Talk:Francoist Spain

message: The anthem has Alfonso XIII's reign's lyrics. Francoist lyrics were different. They are found at the corresponding article for the anthem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcha_Real#Franco-era_lyrics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjfkasd kka sdjf kksadf (talk • contribs) 14:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anthem 

message: Should Juan Carlos should be listed in the infobox as Prince of Spain from 1969 to 1975?I could go both ways, but I am leaning towards "no" as this was a position "in wait for power", rather than "in power" Havsjö (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Did the title come with any official duties or governmental responsibilities? If it did, it should be listed, if not, no. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Juan Carlos as Prince of Spain in the infobox? 

message: An editor has objected to the regime being called "Fascist" in the infobox, which is the status quo ante of the article, but has not made their objections known here for a consensus discussion.  I have reverted the article to it's previous state until a consensus is reached to change it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The Francoist dictatorship originally took a form described as "fascistized dictatorship", or "semi-fascist regime", showing clear influence of fascism in fields such as labor relations, the autarkic economic policy, aesthetics, and the single-party system.; Capítulo V As time went on, the regime opened up and became closer to developmental dictatorships, although it always preserved residual fascist trappings.«La ausencia de un ideario definido le permitió transitar de unas fórmulas dictatoriales a otras, rozando el fascismo en los cuarenta y a las dictaduras desarrollistas en los sesenta»., cap. «El franquismo como dictadura».«La tesis defendida por Payne en dicho dossier puede sintetizarse con estas palabras:
» Glicerio Sanchez Recio. En torno a la Dictadura franquista Hispania NovaEven at its fascist peak, the "pure" fascists were one of several factions within the regime. Additionally, as the added (sourced) note in the "government_section" of the infobox explains, the other adjectives are also things not applicable to the entire period of Francos rule, aside from the general term "dictatorship". This is why the term "personalist" dictatorship was chosen (it was always centered around Franco's person). (It was also not under a de jure constitutional monarchy, as there were no constitution) --Havsjö (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Franco crushed the Falangists, and then proceeded to adopt many of their fascist principles.  And, yes, the fascist nature of the regime decreased over the years, but that does not invalidate "fascist" as a description of the regime at some point in its existence.  If you would prefer to divide the description in the infobox into "early" and "later" periods, be my guest, but removing "fascist" altogether is not justified, especially since its inclusion has been part of the article for quite a while. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: From February 2020 to September of this year it was trimmed down to "personalist dictatorship" with the explanatory sourced note, so that is the long-standing version which should be argued to be changed. Calling it "Fascist dictatorship" implies it was a fascist dictatorship, which it wasn't, especially not for the duration of the period. It can be called anything and everything if all it takes it that it had some features of something for some period. "A fascist, traditionalist, conservative, autarkic, economically liberal, authoritarian, totalitarian, limitedly pluralistic, national catholic, military dictatorship under a de-jure monarchy"? --Havsjö (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: And before February 2020, "fascist" was included in the infobox for many years. (I'm not going to go through edits to find the exact time it was added, because you know very well that what I say is accurate). Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

text: I'd also like to point out that when I attempted to add citations to support "fascist", you reverted my attempts, meaning that you deleted sourced information from the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

text: Is not the attempt to rewrite history and expunge "fascist" from the description of the Franco regime a form of revisionism? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: "Before February 2020, "fascist" was included in the infobox for many years" Which was changed after the efforts of mainly  (who wrote the not in the infobox only seen in edit-mode, as well as the heavily sourced section from the introduction copy-pasted above) which explains the over-simplicity of simply calling the regime "fascist" as if it was a firm fact. For the amount of sources calling it "fascist" an equal amount of scholarly sources disputing that stamp can be procured. This is why only the constants of the regime (dictatorship centered around Francos person; personalist dictatorship) was retained in the quick-summary of the regimes government type in the infobox (rather than saying "fascist[1][2][3] non-fascist[4][5][6] dictatorship"), while perspectives on those points were compared and contrasted in the article body. --Havsjö (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: But the infobox including "fascist" is not "simplifying" anything.  It includes a fair number of decscriptors, which go toward explaining the nature of the regime as it existed over the years.  There is absolutely no doubt that Franco crushed and co-opted the Falangists, and thaat his regime become more conservative and less fascist, btu that doesn;t mean that "fascists" is not a relevant description for the regime as a whole. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The regime was always fascist to a substantial extent (I am sure there are plenty of sources along those lines), but neither fascism is a coherent form of state architecture neither I think that question transfers 100% to the substance behind the recent infobox tit-tat edits (I suspect that you are mixing things when it comes to arguing). The more ludicrous part was the "constitutional monarchy" (LOL) bit, tho.--Asqueladd (talk) 22:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, in general I have no objection to fewer descriptors in that infobox field - and "constitutional monarchy" is indeed ridiculous.  My concern was, and is, the deletion of "fascist", which should be restored. Beyond My Ken (talk)
===Continuing the discussion===
Because there continues to be edit-warring about what the "government" field in the infobox should say, I have blanked it until a consensus is reached here. If the edit-warring continues, I will request that the article be fully-protected for a time. If there is no consensus found here in normal talkpage discussion, I will start a multi-part RfC to determine what the field should say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

text: The purported consensus is seemingly unsourced content, . It is also extremely unlikely, if not impossible, to find a non-circular authoritative source backing up that convoluted 7-concept string (otherwise prolly created by sucessive edits from different Wikipedia editors) without resorting to WP:SYNTH. That is a notable issue, that I am surprised that it has not been raised up. --Asqueladd (talk) 04:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are interesting arguments, but they have not received a consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:OR and WP:VER are not interesting arguments, they are 2 out of the 3 core content Wikipedia policies. Btw, neither Wikipedia:Consensus is a core Wikipedia policy neither the idea of a "consensus", let alone a strong one, is clear here by any means.--Asqueladd (talk) 04:36, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: These entries are all supported by the body of the article.  The continuing attempt to whitewash the Franco regime in the face of obvious facts will not be successful, certainly not as long as there is not support for it among Wikipedia's editors..Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:18, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the system of government is not supported in the body of the article in the ludicrous (and perhaps black-tarring according to your line of thinking?) way of "being under de iure constitutional monarchy", let alone with the full previous string to avoid WP:OR. I have not checked the other ones, of which I am still somewhat concerned but less so. Ah, yes, another one: inserting into a subclass of type of government to which the Francoist dictatorship belonged to the "Francoist" label takes the cake as a circular and exceptionalist platitude. More. Ah, yes, the concept of "autocratic dictatorship" is a truism. All dictatorships are autocratic by definition. You won't find a source veryfying that unsourced string because 50% of it is junk.--Asqueladd (talk) 06:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree with changing "autocratic dictatorship" either "autocracy" or "dictatorship" would be an improvement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

text: But "Francoist", which seems circular, is simply an indication that the government type as sui generis. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The infobox is completely bloated, so I am considering simplifying it. Also, the text I put in was there BEFORE the dispute, which failed to reach a conclusion. Quetstar (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Why did you remove the citation needed template, Quetstar? Sources are required in order to guarantee verifiability and avoid original research. And no, neither the current nor former infobox parametre values (the aforementioned strings) are sourced in the article.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: As @Beyond My Ken stated, the template is unecessary because the info is sourced in the body of the article. Quetstar (talk) 02:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you point at those sources?, , because I am afraid that you have a very loose idea of adequately sourcing a parametre.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Beyond My Ken removed the template after you put it back, so you should ask them for the sources.  Quetstar (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: "Fascist"?

message: Because there continues to be edit-warring about what the "government" field in the infobox should say, I have blanked it until a consensus is reached here. If the edit-warring continues, I will request that the article be fully-protected for a time. If there is no consensus found here in normal talkpage discussion, I will start a multi-part RfC to determine what the field should say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The purported consensus is seemingly unsourced content, . It is also extremely unlikely, if not impossible, to find a non-circular authoritative source backing up that convoluted 7-concept string (otherwise prolly created by sucessive edits from different Wikipedia editors) without resorting to WP:SYNTH. That is a notable issue, that I am surprised that it has not been raised up. --Asqueladd (talk) 04:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are interesting arguments, but they have not received a consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:OR and WP:VER are not interesting arguments, they are 2 out of the 3 core content Wikipedia policies. Btw, neither Wikipedia:Consensus is a core Wikipedia policy neither the idea of a "consensus", let alone a strong one, is clear here by any means.--Asqueladd (talk) 04:36, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: These entries are all supported by the body of the article.  The continuing attempt to whitewash the Franco regime in the face of obvious facts will not be successful, certainly not as long as there is not support for it among Wikipedia's editors..Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:18, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the system of government is not supported in the body of the article in the ludicrous (and perhaps black-tarring according to your line of thinking?) way of "being under de iure constitutional monarchy", let alone with the full previous string to avoid WP:OR. I have not checked the other ones, of which I am still somewhat concerned but less so. Ah, yes, another one: inserting into a subclass of type of government to which the Francoist dictatorship belonged to the "Francoist" label takes the cake as a circular and exceptionalist platitude. More. Ah, yes, the concept of "autocratic dictatorship" is a truism. All dictatorships are autocratic by definition. You won't find a source veryfying that unsourced string because 50% of it is junk.--Asqueladd (talk) 06:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree with changing "autocratic dictatorship" either "autocracy" or "dictatorship" would be an improvement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

text: But "Francoist", which seems circular, is simply an indication that the government type as sui generis. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The infobox is completely bloated, so I am considering simplifying it. Also, the text I put in was there BEFORE the dispute, which failed to reach a conclusion. Quetstar (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Why did you remove the citation needed template, Quetstar? Sources are required in order to guarantee verifiability and avoid original research. And no, neither the current nor former infobox parametre values (the aforementioned strings) are sourced in the article.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: As @Beyond My Ken stated, the template is unecessary because the info is sourced in the body of the article. Quetstar (talk) 02:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you point at those sources?, , because I am afraid that you have a very loose idea of adequately sourcing a parametre.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Beyond My Ken removed the template after you put it back, so you should ask them for the sources.  Quetstar (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Continuing the discussion

message: This article says nothing at all about the end of Francoism, the transition to democracy etc Crawiki (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it had something to do with the death of Franco? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  You pose a interesting question (even if the idea that "it failed" is fraught because, well, other than regarding the Western Sahara brouhaha, it did not exactly collapse nor was it overthrown, nearly all elements were intact immediately upon the biological death of the dictator, and even some are relatively little altered to this day). This article is piss-poor in terms of offering any historical chronology (and the only connection to what it came next only concerns about collective memory, but not the equally important topic of the tension of continuation vs. breaking of elites and institutions). It has not been deemed useful yet to provide any insight about State violence beyond a simple mention within a subsection either. No mention of the international context either beyond that at some point after WW2 the regime became closer to the US. And I could go on, this article has plenty of additional blind spots. I think that several of its flaws are related to a large extent to 1) the very way this article has been structured, 2) the fact that the article (beyond infobox cruft), attracts less attention than the article about the dictator.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  When, how and why did Francoism fail? 

message: Here it is: The Francoist equivalent to Hitler's Enabling Act., I personally recommend adding this to the article. 190.141.83.19 (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You have already added it... are you seeking consensus after the fact? --Technopat (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm seeking consensus. (edit: I'm fairly new to Wikipedia). 190.141.83.19 (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  We should add the Enabling Act of Francisco Franco, the decree which gave him unlimited power