Talk:List of prime ministers of Spain

Mistakes or lack of neutrality

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. []

In the timeline, when talking abount Pi y Margall period -1873-, there are references to events out of date or not relevant. For example, commonwealth of catalonina references makes a citation to a 1911 event, wich is out of date and not relevant in 1873.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.[] [] (Both in spanish). Deployment included musical concerts on board warships. Video []. 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. []

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 [], four of them in -more or less- democratic period: General Juan Prim y Prats [], Antonio Cánovas del Castillo [], José Canalejas y Méndez [] , Eduardo Dato e Iradier [] and the later and not democratic elected - but not less murdered - Luis Carrero Blanco []. But as I talk about the influence of murder in polls, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero election must be included. [] []

Rajoy's term end date

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)

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)

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

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

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)

Timeline prime Ministers of Spain

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)

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)

Issues

@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) (). 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 (). 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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

@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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

"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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

@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)

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)

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)

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.

I believe here you are mixing up things: Franco himself did aim to dillute FET y de las JONS's influence and relevance with the 1958 Law, but you mix it up with the party being officially renamed/banned as if it was similar to modern politics (it wasn't). Also, this is contradictory with your own defense of Franco being a member of a party that you also claim he banned. Impru20^talk 10:49, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

"Spain since 1812" is avaliable on Google Books, here are the quotes: "It was accordingly renamed the National Movement and the use of the 'Falange' officially banned"; "adopted in 1958... replacing the original title..." - this books is an RS issued by the reliable academic publisher Taylor & Francis.

a ban may be informal (for example, in the USSR the 'banned' literature was not banned de jure and was simply not published) + you are rejecting the three RS on the grounds of your own WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH 2.63.183.200 (talk) 11:36, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

a ban may be informal Well, this would be your own interpretation, because if what you claim on your source is true, the ban was official (this is your literal quote). But I cannot find any source where such an "official" ban was enacted, and in essence, all primary and secondary RS I can find (including one of your own sources) point to such a "ban" (actually, the disestablishment) not being enacted until April 1977 (; ; ; Los estudios sobre las Falanges (FE de las JONS y FET y de las JONS): revisión historiográfica y perspectiva by Joan Maria Thomàs (pp. 293 & 308); together with other works by the same author such as FET y de las JONS y la dictadura (1939-1977); newspapers by FET y de las JONS itself going into 1977 (); and a long etcetera). Either you are misinterpreting the quote (i.e. the sentence you provide lacks context found elsewhere in the source and that you are not providing), or the source is not as reliable as you try to depict it (under WP:UNDUE, minority viewpoints should be regarded as that, and not given a greater weight than what the majority of sources establish). Nonetheless, from your claim that "Spain since 1812" is avaliable on Google Books, I am inclined to conclude that you do not have access to the full source, since "Spain since 1812" is not fully accessible on Google Books (which was my point: you can search for specific words and small sentences, but this is not enough to properly read or interpret a source since you would be basically mutilating everything contained within it).

Logically, it is irrelevant what happened in the USSR: we are discussing Francoist Spain here, so we need actual sources covering the period in Francoist Spain, not doing synthesis based on what happened in another country under a different regime. This is also not a "banning of literature", but the theoretical banning of the single-party around which the whole regime was centered (one thing is to acknowledge that there were multiple families in the regime and that FET y de las JONS's influence waned throughout time, another very different one is claiming that it was outrightly "banned", either officially or informally, for the 1958–1977 period).

Also, you have not provided a quote for the third source you brought up, which could possibly shed some more light to your claims. Do you have access to it? Impru20^talk 12:23, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

>disestablishment / banning of the single-party

It does not say that it banned the party, the only thing it says that the party changed its name to "National Movement" and that the Falange since then was formally referred to as "National Movement", not that it changed anything; by "banned" it may mean that it was banned within the party, i. e. that the party no longer used that name and that it became forbidden for the party officials to formally use that name.

For me, "Spain since 1812" is accessible in Google Books in full pages, if you need large quotes: "In legisiation ostensibly concerned with the single party, long a bulwark of his power (pp81-2). Even so, its function had changed considerably since the 1940s, when repression and propaganda were primary tasks of his governments. Now their overriding concern was to run the apparatus of a modern state. In the absence of democratic politics, that gave enormous influence to civil servants, who had emerged as a new, and very influential, clan within the regime (p84). Moreover, the party's title evoked unfortunate memories of fascism. It was accordingly renamed the National Movement and the use of 'Falange' officially banned."; "First used as a self-description by the insurgent side in the Civil War (p67), 'National Movement' was adopted in 1958 by the Franco regime as the official designation of the sole political organisation permitted under its rule, replacing the original title of 'Falange Española Tradicionalista y de las Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional Sindicalista' (FET y de las JONS)." 2.63.183.200 (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

There was an edit conflict as I expanded on my above comment. Reading this quote, I am afraid that the source you are taking as a matter of truth is plaintly wrong: it says that National Movement' was adopted in 1958 by the Franco regime as the official designation of the sole political organisation permitted under its rule, but this is wrong: Franco used it as early as in his Unification speech on 19 April 1937 (when he adopted the Unification Decree establishing FET y de las JONS). And also in September 1943, when instructions were given to refer to the party as a "movement" (also as per Stanley G. Payne: On September 23, instructions were issued forbidding anyone thenceforward to refer to the FET as a party; it was to be exclusively termed a movement"}}. This is 21 and 15 years before what you say the Taylor & Francis source claims. Impru20^talk 13:08, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

it talks only about the name of the party, that's why the initial letters of "national movement" are capitalized

that's not really relevant anymore, idk if you noticed what i wrote below but it seems it and other books wrongly specify the date of the party being renamed as "1958" while the official decree renaming it came out only in 1970 2.63.183.200 (talk) 13:35, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For example, you have Stanley G. Payne in The Franco Regime, 1936–1975 (1987) clearly stating on Franco's ideological evolution that The new government made its own limited contribution toward further institutional definition by finally enacting a new version of the Principles of the Movement, promulgated on May 29, 1958. These completely replaced the old Twenty-Six Points and, similar in part to the earlier draft by Arrese, were fully sanitized of any overtly fascistic expression. They affirmed patriotism, unity, peace, Catholicism, the individual personality, the family representation through local institutions and syndicates, and international harmony. (p. 455).

What you depict as the "renaming" or "banning" of the party was actually a redefinition of the Movement's ideological core and principles (the later of which did took place). I am not sure if this may be the case of the sources you cite (since you are providing only incomplete context), but it is perfectly possible that these may be misinterpreting what the 1958 Law did. There is a reason why we have different articles for FET y de las JONS and Movimiento Nacional: these were used interchangeably, some times to refer to both the party and the whole regime, but were not the same thing. "Movimiento Nacional" was used by Franco himself in the very inception of FET y de las JONS to refer to the party in April 1937 (), but it was also something beyond that. Impru20^talk 13:01, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

ok, i did more googling, while there are other books referencing "1958" as the date whenit got renamed, payne's book "the franco regime" says that the party was officially renamed into "national movement" only in 1970: "A subsequent law of April 3, 1970, ratined the dennitive abolition of the official name, Falange Española Tradicionalista y de las JONS, in favor of National Movement; the earlier decree of 1945 had been inadequately worded and had failed to achieve complete derogation of the nomenclature established by the original decree of April 1937."

(still, it was officially renamed, and that should be added to the article) 2.63.183.200 (talk) 13:07, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

So, after all of this discussion, we seem to agree that after "doing more googling", views can evolve. Better late than never, I think.

In any case, this is what I am trying to convey: there was not an official rename (or disbanding, until 1977), but rather, a gradual process of dillution of FET y de las JONS as the regime sought to defascistize itself. But:

• Franco used "National Movement" as early as during the party's inception on 19 April 1937 (Unification Speech). It had also been in use in 1936 (multiple times), 1938, 1942, 1953, 1957... (to name a few).
• In September 1943, there were instructions to start referring to FET y de las JONS as a "movement" rather than as a "party" (Stanley G. Payne, Damián Alberto González Madrid, p. 13). From this point onwards I do not know whether we can refer to it as a proper "party" or more like an "institution", though it was not an abolition (nor a "rename", as "FET y de las JONS" was still handily used in the 1940s and 1950s... but so was "Movimiento Nacional" in the same period).
• In 1958 there was a redefinition of the regime's core principles, but this was not a particular "renaming" or "ban" of the organization that was regarded as the sole legal party of the regime (Stanley G. Payne, Damián Alberto González Madrid, p. 20, Law of Principles of the Movement).
• Granted, the term of "FET y de las JONS" gradually fell in disuse in favour of "National Movement", but there was not an official "rename". In fact, "FET y de las JONS" was used after 1958 even in legal and government documents (1961, 1964, 1965, 1967...).
• A subsequent law of April 3, 1970, ratined the dennitive abolition of the official name, Falange Española Tradicionalista y de las JONS, in favor of National Movement Yes, but the problem with this here is that:

1. We have evidence on the actual law of April 3, 1970, which does not proclaim any "abolition" of the name. In fact, "FET y de las JONS" was still used afterwards (see this in May 1970, the contents of this law of 1971 or this in 1975).
2. We now have different sources claiming different dates for a renaming/abolition (1958, 1970, even 1945). This is mutually contradictory and not materially possible, specially when all these dates refer to specific laws/decrees which do not actually do what they are claimed to do. I think this is because authors assume laws titled as "Movement" as de facto renamings of the organization, but this is problematic.

I think the reason why sources are having a particularly difficult time in pointing out when an "official" renaming took place is because it never did: it was a gradual phasing out that was never formalized, and both terms were used in co-existence way before and after the alleged "official renamings", so you cannot really prove what never happened. Both "FET y de las JONS" and "National Movement" were used for the entire or almost the entire period of Franco's dictatorship, just with varying intensities.

IMHO, it's better to not proclaim any "official" renaming if we are unable find an "official" source actually establishing such a renaming. Particularly, considering that we are not required to do such. Impru20^talk 14:10, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Third opinion discussion

Extended discussion which is now outdated. Xan747 (talk) 20:29, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I have taken a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on List of prime ministers of Spain and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. If either editor at any time feels that I am not a suitable moderator, they may ask for me to recuse and I will reinstate the 3O ticket. I am not here to adjudicate past editor behavior, please do not mention it. Keep responses as short as possible and directed to arguments, not editors. The dispute appears to be about the following three issues: When FET y de las JONS was renamed to National Movement, and whether the former name was ever "banned" or simply fell out of use. Whether Francisco Franco should be treated as a member of FET y de las JONS Whether José Miaja and Miguel Cabanellas should be added to the list of prime ministers, and if so, described as members of FET y de las JONS. The main Wikipedia policy issues raised are wp:v wp:synth wp:due. There is too much here for me to render an opinion without some discussions with both editors, so I suggest we take this in stepwise fashion, issue by issue, beginning with 1 as perhaps resolving that will make 2 and 3 more clear. I would like both editors to simply write what they would put in the actual article, complete with sources. Due to issues of synth and due raised, I would encourage both editors to use only reliable secondary or tertiary sources. If sources are paywalled or otherwise difficult to access, directly quote the supporting text. I would prefer editors to not explain their reasoning, nor discuss the other editor's submission. I will review both submissions within 24 hours and then post questions. If editors want to ask questions while writing their drafts, or wish to clarify the issues, or correct me in any way, feel free to ask me here with a ping. Xan747 (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2025 (UTC) I would actually leave this article as it is as of currently, so maybe it should be up to the IP editor to explain which exact changes would they want in the actual article (this discussion started due to their edits here a couple weeks ago); we could then start from there. Regarding 1, I think my latest comment above (right after the "arbitrary break") would serve as a summary of my position, though I can clarify whatever is required depending on what is the exact change proposed. Impru20talk 17:43, 13 September 2025 (UTC) @Impru20 Understood, thanks. To the IP editor: my original request is unmodified. Please draft the article content you wish to add, with citations, and post it here without further explanation. Also please refrain from making any edits to the article directly related to this dispute while discussions are ongoing. Xan747 (talk) 17:54, 13 September 2025 (UTC) @Xan747 sorry for not answering and for the ping, this discussion concerns my edits on the other pages: for example, after i assigned Franco to "military/fet y de las jons" in the article First government of Francisco Franco, since franco was a formal leader of the party, and changed the graph "party" in the table to "faction", since, according to the sources, all govt officials and officers were nominal members of the fet,§so they were members of different factions within nominally one party, impru20 reversed my edits on the grounds that 1. although franco was a formal leader of the party, no source calls him a "member" of it 2. although the sources say that about all the government officials and officers, their names are not specified, soone can't apply that general claims to the lists these are the things i wanted to add 2.63.183.213 (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2025 (UTC) IP, thanks. Both @Impru20 think that you need to provide a specific description of what you wish to change. The proposal should include the sources used to substantiate the content. It is probably best for you to simply write out verbatim the changes you wish to make right here in chat. Then both of us can review without any back-and-forth with you about what it is you actually wish to do. Xan747 (talk) 19:30, 22 September 2025 (UTC) Now it concerns the article First government of Francisco Franco Sources: 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." Preston, The Politics of Revenge: "Army officers, civil servants and trade unionists were all automatically members of FET y de las JONS." So I would like to change the title of the list to "Party/faction" or just "Faction"; if the first option is chosen, then all the officials should be assigned to FET; if the second one, then Franco should be assigned both to the militarty and FET, since he held the title of its formal leader 2.63.183.213 (talk) 19:49, 22 September 2025 (UTC) Discussions about Franco's first government belong in that article not here. You need to provide sources. Xan747 (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2025 (UTC) Oh, I'm sorry, you did provide sources. Xan747 (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2025 (UTC) Thank you Xan747. I don't know if I am understanding the IP's rationale here: they are proposing a change to a different article than this one. In that regard, the cited article shows the whole government as being of the FET-JONS party and Franco's allegiance being "military". It is common practice for cabinet articles to highlight the military status of members over their partisanship when they are military officers (i.e. Third Depretis government, First di Rudinì government, etc.), and the cited article goes even further than that by showing a stripped colour band for Franco using FET-JONS's colour. What is the exact issue there and why is that being pressed here? Impru20talk 19:58, 22 September 2025 (UTC) but you were the one to start the discussion about the changes i made on the other article on this talk page 2.63.183.213 (talk) 20:03, 22 September 2025 (UTC) I opened a discussion on your arguments, and your particular changes in this article. Impru20talk 20:04, 22 September 2025 (UTC) and the discussion revolved whether ti consider my edits "SYNTH" also, usually they are assigned to "military" if they are not members of any parties; if tyey are, the party is usually specified 2.63.183.213 (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2025 (UTC) Please, you were asked to explain your changes in this article without any back-and-forth. You sought a Third opinion process in this article. Do not turn this into another endless discussion, please. Impru20talk 20:08, 22 September 2025 (UTC) IP may be arguing for consistent treatment between the main article and Franco's treatment in this list. Xan747 (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2025 (UTC) Franco's treatment in this list is to show him as part of the military within the National Movement. This is not the change that the IP is proposing in the other article (which seemingly calls for downgrading or even removing the military status of Franco altogether). Impru20talk 20:22, 22 September 2025 (UTC) I guess it could be said so, but when I checked this article for the last time, Franco's party was stated as "FET" (cuz it was his party), this change was made by me and kept by Impru20; now, I see that they changed Franco's party back to "National Movement", even though he was the formal leader of the party FET, while National Movement was a different thing 2.63.183.213 (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2025 (UTC) The current version of this article is basically the one at 28 August 2025, the last stable version before you started editing it to mix both "FET-JONS" and "National Movement" (I am glad you now acknowledge these are "different things", which was my point during the whole discussion...). Impru20talk 20:26, 22 September 2025 (UTC) later you removed the "national movement" at all, i touched the article no more, basically it was the last stable version 2.63.183.213 (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2025 (UTC) You edited it on 29 and 30 August adding the same content, which I disputed and attempted to equalize (finally reverting to the last stable version), and most of the discussion above revolved on you arguing that "National Movement" was a rebranding of "FET-JONS" in 1958 and myself contesting it in that these were interconnected but still different things... Impru20talk 20:30, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Third opinion reset

This conversation is beginning to sprawl, and I am having difficulty keeping up with it. Give me a few minutes to catch up, and I will ask some specific questions. Xan747 (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for your patience. In my original 3O response I summarized the main questions of the dispute as follows:

1. When FET y de las JONS was renamed to National Movement, and whether the former name was ever "banned" or simply fell out of use.
2. Whether Francisco Franco should be treated as a member of FET y de las JONS
3. Whether José Miaja and Miguel Cabanellas should be added to the list of prime ministers, and if so, described as members of FET y de las JONS.

Please tell me if that is correct, or make any clarifications or other modifications.

Reviweing conversation since then, it appears we may have agreement on 1. If that is so, let's cross it off the list and focus on 2. If editors will please give a short summary answering that question, with sources, it would help me evaluate. You may point me to your previous comments above for extended explanations if desired. Xan747 (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I have added sections for each party to advance their arguments. Please minimize conversation with the other editor in their section, and try to put rebuttals into your own. This can sometimes make the conversation easier to follow. If that fails, we will try something else. Xan747 (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Impru20 statements

On my part, I think this is more or less a pretty good summary of the state of affairs. I think the dispute was not as focused on Miaja and Cabanellas' status as prime ministers as it was on the other two issues, but that can be put to review too if that helps resolving the whole dispute. I also agree that there seems to be an agreement on point 1 (and I think this was already reached before the TO process was sought). Impru20^talk 20:48, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Ok it seems we are agreed on 1 and can move on to 2, and that 3 is withdrawn. Please continue as I requested earlier regarding 2. Xan747 (talk) 20:59, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Now, on the other two questions:

• Question 2: My view is as follows: I did not outrightly reject Franco's FET-JONS membership, just asked for specific proof of it as per WP:V. Even if we may have general statements about a collective, individual membership must still be proven. That is at the core of WP:DOCITEBLUE: Just because something appears obvious to you, doesn't mean it's obvious to everyone.

Franco was the national chief of the party (this is not in dispute), but he was so by virtue of him being the Head of State (this was directly stated in his appointment), so this does not automatically imply that he was a member in the sense of having a membership card as ordinary members. I asked for a specific source for this membership, and all the IP could provide were sources for secondary statements that did not directly state whether Franco himself was a member. Given Franco's nature during the regime (both as supreme leader—not just an ordinary military officer—and his repeated attempts to maintain a balance among the regime’s various families, as well as him diluting FET-JONS’s influence as the regime evolved) it is quite reasonable to assume he was not an actual member himself, but rather a figure above the party (the head of the whole Movement).

For years I have been unable to find such a specific source myself, and this is deliberately kept ambiguous, because Franco himself kept his allegiance within the regime ambiguous (which is one of the reasons it lasted so long, as he was seen as above any infighting or as siding with any particular family). As per V, all I asked for was a source for the specific claim of his membership. The repeated attempts to back such claim with conclusions based in the sum of several separate conclusions ("Franco was a military officer" + "military officers were made to be members" = "then it is obvious that Franco was automatically a member") only reinforced the view that such a source could not be provided and was what made me raise WP:SYNTH concerns.

• Question 3: Neither Miaja nor Cabanellas are recognized as "prime ministers" by the Government of Spain itself () nor were they formally or informally appointed to such a position. No reasoning was ever brought on why those should be considered as prime ministers, either. Impru20^talk 21:07, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Striking response to Question 3 because it has been withdrawn, as there seems to be an agreement here as well. Impru20^talk 21:09, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. When we hear from IP, I will digest both responses and reply. Xan747 (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Complementing my above statement with a reply to this statement by the IP, particularly on the part where they claim that "SYNTH requires making a combination of 2 sources": SYNTH literally establishes—in its second sentence—that Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. Combining general statements about FET-JONS membership into a self-made "Franco is a FET-JONS member" conclusion, when the source itself does not state that "Franco is a FET-JONS member", is still a breach of SYNTH even if the combined material comes from just a single source. Both SYNTH and WP:V determine that a conclusion or statement (in this case, that "Franco is a FET-JONS member") must still be explicitly attributable to a reliable source. Impru20^talk 15:12, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

What IP said here seems to be the crux:

Since all of the officers were automatically members of the party, as said in the source, Franco was a member as well.

which is a non-sequitur, and clearly if a single source does not explicitly say that, it is wp:synth and cannot be used. Now to your recent comment:

Franco was the national chief of the party (this is not in dispute), but he was so by virtue of him being the Head of State (this was directly stated in his appointment), so this does not automatically imply that he was a member in the sense of having a membership card as ordinary members.

This could be seen as nuance, or splitting hairs depending on one's POV. What "card-carrying membership" means to me is ideologically-aligned and motivated enough to actually sign up, go to rallies and meetings, do canvassing, etc.; thus you seem to be arguing that Franco was a de jure member of the party by virtue of his position, but that does not mean he was ideologically aligned with it. So this argument really seems to be more about Franco's political philosophy than partisan association, the latter of which is a proxy argument for the former...which is synth territory as well. If I am off-target here, please let me know. Xan747 (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I do not know if I am understanding you right. My reasoning only intended to show that there are quite a few reasons why we may think Franco's membership of the party was not obvious. We can undoubtedly say that Franco was related to both the National Movement (in general) and FET y de las JONS (in particular). He was its national chief and supreme leader! But that was not the issue of discussion brought forward by the IP, but rather, his actual membership to FET y de las JONS, for which there is no actual source or, at least, no one was provided (at one point in the discussion, the IP's inability to provide a source led them to demand that non-membership be proven, in itself a probatio diabolica), and the IP's preference to show it over his Military allegiance. They also brought the comparison with Mussolini (WP:OTHERSTUFF issues aside, the situation is not even the same: Mussolini founded his own party and had no other known allegiance, Franco just merged several existing organizations—founded by other people—using a government decree from his government position. That does not quite prove actual party membership nor give it an higher relevancy than his Generalissimo position). So, when showing what his actual allegiance within the Movement was, that of Military comes out as the single undisputed one, IMO.

Since all of the officers were automatically members of the party, as said in the source, Franco was a member as well is, in my view, the nail in the coffin of the IP's premise: it shows an acknowledgement that individual membership cannot be proven (or, at the very least, that a source cannot be provided) while overlooking the fact that Franco was no ordinary military officer: the whole system was at his pleasure. Another problem I see is that the IP seems to obtain a statement from a source ("civil servants and military officers were automatically members of the party") and automatically apply it to everyone in the whole dictatorship period (which lasted for four decades), even if we have evidence that this was not always the case (particularly for government ministers later in the regime). But this is another debate.

It all really comes down to the ability to attribute, through a reliable source, that Franco was an actual party member. Either it can be attributed or it cannot. It is pure WP:V. Impru20^talk 23:49, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

We agree that it is synth. I'm trying to understand why the question itself even matters. What is the import of whether he was a card-carrying member or not? How does our view of Franco change if he was? Xan747 (talk) 01:11, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

That is something I do not understand, either. Franco's allegiance was shown as "Military" in his cabinets' articles for years, then the IP came and created such a whole ordeal over the issue. We may not be 100% sure about Franco's party membership, but we are sure about his military condition. Still, as the IP has been attempting to introduce SYNTH content without a source to back it up, at least for me it has become a matter of upholding V (particularly because this content was also being introduced together with other SYNTH issues, such as Questions 1 and 3, which have since been debunked as well). Impru20^talk 06:36, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Hmm commenting on the latest IP reply, I think they may have unwittingly spotted an inconsistency: at Third Konoe Cabinet, Hideki Tojo is shown as "Military (Army)" in 1941, though his own article specifies that he was allegedly a member of IRAA from 1940 to 1945 (in fact, only the party's founder, Fumimaro Konoe, is shown as being a party member). Checking Tojo's article, I am unable to find any source stating that he was 1) a member of IRAA, 2) a member of IRAA since 1940, 3) the leader of IRAA from 1941 to 1944 (basically, his tenure as prime minister). In fact, IRAA is not mentioned in Tojo's article at all, outside the infobox and navigation boxes (which would clash with MOS:INFOBOX), so we do not actually know whether he was a member of IRAA nor whether he was a president of the party (this is not sourced in the Imperial Rule Assistance Association's article, either). Maybe we do have a problem with party membership sourcing that is not just limited to Franco, but extendable to other fascist leaders as well? Impru20^talk 11:04, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

IP statements

1 is no longer discussed (though the sources were rebutted through a verification/sort of small original research, it was convincing), i argued mainly about the 2nd + about mentioning the nominal party membership of the other govt officials and whether it constitutes SYNTH; there wasn't much discussion about 3, i would add them as heads of government, but they did not hold the titles of prime ministers, so that's dubious 2.63.183.213 (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Ok it seems we are agreed on 1 and can move on to 2, and that 3 is withdrawn. Please continue as I requested earlier regarding 2. Xan747 (talk) 20:59, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

From what I know, sources usually do not call Mussolini a "member" of the party as well, because he was its leader; sources usually do not use the specific word "member" because it is obvious from the fact that they were formal leaders of their parties. While right now I managed to find the words "founding member" concerning Mussolini on a website (but not in a book), I can't find sources saying that Codreanu was a "member" of the Iron Guard. And if I am wrong, I believe this is not WP:SYNTH, as said by Impru20. 2.63.183.213 (talk) 14:54, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

More to it, I gave two sources saying that all the government officials and officers were nominal members of the party. Since the nominal membership was a thing, but did not mean much in practice, sources nay omit the membership of certain individuals. The sources give a general statements that all the government officials and officers were nominal members, and noting that in a list would be application of that general statement, I believe this is not WP:SYNTH, as said by Impru20, since SYNTH requires making a combination of 2 sources. 2.63.183.213 (talk) 14:59, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

IP: I don't find any sources from you in this talk page. Please supply them, with page numbers. If full text is not easily available, post the relevant passage(s) directly. By passages I mean more than just a few sentences or two, especially not a partial sentence. The full containing paragraph is a good target, so that we can evaluate the full context. Xan747 (talk) 22:11, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm writing from a phone, so I'll give the direct url links to the pages:

• https://books.google.com/books?id=S6Ie_HYgjUwC&pg=PA176
• https://books.google.com/books?id=yqGIAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA110

Also, my argument relies on what has always been a rule in the other Wikipedia articles; since the example of Mussolini is rebutted on the grounds that he had no other allegiance and was a direct party politician, the Japanese IRAA may be a better example. The IRAA was a merger of political parties created by the military rulers of Japan. If we open the article List of prime ministers of Japan, it specifies the allegiance of Konoe and Tojo as IRAA / "Taisei Yokusankai" without giving a source that Konoe and Tojo were "members" of the state party, even though it can be argued that they should be also specified as "military" in the same way, since they were not party politicians but military officers and the sources do not state openly that they joined the parties they created; a similar thing is seen in Third Konoe Cabinet and other articles,even though sources do not say that Konoe and Tojo were "members", similarly to how other articles of state party leaders and the lists which include them do not give sources for their "membership". 2.63.183.213 (talk) 11:01, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Proposal by 3O volunteer

Extended content which did not reach a constructive conclusion. Xan747 (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps the best way to resolve the impasse is to simply add to Franco's entry his status as founder and de jure leader of it as head of state, which law he himself wrote. Reasoning follows.

I have read both editors' most recent responses, and in particular, IP's two sources, which are illuminating. They do not explicitly say whether Franco was a member of FED y de las JONS. That said, they indicate that the question is missing the point, which is that Franco formed the party, abolished all others, and installed himself as the de jure head of it to consolidate his power and neutralize any legitimate opposition to his dictatorship. I am sympathetic to IP's arguments that leadership implies membership, but mindful of Impru20's upholding of SYNTH, hence the proposal above. I am open to further discussion. Best, Xan747 (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I do agree with your proposal, Xan747; in fact, that is what is currently said in Francisco Franco, and is what we do currently know from available sources (thus V-compliant) without breaching SYNTH. Impru20^talk 21:24, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for reading and participation. Maybe better to add both FET and military, since I've never seen "de jure" being used in relation to party membership on Wikipedia lists. More to it, if he installed himself as a de jure leader of the party, gained the value of the figure of utmost authority over the party in its official documents (Franco Regime, p. 175), and his authority over the party was manifested in such practices as him personally appointing the members of its two governing bodies (Franco Regime, p. 172), I think that it is safe to say that his leadership of the party was not amounted to de jure and that he led it in practice as well. 2.63.183.244 (talk) 13:55, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, currently Franco's allegiance is shown as "National Movement", which encompasses both: the military and FET y de las JONS. Impru20^talk 14:36, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

You give no source to the National Movement encompassing "both: the military and FET", and it is seen neither from the list, which makes no reference to the FET, nor from the Wiki article of the National Movement, which makes no (or almost no) reference to the Military as its own political force. This article also defines the National Movement not as a party, but as a governing institution, and if we open the source for that, it provides the definition as "intermediate organization between the society and the state", not as a party, and it says that it gained this definition only in the Cold War; prior to it, the National Movement, as it seems, was more or less a synonym to the FET; the trade union system, which is listed by the article along with FET, appears to be a junior organization of the FET, and all the government officials were nominally members of the FET (above). Concerning that it is not seen how (at least nominal) membership in the party is different from membership in the National Movement in terms of party allegiance, and that the National Movement is not defined as a party, it is unclear, why National Movement should be used instead of FET in the tables and lists. 2.63.183.244 (talk) 16:59, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

IP: Movimiento Nacional gives FET-JONS as the sole political party of the movement, citing these two sources, which I have not reviewed. That said, the distinction may be again missing the larger point that Franco engineered the whole thing and codified it into law to to legitimize his dictatorship and prevent an effective political opposition. From the article lede:

It was defined in the decree as a link between state and society and was intended to form the basis for an eventual totalitarian regime. The head of state – Franco himself – was proclaimed party leader, to be assisted by the Junta Política and Consejo Nacional.

Calling his position as party head a de jure status which he effectively obtained by fiat seems like an accurate description. Xan747 (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Clarification: I just realized that I have reviewed both of these sources as they are the same ones you gave me earlier. The top two paragraphs of p. 110 of Preston indicate that the Movement was an "umbrella" of several organizations, one of which was FET-JONS. If Payne makes that explicitly clear I haven't found it, but on p. 176 we read:

The FET effectively fulfilled its function as an official political and doctrinal organization for the remainder of the war. Its membership eventually soared to more than 900,000 by 1942—by far the largest political group in Spanish history—and yet membership soon came to have relatively little significance. All Army officers became ipso facto affiliates of the FET, and a law of October 1, 1938 gave anyone jailed in Republican territory for nominally political reasons automatic membership.

My emphasis. This seems to support my earlier arguments that whether Franco himself was an "actual" member of the party is missing the point. The real story here is that the whole construct was essentially a farce. Xan747 (talk) 18:04, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

the sources were added by me right now to the article (i mean National Movement) cuz i have just visited it and realized that it made the 'national movement' look as the combination of the party + the trade union + the officials without acknowledging that all of that was covered by fet (the trade union was a junior organization of fet + government officials, officers and trade unionists were nominal members of fet). my point was that "national movement" was basically a synonym for fet before the 1950s, and afterwards it may have become some different institution which still covered the organizations of the fet. thus, in terms of political alignment, there's no difference between "national movement" and "fet". but in my opinion, it is better to specify "fet" than "national movement", since we know that it is a party, and the parameter of the table is called "party", while "national movement" seems even to lack a proper definition (the one in the lead is not supported by the page it cites), at least it is not really clear from its article, other than that it seems that it was not a party (while the parameter of the table is called "party"). 2.63.183.244 (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

But he was still the leader of the party of practice, and the Junta Politica which assisted him was appointed by him (what confirms that he did lead the party in practice). The "whole construct" becomes "essentially a farce" because of the character of the "amalgamation" party he created (although the National Fascist Party became a somewhat similar a union of conservatives and radical fascists after it came to power: Preston's book i gave above and the one by Blinkhorn which is cited in Francoist Spain say that, their contents are retold in the article), yet, he was the leader of that "amalgamation" in practice, not just de jure. 2.63.183.244 (talk) 19:50, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

IP, your statement that the National Movement Wikpedia article makes no (or almost no) reference to the Military as its own political force is more of a problem with that article than what we should say here. The ultimate source of Franco's power was his status of Generalísimo, a position he attained via a political process within the military itself in 1936 by formal vote of his fellow Nationalist generals before Madrid fell; the same proceedings also appointed him Head of State. See Payne, p. 117, and also Unification Decree (Spain, 1937) gives more details based on additional sources. Xan747 (talk) 19:32, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

the Unification Decree article is about merging all the political groups into FET - it does not describe "National Movement" as an entity distinct from FET. Page 117 describes the plans of merging the groups into FET, and it does not reference "National Movement". 2.63.183.244 (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Second Proposal by 3O volunteer

@Impru20: I don't seem to be making any headway with IP and have decided it is no longer productive to engage with them. You of course may do as you will. That said, they and I may agree on one point: That National Movement is not a political party. Since we already list it in the Government composition column, it seems appropriate to leave it there and remove it from the Party column. I would then leave military or military junta in Party, and add founder and leader of FET y de la JONS into the same column after military to give the former prominence. Then we might want to add a footnote to explain some of the nuances we've been discussing here. We should also update Blanco's and Navarro's entries similarly. Let me know your thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xan747 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't seem to be making any headway with IP and have decided it is no longer productive to engage with them You seem to be realizing how we got stuck in this whole ordeal over such a minor issue now...

That said, they and I may agree on one point: That National Movement is not a political party. The issue is that the whole ordeal is problematic. Firstly, because not even FET y de las JONS was a party in the sense we understand parties today (at least from September 1943, Franco issued instructions to regard it as a "movement" rather than as a "party", see Payne p. 322). Then, even FET y de las JONS's relevance was quickly downplayed following the civil war and the first years of dictatorship (see this, p. 284: "Yet membership in the FET came to have somewhat limited significance, and many nominal members remained inactive or soon became so" (the same page also covers the equilibrium maintained by Franco between the various families of the regime and his own chamaleonic nature, and how he was regarded as being part of all the families and none at the same time in order to maintain such an equilibrium)).

Anyway, I think this may be solved by changing the "Party" column into an "Allegiance" or "Affiliation" column for that table, but I also think that "National Movement" is the most accurate depiction we can make of these people's allegiances (at least as the regime's political umbrella, then specify the specific family each one belonged to), given the circumstances.

On the add founder and leader of FET y de la JONS into the same column after military to give the former prominence proposal, well: political positions are never added into the "Party" column in any listing of prime ministers, so I do not think that is particularly useful and could be even more misleading. A footnote could be added, though I do not see any particular usefulness given all what has been explained. In any case, maybe we should not be giving so much emphasis to something which was really not problematic until this IP complained, and then, discussing with them does not seem to be particularly productive as they keep attempting to push their own view even when presented evidence otherwise. Impru20^talk 07:48, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

not even FET y de las JONS was a party in the sense we understand parties today

"Military" is not a political party in the traditional sense either, a concern I expressed previously. Neither is National Movement, which is described as a "governing institution". Of the three, FET y de las JONS is entity most like a party.

[quoting Payne] Yet membership in the FET came to have somewhat limited significance

Yep, I read that. Even quoted it verbatim myself. But that doesn't address the notability of its existence, or how it came to being and why—or critically, why it doesn't warrant mention somewhere in the table.

political positions are never added into the "Party" column in any listing of prime ministers, so I do not think that is particularly useful and could be even more misleading

Some circumstances don't fit neatly into standard packaging. The proper thing to do in such cases is fit the package to the circumstance, not the other way around. There is more potential to mislead by leaving out well-sourced content than including it. Xan747 (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

"Military" is not a political party in the traditional sense either It is not, but this is not a problem in terms of party identification/allegiance (as said, it is commonly used in cabinet articles and listings throughout Wikipedia). So, either we fundamentally change the way this is designed across Wikipedia, or accept it as it is, but it would be weird for this particular article to be treated vastly different than others on such a minor technicality.

why it doesn't warrant mention somewhere in the table And why yes? This is not an article on political parties in Spain, but on prime ministers. As said, you could add a footnote saying that Franco was the national chief of the party, but that would still be outside the article's scope (note how we are not highlighting any other prime minister's position as party leader, and factually, many of them were not the actual leaders of their parties). Impru20^talk 17:32, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

As we appear to be in a three-way deadlock on this question, I have opened a request at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spain#Francisco_Franco_and_FET_y_de_las_JONS for additional eyes. Xan747 (talk) 17:54, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

thank you for engaging 2.63.183.244 (talk) 21:26, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

I should add that so-doing terminates my role as 3O volunteer, but not my willingness to engage in future discussion. Xan747 (talk) 17:56, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

My position is simple here: usually (on the other Wiki articles) "military" is for those army (prime) ministers which never joined any political party and thus did not have any formal authority over them, like Badoglio or Antonescu. If a military man has a party affilation, like Tojo, then the party is usually given in the list. In our case, the party is FET, and while Franco did nor call FET a "party", it is universally referred to as one in the sources. "National Movement" is not a better option not only because it is unclear in its article and is not a party and not referred to as one in the sources, unlike FET, but also because it covered the same organizations and the same "families", which were merged into FET in 1937 and had nominal membership in it. 2.63.183.244 (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

You have not proven that Franco "joined" any political party, and joining or not a party has nothing to do with having authority over it (Franco did have authority over FET y de las JONS because it was explicitly connected to his role as Head of State). You are again engaging in SYNTH and non sequitur. On the issue of Tojo that you keep using as an example, I have argued above that probably that case is flawed as well (Tojo's article does not source his membership, nor his alleged membership years, nor his actual condition as party leader, nor is the party actually mentioned outside navigation boxes which is by itself a violation of wikipedia MOS, etc.).

All of this has become such an insurmountable issue basically because of you. Impru20^talk 21:47, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Franco had authority over FET not only as the head of state, but also as the "national chief" - he formally held this role which was described in the documents of FET (i sourced that already). you can see some sources of Tojo's leadership of the IRAA in the article Imperial Rule Assistance Association, and my argument concerns not only Tojo, since Wikipedia often does not source the "membership" of party leaders of the parties they led - similarly, Salazar's article does not source his membership of the NU. As noted by Xan747, "leadership implies membership", and it seems to be a rule on Wiki to draw membership of the leaders from the fact of their leadership. 2.63.183.244 (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Clarification. My entire statement was:

I am sympathetic to IP's arguments that leadership implies membership, but mindful of Impru20's upholding of SYNTH, hence the proposal above.

Emphasis added. Xan747 (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

sorry if this is a misquotation or distortion

still, it seems to be a rule, so either a common practice turns out to have violated synth all this time, or this is not synth 2.63.183.244 (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I will re-engage with you for the express purpose of asking you if my compromise solution above is acceptable. Xan747 (talk) 15:49, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

it may be if we need a compromise solution, tho i wrote above why "de jure" is not accurate (and not used in such occasions) 2.63.183.244 (talk) 16:01, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

We need a compromise solution; this has gone on long enough. De jure is not mentioned in my proposal. Please read more carefully. Xan747 (talk) 16:24, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

oh de jure is in the other proposal sorry 2.63.183.244 (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

idk i would ask you to add that to the page since i have troubles with magineingthat from the description. it may work as a 'compromise' solution, thanks for that.

i guess i'll still leave some objections since i have a right to

> "I would then leave military or military junta in Party"

the junta governments were the ones of cabanellas and gomez jordana which i wanted to add, but adding them was opposed by Impru20 on the grounds that these heads of government were not referred to as "prime ministers" (but the first secretaries of state before 1823 did not bear this title as well, btw). franco's govts after 1938 were no longer a junta and had a party affilation

> "add founder and leader of FET y de la JONS into the same column after military to give the former prominence. Then we might want to add a footnote to explain some of the nuances we've been discussing here"

the discussed nuances are almost entirely whether assigning franco to his own party constitutes synth, also "about Franco's political philosophy than partisan association", which has no relevance to his party affilation. since the footnotes are to be read by average readers rather than other editors, i'm not sure if they will understand a footnote saying that franco's party can't be directly added to the list because, according to one of the editors, that constitutes synth (the main argument), and also because franco's own personal beliefs were somewhat different from the party he presided over (still not relevant to affiliation). 2.63.183.244 (talk) 17:00, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

and the question whether it actually does constitute synth is important because if it does, it means that party leaders can't be assigned to their parties, and that has to be removed from many other pages as well 2.63.183.244 (talk) 17:07, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Those issues should be taken up on those articles' talk pages, not here. For this article, we need not say "junta"; simply keeping it as "military" is fine by me. The proposed content of the column would then look something like:

(military)

FET y de las JONS

If we can agree on this much, then we can move on to the footnote. Xan747 (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the question is less about if there's SYNTH than if we can do anything to alleviate what could appear to be SYNTH to the casual reader.

If the main driver of the page tells you we should go as far as to say P, try to come up ways to approach P while coming to terms with the objection. For instance, if many sources say different things, it'd be possible to create a paragraph on what these sources say.

Readers matter above all. They read wiki pages. Nobody reads food fights. Spend time improving pages, not philosophizing on what is or isn't SYNTH. Selbstporträt (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

thanks but "synth" appears to be the only objection to assigning franco to his party (an extremely simple edit) - if this objection is not valid, then the "discussion" should not be taking place and i should be able to make my very simple edit 2.63.183.244 (talk) 16:08, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

"if this objection is not valid": Without sources that support your inference, you are begging that question. And since that's the only question that matters to you, your time would have been better spent finding them. Selbstporträt (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Franco had authority over FET not only as the head of state, but also as the "national chief" You are missing the point, IP. The position of "national chief" of the party was connected to the post of head of state. Franco was national chief of the party because he was the head of state. This is throughly stated in your own sources, others that have been provided and elsewhere.

you can see some sources of Tojo's leadership of the IRAA in the article Imperial Rule Assistance Association You added a source after my comment here, so do not make it appear as if I "could" see it: I couldn't, and you editing that article after my inquiry about it missing sources only highlights the flaws I noted (and still, that source seemingly only sources he being leader, not he being member nor he being member from the whole period of 1940 to 1945).

As noted by Xan747, "leadership implies membership" This has been already made obvious by Xan747's rebuke on you claiming they said something they did not, but I can only insist on asking you to please stop manipulating both sources and others' claims. It is very difficult to maintain a constructive discussion in such conditions.

"synth" appears to be the only objection to assigning franco to his party SYNTH means that you are adding unverified material, so it a major objection. There is agreement from everyone but you here that you engaged in SYNTH, so it seems obvious why you are not able to make your "very simple (and unverified!) edit".

On this respect, if the issue is about mentioning Franco as national chief of FET-JONS, that is already mentioned in his own article and it feels weird to highlight it here since we are not doing that for any other prime minister, but I conceded that we could use a footnote for that. It is not exactly clear what the IP wants here or what are they still fighting about, really. Impru20^talk 17:08, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Franco is not other prime ministers, so what we are doing with other PMs need not apply. When I first came into this, I questioned whether he should be listed here at all given the ... irregularity shall we say ... of his ascension to that role. Xan747 (talk) 18:48, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, Franco is a... "peculiar" PM in that regard, but he is acknowledged as PM by the Spanish government itself (albeit from 1 April 1939 rather than from 30 January 1938, even if his formal appointment to the post was on the latter date. But this has, seemingly, not been controversial, since there is a footnote explaining that situation). So, as far as that goes, he gets included.

Anyway, this is a list of prime ministers, so highlighting party leadership here (when you can already found that in each PM's articles, when due) is already overstretching it a bridge too far; but I already said I conceded on a footnote next to Franco's affiliation for that if that helps bringing a solution to this. I really cannot comprehend how such a seemingly simple issue has turned into... this lol Impru20^talk 19:00, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Indeed Franco's main article contains a fuller description of his "peculiar" relationship with the party. My argument is that we need to give readers a reason read more about it; his premiership does not deserve equal treatment with others who attained that position via regular political processes. He did not serve at the pleasure of his party, it was rather the other way around.

Again I find myself running out of novel ways to rebut non-novel arguments, and plead for both editors here to accept a compromise solution like I have proposed so that we can all move on to more productive ways to improve the encyclopedia. Xan747 (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree more or less with your reasonings, but I do not think this is the right article for that. This is a list. We have Francisco Franco, Francoist Spain, Movimiento Nacional, FET y de las JONS, and possibly other articles, to deal with these particular issues. I don't think List of prime ministers of Italy deals with the particularities of Mussolini's particular premiership, or List of chancellors of Germany deals with those of Hitler's particular chancellorship. Those are lists.

I have accepted a compromise solution in the form of a footnote (which was actually proposed earlier on!). It is being entirely ignored for some reason. Impru20^talk 19:57, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

(i accepted the 'compromise solution' as a 'compromise solution' above so i think that counts) 2.63.183.244 (talk) 20:01, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

The link between the formal positions of party leader and head of state by no means makes the formal position of party leader cease to be one. Given that they said that they are "sympathetic" to my arguement, I guess it has at least a certain degree of validity. I wrote the present tense verb "can", not "could" (and this is not even relevant here). Finally, you keep dodging the main thing: instead of Tojo I could have used Salazar or anyone else, since no article sources them being "members", if you check the articles, their leadership has always been enough to assign them to their parties (not only in such lists, but also, we say, in their infoboxes), it has always been a common practice. 2.63.183.244 (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

The link between the formal positions of party leader and head of state by no means makes the formal position of party leader cease to be one It doesn't, but in this case it was linked to that of head of state. Those were not separate. You keep treating them as if another person could be the party's national chief as in any other ordinary party, but it couldn't for as long as Franco was head of state because the officeholder of the headship of the state was automatically the party's chief (and it was by virtue of the former, not the latter), just as the position of head of government was until 1973. Simple.

Finally, you keep dodging the main thing: instead of Tojo I could have used Salazar or anyone else, since no article sources them being "members" Not only I am not dodging it, but I have actually pointed out several flaws in those articles (otherwise, why did you speed up to add a source in the IRAA's article when I pointed out there was none?). If Tojo's article does not source him being a party member, then those are grounds for either a source being found or such claim being removed, not for replicating such malpractice elsewhere! Impru20^talk 20:08, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

it's not about tojo it's about every party leader 😭 (u used "lol" above so i hope an emoji's fine): no source in their articles or related calls them "member", it's always about leadership. and primo de rivera's entry in this list has "patriotic union" - is his membership sourced, or is it only about the leadership? 2.63.183.244 (talk) 20:21, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I have unhatted this section since editors clearly wish to continue this part of the thread, though I kindly wish they would not. Xan747 (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Footnote submissions

1. First let us confirm that both parties are satisfied with this compromise solution for the Party column in Franco's entry:

(military)
FET y de las JONS

If that is not acceptable to anyone, please propose an alternative.

2. Irrespective of (1), please submit candidates for the content of the footnote below, complete with citations and wikilinks. Once both editors have given their submissions, I will evaluate and discuss any potential conflicts or concerns of my own. Xan747 (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Extended and unproductive discussion Xan747 (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Not the way I thought of the footnote. I thought about something like this:

National Movement
(Military)

If you add "FET y de las JONS" into the column like proposed, it is basically accepting the IP's SYNTH, but adding a footnote for additional decoration to clarify an issue (Franco's position as leader) that is not even within the article's scope. Impru20^talk 20:24, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

If you keep "National Movement (Military)", it's basically the same as the current version, not a "compromise solution" then 2.63.183.244 (talk) 20:29, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

@Impru20 please update in place the content you wish to put in the footnote.

IP: Please submit your own desired content for the footnote, and the table itself if you disagree with my proposal.

Both: please refrain from interacting with each other until I have had a chance to review both of your submissions. Xan747 (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Military (FET y de las JONS) / FET y de las JONS (military) or sth like that 2.63.183.244 (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Done, added the footnote's content (note that the footnote is the compromise solution, the IP proposal aside of the footnote keeps repeating what has essentially already been rebuked in the above discussions and is not an actual "compromise", unless they can actually provide a source for party membership which could always be found). Impru20^talk 20:44, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

(note that, first of all, the option with FET y de las JONS was proposed by Xan747, and secondly, that Impru20 does not provide any sources for Franco being a member of the National Movement, which, according to Impru20, constitutes SYNTH) 2.63.183.244 (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Note that, at this point (particularly after this edit), is very difficult to assume that the IP's intentions are nothing but disruptive and with any willingness to reach any compromise. Impru20^talk 20:52, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Seriously, both of you, knock it off. Xan747 (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

References

Impru20's proposal

National Movement
(Military)

References

IP's proposal Military (FET y de las JONS) / FET y de las JONS (military) or sth like that

References

Xan747's response

IP: please choose one or the other, and give the sources you wish to use in the footnote. You may edit your entry in place and let me know when you are done.

Both: please do not discuss the other editor's submissions. I already know all of your arguments and bludeoning them is making it impossible to for me to process your concrete proposals. Xan747 (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, my proposal was rather a draft one/subject to change and based on the statements of Impru20 (e. g. "he came from the military") and their edits to the page (they specify Franco as "military"); however, I cannot find any sources attrbuting Franco as a dictator to the military "family", or as a military dictator as opposed to the party dictator; there's even a book saying that "It is often claimed Franco was not a military dictator but he arose through a military rebellion and because of his balancing acts in time eliminated the influence of the army more and more." So with the sources, the footnote goes like this (while I would keep the table entry the same as I proposed above):

Franco served as the chief of the party FET y de las JONS, the nominal membership in which was automatic for all civil servants and officers. At the same time, he arose to power through a military rebellion as an army officer, but later maintained balance between the factions within the regime: the "political families", the party, the army, and the Church.

2.63.183.244 (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

References

3O response Thanks for the submissions. I have been heads-down in mainspace the past few days on a breaking-news article close to my personal interests. I will have a look at this tomorrow when I'm fresh. Xan747 (talk) 01:31, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Just a small comment which I make because the IP was asked to chose among the proposals above, then submitted an entirely new proposal while directly commenting on my alleged "statements". My view is this one:

1. On the actual proposal, the first part (Franco served as the chief of the party FET y de las JONS) is basically similar to mine's (though mine is more detailed and sourced), so I can buy that. As for the rest, I fail to grasp what its actual relevance is to the article's topic (a list of prime ministers): the mention of the nominal membership in which was automatic for all civil servants and officers is an apparent attempt at implying that Franco was automatically party member, or that it is relevant to Franco somehow, which is still a violation of SYNTH if no explicit source can be found for such membership. The whole second sentence is entirely off-topic: that's a topic for Franco's article to explain.
2. The IP kept arguing for the whole discussion that Franco was a military officer/had a military condition to attribute him party status based on a SYNTH conclusion that military officers were automatically party members. Now, however, they argue for a different footnote proposal that allegedly aims to minimize such military status because it does not fit with the party member narrative. I do not think that's serious. This article does not delve at all on the purpose or nature of dictatorships/premierships, nor does it say that Franco's dictatorship was fully military. It just says his allegiance/affiliation was military (Franco's dictatorship was not fully FET y de las JONS either and I did not see such concerns when the party affiliation was attempted to be introduced).

On my part, I think we may have a compromise on the first part (Franco being chief of the party, with the exact wording being open to discussion), nigh to impossible on the rest. Impru20^talk 07:45, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Right. So the important thing to me is to not give the impression that Franco came to power and maintained it through a normal partisan process. According to every source I've read, his military peers voted amongst themselves to elevate him to supreme commander of the Nationalist forces for the final push on Madrid, at some point that morphed into a military junta with Franco still at the helm, after which he opportunistically engineered a dictatorship by creating a sham political party by consolidating major extant "real" parties into one, and ensured his control over all of it by having himself written into law as its leader by virtue of his also self-appointed role as head of state. If we all agree on all of that, and I believe we more or less do, then as I have been saying from almost the very beginning whether he was an actual "member" of the party is irrelevant to the power dynamic and renders the question moot. We don't need to decide it. It's a distraction to our duty as editors to present to readers the sum total of what most reliable sources say about the subject. Frankly, I'm not for the first time wondering why this is so difficult. I strongly suspect it is because of some underlying nuance I'm missing that one or both editors are reluctant to clear up for me because it would betray some ulterior POV. Xan747 (talk) 00:52, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

@Xan747 Sorry for ping, but I just thought: the question of Franco's individual membership isn't relevant to the table, since this table does not have a criterion of individual membership (the page has no mentions of it): the table includes leaders and representatives of certain parties regardless of their individual memberships. This is why in this very table the military dictator Miguel Primo de Rivera is assigned to the Patriotic Union as a leader of the Patriotic Union regarldess of him being or not being a member of it. If so, isn't Franco's leadership of FET is enough to add FET to the table? 85.91.201.84 (talk) 20:08, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

No problems with the ping. My position is that the importance is to convey to the reader that the party was a construct he created to consolidate his power. It served at his pleasure, not the other way around. In that light, he was not a legitimate prime minister and could arguably be excluded from this list entirely--which I am not suggesting to do, I'm just making the point that there are irregularities here that are better handled by including relevant information rather than excluding it because it's not an exact fit with the rest of the table. In short, technicalities are not important: information is. Xan747 (talk) 21:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

The reader won't get an impression that the party came through a normal partisan process because there is a separate table for "Francoist Spain" which is distinguished from other tables as a period of dictatorship and one-party state. Also it may be useful to add the three military heads of government (which did not bear the titles of Prime Ministers tho) which served before Franco, so the military origins of the regime would be seen.

"To consolidate his power" may sound as oversimplification in the way that the Falange was a purely opportunistic invention and that Franco did not have any interest other than to become a dictator (like Antonescu did); still, it is remarkable that he decided to consolidate power by making the Falange a state party instead of continuing with being a military dictator; it is argued that the Falange provided both the "ideological tone" and the bureaucratic structure for the regime, so the party led by Franco was stll important. It was not coming to power through a normal partisan process, but the same can be said of the National Fascist Party and other state parties which also turned into burreaucratic machines in power and despite that are still included in similar lists. 85.91.201.84 (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

We should not be creative: this is a listing of prime ministers. We cannot add people who sources do not consider as prime ministers. People who led military juntas are not necessarily (nor unambiguously) considered either as prime ministers or as heads of government by RS, so adding them just for decorative purposes seems like setting a bad precedent (which is typically not replicated elsewhere).

The main difference I see between the Patriotic Union and FET is that the latter was part of a larger political bureaucracy (the National Movement), with the relevance of the party itself waning through the four-decade period that Franco ruled the country. So, for informative purposes, the National Movement covers that front much better than FET does. Nonetheless, I agree that if Primo de Rivera's membership to UP cannot be proven either, he should probably be listed as just military for the whole period of his dictatorship (note that UP is listed as part of the government of the Civil Directory, so that info is still present). Impru20^talk 14:54, 28 October 2025 (UTC)