Talk:Buenaventura Durruti/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Massacre of 50 prisoners as reprisals of his death

Is it possible to write something about it? or it's out off topic?Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

It is only possible if you have access to internet. Please have in mind WP:DUE Cinadon36 22:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC) Plus, it seems a little irrelevant to B. Durruti. As I can tell, the book is about Sp. Civil War, it is not a biography on Durruti. So, it seems to me that it would be more appropriate to seek for a section in a RS on Durruti, rather than cherry pick a sensational piece of information that might actually be irrelevant to BD. Cinadon36 22:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I think it is obvious about BD, it is what happened after his death. How can be irrelevant with BD when this massacre happened as reprisals of his death? The death of Durruti is a big issue, and we must talk about it.Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 00:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I ve seen that you have re-introduced the sentence... I am not so sure it is significant to BD's death. There have been many massacre's during the civil war and this info wont help us understand something more about the life of BD. It seems to me more like sensationalism. As I have pointed out earlier,the specific info is not extracted by a book on BD or a chapter on BD, but it was cherry picked from a book on spanish civil war that apparently impressed you Αντικαθεστωτικός. But this is not the way forward. Cherry picking and constructing a new narrative. Anywayz, I wont revert again, I 'd rather wait for other users to contribute. I reverted it again, pls respect BRD Cinadon36 06:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

So thanx. why we dont ask for a third opinion or maybe Czar? I forgot the way.Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 06:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I believe the best way is to wait for other users to contribute. If noone shows up, we could use 3O. Cinadon36 06:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Until then you erased everything, you erased Campridge publications because you don't like them. As you wish. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 06:51, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

No I didnt delete Cam Univeristy Press, I deleted your contribution for the aforementioned reasons. Cinadon36 06:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

yeh whatever. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 07:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The source is reliable, and certainly a short mention that 52 prisoners were massacred as a reprisal for Durruti's death is notable. There is no reason to omit this information from the article. --Pudeo (talk) 23:51, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The dispute Pudeo was not on whether the Source is reliable or not. My argument for not inclusion was that the specific sentence was:

1. is not directly related to Durruti's death
2. it is taken from a book 250 pages that focus on Red Terror, that means the magnifying lens to atrocities committed during civil war is really strong, whereas the magnifying lens to an encyclopedic entry on Durruti should be/is quite weaker.

Therefor, that sentence puts kind of undue weight to a single fact. I think more citations from biographies of Durruti are needed to establish notability/importance of that simple fact. Actually, I have never read a biography of Durruti mentioning/linking his death to the brutal murderer of 52 men, so I am afraid we are synthetizing a narrative- or at least implying one. Cinadon36 10:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Most of Durruti's biographies are not so a R.S. These POV biographies/memoirs are written before too many decades(1972!) from his anarchists and -amateurs historians(?)- ex-comrades. The certainly RS from Cambridge University is an uptodate book of 2014 and not somekind of memoirs from an anarchist comrade. It is a simple fact, a massacre of 52 men with obvious strong notability value. I fear the only reason to delete this kind of information is to promote an anarchist-friendly POV. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 11:49, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

No it is not a simple fact, it is cherry picking from another source that is overzooming on the atrocities. Cherry picking "simple facts" that suits someones POV from various RS, ends up with an ahistorical narrative. As for your last argument/sentence is clearly not valid. Someone could argue that he fears the only reason to insert this kind of info is to promote anti-anarchist pov. Cinadon36 18:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is a simple fact tottaly related to the death of B.D. Cherry picking is when you stick with anarchist memoirs/biographies of 1972(!) and not want Cambridge Publications of 2014. In any case, i will wait for other users to share their view.Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 20:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

No respect at WP:BRD

Αντικαθεστωτικός why you show no respect to BRD? [1] Unless you self revert I 'll go to ANI or wherever appropriate. You should get consensus for your edits. Cinadon36 06:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I informed a administator about your attitude. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 07:03, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I will go to ANI in a few hours. If you wish User:Cinadon36 go first. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 07:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I went to ANI. here. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 12:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

You shouldn't have gone to AN/I for what was clearly a content dispute (as I said there) that being said, I think the claim that this source was unreliable is weak. Consider this review on JSTOR: [2], there is also this review on Socialist Review: [3]. Both of these speak of it as a piece of significant scholarship. And then there's this [4] which is unfortunately paywalled. But if Millennium: Journal of International Studies is talking about the book then it's likely notable even if it were found to be fringe (which is dubious). Simply put, it's not doing due diligence to look at the publisher and go, "oh, Haymarket, must not be an RS". Simonm223 (talk) 15:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

It is not a content dispute Simonm223. It is something else. Anyway, please have a look here. First edition in English was from M.I.T. The first author was a professor of University of Grenoble, for sure a better scientist from Hugh Thomas who is a source in this article. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 20:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

First of all, I 'd like to remind that we should move back to stable version and then discuss. So as for the The Revolution and the Civil War in Spain, I now found out that it was originally published in 1961.(see google books infobox [5] That means it is closer to the event of the death of Durruti rather than the current era. Cinadon36 18:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it was re-published by Haymarket - as part of their remit to publish important academic work by and about Anarchists. As I said before, your assertion that it was not a WP:RS may have been hasty. Simonm223 (talk) 18:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

There is more to discuss about Haymarket. As I have said, there are many shades of reliability. For general facts regarding the Civil War it is more than ok, for opinions and conclusions, we should be hesitant and double-check. Anyways @Simonm223: what about reverting the last edit by Αντικαθεστωτικός [6] and adding {{cn}} wherever appropriate? Cinadon36 18:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not playing the WP:WRONGVERSION game - and I think the source in question - as demonstrated by multiple reviews in a variety of academic sources - is definitely a reliable one. If you disagree, please feel free to raise the issue at WP:RS/N. I concur that there was no grounds for an WP:AN/I filing. But I also contend you are deeply mistaken to discount a clearly appropriate source just because you have something against the publisher who reprinted it. Simonm223 (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

It is really not a matter of wrong or right version, it is a matter of stable version and following the proper flowchart as per BRD. I have nothing against of the publisher, I really like Haymarket (and AK press as well) a lot. But I do not think is a mainstream publisher, it is not now, it was not in 2007 when they re-published the book and the book is closer to the event rather than to current era. Cinadon36 19:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

 Comment: @Αντικαθεστωτικός, Cinadon36, and Simonm223: Haymark perhaps is a radical publishing house, but it cannot be dismised for that; like one may not dismiss an established scholarly journal like Radical History Review (fromerly published by Cambridge University Press, and now by Duke University Press) just for being radical. Haymarket has published a lot of books written by well known academics, many of whom are "radical" in two sences: as personally, politaclally radicals, and as pioneers in their fields of research. These authors are of cousre RS. Finally, note that many of the Haymarket books are paperback editions of books originally printed in cloth by established academic publishing houses of the highest esteem, like Brill. An example: Prof. Broué's book The German Revolution, 1917-1923 was fist published (in English) by Brill on November 23th 2004 (ISBN 978-90-04-13940-4) as a hardcover, and then reprinted in a paperback edition by Haymarket in 2006 (ISBN 9781931859325) (same author's [with Émile Témime], The Revolution and the Civil War in Spain, printed by Haymarket in 2008, was originally published in 1972 by Faber and Faber). ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 09:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Is Abel Paz a R.S?

Let's see what a prominent uptodate and leading expert Julián Casanova Ruiz of Spanish history wrote:

• There is much hagiography around Durruti and nothing that resembles a biography.The most documented of these is that cited above by Abel Paz, Durruti, who, in order to avoid missing out any detail which might feed this legend, claims that Horacio Martínez Prieto travelled to Bujaraloz in order to convince Durruti to leave the front and join the government, something which, obviously, made the hero ‘furious’ (p.474). For different versions of the resignation of Martínez Prieto see Juan García Oliver,

• It is time definitively to abandon the excessive piety that continues to be applied to leaders such as Durruti. Rather we should be looking at unravelling the characteristics of the leaders, how they reached positions of power and how this power was exercised.

So i think that it isn't a R.S . Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Paz authored a well cited monograph on Durruti. What J. Casanova is writing is about his POV, not on whether he is notable or RS. Actually, Casanova by mentioning Paz, he adds to his importance. Btw, second bullet point doesnt talk about A.Paz. Cinadon36 21:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Casanova opinion is : "that we don't have nothing that resembles a biography", so Abel Paz's hagiography isn't a R.S but a documented text very useful for historians, BUT not for Wikipedia. I won't come back into this. It is so obvious again. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 09:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The argument above is no more how we ascertain a WP:RS than it would be to exclude a work of history on the basis of which publisher most recently reprinted it. RSes are allowed to have POVs; and when RSes disagree and when both are found to be reliable, we report both with attribution. Simonm223 (talk) 12:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't see the Paz source as any more problematic than the other source based on a surface-level review. I have not done a deep-dive, but ht being hagiography rather than biography is neither here nor there. Simonm223 (talk) 13:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Simonm223 thank you again for your time. Abel Paz was a militant comrade of Durruti -and not a historian as the other source- and he is promoting the theory that Durruti was (in 1976) killed by Communists (I am not sure, but i think he had changed his mind). But, as i can find most of old historians say that he was killed by his comrades cause he enforced discipline, nowdays historians say that it was an accident. So my personal opinion is to add only what historians have written about Durruti's death and not what his comrades, or journalists. But to establish consensus, i don't have a real problem. My suggestion is to add everyone! I don't like censorship at all. I prefer to add everything and also a hoax, than to have nothing! Historian Hugh Thomas wrote : His death was said to have been caused by a stray bullet from the University City. It seems more probable, however, that he was killed by one of his men, an “uncontrollable,” who resented the new Anarchist policy Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 13:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

So again this gets into a question for WP:RS/N. I'll be honest the Spanish Civil War is not my area of historical concentration; so I can't do much more to assess the quality of sources than any other person with an interest in Leftist history. I think the two of you really need to seek a broader consensus of opinions on these sources. Simonm223 (talk) 13:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about my bad English. I don't mind at all. I just want this about Durruti's Death :To put Historians opinion about his death, and then Abel Paz, Peirats, everyone. Don't stop helping me, then i am banned here. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 14:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Old same fairy tales about being banned. Not the case apparently. As for Paz opinion, it is notable, his work is well cited, so there is place for his opinion in this article (attributed of course as it is already). Cinadon36 18:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)