Talk:Spanish Civil War/Archive 10

Refs and Bibliography
A couple things: first, we have refs that are too vague, e.g. "Thomas, p. 820-821", when there are multiple books by Thomas listed. Second, can we cut down the bibliography section to just books that we cite in the Notes section? There's no way we could provide an exhaustive list of books about the Spanish Civil War that could be useful. That's not the job of a WP article anyway, (well, certainly not this one) and this article is still too long. Further I think it would be helpful when you're looking up references to have a list of just those used. delldot  &nabla;.  01:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, yours might be a sensible idea, but i think a few standard books must be listed in the references section even if they are not directly used, kind of a must read list. We could use this slot for creating a consensus listing


 * My short -pet- list (YMMV), by authors: Arrarás, Thomas, Bolloten, R.Carr, Tuñón's "La España del sXX vII&III", Broue-Temine, Salas Larrazabal ("Victimas" and "El Ejercito Popular"),Malefakis, and perhaps Alpern ("The Republican Army", Howson, Radosh and Payne ("The Collapse" and "The Soviet Union") . Except for the authors i put a/several works explicitly, i'm sure it's easy to know to which book I'm refering ;-) Unless anyone uses a very wayward biblio (or devotes to a very specialized area) it's almost sure those books will be heavily referenced (more than once silently, specially the first one ;-)
 * For those interested i've come up with two biblio listings (in spanish) which might be of interest. This is a very partisan, but honest, list, so it can also be used, with some care, by anybody. It is not by any means basic. As long as you take all the info there with the prevention of its partisanship, it's a great site in general.
 * And as antidote, this is kind of a Do not read list by a spanish historian. May be you won't agree (i do mostly), but nevertheless makes good reading --Wllacer (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

needs edit: back & forth in "Other factions" section
"Forces fighting on behalf of the Republicans also received limited aid, but support was seriously hampered by the arms embargo declared by France and the UK. These embargoes were never very effective however, and France especially was accused of allowing large shipments through to the Republicans (but the accusations often came from Italy, itself heavily involved for the Nationalists). The clandestine actions of the various European powers were at the time considered to be risking another 'Great War'.[35]" I'm only mildly familiar with this pages topics, and am here only as a reader. 2z2z (talk) 01:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The European Library
I have added a link: *64 "spanish civil war" objects have been found in The European Library Harvest

hope you too think this is a good choice. greetings

PS - sorry...earlier I made a mistake in the syntax - fixed now...

Emphasizing only a few single nations for their members, not mentioning others
I've deleted the following text. Why emphasizing Poles and not French or Germen or Italian? This doesn't make sense. It would take to much place to mention all. The best is, to mention no nation. People can easily get more information by linking to International Brigades. The best solution for this article is, to mentions the variety of members.

The deleted text is:

''About 3,000 Poles volunteered for the International Brigades. American volunteers such as the Abraham Lincoln Brigade and Canadians in the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion also fought in the International Brigades.''

Over five hundred Romanians fought on the Republican side, including Romanian Communist Party members Petre Borilă and Valter Roman

--109.192.207.36 (talk) 13:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Plus removing references. You have actually removed the links to Abraham Lincoln Brigade and Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion, thus defeating your own argument. In an English article, at least the links to the English-speaking units should be retained. 3,000 Poles is a lot. Whether 500 Romanians need mentioning I'm not sure. Johnbod (talk) 13:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

On English wikipedia it might be convenient, to mention (mixed) units predominantely from English-speaking countries especially. But English is today international and the spirit of the International Brigades was international. So I would say, it's much more convenient to mention all special units on the page of the International Brigades. There you can also see, that for instance, there were more Italien volonteers than for instance Polish volonteers. There is absolutely no reason, to emphasize the members of a certain nation especially on the main page of the Spanish Civil War. --109.192.207.36 (talk) 13:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The old version is in no case acceptable. The best would be, to mention no nations. Now I've changed as follows and mentioned all countries with more than 1000 volunteers in the order of their number:

''Likely respectively more than 1,000 volunteers came from France, Italy, Germany, Poland, USSR, USA,UK, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Hungary and Canada. The American volunteers fought in units such as the Abraham Lincoln Brigade and Canadians in the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion.''

Over five hundred Romanians fought on the Republican side, including Romanian Communist Party members Petre Borilă and Valter Roman.[40] --109.192.207.36 (talk) 16:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The argument that because English is "today international" no special attention in contexts like this need to given to things of anglophone interest won't fly. English-speakers have a right to their own language just like everybody else. Johnbod (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Largely concur with Johnbod. In particular, where we have articles on particular national brigades, those should be linked. If the Romanians had a Brigade of their own, write an article and link it. I don't think it should be on who spoke English. The Thälmann Battalion should also be mentioned and linked. - Jmabel | Talk 01:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with that - I only mentioned the links that had been deleted. Johnbod (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I added The Thälmann Battalion the other day...Modernist (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Not neutral
This article reads as very biased and pro-Christian. It's also unclear what the relationships are between the anarchists and the socialists. They appear lumped together here. RemainingData (talk) 15:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)RemainingData


 * Well an article on the Holocaust might seem pro-Jewish to some. Twenty percent of the Catholic clergy in the country, almost without exception noncombatants, was murdered.  The war and its prelude entailed some substantial persecution of Christians.  To fail to state these facts would be biased.  Mamalujo (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Gerald Howson as a source
The paragraph on Soviet aid seems to be sourced almost entirely by this author, who, for instance, claims that " most of the weapons and artillery sent to Spain were antiques" and even "most were taken from museums from around the country" - for instance, T-26 and BT tanks at the time were modern; surely, most of them couldn't come from museums. I suggest removing references to this "historian" whatsoever and re-writing this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.61.104 (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Lacking info during II republic and more
The article conceals that in 1934 tried a coup d'etat against the II Republic.

It also minimizes the effect that the wrong policies had on i.e. the press. The Government censored many newspapers (mostly any editorial article critic against it).

I would not give any data on victims caused by any party. We will never know which was crueler, and I hate it when all these debates end in a demonstration of how bad the other people are/were. No one was a saint, we can discuss the Spanish Cheka (also not named in the article) and all the barbarian acts committed by either party.

In general, I think that, as usual when the Spanish Civil War is discussed, this article is slanted towards the leftist opnions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.68.10.193 (talk) 23:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Reverting bad faith edits
I have just reverted 4 blatant POV edits by Mamalujo. I realise this move is likely to get some stick, and that some well-meaning Admin will recommend I take a Wikibreak, but I wish to draw everyone's attention to this kind of editing and ensure that other editors watch out for it. The latest edits, including removal of an inline citation, quoting none other than Paul Preston, one of the leading authorities on the SCW, are typical of this editor's blatant manipulation of the facts to further the Cause. I have been making great efforts not to get involved in serious edit conflicts in the past, but the editor in question is getting increasingly bolder in pushing POV. If Mamalujo has had the opportunity, as I have, to speak to a great many people directly involved in the war, as well as many of their descendants, he will realise that things aren't as clearcut as he tries to make out. Just one simple question before I bow out gracefully: What makes a deeply religious country - a country in which 100% of the population were practising Catholics - suddenly go against the established Church? --Technopat (talk) 22:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * In reinstating the inline citation Mamalujo had deleted, I inadvertently deleted an inline citation Mamalujo had added. It was not my intention, and I'm sorry for being so clumsy. As he has now reverted my edit, I shall once again reincorporate the citation he deleted. How long before an Admin throws a 3R on us? me?--Technopat (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Continuing my crusade against biased edits, have just added the missing part of the paragraph that Mamalujo forgot to include when he quoted Payne.--Technopat (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It wasn't a biased edit. The other matter was just off topic. And of course, there is a big difference between the Republic's military killing the leftist Asturias revolutionaries, who are combantants, in battle (presumably that is how most of the 1,000 died) and the leftist revolutionaries shooting noncombatants in cold blood.  No doubt there were atrocities on both sides in Asturias, but that doesn't explain the defection of Catholics, many of whom were formerly supporters of the Republic, to the Nationalist side, which was the point being made in that section.  Sometimes vigilence in the name of balance just obscures matters, makes the section too wordy and the article too long.  The funny thing is, you accused my edit of bias but if you had really been paying attention, you would have seen that I was adding balance.  The section had previously said that the state had done nothing to stop the prewar anticlerical violence.  I knew, at least in terms of Asturias, that the statement was incorrect, as the state had both supressed the revolutionaries and prosecuted them.  However, the sentances and other sanctions were exceptionally mild.  There were no capital or long sentances and the groups which had engaged in armed insurrection were not even outlawed. Mamalujo (talk) 22:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Payne on Asturias (my bold text): "The judicial prosecution of the 1934 revolutionaries was largely ineffective. At least 15,000 militants were held in prison, and many were tried and sentenced to long terms. The president and the Radicals, however, prevented conservatives from imposing major sanctions against the revolutionaries. None of the revolutionary leaders were condemned to death, and only four of the rank and file were executed, three of them common murderers. None of the leftist organizations were outlawed, and they were allowed to continue official work. In the aftermath of the repression, however, there were cases of police brutality and torture in Asturias. Though the main phase of this lasted little more than a month, the theme of atrocious repression gave rise to a virulent leftist propaganda equal to that of the right, which exaggerated the extent of the "red terror" in Asturias. The whole effect of the insurrection, the repression, and the stagnation of government in 1935 was to polarize political opinion ever more sharply toward the extremes of left and right."http://libro.uca.edu/payne2/payne25.htm A History of Spain and Portugal


 * Maybe that should go in there instead of the current "but the president and the radicals prevented the implementation of any serious sanctions against the revolutionaries"? Or is it going too far off-topic?--Technopat (talk) 22:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

6,832 members of the Catholic clergy
Please stop presenting these allegations as some kind of established fact. The source for the claims that Republicans murdered 6832 members of the Catholic clergy is Antonio Montero Moreno, a Catholic priest who essentially functioned as a pro-Franco propagandist by publishing a book in Madrid in 1941. Note that Franco's bands murdered Catholic clerics, such as Basque priests and chaplains for the Republic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.230.178 (talk) 03:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * In spite of don't feed the trolls, especially the anonymous., this deserves some comments. The work of ++Antonio Montero DIaz was originally a PhD dissertation in 1961 (IIRC), later published as book. Since then, no scholar has objected to his conclusions about the numbers of the clergy killed, which as a matter of fact somehow lowered the then current estimations, by both sides. He was born in 1928 so it's very unlikely that he published anything by 1941.


 * OTOH it's true that the nationalists court-martialled and killed a number of priests because of their relationship with basque nationalism. The usual number cited is around 20. With the exception of the PNV militiae there were absolutely NO military chaplains in the republican armies, prior to 1938, where the communists forced the existence of some of them. Yes you read correctly, the communists !!! Their fate is totally unknown to me.


 * The most stupid current trend is to deny or minimize the religious persecution in the "red zone". No contemporany account glosses it over, and was openly acknowledged by all parties (from Azaña downwards --Wllacer (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

1936 elections
According to the current edition on Wikipedia, the "Left" (actually termed The Popular Front) won the 1936 elections by a margin of one percent. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, however, the Popular Front won 256 seats in the Cortes (parliament)as opposed to 165 seats to the coalition of the right and 52 to the centre parties. Which the Encyclopedia Britannica fittingly terms a "substantial majority". Choora (talk) 09:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * According to Spanish general election, 1936, the Popular Front won the popular vote 48.06 percent to 46.50 percent. As you wrote, they also won a substantial 256-165 majority in parliament. All the same, the divisions on the left were intense, especially anarchist vs communist. The right was more united, so the outcome of the war should not be surprising. Kauffner (talk) 13:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Bibliography oddness
Following from this archived item, is it really a good idea to separate the bibliography into 3 "phases"? I read the article as a non-knowledgeable editor and to come to a bibliography split into 3 sections that have not been previously discussed and aren't explained is very bizarre. Is there any real reason for it? The explanation given by the previous editor doesn't really seem sufficient. Bigger digger (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

New article: Catholic Church and the Spanish Civil War
I have cobbled together an article on this topic titled Catholic Church and the Spanish Civil War using text copied from other Wikipedia articles.

It would be reasonable to ask how this is not a fork from this article or from Red Terror (Spain). My answer would be that the new article focuses specifically on the role of the Catholic Church in the Spanish Civil War whereas this article covers the entire Spanish Civil War from a political and military perspective and not just on the role of the Catholic Church. Thus, the new article has more ability to delve into the details of the Catholic Church's role in the war whereas it would be a bit of a distraction in this article.

Similarly, the article on the Red Terror (Spain) focuses on the actual anticlerical violence whereas the new article covers the background of the Church's involvement in Spanish politics in the period leading up to the 1936 elections.

Please take a look at the new article and help improve it. Thanks.

--Richard S (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Regulares (Muslim or not)
(to the edit-warring IPs)...let's avert an edit war by having a discussion instead. I'm neutral as to whether Regulares should be described as Muslims or not. How should they be listed and why? ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

were they not muslim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.31.182 (talk • contribs)
 * Their religion should be irrelevant. They're Moroccan so in all likelihood they're Muslim. It would akin to adding "Catholic" Irish Brigades. They were simply known as Regulares. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.216.5 (talk • contribs)
 * like they are no irish protestants? 92.23.31.182 (talk) 00:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * it is not irrelevant.religion was a factor, was used in the war. anti-semitism was used in the propaganda that preceded the war. THe Moors were delighted to be at war. They say 'It's been a long time since we were able to kill Jews!' when franco met Mola they joked about this. (Gunpowder and incense, p. 48) their religion should be irrelevant. what kind of statement is that in the arena of the politics of the 1930s.  not very realistic. of course religion shouldn't be used. it was. .are you right wing yourself..  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.31.182 (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Religion was a factor inasmuch as it was the anti-celerical left against religious, conservative right. But the fact remains that they were known simply as a the Regulares. These were simply Moroccans who decided to fight for Nationalists. I fail to see why you wish to put so much emphasis on the fact that they were Muslim. The Jewish community in Spain, even today, is very small - to the point that they aren't sure on actual numbers. So I don't know where they were going to find all these Jews to kill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.216.5 (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * the religious conservative right..like in the collective letter of the spanish bishops - identified defence of catholicism synonymous with the nationalist cause - they hated 'foreign elements' -or take  the CEDA leader Gil Robles - 'had announced the need to purge the fatheraland of 'judaizing freemasons' and the figure of the grasping Jew occurred again and again in the party's electoral propaganda '( historian, Mary Vincent). so its not true that 'religion' was only a factor because of  the left, indeed the catholic right is a major mover in all these years. so its just a few words here and what's the problem spelling it out - regulares - isn't explicit and i guess that's why you like it - the link to the regulares is still retained, whats the problem? you say 'i fail to see why you put so much emphasis on the fact that they were Muslim'..well I fail to see why you object to a few words that don't replace the word regulares, but just are not coy - except i don't fail to see. I see very well why you prefer just 'regulares'. 92.23.31.182 (talk) 23:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My problem with what you've done is that just by adding the fact they were Muslim it has taken up three lines on the infobox which could have easily have been saved with a single word. Personally, if I had it my way I would get rid of a lot of the countries/groups from that box, that only provided logistical support, and create two new pages for the Republicans and their allies and likewise with the Nationalists (just as they did with the WWII page).
 * Given that the majority of people from Morocco are Muslims, I think it is just redundant to qualify the Moroccan regular as "Muslims." unless you are Religious zealot trying to start a new crusade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.19.210 (talk) 22:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Spanish Second Republic:
 * Militia confederacy
 * International Brigades

Nationalists
 * Falange
 * Requetes
 * Germany
 * Italy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.216.5 (talk) 10:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Mexico lindo y querido, here we go again
What's the insistence on listing Mexico and/or Mexican volunteers as belligerent? Nobody doubts the support (mostly diplomatic, plus some rifles and ammunition) that Mexico provided to the Second Spanish Republic, but Mexican volunteers were not to any extent the largest contingent in the international brigades. Unless a compeling reason can be given for listing them separately, I will remove them from the belligerent list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.19.210 (talk • contribs)


 * I have removed Mexican Volunteers from infobox, as they are already included and mentioned in the International Brigades page. Feel free to add on that page any verified information you have about numbers, distinguished members, actions they participated, recognition in the home country, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.19.206 (talk) 20:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky quote?
Noam Chomsky has several areas of recognized expertise, but surely the Spanish civil war is not one of them? AnonMoos (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * how do you know? Maybe he thinks the Spanish Civil War was consequence of the American Imperialism, and Chomsky never misses a chance to bash the US government. -- 23:47, 9 November 2010 148.87.19.206


 * I wasn't speculating on his motives, but instead was pointing out that he has a lack of recognized expertise in this particular area... AnonMoos (talk) 10:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

POV section ,1931 constitution
The church lost its privileged status that it had enjoyed under the primo de rivera dictatorship, and from 1875  with the return of the Bourbon monarchy really, the Constitution wanted to remove its special status and state funding, and forbade members of religious orders to teach in Spain. But the wording seems very tilted, and is  it made clear that a centre right govt soon took control in the second republic anyway. Sayerslle (talk) 02:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes it is very tilted. The constitution was merely secular, not anti-clerical. I have tried to rewrite the 1931 constitution section from a neutral point of view, but User:Mamalujo has reverted all edits to a pro-CEDA in the 1930s point of view. Present-day Catholics in Spain don't take that view on the subject anymore. I don't want to start an edit war in the name of historical rigor, but users like Marmalujo should be restrained if the article is going to be anything but a pamphlet justifying Franco's rebellion.Xufanc (talk) 08:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I checked through your recent edits and found that the alternative version presented a fringe Franco POV. I have reverted the article back to the 16 November 2010 version by Xufanc. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 12:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem with Xufanc's edits is that they added unsourced info and removed or altered sourced info such that it was contrary to the sources. Apparently his dispute is with the facts and the reliable sources. For example, one of his edits removed an assertion that the Republic was anti-clerical substituting his own assertion that it was secular. The problem is the source says that the government was anticlerical. Now it may have been secular but it was also indisputably anti-clerical. There are literally scores of reliable sources that say this. Not just in the area of history but in political science as well. Indeed, numerous political scientists have noted that the Republic was one of the most anticlerical of the 20th century. Also, by altering the section, it obscures the fact, well recognized by reliable sources, that the anticlerical nature of the constitution and the resulting republic were one of the major causes of the breakdown of a broad based center. Moreover, the version which he removed is a mainstream version, sourced to the most highly regarded sources in favor of obscure sources. Mamalujo (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Mamalujo, there was already a lack of neutrality tag before I edited the article in order to balance it. The alterations were sourced, for the Constitution of the Spanish Republic says nothing about the Republic being anticlerical and I put the text of the Spanish Republican consititution as a source. I am aware of the anti-clericalism during the Republic, for my mother gave shelter to two Catholic nuns in our own home before I was born. But it was the mobs, inflamed by the speeches of anti-clerical politicians like Alejandro Lerroux who engaged in random violence, the Second Spanish Republic was the context in which such actions happened, but not the instigator. The Republic was simply the established government back then. Blaming the Spanish Republic for being anti-clerical is jumping into conclusions, despite the sources that you provide. My father and mother were devout catholics and, living under the Spanish Republic, supported a modern government in Spain. The Bible says that one has to pray for the leaders of the country, instead of sowing disrespect and discord like Gil Robles did from the onset. The French Republic also had growth pains and went through phases where mobs indulged in excesses against aristocrats and clergy. Most present-day Roman Catholic Spaniards lament the way in which a self-serving general made out of the church an instrument for his own military purposes. The long-term balance of discrediting the former Republic is that now many Spaniards have fallen away from Christianity altogether, because they bemoan the lack of democratic freedoms of Franco's dictatorship and resent the complicity of the Catholic Church with the dictator. Devout Catholics like Gaziel, a conservative, lamented that the established Spanish government was thrown away like a rag. His comment was sourced but it was removed all the same by you. In the name of neutrality and historic rigor, please revert my editions and please remove your (supposedly mainstream) assertions that read like hardly historical Pro-Franco propaganda that if you would be in Spain here right now and in public you would be ashamed of reading aloud before anyone except for some fringe Falangist nostalgics.Xufanc (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * it was not stable, mamalujo, you just keep reverting to your preferred version, which is a bit of a mess anyhow, frankly, like your insistence on 'revolution' to describe the elections that made it clear to the king it was time to go. supported with a cite to an encyclopedia britannica article on anti-clericalism, your obsession, hardly mainstream of spanish civil war scholarship, an encyclopedia britannica article on anti-clericalism.. For you a right wing POV crusader to plead MAINSTREAM is  not right. Sayerslle (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The comments made by Xufanc are a clear violation of policies WP:NPOV, WP:VAND, WP:NPA and WP:CIV. It will be useful for this user to read also WP:KNOW. 173.208.45.178 (talk) 00:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 173.208.45.178, unlike you and Mamalujo, I stick to facts, I am not trying to whitewash one of the sides, anonymous number, because I never denied the killings on the Republican side. Get your facts straight and have clear ideas before making accusations of vandalism and lack of neutrality, among other unjustified slander that you so easily make. Wikipedia has a policy of neutrality and your edits as well as Mamalujo and others deny the fact quoted by modern historians that: The nationalists justified the brutality of their repression as reprisals for the red terror, but, as had been the case in Seville, Córdoba and Badajoz, and as would be the case in Málaga six months later, the subsequent nationalist killings exceeded those of the left several, if not many times over... If one takes into account the deaths which were never registered and allows for the provinces not yet studied, we are probably faced with a total figure for killings and executions by the nationalists during the war and afterwards of around 200,000 people.(Antony Beevor (1982 revised 2006). The Battle for Spain. Orion. ISBN 978-0-7538-2165-7 p. 103) This figure is not so far from the threat made by General Gonzalo Queipo de Llano to republicans when he promised on my word of honour as a gentleman that for every person that you kill, we will kill at least ten.(Ian Gibson, Queipo de Llano; Sevilla, Verano de 1936, Grijalbo, 1986. ISBN 8425317738 p. 83 & 85). If one lets you free hands and doesn't try to balance the Spanish Civil War Wikipedia article, its quality will be useless, for it will be a mere pro-Franco propaganda piece justifying the coup, the war, the dictatorship and the killings.Xufanc (talk) 05:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stop your attacks ad hominem and your moral arguments. This is a violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIV. Have I said something like Mamalujo's POV? Accusing people to be a pro-Franco propagandist is not a positive and constructing attitude. Also, read WP:KNOW. It's not an official policy, but you will find very useful. 206.217.221.32 (talk) 08:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please apply WP:KNOW to yourself and don't come here preaching what you so blatantly don't practice.Xufanc (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't insult everybody. If you can't realize that your behavior is violating WP:NPA and WP:CIV, maybe we can proceed to a WP:RFC. 206.217.221.32 (talk) 21:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Lack of historical accuracy and subsequent intimidation
Are we reliving a continuation of the Caudillo's stern censorship here? I have balanced the article last week, Marmalujo undid my edits and restored his not neutral, Franco-whitewashing version. The only insults and WP:NPA and WP:CIV come since then (coincidence?) from mysterious anonymous senders, a pointless activity (perhaps supposed to silence me and intimidate me?) that will not help balance the article again.Xufanc (talk) 09:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

PS: Energy would be better spent in restoring the neutrality, and thus the quality and historical accuracy, of the article instead of engaging in puerile sophistry. Xufanc (talk) 09:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I just found out that the person sending the anonymous threats is User:Vilallonga. It would be better if he would come into the open and explain his non-identified attacks.Xufanc (talk) 11:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you threaten other users that has a different POV as francoists and similars, it is completely justified to remember to you the policies WP:NPA and WP:CIV. Nobody wants and needs your adjectives in this kind of discussions. Vilallonga (talk) 11:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * shouldn't the aim be to just drain the POV out of the section as much as poss - elections led to a new govt, after arguments over the constitution by december 1931 one was accepted,  it aimed at reforms, the right opposed it, by 33 a centre right govt took over, politics bbecame increasingly polarised, the right drew much support from a certain interpretation of  what being  a good catholic meant, CEDA etc, which supplied the  Falangists when push came to shove in 36 -  issues of religion were often a shield for , or 'code' for other issues and divisions - , class issues, the identification of the church with the unequal society, ,  complexities, but hold to a thread of story if we can, kind of thing..but if its 'The anti-clerical govt was horrible and really if franco hadn't dealt with the problems the sky would have fallen in.." kind of mamalujo's version..well..Sayerslle (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)..
 * completely agree with user sayerslle, besides we can't see user mamalujo or user xufanc making any insult or threat here —where are those supposed accusations?—, all comments are to the point and dealt with Wikipedia:Civility. User:Vilallonga is cutting in with aggressive attacks unwarranted and irrelevant to the discussion...like an expression of some kind of hysteria —weird to say the least—58.8.230.205 (talk) 02:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Xufanc, WP:SOC is even worse than WP:NPA and WP:CIV. Vilallonga (talk) 14:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Villalonga: your profile tells you are a roman catholic crusader. Guys like you with the emotional points of view need to get a life and stop brandishing WP labels against other users. 58.8.83.77 (talk) 03:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Another siamese IP. My profile is 'personal and in any point says "crusader" or "roman catholic". At this point, an administrator must intercede in this discussion if you can't follow WP norms. Vilallonga (talk) 08:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Portugal
Why is Portugal listed as a belligerent state in the infobox? Was war ever declared between Spain and Portugal? Otherwise, I suggest that it be renamed to "Portugal Volunteers" (which should point to a separate page with numbers, actions they participated, etc) or removed altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.19.206 (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Portugal was one of the earliest (if not the earliest) country to recognize Franco and send troops to fight for him. If we don't count Portugal as belligerent then we shouldn't count Italy or Germany either since none of them declared war on Spain ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.26.120.40 (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Regulares
now albrecht just blanks 'muslim troops from Morocco' - maybe an admin should decide if this should stay as it keeps being singled out for deletion because 'we' don't distinguish like that. My argument for keeping it is that regrettably issues of religion were used in the ideological warfare of the time, 'foreign elements' 'judaizing bolshevism' etc. was  posited as a threat by the Right, as 'anti-Spain' - Catholicism was involved in the war, - yet 'foreign elements', Muslim troops from Spanish morocco for e.g. were not a problem for the Right when it suited them- I think this is  noteworthy, - if it keeps getting blanked I don't want to edit war, perhaps an admin could have a say. Religious identity as Albrecht must know, was an issue in the history of the 1930s whether the mention is 'nonsense' or not , whether 'we' mention things like that or not.. -and just deleting regulares from the infobox entirely, considering role in coup d'etat -!?Sayerslle (talk) 23:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Mexico
Why is Mexico listed as a belligerent? While Mexico sold the Republicans some old rifles and ammunition, it did not declare war on the Nationalists, nor did it send its army to fight in Spain. For that matter, the US sold war material to both sides, so maybe it should be listed as belligerent too.


 * Removed Mexico from belligerents, as nobody has given a reason why it should be considered as such. While Mexico provided some (limited) help to the Spanish Republic, this cannot be considered an act of belligerancy, as there was no state of war between Mexico and the Nationalists. Other countries (including France, Poland, and even the US) also sold war material to the Republic, and they weren't considered belligerents either. Finally, unlike Germany, Italy, or Russia, Mexico didn't send any troups to fight in Spain.

FYI: Mexico has been listed as a belligerent again... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xandr96 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Barcelona bombing.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Barcelona bombing.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 16, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-03-16. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks!  howcheng  {chat} 22:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The rebels took no major cities (initially)? What about Seville?
Under the section “Government Reaction” (to the attempted coup) it is noted that the rebels (initially) failed to take any major cities. They quickly took Seville (which is noted in the Wikipedia article on the city) and, in the context of Spain, I would certainly classify it as a major city. Moreover, it was absolutely critical to the rebel cause without which Franco could not have landed his African forces and joined de Llano’s forces.

If no one objects, I shall shortly change the article to read something along the lines of:  “…except Seville, which was critical to the rebel cause.”  Any comments?HistoryBuff14 (talk) 15:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Paper of the Anarchists
I think the anarchist involvement in both the previous years of the civil war, as well as during the 18th of July of 1936 is underestimated in this article. The Anarchists didn't "take over" most of Catalunya, Aragon or Valencia... The reality is that a majority of workers were part of the CNT in this regions, and in the case of Madrid or Barcelona, were the only worker group that fought against the rising army in the streets and in the military bases. Actually Companys, president of Catalunya in the moment, thanked the anarchists and almost gave them the factual political power, which they rejected vehemently. Please review the role of the Anarchists as exposed in this article, I think it is VERY biased. --86.56.96.192 (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC) Javier Hermosa
 * "Took over" is the phrasing used by all the historians I've read. (I have five books on my desk as it stands.) What this meant what replacing the Esquerra in particular, or other parties of a similarly republican nature, with a more left-wing government of sorts, which a less traditional command structure. They didn't have control of the areas before - the CNT and FAI were very much not part of the Popular Front. The Popular Front was, following the elections of February, in democratically elected control of Catalonia and similar areas. Shortly after the rising, after arms had been distributed to various workers groups to put down the military, they weren't. A "takeover" is clearly justified. The disunity between the Madrid (then Valencia) government and the Aragon syndicalist is extensively discussed in books. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

British involvement in lead
Another editor would like "tacit but decisive support of England's Government under Labour Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald and his conservative successors, Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain.[ref]" added to the lead. I disagree with this. On a not-particularly-signficant point, there is no English parliament. However, there are more important issues. Italy, Germany and Russia are name-dropped as supporters. In Italy's case, involvement meant a total of 75,000 men serving; Germany trained 56,000 and sent perhaps 10,000; Russia sold the Republicans arms to a value exceeding one of the world's largest gold reserves. By comparison, British involvement was quieter ('tacit' as it says), and far more complicated. On the outside, Britain supported non-intervention; perhaps favouring the Nationalists a little, but far short of other involvement. Other things included some help from Gibraltar for the Nationalists, and some manipulation of non-intervention by the military. The British people mostly favoured the Republic; along with that, plenty of politicians did also: the Labour Party withdrew support for non-intervention. Accordingly, it would be very misleading to add this section to the lead. It does not occur in the article anywhere (WP:LEAD) and is undue weight - that sentence is as long as the mentions of Italy, Germany, Portugal and the USSR combined. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * To be precise, I was not adding this to the lead, merely reverting its deletion, because of what I thought were insufficient grounds. However, on second thought, I don't think it belongs in the lead, at least in this form. I thought it hewed closer to the sources than it does. I do think a clear statement of the influence Britain's foreign policy on the outcome of the war is needed in the article, unless it is there and I missed it. I don't know if this is the best or most accurate assessment of the British component, but Buchanan in Britain and the Spanish Civil War at p. 36 puts it thus: "The British government undoubtedly contributed, intentionally or not, to the defeat of the Republic through its vigorous advocacy of nonintervention." Mamalujo (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

"Regulares" in infobox
There seems to be some disagreement as to whether the Army of Africa's mention should be appended with some mention of the Regulares. It is my belief this should not be the case because it is too detailed. No other army on the list is broken down at all and I think this is the correct summary for the infobox. This is supported by the sources I have, which tend to mention the Regulares only in the introduction of the Army of Africa, and then use the latter term throughout the chronology of the war. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 08:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I just looked at Paul Prestons general book on the War (Harper), and he puts it  " in any case the decisive factor in the power stakes was Franco's control of the 47,000 well-armed and well trained men of the Moroccan army. The battle hardened colonial army, consisting of the professionals of the spanish foreign Legion and arab mercenaries of the Regulares indigenas (native regulars) was to be the cornerstone of nationalist success." Why are you and albrecht so resistant to a single word that links to the article, up front, in the infobox? i think i know why but anyhow - in the 1930s matters of religion, anti-semitism etc , Catholic CRusade  againat anti-Spain- jews, socialists etc was a shaping factor of the times wasn't it - i don't think it is undue in this case to break down Army of Spain , since at this decisive moment these elements, plural, were so crucial to the Francoists. thats how I see it on my limited acquaintance with the subject so far. In the book Gunpowder and Incense, I remember the writer Hilari Ragueur saying franco and another general  laughed when they heard some Regulares say they were being given a good chance to kill some jews -  regulares is being suppressed from being put up front in the infobox - one  word for heavens sake in the blessed infobox -for political reasons imo, not the aesthetics of the infobox as is claimed - or, 'its how it is done - we don't mention blah blah  ..'  thats how I see it anyway. Sayerslle (talk) 09:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not against it because of any political, religious or otherwise motivation. As your extract notes, Regulares were one part of the Army of Africa. None of the other "armies" listed are split into parts. Infoboxes have to provide a summary. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * one word - in the infobox ,Regulares, but no, 'infoboxes have to be..' blah blah ..None of the armies....etc..Well I believe this should be split, because it was  the decisive factor this army - the cornerstone of the Catholic Crusade's early success - theres the  army, then four more little words to make it clearer, up front, what this army consisted of- the Spanish Foreign Legion/the Regulares- this decisive factor army, this cornerstone, not some  little irelevant detail at some obscure moment - anyway - you and albrecht are clear on this, - it is - the -law- of -infobox- Can the addition of these few words screw up the summary style you hold so sacred, of the infobox? No. 'Summary style' has led to the lead being made less informative too imo.Sayerslle (talk) 09:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The term regulares designates one type of infantry regiment within the Spanish Army (namely the Army of Africa, Spain's only operational field army at the time). Frankly, I'm pretty baffled about all this commotion. Including the regulares as a distinct "combatant" makes about as much sense as listing each type of unit in the army: "sappers, motorized infantry, Royal Guard, signals companies, engineers, etc., etc." Or, to try yet another desperate analogy, it would be like listing the French combatants at Leipzig:


 * 🇫🇷 First French Empire Duchy of Warsaw 11.PNG Duchy of Warsaw Kingdom of Italy  Kingdom of Naples [[Image:State flag of Saxony before 1815.svg|23px|Saxony]] Kingdom of Saxony Chevau-léger (??????)
 * I hope we can all see the problem here. Albrecht (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I should also mention that I would keep the seal of the Spanish Army next to Army of Africa&mdash;otherwise, we risk implying that this was the army of Spanish Morocco, as opposed to a Spanish field army stationed in Morocco. (Of course, one could propose to remove the AoA altogether&mdash;I added it as a compromise because it made a lot more sense than regulares.) Albrecht (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 'remove the AoA altogether' ??! - Francos African Forces were a decisive factor in the war I thought. 'i'm pretty baffled..' faux-naif I think thats called. Sayerslle (talk) 18:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As an independent formation, the AoA was the decisive rebel asset in the opening months of the war (until smashed to pieces in the assault on Madrid.) Soon after that&mdash;I haven't verified the details&mdash;it ceased to exist as an independent formation and its units were reorganized and absorbed into the larger Nationalist army. (As early as Feb. 1937, for example, a portion of the AoA was amalgamated with Peninsular regulars, falangist volunteers, and requetés to form the División Reforzada de Madrid.) However, I agree about the AoA's huge symbolic importance; the fighting quality of its men throughout the war, of course, is unquestioned. Albrecht (talk) 01:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Belligerents
Who did this infobox???? Castelao was a writer, not a commander. Galician nationalism didnt took part on the civil war as Galicia surrended inmediately to the nationalist army during the first days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.94.182.163 (talk) 04:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Also removed Primo de Rivera and Goicoechea from the Nationalist side&mdash;spending the opening months of the war in a prison cell does not make one a "Leader or commander." Albrecht (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Use of the phrase "rebel victory"
Speaking of discussing this properly: I and talk have some made critics to the phrase "nationalist victory", could we discuss it? talk 4 June 2011

This would be misleading. Modern literature, including the works cited in the article, use the term "Nationalist" after an initial stage where the term "rebel" might be appropriate. By the end of the war, the Nationalists were the internationally recognised government. I'm not quite sure what the problem with "Nationalist victory" is; whilst 'rebel' was used by the Republicans, the reasons were entirely political (and quite obvious), and continued well after the war had finished. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem with considering the rebel victory a nationalist victory is that it is just untrue, simply because of the definition of 'nationalist', the winning side was the side which fought against the nation, namely, rebel army. It could be 'nationalist' victory (with quotation marks), showing that it doesn't have its etymological meaning anymore. Anyway, this term 'nationalist' is the translation of 'nacionalista' in spanish, which is not the word used in spanish literature about spanish civil war which is 'nacional' which in english is 'national'. Some spanish newspaper also defend this position: http://www.elpais.com/articulo/reportajes/Rebeldes/sublevados/franquistas/nacionales/elpepusocdmg/20061022elpdmgrep_12/Tes . I'm willing to discuss this properly.


 * Although 88.27.66.116 seems unwilling to discuss this properly, he or she did comment "Recognized by whom? No state recognized the new government until 1955." which is simply untrue. British and French recognition occurred on February 27 (Thomas (1961) p. 583.) and was confirmed in late March (The Guardian). He or she also fails to comment on the fact that the term "Nationalist" is widely used in reliable sources (and "rebel" not) with the exception of the months immediately after the 1936 coup. (Beevor (2006), Preston (2006), Thomas (1961).) Since "rebel" was the term preferred by the Republicans, for entirely political reasons, it seems to me that the IP may be pushing a pro-Republican agenda. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The fact that the Nationalist government was somehow recognized albeit not universally, does not change the fact that the Nationalist uprising or coup d'état was against an established government. Or, put it another way, does a rebel cease to be a rebel if he wins and if his victory is recognized by some? (Having said that, I do recollect reading some sources that in one way or another -or perhaps a slightly different language- do refer to the Nationalist victory as the 'rebel victory'. If I find them I'll post them here). -- dúnadan  :  let's talk   22:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 188.76.179.106 has made the following comment: "Please read discussion -rebel phrase- before editing it. The sources that advise to use this phrase and other arguments are there. Please don't vandalize." This is highly misleading. This thread provides no basis for the term "Rebel victory". The only salient point being made in favour of such a change is that as an uprising against a legitamate government, they should be called "rebels". However, Wikipedia relies on verifiability not truth. Thus, we must defer to reliable sources. All that I have read (Preston, Beevor, Thomas, Howson as cited in the article) use the term "Nationalist" to describe everything except the uprising itself, and this includes the part where they say the nationalists won the war. For example, Beevor has an entire chapter "The Nationalist Zone". Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think i'd be appropriated to call it Nationalists, but not nationalists, the italics implies the term has lost its etymological meaning and has a new one, also the capital N implies it's a noun and not an adjective. Saying that "the nationalist band won the war" is just, according to the definitions of the words, unverifiable; how can we know whether one band was more nationalist than the other? Do you know any source? Besides, have you read the article and the points the author makes?: http://www.elpais.com/articulo/reportajes/Rebeldes/sublevados/franquistas/nacionales/elpepusocdmg/20061022elpdmgrep_12/Tes 188.76.179.106 16:38 Monday (GMT)
 * You continue to justify the use of the term "rebel" because it should be used. This is a fundamental flaw: Wikipedia is not in the business of fighting battles for words to be used right (as is the article). I'm afraid your English is somewhat poor, but I imagine in "Saying that "the nationalist band won the war" is just, according to the definitions of the words, unverifiable; how can we know whether one band was more nationalist than the other?" you are again questioning the usefulness of the term "Nationalist". I can assure you that only the usages of reliable sources matter, because that's all Wikipedia is: a summary of already published material. In a sense, then, "how can we know whether one band was more nationalist than the other?" can be answered "We know the term 'Nationalist' is valid because leading works in the field use it". Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ad hominem? Unnecessary, but anyway: I don't especially prefer the term "rebel", but find inappropriate the term "nationalist"; I'm sorry but I don't think Wikipedia is just a "summary of already published material" because there are a lot of "published material", so Wikipedia is, at least, a "summary of selected published material", thus if a source use a word in wrong way, it doesn't necessarily need to be used in Wikipedia. Again, you continue ignoring the other arguments:
 * 1. The comment made by dúnanadan: "The fact that the Nationalist government was somehow recognized albeit not universally, does not change the fact that the Nationalist uprising or coup d'état was against an established government. Or, put it another way, does a rebel cease to be a rebel if he wins and if his victory is recognized by some?"
 * 2. Wikipedia does not use words with a make-up meaning, nationalist, according to oxford dictionary, means a) a person who advocates political independence for a country; b) a person with strong patriotic feelings, especially one who believes in the superiority of their country over others. What sources do you have that say that the winning army was more nationalist than the one which lost? Again, if it was Nationalist, I would be, although improvable, a proper term, but not "nationalist".
 * 3. You are ignoring some sources (which also is a published material) that does use "rebel victory", for instance: http://www.elpais.com/articulo/reportajes/Rebeldes/sublevados/franquistas/nacionales/elpepusocdmg/20061022elpdmgrep_12/Tes
 * 188.76.179.106
 * If you're accusing me of an ad hominem attack, you must be misunderstanding that concept; it would be where I attacked your views simply because they were held or exerted by you, normally on grounds such as your political affiliation, race, something like that. Here, I merely disagree with what you say: I say nothing of you. It seems you are struggling to understand what I am saying. Wikipedia is not the place to convince everyone to use the term "rebel", whether that is right or wrong. The fact remains that no book I have ever read uses the term "rebel" to describe events outside the first few months, and I have read many. Maybe they should - this is not important. They don't, and thus Wikipedia has no reason to defer. Most people call them the Nationalists, so we call them the Nationalists (the term is always capitalised to prevent confusion with nationalists in general). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The ad hominem was your comments on my english, not on the arguments, obviously. "Wikipedia is not the place to convince everyone to use the term "rebel"" I agree, but I also think Wikipedia is not a place to convince anyone to use any term (neither "Nationalist") but to use words with the meaning the actually have. Again, if you consider that according to the many books you've read, the most adecuate term is "Nationalist", it should be Nationalist, because in this case the capital N is not enough to prevent confusion with nationalist in general, because since it is the first word is should be capitalised anyway, you have examples of this, , ... Besides, there are sources that use the term "Rebel": "The Spanish Civil War: a very short introduction By Helen Graham", page 68, 138. 188.76.179.106
 * (undent) The Graham work is more convincing, and, since I don't necessarily believe the term 'rebel' in overly controversial, I've made some compromise changes I hope you will accept. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

2008 "to do" list
These are comment made back in 2008 as part of the "to do" list, which I consider uncontroversially no longer relevant. However, I thought that some record should be made of them (just as we keep talk page archives of stale discussion):
 * article is too long: possibly 'people' and 'Political parties and organisations' should be moved to subarticles ... also "Spanish Civil War in popular culture" could be a new page with books & films

agreed -- tried to do so with earlier edits citing figures
 * Executions on each side: The fact that repression on the republican side is far more detailed than repression on the nationalist side, could lead a reader to conclude that the republican factions executed as many people as the nationalists during the war, which is far from true. It would be nice to have some numbers on the dead from executions or terrorism from each side.


 * This Background sentence needs to be expanded: "Following Primo de Rivera's overthrow in 1930 the monarchy was unable to maintain power and the Second Republic was declared in 1931." Unable to maintain power: why exactly? Was it a coup? By whom? What exactly led to the declaration of the Republic? The premise of much of the article is that Republic was a legitimate government (which I am quite ready to believe) and the Nationals/Nationalists were rebelling against that legitimate government needs to be supported and explained here.JKeck (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The second sentence of the first paragraph is ungrammatical and hard to make sense of. It needs splitting in two, with ", or Republicanos" replaced by ". These Republicanos" or something of the sort. (Incidentally, I could have just put this right if Wikipedia hadn't locked the page. Shouldn't someone locking a page (which I must say goes against what I thought was the whole ethos, of this project, which is that I can put things right along with everyone else) correct such obvious glitches?) 213.162.107.11 (talk) 10:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Alternative names in lead
I don't feel that the terms "The Crusade", "Fourth Carlist War", "The Rebellion" or "The Uprising" should be considered common enough to be in the lead. It's relevant to discuss them within the article itself, but these are clearly not popular optional names that a wide audience would actually recognize. They make up a very clunky parenthesis that quite spoils the first sentence.

Peter Isotalo 20:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur, a note seems perfect for that. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Salvador Dalí allegiance
Under people, Figures identified with the Nationalist side: Salvador Dalí, This is inconsistent with article on Salvador Dalí, See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Dal%C3%AD#Politics_and_personality - "With the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War, Dalí fled from fighting and refused to align himself with any group" I can't say I know much about this subject, does anyone want to clarify/remove inconsistencies with these two pages? Jameshbailie (talk) 04:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC) == Should the conflict between the Republican Popular Front versus the Republican Anarchist and POUM factions be shown somehow in the infobox. Many were killed and arrested in this factional infighting. ==

A well-known conflict erupted during the Spanish Civil War within the Republican faction between the Popular Front government versus the anarchist CNT-FAI and the Trotskyist POUM that the Popular Front accused of treason. There was violence between these forces, widespread arrests, police raids, and executions. Should this be shown in the infobox as another part of the civil war? If so, it will need to be arranged so that one side is not confused as being on the National faction that will be listed above it in the Republican vs. National section. The Yugoslav Wars infobox separates conflicts between multiple two-sided conflicts in a way that the multiple conflicts are not confused as being singular.--R-41 (talk) 05:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We can't possibly describe that sort of internal politics without being confusing. Ultimately, POUM lost out but the rest of the Popular Front was not significantly affected. It was more like an internal change; to say people on one side of the Barcelona troubles were as opposed to other parts of the Popular Front as the Nationalists would be misleading: it was a different sort of opposition. As I said, it could be really confusing for the reader. Being under the impression that they were united when actually there were (bloody) internal struggles is not that wrong. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 08:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 'being under the impression that they were united..is not that wrong' - is wrong. if Beevor titles a chapter 'civil war within the civil war' that points to disunity - in fact as orwell etc pointed out, Stalinism was  a whole other phenomenon - the POlish intelligentsia rounded up after the molotov-Ribbentrop pact, the Moscow TRials, etc Anton Ciliga - the USSR was on the side of the USSR -and this was becoming clear to some at the time, not just hindsight, hence the chapter title of beevor's book 'civil war within the civil war ' = not united.- Sayerslle (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have Beevor, and it is clear from the resst of the book that the Popular Front/Republic forces continued to be in alliance against the Nationalists before, during, and after the internal troubles. Relations were not perfect, but they do not justify considering it a three-sided war, which would be deeply confusing to the reader. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The civil war within the civil war is a chapter of Beevor's book on the Spanish civil war and it is very important. orwell wrote of the italian militiaman he met in the barcelona barracks  "probably a trotskyist or an Anarchist, and in the peculiar conditions of our time when people of that sort are not killed by the gestapo they are usually killed by the GPU - the story is a disgusting one. the germans and italians intervened in order to crush spanish democracy the russians doled out a small quantity of weapons and extorted the maximum of political control in return. the british and french looked the other way . for a year or more the Spanish govt was effectively under russian control - the sinister development of soviet russia -" when  stalinists were doing all in their power to crush people they were supposedly fighting alongside   - to say Stalin was as opposed to parts of the Left as the nationalists would not be misleading at all .The Stalinists were cynics - the Pact and katyn were just round the corner.  Sayerslle (talk) 09:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't follow the point of your post. I certainly accept that the internal struggles within the Left were important, but they are not easily displayed in the infobox.

This doesn't relate to the infobox issue, but POUM was a member of the Popular Front and a mainstream (i.e. non-revolutionary) party, certainly not Trotskyite. Trotsky himself condemned it and endorsed a different Spanish faction. There was a former associate of Trotsky in the leadership. A lot of prominent Trotskyites have converted and moved right; It is an odd little trend. Kauffner (talk) 04:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What is clear is that the reports back to Moscow were violent against the 'counter-revolutionary trotskyists' - 'it goes without saying that it is impossible to win the war against the rebels if these scum within the republican camp are not liquidated' (military advisor Berzin) - people like Aleksandr Orlov, rep of the NKVD, etc - these are not on the same side as the POUM . if it is difficult to represent in an infobox Grandiose, I can see that - the Yugoslav wars infobox lokked pretty confusing to me in a way - but I don't see why an infobox titled 'civil war within the civil war' can't be placed somewhere under the main one, with on the (far, far, right) of the infobox Stalinists, and Orlov, Marty, - Orwell wrote at the time how hard it was to get people to grasp that the Communists, the Stalinists, were on the right, - that Stalinism represented something that had to be understood afresh - George Orwell -"As to the russians  their motives in the Spanish war are completely inscrutable. Did they intervene in order to defend democracy? then why did they intervene on such a niggardly scale and finally leave Spain in the lurch? or to foster revolution? then why did they do all in their power to crush the spanish revolutionary movements..I believe stalins foreign policy has been merely opportunistic and stupid."  Christopher Hitchens , "Orwell..came to unsderstand that much of the talk about 'discipline and 'unity' was a rhetorical shield for the covert Stalinization of the Spanish Republic." I don't see why there can't be a second infobox for  the civil war within the civil war.Sayerslle (talk) 11:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * POUM was in the Popular Front, but it was expelled. After it was expelled it was denounced in official propaganda for allegedly being a crypto-fascist organization designed to damage the Republican war effort. The anarchist CNT-FAI and POUM were attacked by Republican army forces in Barcelona in 1937 and later POUM members were arbitrarily arrested. As for how to organize the infobox if it is decided to include this fighting between the Popular Front Republican government vs. the CNT-FAI and POUM, look at the Yugoslav Wars infobox in how it divides multiple but interrelated conflicts in a single infobox. That is how I suggest it could be done in this article's infobox.--R-41 (talk) 20:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I think it should be in the infobox - up front in the article infobox, pointing up this was a complicated  struggle, - points to the ideological chicaneries and tragedies of the time as the world headed for ww2 - sounds a bit pompous, but anyhow, i think it should be in there. Sayerslle (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

7.2 Republicans
In section 7.2 Republicans there appears to be a minor mistake. In the second paragraph, Moreno's claim to the number of clergy killed in the war, the word "including" is written twice and there are two commas when one is sufficient. Also, the numbers do not add up to the given total of 6,832, but to 6,845. The difference might have something to do with the 13 bishops. GEMDragon (talk) 02:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

France de facto supported the Republicans in 1936
France under the government of Leon Blum de facto supported the Republicans in 1936. At the beginning of the Civil War, France was openly pro-Republican, it was in negotiations with the Spanish Republic that involved sending military aid and technology to the Republicans including aircraft and utilizing the French navy to blockade the National-led Spanish Army of Africa from crossing from Spanish Morocco to Spain.(Michael Alpert. A New International History of the Spanish Civil War. Hampshire and London, England, UK: MACMILLAN PRESS, LTD; New York, New York, USA: ST. MARTIN'S PRESS, INC, 1994. Pp. 14) France recognized the Spanish Republic the "legitimate government" of Spain while referring to the Nationalist-led Spanish State as "rebels". The French government could not officially support the Republicans because its ally Britain wanted official neutrality by outside powers on the civil war, and because fascists and the far-right in France violently opposed support being given to the Republicans, they supported Franco. In 1936 France allowed Republican military forces to be able to cross the Spanish border into France, also in response to pressure by his left-wing supporters, Blum covertly sold French military aircraft to the Spanish Republic that included the following: Potez 54 bomber aircraft, Dewoitine aircraft, and Loire 46 fighter aircraft being sent from 7 August 1936 to December of that year to Republican forces.(Michael Alpert. A New International History of the Spanish Civil War. Hampshire and London, England, UK: MACMILLAN PRESS, LTD; New York, New York, USA: ST. MARTIN'S PRESS, INC, 1994. Pp. 46-47.) Also, until 8 September 1936, aircraft could freely pass from France into Spain if they were bought in other countries.(Michael Alpert. A New International History of the Spanish Civil War. Hampshire and London, England, UK: MACMILLAN PRESS, LTD; New York, New York, USA: ST. MARTIN'S PRESS, INC, 1994. Pp. 47.) Later in 1936 France ended this pro-Republican activity to abide by the British initiative of neutrality involving an embargo on sale of military equipment to either side in Spain. I have provided sources for this material on the article: Republican faction (Spanish Civil War).--R-41 (talk) 12:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

What?
Where are the Regulares? They were involved in the Spanish Civil War. I'm tired of people editing the factions involved. B-Machine (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * They formed part of the Army of Africa, which is mentioned. (In terms of the infobox, it formed a direct part of the Nationalist faction. I don't really mind if the Army of Africa was included there, but I don't think it's worth arguing over.) The regulares should be name-checked somewhere. The "Background" and "Coup" sections need updating from their main articles, which I've substantially improved, but I don't have time at the moment. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The regulares, i think got continually removed from the infobox because they embarrassed the far right catholic faction of editors who didnt like to see muslims up front in the crusade. franco's Spain was set out as real Spain as against anti-Spain as i understand it, infiltrated by foreign elements, so the Francoist editors  blanked the regulares out the infobox - i dont think its worth arguing over is wrong imo - the disappearance of the regulares,  is ideologicaly motivated, and connived at by those who say why make a fuss - why make a fuss - because it should be part of the record in the infobox, they were central to the Uprising, " the battle hardened colonial army, consisting of the  spanish foreign legion and Arab mercenaries of regulares  indigenas , was to be the cornerstone  of nationalist success - (Paul Preston) Sayerslle (talk) 16:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Spain had ceased to be Catholic
I removed this sentence "In fact, even the integrist Isidro Goma y Tomas had spoken in similar vein in 1931-"Catholic conviction, this - is not found in abundance."" I don't understand what this means. Its introduction seems to have been a response to the inclusion of Beevor's politically unwise point, but that viewpoint does not need balancing because it is entirely representative of the literature on the subject, which notes a considerable political firestorm in the comment's wake. At a guess, I would say that the sentence above is attempting to support Azana's statement. Its veracity is not doubted in the article at current. It should be at least reworded to make sense in English, since it doesn't at the moment so I've had to guess. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Its Thomas not Beevor in the ref isnt it?- its not a big deal - the point of the Goma quote is that,  not just AZana, but others, of a very different political stripe, were making similar observations - to comment on its 'unwiseness' suggests it made a difference - whereas other writers, like Hilari Raguer,  believe the catholic Right had it in for the REpublic whatever - so  it was irrelevant kind of thing - its a minor point but I've said what I think HIlari Raguer  was saying in 'Gunpowder and Incense'  - the words of Azana were twisted - deliberately - the point is that the firestorm, the catholic Right would have brought the storm,   whatever comments were made -  Sayerslle (talk) 14:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't Thomas give a statistic about the number of people who performed their Easter duties at one point? It's very low. The situation seems to have been that, except for the odd baptism, marriage, or funeral, Spanish men hardly ever attended church (and this is particularly so for working class males). As often as not, church congregations were composed of a handful of elderly women. The few fashionable churches in the cities were different. They attracted bourgeois families in their finest clothes, but this was more to do with display than religion. Thomas points out that there were tensions even amongst the devout, and that the procession of a poor church might jostle that of a rich one during the religious festivals.Train guard (talk) 09:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

[User:Train guard|Train guard]], how can you make a statement like 'Spanish men hardly ever attended church'? Such strong statements - even in reference to the 'Gunpowder and Incense' are not very savoury. it is one thing to make a point about easter duties, but to make generalizations about a demographic just because they aren't catholic is not correct. Satanclawz (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

What does this mean? (Train guard (talk) 23:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC))

User: Grandiose: reword; I do not accept your charge in its seriousness, but this is still better
Yes, you are right. It is better. It was not really a good edit I made. But you made the article better. Thank you. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I have Preston's latest book. I have read La música en la Guerra Civil Española. This article is 100x more complex than the Robeson article. But I have to deal with why Robeson decided to travel to Spain during the war. You can not have sloppy citations in this article. Your citation was sloppy. This war's impact on culture is not covered in this article - which arguably it should not be covered because this is an extremely complicated subject. From the Robeson article: "The Spanish Civil War became a cause célébré on the political left as the Republicans were viewed as preserving democracy, protecting the working class, and countering Fascism.[148] Robeson would later write that the struggle against fascism in Spain was 'the turning point of my life'". I have to deal with that. I have to find out, if I can, why Robeson went to Spain and why the SCW was a "cause célébré on the political left". 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but your citations were sloppy. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not know if anyone can understand this, but I do not want to qualify the SCW in the Robeson article. I want you guys to say "The SCW was seen on the political left as" XYZ. I want to plug XYZ into the Robeson article. You guys are the experts on the SCW, not me. I hope that makes sense. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 02:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And you guys are missing a book from 1966 which should be entitled something to the effect of: "I Saw Spain Die". 66.234.33.8 (talk) 02:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would knock this article down from a good article solely based on the fact that it did not look at La música en la Guerra Civil Española. I do not believe this is a good article. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 02:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That being said, this is a massively complicated article. But it really should not be rated as a good aticle. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 02:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Ahem... "Cause célèbre", not "cause célébré".95.244.160.161 (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

This entry's beginning is not neutral
The entry states in its beginning that "Bloody purges occurred in pieces of territory conquered from the republic in order to consolidate Franco's future regime,[7] while fundamentally different killings took place in areas controlled by the Republicans, where killings were largely a result of a breakdown in law and order.[8]" Given that the Republican side included revolutionary Marxists and anarchists, two  groups with a history of killing political opponents, to claim that the Republican side's murders were fundamentally different from those of the fascists is partisan.

Further, it is noted below that "One of the rightists' principal stated motives was to confront the anti-clericalism of the Republican regime and to defend the Church,[78] which had been the targeted by opponents, including Republicans who blamed the institution for the country's ills. Prior to the war, in the Asturias uprising of 1934, religious buildings were burnt and at least one hundred clergy, religious civilians, and police were killed by revolutionaries against whom the president and the radicals prevented the implementation of serious sanctions or punishment.[79][80]" The next paragraph notes that there was a "revolution in the Republican zone at the outset of the war, killing 7,000 clergy and thousands of lay people." Thus, the Republican govt. had encouraged a breakdown of law and order, and the resulting murders before and during the Civil War started can't be whitewashed by saying that they were a result of a breakdown in law and order. The breakdown was encouraged by the Republican govt.

I intend to change that beginning, after some further research. It will be interesting to see if the changes are allowed to stand.Saintonge235 (talk) 23:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Everything given in the lead is carefully referenced and substantiated in the body of the article. What I think you're missing is the distinction made: Nationalist killings were organized by the Nationalists themselves; it was the Republican's failure to control and police their areas that led to killings. This is the distinction being made and it is the same line argued by the sources used in the article. You say that the Republicans "encouraged a breakdown of law and order" but I've never seen anything that says this. Indeed, Beevor et al. record the various attempts made by the Republicans to prevent revolutionary killings and in some cases protect Nationalist civilians directly. I think the article is really incorrect to say "revolution" but not significantly incorrect. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Flags and key people
Firstly why is there a Falangist flag next to Franco. Franco was never a falangist. Secondly Gil Robles hardly played a role in it as he was in self exile and was never asked to join the rebellion or its political staff as he was believed not to be trusted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.50.105 (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

NPOV tag
The NPOV tag was applied with this edit and an edit summary of "this section is tendentious -dogmatic Catholic opinion was decided for the Right before the scw- and one of the cites, an undergraduate essay?? and the other, payne, is right wing as anything is v". It may be related to the section two above as it is from the same editor. Could one if the regular editors address this issue, as we can't have a Good article with a NPOV tag on it. AIR corn (talk) 01:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I worked hard to ensure this article was neutral at the time of its GA nomination and have kept an eye on everything since. Of course there are people who disagree, but each and every dispute has been resolved. Payne is a standard academic in the field, a Professor at a major US university, and has published articles in many leading journals. That doesn't make him immune but I would like to see such a claim substantiated.
 * I think on reflection "dogmatic Catholic opinion was decided for the Right before the scw" is what the tagger thought the truth was, and there is certainly some truth in that. I shall amend the article to make this clearer. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. AIR corn (talk) 12:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I've achieved that. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of National Council of the Movement for merge into this article
I have nominated National Council of the Movement for merging into this article, as it does not appear to necessarily warrant article space of its own.  b e s i e g e d       talk 17:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The council doesn't feature in the war, so I don't think merging it here makes sense. More approriate would be Cortes Españolas or something - a successor body that can note its predecessor. Somewhere in the one of the articles about the Nationalists might make sense, as an alternative. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

SOMEONE FIX IT!
It says that the Spanish Civil War was fought between "the Mitt Romney and Barak Obama" Someone fix it to what it supposed to be.71.102.67.43 (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Pictures of evacuated children
I've removed the picture of the War Resisters' International children's refuge from this article in favor of an enlarged picture of evacuated children giving the Republican salute. Basically, I felt that the short paragraph about the evacuation does not leave space for more than once picture, and I felt that the other picture is better quality and easier for 21st-century readers to relate to. Besides, it sounds like most children were dispersed among residential homes rather than living in larger refuges. The WRI photo continues to be displayed in main article on Evacuation of children in the Spanish Civil War. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Anti Russian Sentiment
The Soviet premier created a section X of the Soviet Union military to head the weapons shipment operation, coined Operation X. Despite Stalin's interest in aiding the Republicans, however, most of the weapons and artillery sent to Spain were relics, some captured from past conflicts.

What exactly was a "relic"? was I-16 a relic? was T-26 a relic? On what source did the "historian" based this statement? Did he went to moscow, got access to archives, and gathered the statistics about what exactly was sent to Spain and in what numbers? Did he? No? Strange... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.52.101.196 (talk) 02:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What concrete evidence do you have that Beevor didn't use proper historical research? He is a well respected historian. Do you have conflicting references of this situation which say otherwise? If so, provide them. Claiming bias in the whole article if it is just that paragraph fragment at issue isn't appropriate. If instead, you are suggesting every Beevor reference is western POV, you are going to have to provide a LOT of supporting information to back this up. ( Hohum  @ ) 21:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * the banner says "The neutrality of this article" So I am still convinced it meant to be used for the whole article. 84.52.101.196 (talk) 22:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, Beevor accessed Moscow records, many of them recently released. I understand he speaks Russian, and had access to some new material which came to light some time after the break up of the Soviet Union. He lists some manifests (as does Thomas - the same records are one of the main differences between Thomas editions) on particular ships. You can check if you like, it's one of the appendices to Thomas; it's integrated in Beevor's case, as I recall. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd love to check it. Is it online somewhere? The Spanish wikipedia says only about I-16, I-15 fighters, SB bombers, t-26 and bt tanks. Non of those were relics.
 * Actually the whole part of the soviet involvement has a strong negative flavour in it. Something which is not in the Spanish or the Russian language version. 84.52.101.196 (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I stand by the factual claims - I'm having a look online, I just wish I still had Thomas - but I agree the section's tone isn't quite right and if it weren't Christmas I'd get on and edit it myself. It's just slightly loosely worded. I did manage to find: Michael S. Neiberg, Routledge: Most of these weapons were outdated World War I and Civil War surplus arms (here). There a few more but I'm going to look for more by way of hard facts. Given the date, I shan't be editing tomorrow. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't argue about the absence of a ref of the statement. I just argue on what the refs base it. not even to mention that the whole "Most of these weapons were outdated World War I and Civil War surplus arms" looks like a complete nonsense. Triplanes from WWI? Tanks? Or do they mean mosin-nagant rifles, which despite being quite old indeed were still used by SU itself.
 * Anyway, merry christmas. There is no reason to hurry in editing the article. It stayed like that for years, can wait for few more ;) 84.52.101.196 (talk) 23:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * From memory, I think it's artillery and rifles in particular. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So among all the types of weaponry sent, the rifles and artillery can justify "mostly relics" wording. British historians are so British. What exactly was send and in what quantity? Maybe the wording "mostly" could be justified at least by the weight of the equipment. BTW Spanish wikipedia says only about half a million mosin rifles. Which were hardly "relics" at the time. No other types of rifle mentioned there. 84.52.101.196 (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't question the veracity of Beevor's research, but the tone of the paragraph is non-encyclopedic. Just the facts and not the clever language. For example "relic" is clever but imprecise -- if you mean obsolete say it. I cleaned up the Soviet section and removed the tag. I don't have an axe to grind here. I just try to relsolve conflicts at WP and keep us up to encyclopedic standards. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like a good start, once I have the books I'll give it another check. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please do not remove the tag yet. We are yet to see the basis for the "mostly relics" statement. Planes were fine, tanks were fine. What could that be than? "Occasionally, modern weapons such as BT-5 tanks were sent." yeah, right. It's like t-26 was a relic. And only "occasionally" they were lucky to get the modern BT-5s 84.52.101.196 (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've (finally) got what Beevor says and have rewritten the passage based on what it says. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! But still, "the rifles and field guns provided were generally old and obsolete." What exact types of rifles and guns were provided? And the amounts of each type, to justify the word "generally". As i said above - Spanish wikipedia says only about half a million mosin rifles. Which were hardly "relics" at the time. No other types of rifle mentioned there. 84.52.101.196 (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We're relying on the judgement of a reliable source on that one. Beevor can be found online here (at least for me - these things sometimes vary by where you are). He refers to one set of artillery as of "Tsarist vintage", for example (hence why it's clear he means Soviet arms, not just those from other countries). I have also found Stanley G. Payne's notes on the subject: [page 156 and following which I should probably add to the article. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So there is no factual basis of the "mostly relics" statement whatsoever. British historians are so British :) 84.52.101.196 (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Reassessment of GA status
I've initiated a reassessment of the article's GA status. The review is transcluded here:

Please address the neutrality issue for this article to keep it's status. Articleye (talk) 05:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Good article vs neutrality questioned
There's a big banner saying the neutrality of this article is questioned due to systemic bias. Yet this has been granted a status of GOOD ARTICLE. A criterion for this designation is written in a neutral point of view.

These two designations are contradictory. You can't be a Good Article, if it's not written in a neutral point of view. One or the other designation has to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.100.19 (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

In considering the impact of Soviet involvement in the Spanish Civil War (1936 -1939) a consideration of "Homage to Catalonia) by George Orwell is relevant.

Orwell fought with the "Partido Obrero de Unificacion Marxista" (POUM). The POUM was a Trotsyist splinter group and so his opinions should be viewed in that light.

That said, his views that the Republican parties lost the war because the Communists (Stalinists in Orwells view) had betrayed the revolution is an issue that has been overlooked in analysis of the Spanish Civil war.

This is likely because the "right" want to paint all "leftists" as "totalitarian Stalinist Communists" and the "left" is unable to accept that the war was at times less than a pure crusade against "Spanish Feudalism" and "World Capitalism". "Homage to Calalonia" 1938 Penguine Classics Andrew Aus (talk) 13:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)Andrew_Aus

I have read this article and the couterpart article in Spanish. The article in English is I believe biased as it lacks normal balanced historical evaluation. I suggest that the best way forward is for this article to be improved by transpation from the Spanish. Isthisuseful (talk) 23:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Spanish civil war?
Isn't the correct English spelling "Spanish civil war"? See for example Libyan civil war. Gryffindor (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * History has had more time to sit on this one. So it is not merely "Spanish civil war" like a civil war, or something that could be described as a civil war, happening in Spain, but rather a specific conflict known by a specific name, like English Civil War or Russian Civil War. Libya is understand an exception, although I agree with that exception. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality, again
I'd just like to put what I think has happened here down on paper. The article used to use some rather loose language, which was construed as anti-Soviet. I tightened it up so there is now a mere breath between the sources (Beevor, Payne and Howson) and the article. As I understand it, another editor is prepared to accept that the article reflects these sources, but considers those sources to be themselves biased. I would like to further state they are very well known authors whose work is an accurate reflection of the published English-language material on the topic. That other editor has indicated that he or she believes "English-language material" as a whole to be biased. If it is, I wouldn't like to conclude either way – only to say that the authors concerned remain well-respected among their peers internationally. The more important point is that Wikipedia only purports to be a summary of published material on a topic: "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." If the editor concerned would like to raise sources in other languages that contradict the information in the article, I would more than happily consider them in light of the last sentence to see if inclusion represented their proper weight. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Your views of the editor's position are distorted. I don't mind using Beevor or any other of the saint trinity, mentioned by you above, as far as using them follows wikipedia guideline "stay with the facts". "mostly relics" isn't fact. It's a personal assessment. You seem to push on authority of the trinity, and willing to put into article anything, just coz they mere say so. I appreciate your effort in trying to find the factual basis behind their statements. But when you realized that there is none, the next step became too hard to take.
 * The source with criticism of the saint trinity's "research" obviously does not exist. coz nobody knows/cares about them outside of english world, and inside they seem to be taken with religious zeal.
 * The systemic bias, by it's nature, can not be countered by "giving weights", since this is exactly the way it's introduced. Blindly following guideline "this is verifiable so shall be in" while ignoring other ("stay with the facts") will mere make wikipedia a collection of cliches and stereotypes, popular among the prevailing editors. This is reflected in details on the systemic bias page.
 * According to the guideline "they should seek to improve articles by removing any examples of cultural bias that they encounter, or making readers aware of them", I've put the warning tag. 84.52.101.196 (talk) 06:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * and about the "That other editor has indicated that he or she believes "English-language material" as a whole to be biased" This belief is in the wikipedia guideline now. Please embrace it. British long lasting tradition to polish history in their favor made it's way into Russian anecdotes and folklore. the phrases i've cited "British historians are so British", "British documentaries are so British" and so on, are just Russian proverbs. Here is a better example of the hypocrisy of British historians: When do you think WW2 started? With invasion of Poland, right? No! This is a mere British view of it. Poland was not the first county invaded by Hitler. The warfare started when Britain and France had sold Czechoslovakia to Hitler (read up on Munich Agreements, preferably not in wikipedia ;) ) with the invasion of Czechoslovakia. To deal with the shameful fact, the historians had just polished it out of the WW2 history. And now British public believes that the WW2 started at 1 Sep 1939 and is largely unaware of the Munich agreements. Hop! Britain is the knight in shining armour again! ... in the eyes of the British public at least. I know for a person with particular personality traits this might be hard to accept. But British historians are hardly a model of objectivity, and, in fact, truth 84.52.101.196 (talk) 07:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That "British = biased" line isn't going to cut it. If you think that this source is not reliable for some claims its used, then you can raise that issue at WP:RSN.--Staberinde (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The word "relic" is not in the article. Please adjust to fit the actual content of the article. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The "relic" is just an example. There are plenty of others. The main problem remains. The article uses views of some historians, instead of facts. And apparently the facts are the weakest point of the sources used to make the article. Furthermore the relic was essentially rephrased. It's still there.84.52.101.196 (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe I'm right in saying this is the problematic (or most problematic) paragraph (references removed):
 * Stalin also created Section X of the Soviet Union military to head the weapons shipment operation; this was called Operation X. Despite Stalin's interest in aiding the Republicans, the quality of arms was inconsistent. On one hand, the many of the rifles and field guns provided were old, obsolete or otherwise of limited use. On the other hand, the T-26 and BT-5 tanks were modern and effective in combat. The Soviet Union supplied aircraft that were in current service with their own forces, but the aircraft provided by Germany to the Nationalists proved superior by the end of the war.
 * Is that correct? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No. At least the whole section is. I used the "relic" part to show it, coz it was an obvious utter nonsense. Not found anywhere apart from english wikipedia. And i was certain you won't be able to find facts to back it. I was right, but it did not shutter your uncritical perception of the saint trinity ;) Unfortunately you can't read the article on other languages to have better impression of what am i saying. And how ridiculous the english one is looking. For the provided example paragraph the factual statement would be "the SU provided X canons of type Y from year Z..." essentially using facts, rather than views (interpretations) of a particular historian whether they are British or Russian or from another galaxy. And that is btw how it's done in Spanish and Russian versions. There are just plain numbers of types of equipment delivered, sometimes with models. ( Btw facts about the numbers of delivered armaments are different too )
 * Again, the paragraph is just an example. The rest of the section at least also should be factual. 84.52.101.196 (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW, about the hypocrisy of British historians. Spanish wikipedia also says about financial support to the fascists from British and American companies. For example, Shell and Texaco were selling petroleum to Franco throughout the whole war in credit. Is this fact reflected in your beloved Bevor research? ;) 84.52.101.196 (talk) 19:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, here. It's mentioned in the article in more vague terms as Spanish Civil War.Beevor is not "my beloved", he is merely a respected historian. His history was also published in Spanish and won critical acclaim in Spain. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh ok. It's not that bad as i thought than. Take it as an example of my cultural bias ;)
 * BTW He is nowhere in the reference section of the Spanish wikipedia. But it's an offtopic anyway. 84.52.101.196 (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Almost all our articles would be immesurably worse off if they did not involve a reliably sourced narrative - that is to say, something like mentioning whether the weapons supplied were good or bad weapons rather than merely listing them. With that in mind, and that the converse is most definitely not guideline or policy, what excerpts would address the perceived bias? What mentions or incidents, added or removed? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 00:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Almost all our articles would be immesurably worse off if they did not involve a reliably sourced narrative - that is to say, something like mentioning whether the weapons supplied were good or bad weapons rather than merely listing them." It may be worse in your opinion, but it's exactly how it meant to be. "Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts and only facts" It's not about good and bad. If you prefer to be fed with that sort of information, I'd recommend to stick to BBC or any other TV channel. 84.52.101.196 (talk) 13:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I have read this article and was puzzled to see that it is a good article and at the same time it is tagged as biased. I read the article in its current version and could not detect an anti-Soviet basis. The reference to Soviet arms supplies as "relics" has long been corrected. I think the tag should be removed, since it misleads the readers.--Mschiffler (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I have to agree that the tag seems unwarranted. The basis of the dispute seems to be that it relies heavily on western historians that some editors believe display an anti-soviet bias (there doesn't seem to be any question as to their reliability). The solution to balance this out is to add information from other reliable historians that have a different take on this. At the end of the day we can only say what others have already said. AIR corn (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The tag actually had been removed at one point, as only 84.52.101.196 seems to think it's necessary. This has led to some disputes previously. With due trepidation, I'm removing the tag. Again. DCB4W (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Page protection
Per a request at RFPP, I've protected the page for a week while you all sort out whether or not the tag should be there. If you happen to reach a consensus before then, feel free to request unprotection. Thanks. Rjd0060 (talk) 05:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There already is a consensus to remove it since everyone here with the exception of an IP-user in Saint Petersburg, Russia, are in favor of removing the systemic bias tag (see discussions above). The only one to readd the tag is said IP-user, who is currently blocked both under his normal IP and another IP for edit warring on another article (plus abusing multiple accounts), but has now started to IP-hop in order to be able to readd the systemic bias tag here. I was going to request long-term semi-protection of the article because of the IP-hopping but you protected the article before I had a chance of doing anything. Thomas.W (talk) 08:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I was the one who requested temporary semi protection. I probably should have left a better rational, but this will do the same job I suppose. If the IP doesn't continue the discussion here or starts readding the tag after protection has expired without consensus then it might be time to go long term semi. AIR corn (talk) 09:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The IP (84.52.101.196) will most probably not be willing to discuss the matter since he has a documented history of not wanting to collaborate with others. His current two wetek block is for a combination of edit warring (3RR) and "non-collaborative repeated battleground mentality", and one of the reasons for his previous block was WP:NOTHERE. Which is why I was going to request long-term semi-protection. Thomas.W (talk) 09:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

so much hypocrisy and blatant lie! neither i am the only one who see bias there, nor the consensus was reached. but once in a while ppl with particular mentality come here with "I read the article in its current version and could not detect an anti-Soviet basis." and remove the tag right away with pretence that it's not justified, or there is a consensus reached. It's pointless to "discuss" anything with you, since you don't base your position on wikipedia guidelines. Only on "I found" "I think" and other "I"s and now "we"s. Have fun discussing it with each other. And reach "consensus" even though you never were in disagreement, but it won't stop you to call it "reach consensus". 83.149.2.85 (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It is clear that the IP (84.52.101.196) is so far not willing to discuss the matter on substance. He keeps reinstating the POV tag without discussing the matter on the talk page. I support that the page remains protected until the issue is resolved and I call on the anonymous user to let everyone else involved know where there still is an anti-soviet bias in the article.--Mschiffler (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 March 2013
When the protection was added it messed up the infobox. {{Infobox military conflict needs to be added back in.

AIR corn (talk) 05:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. Fixed. AIR corn (talk) 05:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Canaris
Why is there no mention of Wilhelm Canaris, head of German Military Intelligence (the Abwehr) until his arrest in 1944? The article about him states that "he was the moving force behind the decision that sided Germany with Francisco Franco during the Spanish Civil War, despite Hitler's initial hesitation to get involved in such an adventure."

Canaris had a history of involvement in Spain going back to World War I, and he made repeated covert trips to Spain during the Nazi Era. (In 1940, he unsuccessfully tried to persuade Franco to attack Gibralter, or to allow German troops into Spain to attack Gibralter.) Sca (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

How about adding a section: Outbreak of the war: breaking the defence of the Republic with external forces
Think: how civil can a war be, if there are foreign STATES and later literally FOREIGN ARMIES involved on the attacking side?

Desde1931 (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Several countries intervened in the civil war to help bring about the result they thought best suited them. This is the case in other civil wars, most notably the Russian Civil War. See also Foreign involvement in the Spanish Civil War. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I mean emphasis on the ATTACKING side. This removes parallels with the Russian Civil War (and OTHER Civil Wars).

Desde1931 (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Why are the CNT referred to as "simply" anarchists?
Its been decades since I've thought about the Spanish Civil War so if I make a mistake just say so. I was under the impression that not only were the CNT the biggest group in the "left" coalition but also that they classed themselves as anarcho-syndicalists. There is a distinction. I searched the article for the term and couldn't find it. Trade Unionism (termed "labor unionism" if one is being precise - I just use trade unionism because its easier for modern minds to relate to) was at the core of CNT membership and even their article here on Wikpedia describes the CNT in labour union terms. The article gives the impression that "anarchism" is an all embracing term that can be applied to all the Republicans. This is not the case - the various factions on the republican side actually differed greatly but the CNT were the major force within that coalition simply by virtue of having the biggest union membership and a highly structured organisation. The CNT actually had a lot of problems with the more extreme anarchists and communists in the coalition. They were a "moderate" (in the sense of economics - the were not advocating a "free for all" just a reorganization of the state to benefit the workers - agricultural or otherwise) and preferred to be called anarcho-syndicalists compared to other factions within the coalition.

If you divorce labour unionism from this article then you just leave the impression of "anarchism without form". The CNT were highly organised and had a vast membership (I know I said it earlier but it needs to be stressed). I do believe that they had a problem with the communist factions. I can't remember the details it really has been decades since I've read this stuff. I think it was to do with centralized power or devolved power and also they didn't look to Russia - which always caused a problem in those days when non-russian communists were firm in the belief that the Russian model for communism was the one to be applied everywhere. I think the CNT objected which led to a split and the weakening of the coalition.

I don't think this is a good article when it uses the word "anarchist" to describe an "anarcho-syndicalist". Does that mean that the Labour Party in the UK are anarcho-syndicalists because they have the word "labour" in their name or that they want to install a Russian model of communism in England.

As far as I'm concerned until I see the various groupings in the "left" coalition described accurately then all you do is give the impression of peasants riding donkeys throwing petrol bombs at rich people and priests. Hardly the truth but very useful if you want to put off readers from even investigating the arguments for "left wing" thought especially with regards to labour unionism.

This is not a "good" article it is shallow and what has been left out - in this case: definition - is so shocking that one wonder's if any of you understands the Form of Good and the nature of opinion. You cannot read politics without reading philosophy. Their should be a definition of "anarcho-syndicalism" and there should be a definition of "anarchism" as well as "communism" - they are three different things and were the cause for the "lefts" coalition falling apart or I should say the disagreements with one another.

Sluffs (talk) 00:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The CNT is described under "Political parties and organizations" as anarcho-syndicalist. Elsewhere, the article adopts the word "anarchist" based on the terminology of the reliable sources on which it is based. There were large numbers of anarchists in Spain, both syndicalist and non-syndicalist: see Background of the Spanish Civil War. Accordingly I imagine the term is used in those sources to include both sorts. The "Soviet Union" section deals with the Republic's relationship with the Soviet Union. I'm not sure where you get the picture of "peasants riding donkeys throwing petrol bombs at rich people and priests" from; our description in "Combatants" does not seem to favour that interpretation. As to definition, Wikipedia prefers to leave such detail to the reader to click through on the links provided. In any case, Anarcho-syndicalism begins "Anarcho-syndicalism is a branch of anarchism which views revolutionary industrial unionism or syndicalism as an appropriate vehicle for subjugated classes in capitalist society to regain control over the course of their own destiny." which allows for "anarchism" to be used in the way I have just described; although imprecise, it is not inaccurate and so in order to assume proper summary style it is necessary to invoke. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

1) It is a very good point.

2) BUT THE WAR was all about PROTECTING THE REPUBLIC that was UNDER ATTACK. (I'm not yelling.)

My sincere respect to everyone who realizes the importance of this article,

Desde1931 (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Romanian participation
Despite a second attempt by an editor to remove it, I really see no harm in keeping the following content: "Over five hundred Romanians fought on the Republican side, including Romanian Communist Party members Petre Borilă and Valter Roman. About 80 volunteers from Ireland formed the Connolly Column,...". The people referred to are notable enough to have their own articles on Wikipedia, and I haven't actually checked the references, but AGF. Please discuss before removing sourced content without consensus. Thank you. --Technopat (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The harm comes from loading up the article with trivia. Given the bibliography this article could be 2000 pages long. names of two men from Romania who did nothing notable according to their wiki articles.  80 people from Ireland (out of 40,000 foreigners) and what did they do in the war?  that information is not given. Rjensen (talk) 23:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't think we can consider linked pages as trivia. In principle, pending any outstanding AfDs or similar issues, if an article is considered notable enough for Wikipedia, I really don't see why it shouldn't be included in any relevant article. If you consider that the Connolly Column, for instance, is not notable 'cos it consisted of "80 people from Ireland (out of 40,000 foreigners)", go ahead and open an AfD. Likewise for any of the other links you deleted from the article. In any case, and at the very least, I suggest you get consensus here before deleting them from this article.--Technopat (talk) 00:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

universal truth/consensus
Wikipedia, I beg my English, but is anyone keeping clear eye and mind on Spanish article? WIKIPEDIA does NOT AIM universal truth/consensus maybe? Desde1931 (talk) 00:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest you ask that question at the talk page for the Spanish article. Jezhotwells (talk) 07:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

It is corrupt to consider Spain part of the free world as it is corrupt to consider world history complete. Sorry. Desde1931 (talk) 22:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Spanish war of 1936-1939 was not 10x10-100+1000/1, it was simple as 1-1.Desde1931 (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

... forgive me for writing this here, but there will be no 3rd Republic, because 3rd Republic is disrespectful illusion when 2nd Republic is legitimate. Desde1931 (talk) 00:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

NPOV: killed vs. died vs. executed vs. murdered, etc.
Much mention is made of the number of clergymen killed, but very little detail is given as to the circumstances in which these people died. It's clear that some/many were murdered precisely for belonging to the Church, just as some/many people were murdered for being "reds" (or merely suspected of being red), but any war causes great collateral damage and just as there were doctors, lawyers, teachers and housewives who died, the statistics simply group them together as dead. I would imagine that in any war, bombing/bombarding causes more deaths than single shots from rifles/pistols, and so I would hazard a guess that most war victims, whether military or civilian, clergymen or doctors, etc., are precisely from that kind of wholesale slaughter as opposed to individual, face-to-face killing. So, the bottom line is, in the interest of NPOV, should the text be modifed to reflect that x number of people "died" rather than "were killed", unless there is a specific mention in reliable sources that refer to the actual circumstances surrounding a specific death? Just a thought. --Technopat (talk) 11:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe most of the figures are for those specifically killed, rather than died (for example, died whilst fighting for one side). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

civilians killed, clergymen killed - that's war - war was STARTED by those who were with Nazi Germany - how IDEALIST - how MANY MILLION INNOCENT killed by Nazi? sorry (for my English) Desde1931 (talk) 00:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

General Mola
He appears showing a Carlist flag, but he was never a Carlist. He happened to be in Pamplona and manged to get them involved, but that was it. He was a staunch republican and argued with the Carlist for things as to which flag had to be used, Mola supporting the Republican flag, and the Carlist the bi-color one. I suggest that the Carlist flag is removed from his side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.164.4.52 (talk) 10:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Against the inclusion of CEDA & PG as belligerents in the infobox
I reject the inclusion of that two parties (one on the republican side and the other on the nationalist one) as belligerents, as neither of them formed companies, batallions, etc..., as the rest of parties or factions in both sides did (at least in the beginning of the war). If we included them, more entities, parties, etc... must be included, for example, the Sovereign Council of Asturias and León.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Minor correction needed
This sentence doesn't make sense: "The Spanish Republican Army had just 18 tanks of a sufficiently modern design, and the Republicans retained 10." I don't know how to correct it, though. Wilson44691 (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler
Adolf Hitler knew what pincher is - I agree with R'rtma

Desde1931 (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

spanishcivilwar, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isthisuseful (talk • contribs) 20:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Internet Time
breaks lies Desde1931 (talk) 23:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

España (not only)
Republic=Free responsibility

Kingdom=free Irresponsibility

thank Desde1931 (talk) 01:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Date inconsistency
The article starts out "The Spanish Civil War was fought from 17 July 1936 to 1 April 1939...", but in the infobox it says "18 July 1936 – 28 March 1939". I looked at a few other articles in other languages, and they indicate 17 July 1936 to 1 April 1939 in their infoboxes. Feludnost (talk) 00:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine
Is similar, but not same. It is not preparation for World War 3. Desde1931 (talk) 01:45, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Confusing Background
I found the Background section very confusing. It's hard to follow why the country fractured and which leaders and groups were on which side. Additionally, the section states that Niceto Alcalá-Zamora was the first prime minister of the Second Spanish Republic. A few sentences later, it says that Manuel Azaña was made Prime Minister, but when I click his name it says he was the first Prime Minister of the Second Spanish Republic. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Alcalá-Zamora was the first president of the republic. Azaña the first prime minister.89.150.132.108 (talk) 22:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If that is so, then the article is wrong. The article currently states, "Niceto Alcalá-Zamora became the first prime minister." --Odie5533 (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thomas (1961) supports that Zamora was the first Prime Minister: "A new government took over the ministries in Madrid with ease. The first Prime Minister of the republic was Niceto Alcalá Zamora, a barrister from Andalusia, with the flowery style of eloquence typical of that region." --Odie5533 (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Zamora was the first president and Azaña was the first prime minister according to The Battle For Spain By Atony Beevor (2006) (page 23) "On 14 April 1931 the revolutionary committee headed be Niceto Alcalá Zamora.. converted itself into the provisional government if the Republic. Alcalá Zamora then became president and head of state." then later on (page 28)"on 9 December the constitution was voted through. Niceto Alcalá Zamora was formally elected president of the Republic and on 15 December Azaña formed a new government". I've corrected this in the background section. User:Palinmicheal 4 June 2014 — Preceding undated comment added 14:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

thank you, and please
please ask in international public from Felipe Juan Pablo Alfonso de Todos los Santos de Borbón y de Grecia; born 30 January 1968: Was it good or bad that Spanish Civil War broke out? Desde1931 (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)