Jump to content

Talk:Spanish Civil War/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13

Simplicity and Complexity

Everybody understands the Second World War, but nobody understands the Spanish Civil War. Why? Because the Second World War has been investigated for simplicity, but the Spanish Civil War has been investigated for complexity.

Desde1931 (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Spanish investigations (Spanish Wikipedia Article)

present day Spain is Direct Descendant of Dictatorship: you can not rely on any Spanish investigations (Spanish Wikipedia Article) of Spanish Civil War - full Stop

Desde1931 (talk) 23:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Spain in my time

Spain in my time was not much fun, but it was honest, and honesty has its own Old-time-Spanish charm Desde1931 (talk) 23:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Today, unfortunately it is self-importance that makes you spanish, but it was not so some times before and during the Republic. Desde1931 (talk) 01:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

broken citation 276

SUNY Oneota, Picasso´s Guernica. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "test" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).

I don't remember how to fix it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.58.131 (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Does this article merit Good Article status?

Does this article meet the requirement not to paraphrase and rely on one main source? Isthisuseful (talk) 11:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

An RfC doesn't seem either necessary or appropriate as there is currently a Good Article Reassessment open for this article (Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Spanish_Civil_War/2), which is where this discussion is / should occur. You have also posted numerous notices to various projects and editors so they are fully aware of the GAR. Move for procedural close. Anotherclown (talk) 08:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I explain why the Italian flag is more importaint than the one of Nazigermany. There is confusion around regarding this issue. Why do you remove my signing - I stand for this oppinion. And it's relevant for this article. Had it been better to just move the order of the icons ? Boeing720 (talk) 04:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I haven't even changed a word

Why is someone prevening my alias to be seen it is

Boeing720 (talk) 04:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The problem was caused by the broken ref tag in #broken citation 276 below—it should be fine now. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Non-neutral POV

There is apparently some disagreement among historians about the fundamental character of the Spanish Civil War. Beevor and Preston (primary sources for this article) view it as a struggle between pro-democracy and fascist forces. However, Stanley Payne (secondary source for this article) views it as a struggle between non-democratic leftist (ie., "revolutionary") and counterrevolutionary forces (that became fascist). This is a very different view of the war. I'm not a history expert, but Payne seems to be a reputable historian. Unless his view is to be completely dismissed, shouldn't it be included in this article? Sharp11 (talk) 18:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

More opinions than facts in some parts of main article 'Spanish Civil War'?

Hello: the groups that headed the army uprising had very little in common to 'Falangists', around February 1936, Falange Española had less than 20'000 affiliates all over Spain, in May 1939, it reached 300'000. Falange disappeared as an actual entity in November 20, 1936, when his founder, Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera, marquis of Estella (Navarre), born to the dictator Miguel Primo de Rivera, who showed in some calls for activities from the then Nazi German embassy, was shot by the republicans in Alicante, where he was under arrest since spring 1936, under the accusation of being 'the intellectual author of the July 18, 1936 uprising'. The Falange and Jose Antonio, and of other victims of republican repression, image and names were later used by Franco for supporting his personal rule, that he had no problem in describing as 'totalitarian' in a public speech, where he compared also his hard exercise of authority to the way communists acted. He found himself with an absolute power when no authority was left, and the state that resulted from 1939 to 1975 was just an scenery and a 'legal clean-up' of this basic fact. The term 'fascism' applied to Spain 1936-1939 may be just a 'leit motiv' from extremists of left, as the fight was between a regular professional army, backed by conservative politicians and bankers, a BP man told after 1976: 'Our man in Spain was Franco', trained during the African war, and loose battalions of fierce radicals with no army training, who sometimes decided in assemblies if they entered or entered not fights.

When the provocations from radical republicans, as burning temples, some coordinated from Madrid's 'Ateneo', increased in number, affiliation to FE raised its pace. The 'Dragon Rapide', hired in GB, started the flight to transport general Franco from the Canary Islands to northern Africa before the conservative politician José Calvo-Sotelo was kidnapped by the government armed police from his home and shot, murder that some pointed decided Franco to join the uprising, a thing he was previously reluctant to do.

The 1936 uprising was organized by generals Sanjurjo and Mola, both died in aviation accidents, no room for thinking that it were sabotages (see: Cronica de la Aviacion Española, Pecker et al), Sanjurjo early in summer 1936, and Mola in 1937. General Franco was elected head of the state and of nationalist armies in October first, 1936, at Burgos. Historians related to the UCM (Universidad Complutense, Madrid) reported having reviewed the 1936 ballot acts, indicated the 'Popular Front' didn't win the election, and fraud was present (source not indicated for safety reasons). It was said also that the deaths of anarchists around July 18 in Zaragoza, were the republican government responsibility or order.

Largo Caballero, who when visiting a Madrid jail and becoming aware of the prisoners who were took to Paracuellos del Jarama and shot, was reported angrily accusing: 'Beasts, savages!: after what you've done here, we've lost the war!', Largo Caballero repeated the same type of action in Barcelona, by killing hundreds of anarchists, later in the course of war. According to col Marimon, historian of aviation, the event that hardened war was the arrival of: 'International Brigades', to which the US government discouraged his people from joining.

The book by Julian Gorkin: 'Spain, first attempt of a popular democracy', reports about the aviation and other weaponry supplies from European nations and USSR to the republican government, and also about the interventions of Stalin to seize the gold of bank of Spain in benefit of his cause. The initial request of general Franco to Hitler, described in the book by Pecker mentioned above, was for transport airplanes, in order to move troops from Africa to the Iberian peninsula, Ju-52 were sent. Even if it's a huge number of deaths, the Gernika bombings didn't reach 400 casualties (Jose Salas-Larrazabal, aeronautical engineer and historian). Most bombings in Gernika took place in the afternoon, when people who attended the market had abandoned the site for the trading activity having concluded. Buenaventura Durruti, who was shot in Madrid a few hours after being interviewed by the USSR filmed news' journalists, (with whose columns Simone Weil stayed for a while, until she burned with a pot of boiling water, and her family arrived to take her back home), was reported ordering in Aragón (see documentary film: 'Aguiluchos de la FAI en tierras de Aragón') the shooting of a 15 year old boy who was caught wearing a Falange identity document. (see: 'Le libertaire', weekly publication printed in Paris). When I have more time and more envy, I'll add more facts, not 'verba'. Does it make sense making agitprop about a war concluded more than 75 years ago, and that from those who saw it, probably none is alive today?. Thanks, regards, + Salut--Caula (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Countries who supported Franco

They should be put in correct order. Portugal can't I speak for and remains in the middle of the flag-icons. But putting Germany in front of Italy is an historical lie (if it implies that Germany supported Franco more than Mussolini did.)

  1. . Franco decalared rather early that he now regarded him self as a "Fascist" (not Nazist). Mussolini gave what I would like to describe true help to Franco (true as without ulterior motives) and it was massive in number of soldiers.
  2. . Hitler sooner used the Spanish Civil War to test his own new Wehrmacht. France wanted help with Guernica, but strongly disliked the way the bombardement was carried out. And he never wanted to have anything to do with Hitler after that. (Except some diplomatic meeting, in which Franco told Hitler that he didn't want to join Hitler's war.
  3. . In April 1945 did Hitler tell one of Albert Speer's architect collegues that he didn't mind the "Spanish rebels" (something like that) - but he was afraid that Spain would become a USSR Communist bastion if Franco had lost. But he did dislike him (Franco). The Nazi help was neither deciding for the outcome of the war. This is not more stange than Péron in Argentine admired Mussolini (and Franco as well) but disliked Hitler. The same applied for Charles de Gaulle who immidiatly after his resignation as French President, went to Spain in order to pay Franco a visit.

This was pretty much for moving a flag (The svastika is still there). Nazigermany contributed to Franco's war - yes, but not at all as much or as willingly as Mussolini did. I'm against the simplification which suggests "Nazism is a kind of Fascism". I rather see Nazism as the (well known and left-wing sooner than right-wing) British historical author Michael Burleigh writes in his work "The Racial State"

  • "The Third Reich was intended to be a racial rather than a class society. This fact in itself makes existing theories, whether based upon modernisation, totalitarianism, or global theories of Fascism, poor heuristic devices for a greater understanding of what was a singular regime without precedent or parallel. (pages 306-307), ISBN 0521398029 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boeing720 (talk • contribs)


What rubbish. Claiming that the NSDAP was "leftist" is an absurd bit of revisionist non-history worthy of the IHR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.12.170 (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Beevor quote in lead

User:Boeing720, regarding this, I apologise partially, I didn't realise the source was Beevor (though translation Eng-Sw-Eng is imperfect and parts of the meaning were unclear/wrong).

Even so, what is the point of saying that the background is difficult to analyse and why compare to WWI? Surely it is better to actually try to analyse the background but record that not all historians agree. What's there at present is a bit like a doctor telling you that the medical tests are very difficult to analyse, almost as difficult as another case he treated 40 years before, but he forgets to tell you what the medical team's 'best guess' is. Plus do most historians agree? Otherwise this is just Beevor, which might be good enough for purely factual matters, but not 'final' on overall significance.

What I suspect is that Beevor says this as part of an 'overview', before explaining why it is difficult, but on WP it just seems to delay 'getting to the meat' IMO. Pincrete (talk) 13:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I had the entire article auto-translated in my sandbox for a week or so. Didn't I e-mail it to you ? Anyways such translations are naturally full of errors, especially ambiguos words (ambiguos in Swedish, that is. F.i. does the word "för" mean both "for" and "prow" (of a ship)) but in this case do I believe it was understandable. It's not just what Beevor thinks. He actually writes that an expertise commission put together in order to establish some kind of truth failed due to "sabotage from the far right". One has to believe that's true somehow (?). (this was in 2006, should I add). In general , do I agree with you, especially as you say "but record that not all historians agree..". But I would sooner like to first follow the "mainstream" and look for lowest common denominators, and then also point out what some of those authors who disagree with the "mainstream" have to say, also. Encyclopedias are not the best sources, but they can possibly be regarded as "mainstream" in general ? Meant as a question. (I removed that about WWI, you were correct.) Boeing720 (talk) 02:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Not sure what the intent is here, but the lede/lead should summarize the article. New information should be introduced and sourced within the prose itself and then only summarized within the lead if need be. Citations, then, are only needed in the lede/lead for controversial/challengeable statements. Encyclopedias are tertiary sources: generally good introductions, but often less familiar with the veracity of individual facts than secondary sources, such as Beevor. (Secondary sources are preferable.) czar 18:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I've reverted the two paragraphs of lede bloat to the August version that preceded it. If you want to rework the lede, I suggest workshopping it here on the talk page first. If you want to incorporate new information, first work it into the article and then discuss how it may fit into the lede. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 19:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

death toll section

I felt somewhat uneasy about the information on casualties and losses. The edition I found flagged controversial nature of the figures in circulation, yet I believe it was a bit too definite about what „modern research concludes”. To provide a reader with the widest possible perspective I have listed some 35 different figures supposed to estimate the death toll, all these based on some 65 different sources (mostly scholarly ones). I have also refrained from advancing my suggestions as to what is „most widely accepted”, „usual”, „most credible”, „latest”, „modern”, „most accurate” etc.

Though some authors break down their estimates not only into different death categories but also into Nationalist and Republican casualties, in such cases I have bundled these figures together. The reason is that I want to keep this section out of the editorial war, which is taking place in the Atrocities section.

I admit I had a problem as to how exactly I should position this section in the text. Initially I considered bundling it together with Atrocities under some general heading, but have concluded it would make the entry structure excessively complex; also, I was afraid of getting caught in cross-fire of the editorial war. Hence, I have finally opted for creating a separate section, the solution I am not entirely happy with as it unnecessarily multiplies the number of sections. However, I could not think of anything better. --Unsereveranstaltungen (talk) 09:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Nationalist Leaders "Killed in Action"

Of the 4 leaders listed KIA under the "Commanders and leaders" section, only Manuel Goded Llopis was actually killed by Republicans. Note that the page on Killed in Action states that "KIAs do not come from incidents such as accidental vehicle crashes and other "non-hostile" events or terrorism." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.46.244.131 (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

good point, except that neither Goded seems to qualify as KIA; he was not killed in combat but executed. Actually, it is interesting to think which major commanders (on both sides) were killed in action. The only one which comes to my mind is Manuel Vierna Belando, counter-admiral (equivalent to general de brigada?) who perished during the sinking of Baleares. Perhaps also Mate Zalka, not sure about his military grade yet they say he commanded a division when killed by Nationalist artillery fire. All others I could think of commanded units no larger than a battalion. But surely there must have been some? --Unsereveranstaltungen (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Spanish Civil War. 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) 20:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hungarian and Slovak Soviet republics

Is that the correct terminology? To me a Soviet republic is (was) one of the constituent subdivisions of the USSR, which neither Hungary nor Slovakia were. Kentucho (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Kentucho Rjensen (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
At the time those states existed during the post WW I turmoil a "Soviet Republic" simply meant a communist state. Only later then all those republics had been either defeated or merged into USSR did the term become identified as subdivision of USSR.--Staberinde (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Truth - complexity or honesty?

Now people think complexity is truth, but really it is simple. Desde1931 (talk) 00:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Espaina may look madhouse from outside, but it is not (was not) Desde1931 (talk) 00:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Hitler lost ONLY IN THE END. Desde1931 (talk) 00:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War Spain did not understand and World did not want to understand. Franco was STAR. Desde1931 (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Separate issues, 1. on the article 2. reply on Franco 3. some kind of ideological balance
I think parts of this article appear to be build on some modern "historic" author. I have had a good look in various encyclopedias (all written after this war, from the 1940's, 1950's, 1960's, 1980's and 2000), and the idea of a four month planned coup, is simply not worth anything. But I can certainly imagine there were some hundred plans from various right wing people, of which this author has chosen one. But none of these 100-200 plans or more, had much to to with the actual and final reason for why this war broke out. It was a military coup yes, but not a specific planned coup. Many had reasons to dislike the Second Republic and others had reasons to believe that some kind of Socialism could bring them a better future (just as Leon Blum in France). The entire epoch between the 1929 financial crash (or soon afterwards), and the summer of 1936 was very complicated, turbulent, with a gradual increasing of violence, and just as the left tended to look at the Bolshevist Soviet Union (unknowing of what Stalin was doing, even against his own comrades, at this time), the right looked more and more at Italy and Mussolini's Fascism. (Strongly doubt many looked at Hitler though) And as Calvo Sotelo was assassinated by people close to the government, in order to avenge the (equally mad) murder of a police officer, known for his loyalty towards the Second Republic, did many military high officers arrange a coup. There might have been some preparations done by some of the involved generals, but this "four months of planning" 1. Totally ignores these two murders and 2. Are build on very shaky and new and spectacular "evidences". I think that part ought to be labeled as "a theory or hypothesis" , and our main track should be inline with the well known history.
But about Franco - yes he was indeed a hero for some, but also the total opposite for many others. Through censorship, Fascist propaganda the infamous Guardia Civil (Police) and by not becoming so overwhelmingly impressed by Hitler as Mussolini eventually became - plus time and tourism, could he (presumably) feel pleased with his work, in the end. But the better times would have arrived to Spain also without his outspoken Fascism !
Fascism is different from Nazism. Actually very different. But this wrongful equality (Fascism=Nazism) was supported both officially by Stalin (with exception of the period between August 1939 and June 1941 of course) and this did later perhaps confuse some American soldiers and journalists: "As we are fighting both Germany and Italy, must both be Fascists" (at occasions was a common term kind of called for, I think). But this does most certainly not equal that I mean Fascism was good. I don't. Boeing720 (talk) 00:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Franco star means Hitler manager... Desde1931 (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

... nobody knows or knew about managers in 1930s Desde1931 (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

It is late to win in the end. Desde1931 (talk) 22:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I think that it's worth reviewing the sources of the Spanish version of Guerra Civil Española. The Spanish article and its language remains contested even now, however during the Franco dictatorship writing about the civil war presented particular difficulties, not least access to records and documents that the government might prefer historians and journalists not to have available. The Spanish article reflects a degree of pluralism with a wide range of sources of different views but the English article follows the line of Stanley G. Payne whose view is "Although the war is often portrayed as a struggle between democracy and fascism, historians consider it more accurately described as a struggle between leftist revolution and rightist counter-revolution.[6]" It's quite extraordinary that such an important article should lack balance and show such bias. It seems presently to do little more than to paraphrase one particular set of sources and as a result produces a very particular line of rhetoric. When in the 1950's the UK government under the conservatives created friendly diplomatic relations with Spain books and academic interest about the civil war followed. Although there have been minor improvements, the English article still remains hugely reliant on books written at that particular time, especially Beevor. Some of those books were reprinted for the 70th anniversary with little or no updating from sources that had more recently come to light. The is also this wiki article Spanish Civil War, 1936 Isthisuseful (talk) 10:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Drop BLP violations--unsourced political attack on living person, no RS makes allegations like that against Payne, the leading US specialist; he's a senior professor at the U of Wisconsin; the top academic publishers publish his books, like Yale University press and Cambridge University Press. see the reviews in scholarly journals. Payne's key book is Spain's First Democracy: The Second Republic, 1931–1936 (1991) Payne argues that "the Republic was one of the major national attempts at political democratization and reform in Europe between the World Wars and represented the most important effort to swim against the tide during Europe’s 'era of fascism.'" The Historian review states: " This work is Payne's eighth major monograph. He is the leading scholar in the U.S. on Spain during the twentieth century, and for thirty-five years has focused on internal Spanish affairs: the military, Franco, the Falange. No one will soon replace this outstanding volume as a standard reference work. [Historian 1994 p 181] Rjensen (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


I agree that we are dead nation (compare to 30s). Desde1931 (talk) 00:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

It means living dead. Desde1931 (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Please , Desde1931 (=Since1931 ?) You are not benefiting whatever you desire from this article by just making these brief statements. However I do find it strange that our article entirely appear to rely on British authors. Especially the part about the revolt of the generals, to have been planned for four months. I have always been under the impression that it was the murder of a police officer, followed by the political murder of José Calvo Sotelo by the police, which was the final drop. What has Spanish historicans (after 1976) have to say about the reason for the outbreak ? Desde, please. Boeing720 (talk) 12:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
This article indeed needs some other sources as it appears very biased which i assume is because the winning side had german military on it's side and Franco kept a positive attitude towards the 3rd Reich once WW2 broke out by allowing Spanish volunteers join fights on the Eastern Front. I will gather some non-british sources to add so the article will be more neutral. ChartreuxCat (talk) 00:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not that certain Franco liked Hitler. But anyways, please go on. Personally I can well imagine there were lots of various "plans" to crush the Second Republic, but none of them caused the outbreak. To my knowledge has the idea of a four month plan NOT become generally accepted, with an exception of 2 or 3 authors. With errors already before the outbreak, will the entire article tilt quite naturally. The outbreak was (in normal accepted history, so far) the two murders. And since the first was a police officer close to the government, the government's police killed José Calvo Sotelo (possibly while actually searchng for Gil Robbles). This is the most commonly told history about the outbreak. I do believe we should present the "four month planned coup" as an alternative story instead. And we really should follow the main and well-accepted history, not a few authors with different opinions. But "allowing Spanish volunteers join fights on the Eastern Front" doen't equal "liking Hitler". Sweden disliked and feared Nazi Germany, still volunteers to both Waffen-SS and Wehrmacht was not disallowed. But see what you might find, nevertheless. Boeing720 (talk) 00:07, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry, but who was Franco in world 1930 years? It is important what Hitler wants, not who Franco likes. Desde1931 (talk) 00:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Later years, if not in deep mud Hitler army conquer Russia and attack (with resources conquered) America too. Not wrong guessing. Desde1931 (talk) 01:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Republic always is left (never is right) seen from King/Queen/Dictator. Desde1931 (talk) 22:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Defending of republic meant defending of identity - this is not understanding fear of death. Desde1931 (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Republicans ware majority, but it is not interesting? Desde1931 (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

History professionals work with facts. The fact that some facts are hidden between four ears/eyes is the fact that they can not work with. Desde1931 (talk) 23:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Italy as a belligerent

Shouldn't Italy be listed as a belligerent of the war, rather than simply as a supporter of the Nationalists? They deployed nearly 80,000 troops there with then-modern equipment, plus significant air and naval assets, plus material aid to the Nationalists. The troops deployed engaged in heavy combat, and were members of the regular Italian military fully supplied and equipped at the expense of the fascist government. Are they not listed in that category because their troops were officially volunteers? In that case, Chinese troops in the Korean War had the same excuse, yet China is still rightly listed as a belligerent in that conflict.--Nihlus1 (talk) 01:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

GA reassessment, March 2015

Spanish Civil War

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Closing as delisted. IsThisUseful, you're complaints about comprehensiveness and relying on one source have been refuted. Keep in mind GA 3a is not on the same level as a featured article's comprehensiveness; I'm assuming the main points have already been touched. However the article is delisted by the points brought on by AnotherClown. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The subject of this article is important - the Spanish Civil War - a subject which has been researched by a wide range of academics of varying nationalities. Bonafide copy editors, with the best of intentions, have attempted to extend the article in order to give it a similar length to the very well writen good article in Spanish Wiki. Unfortunately as a result of maintaining the unusually narrow range of sources, the article now appears as though it is the paraphrasing of one main source, Thomas, whose book was written in 1960, though re-published more recently. This article was previously subjected to community assessment for doubtful quality and the view that the article was not of good article class was unanimous on both occaisions. There was not one single view that the article was of good article class. I cannot see that a topic of such importance can have good article status when it relies to such an extent on one source which is out of date. I recommend that this article good article status be withdrawn until it can reflect a similarly broad range of sources as the Spanish wiki article. Translation from Spanish to English has been suggested and a notice has been posted on the Spanish article last year. Similarly the the English article has been tagged for improvement by could also be considered. An editor who has a fascination with war articles has unilaterally promoted the article to good article, though previous discussion indicated that although there were a small number of participants in the discussion, the view was unanaimous.Isthisuseful (talk) 10:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC) Also, I put the article forward for editing in order to bring it up to good article class. An experienced editor took on this task but found the number of sources far too limited and agreed that the article was paraphrasing Thomas. For information the discussion about the article's status took place twice by way of RFC and to be doubly sure that this article is not being unfairly demoted from good article category I will post a further RFC.

A machine translation of the Spanish article is already superior to the current version in English. A page for translation has been created and is being progresssed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Isthisuseful (talk • contribs) 21:00, 2 March 2015

  • Comment: G'day, you state that the article was previously subjected to community assessment for doubtful quality and the view was that it was not of good article class. Can you please provide a link to this discussion? The last community GAR that I can find is this one: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Spanish Civil War/1 from August 2013, where it seems the vote was in favour of keeping. Likewise, could you please specifically state which GA criteria you believe that the article fails? I had a quick look, and from what I can see there appears to be a reasonable number of citations to authors other than just Thomas, for instance Beevor, Alpert, Preston, Jackson, Bieter, Howson, Westwell, Payne, Santos, etc. So at least from my superficial look it appears like the article uses a reasonably broad range of sources (I'm not an expert on the topic, though, but at least from a lay perspective it seems ok to me). Which source from the Spanish article do you think should be added? Finally, please do not cast aspersions about other editors' motives, as it is not conducive to creating a collaborative editing environment. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

→I am sorry that your friend is upset that I have put the article which he promoted to good article forward for community assessment. My understanding is that page is to discuss the merit of the article rather than whether I have done the right thing by asking for community reassessment. I have put my comments on my talk page and I'm happy to have that discussion there. Isthisuseful (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Good Article Criteria:
Well-written:
the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[2]
Verifiable with no original research:[3]
it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;[4]
all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;[5] and
it contains no original research.
Broad in its coverage:
it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[6] and
it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[7]
Illustrated, if possible, by images:[8]
images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[9]
  • Reasoning that Good Article Criteria are not met:

Above are the good article criteria as requested. The article reflects an Anglo-Centric view of the Spanish Civil War at time of British raprochment with the dictatorship in Spain in the 1950s & 1960s. This view, which is the view in the two source books which are the primary source of the article, was accepted in Britain in the 1960s but it is no longer current. The article paraphrases Thomas and presents the Spanish Civil war in terms military battles and particular artists that were notable at the time. This creates a very oddly shaped article which is lacking in historical analysis and perspective, in particular the historical causes of the Spanish Civil War, something which is fundamental to historical understanding, are almost ignored. The majority of historical reasearch into the Spanish Civil War has taken place much more recently that the 1960s and 1970s when the dictatorship was still in place. This makes the article out of date and unsuitable for good article status. Isthisuseful (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, so to clarify, could you please confirm that you are saying that you believe this article does not pass the "broad in its coverage" and the "neutral" criteria? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm having a hard time with the repeated assertions that the current article is largely based on Thomas' 1961 book: there are a mere 20 cites to the 1961 book, out of 264 book cites in the whole article. The general assertion that the sources are outdated doesn't seem to hold water either: a quick analysis of the book cites shows that 14% are pre-1990 and 86% post-1990 (by comparison, the Spanish article is 5% pre-1990 and 95% post-1990). I certainly don't see (1) an over-dependence on Thomas 1961 (in fact the Spanish article cites it 11 times), nor (2) a preponderance of aged sources. Can we drop the 'based on Thomas' and 'outdated sources' arguments which don't seem supported by the facts, and instead focus on the quality of the sources and any deficiencies in the content of the article, please? Maralia (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: @Isthisuseful: - you state: "the historical causes of the Spanish Civil War, something which is fundamental to historical understanding, are almost ignored..." The article has a background section which at approx. 800 words is admittedly fairly short; however, it appears summarise what is obviously a fairly broad topic, with more details available in the main article at Background of the Spanish Civil War (4,800 words and currently an GA/A class article). Given the length of the main article (already 130 kb) it seems appropriate to me that it would use summary style in this fashion. However, I am not an expert on this topic so I'm unsure if it is a good summary or not. Perhaps you might explain what is missing from this section that you feel is relevant? Equally, as you seem to be fairly knowledgeable on the topic, might it not just be easier and more productive for you to amend the article yourself and add the information you believe is missing (respecting of course the need to provide references per WP:V and in keeping with WP:UNDUE) rather than continually open GARs? Anotherclown (talk) 08:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Further to my last - while I disagree with many of the criticisms levelled at the article by the nominator (specifically coverage), and I agree with Maralia's points IRT sourcing, I do feel that there are a few issues with this article that do require rectification for it to retain its GA status, specifically:
  • References - there is quite a large amount of unreferenced text (most of which seems to have recently been tagged by an IP). I've gone through and added citations where I could find them, and this has resulted in some rewording to fit the sources I have available; however, five "citation needed" tags remain and these will need to resolved IOT meet criteria 2b;
  • In addition there are a number of inconsistencies evident in referencing style, as well as a few citations which are unclear (e.g. "Thomas. p. 628") which lacks the year of the work therefore making it unclear which long citation it corresponds with (if any); and
  • There are some obvious MOS issues, specifically to do with overlinking per WP:REPEATLINK.
  • There may be other issues but this is just what I have noticed so far. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be many editors around at the moment that are interested in working on this article I will continue to attempt to work through some of these issues myself, although if others are interested I would welcome their assistance. Unfortunately due to the limited sources I have available to me I would say it is likely I will not able to find all the citations necessary in particular, so unless these are added by someone else this article may indeed need to be delisted. Anotherclown (talk) 02:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree that the Spanish version is much more complete, still as of today in November 2018. One of the main areas of concern to me was the lack of assessment of the consequences of the War. I have added a small section dedicated to some of these topics, adding more recent sources from both Spain and the United States. However, I feel the page needs much time and energy put into it to completely change its structure and content. Sections such as "evacuation of children" and "death toll" can surely be incorporated into other broader topics. The current page is very confusing. KGLAP (talk) 10:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Which country gave Franco MOST support

The flag icons who supported Franco, should be put in correct order, with Italy in top of the Fascistic side. Portugal can't I speak for and remains in the middle of the flag-icons. But putting Germany in front of Italy is an historical lie (if it implies that Germany supported Franco more than Mussolini did.) 

   . Franco decalared rather early that he now regarded him self as a "Fascist" (not Nazist). Mussolini gave what I would like to describe true help to Franco (true as without ulterior motives) and it was massive in number of soldiers.
   . Hitler sooner used the Spanish Civil War to test his own new Wehrmacht. France wanted help with Guernica, but strongly disliked the way the bombardement was carried out. And he never wanted to have anything to do with Hitler after that. (Except some diplomatic meeting, in which Franco told Hitler that he didn't want to join Hitler's war.
   . In April 1945 did Hitler tell one of Albert Speer's architect collegues that he didn't mind the "Spanish rebels" (something like that) - but he was afraid that Spain would become a USSR Communist bastion if Franco had lost. But he did dislike him (Franco). The Nazi help was neither deciding for the outcome of the war. This is not more stange than Péron in Argentine admired Mussolini (and Franco as well) but disliked Hitler. The same applied for Charles de Gaulle who immidiatly after his resignation as French President, went to Spain in order to pay Franco a visit.

This was pretty much for moving a flag (The svastika is still there). Nazigermany contributed to Franco's war - yes, but not at all as much or as willingly as Mussolini did. I'm against the simplification which suggests "Nazism is a kind of Fascism". I rather see Nazism as the (well known and left-wing sooner than right-wing) British historical author Michael Burleigh writes in his work "The Racial State" 

   "The Third Reich was intended to be a racial rather than a class society. This fact in itself makes existing theories, whether based upon modernisation, totalitarianism, or global theories of Fascism, poor heuristic devices for a greater understanding of what was a singular regime without precedent or parallel. (pages 306-307), ISBN 0521398029

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Boeing720 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

George Orwell

There are current newspaper articles that Orwell caught his TB while in Spain.

The article on the topic in The Times of 31 July states that the Spanish Civil War was the last war before the general use of penicillin. Jackiespeel (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Communist Santiago Carrillo Solares was accused of the killing of Nationalists in the Paracuellos massacre near Paracuellos de Jarama

The main subject was how many were killed. Xx236 (talk) 09:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Addition of Information, please!

The page needs much more time and energy put into it to completely change its structure and content. Sections such as "evacuation of children" and "death toll" can surely be incorporated into other broader topics, while other very relevant information is nowhere to be seen. Right now, the page is very confusing. I have added a small section dedicated to the consequences of the Civil War, but there is still so much work to be done! KGLAP (talk) 10:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello KGLAP, as to the "Death toll" section, which is 99% my work, I suggest you read my initial comments here. You will see I shared some of your doubts. However, the question of the actual death toll is so controversial, so much subject to widely differing estimates and so complex methodologically that I found no other option but to create a separate section. Of course, you might reduce the whole thing to one sentence, like "death toll estimates vary from 150,000 to 2,000,000" but I am not sure whether this would be a step forward. Regards, --Unsereveranstaltungen (talk) 14:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War was one of the Warfare good articles

This article can be better article only when it is more bad article (comparing to good article Spanish article) Desde1931 (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that real war action on soil of Spain was started and finished by Hitler. Other people think too: https://422x.wordpress.com/

Desde1931 (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Dubious content?

Is "Cristiano Ronaldo" in the Information Box the footballer (as a result of vandalism) or someone else? I think it is either ambiguous or dubious. Anyway I'm not going to change it, please help verify. --Ný(rönn)-Holtredéþch-Deskrúð / NyholtredehnDiscussion! 02:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Minor concern on opening

While the opening is correct in political history, fascism vs “democracy”; as was the case with most anti-communist and Cold War engagements, should not it also note that it was Atheism vs Christianity? Lostinlodos (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

1) This pre-dates the Cold War considerably, and anti-communism was at best a secondary motivation for the nationalist mutineers. 2) The Republicans weren't atheist or fighting against christianity - there were atheists among them, just like there were protestants among the nationalist mutineers. 3) Your remarks, like the quotes around "democracy", strongly suggest that you are far from unbiased with regards to this topic. 82.176.221.176 (talk) 12:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

people of Spain change

the republic had capricious cutting thought of courage, the modern kingdom has blunt self centered thoughtlessness Desde1931 (talk) 01:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 22 November 2019

Hello. Can I edit this page a bit, to add some relevant information on the anarcho-syndicalists who participated in the Spanish Civil War? Thank you. 2406:3400:311:C660:C083:BD7D:84EA:1854 (talk) 18:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 22 November 2019

Hello. Can I edit this page a bit, to add some relevant information on the anarcho-syndicalists who participated in the Spanish Civil War? Thank you. 2406:3400:311:C660:C083:BD7D:84EA:1854 (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 22 November 2019

To keep the protection, but restore the page to before several images were removed or replaced with pro-anarchist images, and before the addition of large amounts of text with the only citation in one place being from an anarchist who himself fought in the war, making him a non-objective source. I.e.: restore to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spanish_Civil_War&oldid=926884570 Havsjö (talk) 18:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
@NinjaRobotPirate:A person cant just remove and replace several images while adding large amounts of unsourced POV-text and then it is said "you need consensus" when this is attempted to be reverted. If the page is locked it should be the longer-standing pre-edit war version --Havsjö (talk) 19:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 23 November 2019

Would like to add additional images to provide a better, larger picture of what happened. 2406:3400:311:C660:19E7:159B:3681:B20A (talk) 12:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Restoration of page

An anonymous IP editor has recently made large additions and changes to the page with an obvious POV-push towards Anarchism. Sourced images that reflect badly on the Spanish Anarchists have been promptly removed, other random images have been replaced with pro-Anarchism images and several other images (all removed due to copyright violations) have been added as well. In addition, sourced information has been modified and no longer reflects what their source says. Also, several thousands characters of texts have been added, all pro-anarchism. Even the introduction of the article has had the line simply mentioning the outcome of the war reworked into an entire paragraph talking about the effects of Anarchism in Spain during the war and its legacy. This even includes misleading links, such as "contemporary history" -> "contemporary anarchism", "dictatorial state" -> "Absolute monarchy" (extra perplexing as Spain did not have a king after the war). The majority of the massive additions to the article body does not have any sources, and the 2 that exist for a certain point cites only anarchists, including one who was himself fighting in the war. Not very objective... I explained this and reverted these additions, removals and replacements but was myself reverted several times with no explanation, later on receiving only a response stating that the sourced image of a mutilated corpse of nun perhaps had been killed in "self-defense" instead of the captioned "terror" as reason for its removal. The rest of my concerns went unanswered and we were both blocked for edit-war'ing.

Right now I am not allowed to touch these changes as it would "resume the edit-war", so I write here instead to find consensus to revert these changes as well as restore the removed content. --Havsjö (talk) 12:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I favour reverting all the (unexplained) changes since protection last expired, i.e. these. Anonymous editing isn't a licence to make unexplained changes in controversial articles, and a phrase like "the most widespread actualisation of anarcho-syndicalism throughout history", strikes me as beyond parody. William Avery (talk) 12:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Why does it stike you? I think I have read something similar in a couple of RS... Here 's what Peter Marshall says in his monumental work on Anarchism's history p:XI "By far the greatest anarchist experiment took place in Spain in the 193os. At the beginning of the Spanish Civil War, peasants, especially in Andalucia, Arag6n and Valencia, set up with fervour a network of collectives in thousands of villages. In Catalunya, the most highly developed industrial part of Spain, anarchists managed the industries through workers' collectives based on the principles of self-management." I say we go back to stable version and discuss every sentence one by one. Cinadon36 12:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Wordiness, abstruse vocabulary ("actualisation"), grandiosity... To balance things up, we might find a source to say that the war was also (at the time) the most thoroughgoing trial of Phalangism in history. William Avery (talk) 13:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Well, if we ever find a source, we should add a piece on phalangism as well. Even though you are right on wording, the abstract of that specific sources can be supported by many RS. Cinadon36 13:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Even if the history of anarchism in Spain during the civil war is interesting, should it really have such a large focus in the lede of the article? Info about this is already in the (previous) version of the "social revolution" section. So even if it was "the greatest anarchist experiment in history", its strangely placed in the intro. Also, Should the "people" and perhaps "timeline" section at the bottom of the article be removed? They do not add much value and are rather arbitrary. --Havsjö (talk) 14:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
While anarchism did have a big role in Spain, I agree giving it a prominent appearance in the opening is probably unnecessary. I am not sure about the social revolution bit - it strikes me as a bit too pro-anarchist e.g it talks about women being emancipated, yet Michael Seidman argues that there was more sexism in the collectives than was willing to be admitted (see the Revolutionary Catalonia and search for Seidman's name, he has other criticisms). Also, there are far too few sources. Neither the third nor fourth paragraphs have cited sources. Also, the language is not really neutral point of view "liberation", "free" etc - however much one sympathises with the Spanish anarchists, that seems to go against the neutral point of view Wikipedia aims for. The number of people listed in as participating in the anarchist revolution also seems absurdly high - 8 million is massive considering there was only about 26 million or so Spaniards. Also, why no discussion of the communists? They had their own revolution. Especially bizarre given it mentions the Falangists, who weren't that powerful within Franco's coalition (they had a lot of people join them at the start of the war but this was out of fear and a belief it would help them escape Nationalist persecution). I would heavily reduce or remove it from the Social Revolution section. I would also remove the the second paragraph from the opening as well (uncited and it honestly seems like someone wants to push a point). Sdio7 (talk) 01:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Soviet Union: A participant, not a simple supporter

I have watch the history about the mention of soviet role in the infobox. I believe that Soviet Union was involved as a participant, not only as a supporter. Both Soviet pilots participations in air-battles [1], also involvment of NKVD agents in the war [2], approves the Soviet participation in the war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inspirduser (talk • contribs) 11:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Sources

  1. ^ Spain honored memory of Soviet pilots
  2. ^ The Soviet Union and the Spanish Civil War
I disagree, the USSR provided material and vehicles like tanks and planes, ~3,000 maintenance crewmen and ~1000 pilots for these vehicles also came to help use these due to lack of good/qualified Republican pilots (which is listed in the infobox). This is basically an "extension" of their material support as opposed to Italy and Germany, who were much more "participants" than "supporters" as they sent regular Italian/German army and/or air force formations, ~50,000 and ~16,000 strong respectively, who fought as unified Italian/German units under Italian/German command. This is also the reason why Portugal is in "support" right now, the Portuguese troops were volunteers mixed into Spanish units and not Portuguese army formations. --Havsjö (talk) 11:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Infobox

For reasons succintly introduced here, I think Julián Besteiro cannot be considered a notable figure of the Republican faction (as he was a retired figure actually in opposition to the Republican government for the whole war limited to play the Anti-Communist Jiminy Cricket role), role assumed in the Casado junta notwithstanding. I don't think the infobox parameters for the participants should be framed as a hall of fame of the Spanish Republic and the Spanish Civil war. I dispute the need to include Casado in the infobox too, but I leave that here to discussion. I argue that the inclusion of both individuals in the infobox cannot be a substitutive for, probably, the only move forward conceivably producing encyclopaedic content (instead of misleading) which is creating a much needed standalone article for the coup and ensuing mini civil war in Madrid (a key, but very specific episode). Both individuals (most outstandingly, the latter) as well as, for example, Cipriano Mera, can arguably be featured in the latter's infobox.--Asqueladd (talk) 11:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Now, I guess the whole inclusion criteria for the participants regarding the infobox can be discussed. We can start with Carlos Romero Giménez. Why is there any need for the inclusion of this man in the infobox?--Asqueladd (talk) 12:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

"Left-leaning" is not viewpoint neutral and historically inaccurate. There's an article that describes the complexity of the second republic's positions - that should suffice.

The description of the second republic as "left-leaning" is both not neutral POV and historically inaccurate. At the time of the uprising against the Second Republic the elected government was socialist in nature, how ever just a few years earlier the conservatives were in the majority. Their is nothing constitutional that established the republic as "left-leaning" or otherwise These are political distinctions to be applied to politicians and parties, but in the absence of an enduring link between the politicians and the institutions it is inappropriate to apply to the Second Republic. Why, for example are the Nationalists not characterized as "right leaning" or fascist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:8E60:1DF0:C59A:7769:803B:23BF (talk) 20:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

You may be right about "the description of the second republic as 'left-leaning' is both not neutral and historically inaccurate" (although the case that it refers contextually to 1936 could be argued). "At the time of the uprising against the Second Republic the elected government was socialist in nature" is however blatantly wrong. It was a cabinet of republicans (Santiago Casares Quiroga, Augusto Barcia Trelles, Manuel Blasco, Juan Lluhí, José Giral, Enrique Ramos, Juan Moles, Francisco Barnés, Antonio Velao, Plácido Álvarez-Buylla, Mariano Ruiz-Funes and Bernardo Giner de los Ríos were hardly "socialist" by any metric. I must say, your description of the government at the time of the beginning of the Civil War as "Socialist in nature" is more historically innaccurate than the also troubling all-encompassing description of the Second Republic as left-leaning.--Asqueladd (talk) 06:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Some clarifications, Correction of chronological problems and missing relevant content

I have made a few clarifications, corrected some chronological problems and added some missing content

  • Calarified that General Emilio Mola was the primary planner of the coup and leader and having General José Sanjurjo as a figurehead.
  • Moved sentence "Republican Manuel Azaña became prime minister of a minority government in October 1931" to the beggining of the paragraph to provide chronological context to what follows.
  • Added that in December 1931 once "the constituent assembly had fullfilled its mandate of approving a new constitution, it should have arranged for regular parliamentary elections and adjourned." Source in C Hayes
  • Added a bit more info on the 1934 uprising. A key event often seen as a prelude of the 1936 war.
  • Added and evaluation of the 1934 revolution by left wing historian Julián Casanova and by Salvador de Madariaga, an historian, exiled durign the Civil War and a long standing volcal opponente of Franco.

--J Pratas (talk) 06:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Spanish Civil War/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Buidhe (talk · contribs) 03:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


Not stable due to ongoing content dispute. Also the nominator does not appear to be a major contributor and they have made no attempt to consult on the talk page. It meets the quick fail criteria as well because it would take a lot of work to get the refs into a consistent format. buidhe 03:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Undue

The collage in the infobox displays an image of the "HMS Royal Oak in a patrol around Gibraltar". Exactly what special illustrative value provides the illustration of a British ship for the infobox taking into account the United Kingdom endorsed the Agreement for Non Intervention in the Spanish Civil War? Are we in a case of extreme WP:UNDUENESS/Anglo-centered bias? Are concerns about Gibraltar notable enough to hog one of six leading images of a major conflict the UK did not take part in (that is, bar some backstage diplomatic support to the Francoist side)?--Asqueladd (talk) 05:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Death toll infobox

Wouldn't it be better to utilize the the most widely accepted estimates (around 500 000 deaths) in the infobox rather than showing the ridiculous highest/lowest estimates? I feel like it would be a lot more useful when it comes to giving a general idea of the impact of the conflict, which is what the infobox is supposed to be about, rather than showing outlier estimates that will leave the reader confused and should probably be restricted to the "death toll" section. Oqwert (talk) 04:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Oqwert: okay, change that then --Havsjö (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello Oqwert, what makes you believe that "around 500,000 deaths" is "the most widely accepted" estimate? Could you refer any statistics which proves this?
I have gone to great lengths combing the world historiography in many languages; in the "death toll" section I demonstrate that there are more than 50 numbers in circulation and that there is no widespread agreement on the actual figure. rgds, --Unsereveranstaltungen (talk) 12:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
I am merely using the sources contained within the article itself, which seem to gravitate around that number. Putting "149,213–2,000,000 total killed" is outright misleading, as the lowest estimate is described as "probably much higher than that" and also directly contradicts other estimates within the infobox itself -the estimated death tolls for each side- while the highest estimate is extremely vague and putting something like that on the infobox is WP:UNDUE, especially considering similar estimates include things like a decrease in birth rates (and therefore not really "killed"). The purpose of the infobox is to give a general idea of the topic at hand, and putting WP:FRINGE extremes supported by a single source certainly doesn't achieve that. The death toll section is already linked there for whoever needs clarification -as it has been done in other Wikipedia articles with the same issue-. Oqwert (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello Oqwert, what “sources contained within the article itself, which seem to gravitate around that number”? What does it mean? Which sources exactly? Can you please list them all? Have you counted sources in the article which do not gravitate around the 0.5m figure? Have you compared these which do and these which do not “gravitate”? I mean, you come and with no effort to compare various figures in circulation you simply put what seems right to you, and when prompted for explanation, you provide a vague statement.
I have proven that in historiography there is massive difference between extreme casualty estimates. I have demonstrated that in recently published serious scholarly or encyclopedic works estimates differ between 0.9m and 0.3m. I would normally expect that this is what is quoted in the infobox, not that a single user comes and puts a figure he likes. Sure the range in the infobox so huge that it almost renders this numerical summary useless, but this is exactly the status of world historiography at the moment. Regards, --Unsereveranstaltungen (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Unsereveranstaltungen,

The number of losses is debatable; estimates suggest that between 500,000 and 1 million people died. Over the years, historians have decreased these numbers, and modern studies conclude that 500,000 deaths is the most accurate figure. Hugh Thomas, The Spanish Civil War (2001), pp. xviii & 899-901, inclusive.

Also, why between 0.3 and 0.9? Why not 0.4 and 0.8? or 0.3 and 1 million? Do you get to decide what is to be considered "serious scholarly" and what isn't? And what about the other estimates on the infobox which show only a single figure, are you fine with them? It previously stated that the estimates for the total number of victims that were KILLED in the conflict were "between 149,213–2,000,000", which is not just highly misleading but also untrue for reasons I've already mentioned. I see no practical reason not to leave it as is for the sake of clarity and direct people to the death toll section (which could probably be expanded into its own article) if they wish to learn more about the topic. Oqwert (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

List of Commanders

Recently 2a02:587:4b3d:5200:4936:b72e:65d7:352a made edits to the infobox. Though almost all of their changes were good, they did delete the list of commanders and leaders. Does anyone else agree with me that the list was an important part of the infobox and should be re-added? --IFixBadArticles (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

By my reading they did not delete anything; instead the changed the list of other commanders to a collapsible list, so if you click on the "show" link in that section, the list appears with an option to "hide" the list. The ip editor improved the page by adding a navigational tool. That's my assessment. Thanks for pointing it out however. BusterD (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't notice that. Thanks! IFixBadArticles (talk) 19:10, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Don't apologize. You were both doing the right thing. Feel free to edit boldly! BusterD (talk) 20:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing/plagiarism

In the occupied areas the rebels officially declared the proletarian revolution and abolished regular money.{{sfn|Payne|1993|p=219}}
— JPratas in special:diff/958630811

In the "liberated zone," they officially declared the proletarian revolution, abolished regular money, and—given the penchant for....
— Payne, himself

I was repairing a slew of old ref errors and happened to verify one specific citation when I found this close paraphrasing/copyright issue. I corrected it in our text and spot-checked the rest of the diff (which appeared okay) but wanted to leave a note in case it comes up again in the future. This diff was part of a major rewrite, so it would be wise to check neighboring diffs too. czar 04:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Existence of 'Guerra de Liberación' as a Spanish Nationalist description of the Spanish Civil War

The following links are to articles which describe the use of the name 'Guerra de Liberación' by Spanish Nationalists to describe the Spanish Civil War:

As surprising to many it may be, 'Guerra de Liberación' is still being used by the Spanish Army Infantry Regiment "Soria" No. 9 as the official description of the Spanish Civil War, as shown in its Coat of Arms. 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Coat_of_Arms_of_the_9th_Infantry_Regiment_Soria.svg' - Hu753 (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I am asking you for English-language sources in order to justify a bolded English-language name, that's all.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Bolded English-language names seemed to be a Wikipedia short description naming convention to highlight the English names, both primary and alternative, of a subject in a Wikipedia page. I have not seen such sourcing requirements expected for words like 'The Crusade', 'The Revolution', 'Fourth Carlist War', 'The Rebellion' or 'Uprising'. - Hu753 (talk) 23:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Antonov-Ovseenko and Orlov were not involved in combat but were involved in supplying the Republicans

The biographies of both men make it quite clear that they were involved in the covert murders of numerous Republicans. They were most certainly not just "suppliers".

And we have this: in the article on the Paracuellos massacres, we find an allegation that runs counter to this statement:

On December 8, a plane carrying Dr. Georges Henny, an envoy sent by the International Red Cross, on his way back to France was shot down over Pastrana, northeast of Madrid. Henny had a report of the massacre and planned to present it during a meeting of the League of Nations in Geneva. The Republican authorities blamed the Nationalist air force for the attack, but on December 21, it was revealed that the plane had been shot down by Soviet-built airplanes with Soviet pilots...Henny spent four months in hospital and was unable to deliver his report. Louis Delaprée, a French journalist who traveled in the same plane, who died weeks later because of his injuries, blamed General Aleksandr Mikhailovich Orlov, the Soviet NKVD's rezident in Spain, for the incident.

Orlov was blamed because it was common knowledge that he commanded the Soviet pilots, This means the revert of their addition, or at least Orlov's, was not justified. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@Rahammz:Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 13:11, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Even if they were involved in espionage and assassination activities is irrelevant, they did not lead any troops or participate in the war. The Soviet Union unlike Germany and Italy was not a direct participant in the Spanish Civil War. So these people were definitely not "commanders" Rahammz (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

You did not reply to Orlov's command of Soviet pilots. The Paracuellos massacres article has a RS which states so. Therefore your position is not factual. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 16:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring currently ongoing will stop

Can't help noticing there's a bunch of back-and-forth edits on the infobox (along with a fair amount of discussion in edit summary), but nobody's talking about it here, on the talk page, where such disagreements are welcome. This is an invitation. Next I'll be warning users; I hope next I won't be blocking those who refuse to acknowledge and heed WP:CIVIL. BusterD (talk) 20:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I can't help but notice that this re-insertion has continued without any discussion in this thread. Still plenty of explanation in edit summary, which still counts as edit warring. Anybody want to make a case for or against? BusterD (talk) 10:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive reverts of a user. Removing an important commander.

The user Havsjö keeps reverting an important commander of the Spanish Civil War, Enrique Líster 4 times now. Their main argument is that the units commanded by him were small. Enrique Líster was commander of the Anti-Fascist Worker and Peasant Militias (MAOC) which had over 10,000 members. The Spanish Wikipedia article mentions the MAOC as a main belligerent in the civil war. Líster was a prominent commander during the Battle of Ebro, Seige of Madrid and the Catalonia Offensive. By the end of war he had the rank of General, yet there are lower rank officers in the infobox like Colonel Segismundo Casado. Líster is also mentioned in the corresponding Russian Wikipedia as a commander in the infobox. It seems like the user User:Havsjö is obsessed with removing Líster for no valid reason. Rahammz (talk) 14:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps both Casado and Líster should be removed. Furthermore, perhaps the whole set should be reassessed by looking at holistic sources, instead of looking at ru.wikipedia (?), or whatnot. I personally find the idea of showcasing people in the infobox (even people who are not even mentioned in the body of the article) incredibly petty and futile. As of now, the body of the article does not provide any holistic insight about the military hierarchy of the Republican faction (although it mentions Casado in the context of the 1939 coup). Perhaps I would start there...--Asqueladd (talk) 14:25, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
The current logic of the listed commanders shows first the top political leadership (President, Prime Minister, Minister of War) followed by top military leadership (Chief of Staff), followed by the commanders of the largest formations (Army Groups and Armies). Only the largest formation leaders are included since this is an infobox at the highest "level" i.e. the entire war, and not a campaign or battle which is a more "zoomed in" part of the war. At the bottom it also list the top leaders of the "sub-factions" (CNT, Catalans, Basques).This is to me a pretty logical listing.
Lister commanded a unit the size of a division (~10,000), which is very small formation at this level. It makes sense to list him as commander in the articles of the battles you mentioned where his unit played a key part, but just because his person became famous for his feats doesn't justify listing a divisional commander at this level. (Casado makes for me more sense to be included as he had an army-level command and briefly held the top leadership after his 1939 coup, which is why he, unlike Lister, is listed at the top level)
What arguments for Lister other than "he led the (division sized) MAOC" justifies his inclusion at this level? --Havsjö (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I am not in favor of removing Casado from the infobox because despite of his rank, he played an important role. The reason I mentioned him was because the user Havsjö constantly mentioned the number of commanded soldiers as being the most important factor for being mentioned in the infobox. Líster definitely had more men under his command than Casado. Rahammz (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The arguments for Líster being mentioned apart from his command in the MAOC, which as I've explained was a main belligerent and probably the most important argument for him being mentioned (10,000 being a small number is irrelevant), is his commands in the battles of Jarama, Guadalajara, Teruel, Ebro, Catalonian Offensive and the Seige of Madrid, some. And of course him having the rank of General in the Republican Army which puts him above some other people mentioned in the infobox. User:Havsjö Rahammz (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The rank of brigadier general (below division general) is not a particularly compelling rationale in itself. For example Francisco Llano de la Encomienda or Sebastián Pozas Perea (to name a couple with article here) and many other military people were also brigadier generals. I think that it is important to describe the situation in terms of the military command in the early stages of the war in the body of the article and then mention important changes throughout the conflict. And then perhaps (I am relatively skeptical in any case) we could have a clearer view of what can and cannot be mentioned in the infobox. But, as people say in Spain, we cannot start building the "house" (the article) by the "roof" (the infobox). See WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE).--Asqueladd (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Greece

On November 17, 2023, an anonymous user with IP (109.242.250.254) pointing to Greece edited the “Foreign Involvement” section. The edit consisted of moving the “Greece” sub-sub-section from the sub-section “Support for the Republicans” to the newly-created sub-section “Neutrality”. No rationale has been provided either in Comments or in talk page and not a single word has been added to the text.

  • First, creating a sub-section “Neutrality” within a section “Foreign Involvement” seems rather dubious to me. If so, I would expect to find chapters about Britain and France, who actively pursued a neutralist policy, though I am still not sure this classifies as “involvement”; to me, it rather seems to be an effort not to get involved and prevent the others from getting involved. Finding just a section on Greece seems totally odd, as among other countries Greece seemed hardly active when pursuing the non-intervention policy.
  • Second, the chapter on Greece – which I have written myself down to a single dot, and have placed in the “Support for the Republicans” sub-section – rather clearly demonstrates that in practical terms, the Greek support for the Republicans was far greater than assistance provided to the Nationalists. The data available is for 1937 only, and it is $10.9m worth of supplies to the Republicans and $2.7m to the Nationalists. Moreover, we know about other contracts, signed in 1938, which featured expected deliveries to the Republicans of some $10m (not sure what was actually delivered) and none such info for supplies to the Nationalists. To my reasoning, all this supports the opinion of Greece having been de facto the Republican supporter, even though formally the Athens government declared non-involvement. And if you prefer to take governmental declarations as the key criterion, probably we would have to classify also Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia as “neutrals”.

Placing Greece back in the “Support for the Republicans” sub-section.

rgds, --Hh1718 (talk) 09:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Concern re: use of Payne & Palacios

I just went through the article and found that we have a fair amount of information cited to Franco: A Personal and Political Biography, a hagiography written by the American historian Stanley G. Payne and Spanish neo-Nazi Jesús Palacios Tapias. While I am not the biggest fan of Payne, I don't doubt the scholarly integrity of his earlier work and think it could contribute to a well-balanced article that gives due weight to different perspectives. But I don't extend the same assumption of good faith to his work with Palacios, which I think is a rather questionable source, to say the least.

The introduction of information from this source has brought in some very dubious claims: i.e. that the Republican Left tried to annul the 1933 election; that Mola had no role in the White Terror; and that Republicans "conducted more indiscriminate air raids on cities and civilian targets than the Nationalists". I have not seen such claims supported in any other source I have available to me, so I worry this amounts to flat-out historical revisionism. I can say for certain that Mola was a chief proponent of the White Terror (see Preston 2006); and I find the suggestion that the Republicans had the capacity to out-do the nationalists on air raids laughable, given the infamously terrible capabilities of the Spanish Republican Air Force (see Beevor 1982).

I have already provided in-text attribution to these claims, but I don't think this goes far enough. Given this would be a bold move, I wanted to bring it up in the talk page to seek consensus first: I think we should remove this source from the article altogether. I don't think it's a remotely reliable source and think this article actively suffers from its inclusion. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

The claim that the Republican Left tried to annul the 1933 election is from Payne, not from Palacios, Payne has made this claim in several of his books. See for example "Alcala Zamora and the failure of the Spanish Republic, 1931-1936" [1]. There are other historians making the same claim. Example: Enrique Aguilar Gavilán says that the socialists went even further in their desire to change the election results. Juan Negrín, on behalf of his parliamentary group, urged Mr. Niceto Alcala Zamora, the President, to immediately cancel the election results and form a new government led by left-wing republicans, which would prepare a new electoral law. [2]. Aguilar Gavilan uses the book "Alcalá Zamora, Niceto: Memorias, Barcelona 1977, pp. 258-259" as the primary source. J Pratas (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into that! I have now removed the dubious tag on that claim, but dubious tags are still in place for the other two claims I mentioned. I'm still inclined towards removing the Payne & Palacios source from the article. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Payne's books are major scholarly studies. You can disagree with his often-favorable views of Franco--but that comes from the political viewpoint of bias of the observer. SO let's not call a major book "questionable" because it takes sides in scholarly arguments. Rjensen (talk) 03:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm only questioning the reliability of one specific book, not his entire oeuvre (as I said in my original comment, I think most of his works are valuable). And I'm calling this book questionable because it has introduced some claims I think are dubious into the article. If someone can address these remaining claims, my mind may change. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Infobox commanders and leaders again

Having read the discussion above I wonder whether there is any official WP “policy” or whatever (“guidelines”, “recommendations” etc) as to who should be listed among “leaders and commanders” in infoboxes of articles on wars and battles. Currently the assortment of people listed appears to be a fairly disputable selection to me (as to the point above, I believe Lister should be out). Please let me share my thoughts.

Republicans:

There are obvious must-be people:

  • Azaña (president of the Republic)
  • Largo Caballero (prime minister)
  • Negrin (prime minister)
  • Rojo (central military commander)
  • Miaja (central military commander)

However, among the rest none appears a must-be:

name role my suggestion
Prieto minister of war from May 1937 till Apr 1938, also minister of air & navy from Sep 1936 till May 1937. Besides, one of PSOE leaders with major impact on party policy and policy-making in the Republican zone. After spring of 1938 barely relevant in
Casado key protagonist behind the March 1939 coup, which had enormous impact on war developments. Besides this, he was commanding at the army level (March 1938 - March 1939), but there are many who also were and are missing in the infobox (Army of Extremadura: Joaquín Pérez Salas, Ricardo Burillo, Adolfo Prada Vaquero, Antonio Escobar Huerta, Army of Andalusia: Adolfo Prada Vaquero, Domingo Moriones Larraga, Francisco Menoyo Baños, Army of Levante: Juan Hernández Saravia, Leopoldo Menéndez López) in
Companys President of Catalan autonomous government throughout the entire war, though with decreasing decision-making capacity. However, he was an important player within the Republican coalition almost until the end (except 2 final months) in
Aguirre President of Basque autonomous government, effectively in power in only 1 out of 3 Basque provinces and only between Oct 1936 and June 1937. Later, because he commanded no resources, his political role was negligible out
Martínez Cabrera Yes, he was the chief of staff, but effectively merely for 3 months (mid-November 1936 till mid-Feb 1937) and is not known for having any impact on war developments. Manuel Matallana, who was also chief of general staff since late 1938, is not listed in the infobox out
Modesto Commanding at the army level from August 1938 till March 1939, but there are many who also were and are missing in the infobox out
Hernández Saravia He was the minister of war during one month, between Aug and Sep 1936, and his impact on war developments was close to naught (also Luis Castelló Pantoja was briefly minister of war, but is not in the infobox). Later he briefly commanded Army of the South, again with little impact and again, there are many who also were and are missing in the infobox out
Durruti Though an iconic person among the Anarchists of then and today, he barely classifies among “commanders and leaders”. In terms of command, he briefly (July – Nov 1936) led loose troops of few thousand people, comparable perhaps to a regiment. In terms of political leadership, the Anarchists were led by García Oliver, who is missing in the infobox out
Ascaso Barely known for any military role, politically in Aug 1936 – Aug 1937 he led Regional Defense Council of Aragon, a local governing body, and then became a non-person. Between August 1936 and October 1937 a certain Belarmino Tomas was president of the local Asturias Council/Committee, a semi-sovereign body which certainly governed more people than the Aragon Council, but Tomas is out from the infobox out

Also, there are some individuals which might merit consideration as to their place in the infobox, though I would leave them out:

  • Giral (prime minister July to Sep 1936)
  • Garcia Oliver (Anarchist leader, with major impact, CNT-FAI is listed among "Belligerents")
  • Diaz (Communist leader, with major impact)
  • Matallana (chief of staff; if Martínez Cabrera is in, Matallano also should be)
  • Buiza (commander of Republican navy)
  • Hidalgo de Cisneros (commander of Republican air force)
  • Castelló Pantoja (minister of war in Giral government)

Nationalists:

Undisputable candidates are few:

  • Franco (since Oct 1936 supreme military commander and head of state, de facto leader)
  • Queipo (leading southern troops throughout the entire war)
  • Mola (leading northern troops from July 1936 till June 1937)
  • Davila (leading northern troops from June 1937 till March 1939, minister of war from Jan 1938 onwards)

and now the doubtful ones:

name role my suggestion
Sanjurjo pre-agreed leader of the coup, but died in aviation accident before the coup well unfolded. A must-be in an article on conspiracy, and perhaps in an article on a coup, but not on the war out
Yague commander of various military formations, from a "column" to a corps, but never above this level (never commanded an army), even though in the summer of 1936 his military role was vital. However, even commanders at the army level among Nationalist are out (Centre: Saliquet, Levante: Orgaz) out
Cabanellas president of makeshift rebel executive between July and September 1936. Leader of the coup in Aragon, apart from this no major military role. Anyway since mid-1937 seriously ill, died 1938 out
Varela since mid-war commanded formations comparable to a corps, but never above this level. Rather minor political role due to his monarchist leaning and loose links to Carlism out
Goded led the coup in Barcelona, captured in July 1936 and executed. An imporant person in an article on the coup, but totally out of place among war leaders and commanders out
Hedilla following imprisonment of Jose Antonio provisional leader of Falange, one of 2 most important political groupings supporting the rebels. However, with negligible impact on war developments or politics in the Nationalist zone. Anyway, even this minor role was over in April 1937, when arrested, tried and totally marginalised out
Fal political leader of the Carlists, one of 2 most important political groupings in the rebel zone. However, with negligible impact on war developments or politics in the Nationalist zone. In December 1936 arrested and exiled, later merely on sidelines of wartime politics, with no impact and decision-making capacity whatsoever out
Roatta commander of CTV between Sep 1936 and Aug 1937. CTV was 35-50,000 people, so comparable to a strong corps or a weak army, but other army commanders are generally not listed, either in the Republican or the Nationalist rubric out
Bastico commander of CTV between Aug and Oct 1937. 3 months of command seems a bit short to merit a place in the infobox, especially that CTV was a merely one of many corps out
Sperle commander of Legion Condor, Nazi airforce group which formed perhaps the most important component of the Nationalist aviation. However, it was just one of many components, and Sperle commanded it merely from Sep 1936 till Oct 1937. If he is in, why the following Condor commanders, Volkmann (Nov 1937 - Oct 1938) and Richthoffen (Oct 1938 - March 1939) are out? out

As to individuals who might merit consideration as to their place in the infobox (again, I would leave all of them out):

  • NN - chief of General Staff (Jefe de Estado Mayor del Cuartel General - but who was he? have never found out)
  • Berti (CTV commander from late 1937 till end of the war, if Roatta and Bastico are in he should be in as well)
  • Kindelan (head of Nationalist aviation)
  • Moreno Fernandez (head of Nationalist navy)
  • Serrano Súñer (key Franco political adviser and to some extent decision-maker, minister of interior Jan 1938 till the end)
  • Volkmann (Condor commander, if Sperle is in he should be as well)
  • Richthoffen (Condor commander, if Sperle is in he should be as well)
  • Orgaz (head of Army of Levant)
  • Saliquet (head of Army of Centre, member of Junta de Defensa)
  • Ponte (member of Junta de Defensa)
  • Gil (member of Junta de Defensa)

In case of both Republicans and Nationalists some names seem derived from "Belligerents" section of the infobox, i.e. the logic being that each "belligerent party" deserves its leader to be listed. First, I do not think so. Then, "belligerents" also contains a fairly nonsensical selection, e.g. there is "Army of Africa" among the Nationalists (what about all other armies, and navy, and airforce) and there is POUM among the Republicans (and PCE, far more important, is missing), let alone that "Germany" and "Italy" are listed among Nationalist belligerents, while the USSR is not listed among the Republican ones. But perhaps targeting the "Belligerents" section is the task to do once we are done with this.

Final general comment: I believe stuffing the infobox with 15 "commanders and leaders" on each side is an overkill. To my taste, 5-6 would be perfectly OK. rgds, --Hh1718 (talk) 13:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@Hh1718: Figured this deserved a response, as you've clearly put a lot of thought and effort into it. I don't think having a lot of commanders in the infobox is overkill, as this war is incredibly multi-faceted; neither the Republicans nor the Nationalists were easily reduced to a few commanders, locales or factions. But I do agree that it should probably be trimmed back a bit and I broadly agree with most of the points made here. The only two removals I would disagree with are:
  • Agirre: He was a pretty big figure in the Basque country's efforts and the northern front in the war. I think you need some representation of that effort in there, even if not necessarily Agirre himself.
  • Durruti: While his scope of action was obviously limited to the beginning of the war, I'd argue his role was an absolutely vital commander in that phase of the war. This was during a period where the Republican state functionally didn't exist and Durruti was one who led the militia system during this time, not to mention his leading role in defeating the coup in Barcelona.
--Grnrchst (talk) 11:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi, Grnrchst, thanks for your thoughts.
It is perhaps funny, but following one month I got even more restrictive and am leaning towards leaving also Prieto, Casado and Companys out.
As to your comments.
  • Aguirre: well, I am sort of incoherent when claiming that Companys should be in but Aguirre out, if we consider that technically, both were leading autonomous governments throughout the entire war (well, Aguirre almost, except the period Jul-Oct 1936). I agree that Aguirre was “a pretty big figure in the Basque country’s efforts”, but my point is that this “Basque country’s efforts” were of little relevance. During 24% of the war duration (8 months out of 33) he was governing public life in 2% of Spanish provinces (1 out of 50); during this period the autonomous political unit he led fielded some 9% of all Republican troops (45,000 men out of 500,000). And afterwards his role was mostly for the propaganda window-dressing: the Republicans needed him to demonstrate to western powers their own diversity and that they were not a wild, revolutionary bunch, as some in the West did believe.
  • Durruti. All right, he might have been and probably was “absolutely vital” when it comes to thwarting the military coup in Barcelona, he “led the militia” and so son. This is why he is a must in an article on the July coup. But we are talking about the inbox, which should provide extremely brief basics about the 33-month-long period. If you say that a man who led some 3,000 people during 4 months needs a place in infobox because he was vital for military operations in Catalonia or Madrid, then we should have also Yague, the man who led even more troops during 3-month breakthrough operation across 5 provinces, which was realy vital for tides of the war, as it connected southern and northern parts and brought army of Africa from the Andalusian coastline to the gates of Madrid. And what about Alfonso Beorlegui, the man who during 2 months led few thousand men from Navarre to the Atlantic coast, seized Guipúscoa and cut off the entire Northern Enclave from France, not a minor thing given strategic perspective of war developments. Or Rudolf Freiherr von Moreau, the Nazi officer who was the brain behind German part of the 1936 airlift from Africa to Andalusia. Given Luftwaffe was the key component of the airforce involved and transported most troops, if there is a single man to be credited for this massive operation – which in opinion of the many turned a failed coup into a civil war – it is him. If someone really wants to go bold, he might claim that Yague, Beorlegui or Freiherr changed the course of the war. Also on the Republican side there are men who, in my humble opinion, had more impact than Durruti. What about Ildefonso Puigdendolas, the man who commanded troops which in July 1936 pushed the rebels out of the Guadalajara province, at some points from locations 30 kilometres away from Puerta del Sol in Madrid! And there is José Balibrea Vera, who commanded troops which in late July 1936 seized the entire Albacete province, controlled by the rebels, and this was the largest Republican territorial gain throughout the entire war (forhet the Ebro, Belchite or Brunete offensives, their territorial gains pale in comparison).
All right, I am aware that Aguirre and Durruti are sort of iconic figures for certain sections of the Spanish society. Apart from their actual contribution to the war, I believe this is mostly the result of decade-long Basque-nationalist and Anarchist propaganda.
Anyway, nice to talk to you. Let's see whether there is anyone else interested. Rgds, --Hh1718 (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
no-one is interested. Grnrchst, suggest we consider ourselves exceptional people.--Hh1718 (talk) 09:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

July 1936 military uprising in Seville sub-article

I recently left the following note on the talk page of the “July 1936 military uprising in Seville” article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_1936_military_uprising_in_Seville

Why "low importance?"

"Why is this article rated of “low importance”? Aside from being thorough and well-written (I made no contribution), as I pointed out years ago on the main Spanish Civil War article, the rebels taking Seville was of critical importance without which the coup might well have failed. Without Seville and its nearby air force base, Franco would have not been able to get his Moroccan army to the mainland as the sea routes were defended by elements of the Spanish Republican Navy which did not join the coup. Originally, the main article stated that at the outset of the coup attempt the rebels seized no major cities (Seville was within the five largest cities in Spain) and I corrected this by writing “with the critical exception of Seville...”

I find this article to be superb, both well written and researched and replete with relevant images. (As stated in my note above, I made no contribution to the article so I’m not patting myself on the back!) The rebels taking Seville was absolutely critical to their ultimate success in the civil war, yet this article is rated as of “low importance” and B-. The first is absurd and the latter unworthy of the effort by editors, to all of whom I would like to express my appreciation for your time and work.

The article gets few views and its talk page virtually none, which is why I am bringing this up here. I’d have to wait until Hades freezes over to expect a response there. Would editors interested in this tragic internecine conflict please consider gathering together to rectify what I consider to be and hope to be an oversight? If any disagree with my assessment of the article, please indicate why. Thanks to all for your consideration.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spanish_Civil_War/Archive_13&oldid=1250651472"