Jump to content

Talk:Badajoz massacre

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit]

As it currently stands, this is highly POV, with only the republican view represented. In addition it's not very informative. We have no info on what actually happened after the fall of the city. The Spanish langauge version seems to be considerably better. We should look at improving this article by reference to that one. Jdorney (talk) 19:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded it with info from the Spanish version so it's a bit more informative. I'm still concerned at the POV tone though. Jdorney (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That article is not complete does not mean it is not neutral. If anyone can translate, it would be better to remove the template. --88.1.166.99 (talk) 18:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Massacre of Badajoz. 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:

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) 08:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Massacre of Badajoz. 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:

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) 02:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

this article is a manual how a Wikipedia entry should not be written

[edit]

A lengthy list of problems, which I might fancy to address in weeks to come:

  • falsified quotations (“round 200 people have been shot by firing squad”; the original reads “A l’heure actuelle, environ 1,200 ont ete fusilles”)
  • statements with no source (“The same day, Yagüe ordered the confinement of all prisoners...”)
  • vague, general and ambiguous references (According to articles published in Le Populaire, Le Temps, Le Figaro, Paris-Soir, Diário de Lisboa and the Chicago Tribune...)
  • information based on controversial or dubious sources presented as uncontested facts (“Among those executed were men and women...” with reference to a site [now not existent] which quoted a French socialist daily from August 1936)
  • manipulative information based on some truth but misleading (“François Mauriac published an article about the events in Badajoz” – the article was not about Badajoz, which was merely mentioned; it was a text calling to abandon the non-intervention policy)
  • clearly false information (that Nieves “witnessed the massacre at first hand”, while in fact he arrived in Badajoz the day after)
  • selective background supposed to lead the reader towards desired conclusions (info on later ministerial post obtained by Yague in Francoist Spain suggest his Badajoz deeds were appreciated and rewarded by the equally criminal regime)
  • some background data of relevance ignored (like strongly left-wing sympathies of Jay Allen, like clearly false details in some correspondence from Badajoz, e.g. of “miqueletes” involved in murder and looting, that La Populaire was a socialist daily)
  • incorrect references (La Voz of Oct 20, 1936 quoted as source of the article on bullring killings watched by spectators; in fact, the article appeared in La Voz on Oct 27, 1936; the issue of Oct 20 did not contain a single mention of Badajoz)
  • unproven and highly dubious information, most likely propaganda, presented in detail in separate paragraph as merely “not verified” (“...executions in the Bull Ring had been like a party for the executioners...”)
  • linking separate facts to advance own conclusions (von Funck advise not to send German troops as the war is too brutal linked in one sentence to info on Badajoz killings deliveres the impression that brutality of Francoist regime shocked even the Nazis)
  • contradictory statements (Nationalists intended to hide their Badajoz atrocities; Nationalists advertised their Badajoz atrocities when threatening Irun)
  • research which does not support the narrative presented as isolated and minoritarian (“also suggested” the figures of 500-700 dead)
  • incoherent data quotations (“Most estimates suggest that between 2,000 and 4,000 people were executed”; both figures come from the same author, Paul Preston, from two of his separate works published in 2006)
  • own work (“if the correct figure was 4,000 executed, the percentage of retaliation would have reached 10% of the population”)

regards,--2A02:A317:2144:1A80:E121:A418:9430:E7D7 (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Badajoz_massacre&oldid=1205600476"