_4&oldid=1046941319"