Talk:Last use of capital punishment in Spain

However

The executed men's families claimed they were denied access to their graves in the village graveyard and scuffles with police took place. However, Gustavo Catalán Deus, a photographer who witnessed the burials, said that some family members had been present, together with police, members of the military and lawyers.

What does the word "however" actually add here? See also WP:EDITORIAL. --John (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, John. As I said in the edit summary, it's perfectly standard in written English to include discourse markers in the form of adverbs of contrast or purpose. For example "though it was snowing, I went out wearing a t-shirt and shorts." You could say that without the "though" the contrast is still evident, but that isn't the standard way. In the case above, the however, does highlight the fact that there is a contrast between what the two groups claim about who was present, otherwise I do feel that would be lost.

Also, (and please don't take offence at this) while I appreciate you taking the time to do the copyedit, I did feel that a lot of it, rather than correct mistakes, which is the usual purpose of a copyedit, was simply swapping one perfectly valid form for another perfectly valid form. Future in the past for past simple, however for but, protestors for protesters (both valid spellings) or "a number of" for "several." In the latter case, in particular, several is usually defined as "more than two but not many" and I seriously question whether 15 countries is "not many." Also is "In Britain the governing British Labour Party" really better than "The governing British Labour Party" ? Is there another Labour party that governs Britain? :) I dunno, but I usually take the view that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Per, Muphry's law, I guarantee I have a typo in the above! Valenciano (talk) 12:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Some of these things can be valid choices with valid arguments on both sides, you're right. WP:EDITORIAL recommends using "however" with extreme care and I agree with this advice. In this case I think it better to do without the word as it is unhelpful editorialising. The Labour party one was my mistake. If the number is fifteen, wouldn't it be better to say "fifteen" rather than the vague, hand-waving, I-couldn't-be-bothered-to-do-my-research "a number of"? Zero is a number, and so is pi, and so is negative nine. I would value other opinions on this as I already saw your preferences from your reverting in the editorial "however" and your edit summary. --John (talk) 17:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Fair point about the numbers, though that wasn't down to lack of research as they are listed. Your change to 15 is better and also, thanks for delinking the countries, which I shouldn't have linked per MOS. As I said, I did think that the however was necessary, but I'm open to alternative wording. Valenciano (talk) 18:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

ambiguous why the executions were protested

were the protests, withdrawal of ambassadors, etc over 1) the death penalty in general, or 2) due to support for these particular prisoners and/or doubts about the legitimacy of these particular trials and/or disagreement with the suppression of this particular political position? Or both? The article (which is linked on the wikipedia front page today) doesnt seem clear to me. In discussing how the death penalty's use in Spain was falling out of favor in the 1960s, or the Pope's call for clemency, it seems like 1). In discussing the contemporary govt's re-opening the case, finding irregularities in the trial, compensating the victims families for the violations of the victims' right to a fair trial, it seems like 2).Snarfblaat (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

It's actually more a case of 3): the Franco government, as Europe's last right-wing dictatorship was unpopular among the more left wing and social democratic governments in the post-war period and by the 1970s in particular was an anachronistic throwback to the fascist dictatorships of the 30s. Franco, although neutral in World war 2, was definitely seen as more pro-Hitler than neutral. 2) was true to a limited extent. There was international sympathy for ETA in the early period due to them being one of the only opponents actively fighting Franco in Spain.

Thanks for bringing that up, I'll have a look, probably within the next seven days and add some sources. Valenciano (talk) 19:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

@Snarfblaat, sorry, took much longer than expected before I could get around to that. I've added some context now, have a look and see if that answers your question. Valenciano (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Last use of capital punishment in Spain/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 17:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Hi, I'll review this article. FunkMonk (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
• "2011 memorial to two of those executed" I'd say memorial for, and give a date for when this picture is from. Also write their full names in the caption.

see comment below

• "Franco had come to power after the Spanish Civil War" You could give a date for context.

Done.

• "ETA(pm)" You need space before the parenthesis.

Done.

• "Although up to 200,000 were" Add people.

Done.

• "The Burgos trials (es)" I'm not sure links to foreign language Wikipedias can be made like this.

see comment below

• Everything linked in the intro should also be linked in the article body.

Still needs to be done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• Names of all organisations should be spelled out at first mention. Now, ETA is explained nowhere, for example, and others are only explaine din the intro.

see comment below, changed this to ETA political-military

• "debated a socialist motion" What is meant by this?

Clarified.

• "Juan Txiki Paredes, Juan Paredes Mano, Juan Paredes Manot, Txiki". Why is his name spelled in three different ways? You should be consistent, also in what name you use throughout.

Done.

• "Angel Otaegui, Ángel Otaegui, Otaegi". Likewise. Check for more name inconsistencies.

Done. That was down to the Spanish and Basque versions of his name being used in the sources.

There is still inconsistency in whether you say Ángel or Angel. FunkMonk (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. Standardised his name.

• Why no date under Executions?

Still needs to be done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Done.

• "in protest at the embassy attack" Of the?

see comment below

• "with its ambassador to Portugal unconditionally withdrawn in protest at the embassy attack." Wasn't that attack in response to the sentence rather than the executions? "The Spanish Embassy in Lisbon was attacked and set on fire."
• It seems the US downplayed international condemnation a few times, any elaboration of why?

Done.

• "controlled by the Spanish government,[33] was supportive of the government." Perhaps say "supportive of the executions", to avoid repetition of government.

Done.

• "authoritarian Spanish leader, Francisco Franco" Why is he only presented and linked second time he is mentioned in the intro?

Done.

• "a storm of criticism" Too hyperbolic.

Done.

• Sources in Spanish need the "language" parameter.

FunkMonk thanks a lot for taking the time to review this. I'll get to work on that, but there are some exceptions where I'd disagree that changes need to be made.

On the photo, I could change that to "2013 photo of 2011 memorial to Juan Txiki Paredes Manot and Angel Otaegui" but that seems a bit clunky and cumbersome.

I don't see any problem with "memorial to" for example a memorial to the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr or articles such as Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe or Memorial to Ippolito Merenda

Similarly, "in protest at" is fine. See French workers march in protest at changes to 35-hour working week or Ai Weiwei shuts Danish show in protest at asylum-seeker law for example.

Regarding Burgos trials (es), per WP:REDDEAL that is an acceptable way to link.

Regarding spelling out ETA, yes, acronyms should usually be spelt out on first mention. But per MOS:ACRO: an "exception is when something is most commonly known by its acronym (i.e., its article here is at the acronym title)." In this case, the WP:COMMONNAME is ETA, not Euskadi Ta Askatasuna, as it is hardly ever referred to that way in either English or Spanish.

Lastly, I don't follow your point regarding the Embassy in Portugal. Can you clarify? Valenciano (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Your exceptions seem fine, though I think the meaning of ETA could at least be mentioned in parenthesis in the article, especially because it seems to be a specific section of the group (pm), which sís not part of the common name, and therefore less known. As for the Portugal issue, you mention that the embassy was attacked in response to the sentences. But under responses to the executions, you write "with its ambassador to Portugal unconditionally withdrawn in protest at the embassy attack." So did they only withdraw their ambassador after the executions, even though it was in response to the earlier attack? FunkMonk (talk) 15:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I've added ticks so we can more easily see what's been done and what's pending. Let me know if any of my changes don't meet requirements. I changed ETA to ETA political-military. In the Portugal case, yes, it was in response to the earlier attack. Could change it to say that, but I thought it was clear enough from context. Valenciano (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Changes look good. I've noted where something still needs to be done. As for the embassy, I was wondering why that info isn't in the Reactions to sentences section instead? FunkMonk (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Linking and sources in Spanish still pending. Regarding the embassy situation, it isn't in the "reactions to sentences" section because it didn't occur then. There are 2 different events. The Spanish embassy was attacked as a reaction to the sentences. Following the executions, there were international reactions to them and Spain responded by withdrawing a number of ambassadors temporarily and the Portuguese one more permanently. Valenciano (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Last issue apart from the language parameter and linking, something is wrong with reference 12. When these are fixed, I'll pass the articles. FunkMonk (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Fixed that. The rest might take a few days. I'd expect to have it done by Sunday and will ping you when done. Valenciano (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Sounds fine. FunkMonk (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

FunkMonk all done. Valenciano (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks good to me, will pass now! FunkMonk (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

48 or 53?

"Although up to 200,000 people were executed during the Spanish Civil War and its immediate aftermath, 48 people were executed in the period from 1948 to the time of the 1975 executions", and then a footnote follows, which is a newspaper article from 1979; its title is "En el período 1948-1975 fueron ejecutadas en España 53 personas". I do not have access to the article in full, yet the title seems pretty clear in its claim that the number of the executed was 53 [not 48]. ?? --2A02:A317:21C9:BD00:4539:9652:21A2:52FE (talk) 10:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)