Talk:Unification Decree (Spain, 1937)

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Spain Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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

• 170208 FAS franko.jpg.CROP.promo-xlarge2 (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

this is supposed to clarify the apparent though obviously minor controversy about italicizing the word “infantile” in caption of the top picture.

The original caption reads “Unification in infantile propaganda drawing, 1937”. The editor User:Havsjö with no explanation changed it to “Unification in infantile propaganda drawing, 1937”. Once this was reverted back to original, he/she again re-introduced italics, this time with the info that “It can very easily give the impression that it says ‘infantile propaganda’ as in ‘childish propaganda’, rather than ‘propaganda from infantile’, which are the youth sections of the falange/carlists”.

Since this appears to be turning into an editorial war, I have decided to open a paragraph on this talk page.

I believe the phrase “infantile propaganda” is understood by most readers as propaganda intended for children. Indeed, the picture comes from a periodical named Flechas y pelayos, an early Francoist illustrated monthly intended for children. I think there is no need for tampering with fonts, as the message is clear (native English-speakers, please correct me if I am wrong).

User:Havsjö claims that “infantile” might be confused for “childish” and to avert this, he/she changed the word into italics. It does not seem to make any sense to me.

• First, I believe “infantile” does not mean “childish”. I have checked online dictionaries and it seems any person familiar with English is unlikely to take “infantile” for “childish”, a derogatory term which suggests immature character or mind.
• Second, I am not at all sure how italicizing the word might cure the alleged confusion.
• Third, I believe italicizing the word “infantile” in fact introduces total confusion. Most readers would probably ask why is the word emphasized? The most logical guess is that italics turn the word into a relata refero mode, which in fact formats the capture as a Wikipedia information with a referred opinion on a childish propaganda.

I am removing the italics. User:Havsjö, if you choose to introduce italics for the third time, I would be grateful for your comments here. --Dd1495 (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

another user comes and this time he/she removes the word altogether, claiming that the word is not NPOV and is own research. Both claims are invalid. The drawing appeared in a periodical titled Flechas and intended for children. It is correct to categorize it as "infantile"; the word has no deprecating or other flavor and merely indicates propaganda intended for children. Also, it is not own research. In literature Flechas is widely described as "semanario infantil", see Europeana or Galiciana. Last but not least, without the word "infantile" the picture might look confusing, as in an odd-looking style it pictures two males hugging and perhaps kissing; it might evoke the notion of homosexuality. Restoring the word. If intending to remove it again, please discuss here first. Regards, --Dd1495 (talk) 07:07, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

another user again with the same change, again neither any explanation in edit summary box nor any feedback on this talk page. Restoring as explained above, --Dd1495 (talk) 12:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd dispute your first point, that the term infantile wouldn't be understood as meaning childish. If we look at the Merriam-Webster dictionary, it defines infantile as:

• 1. of or relating to infants or infancy
• 2. suitable to or characteristic of an infant

especially: very immature

And the Oxford dictionary defines it as:

• of or occurring in babies or very young children

derogatory childish

So it seems pretty reasonable to me that an English speaker reading the word infantile would understand it as meaning childish in this context and that putting the word in italics would make it clear that the word is from the Spanish, and would not confuse readers with an implication of reported speech, which is not a particularly common use of italics in English in the first place. Jim Slickens (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article refers several times to a publication identified as "Aróstegui 2013", however it lacks a complete reference (with title, publisher, etc.) to identify it properly. CaféBuzz (talk) 13:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it could be * Aróstegui, Julio (2013). ''Combatientes Requetés en la Guerra Civil española, 1936–1939'', Madrid, {{ISBN|9788499709758}} (found in the article requeté).

I order to simplify maintenance, the use of proper reference templates ({{sfn}} and such) could be considered. CaféBuzz (talk) 13:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]