Talk:List of prime ministers of Spain: Difference between revisions

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project’s importance scale.

Proposal to move to List of Presidents of the Government of Spain or List of Prime Ministers of Spain:

Over-literal translation of presidente del gobierno. Needs to be moved to List of Prime Ministers of Spain. — Chameleon 17:47, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t have strong feelings either way on this one, —SqueakBox 18:42, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Prime Minister of the Government is just ridiculous and even worse than the literal President of the Government. —Cantus…☎ 08:02, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

I’ve moved to the more correct “President of the Spanish government,” which is a literal translation of the Spanish “Presidente del gobierno español” [1]. —Cantus…☎ 08:11, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

What makes you think that a literal translation favouring the use of false cognates is more correct? — Chameleon 10:18, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We’re not dealing with false cognates here. —Cantus…☎ 12:31, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Yes we are. Presidente only means “president” when it refers to a head of state. Its primary meaning is “chairman”, the presidente del gobierno being the chairman of the government — i.e. the Prime Minister. — Chameleon 12:51, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

President doesn’t just mean head of state. Consider, for example, the use of president with regard to companies or universities. Jadedmaidn 21:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The heads of government of Spain have only been “presidents of the government” (del gobierno) since Franco. From 1834 up to Franco they were “presidents of the council of ministers” (del consejo de ministros). I think the normal English rendering for both of these would be “prime minister”. IMHO the title should be List of Prime Ministers of Spain, with redirects from the formal titles. Compare List of Prime Ministers of Italy (their official title is “president of the council of ministers”), and List of Prime Ministers of France (they were also “presidents of the council of ministers” until 1959). —Cam 21:16, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. — Chameleon 22:00, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now fixed.

James F. (talk) 10:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does “acting” mean here? —euyyn 18:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake

There is a mistake, with the colours of the Presidents. Niceto Alcalá-Zamora y Torres has got red, and Manuel Azaña Díaz has blue. Felipe González and José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero have got red, and José María Aznar, blue. These colours aren`t true. Niceto Alcalá-Zamora wasn`t socialist, and Manuel Azaña wasn`t like José María Aznar. Azaña was socialist, and Aznar isn`t socialist. Alcalá-Zamora wasn`t socialist; he is oh right.

I seem to be engaged in a low-intensity edit war with people trying to wreck the table layout of this page. In particular, the edits performed by 94.189.172.94 have been fine and improved the article until User:Onetimeonly came and messed the layout (removing all pictures, changing the alignment, etc). However, the IP user continued editing based on that mess, so when I noticed it I had to revert the whole bundle from Onetimeonly’s edits. The IP user seemed to think that his contributions were being smashed too, and so he re-reverted, but that is not the case: his changes were perfectly fine, and so I am asking him to perform them again on the version with the right table layout. On the table layout itself, I will only say it can be changed, sure, but the new version is way uglier and less informative. Also, the timeline was removed without reason, etc. If the changes make sense (or, even if they don’t, if more people want it the ugly way, I will step aside, for I am no watchdog, but until then I consider that such a big change merits discussion. For that matter, I am performing one reversion more. However, should the table dance continue without discussion, I will request semi-protection of this page. Habbit (talk) 21:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I reiterate my opinion that the change in layout that User:Mahalios is trying to impose, while legitimate, requires at least a bit of consensus. In particular, I’d like to start by discussing the following matters regarding the proposed modifications:

• Why should the PM pictures be removed? They provide valuable at-a-glance identification of individuals, and also usually allows distinguishing longer-lived or “more important” PMs (which will tend to have pictures available) from those who don’t. If your objection is their size, they can be made smaller
• Why should cells be left-aligned? I would agree to change the alignment of the “Name” cell, but all others, and particularly the dates, should be either centered or right-aligned in order to be able to glance at years fast.
• Why should the “Democratic Spain” timeline be removed? I think it is pretty informative and it seems to be just a “collateral damage” of the edit warring here.

Note that these are not my only objections, but it would be good to start with them. Habbit (talk) 21:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After one day without response on User:Mahalios‘s part, I have restored the old table layout and merged his content changes into it – adding the PoliticsES template and improving the FET-JONS translation. I once again call on you to discuss the changes to the table layout, particularly the three points mentioned above (removal of pictures and timelines, change of global alignment). I think I am displaying quite a big bunch of good faith, but if this reversion war continues, I am ready to go to WP:AN/I. Habbit (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Habbit here, the unexplained removal of content from the article is not acceptable. I can only assume the users involved are pureists and don’t like the article to contain anything but bare facts. While such an opinion is perfectly acceptable, an edit summary or an explanaiton on the talk page is still required. Discussion instead of an edit war would be the better choice but the current form of unexplained vandalism is certainly not acceptable! EA210269 (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I’ve removed this dispute from WP:3O because (a) it appears that more than two editors are involved, and (b) one of the parties to the dispute has been indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts.

At this point I’m going to assume that Mahalios is unrelated to Onlyonetime. Mahlios, you do need to discuss you changes – ideally here. Until you do so no one else has any idea why you want to remove content, and it becomes increasingly difficult to continue assuming good faith, i.e. that you’re not editing editing disruptively or with a partisan slant.

At present there appears to be a consensus for leaving the article as it is. I’m prepared to revisit this conclusion if/when Mahalios provides an explanation, but until then I believe that the disputed content should stay.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 03:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article has Juan Bravo Murillo taking office in January 1850. I am currently translating the article on Bravo Murillo from the Spanish Wikipedia, which gives a date a year later. I suspect that they are correct and this list is wrong in this respect. – Jmabel | Talk 19:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.la-moncloa.es/Presidente/RelacionPresidentes/RelacionHistorica/1846-1853.htm backs me up. That seems solid enough that I will make the correction. – Jmabel | Talk 20:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s the text of the royal decree of 14 January 1851, naming Bravo Murillo prime minister (no. 50 on linked page).–Cam (talk) 05:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An image used in this article, File:Alejandro Lerroux.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don’t panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn’t freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot —CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the term Primer Ministro or Prime Minister is the way that PSOE former president, Jose Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, refers himselft when acting. The fact is that no other president uses that british way of address himself. In fact, the King appoints Ministers in a Cabinet -the Goverment- and one of them act as the President of the Cabinet of Ministers in their meetings, leading them all. He is call Presidente del Gobierno. So there is a president and is not a republic. For example, this video was taken in 1981. In spanish. [[2]]

In the timeline, when talking abount Pi y Margall period -1873-, there are references to events out of date or not relevant. For example, commonwealth of catalonina references makes a citation to a 1911 event, wich is out of date and not relevant in 1873. Citation of Seville canton -an event of few days- is not as relevant as Cartagena’s one, not mentioned, due to the relevant fact that it was a naval station, leading to civil war for more than a year. So it was a war, something important to say, and the catalonian commonwealth and Seville canton has nothing to do with it. But it’s a way to make important a fact that didn’t or even that didn’t not happen in that moment.

When talking about wars, I mean, when talking about we can deduce, reading this article, to be the most important war ever in Spanish History, the Iraq War, cause no other are mentioned, there are several important mistakes.

First, there are two Iraq Wars. It is supposed to talk about the second one. But if Iraq Wars are so much important to Spanish History and relevant in the list of Spanish Presidents, a reference to the first one must be done. You can also reference to conscripts sent to that one in times of Felipe González Márquez as President and Narcís Serra as Minister of Defense. It was October 31th of 1990.[[3]] [[4]] (Both in spanish). Deployment included musical concerts on board warships. Video [[5]]. No comment.

Second, what ever you want to call USA intervention on Iraq (intervention, war, …), there was no Spanish soldier of the war while. There was later on, in the period of ocupation of Iraq, once Saddam Hussein regimen was deposed. So Aznar do not sent any soldier to the Iraq War, not the first one neither the second one.

And speaking of wars, there were battles that brought down the entire government and ushered in the dictatorship of Primo de Rivera. But that should be unimportant. [[6]]

This are all mistakes, but all together, it seams paragraphs of PSOE political program and rebuttals.

By the way. It’s very interesting the influence of murder in polls for presidents in Spain. The list is large and much are shown. They are five [[7]], four of them in -more or less- democratic period: General Juan Prim y Prats [[8]], Antonio Cánovas del Castillo [[9]], José Canalejas y Méndez [[10]] , Eduardo Dato e Iradier [[11]] and the later and not democratic elected – but not less murdered – Luis Carrero Blanco [[12]]. But as I talk about the influence of murder in polls, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero election must be included. [[13]] [[14]]

AHC300 (talk) 11:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to you in your talk. Impru20 (talk) 12:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please, may someone who knows about law decide which source is more valid to determine when Mariano Rajoy’s term ended? According to the Spanish Constitution (Art. 101) and the date the BOE published the Royal Decrees dismissing Rajoy and appointing Sánchez as Prime Minister, it should have ended on June 2, not on June 1: Art. 101 El Gobierno cesa tras la celebración de elecciones generales, en los casos de pérdida de la confianza parlamentaria previstos en la Constitución, o por dimisión o fallecimiento de su Presidente.

El Gobierno cesante continuará en funciones hasta la toma de posesión del nuevo Gobierno.

(TRANSLATION: 1. The Government shall resign after the holding of general elections, in the event of loss of Parliamentary confidence as provided in the Constitution, or on account of the resignation or death of the President. 2. THE OUTGOING GOVERNMENT SHALL CONTINUE IN POWER UNTIL THE NEW GOVERNMENT TAKES OFFICE).

https://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2018/06/02/

However, one user hinders me from making the change (June 2 is stated as the date Rajoy’s term ended in all other Wikipedias, although I know different-language Wikipedias are independent from each other) and insists on using a chart which appears in LaMoncloa’s official website as a legal criterion to determine the date. However, LaMoncloa’s website is not a legal source and that chart’s data may have even been extracted from Wikipedia itself – workers who are in charge of the page are obviously not lawyers and their main job is to design a beautiful website with useful information and news about the Government, but it is not their aim to specify and solve subtle legal questions of this kind. Thank you and sorry for insisting. I just would like you to understand that the sources that are being used to support that date are not legally valid.

Rajoy’s term ended on June 2, not on June 1. It specifically ended when Sánchez became Prime Minister. There cannot be a power vacuum between both days (Pedro Sánchez’s term is already said to begin on June 2). The Royal Decrees published in the Official Diary of the State were signed on June 1, but were published the following day, and therefore did not come into force until that same day. The day the decree was signed has no legal validity. Please check how the Decree which made Rajoy Prime Minister in 2011 was also signed one day before it came into force – it was signed on December 20, the day he was elected by the Congress of Deputies, but Rajoy only became Prime Minister one day later, when the Decree was published and he was sworn in. This same article states that his first term began on December 21, so there is an obvious contradiction between both dates, because two different criteria are being followed. I can guarantee you that the correct criterium is the 21 December – 2 June one, which is the one that has been followed to fix the date Rajoy’s term began and also to establish the dates when former Spanish Prime Ministers began and finished their terms. Thanks a lot for your attention. Check: http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2011/12/21/pdfs/BOE-A-2011-19861.pdf

Besides:

http://cadenaser.com/ser/2018/06/02/politica/1527924001_915647.html

LA SER: El Boletín Oficial del Estado publica este sábado los tres Reales Decretos que oficializan el relevo al frente del Gobierno. El primero de ellos es el que nombra como presidente a Pedro Sánchez. Los otros dos recogen el cese de Mariano Rajoy y de todos sus ministros.

Para evitar cualquier vacío de poder, el artículo 101.2 de la Constitución establece “El Gobierno cesante continuará en funciones hasta la toma de posesión del nuevo Gobierno”. Como Pedro Sánchez ha tomado posesión este sábado, Mariano Rajoy ha sido muy pocas horas presidente en funciones.
It literally says that, in order to avoid a power vacuum, the Constitution establishes that the outgoing Government shall continue in office until the new Government is sworn in. So, since Pedro Sánchez has taken office on Saturday, Mariano Rajoy has been the acting Prime Minister only for a few hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.156.8.194 (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a discussion focused at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#LaMoncloa’s website, where the current discussion has moved and where other users are giving their input. Aside from the petition of refraining from synthesising information, I must also ask you to please refrain from indiscriminately copy-pasting your contents throughout Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a forum. Respect Wikipedia’s procedures to reach consensus and refrain from unconstructive edits, such as flooding numerous talk pages with walls of mostly irrelevant text. Impru20^talk 17:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep quiet until others express their opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.156.8.194 (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read WP:FORUMSHOP.Slatersteven (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to the OP, copied from RSN:

All of what you’re saying might be true (I’m no expert on the matter), but it lacks a source which directly supports your statement, and thus appears to be your own conclusion. Finding a WP:RS (or actually, multiple ones) which gives the end of Rajoy’s term as being on the 2nd of June would be a better start than arguing this based on the text of the law.

198.84.253.202 (talk) 20:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The graphic showing when Prime minister Gonzalez was in duty is wrong .
It shows in a blue timeline showing he was prime minister between 1996 and 2004. This was Aznar, his is also wrong 178.145.243.66 (talk) 07:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, the timeline is correct. The name corresponds with the bar on the left, not the one beneath. TheRichic (Messages here) 11:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@2.63.183.49: Several issues here:

1. First of all, please stop engaging in edit warring. Your edits were reverted, so the onus is now on you to reach a consensus for them, see WP:BRD. You are engaging in disruptive editing by keeping reinserting your disputed material without discussing it first.
2. There is no evidence backing up this claim that FET y de las JONS was rebranded as “Movement” in 1958. That is blatantly wrong, and the source itself does not explain from where it gets that date, it only makes a very brief mention. That date refers to the approval of the Ley de Principios del Movimiento Nacional, but that was not a “rebranding” of the party; that law does not even mention FET y de las JONS at all! You yourself acknowledge the term being used before… because it was. It was in the BOE in 1936 (multiple times), 1938, 1942, 1953, 1957… just to cite a few. One of the sources you cited at First government of Francisco Franco (this one) has a literal quote tracing the beginning of the association of the terms “Movimiento” and the FET y de las JONS party to the Unification Decree of 1937 itself (i.e., the very first moment the party existed): “The mechanism whereby the military mobilized and channelled that civilian backing was the sprawling umbrella organization of the right, the Movimiento or, more formally, the Falange Española Tradicionalista y de las Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional-Sindicalista, artificially created by the forced unification of the pro-Franco political parties in April 1937.”
3. Your own source backs up the claim that Franco was not chief of FET y de las JONS by virtue of being party leader or member, but by virtue of establishing himself as a General at the helm of a military dictatorship and submitting the party to his command. He was the supreme chief of the party by virtue of his office (Head of State), and this is stated directly in the Unification Decree (Spain, 1937) ([15]). There is no evidence of he being himself a FET y de las JONS member (and it would be helpful if you could provide some source actually claiming that directly, instead of your synthesis making the assumption that he was a member because he was proclaimed national chief of the party). He did not need being a member of the party himself because the military was subsumed into the Movimiento Nacional anyway (together with the rest of civil servants).
4. You keep adding people to the list such as José Miaja and Miguel Cabanellas as “prime ministers”. Where are the official sources for that? The official listing of the Government of Spain does not include. They were leaders of two military juntas, but these were wartime bodies and were not widely recognized as equivalent to “governments” or to the post of “prime minister”. For example, for Miaja you cited this source which only refers to the establishment of the National Defence Council but does not refer to Miaja as a “prime minister” (in fact, it does point to Negrín being the prime minister at that time), but as the president of that military junta (which is obviously right, but that is not a post of “prime minister”); the same can be said for your cite of Cabanellas: the source clearly sources him as the president of the National Defense Junta (which no one here disputes), but does not refer him as a “prime minister” or anything akin to it ([16]). From where do you get that they were “prime ministers” (which is what this article is about) from 5–28 March 1939 and from 25 July–30 September 1936, respectively? Again, without synthesis. Impru20^talk 09:36, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Impru20^talk 09:36, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Impru20 sorry i noticed the message only now 2.63.183.49 (talk) 10:28, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the source says that it became the formal name of the falange in 1958,not that the term was not used before 2.63.183.49 (talk) 10:30, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it was used along with falange as the official name; in 1958, the falange as an official name was dropped and banned 2.63.183.49 (talk) 10:31, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1.Jefe Nacional is a formal position of the head of the party. Being a formal name of the party requires being its member.

2. Since all of the officers were automatically members of the party, as said in the source, Franco was a member as well. 2.63.183.49 (talk) 10:34, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Impru20 noticed that you wrote that you can’t find the quote; i found all the quotes in google books; if you can’t find it, i can provide a link to the page, it may help if you search only parts of the quote 2.63.183.49 (talk) 10:39, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“the source says that it became the formal name of the falange in 1958” From where does that single source get that from? It only makes a brief mention without any context, and no other source says that. The term was widely associated with the Falange way before 1958. There was no “official rebranding” in 1958. Can you please support this claim with any other sources? Thank you. Impru20^talk 10:48, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in Spanish which are presented on the page FET y de las JONS say that as well 2.63.183.49 (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is false. There is only one source saying that, and is the one you provided (probably because you took it from there). No other source says that FET y de las JONS was “rebranded” as the “National Movement” in 1958, because the latter existed way before. Rather, as the dictatorship evolved, the original FET y de las JONS came to be more and more dilluted, but that is not a “rebranding”. Impru20^talk 14:19, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may not like the word “rebranding”, but the sources say that after 1958 the name FET was no longer used since being replaced by National Movement.

Also here’ another source: https://books.google.com/books?id=GaZiCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA154

You can find more in google books

What you’re doing right now is rejecting the RS without a clear reason 2.63.183.49 (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“Jefe Nacional is a formal position of the head of the party. Being a formal name of the party requires being its member.” This is synthesis, your own sources (this one, for example) do not back up this claim of Franco being party chief due to him being party member, but the position of party chief being established by a military dictator and being associated by decree to that of Head of State (“FET y de las JONS había sido creado como partido único no por un político fascista sino por un general en uso de sus poderes dictatoriales que, por decreto, se había auto arrogado la máxima jefatura de tal partido con el título de Jefe Nacional” […] “ni Franco era un líder fascista ni había llegado al poder en tanto que líder de una fuerza de este tipo, sino como un dictador militar interesado en dotar a su naciente Estado de una base de masas fiel y subordinada a su persona”). The Unification Decree in the BOE directly establishes that FET y de las JONS was directly put under Franco’s command as Head of State (which is not the same as he becoming party leader, in the sense we think of today), and that Franco was part of the party’s leadership by virtue of he being Head of State. FET y de las JONS was not a party in today’s sense of a political party, meaning that when today we think of a party leader requiring to be a party member was not necessarily true back then. Plus, party membership had to be asked for (“Son originariamente, y por propio derecho, afiliados de la nueva organización todos los que en el día de la publicación de este Decreto posean el carnet de Falange Española o de la Comunión Tradicionalista, y podrán serlo, previa admisión, los españoles que lo soliciten.”). Can you please provide a source directly mentioning Franco as a party member or asking for that membership himself? He was dictator for four decades, if he was a party member himself you should easily find sources directly pointing him as that without synthesising it yourself.

“Since all of the officers were automatically members of the party, as said in the source, Franco was a member as well.” As previous, this is synthesis. Franco was not an average military officer, he was the head of the whole country and Movement. The Movement had a lot of warring factions whose power Franco sought to balance. He put the party under his command through the BOE (and I think we can agree on the BOE not being strictly FET y de las JONS’s magazine, but the official gazette of a country). You need to provide an actual source where it is stated that Franco himself was a party member, not reaching that conclusion yourself from other material.

“noticed that you wrote that you can’t find the quote” I cannot find the quote stating that Franco was a member of FET y de las JONS. That is what I said. Impru20^talk 10:48, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If all the government officials and officers were members, then Franco as the head of this government and even more than an average officer was its member as well. The books don’t call Franco a “member” just as they don’t call Mussolini a “member”. Membership in the state party does not contradict the regime’s factionalism. 2.63.183.49 (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“If all the government officials and officers were members, then Franco as the head of this government and even more than an average officer was its member as well. Again, this is synthesis. Precisely, Franco, as the head of all of it, enjoyed a personal freedom (for example, when it comes to deciding whether being a party member himself) that most others did not have. Franco was explicitly opposed to political parties.

For example, you have this source which clearly states (when discussing FET y de las JONS membership, page 238) that “Nearly all the new provincial governors and mayors were nominal members”. “Nearly all” is clearly not “all”, so you actually have contradicting sources on whether all civil servants were party members.

“The books don’t call Franco a “member” just as they don’t call Mussolini a “member” Uh, but books do indeed call Mussolini a member? Mussolini was a politician which founded the National Fascist Party. This is unlike FET y de las JONS, which was a merger (by an official decree!) of two previously-existing parties, neither of which was founded by Franco, who was not a “politician” himself (in the sense of he not having been involved in party politics, unlike Mussolini or Hitler). Also, now that you speak of the PNF example: the PNF had over 10 million members (out of a population of about 42 million, nearly 25%). For the Nazi Party in Germany, it was 8 million out of a population of about 80 million (10%). FET y de las JONS never reached one million (out of a population of about 30–35 million, barely 2–3%), which by itself speaks of the allegedly automatic or mandatory nature of affiliation (specially when considering that in Fascist Italy it was mandatory to be a party member in order to access public office, and even then it was not “automatic”). There is some confusion between FET y de las JONS (the party) and the Movimiento Nacional (the whole governing institution of Spain, which included the party but not just the party).

When coming to individual people, you need to prove that they are party members (not just Franco, other government ministers as well). Combining material from multiple sources (Franco being National Chief of FET y de las JONS and some source stating that civil servants were automatically members of the party) to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources (Franco being a party member) is the clearest example of WP:SYNTH. Particularly when you have been presented sources stating that membership had to be asked for, it was not really “automatic”. So, once again: can you provide sources stating that Franco was a member himself of FET y de las JONS during his 40-year dictatorship? Impru20^talk 11:51, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’re doing the same as of what you are accusing me when you point at provincial governors, but the source you provide doesn’t mean army officers and government officials, unlike the ones i provide (+ i found another book stating that). This is not combining, Franco was pretty much a founder of the FET-JONS, he formally presided over the party by holding a corresponding title (you could argue that he wasn’t a member if he was not a formal leader of the party) and if the military officers and government officials were automatically members of the party, then he was one as well. Franco pretty much was a politician, he sought the active support of the Falangists and presented himself as a Falangist during the war, and as a legitimate successor to J. A. Primo de Rivera – this is pretty much party politics. 2.63.183.49 (talk) 14:00, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“You’re doing the same as of what you are accusing me when you point at provincial governors” Not at all. You argued that a source says that civil servants were automatically members of FET y de las JONS, and I gave you a source disproving you. I have also provided sources establishing that membership was not automatic and had to be asked for, as well as sources depicting an overall membership figure that was way below what would result from an “automatic membership” (factually, these are in the infobox of the FET y de las JONS article itself).

“This is not combining, Franco was pretty much a founder of the FET-JONS, he formally presided over the party by holding a corresponding title (you could argue that he wasn’t a member if he was not a formal of the party) and if the military officers and government officials were automatically members of the party, then he was one as well.” This is exactly combining. You are not providing a source establishing Franco as a party member, but are combining conclusions from separate sources (none of them show Franco as a party member) in order to argue yourself that he was a member. Franco merged various existing parties through a government decree; he did not establish either of them. I have provided sources depicting that Franco was National Chief of the party by virtue of being Head of State (so he did not require to be a member, because his position was legitimized through the state headship; also, his position as “National Chief” was more of an spiritual post above everyone else than an actual party role). One of your own sources says that as well. Again: you are not providing any source establishing that Franco was himself a member of the party.

“Franco pretty much was a politician, he sought the active support of the Falangists and presented himself as a Falangist during the war, and as a legitimate successor to J. A. Primo de Rivera – this is pretty much party politics.” This has nothing to do with the discussion (?). I literally said that I meant that Franco did not come from party politics, as a response to you mentioning Mussolini (which, btw, is sourced as a member and literal founder of his own party). Seeking the support of a party does not make one a party member, nor does it mean having been involved in party politics.

You have plenty of sources establishing some of Franco’s ministers as FET y de las JONS members. Can you please provide one for Franco himself? Really, it is just as easy as that. The problem here, I guess, is that you cannot find a source that says that Franco was a party member, right? Impru20^talk 14:14, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You didn’t disprove that government officials and military officers were not autonatically members of the party. And by your logic, saying that Mussolini was a member is combining, since none of the sources don’t call him a “member”; more to it, you are not providing sources saying that Franco was not a member of the party. And even if he became the leader of the party by virtue of issuing a decree and being a head of state, and even it was “more of a spuritual post”, he still held the formal position of the leader of the party. 2.63.183.49 (talk) 14:36, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did not I? Check again, because I told you literally. In the meantime, another source, pages 306-307: “De hecho Falange nunca tuvo control sobre los ministerios esenciales, Ejército, Hacienda, o Gobernación, salvado para este último caso la presencia de Serrano Súñer desde 1938 hasta octubre de 1940. Incluso para muchos falangistas, llamar «nacionalsindicalismo» a un sistema en el que no había sino uno o dos ministros falangistas, salvo el titular de la Secretaría General del Movimiento–que ni siquiera controlaba más que una de las cuatro fuerzas originarias del Movimiento–, aparecía como absurdo.” So you argue that everyone was “automatically” a member of FET y de las JONS (despite numbers and sources proving otherwise) but, suprisingly, sources also do acknowledge that FET y de las JONS never really controlled some ministries. How can that be?

“you are not providing sources saying that Franco was not a member of the party” Oh no, I am not gonna accept a probatio diabolica (no source will depict anyone as not being a member of anything. Non-membership is not relevant): it is you who claim he is a member, so prove it. Provide a source. Impru20^talk 14:45, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This quote says that these ministries were not controlled by the Falangists, but not that the ones who controlled them were not nominal members of the Falange (what is not the same as being a Falangist).

And can you prove that Mussolini was a member of the party? 2.63.183.49 (talk) 14:52, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so you are stating that ministers such as Alberto Martín-Artajo, José Larraz López and José Ibáñez Martín, for example (just to cite a few), were members of FET y de las JONS? Can you prove it? Because, if your “automatic membership” criterion was right, then those would have been members and you would find sources backing up that claim, right? It is also funny that you discard the latest source on the basis that “This quote says that these ministries were not controlled by the Falangists, but not that the ones who controlled them were not nominal members of the Falange”. Were those the Schrödinger’s ministers, then, being both Falangist and non-Falangist at the same time?

I understand you cannot provide a source stating that Franco was a member of FET y de las JONS, right? Impru20^talk 15:09, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One could be nominally a member of the Falange without being subordinate to the party discipline and being a Falangist by beliefs, identity and party discipline. Another source, 2.63.183.49 (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it didn’t send the other part

Another source, Payne, The Franco Regime: “All Army officers became ipso facto affiliates of the FET… Serrano later admitted that “a large number of party members never became more than nominal affiliates. In reality they preserved their own personal identities”. This coincides with what I wrote above. 2.63.183.49 (talk) 15:35, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the ministers I mentioned you (Alberto Martín-Artajo, for example) were explicitly opposed to the Falange, were explicit members of other associations (the ACNP, in this case) and worked throughout their tenures to fight the Falange’s influence. Yet you seemingly claim he was a party member on the basis of generic claims because “one could be nominally a member of the Falange without being subordinate to the party discipline”? Without any source? You are outrightly making up things here.

Your “Payne, The Franco Regime” basically disproves you when you acknowledge that it says that party membership was basically worthless in the end. And it refers to Serrano Suñer’s period (1940)! The dictatorship lasted for four decades! Yet you seemingly intend to automatically regard all civil servants and military officers in those 40 years as FET y de las JONS members (despite party membership never rising from 900,000), on the basis of generic claims and without providing sources on a case-by-case basis that specific individuals were actual party members? I repeat: that is WP:SYNTH. Impru20^talk 15:37, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, that’s not SYNTH. SYNTH is about making conclusions and narratives from 2 or more distinct facts stated in 2 or more sources even though these 2 or more sources do not connect these 2 or more facts. Meanwhile, i use sources which state only one fact, that all the government officials and army officers were nominal members of the Falange (without being subordinate to the party discipline and thus being Falangists in practice) without synthesizing it with facts from other sources. Basically you reject a statement from the WP:RS without providing the sources which openly reject these statements.

As to Franco, his membership is something obvious from his position of the formal leader of the party, just as Mussolini’s membership is obvious from his position of the formal leader of the party (and its founder), this is why the sources don’t say “member”. You still haven’t given any sources calling Mussolini a “member”. 2.63.183.49 (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s quite literally the definition of WP:SYNTH: combining source A and source B to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. You are doing this multiple times at multiple levels:

1. Source A (“all the government officials and army officers were nominal members of the Falange”) + source B (“Franco was a military officer”) = Conclusion C (“Franco was a nominal member of the Falange”). Do you have a source explicitly stating conclusion C? If not, that’s SYNTH.
2. Source A (“all the government officials and army officers were nominal members of the Falange”) + source B (“Alberto Martín-Artajo was a government official”) = Conclusion C (“Alberto Martín-Artajo was a nominal member of the Falange”). Do you have a source explicitly stating conclusion C? If not, that’s SYNTH.
3. Source A (“Franco was national chief of Falange”) + source B (“Falange is a party”) = Conclusion C (“Franco was a party member of the Falange”). Do you have a source explicitly stating conclusion C? If not, that’s SYNTH.
4. Source A (“Franco was national chief of Falange”) + source B (“Mussolini was a party member because he founded the PNF”) = Conclusion C (“Franco was a party member of the Falange”). Do you have a source explicitly stating conclusion C? If not, that’s SYNTH.

It is as simple as finding sources that individually and unambiguously say that X person is a party member. Really. WP:V states that Wikipedia’s content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you’re sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.

If you are 100% sure that Franco was a party member of FET y de las JONS and all your conclusions point to it, that’s fine, but you still need to individually verify the alleged claim. Otherwise, it is not true in the eyes of Wikipedia.

I would say that the fact that we are going around in circles here is because you cannot find a source establishing that Franco was a party member of FET y de las JONS. Otherwise, you would have provided it by now. Impru20^talk 16:53, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not SYNTH: the case for your point 1 is just completely distorting what i said; in all of your three cases, what you call “source B” is not a source, it’s an argument (a symple syllogism even) based on applying a general statement from an RS to a specific case. I provided sources stating one thing, not combined different things from different sources into some complex statement.

Now we know that it is not SYNTH, but an application of a reliable general statement to a specific case. From what I know, it is allowed to apply reliable general statements to specific cases, unless the general statement turns out to be unreliable, or unless the specific case turns out to be an exception (the exception needs to be proven by a source). If I am wrong, and since now we know this is not SYNTH, I ask you to give the rule which forbids to apply reliable general statements to specific cases unless a specific case is proven to be an exception. 2.63.183.49 (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“what you call “source B” is not a source, it’s an argument” So, nothing of it is sourced? Franco was not a military officer now (despite you having claimed that, which is a fact supported by sources)? Falange was not a party (again, you brought up that fact and it is a sourced fact that it was)? Are you suggesting you were throwing up unsourced claims?

I provided sources stating one thing Exactly, and none of these things was “Franco is a party member of FET y de las JONS”. You are making that up from other different material. Which means it is WP:SYNTH, if not outright WP:OR.

“I ask you to give the rule which forbids to apply reliable general statements to specific cases”. Yes, the rule is WP:SYNTH and, more importantly, WP:V.

I mean, I do not care how you want to dub your own behaviour: either SYNTH or “application of a reliable general statement to a specific case” (i.e. SYNTH but worded differently). WP:V is a requisite that cannot be circumvented. If you cannot provide a source to back up the claim and you have to “apply reliable general statements to specific cases”, that’s SYNTH, if not outright WP:OR.

I repeat: it is as easy as provide a source stating that Franco was a member of FET y de las JONS. That easy. But we have been discussing for hours and you have not been able to provide the one source that would end the discussion, instead throwing up multiple sources discussing other things and coming up with “reliable general statements” (according to whom? you?) to “specific cases”. Why? Because you can’t find a source stating that Franco was a member of FET y de las JONS. Why? Because we actually don’t know if he was (probably not, because he came from the military and he always sought to maintain an equilibrium between the various families of the regime). And in the end, you cannot prove a negative.

So, this comes down to this: If you cannot provide a source that unambiguously proves his membership, then I politely ask you to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Impru20^talk 18:49, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This by no means violates WP:SYNTH and WP:V, since I provide one source with one thing. WP:V does not mention that general statements are not applicable to specific instance.

SYNTH would be the following: I take claim A “Franco was the leader of FET” from source A, claim B “FET was a fascist party” from source B and combine these two statements into “Franco was a fascist dictator”, even though these two sources don’t say that.

In my case, I take Source A saying “all military officers were members of FET” and apply that to an instance of a military officer, this being Franco. I don’t have a Source B with a claim B, which is required for SYNTH. 2.63.183.49 (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is SYNTH. The source does not say that Franco was a member of FET. You are trying to depict it as if it says that, but it does not say that. You also have contradicting sources on the issue that membership was automatic, but you are not caring at all.

To abide to WP:V is essential, yet you are persistently attempting to circumvent it.

Provide a source proving the claim you are attempting to defend or just stop, this is getting annoying (and disruptive) already. Impru20^talk 19:27, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, for being annoying, but I still ask you to give the rule which you believe I am violating. Although it does not say it directly, it is still not SYNTH, and I explained why already. I understand that engaging with someone for a long time over a small issue is annoying, but you still need to have valid grounds for reverting my edits. 2.63.183.49 (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are violating WP:V (and WP:SYNTH), and I explained why already (multiple times). Yes, it is annoying that we have discussing for hours over such a small issue: you can solve it by providing a source, but you can’t provide such source because it doesn’t exist, so you keep going around in circles “applying reliable general statements to specific cases” (i.e. SYNTH). The solution is simple: provide a source backing up your claim or stop. Impru20^talk 19:38, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll request a Wikipedia:Third opinion then 2.63.183.200 (talk) 08:58, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@2.63.183.200: Hi, I see you already attempted to seek feedback from a third-party and it got you nowhere. Just to sum it up: all that is being asked to you is to provide a direct source backing up your claim. That’s all. If you cannot, then it would be better for you to just drop the stick. Impru20^talk 09:11, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this is outright lying. No “RS” says that 1958 is the year the official name was changed to “National Movement” and the name “FET y de las JONS” was no longer used and even banned. No source says FET y de las JONS was banned in 1958. Only one source briefly mentions that there was a name change, without any backup nor source for that claim itself, and contradicted by other sources. If you are going to seek WP:THIRD, you could at least be honest in your claims: the disregard for WP:V and WP:UNDUE is being astonishing here. Impru20^talk 09:14, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

three sources: the one in english i gave (and not briefly btw), [Christopher Ross (2014). Spain Since 1812. Taylor & Francis. pp. 89–90. ISBN 9781444117080.]this one in spanish and another one in spanish 2.63.183.200 (talk) 09:54, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

this one says aunque en 1958 trocó su denominación por la de Movimiento Nacional (without further sourcing nor mention; nor it does not say anything about it being banned). Plus, just earlier in the same sentence, it explicitly states that FET y de las JONS existed up until 1977: Falange Española Tradicionalista y de las JONS, creado el último día citado y subsistente durante toda la vigencia del Franquismo -ni más ni menos que hasta abril de 1977 (this is the own source you mention, in the same sentence you say that backs up your claim).

The other two are not fully accessible online. Can you please provide the literal and full sentence(s) from the sources where this is stated? Full sentences, please, without omitting any relevant claim. Particularly on the “banning” claim. The only piece of legislation involving the National Movement issued in 1958 was this, which neither mentions the party nor much less proclaims a name change or banning. Impru20^talk 10:49, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]