Talk:Paracuellos massacres

POV by Cesar Vidal?
I understand from reading the Spanish language version of this page that Cesar Vidal is a rather controversial figure and that his research on the massacre has been heavily disputed by other reliable sources.

I'm a little concerned therefore that the English version cites his work unchallenged on the number of dead and on republican responsibility for the attempted murdrr of George Henny Red Cross worker. At the moment we say that his figure for the death toll has not been disputed, when a look at the Spanish version will tell you that this is not the case. The other researchers should be given due weight here.

Jdorney (talk) 11:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * We can add more sources on the Henny incident. In fact, my understanding is that the Republican press itself blamed the government for it, as it was a pretty big scandal. As for the number of the dead, the issue has been spun in every direction in Spain over the years. The fact remains that Cesar Vidal's book, regardless of what you think of the guy, provides a list with over 4,000 names. Nobody has ever challenged any one of those. Those are the names of over 4,000 people killed. On that evidence, unless anyone comes up with a detailed challenge of at least ONE of those names, the citation of a lower figure makes no sense whatsoever. At least to me. I see that as clearly providing the standard for a "minimum" of dead. Aussiesta (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I'd never heard of Vidal before reading this article, so I don't have a prior opinion of him. But the Spanish version is pretty clear, "El número de asesinados ascendió a varios miles, entre 2.000 y 5.000, si bien la cifra exacta sigue siendo objeto de discrepancia y controversia." (The number of murdered amounted to several thousand, between 2-5,000, although the exact figure continutes to be a source of disagrement and controversey). Maybe my translation isn't exact but the disagreement between the sources is clear.


 * Moreover, here, it outlines that there are a range of credible estimates. Ian Gibson, using the records of the post-war investigation in the Causa General and the rightist paper, el Alcazar, has a figure of 2,400 victims. Ricardo de la Cierva cites 2,750 victims in "El cementerio de Paracuellos del Jarama", (Madrid, 1972), obtained from the archives of the "Asociación de Familiares de los Mártires de Paracuellos".
 * Javier Cervera seems to have found that many of the names cited by Vidal were listed twice, killed elsewhere or even who survived the war, he has a figure of just over 2,000 dead.


 * Now I don't know if Gibson or Cervera have a left wing bias and would want to downplay the number of victims. But it is clear that Vidal's figure is not undisputed nor is it a minimum figure, as currently cited in the English version of the article.


 * I appreciate that this is an ugly issue and whether there were 2,000 or 12,000 victims it doesn't diminish the crime of the massacre. But lets reflect the sources. Regards, Jdorney (talk) 12:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Your points are valid. Still, I'm not aware that Javier Cervera has challenged Vidal's list (which appears in its entirety in his book). What the Spanish Wikipedia states is that Cervera has challenged other, previous lists. Here's the graph where that is stated:


 * "Finalmente, Cervera ofrece la cifra de unos 2.000 asesinados.[68] Su razonamiento comienza con la relavitización de la lista de El Alcázar, utilizada por Gibson en sus estimaciones ("El conocido trabajo de Gibson les otorga una extraordinaria importancia como base sobre la que cuantificar el número de los asesinados, lo cual nos indica que no parece que las examinara con mucho rigor"[69] ). Así, señala la existencia de víctimas que aparecen listadas dos veces o la inclusión de víctimas asesinadas en sacas ocurridas antes del 7 de noviembre (como Ramiro Ledesma, parte de una saca procedente de la cárcel de Ventas cuyos integrantes fueron asesinados en el cementerio de Aravaca la madrugada del 1 de noviembre, como el propio Gibson detalla en su libro[70] ). Cervera también descalifica la cifra de 12.000 incluida en el artículo, puesto que, de acuerdo con sus investigaciones, sobrepasaría el total de población reclusa en Madrid en noviembre de 1936.[71] A continuación, cita el trabajo de Rafael Casas de la Vega, El terror. Madrid 1936, Madrid, 1994, el cual incluye también listados con los asesinados en la provincia de Madrid, incluyendo los de las sacas de noviembre y diciembre. Cervera señala que abundan los nombres repetidos con leves variaciones ortográficas, errores de fecha, lugar y circunstancias de las muertes, así como personas que estaban vivas después de la presunta fecha de su muerte, lo cual le hace poner en duda la fiabilidad de las cifras de Casas de la Vega (que eran 2.410 con seguridad y 526 más necesitadas de comprobación).[72] Por todo ello, usando los listados disponibles en la Causa General y las listas de El Alcázar y Casas de la Vega, que permitían descartar nombres, se llega a la cifra de algo más de 2.000 personas."
 * I believe there is no reference to a challenge to Vidal's list here (the double counting charge refers to El Alcazar-Gibson's estimate), or even a recognition that Vidal made a list at all. However, I agree that we must include any reference to any such challenge, if it indeed exists, regardless of whether it looks as if it's coming from left, right or center, by Cervera or anybody else. As for older estimates, like Gibson's, I don't think they have much value decades later, simply because they have been made redundant by recent research. Aussiesta (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well look, I don't know if Vidal's list has been challenged or not, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's the best research. I know from comparable (albeit smaller scale) cases in Ireland that some accounts aren't challenged just because historians consider them biased and don't think they're credible.


 * But anyway, we shouldn't be in the business of choosing between the sources. We should just give both. Jdorney (talk) 11:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that we can include other estimates, lower or higher. Vidal may be wrong, he's only human. My main point is - I would keep Vidal's estimate as the one for the minimum, baseline number of dead, as long as his list remains unchallenged of course. To say "hey, here's this guy with a full list of 4,000 dead, but some other guy says better make it 2,000, so they may be both right" is not right, just politically correct at best. You just can't say "this guy may be biased, so he must be wrong." You may be biased, and still be right. In fact, every historian is biased one way or another - the best you can hope for is that they will strive to be as even-handed as they can be. We can say something like "other historians have estimated smaller numbers of casualties, but Vidal's list is the fullest calculation of the number executed so far." Again, Vidal's list may be challenged in the future. Maybe it has already been challenged, and I'm not aware of it. It's perfectly possible. If/when that happens we should rely on a different estimate for the baseline number of dead. Aussiesta (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know, it seems as if Javier Cervera would disagree that Vidal's list is the fullest available. In fact, Vidals figure is almost double the other estimates, so can't be given as the minimum figure. Does it not make more sense to say that 2,000 is the minimum figure and 4,000 the maximum? Jdorney (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ranges are fine, but keep in mind that, the way things stand, 4,000 is the minimum (unless somebody can find any argument at all against Cesar Vidal's list) and 12,000 is the maximum. In the current edit, we do say some researchers say only 2,000 were killed. Those who say that Vidal has certain politics omit to mention that these low-ballers have exactly the opposite politics. Old story, probably the same sort of thing you can find in Irish history, but nothing to do with the real issue of historical research. Aussiesta (talk) 07:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Aha! What I suspected! But seriously, given that there are contending views, surely choosing Vidals is taking sides. We should give both without comment. Jdorney (talk) 13:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I see Vidal's figures have been brought from his book "Paracuellos-Katyn: Un ensayo sobre el genocidio de la izquierda". According to the Spanish language Wikipedia, Vidal published 19 more books that same year and had published 15 more the previous year. I seriously doubt he had the time to make a proper research for those names. --Ezunaiz (talk) 09:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe reference #5 (SCHLAYER, Felix. Matanzas en el Madrid republicano, Madrid: Áltera. ISBN 84-89779-85-6. Online Fundación Generalísimo Franco) can be regarded as unbiased.--Ezunaiz (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Since it is not accurate to claim that more than 12,000 were killed, I deleted that statement. The article already mentions that 12,000 killed is the highest estimate. You cannot categorically state that more than 12,000 were killed.Pistolpierre (talk) 17:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Pilot in command
A pilot in command, allegedly a (grand)son of one of the victims, informed the passengers that Carillo was responsible and was among the passengers. I'll find my source. Xx236 (talk) 10:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * https://www.larazon.es/cultura/respeto-para-las-4-500-victimas-BE14014713 estimates.Xx236 (talk) 10:46, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for hijacking this, but i dont know how to wikipedia. Just wanted to say that Paul Preston changed his estimate from 1000 as the article says, to 2500 in his book "A betrayed people", page 350 on the spanish version. The book is published in 2019. 18:14, 06 May 2020 (UTC)

"Highest figure currently cited"
I hate to open another discussion on the death toll, but the article pretty clearly makes the case, with the evidence it provides, that scholarly consensus is that somewhere between 2,000 and 3,000 people were killed. I am not against including the 1,000 and 12,000 figures in the article more generally, to give the history of estimates, but why have them featured so prominently in the info box? Neither of those figures is accepted as accurate at this point - 1,000 is too low and 12,000 is much too high, as evidenced by the fact that no other sources for anything approaching that number are given. While shaving off 1,000 deaths is iffy to say the least, tacking on nearly 10,000, without broad scholarly support for such a figure, is kind of absurd and borders on sensationalistic. After all, the wiki article itself notes that this estimate is from a right-wing newspaper, in a country that had only two years prior been a right-wing dictatorship. Why not just change the estimate in the info box to 2,000-3,000, or 2,000-4,000, since it doesn't really seem like any consensus of modern researchers grants claims of numbers outside that range much credence? Fantasmaguerico (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Fair points. I'm going to go ahead and do that. Jdorney (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)