Talk:President of the Republic (Spain)

[Untitled]

The title should either be President of the Spanish Government or Prime Minister of Spain. The current title makes no sense. john k 5 July 2005 02:45 (UTC)

Oh, wait, I guess President of Spain? I have no idea. The current location is bizarre. john k 5 July 2005 02:46 (UTC)And that is true

There seems to be a missing President. Félix Gordón Ordás (or Ordax) was President from 1951 to 1960, as noted in the Spanish-language entry for him: "Exiliado en México tras el final de la guerra civil, fue miembro de la Junta Española de Liberación y llegó a ser nombrado Presidente del Gobierno de la República en el exilio desde 1951 a 1960. Durante su gobierno la oposición en el exilio entró en una crisis interna cuando la Dictadura franquista entró en la ONU (y con ello, el reconocimiento a nivel internacional), lo que supuso un duro golpe a la causa republicana. Falleció en México el 22 de enero de 1973.1​" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richmx2 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

This page should be locked

There are many counts of vandalism on this page, and to prevent, I request that we lock it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.112.30 (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Alvaro de Albornoz.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

President of the Republic of Spain

The article is not called Heads of State of Spain who weren't monarchs but President of the Republic (Spain) and it should talk about the people who held that office or who ruled when Spain was a Republic. Franco, a military dictator who maintained his regime in a provisional ambiguity between 1939 and 1947 and who from 1947 until his death (1975) was officially regent of a realm without a king, should not appear on the list. Moreover, the presidents of the Republic in the exile must have a place here.--Baprow (talk) 13:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Timetable

Well, here we are.

First of all, your comparison between a democratic government (exiled after a coup d'Etat and a civil war and replaced in its country by a dictatorship) and an "usurper" roman emperor is very questionable and very much unfortunate. We could discuss a lot about who was the usurper here.

Secondly, this article is called President of the Republic of Spain. And the people you want to censor were President of the Republic but in the exile. I would understand your objections if I was pretending to put them as ruling Heads of State ignoring the fact that Franco stole the power by force and implemented his own law during 38 years of dictatorship.

But the fact is that they were presidents, holding the title according the republican system, and they should appear in the article. If Spain returns to republican system and there are new Presidents I'm sure it will be necessary made more precissions and I will be the first one who will do it, but now it is unnecessary.--Baprow (talk) 14:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Baprow: But the fact is that they were presidents No, they weren't, and you know it from the moment you are acknowleding yourself in the timeline that these were not official presidents (you classify them in "interim", "official" and "exiled"). Sorry, but while we can indeed discuss a lot about the causes of the Civil War and its consequences, this is not the matter at hand. You are bringing a timeline comparing officially-elected presidents with exiled and not official presidents, whose election did not even keep the procedures set down in the 1931 republican Constitution. This would be like if I declare myself president-in-exile of Spain and demand being recognized as such in the table.

As per Wikipedia's verifiability policies, either you bring a reliable source that does make such a comparison between the exiled and the official presidents or this will be removed, because what you are doing is a rude exercise of synthesis: i.e. reaching your own conclusions without the support of sources. Also worth noting is that the section about the exiled presidents is mostly devoid of sources: the dates and the such could perfectly be invented since there is no source backing them up. Impru20^talk 15:28, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

The fact is that they held the position. In exile. The timeline doesn't create confusion because it establish the difference between people who ruled effectively (as an official or interim president) and people who was presidents in the exile. So if they were presidents according the republican system and the timetable is not telling lies... What's the problem about that?--Baprow (talk) 15:36, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Cool, then it will be very simple, right? Again, as per WP:VERIFY, show the source or sources that backs this claim of you and that support bringing these exiled presidents in equality of conditions to the rest of them. Otherwise, this is original research. That's the "problem about that": that Wikipedia is neither an indiscriminate collection of information nor a publisher of original thought. Impru20^talk 15:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Sources about the dates: [1], [2]. Do you want more?--Baprow (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

A simple question. It is forbidden in Wikipedia the creation of a timeline of Spanish Presidents of the Republic in exile, so We must do only timetables of official or de facto authorities? Yes or no?--Baprow (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

show the source or sources that backs this claim of you and that support bringing these exiled presidents in equality of conditions to the rest of them I'm still waiting for this. Please avoid the straw man of attempting to reduce the issue to a mere lack of sources on the dates of the exiled presidents' tenures. Sources are lacking both for the dates and for the presidents' condition as equals to the official holders. Just because Franco reached through war does not mean that we must be taking sides when presenting information: Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. If sources do not back equalling the exiled presidents in status to the official ones, we shouldn't do it ourselves, so I'm still waiting for you to present such sources.

On the other hand, the sources you present only support that Luis Jiménez de Asúa was president in exile until his death (which is not controversial due to it happening on 16 November 1970); however, the sources do not support neither Asúa's start date in such a position being 11 February 1962 nor provide any further information on the other officeholders. I'm starting to think that this section of the article is, at least in part, made of speculation or outright invention.

It is forbidden in Wikipedia the creation of a timeline of Spanish Presidents of the Republic in exile, so We must do only timetables of official or de facto authorities? It is forbidden to present information from a particular and biased point of view which is not backed by sources. You could make a separate timeline for presidents in exile (though if we aren't sure not even about the actual starting and end dates of their tenures, that seems pretty much pointless), but equalling official holders to exiled, powerless figures just because you may think that those are more legitimate than Franco clearly contravenes NPOV. Impru20^talk 16:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I repeat my question. It is forbidden in Wikipedia the creation of a timeline of Spanish Presidents of the Republic in exile, so we must do only timetables of official or de facto authorities? Yes or no?--Baprow (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

It is not allowed in the way you propose it, under WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH. So the short answer is yes. For the long answer, re-read the whole discussion again because I already told you how this is not allowed.

Now, what it is forbidden is to use fallacies as arguments in discussions, such as you trying to avoid answering myself while concurrently avoiding reverting some of your latest and controversial edits. The next time you do this, I will report you. Is it clear or not? Now I hope for your answer and I'd be enormously glad to see you stop trying to vacillate me and instead start to being constructive. Thank you. Impru20^talk 16:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not vacillating no one. I can't understand why on Earth are you taking for granted that the fact of putting them all on the same table makes them "equals" when it is already clearly stated that some of them held the title on an interim basis, others officially and others de iure (or symbolically, if you prefer) in exile? More than a thousand words wasted arguing about it. Incredible.--Baprow (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Holding an established office in an interim basis is one thing. Holding an unofficial position such as that of "Spanish President of the Republic in exile" is a very different one. These are not the same office. Precisely because of this reason, you argued in July that this article is President of the Republic (Spain) and it should talk about the people who held that office or who ruled when Spain was a Republic. Franco, a military dictator who maintained his regime in a provisional ambiguity between 1939 and 1947 and who from 1947 until his death (1975) was officially regent of a realm without a king, should not appear on the list. That the presidents in exile had to be shown in equal terms to the others was your own claim: the presidents of the Republic in the exile must have a place here. I agree that these can have a place here, once properly sourced, but the position of President of the Republic in exile is not the same as the President of the Republic, being similar only in name.

As a plus, just note how elsewhere in Wikipedia presidents in exile are not shown in timelines together with the official holders (though I'm aware of your sense of coherency when it comes to matching precedent when it pleases you but ignoring it when it doesn't). Impru20^talk 16:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Don't compare both situations. The main difference was that Franco didn't hold the position of President of the Republic, and he was responsible of the falling of the Republic, so was absurd to pretend make him the last President of the Republic. In this case, we have some people who hold the title and who were considered by the republican legality as the successors of the previous ones. And since the article (and the table itself) already specifies that the last effective president was Azaña and that they were presidents in exile, there is no possible confusion.--Baprow (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

What I say is that the addition of the exiled presidents into the article and into the timeline was your own, particular call (indeed, I see there was much dispute at the time on this issue, with several people actually favouring removing this section), with you claiming that they had a right whereas Franco did not and went on to enforce it without providing sources that back such claims nor that give them as much prominence as official holders, which could constitute a situation of undue prominence. Franco should be obviously out as he was not president of any "Republic", and the scope of this article is limited to such time periods. But the First Spanish Republic spanned from 1873 to 1874 and the Second Spanish Republic from 1931 to 1939. There have been no other republics in Spain, so the period of time going after that and covering the period of exile can't be treated in equality of conditions to the official Republics.

In this case, we have some people who hold the title and who were considered by the republican legality as the successors of the previous ones. By whom? What was that republican legality? How where they considered the legal successors to previous presidents? Can you please source your claims? Because as of now, the article is presented like this because you unilaterally chose to present it like this out of your own opinion, but everything you explain is a clear exercise of synthesis. That the last official President of the Republic was Azaña (fact A) and that, after him, what remained of the Republican government fled into exile (fact B) does not automatically mean that subsequent presidents in the exile are official presidents or should be given equal treatment in this article (A + B =/= C). Impru20^talk 16:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, these are not even included in the Spanish wikipedia itself ([3]). I would say that this article is not the place for these presidents in exile either. That would correspond to Spanish Republican government in exile. Indeed, this seems like an unacceptable content forking from that article, which does not seem justified. Impru20^talk 16:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

First of all, don't try to tell me that the Second Republic in exile was not a legal heiress of the Second Republic, like if the reality that this government was guided by the republican Constitution of 1931, it maintained the republican parliaments and it was led by republican politicians was a coincidence. Secondly, there is an enormous difference between the Spanish article Jefes de Estado de España que no fueron monarcas, where we can include dictators (Franco has the requirements because he was head of state and he was not monarch), regents, presidents of the republic, chiefs of provisional governments whatever was the regime, and this article, which specify that it was about Presidents of the Republic in Spain. The inclusion of predecessors, people who held the title (with all the letters) officially and people who were presidents in exile is consequent and precise. And there is no possible confusion for the lectors. --Baprow (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

don't try to tell me that the Second Republic in exile was not a legal heiress of the Second Republic If anything, as per WP:VERIFY it should be you who proves with sources that the Second Republic in exile was a legal (interesting word you use, considering it functioned without laws) successor to the Second Republic, rather than constantly demanding a probatio diabolica of what cannot be proven. It is hardly contested by scholars, books and other sources that the legal successor to the Second Republic was the Francoist regime. You can surely discuss about its legitimacy and the opinion it deserves to you, but that would correspond to another venue as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum of discussion.

There is an enormous difference between the Spanish article Jefes de Estado de España que no fueron monarcas [...] and this article Yes, starting by the fact that the Spanish wikipedia does not even have a similar article to this one. You seem somewhat obsessed with Franco, but I did not reference the Jefes de Estado de España que no fueron monarcas because it mentions Franco, but because it doesn't mention the presidents in exile. Those are not considered among the Jefes de Estado de España que no fueron monarcas, as you can see.

this article, which specify that it was about Presidents of the Republic in Spain Indeed, but the issue is that presidents in exile are not "Presidents of the Republic in Spain" (the first requirement for that is that you need a republic to exist, which obviously didn't beyond 1939).

Nonetheless, seeing how this is a content fork from Spanish Republican government in exile (and one that is not acceptable, being the mere redundant repetition of information), I'd say to just remove the section about the presidents in exile from this article and let's have it shown where it actually belongs. Impru20^talk 17:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Niceto Alcalá Zamora, presidente de la II República Española.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)