Talk:Oxford Spanish Civil War memorial

Dispute over sources

No, BulgeUwU, you can't just undo everything other editors have done, without reason/because you didn't like it. You may have created the article, but you don't own it. All the content I removed was because none of it had RSs, as I clearly explained. The trust that is responsible for the memorial is obviously not a reliable source for reporting on the controversy around it. 'Manifesto Press Cooperative' is an activist publisher, not an academic one, and certainly not reliable for a topic like this. If the information is relevant, I'm sure you can find RSs for it. As for the Morning Star, the fact that you consider communist propaganda appropriate to use on Wikipedia is a giant red flag (pun intended) in itself. Further, much of what I removed and you restored does not appear to be cited at all. The fact that I have to explain all this to an experienced editor is highly concerning. The section on Liz Wade in particular contains large amounts of unacceptable POV/OR added by yourself and not present in the source. And the entirety of the article is clearly written in a tendentious manner intended to the support the far-left crowd behind the memorial and downplay or vilify opposition to it. Finally, can the sarcasm and keep it civil. Ya hemos pasao (talk) 08:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I disagree, it's completely normal that a left-wing newspaper such as the Morning Star would report on the construction of a Spanish Civil War memorial. Of course Manifesto Press, the Morning Star, and indeed the IBMT which helped fund the memorial in the first place, are all directly relevant to this article. You can't just delete sources here and there based on whether or not you personally find them politically acceptable. What exactly are you disputing? Is there any specific factual inaccuracy? If any of the information here is contested then please find other sources to provide a balanced view. Otherwise, your actions here are just tearing down the work of other editors for no good reason. Extua (talk) 08:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

This is mind-numbing. All content on Wikipedia must be written from a Neutral Point of View and supported by Independent, Reliable Sources. The policy pages are there for you to read if you are unclear on what this means. It doesn't matter if a source is 'relevant' to a topic, they are not reliable if there is clear bias/conflict of interest, as there is in this case. The IBMT newsletter in particular is a self-published source. I outlined all of these very good reasons in my statement above, which you do not appear to have read. And yes, politics is frequently relevant in determining whether a source is reliable. Extremist publications that push fringe points of view are not. Would you be happy if I cited an article from the Daily Stormer? Ya hemos pasao (talk) 09:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The Morning Star is not banned as a possible source on WP as far as I can see; Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_66#Status_of_Morning_Star_(UK_newspaper). But, in any case, it is not being used as a source in the current version of the article. A recent edit did have "A writer in the communist Morning Star labelled opponents NIMBYs." which would be quite different from writing "The opponents were NIMBYs", then citing the MS as a RS. Nedrutland (talk) 10:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The Morning Star referred to one of the politicians as a NIMBY, and this same article was cited in the article. However the key lies in how the citation was used. The wiki edit said that the Morning Star lebelled a politician as a NIMBY, it was not used to objectively describe said politician as a NIMBY. Also what political bias exactly is 'Ya hemos pasao' referring to? Political bias against fascism and nationalists allied to them? Because I would be extremely hard pressed to find any modern journalist or news outlet that considers itself politically neutral on an ideology such as fascism. A dislike of fascism is not a belief exclusively held by communists. BulgeUwU (talk) 14:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

You erroneously compared the Daily Stormer to the Morning Star while ignoring the very obvious fact that the Morning Star has basic journalistic standards whereas the stormer does not. To compare the two just makes you look rediculous. BulgeUwU (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Improvements

Not all the volunteers were in the International Brigades, two were in the non-Stalinist POUM; the wording of the lede should reflect that.

What is the relevance of the links under "See also"? At first glance there is lttle connection to the Oxford memorial. I am inclined to remove all of them unless a strong case can be made for their retention. Nedrutland (talk) 10:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

This is exhausting. Every single volunteer named on the front of the memorial was a member of the International Brigades, the two who joined POUM survived and returned, hence why their names don't appear. As for the "see-also section", all the people named are fellow British activists who were supporters of the International Brigades, with the exception of Uncomfortable Oxford which is self explanatory. Harry Pollitt because he was the main recruiter of British volunteers for the International Brigades, Saklatvala because the British Battalion was originally named the "Saklatvala" battalion, Bill Alexander because he was literally the Commander of the British Battalion, Charlie Hutchison was from Oxfordshire and was the only known black British* person to have ever joined the International Brigades, Alex Wainman because he was an Oxfordshire volunteer who worked for the Republican government alongside the International Brigades, and Norman Le Brocq because he led the Jersey resistance and helped to save and free Spanish prisoners used by the Nazis for forced labour. All of this would be really obvious if you even glanced at their wiki pages. I swear it feels like you're being intentionally combative with every single edit I make. BulgeUwU (talk) 17:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

See MOS:SEEALSO: "The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic..." BulgeUwU please assume WP:GOODFAITH here. You took the same approach with me in another article, but that's okay. People are here to improve Wikipedia, not hurt Wikipedia. That being said, the individuals in the See also section aren't too relevant in the article, to me at least. See also sections are not a substitute for categories. I think categories are much more appropriate here. Just because someone has an affiliation to the subject of the article, doesn't mean they should be included in the See also section. One could find an innumerable amount of reasons to include various links in that section if that were the case. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

To add: For the individuals who were members of the International Brigades, for example, a Category:Members of the International Brigades would be appropriate - though that category wouldn't fit in this article. Maybe there is some category out there that is appropriate, like Category:Monuments and memorials to communists, that is in direct relevance to this article. Just trying to find a solution here. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you PerpetuityGrat for your helpful comments. The memorial (according to the inscription) is to those who fought fascism in the Spanish Civil War, not just those who were killed; "those who fought" were not just those in the IBs so the lede should recognise that.

This page is not about all British members of the IBs but a memorial to volunteers in the SCW from Oxon so most of the 'see alsos' are not relevant to this page with the apparent exception of Wainman and Hutchison. Nedrutland (talk) 19:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Another volunteer for the Republicans with Oxfordshire ties occurs to me; I will add him to the 'see alsos'. Nedrutland (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Changing the title of the page "Oxford Spanish Civil War memorial": a proposal

@Nedrutland @PerpetuityGrat @BulgeUwU @Extua @Ya hemos pasao

I understand that this memorial commemorates International Brigades (IB) volunteers from Oxfordshire killed in the Spanish Civil War, together with IB and other (POUM) volunteers who returned, plus civilian supporters.

As the article makes clear, the memorial is dedicated to Oxfordshire residents who fought for, or supported, one set of belligerents in the Civil War: the Republicans.

For that reason, it cannot be said to be a dedicated "Spanish Civil War memorial" (though certainly falling within that broader category): for that to be the case, both sides (or components of both sides) would have to be memorialised and honoured.

In this case (for equivalence), that would mean the memorial covering, in addition, Nationalist foreign volunteers from Oxfordshire (there were none as far as I can determine, though there were certainly civilian supporters of the Nationalist cause).

What do authoritative secondary sources say?

In the War Memorials Register based at the Imperial War Museums in London, this memorial is referred to as "Oxford International Brigade" [sic].

What was the intention of the sponsors and creators of the monument?

Judging from the description in the page of the issue of the International Brigade Memorial Trust's magazine recording the unveiling of the memorial in September 2017, the intention was to memorialise the IB volunteers, and not the Spanish Civil War.

In light of the above, I propose that the title of this page be changed to "Oxford International Brigades Memorial".

Protalina (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)