Talk:Francisco Franco/Archive 7

"His Excellency Generalissimo"
If has a persuasive rationale for including this language (edit: at the top of the infobox), I encourage them to present it here. My view is that this language, and particularly the first part, represents a clear instance of WP:PEACOCK. WP:OTHERSTUFF is generally a poor argument, but I wasn't able to find any specific MOS-style guidance here, so I compared with e.g. Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, whose infoboxes present their names with no honorific titles. For consistency's sake, on top of just basic common decency and concern for encyclopedic WP:TONE, we should avoid the appearance of going out of our way to lick Franco's boots. Generalrelative (talk) 18:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see how WP:PEACOCK applies because Wikipedia allows for the inclusion of honorifics in infoboxes: see Chiang Kai-shek. The problem here seems to be that the subject was a brutal dictator. But that's not an argument to exclude honorifics which are mentioned in sources. Specifically, "Generalissimo" was a widely-used nickname of the subject. I also don't see how WP:TONE applies when the wording of the lead and the article as a whole does not flatter the subject. Ficaia (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I would like to see them removed, they do smack of WP:PEACOCK and WP:OTHERSTUFF and the reference to another article is whataboutery. What is the guidance for including such honorifics?  I do note for example that presidents don't use this field in the infobox.  WCM email 18:56, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I looked but couldn't find any specific guidance here. If anyone knows of a strong consensus on the matter anywhere on the project, I'd love to know about it. Generalrelative (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Franco was customarily addressed as "His Excellency, Generalissimo Franco" in official state communications described in English sources. He was officially styled "Generalísimo de los Ejércitos de Tierra, Mar y Aire" (Generalissimo of the forces of the land, sea, and air) and addressed as Excelentísimo Señor don Francisco Franco Bahamonde in Spanish. "His Excellency" is the correct honorific prefix to his title, "Generalissimo". Carlstak (talk) 00:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I realize that I wasn't 100% clear in my original post. This dispute is over whether "His Excellency Generalissimo" should appear above Franco's name in the article's infobox. Do you endorse the inclusion of that honorific at the top of the infobox? Generalrelative (talk) 00:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I understood that, and yes, "His Excellency Generalissimo" should appear above Franco's name in the article's infobox, no matter what we as WP editors or even as human beings who deplore fascists and brutal murderous dictators think of him personally. Carlstak (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying! Are you aware of any WP:PAG-based rationale for this? If so I want to be aware of it. Much appreciated, Generalrelative (talk) 01:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not, and I looked all over. Carlstak (talk) 01:46, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I should say that the Spanish honorific Excelentísimo Señor means "The Most Excellent". Our WP article The Most Excellent says:
 * "The use of the prefix Excellency was re-introduced in Francoist Spain by Generalísimo Francisco Franco himself, who was formally styled as Su Excelencia el Jefe del Estado ("His Excellency The Head of State"), while his ministers and senior government officials continued using the prefix "The Most Excellent".
 * This information appears to be unsourced directly, but I believe it is correct. Carlstak (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking into this. To be clear, I wouldn't necessarily object to mentioning Franco's honorifics somewhere in the text of the article if it's something that reliable secondary sources consistently discuss. My objection is to featuring it prominently in the infobox. In the absence of PAG guidance, it seems we're reduced to swapping intuitions about whether this is appropriate. Generalrelative (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not really that important an issue to me, but I don't think our "intuitions" should determine what goes or doesn't go in the infobox, nor should the fact that there seems to be no particular policy that applies mean we shouldn't mention information that is customarily part of the infobox for a head-of-state. If it doesn't violate policy or a stated protocol, I see no reason why it shouldn't be there. The "evilness" of the article's subject, a quality that Franco possessed in abundance, or what some editors deem as inappropriate content because of his character, shouldn't determine our actions regarding a purely historical matter, in my opinion. I wouldn't go to the mat to insist on either course, though.;-) Carlstak (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah but is this kind of honorific customarily part of the infobox for a head-of-state? I'm not seeing that. I mentioned Hitler and Mussolini above, but what about e.g. George W. Bush? What about judges like U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who are customarily referred to as "The Honorable"? Even Elizabeth II's infobox simply refers to her –– beneath her name –– as "Head of the Commonwealth". I do understand, as I've stated above, that WP:OTHERSTUFF / "whataboutism" is rightly considered a poor argument, but if we're talking about what is customarily done around here, it looks to me like Chiang Kai-shek is the exception rather than the rule (and even his infobox doesn't include "His Excellency"). Generalrelative (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * At Generalissimo you'll find many examples which include honorifics, but admittedly a majority don't. In the absence of policy guidance, I'd say it's up to editorial discretion whether or not to include them on a case by case basis. There seems to be wider usage of military honorifics than political ones. Ficaia (talk) 23:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That seems to be the case. As a compromise, how about we restore "Generalissimo" but not "His Excellency"? It would be great to get a solid consensus on the matter. Generalrelative (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed Ficaia (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Generalrelative (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * A reasonable compromise in lieu of a real consensus. Carlstak (talk) 01:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Women in Francoist Spain
, first of all I would like to say that I am appreciative of the work you have been doing on this artice. Regarding the recent edits on the section on Women in Francoist Spain I have the following comments: I think that most of the content is more appropriate to be placed in the article Francoist Spain and or the artile Women in Francoist Spain rather than in Franco's bio. Actually most of the content of Spain under franco should be moved to Francoist Spain. But if we are going to keep such content here we should make sure it is accurate. For example, the article says that under Franco women"could not become university professors", and this is simply not true. A few examples: Ángeles Galino Carrillo became "Profesora Catedratica" in 1953 and 1970 she became "Director General de Enseñanza Media y Profesional" a very high rank position in the regime's education org. Another example is Gloria Begué Cantón, Professor of "Catedratica de Economia Politica in 1964.[].Perhaps the source you used is not very reliable. I hope you find this helpful and good luck with your editings. --J Pratas (talk) 09:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, I agree with you about moving the content to Francoist Spain. I had the same thought when I added some content to the section, but I thought as long as it was there the information given was inadequate (the accomplishments of women so often get short shrift on WP, as elsewhere). I didn't add the bit about women not being able to become university professors, so I will remove it. I intend to move the whole section as you suggest, unless there are objections here on the talk page; it certainly belongs somewhere. The article is too long anyway. Regards, Carlstak (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've moved the "Women in Francoist Spain" section to "Francoist Spain" as you suggested, J Pratas. It's definitely better-placed there. Thanks again for bringing it up. Carlstak (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2022
Change this paragraph and PAY ATTENTION. "Hitler was much more concerned throughout the years of the war with testing British mettle than with testing his submarines, tanks, and submarines. 2606:5780:10F:F8A0:583A:EBDA:D27B:D0F0 (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Terasail [✉️] 11:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify: The sentence provided is already in the article so I have no idea what change is requested. Terasail [✉️] 11:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The text is cited to Willard C. Frank, Jr., writing in the peer-reviewed academic journal The International History Review. His words: "Through all these years of the Spanish war, Hitler had been testing something far more important than his airplanes, than marines in Spain: he had been testing British mettle." Carlstak (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Reference formatting
This article would benefit from some work on the formatting of references and short footnotes. Currently there are a number of formats in use for short footnotes – compare references 20, 21 and 188 for example – and some multiply-cited sources not using short footnotes. I am happy to go through and make the reference formatting and usage systematic, but since it will be a few hours' work and this is an actively edited article I thought it best to look for consensus here first. I suggest consolidating on: I think that's the consistent scheme most consistent with the references in the article currently; however, I'd be happy to go with something else reasonable. Thoughts? Best, Wham2001 (talk) 07:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) CS1 (cite book, cite journal etc.) for the long-form references,
 * 2) sfnp / harvp as appropriate for the short-form references, and
 * 3) Placing all multiply-cited sources in the "Sources" section with all singly-cited sources inline.


 * , I think it would be great if you would carry that work. Your suggestions seem good to me. Just don't know the difference between sfn and sfnp templates. Probably almost the same. But thumbs up from my side--J Pratas (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The only difference is that sfnp puts parentheses round the year. The article has a bit of a mix of both styles currently; I prefer the version with parentheses but not strongly.  Best, Wham2001 (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Good of you to offer to do all that work, Wham2001, but I'm wondering why you want to use three different styles rather than simply using sfn or sfnp. Are you familiar with the user script Reference Organizer? I think it would make things easier for you. I must warn you though, as the editor who's been doing much of the cleanup work on the article lately and adding sources (which I do a lot of), that I will continue to use the RefToolbar to add long form citations to the article. I do this because I find that I get less backlash if the ref has a direct link to the actual page cited, most often in Googlebooks, given the ubiquity of Android phones around the world, most of which are signed into Google. I personally only sign into Google on my phone to update or download apps, because Google is always spying on the user, just like Alexa, Cortana, Google Voice, Siri, and even muted Zoom; so I use my computer, over which I have more control, to do things on the web. The RefToolbar citations I add can always be converted later. Enjoy what freedom we have left before the singularity.;-) Regards, Carlstak (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't very clear: 1. and 2. are elements of a single style. When using sfn then the long-form references need defining somewhere (typically in the Sources section) and one can choose whether to use CS1 (cite book and friends), CS2 (citation) or something else.  I barely notice the difference between the output from CS1 and CS2 (I think that it's just the choice of punctuation between authors, title, etc.) but I find it helpful to know whether a citation is to a book or a journal when looking at the wikitext.  The RefToolbar adds CS1 citations.
 * I agree that direct links to google books pages are helpful, and one can do them with sfn as well, it's just a bit of a faff. Annoyingly, many books on gbooks have very limited ranges of pages available for preview in Europe, so the direct links other editors add mostly don't work for me.
 * Finally, I would be happy to convert all the references (and new ones from the future) to sfn instead of leaving the singly-cited sources inline – I actually prefer that style for large articles, but it's more of a change from the current style. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 07:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply, Wham2001. I'm fine with whatever you want to do, you clearly know what you're doing. Incidentally, I was under the impression that using the top-level domain https://books.google.com/ in urls for Google Books resolved to the same content everywhere, as opposed to, say, https://books.google.co.uk/. Carlstak (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank-you, that's kind  Regarding Google Books, I was going by the comment here, plus my experience that direct page links added by other authors often don't work for me.  But I could be wrong.Right now I am working on the references in Shiva, and I have a busy few weeks ahead off-wiki, so I shall probably be back to start on this article some time in May.  Best, Wham2001 (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That's great to hear, Wham2001. Regarding Google Books links, I've heard similar from other editors, but as far as I could see, they were using subdomain urls. Just a note: the "Linking to Google Books" section says page links "will not work with snippet view", which is true, but results on up to three pages will show with a proper query on a snippet view page, if it matters; here's the result of one: https://books.google.com/books?id=EOghAAAAMAAJ&q=%22General%20Franco%22 Carlstak (talk) 21:29, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I came to start this, conscious of being a bit late, and saw that you have done almost all the work already! Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 17:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply, Wham2001, I still have more work to do, my energies are scattered at the moment (so many articles to work on), but I want to fact check every cite of every source—that's the most time-consuming part. If experience with this article so far is any indication of what to expect, there will be plenty more of it.;-) Carlstak (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Missing References
Do we have a source for the statement that "From the mid-1950s there was modest acceleration in economic activity after some minor reforms and a relaxation of controls."? Also the part with "But the growth proved too much for the economy, with shortages and inflation breaking out towards the end of the 1950s.". Too much growth in the economy? Shortages and inflation? I have no idea what was going on in the Spanish economy of the 50s, but I would love to know, that's why I am disappointed that there are no sources for further reading. Preferably we could find some numbers? Skotska (talk) 12:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I've made an effort to rectify the lack of information, but I don't think we need to get too far into it with statistics, since a deeper dive would be more appropriately made at Economic history of Spain. I've added two good sources for this information in English; I think Martin's essay in Spain: A Country Study is perhaps a little more approachable for the layperson than Prados de la Escosura's excellent work. Carlstak (talk) 19:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Conservative/Right-Wing Bias
I think it is somewhat misleading to pretend that Franco is not generally considered a Fascist by most people and organisations, whether they be leftist, centrist or even centre-right. Generally, only conservative apologists for America and Britain who want to portray Fascism as a left-wing ideology and deny that their countries ever worked with Fascists contest that figures like Franco and Pinochet were Fascist. Realistically speaking, most people when asked would agree that Franco was a Fascist. The ideological similarities between Franco, Hitler and Mussolini's dictatorships should be evidence enough of this. 82.5.76.181 (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Franco's post-war regime (and Franco ruled for thirty years after the end of the war) cannot be described as fascist. It was an authoritarian and conservative regime with several modern additions. The statement contained in your second sentence is problematic too: in Italy, for example, Renzo de Felice, the most important historian of fascism, does not consider Francoism in its definitive form as a fascist regime. The mere fact that a pillar of the regime was the Catholic Church prevents it from doing so. Alex2006 (talk) 10:49, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you mean that the Catholic Church did not represent a pillar of Mussolini's regime? A regime that, since 1929, established catholicism as the only official cult of the State, the only religion that should be taught in schools, the only rite of marriage officially valid, etc.? By the way, just like in Franco's Spain. So this is definitely not a valid argument. PedroAcero76 (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Italian Fascism was always anti Catholic, and the Catholic church was never associated with power in Italy as it was by Franco in Spain. Catholics in Italy had no part either in Fascism's seizure of power or in the administration of the state, as was the case in Spain (needless to remind you of the role of the Opus Dei under Franco). The Conciliazione, which in any case was already "ripe" before Mussolini, was made because through it Mussolini hoped to gain the benevolence of the church toward the regime and to increase its prestige toward the Catholic part of the population, and the church hoped to rescue from Fascism its structures on the territory, especially the Azione Cattolica, which was seen as the only competitor of fascism in the education of youth. From this point of view the Conciliazione was in the long run a success for the church, because it enabled it to raise a ruling class that was precisely the one that took power in 1948, but it was always seen by Mussolini as a rival power, as evidenced by the clash over the Azione Cattolica that occurred only two years later, in 1931, when Mussolini ordered the dissolution of all Catholic youth organizations and the incompatibility between membership in the PNF and the youth catholic organization. This meant in practice exclusion from almost all employment, public and private. Pius XI reacted to then with the encyclical "Non abbiamo bisogno" which reaffirmed the primacy of Catholic education over Fascist education. The final crisis was averted at the last moment, but the tension between the two powers remained and grew after 1938 and the racial laws. If you are interested in the relations between Italian fascism and the Catholics I can recommend the corresponding chapters in De Felice's work on Mussolini: in the second tome of the second volume is described the Conciliazione, while in the first tome of the third volume you find the crisis with the church in 1931 which I described above. Alex2006 (talk) 06:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We had an RfC about this less than a year ago. You can read it here. The consensus is that we include Franco in lists of fascist leaders and describe the scholarly controversy over whether and to what extent he was a fascist in the article. Anyone who tells you that the answer is "clearly, unequivocally fascist" or ""clearly, unequivocally not fascist" isn't apprised of the state of scholarship on the topic. Cheers y'all. Generalrelative (talk) 08:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks GeneralRelative, I missed it! Alles klar :-) Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 09:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2023
I just want to remove flags and icons from military person infobox per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. 112.205.163.46 (talk) 08:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Lightoil (talk) 02:41, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Distinction between conservatism and fascism
Franco was a staunch conservative and is identified as such in the introduction. I readded the conservatism template, in which he had been included for a long time. Strictly speaking, the fascism template ought to be removed altogether since Franco was a conservative Christian monarchist and not a fascist falangist, but I moved it to the section under which any potentially fascist elements of his government are discussed. Trakking (talk) 08:41, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You can find the current community consensus about the inclusion of the fascism navigation template in this article here: Talk:Francisco Franco/Archive 6. It endorses the addition of the fascism sidebar in this article. As whether a plurality of additional sidebars (and whether they should be favoured in a heading location over the fascist one) should be added, please seek a new consensus here, opening a request for comment. What do you mean by being a "staunch conservative"? If your are implying that Fascism has nothing to do with a conservative and/or reactionary worldview from an intellectual point of view in a sort of oil and water dichotomy, that would read like a longstanding propaganda point of American Francoites, quite alien to scholar analysis. I would personally add no movement/ideology vertical navigation template to any biographical article (as I consider them a playground of ideology fanboys/fangirls and pov-pushers to gatekeep biographies, and push misinformed capricious and haphazard personal opinions and flimsy set-theory-based arguments devoid of any nuance, belonging to a namespace lacking sufficient source-based editorial oversight and well as generally wrecking the article layout), but that is not the current consensus in this article and I abide to it.--Asqueladd (talk) 13:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * +1 to each of these points. Very well put. Generalrelative (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Before we continue this debate, let's get one thing straight. Fascism was not a right-wing conservative movement. Traditional European right-wing politics throughout the 19th and 20th century meant Christianity, Aristocracy, Monarchy. It meant tradition, family life, subsidiarity, property rights. The fascists did not believe in any of that; they were enemies of the old traditional order. They believed in concepts like proletarian nation. Proletarians! Does not sound very right-wing, does it? Even the fascist godfather himself Mussolini started off as a socialist and had a proletarian anarchist as father.
 * I grew up on one of the most expensive streets in Sweden. I have kin that is one of the wealthiest families in Switzerland. I have family in Austria, family in Norway, family in the United States—very right-wing countries. Do you think there are any fascist sympathies among any of these people? The answer is no. Proletarian, revolutionary, secular fascists are indistinguishable from communists. Their main goal is the same: a totalitarian one-party state with egalitarianism and "progressivism". A recommendable read on the topic is the 400 page long work The Menace of the Herd (1943) by Austrian aristocrat and polymath Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, who traces fascism/national socialism to left-wing people like the Jacobins and Marxists. The most fascist nation today is North Korea—that communist hellhole.
 * Also—I am a teacher in History and specialize in political philosophy, which gives me authority. I will invite a few persons who might contribute with additional expertise on the topic: @Gondolabúrguer, @Alejandro Basombrio, @Kanclerz K-Tech, @LongLivePortugal. Trakking (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You most certainly do not have authority here. I might very well be an academic professional with a PhD and peer-reviewed publications on this topic, but it wouldn't mean I outrank you either. I could be a sentient potato and my contributions would be just as valid so long as they're based on reliable sources. Seriously, you need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines before editing further. Start with WP:VERIFY. See also WP:CANVASS. Oh, and don't skip Talk:Fascism/FAQ. Once you've read all that, we can indeed "continue the debate". Generalrelative (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do have great authority in the sense of "knowledge," not in the sense of "power," which very few people on Wikipedia exert. You and your comrade try to exert power, but you have no authority, no exhaustive knowledge, behind your actions. This is the difference. Trakking (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello.
 * I believe that Francisco Franco was an authoritarian Conservative, like ROC's Chiang Kai-shek. And unlike USA's Ronald Reagan.
 * Definitely, F. Franco and C. Kai-shek were not Fascists. They were Christians, not Deists, not materialists, not Gnostic, not millenarians. And definitely they were authoritarians - Ronald Reagan was not. However, F. Franco and C. Kai-shek were authoritarians many degrees below the level of Fascists, who themselves were authoritarians many degrees below the level of Socialists - Socialists are totalitarians, almost always.
 * (Sometimes, Socialists are simply dumb enough to have only a short-term vision, therefore losing power in the long term. In these cases, they have the wrath of psychopaths usually associated with Socialists, but only aim at the following day. Then, a non-Socialist leader comes in the next future election.)
 * In conclusion: F. Franco was not a Fascist . Gondolabúrguer (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Trakking, if the response to a proposal to open a request for comment is 1) summoning a seemingly partisan audience, 2) claiming yourself to be an intellectual authority on the field (of "egalitarian" [sic] fascism?), 3) addressing sets of editors perceived as opposed to you as "[opposing] comrades" [sic] (in the socialist or the falangist tradition?), you have a long way to make useful contributions to Wikipedia or, at least, to this article, as you may have already breached behavioural and content guidelines such as WP:CANVASSING, WP:RS, and WP:CIVIL, to begin with. Please become familiar with them before editing.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Gondolabúrguer: Excellent parallel between Franco and Chiang Kai-shek—arguably the two most prominent counter-revolutionaries of the last century. And all counter-revolutionaries must necessarily be anti-fascists, since the palingenetic idea of revolution was one of the quintessential characteristics of the fascist ideology.
 * Also—the contrast and conflict between fascism and authoritarian conservatism is very important; indeed, a whole section in the article for Conservatism is dedicated to this distinction. Political scientist Seymour Martin Lipset is cited as an authority:
 * "Conservative or rightist extremist movements have arisen at different periods in modern history, ranging from the Horthyites in Hungary, the Christian Social Party of Dollfuss in Austria, Der Stahlhelm and other nationalists in pre-Hitler Germany, and Salazar in Portugal, to the pre-1966 Gaullist movements and the monarchists in contemporary France and Italy. The right extremists are conservative, not revolutionary. They seek to change political institutions in order to preserve or restore cultural and economic ones, while extremists of the centre and left seek to use political means for cultural and social revolution. The ideal of the right extremist is not a totalitarian ruler, but a monarch, or a traditionalist who acts like one. Many such movements in Spain, Austria, Hungary, Germany, and Italy-have been explicitly monarchist... The supporters of these movements differ from those of the centrists, tending to be wealthier, and more religious, which is more important in terms of a potential for mass support." Trakking (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can see, all points raised by the OP have been addressed. We are certainly not going to relitigate the consensus on fascism being right-wing or on whether Franco belongs in the category. Any uninvolved editor should feel free to close this. Generalrelative (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)


 * There is no "consensus" among serious scholars that fascism and in particular national socialism were right-wing ideologies. Most of the scholars identify them as syncretic—combining different elements from across the spectrum. Some view them as centrist extremist [e.g. Seymour Martin Lipset, as quoted above], some view them as left-wing [e.g. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, as mentioned above], and lastly, some view them as right-wing. "Consensus" would mean that everyone agrees.
 * This is another thing that needs to be corrected on English Wikipedia—and I say English, because in many other languages, the writers are humble enough to admit that there is no consensus on the topic and so they refuse to label the ideology right-wing in articles concerning the topic.
 * In the olden golden days, right-wing meant the Crown, the Church, the Nobility. In modern times it has often meant capitalism and classical liberalism. Never has it meant violent revolution and a totalitarian one-party state—which is basically the same thing as communism. Trakking (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There can be authoritarian Conservatives.
 * One example: the Republic of China (Taiwan) had only one party, the Kuomintang. But they did not persecute religions - they did persecute opposition members who had ties to the Chinese Communist Party.
 * The Kuomintang was not Fascist. Gondolabúrguer (talk) 03:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not an expert on Franco, but I recall that in his book "Interview on fascism", to the historian Michael Ledeen who states that in his opinion Francoism cannot be considered a fascist regime, Renzo De Felice (Italy's foremost expert on fascism) responds: "It certainly is not [fascist] now, and there would be some debate as to whether it ever was. More likely it is a classic authoritarian regime with modern additions, but nothing more than that". Alex2006 (talk) 06:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Gondolabúrguer: True. Even the most authoritarian conservative regimes never become truly totalitarian, which fascism and socialism are by necessity. In fact, the old monarchical empires of Europe always maintained a great diversity—the prime example being Austria-Hungary, which was a mosaic of eleven different nationalities living together in peace along with a large Jewish population in Vienna etc.
 * @Alessandro57: That commentary is very authoritative. We could incorporate it into the article and readd the Conservatism template. I consider the Fascism template insidiously misleading and suggest removing it. In any case: if the latter is included, the former ought to be as well. Trakking (talk) 13:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Political scientist Jeffrey Nyquist (US-CA) mentions the support Francisco Franco had: https://jrnyquist.blog/2021/02/04/the-road-to-civil-war-a-spanish-analogy/
 * He never says that Franco was a Fascist, but a Conservative. I stand with him. He is an essential writer.
 * (My original answer was censored.) Gondolabúrguer (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

We are not going to redefine fascism as not-conservative just to satisfy Trakking's personal viewpoint. Past discussion about Franco and Fascism settled the matter: Franco was pro-Fascist even if he didn't push Fascist ideas himself. His government had fascist tendencies. The Fascism sidebar must stay. Binksternet (talk) 03:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Carlstak (talk) 12:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Binksternet: Speak for yourself. Most commentators here are on my side and we have all the cited sources. No authority is invoked against us.
 * If Franco was pro-fascist he wouldn't have despised Hitler and proletarian nazism and he wouldn't have suppressed the proletarian falangists after he won the war.
 * Franco was ultra-Catholic—and who has ever heard of an ultra-Catholic proletarian fascist? Trakking (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I will once again direct you to last year's RfC on the matter. Stating that most commentators here agree with you is an easily refuted counting error, even leaving aside the naked WP:CANVASSing you've done (I see 4:3 against you). But it wouldn't matter even if this one brief discussion had a majority in your favor, since RfCs represent a more solid form of consensus, which can typically only be overturned through a subsequent RfC process. You keep saying that no one has presented sources to refute you, but we've directed you to the RfC, where many, many sources were presented and discussed. That's one of the reasons RfC are so helpful: we don't have to keep repeating the same debate each time a new editor appears making the same old argument. You are welcome to try to start a new one I suppose, but I suspect it would be closed out of hand unless you can present new evidence not considered before. Generalrelative (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Fine. But I still propose adding the Conservatism template and moving the Fascism template to the section where that topic is discussed in the article. After all—while scholars debate whether there were fascist themes in Franco's rule, no one disputes that he was a conservative. So it does not make sense keeping the controversial template while leaving out the one that is verified—unless, of course, the people who propagate for this sort of design are actively trying to misrepresent Franco and paint him in a bad light, which is improper for a Wikipedia article. Trakking (talk) 22:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That's definitely a reasonable question to raise. Thanks for being open to compromise. I'm open to being persuaded here, though honestly I dislike these navbars for all the reasons Asqueladd mentioned above. They so often lead to an unhelpful essentializing along ideological lines, and to acrimonious debate. My own sense (as a subject-matter expert, if that matters to you) is that conservatism is a much more capacious category than fascism, and one that is probably less distinctive of the Franco regime. That is, saying that he was a "conservative" is saying much less than saying he was in some sense a "fascist". And there is always the danger of navbox bloat (remember we already have one for "Francosim" as well). That said, this kind of thing really comes down to a judgement call, which is why I would be curious to hear what others have to say, including some of the other experienced editors who have contributed to this article. Generalrelative (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There's already a "Conservatism in Spain" Sidebar were Franco is, and could fit perfectly in the article. Franco's regime is described more as a national-conservative and counter-revolutionary rather than a revolutionary nationalist nor fascist dictatorship. Even if at some point of history he supported both Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, the character of the regime was not directly fascist, but authoritarian. Same happens with Metaxas, which is wrongly considered as "fascist" because of his authoritarian and nationalist government.
 * While I'm not here to debate if fascism is right-wing or not, even if both Francoism and Fascism are far-right, that doesn't mean they are the same ideology/movement, and even if they are close on the political spectrum, that doesn't mean both can be opposed between them. An example would be Stalinism and Anarchism, which while both are far-left ideologies, both are also opposed between themselves. As cited by @Trakking, plenty of scholars have rejected the qualifier of "fascist" for Francoist Spain. Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Paul Preston, an historian specialized in Franco, and one who hates Franco, once said that 	“If people are looking for a quick and easy insult to those on the right, then fascist, is your go-to term,” and “If you’re asking an academic political theorist what constitutes a fascist then you’d have to say Franco isn’t". Unfortunately this discussion in this talk page has always been more about making a point, making a quick and easy insult, rather than discussing what academic political theorist say. The RfC that was conducted in the past has got a lot of yes votes, but the yes votes were poorly sourced. Franco's major biographers, Payne and Preston, both agree that Franco was not a fascist. Payne also explains how the hyperbolic statement, ""last surviving fascist dictator", was part of a post war propaganda effort to attack Franco. Wikipedia deserves better. J Pratas (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Really, JPratas? You can't even bring yourself to drop the stick after this rebuke at AN? Generalrelative (talk) 01:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You're forgetting the Paul H. Lewis book Latin Fascist Elites, The Mussolini, Franco and Salazar Regimes, which explicitly puts Franco in the company of other fascists. Lewis is no lesser figure than Payne. And Payne in his several books talks about how fascist Falangists were brought by Franco into his government where they exerted their pull. Franco is described as re-inventing himself after the Axis lost WWII, trying to rewrite his fascist leanings to be friendlier in the Allied-controlled world. Binksternet (talk) 01:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Paul Lewis never claims that Franco was fascist, Franco had to deal with fascism and the Falange but that does not make the man a fascist. J Pratas (talk) 01:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I have been rereading "Latin Fascist Elites: The Mussolini, Franco, and Salazar Regimes" (2002), Paul H. Lewis discusses the regimes of Francisco Franco in Spain, Benito Mussolini in Italy, and António de Oliveira Salazar in Portugal. While Lewis describes Franco's regime as authoritarian and dictatorial, he does not explicitly characterize Franco as a fascist in the book. Instead, Lewis argues that Franco's ideology was a mixture of authoritarianism, Catholicism, and traditional Spanish values, which he refers to as "Traditionalist Nationalism." He notes that Franco's regime shared some similarities with fascism, such as a strong emphasis on national unity and authoritarianism, but also differed from fascism in other ways, such as its lack of a revolutionary ideology and its reliance on conservative values. Overall, while Lewis does not explicitly label Franco as a fascist in the book, he does discuss the similarities and differences between Franco's regime and fascist regimes in other countries.J Pratas (talk) 15:20, 24 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Paul Preston, Stanley Payne, and Hugh Thomas are all widely regarded as experts on the subject of Francisco Franco, and each of them has written significant biographical works on the Spanish dictator. Despite Franco's associations with authoritarianism, dictatorship, and right-wing politics, none of these scholars have classified Franco as a fascist, and in fact, they have argued that he was not a fascist.


 * One of the reasons for this is that Franco's regime in Spain was not an ideological one, but rather a personalized dictatorship based on his own vision of Spanish traditionalism and authoritarianism. Franco's regime was not driven by a specific ideology or set of beliefs, but rather by his own personal ambitions and political goals. As such, Franco did not conform to the traditional definitions of fascism, which emphasized a strong ideological framework and a mass political movement.


 * Moreover, Franco's regime was not characterized by the mass mobilization and propaganda that were typical of fascist regimes in other countries. Instead, Franco's dictatorship was marked by a more traditionalist and conservative approach, which emphasized the Catholic Church, the military, and Spanish nationalism. This approach was not consistent with the ideological principles of fascism, which emphasized the supremacy of the state over all other institutions.


 * Therefore, while Franco's regime was certainly authoritarian and right-wing, it did not conform to the traditional definition of fascism. Paul Preston, Stanley Payne, and Hugh Thomas have all recognized this fact in their works on Franco, and have argued that he should not be classified as a fascist. Rather, they have emphasized his unique role in Spanish history as a personalized dictator who shaped the country's political and social development in his own image.J Pratas (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2024
noticed an error: "On 25 July and aircraft began to arrive in" MamertusSheez (talk) 09:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Done WCM email 09:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Paragraph doesn't fit the tone of the article
This paragraph in question in section "Spain under Franco":
 * All in all, some authors have pointed at a purported artificialness and failure of FET JONS in order to de-emphasise the Fascist weight within the regime whereas others have embedded those perceived features of "weak party" within the frame of a particular model of "Spanish Fascism". However, new research material has been argued to underpin the "Fascist subject", both on the basis of the existence of a pervasive and fully differentiated Fascist falangist political culture, and on the importance of the Civil War for falangism, which served as an area of experience, of violence, of memory, as well as for the generation of a culture of victory. Under the perspective of a comparative of European fascisms, Javier Rodrigo considers the Francoist regime to be paradigmatic for three reasons: for being the only authoritarian European regime with totalitarian aspirations, for being the regime that deployed the most political violence in times of rhetorical peace, and for being the regime deploying the most effective "memoricidal" apparatus.

I contend that it is a poorly written academic exercise that doesn't fit the tone of the rest of the article. It uses classic bloated language to seem intellectual when it really doesn't say much. I feel the article is not better with this paragraph, and would be much better without it. The rest of the article is very straight forward, and this seems more like a critical analysis than a historical review. Angryapathy (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC) Angryapathy (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I contend that it is a poorly written academic exercis I am persuaded to think that it is indeed poorly written (that can be sorted out by reading the source and copyediting). I don't think it is an academic exercise, but a NPOV exercise on explaining how different authors approach a historiographical issue. that doesn't fit the tone of the rest of the article I don't know but the tone of this article has been chiefly hagiographic for a while so I don't see a problem with it.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I am assuming you are the one who wrote this section, correct? This should help other editors understand your position on the paragraph. Angryapathy (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have to check, but yes, I perhaps wrote it fully or partially. I can also claim that 1) this was not solely created from a 2013 source (but from two sources) 2) I am not the author of any the sources. This should help other editors understand your prior unsubstantiated and innacurate prejudices about the content. Now, I invite you to read the sources and explain why content based on research articles explaining historiographical approaches to an issue are not helpful on principle. Other than that, 1) I understand that there might be rightful issues about the poor quality of writing and that 2) concerns about the relevance of the sources 3) the whole section possibly being a better fit for "Francoist Spain" than for this article? --Asqueladd (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In the future, you should be more upfront about whether you personally created the content. It creates a false impression that you are indifferently defending information in the article rather than you're own personal contributions. The edits were made over a year ago and do not show up in the previous 500 edits.
 * As for verifying the sources, I do not speak Spanish, but I do speak English. And as an English speaker, I can tell you that this paragraph does not fit the tone of the article. Angryapathy (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding Sanz Hoya, how would you write about how different authors have weighed on the fascistization of the regime and how new research have moved on from a previous "narrow"/"schematic" understanding of fascism (as per the source the explanation about the balance "between the traditional views and the historiographical renewal"? And regarding Javier Rodrigo, which is exactly your problem with the properly attributed assertion?--Asqueladd (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've said everything I need to say about this. If other editors see this section and agree, then the paragraph will be edited or removed. Arguing with you about it is a waste of time. Angryapathy (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, in the future, other than for respecting a creative commons license, I won't be self-attributing any piece of Wikipedia content because it goes against the Wikipedia ethos (articles are not signed).--Asqueladd (talk) 18:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make any sense, but sure, that's your choice. Angryapathy (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It does not make sense to you, it may make sense to other editors. Just try to stay civil. Also, focusing on the editor and not the content is also discouraged on here.--Asqueladd (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)