Talk:Revisionism (Spain)

excessive footnotes & non-encyclopedic tone tags

Hello, RevAndroid. I understand you have tagged my article. Could you please advise what number of footnotes you think is appropriate for such an article, and on what basis you believe so. Regards, --Dd1495 (talk) 11:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

following more than a month of wait there is no clarification or rationale of the tagging. Hence, I am removing the tag. Regards, --Dd1495 (talk) 12:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, MiasmaEternal. You have tagged this article as over-footnoted; I am not sure whether you have noticed the earlier exchange here. Grateful for similar info as requested back in January. Could you please advise what number of footnotes you think is appropriate for such an article, and on what basis you believe so. Regards, --Dd1495 (talk) 11:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

same as in previous case. Month gone, no clarification and no response whatsoever. Removing the tag. Hope this is not becoming a pattern - a user with less than a year of WP record adds the "overfootnoted" tag and goes missing. If there is one more case in few weeks, will it count as "Wikipedia community" against one sectarian user fond of editorial wars? --Dd1495 (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, RevAndroid. I understand you have tagged my article. Could you please advise what sentences/paragraphs strike you most as not adhering to the encyclopedic tone. Regards, --Dd1495 (talk) 11:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

a month gone and no requested clarification. Presume it is fair to remove the tag. Regards, --Dd1495 (talk) 12:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Dd1495. I agree with the tags. As it stands, the article reads a bit like an essay, not really like an encyclopedic article - some statements are pretty opinionated. I also agree that there is currently some citation overkill, particularly in the "Charge: ..." section. The problem here is that you cite a lot of specific examples of what people from either side have said - you are citing people who are in the conflict instead of citing sources that write about the conflict. PJvanMill (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for your input. I do not think there is anything linking the article with an essay; an essay does not contain tables, lists, quotations, sub-chapters, an essay is a loose flow of reflections with hardly any structure and systematic approach. And above all – an essay is a personal piece. One does not expect to find a single footnote in an essay, let alont 250 of footnotes. The article I have written is all opposite to an essay.

Footnote overkill? I am presenting a historiographic debate which goes on for some 20 years, with some twists and turns of main threads, with tens of scholars speaking, with echo in popular media. This is truly a nationwide debate in Spain, perhaps the most importand one in terms of shaping the Spanish self during the last 2 or more decades. It has to be massively referenced. A handful of articles in El País or ABC as references would be a joke.

Yes, I am citing people in the conflict. However, it is not correct to I am not citing people who write about the conflict. This is not correct at all. Almost all my quotations are about various scholars pronouncing on Spanish historiography - not Spanish history. This is what they do: they write “about the conflict”. They try to summarise the conflict, identify its key lines, name protagonists, disclose their motives, picture dependencies, portray political links, even to uncover sources of financing behind the conflict. This is all writing about the conflict.

Yes, there is a problem. Scholars who “write about the conflict” also take part in this conflict, 100% of them. The vision of the conflict they present is supposed to help them advance their opinion and to sideline the opinion of their opponents. What seems to a meta-debate is actually part of the debate. This is one of the features of this conflict.

All tags you added seem incorrect to me. Lack of neutrality – I am afraid you have provided no argument backing this opinion at all. Excessive reference on primary sources – as mentioned above, every secondary source (essay or book on debate in Spanish historiography) is a primary source as well (it forms part of the debate). Excessive number of citations – could you please advise what the proper amount of citations for such an article is? rgds, --Dd1495 (talk) 11:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Dd1495, I do not necessarily think all the tags apply to the whole article. For two sections of the article it is obvious to me that there are problems: "Charge: ..." and "Counter-charge: ...". These sections contain a lot of what I would call "academic flamewar gossip": enumerations of things one side has said of the other. I think we should just cut out all these characterisations of and accusations against their opponents, as I honestly don't think this belongs in an encyclopedic article. These enumerations of characterisations/accusations also lead to the "citation overkill" problem in those two sections.

A different problem exists with the sections "Works questioned" and "Protagonists". The first section selects works based on how often they are called "revisionist" giving precedence to "alleged key vehicles", and the second divides historians into the two camps and ranks them based on how prominent they are. In both of these cases, the one counting how often they are referred to, and the one making an evaluation of prominence is you, rather than an independent source. I think that's not in line with Wikipedia's no original research policy, particularly the portion on "synthesis".

Scholars who “write about the conflict” also take part in this conflict, 100% of them. - that is a problem when we want to say something about the scholars themselves, but it doesn't have to be a problem when we want to discuss the two opposing frameworks. I think the best way forward is to focus on discussing the actual issues that the two groups of historians disagree about: turn the "Key conflicting theories" into prose and expand it, for example with the evidence that each side gives for their position.

As for lack of neutrality: one example is in the lead section: "The term is used as stigmatization and abuse" is, I think, not something that we can state as fact. In general, the article needs more careful wording to avoid stating opinions in Wikipedia's voice, to avoid presenting individuals' statements as representative of their "clan", et cetera. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 21:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality

Hello everyone. Perhaps for clarity it is better to address all 3 charges against my edit separately. This section is supposed to discuss the question of neutrality.

The charge of lack of neutrality, raised against a large 3,000-word article, is based on one example: namely that I have written in the lead "The term [revisionism] is used as stigmatization and abuse". I do not think this is valid case. Some 40 footnotes (from #87 to #129) provide evidence of stigmatization. Also, other footnotes (#159 to #176) provide evidence of counter-stigmatization.

Moreover, I think the tag about supposed lack of neutrality is massively unfair for another reason. When referring opinions of both parties involved in the debate (co-called “revisionists” and so-called “anti-revisionists”) I was very very careful not to endorse any claims. Most sentences I have used are formatted as indirect speech, to make sure the article is neutral and non-biased. Here go the cases I have written down from the article:

• “supposedly held together”
• “are dubbed”
• “according to scholars”
• “allegedly launched”
• “was reportedly embodied”
• “allegedly mounted”
• “are charged with”
• “according to some scholars”
• “supposedly definitely dismantled”
• “were thought to have terminated”
• “according to many”
• “perceived revisionist historiography”
• “some concluded that”
• “perceived revisionist claim”
• “dubbed self-proclaimed revisionists”
• “they note that ... “
• “authors who agree that”
• “label their opponents as”
• “some scholars distinguish between”
• “the term reserved for”
• “the term applied to”
• “few authors note that..”
• “the name is supposed to”
• “is applied to”
• “supposedly the authors in question”
• “authors classified as”
• “the former is deemed”
• “is pictured as”
• “are supposed to”
• “claim that”
• “thesis intially advanced”
• “were marked as”
• “many authors keep flagging”
• “alleged revisionists”
• “are supposedly consumed by”
• “is reportedly sustained by”
• “some are presented as”
• “reportedly lack”
• “allegedly employed”
• “dubbed revisionists”
• “they are linked to”
• “they are charged with”
• “charges are supposedly proven”
• “to what is presented as”
• “are branded”
• “considered champions of”
• “reportedly prevailing”
• “claim that”
• “they maintain that”
• “name applied to”
• “supposed revisionism”
• “referred to”
• “they allegedly attempt”
• “are presented as”
• “named”
• “they are ... referred to as”
• “supposed political sympathies”
• “are clearly described as”
• “they question existence of”
• “is described as”
• “is ironically referred by”
• “supposed Francoist sympathies”
• “claims that by ... they intend to..
• “they claim having never”
• “they maintain that”
• “are described as”
• “they reportedly view”
• “denounce their opponents in terms of”
• “attempt to reverse ... charges”
• “reverse the charges”
• “reportedly assumed”
• “alleged ‘personal smears’”

Advancing the claim about lack of neutrality against the article marked with such a huge effort not to endorse any charges exchanged is grossly unfair, and I suggest to remove the tag. Regards,--Dd1495 (talk) 11:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Dd1495, the first thing I want to say that I can see that you have put an enormous amount of effort into this article. I see that effort, and I want to thank you for it. But it also feels like you have put so much effort into it that you have started to take criticism of the article as a personal attack on your worth. It feels like you are not willing to seriously consider anything I say. It feels like your pride is getting in the way and you are not willing to consider that there might be real problems with the article.

Now on to the question of neutral point of view. Once again, yes I see that you've put in a lot of effort to keep it neutral. But simultaneously, despite your efforts, I also see clear neutrality problems.

About the example I gave: just saying that certain groups of footnotes provide evidence is not nearly sufficient. Let me be clear: unless you have a secondary source who is something like a sociologist who says this and you explicitly cite that source in the article, this is not something you can say in Wikipedia's voice. If it's your own analysis of those many footnotes, that is something in between original research and just your opinion.

And to be clear, that's just one example; there are more statements that cannot be said in Wikipedia's voice in there. Another huge neutrality problem is the fact that almost all of the opinions you have so nicely put in quotation marks are not in-text-attributed to a specific person! Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 13:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, PJvanMill, thanks for your comments.

I find your personal references to my intentions, my feelings and my emotions entirely misplaced and inappropriate. This is a talk page intended to improve the quality of the entry related. If not assuming good will, as recommended in WP policy, I would think you are trying to belittle me personally as an editor guided by obsessive notions of self-esteem, and in this way to prove your point. Please do not try this again and in your comments please focus on the article, not on the author of the article.

For the time being I will leave aside your comments as to original research. As to your comments on neutrality: you claim that “huge” problem is allegedly that quotations I have put into the text are not “in-text-attributed” personally. We surely must be talking about 2 different entries? Almost any single quotation (except repeated references to “revisionism” in quotation marks) is referenced in a footnote, see # 8, 25, 27, 30, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 41, 44, 45, 77, 79, 80, 82, 84, 86, 90, 95, 96, 99, 101, 102, 106, 107, 109, 110, 111, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 126, 148, 157, 158, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 172, 176. I have given you 50 examples of personally attributed quotations. Now please give me 10 examples of quotations which are not personally attributed.

As to your call for a secondary source. I have repeated it many times in this discussion, and I will repeat it here: this is the article about 2 conflicting historiographic visions. Every single author who refers this historiographic discussion (“sedondary source”, as you would like to see it) is part of it, even if he poses that he is not, that he is neutral and that he merely refers 2 currents in historiography. I have quoted loads of such “secondary sources” in the text. Actually, this entry is about war between false “secondary sources”. Please give a single example of a “secondary source” you would like to see: full bibliographic reference and a quoation, as extensive as possible (or link) please.

I have just seen that SUM1 changed the entry description from "group of historiographic theories related to the recent history of Spain” to “"Pro-Francoist historiographic theories of Spain's recent history". A perfect example of false neutrality, imposing the point of view advanced by one of the warring sides, stigmatization, attempt to discredit and deliver in-between-the-lines suggestions. This is the attitude adopted by 100% of “secondary sources” you call for.

regards, --Dd1495 (talk) 07:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

@PJvanMill and Dd1495: The article suffers from heavy original research and should probably be fully rewritten (and, if concerning about a concept wider than a particular historical and/or pseudohistorical line of work, arguably moved to Historiography of the Spanish Civil War). The article should rely exclusively on reliable third-party sources weighing on the historiography of the period (contrary to what someone could think, this is not akin to a Probatio diabolica: there are literally a gazillion of secondary sources about the historiography of the Spanish Civil War [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]... and, perhaps to a lesser extent, about other periods of 20th-century Spanisth history), rather than on drawing personal analysis from the authors themselves. Whether you think some of the former authors doing "history of history" may "have a side" or not, that's unconsequential.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

the assortment of references listed above as model sources is a good example of the key trapping of this debate.

• three authors referred - Juan Andrés Blanco Rodriguez, Hugo García and Francisco J. Rodríguez Jiménez – are principally concerned about denouncing revisionism as a flawed, incompetent, biased current. This makes them somewhat dubious sources for impartial discussion about revisionistm
• Gutmaro Gómez Bravo/Alejandro Pérez-Olivares discuss the civil war historiography only and they do not use the term "revisionism" or "revisionist" a single time; I am not sure how their piece can be used as a source
• Igor Médnikov writes on Russian historiography on recent Spanish past, which - all due credit to Russian science - does not look representative for mainstream debate
• María del Rosario Ruiz Franco/Sergio Riesco Roche did a bibliometric study, which has nothing to do with revisionism, anti-revisionism etc
• Manuel Pérez Ledesma does a nice review on Spanish historiography on the recent past, but again - he does not use the term "revisionism" or "revisionist" a single time

regards, --Dd1495 (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@Dd1495 (and I'll ping Asqueladd as you did not): we are not limited to using the sources listed by Asqueladd here; you are free to also use other reliable third-party historiographical sources. But the main point Asqueladd makes here is that reliable third-party historiographical sources are the only acceptable sources for this article. Wikipedia policy is clear on this. You have been pointed to the WP: No original research policy - have you read it, completely? If not, please do, because there is broad agreement that the article is not compliant with that policy, and unencyclopedic as a result. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 21:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Dd1495: You have provided a point that may suggest that the creation of an article about the Historiography of the Spanish Civil War might be a better shot at reaching encyclopedical status rather than this entry, a personal essay overwhelmingly consisting of original research. The aim of equidistance is not necessarily an encyclopaedic one either insofar it be at odds with WP:WEIGHT.--Asqueladd (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Dd1495 I do want to apologise, as you are partly right. I maintain that on this talk page you have displayed a pattern of rejecting criticism too quickly, but it was indeed unhelpful of me to speculate about your emotional motivations behind that behaviour pattern. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 18:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Not solved

MaeseLeon, I am about to revert this edit of yours, which I find rather concerning. In my evaluation, you really have not fixed all three of those issues by either what you did before or what you did after. It also seems to me that you're just substituting one POV for another, instead of carefully following the guidance laid out in Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 15:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)