Talk:Lost children of Francoism

Translation

I'm going to re-translate the page from Spanish, as it was originally done by someone whose strongest language was not English: it would take more effort to copy edit the page than it would to re-translate it. Prof. Squirrel (talk) 01:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Lost children of Francoism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130927111714/http://www.elperiodico.com/default.asp?idpublicacio_PK=46&idioma=CAS&idnoticia_PK=568899&idseccio_PK=1006 to http://www.elperiodico.com/default.asp?idpublicacio_PK=46&idioma=CAS&idnoticia_PK=568899&idseccio_PK=1006
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130922063504/http://www.elmundo.es/2002/07/18/comunicacion/1186179.html to http://www.elmundo.es/2002/07/18/comunicacion/1186179.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lost children of Francoism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120603013811/http://www.revistapueblos.org/spip.php?article1311 to http://www.revistapueblos.org/spip.php?article1311

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Racial purification

The article has a section called racial purification. That isn't what Hispanic Eugenics was about. The sort of purification mentioned as about spiritual and ideological purity as there was recognition that mixing dating back to period before the Reconquista made this impossible. It really needs to be revised in that context. --LauraHale (talk) 08:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

rename proposal

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

---

This would make the translated title more into line with the literal translation. It is also factually inaccurate as it stands. The children were not "lost" but were taken over the objections of their mothers as a result of Hispanic eugenics policies that said they if they remained with their mothers, they would become opponents of the regime. The children were kidnapped, and put up for adoption. --LauraHale (talk) 08:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. B dash (talk) 04:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment – Both "niños perdidos [lost] del franquismo" and "niños robados [stolen] por el franquismo" seem to be commonly used in Spanish sources. "Lost" seems to be somewhat more common (with the 2002 documentary and 2008 book using it), with the euphemism sometimes being highlighted with the use of quotes. Some English sources:

• Time Title: "Franco-Era 'Stolen Babies'", body: Known as the lost children of the Franco-era
• LATimes Title: "Franco-era 'stolen babies'", body: When the story of the country’s “lost children” began to come into public view
• Others: Guardian: Spanish 'stolen babies network', some journal: Stolen Children, El País: Spain's stolen children, Euronews Franco's 'stolen babies', and BBC: Stolen babies
• Others: Spain's Lost Children, Spain's Missing Babies

Getting rid of the euphemism would make the title more clear. – Þjarkur (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. "lost children" + Francoism yields about 7 times more Google search results than "stolen children" + Francoism, which leads me to conclude that the current title is the more common English term for this topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Total Google search results are so wobbly and unpredictable that they can't really be used for determining which term is more common. – Þjarkur (talk) 10:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
• Leaning oppose per the above comments. bd2412 T 13:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

removal of unsupported claim

I've removed this edit from the lead, as the pretty broad and serious claim isn't sufficiently supported by the submitted sources.

• The cited article from elpais.com mentions Opus Dei only once and rather casually without providing details or specifics ("The link that enabled the practice of taking children from their mothers ... was made up of a network of priests and nuns, as well as Catholic doctors, judges and notaries, many of them belonging to the highly secretive Opus Dei movement").
• The cited article from theweek.co.uk doesn't even mention Opus Dei.
• The article from deutschlandfunk.de questions its own validity by stating "Again and again, the Opus Dei, a ultra-conservative Catholic lay organization, associated with the baby trade. Whether rightly is an open question."; the article from freitag.de claims rather unspecific that "The perpetrators were all very well connected ... with the church, the military and the Catholic lay organization Opus Dei."; the article from welt.de claims that "many of the gynecologists working at that time were members of the conservative lay order Opus Dei.“ (citations from the German-language articles were Google-translated)

This type of coverage speaks rather for a conspiracy theory.

Til today only one "stolen baby" case has gone to court. The accused doctor was acquitted because of statute of limitations (though not found innocent) and there was no mention of Opus Dei, see: El Confidencial 2018,The Guardian, 2018, Los Angeles Times, 2018.
More interestingly, shortly after this court verdict, the adopted woman who had filed the lawsuit not only found her true biological family via DNA analysis, but also had to realize that her mother had given her up voluntarily. Therefore, the state prosecutor considers her no longer a "stolen baby", see: El Confidencial, 2019,The Guardian, 2019.
Following this recent twist, some editors in Spain now question the previously claimed extent of the scandal and the claimed organized plot at all, for example: Psicosis colectiva: los bebés robados del franquismo... que nadie puede encontrar. --Túrelio (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Another recent publication by Maite Rico in the liberal es:Vozpópuli in Spain even speaks of fraud wrt the "lost-children scandal": La estafa de los bebés robados. --Túrelio (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Nuestra Señora de La Almudena/Peña Grande

This appears from the sources cited to not have been a prison as such but rather a mother and baby home similar to the ones that have attracted so much controversy in Ireland in recent years. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 23:32, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

DNA tests cast doubt on Spain’s “stolen baby” network

The page currently presents a conspiracy theory as being fact, falsely citing as proof a BBC article that merely cited the allegations without providing any evidence. The BBC article was a promotional article for a BBC TV episode in 2011. The BBC article also falsely claimed that infant's graves were dug up and shown to contain no infant bones. Evidence contradicting the allegations has since been published here: El País (2018). The entire perspective of the article needs to be changed from one presenting allegations as facts to one that cites the allegations and also the counter-evidence. Jdkag (talk) 14:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)jdkag