Talk:Spain under Franco

message: Anyone got a free version of the "Una Grande y Libre" flag of spain during that era? I think it is required, as the Second Republic has its flag there. If anyone has it, please add it to the article. [Zespris - 14/6/05]
The statement that Spain was "the second most backward country in Europe" in the Spanish miracle section is a major value judgment. Something statistical like that it had the second lowest literacy rate, or the second lowest GDP in Europe should be provided, if either of those is true. "Backward" is a thin and insupportable description. Dave 19:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  flag 

message: Should we really have the link for the documentary When Franco died we were 30? As far as I can see, the linked site has vey little information unless you are paying to view the film. - Jmabel | Talk 05:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could be wrong, but isn't there a policy about linking to sites that you have to pay to use? Murderbike 20:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable link 

message: I think that Spain under Franco needs to be merged with the Spanish State article.  One of the Spanish series links to the Spanish State article, while the History of Spain series links to Spain under Franco.  Are these two articles not about the same thing?  I would do the merger myself, but I don't really know how to do it.  Suggestions?  Oscabat 21:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the strict sense of the word, they should be two different articles: Spanish State would be more concerned with constitutional issues and type of regime, whereas "Spain under Franco" covers also economical issues (the "Spanish miracle"), cultural events (repression of regionalism, etc.). You could, however, merge it (see WP:MERGE) but I think others opinions would be good. The main reason for a merge would be to avoid a fork & duplicate content, but again, I think the two article covers different things. Tazmaniacs 16:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with the idea of a merger. Spanish state is covering the entire history of the spanish state. Spain under franco is an historic period that certainly deserves its independent article.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 19:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point Tazmaniacs.  However, if that is the case, then there certainly needs to be a lot more work done on removing duplicate content, and enhancing the Spanish State article.  I disagree with you, Maunus, however, because the "Spanish State" was a title referring to the period under which Franco ruled (it even explains it in the article).  The second part of the article that discusses it's current day use is probably more for posterity and even has a different meaning.Oscabat 05:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm, it seems quite clear that Estado de España ("Spanish State," not "Spanish state") refers specifically to the regime that existed between 1939 and the Bourbon restoration (Reino de España), much as how l'État Français only ever signifies Marshal Pétain's Vichy-based regime, not the French "state" itself (la République Française). While our rote abhorrence of the Franco regime and ideology is quite understandable, the zeal with which we sometimes thunder away against any trace of Franco, pushing for bizarre piping and unnecessary disambiguation, is neither justified nor dignified. If anything, Spain under Franco should be merged into Spanish State, considering WikiProject Former countries's habit of using the autochthonous names of the period. Cheers, Albrecht 02:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Correct spanish denomination was Estado Español. Technically the merger is obvious. Both articles are refering to the same period (well there is an appendage in the "Estado" article not history but political lingo related not exactly matching). My only caveat is that the official denomination (Spanish State) is almost forgotten nowadays and its usage nowadays rather points to the "neospeak" term used by those for which the term Spain is taboo (as explained in the entry).  Wllacer 19:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger With Spanish State 

message: The chronological presentation makes it difficult to mention the gradual decolonization of Francoist Spain, contrasting it with the stubbornness of Portugal. --Error (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Decolonization

message: In the section "Franco's regime", I've added a number of tags to statements that are vague, un-cited, or weasel-ish. I did not do this simply to be troublesome -- I honestly believe that these need to be addressed. -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 06:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Several fixes needed in section "Franco's regime"

message: The Legacy section starts with the sentence "In Spain and abroad, the legacy of Franco remains controversial". There is severe POV concern with this sentence, and trying to justify the numerous human rights violations carried out during Franco's regime. Neo-Nazis admire Hitler, and not all of them are fringes, in this way we can continue to add this kind of structure in all articles about mass-murderers. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally believe that ityis uncontroversial to say that Francos legacy is controversial in Spain. However Otolemur apparently believes that one of the views (I guess the pro-Franco view) is too fringy to constitute actual controversy. He compares pro-franquism to German neonazism. In my experience Pro-Franquism is quite common in the Spain of today, especially among conservatives and catholics, and some opposition parties even vote against the current left governments motions to remove pro-franco monuments. I think it is quite fair to say that his legacy is controversial and not weaselish at all - as long as we say who holds the different views of Francos legacy. Can we discuss this please?·Maunus·ƛ· 17:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way I agree that there are som Pro-Franco POv problems with the articles on Franco - mostly constituted by the fact that the negative view of Franco as a dictator and anti democrat is severely underrepresented. But to deny that there is a somewhat broad movement in favour of Franco in Spain of today is falsifying history as well.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "controversial" is unsourced. My point is that this sentence is trying to justify the mass-murder carried out by Franco. Do you know that the American neoconservative even do not view him as fascist? Yes, it is true. They firmly believe he was not fascist and a democratic ruler, the prove is here . But the view of some right-wingers and American neoconservatives is not going to alter what is truth. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not about the truth. It is about balance, neutrality and verifiability. In my understanding the word "controversial" simply means that there are differing opinions about something. You are obviously aware that there are different viewpoints - What you call "the truth" does not coincide with what is "the truth" to many spanish conservatives and apparently also some American ones. This means that wikipedia needs to show that both "truthes" (meaning of course viewpoints) exist and that there are indeed differing opinions about the nature of Franco's legacy. One word to show that there are different views is to describe his legacy as controversial. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I am agree with the different viewpoints. I am also agree wikipedia is not about truth, and this is why many information in wikipedia is blatant lie because the sources it use are lies or the viewpoints it included are best to avoid for ethical purpose. But again wikipedia is not truth site, not about truth. But the word "controversial" is both unsourced and weasel wording. I will rather propose to rewrite the first sentence in this way - "he is considered to be a fascist dictator who formed a repressive regime, however there are positive views on Franco among right wing politicians". It will be much more neutral. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That much more weasely in my opinion - because it doesn't state who considers him a fascist dictator. I don't know what controversial means to you - but to me it only means that there are different opinions. So I don't understand how we can disagree about his legacy being called controversial when you acknowledge that there is more than one viewpoint. The fascist dictator part needs to be sourced and attributed to someone important - I am nearly certain that there is be some kind of statement to that effect made by the current leader of the Spanish government. That would be a good source for that view point. A good source for the opposing viewpoint would be if a pro-Franco opinion has been voiced by some of the leaders of the Spanish conservative opposition. Also it would be great to refer to some of the recent political debates in Spain such as the wording on the Fraco monument etc, and regulations about paying homage to the dead falangists.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Another problem is that, epithets and popular culture notwithstanding, Franco, although authoritarian, was not a fascist.  Read the article...almost no scholars consider him such.  He does remain controversial.  Although he was a repressive dictator, many consider that he was preferable to alternative , a Stalinist style state that appeared to be emerging from the Republic when the civil war began. I think the sentance as it was was NPOV and acceptable.Mamalujo (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Franco's legacy 

message: Under the WWII section, it says  ...Franco did send volunteer troops to fight communism joining the Axis armies on the Eastern Front against the Soviet Union.... For someone to make this statement, which I highly doubt is true, they should cite it at least. I feel that this wasnt the case, since communism wasn't a big thing during the second world war and this phrase compromises the neutrality of the article. I suggest changing the word communism into Russian Army or something in that sense. Also, there should be a comma before the word "joining". JasonDomination (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Were the WWII volunteers fighting against communsim?