Talk:Spanish Civil War/Archive 9

Proposed merge-in of the article Red terror (Spain)
Red terror (Spain) strikes me as an attempt to take a particular aspect of the Spanish Civil War and ring-fence it so that a particular point of view (the pro-clerical one, as it happens) can be expressed with a vigour which might be blinkered, and without regard to other points of view. This strikes me as un-Wikipedian. It would be better for the topics covered to be covered here, in a manner that would be likely to be more broadly discussed and more measured in outcome. Any thoughts? —Ian Spackman 19:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The articles should remain separated. The subject is not a POV fork but a separate, although somewhat related, topic.  Like Red Terror (Soviet), Red Terror (Ethiopia), Great Purge, Reign of Terror, Thermidorian Reaction and White Terror, the article recounts a distinct subject, even if it may have been part of a larger war.  Each of those articles like this one, involve a purge, persecution, revolt or the like within a larger circumstance, but they are sufficiently distinct to warrant a separate article.  It could likewise be argued (with equally poor reasoning) that Red Terror should be merged into the Russian Revolution or that Reign of Terror and Thermidorian Reaction be merged into French Revolution.  But these, like the Red Terror in Spain are distict events that merit separate articles.  Merging them into the larger article only makes the larger article too voluminous and cumbersome.  Like those other articles, this is not a POV fork but an article about a distinct and recognized historical event.


 * While there are lots of good reasons not to merge, some of which are listed above, the typical reasons given to merge a page do not exist here. 1) The article is not a duplicate. 2)Overlap is not a good reason because there is not a "large overlap" as required - rather this is an article about the war itself but about persecution, killing, and purging of Nationalists and Catholics (specifically clergy).  3) The amount of text is not a good reason as it is only apt when an article is "very short and is unlikely to be expanded" - this article is substantial already and likely to be expanded, whereas the Civil War article, as noted at the top of this page in the to-do list, is already too long.  4) Context, i.e. where  background from a broader article is needed in order for readers to understand it, is not a good reason either as the substantial "background" has already been added and the article was edited by one user, adding details of the nationalist killings (white terror), with the specific intention of removing POV. Mamalujo 23:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * (Duplicated comment; see Merger with.. section for further discussion. Xyl 54 11:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC))


 * I concur, also there is the risk of POV pushers who would like to see atrocities relegated to footnotes where they merit articles of their own.


 * It should be noted that the article White Terror - Spain was created today, substantially blunting the POV claims about the Red Terror article.Mamalujo 22:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's now two months since this article was nominated for merger and there clearly is no consensus. It's about time someone closes the discussion. Mamalujo 00:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree with the merger. Both the Red and White Terrors deserve their own articles. Algabal 22:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge-in of the article Martyrs of the Spanish Civil War
Apparently a POV fork along the lines of Red terror (Spain). A thoroughly bad idea methinks. —Ian Spackman 19:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The articles should remain separated. The subject is not a POV fork but a separate, although somewhat related, topic.  Like Korean Martyrs, Saints of the Cristero War, Vietnamese Martyrs, Martyrs of Uganda, Martyrs of Thailand and Martyrs of Japan, the article recounts Christians (in this case Catholic - but some articles like Martyrs of Korea also includes Protestants killed) who were killed for their faith.  They are all separate articles about martyrs killed in war or persecution.  Like those other articles, this is not a POV fork but a saints related article.  As noted in the article, hundreds of those killed have already been, or are about to be, canonized.  Presumably, the article will be expanded to include more information specifically relating to sainthood and canonization (miracles attributed, et cetera) - not really material which would fit within the Spanish Civil War article.  Q.E.D.: it is a separate subject which requires a separate article.


 * While there are lots of good reasons not to merge, some of which are listed above, the typical reasons given to merge a page do not exist here. 1) The article is not a duplicate. 2)Overlap is not a good reason because there is not a "large overlap" as required - rather this is an article about persecution, martyrdom and the canonization process of those Christians killed during the Civil War period.  3) The amount of text is not a good reason as it is only apt when an article is "very short and is unlikely to be expanded" - this article is substantial already and likely to be expanded, whereas the Civil War article, as noted at the top of this page in the to-do list, is already too long.  4) Context, i.e. where  background from a broader article is needed in order for readers to understand it, is not a good reason either as the Martyrs article already has a section called "background" serving this very purpose. Mamalujo 22:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Good proposal. Mamalujo repeteadly cancelled a note of mine, based on Beevor's work, as partisan and factious, but he's by far the extremist no.1 here around. (This unsigned post was added by Basil II on 13th July 2007)(moved here by Xyl 54 11:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC))


 * (Duplicated comment: see Merger with.. section for further discussion. Xyl 54 11:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC))
 * While I can understand the idea to merge, I agree that it would probably be less than productive. In this case, the Martyrs of the Spanish Civil War is, as has already been stated, more an article about those individuals who have been honored on the basis of their martyrdom during the war, rather than about the war itself. I can understand that the content might be hard to completely prevent from being somewhat POV on the war in this particular article. However, I do think that, potentially, the list of individual peoples so honored which should in time be listed here, as opposed to probably having separate articles about each one, will more than justify keeping this as a separate article. Also, given the chance of POV in the article, I think it would be a lot better to have that POV expressed in a separate less-often-accessed article rather than in the more central Spanish Civil War article. John Carter 13:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The Martyrs... article is a clear pov fork. The naming is highly pov, as it indicates that wiki would sanction the assertion of the Franquist propaganda on 'martyrhood'. The people killed by the fascists were also overwhelmingly Catholics, perhaps the material would better fit in a discussion on how the conflict was presented in political discourse during the Franco era. --Soman 10:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * the above is palpable nonsense, the Martyrs have been declared as such, and recognised as beati and saints by the Holy See. Unless Soman is willing to argue that B16 is a flukey for Franquism he/she should keep his/her notions to him/herself. --Isolani 16:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I find that the Martyrs article should not be merged with the Civil War article, mainly because it's atrociously biased. In fact, I don't think it should be an article at all. As Ian Spackman says, it looks awfully like a POV fork Dr Benway 13:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Now see discussion at AFD. Fayenatic (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It's now two months since this article was nominated for merger and there clearly is no consensus. It's about time someone closes the discussion. Mamalujo 00:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Merging with articles? discussion

 * Articles proposed to be merged with this one are unneutral, since they only talk about violence in one side, separating it from its context, screwing it up, by doing generalized accussations and by criminalizing, and by shutting up about status quo and initial situations, charesty, oligarchy, control and exploitation maintained from elites, by Estate, over humble masses, who started to become rebellious against that; missing up the whole context results in a biased, uncomplete view, very unjust with historical context and facts, and will not let us understand the whole nature of it, the reason of such "violent", subversive reactions, nor the subsequent revolutionary process that led to Spanish Revolution's attempt in 1934, and Spanish anarcho-syndicalist Revolution's success (during at least one year) in Republican side, once inited the war. Anti-clericalism, factories, bussiness and lands occupations, revolts and strikes, often repressed with hardness by Estate's forces, must be regarded into this context, then everything will make much more sense, and be more fair and equitable with facts.
 * Most of those articles referes to the same source or same author (it should be checke if they served a propagandistic or ideologized purpose, and similar strategies). Discussion's part from those articles are even empty, since they were just written by one single individuous. This article is much more complete and serious, and should not be mixed with limited and ideologized ones. That's my modest petition about proposal to merge with them. They (these articles proposed to be merged) should first be checked, analised and fairly and seriously neutralised (a change in title and a remaking would be most convenient), in order to be such proposal considered. DeepQuasar 21:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As the proposer of the merge I agree with much of what you say here, except what is to be done. It seems to me that merging what are arguably POV forks is the best way of ensuring that the topics receive proper attention rather than being presented essentially from a single ideological viewpoint. —Ian Spackman 21:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you state it will be reviewed and rewritten, as a part of the article? If that's actually done, there would be no problem, of course, so I would also agree, always there exist a deep and contextualized debate. Always it's not biased and accords to demonstrable facts, explained in their context, as a whole. DeepQuasar 22:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I can’t guarantee what would happen and, to be quite straightforward, I would not expect myself to be involved as an editor: I simply know too little. (Besides I’d have to watch myself for pro-POUM bias.) But certainly I would hope and expect that the contents of the articles would be subjected to the usual Wikipedian processes of review and argument from alternative viewpoints. One way or another that seems very necessary: at the moment they exist in ghettos. —Ian Spackman 23:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * (Your pardon: I’ve moved stuff about a bit to follow the discussion better;)


 * For my two-pennyworth I would be against merger, though the reason for it, that the articles would otherwise be ring-fenced, or exist in a ghetto, has given me pause for thought.


 * My objection is that SCW is too big already, and this stuff wouldn’t enhance it. Besides, as it is contentious and may well start an edit war, maybe the best place is on a separate page.


 * If those articles need changing I think it should be done there; and having raised the issue and brought it into the open, there is every chance of that happening.


 * The “Martyrs..” talk page has nothing on it at the moment;
 * The “Red Terror” talk page has some discussion, including a long piece about White Terror


 * I think there is plenty that could be said on both subjects, both in the particular and in the general; there is a also need for a page on the Nationalist terror campaign, with links to all from the “Atrocities” section of SCW.


 * I think that would be a better way forward.Xyl 54 12:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I am opposed to merging Red Terror (Spain) with this page because the Civil War started after many atrocities etc., at the hands of the broad Left in Spain had already taken place and had been well reported in, say, London quality newspapers. David Lauder 18:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The Martyrs page should be merged; the Red Terror page should not because it involves events that did not occur during the Civil War and wouldn't fit well on this page.--Gloriamarie 19:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The Martyrs page was discussed at AFD with the decision keep. I have renamed it as Roman Catholic martyrs of the Spanish Civil War. - Fayenatic (talk) 12:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Atrocities during the war
This section appears biased in regard to the atrocities committed by the Nationalists. The source supporting the claims is titled "Memoria republicana", which is by no means neutral. Wikipedea is far more balanced on its actual page on the bombing of Geurnica, though similar bias with the same source surfaces on the Battle of Badajoz. There are additional sources listed that appear equally biased.

If inflammatory language is going to be used, suggesting "in the case of the Nationalist side these atrocities were ordered by fascist authorities in order to eradicate any trace of leftism in Spain," I believe passive should be used to indicate that some see it this way. This phrase sounds Hitleresque, and Franco was no Hitler. The killings surely also occurred to keep anarchists from killing more priests(and others of course) and not just to stop freedom of expression. As for eliminating the left, there were liberal monarchists and catholics on the side of the Nationalists as well. There is also always a section of the left that disdains marxism and anarchism enough to side with the right. Also, plenty of members of the left survived Franco. He evidently did a very poor job removing "any trace" of them. He committed atrocities to stop atrocities, remove resistance and win a war. This does not make it right, but simply different than described here. Within the 1938-39 section, one finds the closest thing to what is described here, but it is completely undocumented. Even these horrendous number would not prove this statement.

Furthermore, the Republican government is culpable in the atrocities committed by its supporters, and members of its governing coalition, which occurred even before the outbreak of hostilities. To say they were disorganized is no excuse. If a government or military does not act to restrain its members from atrocities, it is passively supporting them.

I understand the passion here, but please cite a more balanced source, list the atrocities in a more balanced manor (they are simply reported for the Republicans), or use passive to indicate the very reasonable assumption that some find more fault with the more unified command structure of the Nationalists.

After looking at the article some more, I noticed quite a lot of the pro radical Republic passages are completely undocumented. When I read that there was a huge success in land redistribution by anarchists in the middle of a war, my eyebrows go up. A good deal of this wiki entry is undocumented and the some of the documentation that exists seems third rate.

I find that the atrocities section seems more biased for the Nationalists than for the Republicans, and especially biased against Anarchists. The article has an entire paragraph devoted to Republican killings of Catholic clergy and religious but does not mention Nationalist killings of priests or Protestant clergy. It also implies that Guernica was bombed to "eradicate leftism" when it was actually bombed to terrorize civilians. Furthermore, the article mentions that on the Republican side, anarchists were especially responsible for atrocities, yet the article cited to support his claim makes little mention of Anarchists. This article even states that, when made "Special delegate of prisons," an Anarchist stopped the systematic killing of prisoners in Republican prisons.Ledhead1788 00:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that it is badly worded. However, "Franco was no Hitler" mainly in the rather trivial sense that he didn't have a toothbrush moustache. We already know that the Nationalists murdered "reds" whenever they conquered a town.


 * And this isn't even a right vs. left issue. Franco was not interested in tolerating rivals of the right or left. As soon as he was able, he would up the Carlists, Falangists and CEDA (all right wing), and merged them all into a completely meaningless new party controlled by him. BillMasen 00:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to put a bit of scholary input, those who can read spanish -or use reasonable translators-, pls. have a look at this article by late Prof. Javier Tussell about Terror during the the war, and this other one, at the same site, by Prof. Stanley G. Payne on the repression after the war.

Prof. Tussell's article (just discovered today) is IMHO one of the best reflections i've ever read about, (even when i would object to some details ...)--Wllacer 14:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

(Online) Primary Documentation Alert
I just recently stumbled upon a portal of the Spanish State Archives digitalization effort. There is a lot of primary documents there accesible to just anybody. But in this context the most interesting is the (partial) digitalization of the Causa General. You can read there the documentation generated during the 40's by the Spanish Public Prosecutors about the "Red Terror". In 1943 a 3 volume book was published (the usual bibliographical reference), but this archive holds ALL the original material (with actuations going up in the 50's) town by town (some 4000 boxes). Nowadays the digitalization only contains most of the 1st section (concernig killings, excluding religious persecution), but fascinating glimpses of all the period can be gleaned ... I'm reading the docs from where my roots are ... (more than 1500 pages, but most paperwork). I'll post later some critical comments Wllacer (talk) 00:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Bordered Spanish flag
How would I go about making a bordered version of the flag of Republican Spain? Soviet Canuckistan 04:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

André Marty
Someone should add a link to André Marty in the People of the Spanish Civil War table. He played a prominent rôle in the civil war, so his name should be included. If you know how to edit the table, please do so, and perhaps tell me how you did it. Thanks. Roger J. Ebert 19:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Welsh involvment
I was just have a little gander at this article and was shocked at the lack of information on the welsh involvment in this war. The welsh people are incredibly proud of their invovlment in the coflict and I hope someone could at something relating to them in this or the foreign involvement article (tower junkie doesn't know his password) 86.148.134.58 21:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Which Welsh people are allegedly proud of this? The local Labour Party? Which Welsh involvement? I have heard about small numbers of Brits fighting on both sides and Irish fighting for the Nationalists but have never heard about any significant Welsh involvement. I imgaine this "Welsh pride" may be more of 'Manic Street Preachers' inspired pipe dream but would be happy to be proved wrong. 99.240.142.65 (talk) 04:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Major archiving
Not only was this page 100+ KB long, but the two existing archive pages were also well over the (30 KB?) suggested size limit. Also, several entries were out of order, both on the archived talk pages and in this main talk page. I've gone and organized the comments and archived them by date. Please note that although I tried to find "natural" breaking points where the "conversation" seems to have lulled, these sorts of pauses weren't always readily available as archive pages grew to eclipse the space limit. Consequently, some of the replies from a certain month may be on a previous archive page; the date ranges refer to the starts of threads, not to all comments contained therein. ``` W i k i W i s t a h ``` 05:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Mexico as combatant?
Another can of worms reopened -- now comes an editor elevating Mexico to the list of combatants. Anyone have a source for this? ``` W i k i W i s t a h ``` 05:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Beside potential elements in the Brigadas Internacionales or the Legión there is no trace of mexican units, that i'm aware of. Another matter would be as arms suppliers (middlemen) for the republican side, what is widely documented, but I don't think it merits inclusion as combatant--Wllacer 08:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's why I brought this up. It seems the consensus here is to include only state combatants (governments that sent armies/air forces/navies), not to include nations that were "friendly" to one side, supplied one side, or sent non-state-sanctioned legions. I would have made the edit myself, but I didn't feel qualified enough as a scholar of the war to positively state that Mexico was not a state combatant. ``` W i k i W i s t a h ``` 02:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Mexico's support should be noted, but I wouldn't call them a combatant just because they sent aid. Murderbike 03:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Portugal?
Maybe Portugal should be added to infobox on Nationalist side? According to Foreign involvement in the Spanish Civil War Salazar was friendly to Franco and sent 20,000 troops to fight on nationalist side in Viriato Legion.--Staberinde 16:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That question has come up at least once (must be somewhere in the talk archives). The problem then was that portuguese direct involvement seems to be a very elusive topic in the bibliography and none of us where able to locate a useful reference to the Viriatos. They seem to have existed (f.i. their uniform is depicted in J.M. Bueno work on  "Uniformes de la Guerra Civil Española" (Madrid,1971)) but that is as far as we got. --Wllacer 12:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed there seems to be large lack of information. But I managed to find this: Portugal, led by General Salazar, sent 12,000troops. Now here in article Foreign involvement in the Spanish Civil War is given claim Antonio Salazar organised a Portuguese volunteer formation known as the Legião Viriato, numbering 20,000 men of which 8,000 were killed during the course of the conflict [3]. it has citation to "Hugh Thomas, The Spanish Civil War, 2001 (4th Ed) p.794". I don't know which of these is true but it seems quite obvious that Portugal contribution on nationalist side is enough notable for adding it to infobox.--Staberinde 20:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have a couple of references more. In Jose Maria Gironella's historical novel Un millon de Muertos, they are referenced as being part of the nationalist forces which took Malaga (pg. 334 of the american translation by Doubleday, 1963). In "Paul H Davies; Latin Fascist Elites: The Mussolini,Franco and Salazar regimes; Praeger (2002), pg.147"; the Viriatos is put in its portugues organizative context; but uses Thomas as source for numbers. Most interesting in pg 157 where sketching the biography of one Lt.Col Arnaldo Schultz -interior minister in 1958- his membership at the Legiao's air wing is referenced.
 * My biggest concern is the source of Lord Thomas's numbers, which seem hardly credible. The casualty ratio (40%) is wide too high; and the absolute numbers would make their participation bulkier than the Legion Condor
 * I found a reference to a book (Rosas, F. (ed.), Portugal e a Guerra Civil de Espanha. Lisbon: Edições Colibri, 1998) which if could be traced probably could clarify a number of points.--Wllacer 09:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Republican commanders
Does anyone else think that the republican commanders should include more military staff and exclude some politicians? Don severo 17:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The appearance of civilians on the republican side would be justified if they were on top of the regular chain of command (at least on paper), but I feel the list isn't quite right, even for the nationalist side: f.i. neither Sanjurjo, not Jose Antonio had any influence in war command; for obvious reasons.


 * The main aspect would be first to agree who qualifies for this listbox. I would propose following individual types:
 * Chief of State (CS)
 * Prime minister or equivalent (PM)
 * War/marine minister or equivalent (WM)
 * Top military commanders (today's equivalent to Chiefs of Staff) or independent regional commanders. (MC)


 * Such a proposal would run more or less (there are blanks on the list, as it is done from memory):
 * On the republican side
 * Manuel Azaña (CS)
 * José Giral  (PM & WM)
 * Francisco Largo Caballero (PM & WM)
 * Juan Negrín (PM & WM)
 * Gen. Castelló (WM)
 * Gen Hernandez Saraiva (WM)
 * Adm. Mata (WM)
 * Indalecio Prieto (WM)
 * Gen. Miaja (MC Centre)
 * Gen. Rojo (MC Chief of Staff)
 * Gen. Hidalgo de Cisneros (MC) (Air Force)
 * whoever was in charge of the republican Navy
 * On the nationalist side
 * Gen. Cabanellas (CS)
 * Gen. Franco (CS)
 * Gen. Dávila (PM & WM)
 * Gen. Gil Yuste (WM)
 * Gen. Queipo de Llano (MC South)
 * Gen. Mola (MC North)
 * Gen. Kindelan (MC Air Force)
 * Adm. Moreno (MC Navy)


 * As an exception, an extraordinarily successful military commander could make on the list, but i can find none
 * --Wllacer 08:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The list is now almost complete on the political side. Probably several regional commanders are lacking (esp. on the republican side) and some of the persons didn't had a serious influence (f.i. Giral and his ministers, Cabanellas) or are rather obscure (Gen. Gil, f.i.). Feel free to comment on it Wllacer 10:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

These reforms, along with anticlericalist acts and the expulsion of Muslims
What do you mean by that;That Republicans expelled Muslims;I think doesn't make sense.Eagle of Pontus 12:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Strange, yeah. It was added by a user who made only this one edit, back in April, and then remained untouched and undiscussed for half a year. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

USA 'economic' involvment
There was a significant economic intervention in favor for the 'Nationalists', especially in the supply of the petrol (oil), mainly from the USA. With the introduction of the embargo on the export of the arms to the both sides (Republic and the 'Nationalists'), USA stroke a hard blow on the legal Spanish government, and even more when the exports of the petrol, to the 'Nationalists', kept growing. (Main exporter, a company Texaco Standard Oil, during the war, delivered nearly two million ton of the petroleum/oil and gasoline/petrol). Deliveries were conducted on credit base... ...In the same time USA government denied attempt of the Mexico to acquire war materials from the USA, which would be then shipped to the Republican side. Meanwhile, Germany and Italy bought trucks and other vehicles in USA, and then 'gave to Franco'.

This is small (and personally reduced and degraded during translation) segment from the Yugoslavian Military Encyclopedia (13 tomes, 1981 edition, this tome is an 1975 edition, Tome 9, pg. 527-537), from the article "Spanish National-liberation War" which, just for this article, gives exactly 43 sources. I just have no nerves to write down all of them. But here are fews in which I think, this information will be found:

-Duval, Les lecons de la guerre d'Espagne, Paris, 1938;

-V. Rojo, Alerta los pueblos, Buenos Aires, 1939;

-M. Azmar, Historia militar de la guerra de Espana (1936-39), Madrid, 1939;

-P.A.M. van Esch, Prelude to War, The International Repercussions of the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939), Dan Haag, 1951;

-Les archives secretes de la Wilhelmstrasse;

-P.Broue, E. Temime, La revolucion y la guerra de Espana, I-II, Mexico-Buenos Aires,1951


 * Removed half-sentence referring to specific US involvement in International Brigades; this was superfluous (US volunteers are included under the generic banner of 'International Brigade'), and only serves to make the article (and the English-language Wikipedia by association) appear USA-centric - which it need not do.** —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.140.150 (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.46.171.113 (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Nationalists vs. Nationals
After several edits changing the term "Nationalists" to "nationals", because of very subtle definitional differences, I figured I'd bring the discussion up here. In my mind, the term should be "nationalists" as that's how most english literature refers to the rebels. But User:Mountolive believes they should be called "nationals". Any thoughts? Murderbike (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi all, this is copy-pasted material from my answers to Murderbike in his talk page. Please note that my preferred terms is actually the original nacionales over "nationals".

''there is a Spanish term for "nationalist" which is "nacionalista". The rebels called themselves "nacionales" (nationals) not "nacionalistas" and they did so, among other things, to distinguish themselves from proper nationalists such as Catalan or Basque. Actually I am not very much for using the English term "National" but keeping the original "Nacionales" which has a rather impossible translation in English (but, for sure, that is not "nationalist").''


 * As I said, actually I would support better keeping the original nacional(es) above any other wording, let it be "nationals" or, especially, "nationalistic" because, once again, they did not label themselves "nacionalistas" because they wanted to be distinguished from proper nationalists calling themselves so, like Basque of Catalans, whom they despised.
 * (...) Basque and Catalans nationalist parties are called so in the text and that is one more reason why the ill-translation nacional=nationalist must be broken, because by means of that we are labelling with the same term both Spanish centralists and Basque or Catalan separatists

On the other side, if, as Murderbike points out, the bibliography in English does choose "nationalists", while still thinking it's a serious translation mistake –a false friend in the best case or an interpretative translation in the worst– I am not the right one to change it, nor wikipedia is the place of so doing.

Maybe a couple lines should be dropped in the Nacionales section making this clear and, then, both terms "nationalists" and nacionales should be used interchangeably along the text, even though I'd still clearly go for preferring nacionales per the above concerns and because it is actually the original term, which deserves respect especially here when the translation proposed seems flawed. Mountolive  our unsleepable friend gets the message on an ill wind 21:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Mountolive, I think you've summed it up pretty well. [Moving my comments from Murderbike's talk page as well,] the verbal distinction is definitely there in Spanish, but pretty much all of the literature in English calls them "Nationalists". Yes, obviously, centralizing Spanish nationalists were and are in conflict—at that time violent conflict—with Basque and Catalan nationalists, but in English we use the same word for both meanings. And unfortunately, all other terms I've seen used are also problematic. The Royalists weren't Falangists (and vice versa); many on that side did not consider themselves fascists; and to call them Francoists is quite anachronistic when talking about the early years of the conflict (by 1939, it's probably a fair enough term). The usual practice in English is to say Nationalists for that side, and to always say specifically Basque nationalists, Catalan nationalists, etc. for the others. Yes, it can be confusing, but it's embedded now in 70 years of existing literature in English.


 * Similarly, English-speakers rarely make a distinction comparable to the nación / nacionalidad distinction that has been recently important with reference to Catalunya. We have "nation" and "nationality", but they just don't have the same difference in connotation.


 * An aside (of no consequence for our article, I suppose): I'd be fascinated to know how other European languages handle this. - Jmabel | Talk 01:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, so I'm surprised we haven't gotten more comments here, but it really seems like all the instances of "nationals" should be changed back to "nationalists", and I really think that any going back and forth between names would just confuse readers that don't have a good grasp on who was involved in the conflict. Murderbike (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd support you replacing "nationals" by "nacionales". Per my comments here, which include a confusion concern as well, dont think changing them to "nationalists" is any good, though. Mountolive   our unsleepable friend gets the message on an ill wind 19:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern, but I can bet that almost NO english speaker would understand the term "nationals". The accepted term in English is "nationalists", whether or not Franco and his supporters would have enjoyed the tag. I'm in the middle of Beevor's Battle for Spain right now (it won the La Vanguardia Prize), and he consistently uses the term "nationalists" as does Thomas, who wrote one of the other most respected books on the war. I'm sorry, but sometimes poor translations make it into common speech, and we have to stick with that. Though, I wouldn't be opposed to an explanatory note towards the beginning, laying out the translation issue. Murderbike (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Mhhh. Apparently you keep suggesting that I am for the use of "nationals", something which I have repeteadly said I am not. But that is not the case, anyway.

Since you understand my concern and I do understand yours and the nacionales/nationalist question is already mentioned in the lead, I suggested back in the day that both words "nacionales" and "nationalist" were used interchangeably, roughly 50/50. Being one the original term (always to be quoted in quotation marks to show is an alien term for English speakers) and the other is the received (yet I reckon, bad) English translation, I think it's fair enough for the both of us and we can spare us the pain of further discussion.

Is that ok with you? Mountolive  all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair 20:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think going back and forth would just further confuse readers. Consistency in terminology is very important. Murderbike (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I am sure readers here have an IQ high enough to identify "nationalists" with "nacionales" and the other way. Readers here and elsewhere are not puzzled to see one thing quoted in its original language, nonetheless when this question has been made clear in the lead and, on the other side, both terms are nearly homophone.
 * Please note that my first option here is not using "nationalists" at all, so my compromise offer is there just because of that, for the sake of compromise. I do understand your concern on English bibliography, and that is why I changed my initial position. You say you understand my concern as well, so let's get closer by means of this solution.
 * Actually, if you want, same thing could be done (not 50/50) with "Republicans" and "republicanos", to shake a bit the monotony of the term in a long article like this one. Mountolive   all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair 19:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I still have to disagree, you just haven't convinced me that there is any reason to use the spanish term in the ENGLISH wikipedia. WHY should we go back and forth? WHY should we do things any different than respected historians? Murderbike (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I've been trying "to convince you" indeed and it was only a few days ago that you said that you understood my concern, which sounds nice and I appreciate. But let's just not lose sight that no one is owning this article (you either) and that I shall not feel obliged to how you see it. I'd like to hear other people, too. Because, reversely, you haven't convinced me of the reasons why we shouldnt use "nacionales" also but "nationalists" only (in spite of the translation issue I mention above which you seem to understand). On the face of it, your reasoning has gone from understanding but mild rejection to staunch rejection, and I can't see why this question should provoke the latter. Hopefully you'll be in a sunnier and more cooperative disposition later on and you allow my contribution in this regard.
 * Is it a crime to use the original too? I am not asking to do things any different from respected historians, just adding some other usage, which, being in the original language (and I'm sure it's been used in English texts, too) shouldn't be suspected of any hazardous quality whatsoever to the article.
 * BTW, let's just spare us the CAPITAL letters, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountolive (talk • contribs) 23:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Murderbike: I think alternating between the two terms is confusing. "Nationalist" is the standard label in English for the Spanish nacionales and wikipedia should follow this standard. I haven't seen any really confusing sentences in the article (or in any book or magazine article), like "The Nationalists were opposed by the nationalists" (i.e. Basque or Catalan nationalists allied with the Republic). It's generally clear from the context (and the capitalization) what kind of nationalist is being referred to. In cases where there is some ambiguity, the label "regionalist" can be substituted for "nationalist". However, the other problem Mountolive raises is that the term "Nationalist", while standard, is kind of misleading. The Nationalists weren't nationalists in the usual sense, they were more like strict centralists. So at the moment I'd support including a mention of the distinction between nacionales/nacionalistas, but I think using the terms interchangeably throughout the article would be very confusing. -Father Inire (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for piping in Father Inire. And Mountolive, I don't mean to make it a personal issue. I do think it's possible to understand your concerns, while disagreeing with what you want to do about it. And the capital letters are only meant for emphasis, to make the typed words mean the same thing as if I were speaking those words, not to be offensive. Sorry you took it that way. Murderbike (talk) 22:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, actually no worries, because I didnt take it in any way, I only said "let's just spare us the CAPITAL letters" only because I think that once I read somewhere in wiki guidelines that it is considered as shouting.
 * I'm waiting for more people to give us a SHOUT over here about this. I still don't think that using interchangeably these words is "confusing" whatsoever, given the fact that the matter is mentioned already in the lead (not to mention that they are almost homophone). Mountolive   all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair 12:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Given the real difference in the meaning of Nationals vs. Nationalists (corresponding to the Spanish "nacionales" and "nacionalistas") and the fact that nomenclature is important, carrying enormous ideological significance, it seems that the historically accurate term of "Nationals" should be used. Why perpetuate past inaccuracies? English-language publications have often been insensitive to events, cultural realities, and scholarship outside of anglophone literature. The use of "Nationals" (translated form of "Nacionales") gives Wikipedia a chance to be part of the newer wave of English-language works that are sensitive to cultural nuance. While it seems unlikely that anyone familiar with the erroneous, though widespread, translation of "Nacionales" as "Nationalists" would have trouble understanding the terms as equivalent, it might be helpful to add a parentheses that mentions this phenomenon, as I have seen done recently in an anglophone study of the Civil war (alas, I have returned the books to the library and cannot give you the specific citation). As for alternative terminology, discussed earlier, Helen Graham's _The Spanish Civil War: A Very Short Introduction_ (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005) uses the term, the "(Spanish) Right" to refer to the conservative camp before the war, and "rebels," for after the war began. SuperSha (talk) 05:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No change has been made to use of the English term "Nationalists" commonly used to describe what the Spanish actually described as "nacionales". I submit that the term be explained near the beginning of the article, and then the term "nacionales" be used consistently after that. To translate "nacionales" into English as "Nationals" would be misleading: better to simply use the original Spanish term. Frankly, most academic works I have read readily refer to the P.C.E., or C.E.D.A., or whatever without any difficulty (the same applies to other historical abbreviations, such as SS or KGB). There is already a precedent in the academic literature: while an author such as Anderson routinely refers to "Assualt Guards", Beevor happily uses "asaltos" after an intitial explanation. Let us do the same with "nacionales" and remove any doubt. NZHistory Teacher (talk) 00:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

MI6
The main article tells MI6 brought Franco to Africa. This suggests a longer British interest in the Spanish situation. Can somebody give some more detail why this took place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.200.97 (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Maps change
I replaced the three maps showing the situations in 1936, 1937 and 1938 with their equivalents from the Spanish page after translating them from Spanish as the Spanish versions were more detailed and had more information. I didn't think this would be controvertial. Booshank (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Nationalist atrocities
There are numerous requests for citation in the paragraph beginning "The atrocities of the Bando Nacional were common…" It seems to me that every statement in that paragraph is abundantly borne out by the cited Asociación para la recuperación de la memoria histórica site. If someone wants to go through that cit and make more specific citations for individual facts, feel free. I personally am of the opinion that nothing in that paragraph is controversial enough to be worth my time to find specific citation. - Jmabel | Talk 01:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (Glad to see you again). Sadly, the site (and the organization behind) is too biased to be used confortably. Before writing anything about Terror in the spanish civil war is worth to read this article by late Prof. Javier Tussell.


 * For a scholary research the two leading (and contradictory) modern references are  Santos Juliá (Ed); Victimas de la Guerra Civil; Temas de Hoy; 1999 ISBN 84-7880-983-X and Martin Rubio, Angel David; Los mitos de la Represion en la Guerra Civil; Grafite; 2005 ISBN 84-9628-120-5


 * I could locate two interesting on-line articles about "Terror" during the war, one In the nationalist area and one in the republican. Both are from secondary areas, but more or less reflect the general mood, so they are worth reading.


 * The main bone of contention about nationalist repression is western Andalucia (and Badajoz), which seem to follow a very specific pattern (sadly historians there also, IMHO)--Wllacer (talk) 11:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV
I think this article is really quite lacking in a NPOV, its very heavily slanted against the Republicans- placing too much emphasis on their anarchist and radical communist elements whilst placing too little upon the out and out fascist elements of the nationalists.--Him and a dog 21:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Funny, I was about to remark how refreshingly unbiased I thought this article was. Just enough Bolshies and Facist Bullyboys. Well done. 63.167.255.151 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought exactly the same, a fantastic unbiased article about the Spanish civil was, incredible to believe after all the pseudo-historians I've been reading around this theme. Well done, keep writting.83.55.204.230 (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)ASM

Belligerants (infobox)
I reworked this part, following essentially the ✭ Catalan version &mdash; and trying to find the best compromises between miscellaneous versions, including the Spanish, Basque, German, ✭ Russian, and less informative than what their star would indicate: ✰ Esperanto, ✰ Hebrew, ✰ Norwegian - nynorsk and some other versions. I thought it would be giving an equivalent &mdash; then: disproportionate &mdash; place to Portuguese forces; that's the reason why I removed the « Portugal» mention. Otherwise, we may add all countries from which “significant” belligerant numbers came. That'd be far too long and inaccurate by definition. ✓ Kanġi Oĥanko (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The issue of Portugal was discussed some time ago in this talkpage. To resume, it was difficult to find trustful references, but most secondary sources (following Lord Thomas' work) put them on the order of 20.000 men, plus heavy logistic support. While i don't find the number accurate, in number of soldiers it was probably equal or greater than the Soviet Union (current estimates around 3000). Sometimes the sheer number is not what matters. I'd say I strongly disagree with your deletion.


 * Going into the task of modifying the infobox, it would be time to mop up the non foreing participants. First question would be if militia bearing organizations are to be listed. Don't know as now how it stays in other civil war articles inside Wikipedia, but should be done and standarized. And if accepted there should be a visual clue to separate states and organizations


 * Supposing we accept them, and that citing every single militia organization would be to cumbersome, we had to select which organizations shall be listed. As it stands now, you have on the nationalist side Falange and the Carlists, which is quite OK as they provided almost all of of the nationalist militiae. But on the republican side the list is rather unconsistent. UGT/PSOE] and the CNT where a main source of militiae, but the omision of the Communist Party (not in the first moments, but from September 1936 on) is unbearable. While the political activities of/around the POUM are very important in the political history of the republican side, their militiae where very small, and i think it should be debatable if they belong in. Other point of discussion would be the PNV militiae in Biscay.


 * (Just a personal preference) I'd substitute the Komintern for the International Brigades. But i know i'd got a lot of flak for this


 * Lastly,I would never call the insurgent side francoist. I thought it was settled to the term nationalist (with all its problems). There are a main reason why i reject the term: Franco became only CIC and head of state, when the war was already active (October 1, 1936), and for whatever reasons the rebels fought, it was by no means what latter became francoist Spain. --Wllacer (talk) 10:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We need to discuss this matter further and come to a decision. Myself, I liked the version ✓ Kanġi Oĥanko came up with, and felt it was a good compromise, especially considering that he consulted articles in other languages and made his changes based on said articles.  Unfortunately, one user, without explanation or discussion here, reverted to an earlier version.  Let's settle this here and be done with it. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  15:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * For obvious reasons, (the last change to the infobox followed very closely my previous comment) i very much prefer the current version, although i agree that such radical changes should had been discussed in depth. To give an appearance of order you'll find below thre subheaders for what IMHO should be discussed --Wllacer (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Portugal as a (unofficial) belligerant party
In contrast to more or less picturesque participants (blueshirts, Ion Mota's romanians, ...) or just simple logistical supporters (like Mexico

If militia groups should be listed as belligerants
This should be consistent inside the english wikipedia

I don't agree with the term Bando Nacional
I agree that's the way they named themselves, but it wasn't true that they were representing the entire spanish society, so the name of the group, in my opinion, should be changed for something like "incited" or "revolted" band. If not, the name "nationals" could be easily missunderstood. In facct, I believe this is a point of discussion between historians. I'm not an expert, but I would like that you value my opinion. Thanks, and greetings. --Brisk 90 (talk) 14:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for a belated reply. AFAIK no party in a civil war (or any other question) bears an unquestionable objective name, when they use a generic term. But as a name is needed, on should select one preferably used by the party (or widely used with non disparaging overtones) contemporaneously. In this war the terms which have become general usage, after 70 years, are republican and national(ist). without any other value than labels. None is particularily well suited, but IMHO every attempt to choose other naming verges on 'neo-speak' or partisanship from the start. rebels/risen vs loyals or rightist vs leftists could have been more suitable if it were not for it's too vague signification.
 * The greatest problem with the term bando nacional is not in itself but on its english translation nationalist, which is not as accurate as is looks, but also has a so-called false friend in spanish (nacionalista) with an absolutely different meaning as political term in current spanish. But as it is the common term since the -still at some degree- standard work on the war from Lord Thomas (in 1961) ... i think it's useless (and even worse, confusing for the general reader) to search for a new terminology.--Wllacer (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Qute right. And the terms used in Spain are even less neutral.  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  18:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Skirmish at WP
I deleted this:
 * "During the Civil War, about half of the Spanish Navy had remained loyal to the Republican government and the other half joined the rebellion of Franco's Nationalists. Government forces had more destroyers (All except one, them Mussolini sold 4 old destroyers to the Nationalist), but Franco had seized both newest heavy cruisers Canarias and Baleares, armed with eight 203 mm (8 in) guns each. The two navies had skirmished throughout the war without major losses."

and this
 * "The Battle of the Ebro ended disastrously for the Republicans later that year."

from here, because, while interesting, I don't think it's directly relevant to the subject. Maybe of value here, tho. Also, it says
 * "The Battle of Cape Palos, beyond affecting supplies, it had no effect on the war."

I can't speak for it's influence, but if it affected supplies, it affected the outcome. Just ask Rommel. TREKphiler  hit me ♠  17:31 & 18:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Prelude to war
It seems to me that the section "Prelude to War", especially subsection "Constitution of 1931" implicitly conveys the message that the so-called "anti-clerical" laws were the main—if not the only—event that triggered the Spanish Civil War, due to the strong—possibly subjective—emphasis on the "hostility" of the constitution towards the Church. Were those the "only" immediate cause of war?

Secondly, all points listed there (e.g. prohibition of teaching by religious orders and confiscation of and prohibitions on ownership of church property), with the exception of the expulsion of Jesuits have been normal activities in the great majority of countries that have had a Separation of Church and State (e.g. there is no "Christian" or "Religious" education on the public system in the US for example; even Mexico's laws were more "extremist" in that the Church not only lost property rights, but the clergy lost all citizens' rights. In other words the measure of "hostility" of the laws is really subjective and depends on which country do you want to compare them to). And even the expulsion of Jesuits had occurred several times before in Spain and all its colonial possessions, without being an unprecedented and unacceptable hostility.

Also, the sentence "but also advocates of church/state separation saw the constitution as hostile; one such advocate of separation, Jose Ortega y Gasset [...]" might border on WP:WEASEL: how many advocates of a separation of Church and State saw the constitution as hostile? One, two, the plurality, the majority? Was Ortega the exception within the advocates or the rule? How many saw it as "acceptable" or even "mild"? Well, based on the following sentence in which "moderation" (i.e. removal of some of the Clerical laws) was "unacceptable", the whole section seems to imply that anti-Clerical laws were plain wrong and sufficient cause of war. IMHO, that borders on WP:POV. Commentators with a different POV might argue otherwise. And what about other laws and the rest of the constitution?

I am not trying to say that one set of commentators is right and the other wrong. All opinions should be presented, but I don't think that all POVs are truly being given due weight and equally presented in this article. -- the D únadan 06:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think the section implicitly says anti-clericalism (why is it only "so-called"?) was the main or only trigger of the war. I don't think it can be disputed that it was a cause.  As to the implication you read into the section, the prior paragraph dispels that misimpression by explicitly stating in the lead sentance "There were several reasons for the war".


 * As to the prohibition of teaching by religious orders, they were not merely prohibited from teaching in public schools but, as in Mexico (which also in part led to civil war), prohibited from teaching at all. It is wrong to say that this is the case in most countries with separation of church and state. The U.S. has never prohibited private instruction by religious. The measure of hostility is not subjective and its use and criteria are well established by scholars.  See here, here, here, here, and here (just to give a few examples). You mentioned hostility depends upon which country you want to compare it to, but scholars have repeatedly cited Mexico's 1917 and Spain's 1931 constitutions as two of the most hostile.


 * The Jose Ortega y Gasset quote is not weasely it is indicative of the fact that the Spanish constitution violated recognized norms of freedom of religion. It is contrary to the rights recognized by every democratic nation and the Universal Decalration of Human Rights.


 * It is a widely held position by scholars that the hostility to and intrusions by the state upon the church were a trigger to the civil war. Stanley Payne, who was a source for much of the section, is reliable source and a recognized expert on the subject.  The section is fine as it is.Mamalujo (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)¨
 * I think you missed the entire point altoghether. I never argued that the anti-clerical laws were not a cause of the Civil War. I argued that the article presents them, in relation to the constitution of 1931, as the only or the main cause of the Civil War... ergo a POV approach.
 * Secondly, José Ortega y Gasset's comments is not weasely, but its introduction is: "Advocates of the separation... one such". The quote is fine, but how many advocates of the separation of Church and State agreed with him? How many disagreed with him? To quote one, but not the other is POV. In fact, the inclusion of that sentences conveys a sense of defense of a particular thesis, in this case the thesis that suggests that the anti-clerical laws were excessive. It is evident that that such a statement is one point-of-view, but not the only point of view (POV). Then, the section quotes the pope... well but of course he will oppose such laws! It is as ludicrious as quoting Stalin claiming that anti-Communism laws in the US were unacceptable! I am pretty sure that there are other POVs that can be quoted that argue that the anti-clerical laws were not excessive.
 * Thirdly, I oppose your reversion of my edits, not only because you missed the point, but because your argument is not correct. I insist, all points therein exposed are part of any Separation of Church and State. The laws (in the US, Mexico and Spain) prohibited religious instruciton in public schools exclusively. In all three countries, religious education was allowed in private schools, back then, and to this date. The sentence is implying, "Oh, Separation of Church and State was OK, but it was excessive because it prohibited education, confiscated Church property and expelled the Jesuits" And, the anti-clerical laws in Mexico did not cause a Civil War. The Civil War had occurred 15 years before. They caused what is called a Cristera War, which were violent clashes between Catholic supporters and the government, since the clergy refused to conduct a mass anywhere in the country—and thus there was no "cleansing of sins" for the people—lest the laws be revoked. Do you happen to know which was the law they disagreed with the most? Prohibition of religious education in public schools.
 * Back to the main point, the anti-clerical laws were common to all countries that had had a Separation of Church and State. The sentence in question, presents the anti-clerical laws as " significant governmental interference in church matters". That is POV, and not backed up by the sources provided. Even Britannica - the source used to back up that paragrapsh-says: "The legislation adopted resembled that of France. The government was, however, unable to curb mob attacks on churches and monasteries, during which priests and nuns were slain. Catholics mustered their forces in opposition". In other words, the anti-clerical laws were no different than those in Franc (which were the model of Separation of Church and State throughout the world). According to that sentence it was the "mob-attacks on churches" which led to violence and to the "mustering of Catholic forces". The nuance is way different, as you can tell.
 * I will not revert, you (I do not wish to cause a childish edit war). I will be more than happy to Request a neutral Third-Party comment, or Request for Mediation if you deem it necessary.
 * Cheers

-- the D únadan 14:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Dunadan, most of your arguments are wrong. Simply check article 26 from the 1931 constitution (on wikidocs in spanish) Artículo 26. Todas las confesiones religiosas serán consideradas como Asociaciones sometidas a una ley especial. El Estado, las regiones, las provincias y los Municipios, no mantendrán, favorecerán, ni auxiliarán económicamente a las Iglesias, Asociaciones e Instituciones religiosas. Una ley especial regulará la total extinción, en un plazo máximo de dos años, del presupuesto del Clero. Quedan disueltas aquellas Ordenes religiosas que estatutariamente impongan, además de los tres votos canónicos, otro especial de obediencia a autoridad distinta de la legítima del Estado. Sus bienes serán nacionalizados y afectados a fines benéficos y docentes. Las demás Ordenes religiosas se someterán a una ley especial votada por estas Cortes Constituyentes y ajustada a las siguientes bases: 1. Disolución de las que, por sus actividades, constituyan un peligro para la seguridad del Estado, 2. Inscripción de las que deban subsistir, en un Registro especial dependiente del Ministerio de justicia. 3. Incapacidad de adquirir y conservar, por sí o por persona interpuesta, más bienes que los que, previa justificación, se destinen a su vivienda o al cumplimiento directo de sus fines privativos. 4. Prohibición de ejercer la industrial el comercio o la enseñanza. 5. Sumisión a todas las leyes tributarias del país. 6. Obligación de rendir anualmente cuentas al Estado de la inversión de sus bienes en relación con los fines de la Asociación. Los bienes de las Ordenes religiosas podrán ser nacionalizados.

Point 4 explictlty bans clerics from ANY teaching activity. No discussion possible.

On the other hand, its consensual (even for republican leaning scholars from Tuñon de Lara onwards) that the religous policy (both official and unrepressed mob violence) was probably the most important factor which made the republic unbearable for great sections of the spanish population

I have very, very different knowlege as you from the "Cristero War". As a matter of fact, the only western countries with "Martirs of the Faith" in the XX century are Mexico, Spain and Nazi Germany. It must mean something --Wllacer (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I shoudn't rush in writing, to avoid postcripting. Our wikipedia article on the Cristero War, makes a few points explicit just exactly on the reverse order User:Dunadan stated previously
 * The USA (due to its internal history) is a bad comparision of separation of church and state as in France (in 1905), Mexico and Spain (in 1931).
 * The french law was in many respects (source can be obtained from the former reference)- but in ownership rights- freer for the Church than the Spanish Constitution, not to talk from the mexican legislation (in parts still on the books)

--Wllacer (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Wllacer is correct. The 1931 Constitution prohibited teaching by religious even in private schools (the same was true of the Mexican scheme - in fact [Parochial Schools were not formally legalized in Mexico until 1991]). That is just one example of the state's intrusion upon the Church and one of the many reasons why the 1931 constitution is characterized by scholars as being anticlerical and hostile to religion.  If you want to cite reliable sources which say the constitution was not anticlerical, not hostile to religion and not a major cause of the war, feel free.  Good luck finding them - such assertions would just be contrary to historical fact. Dúnadan, all sarcasm aside, I do appreciate your willingness to discuss the matter and desire to avoid an edit war.Mamalujo (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

POV on Constitution Section
Legally speaking, the 1931 Constitution infringed no rights of the Catholic community. Up to that moment, there had never, ever been a recognised constitutional right to be educated (in the sense of scholarisation) in a religious institution, not in Spain, not in Europe.

There was, however, a right to free conscience and religion, which the 1931 constitution enshrined. And Catholics were not excluded.

Orders were not dissolved. Only orders that swore obedience to the Pope before the state were dissolved. Legally speaking, and if the Church was to be treated as similar institutions of its kind, it had to be done that way. Expropriation of Church property is, as someone else noted previously, a given when it comes to any form of land-reform.

I'm not arguing that what is said in this section is not true, and I see the meaning behind the wording. But the way it's being expressed needs some thorough revision. It was a factor of tension, but not, as it transpires thorugh reading this, the main factor that brought about the outbreak of the war. Hence the tag.

Cheers, Dr Benway (talk) 07:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Pls. Everybody pull the brake !!! The question is not if its legal/moral/right whatsoever a separation Church/State as intended by the spanish constitution of 1931.
 * As a historical event (remember) what we must ask is what impact had on the people in Spain back then, and if this anticlerical (don't think a discussion about this ephitet is worth) course undermined the viability of the new regime and if it was one of the prerequisites of the following tragedy. For my part I would only point again that there is almost absolute consensus in this matter, both scholary and of most of the contemporaneous observers.
 * Just a side comment on User:Dr Benway last edit. AFAIKR the Church wasn't one of the greatest landholders in Spain. While it had recovered (thru donations) quite a bit of inmobiliary property; the Church had lost almost all its landed holding in the Desamortization process from 1837-1854. --Wllacer (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you might be technically right on that one, I'll remove the edit until I can find a solid reference. ;) As to the above paragraph, I agree with you. It was one of the prerequisites, one among many. The issue with the Catholic church was firmly tied to the latifundio property model in many parts of the country, especially the south, and the ties of the Church with the major landowners and caciques, not to mention a heap of other social issues which should also be addressed. The 1931 Constitution as presented here is reduced to some sort of anticlerical decree, which it wasn't. It was far more than that, and I think a section on the Constitution needs to touch upon other factors. My impression, in any case. :) Cheers! Dr Benway (talk) 08:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As for the property of the church, i'm also speaking from memory -and some personal knowledge in limited geographical areas-. Somebody ought to get Malefakis' work, which still is the reference for the "agrarian question" during the Republic.
 * The main problem with the section is the title, it should have been called "The religious question" or something alike. It could also handle themes like, Cardinal Segura's history, anti-church street violence (arson, plunderings, ...) during the republic, etc. which would give a more complete picture of the matter


 * I won't delve into the matter of the supposed contrarevolutionary front (Church, big landowners, military), just point to the fact that the backbone of the support of/to the Church (in many cases coincidentally with areas on the nationalist side from the start) came from areas of mid to small land ownership. In the recent work of Stanley G. Payne ("The Collapse of the Spanish Republic") -a thorough study of the immediate causes of the War -,. Payne emphasizes as one of the triggering events, not the latifundio problem, but the rather hostile policy against mid and small land ownership.


 * The work could be used as a framework for the whole "Prelude to war" section. Sadly for some it's a work specially critic to the behavior of the republican left.

--Wllacer (talk) 09:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Part of the problem of this supposed POV dispute, is that those who don't like what the well sourced constitution section says are merely opposing it with their own opinions. The section is sourced with reliable unbiased sources.  One of the sources is a reputable tertiary source, Britannica saying that the constitution essentially established an anti-clerical state.  Is this POV? Do you dispute this?  Other sources, such as Payne, are looked at as some of the most reliable on this subject.  The section says that the constitution was a substantial cause of the social breakdown that led to civil war.  More than a few reliable sources say this.  Do you dispute this?  Where are the reliable sources, any relible sources, that contradict the assertions of this section.  If some can't start to soon be produced, I'm going to remove the tag, because I don't believe its a bona fide balance or POV issue, but simply and issue of "I don't like it.
 * p.s. As to the assertion by Dr Benway that no European government recognized at the time a right which would have precluded the state from outlawing private religious education, that assertion is categorically wrong. Democratic nations, then, as today, would recognize it as a violation of free religious exercise, among other recognized rights.Mamalujo (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi there Mamalujo. I haven't asserted that "...no European government recognized at the time a right which would have precluded the state from outlawing private religious education." I'm just saying that a constitutional right to be scholarised in a religious institution has not been, as far as I know, and from a legal perspective, a constitutional right per se in any Constitution of that time. Not this time. Not now. But back then, as I very specifically stated. Right to free worship (which, incidentally, the 1931 constitution enshrines and the Church contested), freedom of conscience, sure. Right to religious scholarisation, no. I'm not making a value judgement here. I'm just stating fact. We could go into a discussion on the history of Constitutionalism and its basics, but I don't have the time or the disposition right now.

Neither have I said the constitution was not anticlerical... of course it was. I'm just saying that this section presents it as a document solely bent on anticlericalism (note the dismissive use of "some sort of" which I quite purposefully used as an implied touch of sarcasm), which it wasn't.

Neither am I saying that I don't agree with what is being said, as I would have thought the phrase "I'm not arguing that what is said in this section is not true" would pretty much put through to anyone who actually bothered to read what I was saying. I agreewith what is being said. What bothers me is that through the way this section is being worded, one would think all division caused in the republican Constitution arose from the anticlerical clauses, and that point in particular which is being stressed above any others. There is no mention of the fact that it utterly failed to meet an important number of its aspirations, mainly land reform, and the confrontation it created with the landed classes vs landless peasantry, which was indeed the focal point of the conflict. The constitution of 1931 did not drive a democratic wedge between Spaniards because of religion (though it sure did alienate a number of Spaniards), and its anticlerical articles did not prevent it from forming an expansive democratic majority. Beevor gives interesting figures on Spain having the lowest service attendance figures in Christian Europe, saying that less than 20% of Spaniards went to mass, and in some regions this could be as low as 5%. The only religious order which was effectively banned were the Jesuits. The conflicts the 1931 constitution brought about were not articulated around religion, at least not to a significant majority. They were articulated about conflicts of property, distribution of land and wealth, regionalist and centralist conflicts, political rights, and the centuries old struggle between the ancien regime and emerging worker movements.

As to your tirade on my tagging being simply a case of "I don't like it", I really would appreciate you didn't go into this sort of disparaging comments. I think that considering you've seen most of my editing -I have been involved in many articles where you have been editing too- I really don't think it's fair to accuse me of tagging for subjective reasons.

But I'm not going ito that, either. Mainly because I don't edit in pages where people are so rude they remove your tags without even bothering to give you a day to answer, and snub other's editing comments as subjective drivelling.

Maybe we're just used to different standards. Dr Benway (talk) 12:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Dr Benway, thanks for your response. FYI, I did not remove the POV tag - that was another editor. I did do a number of edits without bothering or thinking to sign in (under an IP 68....) but the tag removal wasn't mine. One point I'd like to address.  You say: "The constitution of 1931 did not drive a democratic wedge between Spaniards because of religion (though it sure did alienate a number of Spaniards), and its anticlerical articles did not prevent it from forming an expansive democratic majority."  The problem is that there are about half a dozen authorities that say otherwise.  The section does not say or imply that it was THE cause of the war only that it was A substantial cause of the war.  I think, and the authorities will support this, that this is the consensus among scholars. Were property rights a divisive issue, too?  Yes. And authorities say that also.  But I haven't seen as much stress on that.Mamalujo (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ooops dude, sorry in that case. Been wagging my finger at the wrong person *blush* ´:( I'll see if instead of griping I get down to some work and try out another approach, see what you guys think. Dr Benway84.79.201.106 (talk) 01:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a few short comment (i'm short of time, as of now). First the whole of the debate (while i have very strong opinions about) is a matter worth a serious discussion (or at least explanation). So please, let's all keep cool, and don't get personal

I also think the removal of the POV tag, without serious discussion; was of bad taste, to say the least (it was an anonymous user, but none the less ...). OTOH, perhaps putting it was also too fast.

Payne in "El Catolicismo Español" (haven't located the english version) gives similar church attendance numbers in the early 20th century as Dr Benway quotes, but -at least in my edition- doesn't give the primary source. But is worth to remember that on the eve of the Republic the Catholic Church in Spain -usually very dormant- was showing signs of serious revival. And that open "political catholic" parties (CEDA, PNV, Carlists) could muster around and over 30% of the popular vote (aproximately, as the electoral system at best can be qualified of confusing).

What i really don't understand, is why, when almost all contemporaneous accounts (on both sides of the fence) gives so much importance to the "religious question", a few modern comentators try to donwplay it lately.

Offtopic, but i cannot pass. Personally i long gave away the standard (and rather simplistic) "communist" view of the origins of the civil war as -knowingly or not- Dr. Benway has summarily exposed. But i have to leave developing this further for now. If interested i promise to develop it. Just for the record, and to avoid being sorely flaked, i call it communist because it is a developement of the "officcious" version of the origin of the war according to the PCE as laid out scholary by Manuel Tuñon de Lara, and his school Wllacer (talk) 23:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Dispute over the section of the Constitution of 1931
I believe that my concerns as expressed above were misunderstood in a rapid reversion of my edits, and then the discussion digressed to other topics. Let me recap, and offer a more schematized version of the reasons why I think the section is at best incomplete, at worst partial (i.e. POV).
 * The section is titled "Constitution of 1931", and yet the only issue discussed is that of the excessive separation of Church and State.
 * There is a misuse of sources in three different ways:
 * 1 Using sources that claim facts to make value judgments. It is one thing to cite the laws (i.e. facts) and another to pick quotes in order to make a value judgment regarding those particular laws (i.e. opinions). For example, the sentence: "...proclaimed a purported complete separation of Church and State, but in actuality it provided for significant governmental interference in church matters, including the prohibition of teaching by religious even in private schools, confiscation of and prohibitions on ownership of church property, and the banning of the Society of Jesus" is backed up by these two sources:
 * "''...On December 6, 1931, a new Constitution was passed by democratic referendum. This Constitution proclaimed religious freedom and separation between Church and State. But it also prohibited teaching by religious orders, and the Jesuit Company was dissolved...", and
 * "... ... in the new constitution, Spain's first experiment in democracy. This went much further than a legal separation of Church and state. It extruded the Church from education, restricted its property rights and investments, and dissolved the Jesuits..."
 * It is evident that the three points (education, property, and the banning of the Jesuits) are facts, however neither source speaks of a "purported" complete separation of Church and State that "interfered in Church matters". IMHO, this last phrase "interference in Church matters" has other connotations, after all the government did not interfere in how the Church was organized internally, but rather restricted their involvement in education and prohibited the Church from owning more property than those that, justifiably, are destined to their accommodation or to the direct fulfillment of their tasks. (Article 26 of the constitution of 1931). Note that the second source speaks not of "prohibition" but of "restriction" on the Church's property, a word that seems to capture more accurately what the 26th article of the constitution said.
 * 2 Partial/Incorrect use of sources. For example: "... The constitution essentially established an anticlerical government" is backed up by Britannica, which actually reads: "... The revolution of 1931 that established the Second Republic brought to power an anticlerical government. The legislation adopted resembled that of France. The government was, however, unable to curb mob attacks on churches and monasteries, during which priests and nuns were slain. Catholics mustered their forces in opposition.". Note that:
 * The source says that it was the "revolution" not the "constitution" who brought to power an anticlerical government.
 * The legislation adopted resembled that of France; whether the legislation in France was excessive or not (that depends on who you cite, but most French pride in their laicism), it did not lead to a Civil War nor to the doom of the French democracy; however according to the POV section in question, the anti-Clerical laws did lead to the doom of the democracy in Spain.
 * The word "however" implies that it wasn't the legislation itself, but that the inability of the government to control the anti-Catholic sentiment that led to the deadly attacks on churches and monasteries that caused the Catholic to muster their forces, thus exacerbating the conditions that led to the war.
 * Another example of a partial/incorrect use of a source is the sentence: "...Commentators have posited that such a "hostile" approach to the issues of church and state were a substantial cause of the breakdown of democracy and the onset of civil war." (bold mine), which is backed up by a book by Alfred Stepan, in which he is actually citing two other studies to compare "hostile" vs. "friendly" separations of Church and state and says "...Two [...] studies [...] develop a fundamentally similar argument. They argue that the "hostile" separation of church and state in the 1931 constitution contributed to the democratic breakdown and civil war." (quotes original in text, bold mine). There is a huge difference when someone says "substantial cause" when the author actually simply says "contributed".
 * Now, I want to clarify that I am not saying that the anti-Clerical laws did not contribute to the Civil War, but the section [and the article] focuses almost exclusively on them, and does not mention the many other aspects that also contributed to the Civil War, like the disputes on the internal organization of the State (centralism vs. federalism), the "Catalan question", the rise of the anarchists and fascism, etc.
 * 3 Citing sources to prove a point. Evidently, the statements in the paragraph are well-backed up by reliable sources, like User:Mamalujo said. (I wouldn't use the word "unbiased", all sources are biased, and much more when the citations are of value judgments not of facts). Citing sources is not enough by itself; a truly NPOV text should represent all points of view, not only one.
 * For starters, citing the pope to claim that the separation of Church and State was excessive is nothing but ludicrous, and evidently POV. Its like citing George W. Bush to justify the invasion of Iraq, or Stalin to justify the establishment of a communist State. While you can cite them, they are by all means incomplete, unless you cite those reputable sources that disagree with them. IMHO, that citation should be eliminated.
 * Why not cite those who agreed with the separation of Church and State? Should this article cite Lázaro Cárdenas, "... Representa el presidente Azaña las tendencias de emancipación moral y económica del pueblo español..." or Hugh Thomas "...''Anti-clericalism was understandable in Spain in the 1930s,and the liberals who were moved by the cause of removing the stranglehold of Catholicism over education and culture were acting within a great nineteenth-century tradition."
 * I am not claiming that these opinions are right and the others are wrong, or that these are "more valid" than the others. All are points-of-view. But what I am saying is that handpicking citations to talk about how bad the Separation of Church and State was (including the pope!) is POV.

I know this comment is quite large, so we can discuss each point at a time, if you guys want to. I am, by no means, an expert on this topic, these are just some of the findings that I have come up with, and of course, I am open to discussion/clarifications/comments, etc. -- the D únadan 01:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I think your points are valid, and the section should be rewritten with these in mind. Dr Benway (talk) 11:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * While I'd be happy to edit at will, in light of the discussion of the previous section, I would have appreciated the comments of other users, mainly Mamalujo. -- the D únadan  22:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I do have some comments to make, but you addressed quite a number of issues and I've been a bit short of time. I should be able to address them shortly, maybe over this weekend.  Or, if you want, you can make your edits and we can sort out any differences after that.Mamalujo (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This section is highly POV, because it does not show the socialist and communist attitudes towards and interpretation of the constitution, which, in those days were anything but democratic. I have no problem with the quote from the pope, since the Chuch was a major target then. I do have problems with the seemingly neutral overlooking of the revolutionary character of the forces which supported this constitution. --Thomaq (talk) 11:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is that black and white. We cannot group socialists and communists in the same bucket. At the beginning, socialists and radicals supported democracy as a means of advancing their ideals; communists and anarchists opposed the institution (i.e. the republic), as much as the right (mostly monarchists) did. Spanish politics was anything but bipartisan in those days, but very much fragmented. There were even internal divisions amongst the socialists, on the one hand a more progressive group, and on the other a group that adhered to Marxism, but rejected the resolutions of the 5th to 7th Comintern (and even questioned Lenin).  -- the D únadan  22:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Any one have any thoughts on changing the first two sentences slightly to read like this:

A new constitution was adopted on 9 December 1931. The document generally accorded thorough civil liberties and representation, a notable exception being the rights of some Catholic organisations, although no restrictions were placed on individual citizens religious beliefs. As it reads currently it suggests a blanket removal of civil liberties from 'Catholics' in general which would seem to be overstating the point. Given the main restrictions were on certain Catholic religious groups not an entire religion and all its members I think the above would make this makes the distiction a bit clearer for readers. Kurtk60 (talk) 01:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As a total outsider, I gave it a shot. Hopefully not too bold. The section might be now a little too large. However, I would caution against slaining it too much, too. That because I do not see other section of the article dealing with the causes of the Civil War in thorought encompassing/overviewing fashion. What I mean is, think of people who do not know much about Spanish history and politics, wishing to find out what exactly caused the conflict. Not whether such causes were right or wrong (any cause is right and simultaneously wrong from someone's POV), not the specific events that led to the war (which are quite well presented in the article - at least to the extent I can read, because I have no idea what happened in reality - I wasn't there, and I wasn't taught Spanish history in school, the content of the article already contains many-many details that I have not heard of), not the war itself and the consequences, but the causes including their perception for ordinary people (not only for the leaders and for the extremists) that were not naturally or professionally interested in politics. The Spanish Civil war was not fought between 3-4 thousand of ideological hardheads on each side, but between hundreds of thousands of ordinary people on each side - and as far as I heard very little coersiveness was used to determine those non-political people to fight. So, there ought to be some innerent causes. The irony was that the Constitution, which normally sets the framework rules for resolving tensions and conflicts, was itself contentions, and as I understand a symbol of Republican regime (hense negatives seeming out of elsewhere were attributed in public eye to the Constitution). Dc76\talk 07:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The Constitution did NOT restrict rights of individual Catholics, as an editor keeps insisting, so I have reverted, again. There is a very great distinction between the original "... former established privileges of the Catholic organizations were restricted." and the reverted "It generally accorded thorough civil liberties and representation, rights of Catholics being the exception,..." and I hope you can see it. --Technopat (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It absoulutely did restrict the rights of Catholics and there are sources in the section that say so. The version you are pushing for is unsourced and false. If the state deprives people of the right to ecucate themselves and their children in their faith, if it deports their priests, if it abolishes the orders, it is depriving them of the right of free exercise of their religion and free assembly to name just a few. This position has multiple reliable sources to back it up.  Technopat's version is only his opinion. Mamalujo (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It absoulutely did NOT restrict the rights of individual Catholics and the source you quote does NOT say so. The version YOU are pushing for is unsourced and false. As I have just posted on your talk page, if you have sources, use 'em, but please DO NOT manipulate reputable sources. Technopat Mamalujo's version is only his opinion.--Technopat (talk) 18:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * One source says there was "a disregard of civil rights" in the religion and property articles. The other says rights were accorded with the exception of Catholic rights.  A plain reading is that it means the rights of Catholics.  You force a strained meaning and put this manufactured gloss on the sources that no individual rights were infringed.  The sources do not say that.  Indeed, they say the very opposite. Your distinction between rights of Catholics and Catholic groups is wholly of your own making not found in the sources and is a distinction without a difference.  When you abolish a political party, labor union, religious order, or a newspaper, you impinge upon the rights of individual people not just the groups that make up those institutions or benefit from them.  But to avoid this silly argument, I have used the words of the sources verbatim to avoid issues of interpretation. Mamalujo (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologise for doubting your word, but I was looking for the quotation "a disregard of civil rights" in the Payne article and couldn't find it. I have now modifed the inline citations accordingly. Once again, I apologise for this "silly argument". Regards, --Technopat (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Evacuation of Children
"Those in Western European countries returned to their families after the war, but many of those in the Soviet Union, from Communist families, remained and experienced the Second World War and its effects on the Soviet Union."

This is slightly misleading as some of these children also settled in the UK as I’m sure they may have done in Mexico and the other European countries who took them in 1937. Also as I hope I shall go on to explain I’m sure these children did not only settle in the Soviet Union because of their political affinities but as much because of issues of their personal safety back in their native Spain.

This evacuation of Basque children was organised as a direct response to the aerial bombing of Guernika. Some 4000 of the Basque Children who were evacuated came to Southampton, England aboard the Habana on the 21st May 1937. The childrens evacuation was meant to be a temporary measure lasting for only 3 months or until the conditions in the Basque country became safer for their return.

This was the largest single influx of refugees into the UK and the only one made up solely of children. As the first evacuation of Children from a war zone this evacuation also acted as a pre-cursor to the evacuation of children from the Blitz cities of Great Britain to the countryside.

On their arrival the children were temporarily housed in a campsite in Eastleigh, outside of Southampton. At the time the British Government was taking a position of non-intervention, and despite sympathising with the childrens cause they saw financial support of the children as breaking their agreement. They therefore did not pay a penny towards the childrens accommodation, food, clothing or medical provisions. As a result the support provided for the Basque children was made possible solely by charitable donations from the British people and various charitable organisations and religious groups.

While some of the children were returned home after a few months following requests from their parents, the Spanish Civil war continued to worsen and it was not until 2 years after the Basque childrens arrival that Bilbao fell to Franco’s Nationalist army in 1939, finally putting an end to the war and making it possible for the remaining children to be returned home. However as Basques, many of the childrens parents and families were Republican supporters and had in some cases been killed or inprisoned, or had fled to avoid Nationalist retribution or had simply gone missing. This as well as the onslaught of the Second World War made a return home impossible for some of the children.

The children who had remained throughout this period had been housed more permanently in residential homes or in specially set up colonies around the country; a few of the children were even taken in (and later sometimes adopted) by local families, remaining here during the Second World War and long after.

As years passed and these children became young adults they began to create lives for themselves in this country, gaining work and starting families with some settling permanently.

The Basque children are now in there 80’s and those who spent a significant amount of time here continue to celebrate their arrival in the UK, most recently in May 2007 in Southampton to mark the 70th anniversary of their arrival.

Nex1984 (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"so-called Republicans": Neutrality & accuracy of phrase and definition
A few sentences into the Introduction to the Spanish Civil War article, the term "Republicans" appears for the first time, defined as an organization of Socialists and Communists. The sentence in question is the following (emphasis added for clarity): The Civil War devastated Spain from July 17, 1936 to April 1, 1939, ending with the victory of the rebels and the founding of a dictatorship led by the Fascist General Francisco Franco and the defeat of the Socialists and communists who largely comprised the so-called Republicans. My first concern is about the use of the term "so-called" to modify "Republicans," as the resulting phrase, so-called Republicans, implies duplicity, saying that the Republicans are belying reality through their name, thereby accusing them of not really being republicans. This sounds derogatory. Omitting the term in question, thus rendering the sentence simply descriptive, would be the more neutral course. With this small revision, the sentence would read: The Civil War devastated Spain from July 17, 1936 to April 1, 1939, ending with the victory of the rebels and the founding of a dictatorship led by the Fascist General Francisco Franco and the defeat of the Socialists and communists who largely comprised the Republicans. My second concern is that while the parties that comprised the Republican government included Socialists and Communists, it involved others as well and those that supported them certainly included people such as the growing urban middle class, who wanted to be assured of a democratic society with social welfare systems. Once the failed rebel coup intensified to war, the role of Republicans outside of the government was increasingly important. Therefore, describing the Republicans as Socialists and Communists seems misleading, or at least, reductive. SuperSha (talk) 06:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above remarks. -- the D únadan 21:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The change was made about a week ago with no discussion

here and should just be reverted, which I will do. These matters are dealt with pretty fully lower down. Johnbod (talk) 01:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * People may want to keep an eye on the article, as further changes have been made or attempted. Johnbod (talk) 13:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Financing Franco
It is known that Franco and his rebels were financed by a London based organisation. Is it known where the money came from and was there influence on MI 6 and the British governement? Was there any Dutch money invested? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.200.97 (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC) The relevant files of the Bank of England are to be kept secret for another 40 years or so. A significant piece of secrecy? Stevenjp (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Trouble with statement - Not expert
Pope John Paul II beatified several hundred people murdered for being priests or nuns, and Pope Benedict XVI beatified almost 500 more on October 28, 2007.[45].[46][47]

-- I mean, what the heck? Colonel Marksman (talk) 10:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

About Russian Arms
This sentence is partly wrong: "The Republic had to purchase Soviet assistance with the official gold reserves of the Bank of Spain (see Moscow Gold), obtaining armament of marginal quality that, in addition, was sold at deliberately inflated prices." I know nothing about pay for soviet armament, but it was of quite good quality. For example, russian T26 light tank was really the best tank type in Spain. Russian fighters and bombers were also at least equal to fascist airplanes. 62.117.80.50 (talk) 09:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Antony Beevor definitely seems to think that at least some of what was supplied by the USSR was of less than ideal quality, though there could be POV issues with the wording. Murderbike (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you are both right. :) The Soviet machines had a very specific feature, not found elsewhere: often, not all details/works were finished. That is, in theory the machine was very good, but in practice to produce it required much to much labor and resourses, and the enterprises were pressured to give as many end results. Therefore, some details were often skipped, such as "forgetting" to drill a hole to allow for oil entrance in the engine, "forgetting" to instal a special pipe or other details that was difficult to find in enough quantity, etc. As a result, when the Soviets presented their machines in shows, they assembled them thoroughly, and the end result was great. But when they sold 1000 units, all but 50 of them broke down in initial stages of usage. To bring them to the needed state, you need to drill the "forgotten" holes and to add the "forgotten" details yoruself. If you did, congratulations, you are heads on. If you didn't, kiss your devise good bye.Dc76\talk 07:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source for this? Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I never thought of having of sourse for this. It is common knowledge, like the fact that German cars do not brake right away, the fact that almost every Chinese wants to be a succesful businessman, or that Windows needs regular patches. I do understand the legitimate need to have a sourse for each (for example because not everybody on earth knows these things, and if a thing is not known by everybody, somebody has the right to ask it). However, I would have trouble figuring out what would qualify as a good sourse for each of these 1+3 facts. Can a sentanse in an ordinary computer science book be a sourse for the claim about Windows? I don't think an ordinary book would do. I think it is needed to be a writing by someone who worked on the development of Windows. These 4 claims might be among those rare cases when a primary sourse is better than a secondary.
 * Back to your question: honestly, I never thought to find a sourse for this. I will try to find something. But I am afraid that at best I can find info about specific devices in specific year, on specific contracts. I don't think I would be able to find a sourse confirming my claim in the generality I made it. Dc76\talk 21:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Good faith edit - removal of info on Constitution
Before removing such a large amount of background information on the Constitution, maybe you'd like to discuss your reasons here at the discussion page. The content of the new Constitution was highly relevant to the situation - removing references to said content suggests that the Sp. Civil War was merely a question of "Reds" vs. "The Church"... --Technopat (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Quote in combatant section
I propose deleting this quotation from Stanley Payne, from the comabtants section. Although it may be cited material, there is no factual information in this quote. It's entirely opinion and interpretation.

''The leftist zone has been variously designated "Republican", "loyalist", and "Popular Front." Of those terms, the adjective "loyalist" is somewhat misleading, for there was no attempt to remain loyal to the constitutional Republican regime. If that had been the scrupulous policy of the left, there would have been no revolt and civil war in the first place. Thus after July 1936 what remained of the constitutional Republic gave way to the "revolutionary Republican confederation" of 1936–1937.''

Which is fine in a work by an individual historian who is developing his argument, but citing one, highly partisan view in wp article is not productive. What the author is saying is that, in his opinion the Spanish republicans do not deserve the name republicans. And basically that the civil war was the fault of the left. Arguable, yes but highly pov I think. And it's not as if this is new and cutting edge research, the works cited were published in 1973 so I see no reason why they should be given special prominence in the text.

Nor do I agree with building up citations and counter-citations on the point as was suggested in the edit summaries. This would add nothing factual to the article and only confuse the reader. The debate as to respect to legality in the republican zone is a legitimate one but surely it's better dealt with elsewhere, for example in a historiography section.

Jdorney (talk) 23:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Having read the edit i'd agree a lot of the phrasing was poor and excessively POV particularly "Of those terms, the adjective "loyalist" is somewhat misleading, for there was no attempt to remain loyal to the constitutional Republican regime. If that had been the scrupulous policy of the left, there would have been no revolt and civil war in the first place."

Thats a highly POV statement which seeks to estabish "blame" for the war a topic of endless discussion yes but its not apppropriate putting a personal judgement here. I think this section should stay removed Kurtk60 (talk) 07:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * While I agree with deleting the cited text, I'd much rather see a cited text refuting it. Sorry to not coincide with you on that point Jdorney, but I think that readers need to be presented with counter-citations - obviously not ad inf. However POV it is - and few "historians" can be more POV than Payne - it is a cited reference, and as such, legitimate here on Wikipedia. So until someone can refute it - which I'd dearly like to be able to do myself - I propose summarising it in a couple of lines, such as "Payne (inline citation) considered that after July 1936 what remained of the constitutional Republic had given way to the 'revolutionary Republican confederation'". --Technopat (talk) 11:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't really see the point of this unless Payne's view has been notably influential in the historiography. I mean it would also be possible to find left-wing texts that say the Nationalists don't deserve the name because they were really fascists, traitors, reactionaries, German Nazis and Moroccan mercenaries. Where does it end? WP articles have finite space and are supposed to be concise presentations of information. There is nothing worse than an article turning into a rambling exchange of competing povs. Jdorney (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry for not replying sooner - missed this one. Again I agree with your points, but it's not so much Payne's view having been notably influential as the fact that he expresses a still widely-held opinion in Spain. I see your concerns regarding length of article, so let's take full advantage of Wikipedia's flexibility and maybe branch off with an article on "contemprary historians' takes on the Spanish Civil War", only better worded.--Technopat (talk) 07:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

whys is there a separate page for Spanish revolution?
why is the Spanish revolution and civil war listed separate? the way i learned it, the difference between a revolution and a civil war is the winner. had the confederate's won the civil war it would be called the confederate revolution. it seems to me that the Spanish revolution page is intrinsically tied to this page and should be appended in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.250.17.4 (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not entirely familiar with what Wikipedia calls the Spanish revolution, but I can tell you the Republicans would never claim that they were revolutionaries. As representing the legitimate government of Spain, a parallel claim that they were obliterating the Spanish government would have been absurd.--189.33.12.27 (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Chomsky's Analysis
Generally speaking Noam Chomsky's analysis in "Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship (1969)" give quite a different estimation of the facts pertaining to this series of events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.54.178 (talk) 04:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:UGT.jpg
The image File:UGT.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --22:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Inaccuracy of footnote number 65
Hello, first of all as a Spaniard I have to congratulate the issuer of this article, since I find it very neutral and greatly worked out. The only thing I’d like to point out is that the aforementioned footnote, is at least inaccurate if not straightforward false.

In its introduction the linked writer points that the ‘Legion Condor’ helped to ease the way for the National (or Nationalists, BTW I find the first one more exact) troops in order to enter Badajoz. This is hardly believable since the alleged slaughter happened on August 1936, and the Lufftwaffe boys did not land in Spain until October of the same year.

This raises some prevention on the note quality and leads us to the second point, was there any massacre at Badajoz? Portuguese journalist Mario Neves, witnessed the Plaza de Toros, the same day the alleged bloodbath occured, and he says: ''“Nos dirigimos enseguida a la plaza de toros, donde se concentran los camiones de las milicias populares. Muchos de ellos están destruidos. Al lado se ve un carro blindado con la inscripción “Frente Popular”. Este lugar ha sido bombardeado varias veces. Sobre la arena aún se ven algunos cadáveres. Todavía hay, aquí y allá, algunas bombas que no han explotado, lo que hace difícil y peligroso una visita más pormenorizada”'' (We made our way to the Bullring, where the lorries of the popular militias concentrated. Many among them have been destroyed. At one hand we see an armoured car with the inscription Popular Front. This place has been bombed several times. Upon the arena we still see some corpses. There still are, here and there, unexploded bombs, which makes difficult and dangerous a more detailed visit). Hard to believe the use of machine guns in a place were still remain unexploded bombs!! He does not say a word of the supposed 4000 killed there, a bit unexplainable…

Does this means that there was no atrocities in Badajoz at all, no way! But surely it was of the same rank of those that were perpetrated in other cities by the occupation forces.

Regards Enialio —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enialio (talk • contribs) 17:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Provenance of photo
Does anyone have a source for the photo which supposedly shows Republicans or Leftists shooting at a statue of Christ? It seems obviously staged to me, and it's quite possible that it was made for propaganda purposes. The only places I can find it online is on Catholic or Christian weblogs. I can't determine where it came from, and none of the blogs have any information that I've been able to find. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 01:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see this discussion Ed Fitzgerald t / c 23:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I've commented out the image until its bonafides can be established. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 23:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've reverted myself, so that the image is not orphaned, and potentially deleted for that reason, while investigation about it is ongoing. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 01:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Langston Hughes
I believe that it may be worthwhile to mention Langston Hughes among the involved famous reporters and inspired authors. As a famous American author and poet, and the correspondent for the newspaper the Baltimore Afro-American, his involvement was significant and of interest. Jacks478 (talk) 19:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure, his involvement in Spain is only mentioned in passing in the article about him. RashersTierney (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's specifically mentioned in the following section at the Foreign involvement article, along with many other correspondents: --Technopat (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Please explain your " A practical re-packaging of the (edited) Bibliography)"
Greetings Ombudswiki. Am slightly concerned about the above modification but as it was obviously done in good faith am not reverting it. In the interests of consensus-seeking, maybe you could explain exactly what effect you are after 'cos right now it ain't all that clear - to me, at least. (Copied and pasted on Ombudswiki's user page) Regards, --Technopat (talk) 09:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Reciprocal Saludos, Technopat, and thanks for giving me the option of explaining. I found the previous list very unfriendly to the reader, and containing some non-essential items (for example, the repeat of the Malraux item) There may still be more of those non-essentials in my revised (and slightly) updated version, but I didn't want to interfere (especially with the few items relating to specifically British participation in the War - others may disagree there).
 * Naturally, I leave it to you and others to improve on the Bibliography, especially to take into account writings of the past 5-8 years. The three-phase division, although it may seem a brazen novelty to some, seemed to be a useful way of highlighting the definite phases of this prolonged search for the full story and the tremendous ongoing international interest after more than 70 years. By emphasising the activity in Phase 1, it also (justly, I believe) underlines the relevant fact that, for decades, the main 'reputable' reporting was done by non-Spaniards, since reporting from Spain was severely hampered by the Franco and his Government until his death in 1975. After about 1980, with the establishment of the new Constitution and the strengthening of democracy in Spain, Spanish writers were able to publish their important contributions, side by side with those of other commentators. I hope you will allow this novel version to stand so that others can add to the three phases if they wish. Thanks.  Ombudswiki (talk) 04:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Some new editing
I've slightly rewritten two sentences that needed citations: Changed “…adhered to Marxism, but rejected the resolutions of the 5th to 7th Comintern and even questioned Lenin.[citation needed] But the actions of…” to “…adhered to Marxism, the PSOE, one of whose delegates to the Soviet Union challenged Lenin regarding his use of the CHEKA to reign in dissidents, and upon his return to Spain convinced the PSOE to reject affiliation with the 5th to 7th Comintern. But the actions of…” And changed “…newly emerged fascists. / In social terms…” to “..the newly emerged fascist-like Falange Espanola (Spanish Phalanx). .  / In social terms…” More to follow (eventually). (NZHistory Teacher (talk) 03:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC))

Changed “In this atmosphere, other aspects also contributed to the Civil War: disputes on the internal organisation of the State (centralism vs. federalism), the "Catalan question", the rise of the communists and anarchists, and that of fascism.[citation needed]” to “In this atmosphere, other aspects also contributed to the Civil War: disputes on the internal organisation of the State (centralism vs. federalism), the "Catalan question", the rise of anarchists and communists, and the rise of conservative parties and organisations that admired fascist methods. NZHistory Teacher (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Portugal as a belligerent
Portugal cannot be considered a belligerent since its government declared its neutrality and the Viriato Legion was not recognized officially according to the Mário Soares Foundation (in portuguese)

Belligerent - "A belligerent is an individual, group, country or other entity which acts in a hostile manner, such as engaging in combat..." "In times of war, belligerent countries can be contrasted with neutral countries and non-belligerents" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.155.229.210 (talk) 02:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Same comment about Mexico. They helped but they did not commit troops. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.40.159.23 (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

POUM not exactly an objective source
This quote from the Trotskyists' paper is so biased that it should either be removed or at least balanced with another point of view. It should at least be given the background that POUM was a Trotskyist party, opposed to the Republic and to Soviet aid to Spain. Stevenjp (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * POUM was not a Trotskyist group, and it was certainly not "opposed to the Republic". It was critical of the Popular Front policy, and it opposed Stalinism and the line of the Comintern. If you want to find another source, less critical of the character of Soviet aid to the republic, please do so; but present it neutrally; Wikipedia is not a forum for the propagation of sectarian smears. RolandR 19:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no such thing as an "objective source". The idea of NPOV is to balance competing sources. POUM was a moderate group, Orwell's favorite Spanish faction. Trotsky did not support it. He backed the PSOE (Spanish Socialist Party) and the the UGT (the party's affliated trade union), at least after the PSOE was radicalized in 1934-1935. Kauffner (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ahem
'There are unverified accounts of Catholics being forced to swallow rosary beads and/or being thrown down mine shafts, as well as priests being forced to dig their own graves before being buried alive.'

If these accounts are 'unverified' surely they deserve no mention in the article- since there is no source which holds up their validility. Secondly Santiago Carrillo is named in this paragraph (the one on Republican repression) as 'responsible' for Paracuellos- this is not true and is likely deliberately misleading... there is not evidence that he was linked to the killings (my source for this is 'The Spanish Civil War' by Paul Preston)and in fact the accusation has been used against him numerous times by the stupider members of the ultra-right- which personally makes me eonder who included it in the article.86.137.150.135 (talk) 00:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ahem,Ahem ... The original paragraph was false in the "unverified" word (if by it is meant not published in secondary sources). A quick perusal of Antonio Montero's "Persecucion religiosa" could give a couple of even more dramatic examples. Both the Causa General and or the relevant beatification documentation (both quasi primary sources) could supply even mor examples ...
 * If you rely on Preston it's pretty easy to sidestep a lot (i'm as of late loosing a lot of patience with him). There is a neverending literature dealing with Paracuellos and Carrillo's responsability. A very good overview can be read at our spanish sister article A good concise  statement can be found in Stanley Payne's The Spanish Civil War, the Soviet Union and Communism (Yale, 2004) page 181
 * "Since the JSU leader Santiago Carrillo was the junta’s head of security, in charge of police, he has usually been assigned the principal responsibility for the mass liquidation"
 * Just to expand a quick colection of facts (if needed references can amount on the thousands), choose your conclusion
 * For much of November and early December 1936 political prisioners were taken out of Madrid's prisions and executed on or arround Paracuellos del Jarama (from 1000 persons upward)
 * For all the period S. Carrillo (already a member of the PCE) was the Security and Public Order Commisar of the Madrid Junta
 * There are zero documental proof that he did any attempt to stop the killings.
 * Only a rather forceful intervention of anarchist Melchor Rodriguez García (the Red Angel), head of national prisions, stopped the killings, in direct opposition with Madrid's Junta

83.54.0.229 (talk) 01:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC) (user wllacer not logged)


 * Is there any reason for considering Antonio Montero a more objective source than Paul Preston? If so, please point this/these out.


 * On the other hand, if there was any "evidence" of Carillo having been directly involved in the Paracuellos killings, any number of judges in Spain would already have indicted him, as is their obligation on being informed of a crime. Did the Francoist regime, which had ample access to "evidence", formally charge him such killings?--Technopat (talk) 12:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Montero and Preston are referenced in two distinct paragraphs (and contexts), and belong to very different areas, with varying methodological aims. On my view on Preston, let me simply say that I wildly prefer (for "orthodox" storylines) Tuñon de Lara's original even with its age, limitations, and partisanship but eons more honest (if time allows, Techonpat, i'll expand it for you)


 * As usual, for rabid leftist i recommend as a powerful antidote to the standard view, Broue-Temine's book (troskite, and a bit aged, spanish translation available at, probably english versions can also be found) -a personal pet of mine, i confess. For the rest, Bolloten's last version of his book, or, less encyclopedic, any recent work by Stanley Payne, can work the same


 * I just stumbled upon a rather cruel critique (in spanish) to P.Preston. The author, Pedro Carlos Gonzalez Cuevas is a professional historian, so i think a better source than my personal opinion (which does not differ that much). To be fair take it just as a (very important) "caveat" when reading one of the so-called leading authors on the SCW--Wllacer (talk) 12:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's true, the "Causa General" (btw available online) does not accuse Carrillo directly of Paracuellos, and I won't go thus far, but the fact that he was the POLITICAL public order head during the events, and that according that after his own statement "he did know nothing" ( probably the only person in Madrid ), certainly, for me, makes him partly responsible, at least of pasivity


 * If you can read the above mentioned spanish wikipedia article, there are two recent pieces of evidence (i.e. uncovered after Gibson's book), which hint to a more active role in the affair:


 * The Stepanov memorandum found by Radosh in the Komintern Archives, which directly blames (rather praises) Carrillo for ordering some killings at that time. The exact relation with Paracuellos is marred by translation issues and that its uncover has come at the time of a new low in spanish historography.


 * The CNT minutae of a meeting the night of the 7th November with unnamed chiefs of the JSU, where openly the starting (and primary scope) of the massacre is outlined. Carrillo was the general secretary of the JSU (i.e. the boss) at that time, and was in Madrid that night. Even if he wasn't present at the meeting, common sense rules out his ignorance. This document was uncovered by Jorge Perez Reverte


 * And a last ehem moment. In Spain from the 2nd of April of 1969 onwards, all causes regarding the civil war were to be closed and prescripted. Evenmore after the 1977 general amnesty. So there is no way Carrillo could be ever put on trial for Paracuellos. Only with the 2005 law there is a slim chance of it. If memory serves me right, since then, at least two failed attempts have been made to judicially reopen the Paracuellos case. None of the rejections entered into the matter
 * A last comment about the "Causa General", based on my first hand experience with it -for a small province- In absence of written -and preserved- orders, the determination of temptative responsabilities beyond the lowest echelons of the line of command was (beyond boilerplate definitions) almost imposible, with the used methodology (standard public prosecutor fare), unless this echelons could declare -extremely unlikely for obvious reasons- Wllacer (talk) 12:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Greetings Wllacer - thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. I can see there's still plenty of stuff for me to read up on. Off to the Spanish version. Just one more question, but as it's not directly related to improving the article, I'll pop in at your talk page. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 13:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Geoffrey Cox
Just wondering if Geoffrey Cox should be added to the list of Journos? Jamie Mackay (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See Foreign involvement in the Spanish Civil War.--Technopat (talk) 07:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

"Genial" Sanjurjo?
Is this serious?, "The genial monarchist General José Sanjurjo was the figurehead of the rebellion" Patillotes (talk) 14:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

main Photo
im sure its been established that photo of the man having been shot is a fake. Set up

--Jones.liam (talk) 07:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * See Federico Borrell García.--Technopat (talk) 08:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

There is still considerable debate about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.40.159.23 (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It's amazing to me how, when it comes to jews (like the jewish photographer who took this propaganda photo), the truth is something that "doesn't really matter anyway". How is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.43.68.185 (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Media in lead
I think that the following sentences are not central enough to the topic to be included in the lead:
 * The Spanish Civil War has been dubbed as "the first media war", with the writers and journalists covering it wanting their work "to support the cause".[8] Foreign correspondents covering it included Ernest Hemingway, Martha Gellhorn, George Orwell and Robert Capa.

Also, WP:LEAD and other guidelines, the lead should not have material that isn't discussed in the rest of the article; I didn't see this discussed anywhere else. I had moved it to the pop culture section (which admittedly wasn't a great place for it, but I couldn't think of anywhere else), but was reverted. What are others' thoughts on the matter? Has this been written about widely, or just in the cited source? delldot  &nabla;.  21:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Pop culture
I think the pop culture section needs to be culled per WP:POPCULTURE. These sections are supposed to mention highlights, not be an exhaustive list or a random assortment, and they're not supposed to include non-notable works (which, judging from the redlinks, I suspect this does). I'd be in favor of getting rid of the section entirely (since it was a war it's not that surprising that it would show up in pop culture), but what do others think? Can I at least pare it down to the most notable works and those in which the war was most central? delldot  &nabla;.  21:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A solution has been suggested to me when I asked about this over IRC: List of war films and TV specials! I think this is a better place for this collection of info: it's already in list form anyway, and an article this general can't support this long a list of semi-relevant info.  Since there have been no violent objections since I left this note, I'm going to go ahead and link to that page and remove the massive list here.  But if there are objections we can definitely discuss it still.   delldot   &nabla;.  05:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Article size
We need to do some paring down on this article. The readable prose is 70 KB, and the agreed-upon upper limit for a FA is 50. (*hint hint* pop culture section?) Any ideas for how to go about this? One I have is to cut down on the quotations: I think they're overused, and the quotes used are overly long and of questionable relevance (e.g. when the person isn't well known, so it's not clear how important their opinion is). delldot  &nabla;.  22:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Update: Down to 92 KB, 57 readable! *Scampers off to pare EL section*  delldot   &nabla;.  06:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Spinoff article
The article is still about half again as long as it should be, so I'm trying to think of ideas for spinoff articles. I think one good one would be the Foreign involvement section--we can leave a summary here and point to the main article. I'm thinking this because it's quite detailed and long and because the WP:MILHIST style guide recommends explaining who the combatants are in the lead but doesn't recommend giving it its own section in the body. Furthermore, the way it is now kind of splits up the chronology with the prelude and outbreak from the chronology of the war. Maybe if this is a shorter section (or integrated into the combatants section) it'll flow better.

Normally I'd ask about this and wait to see if anyone had any thoughts but there hasn't been dialogue on this talk page about any of the other suggestions I've made and I've ended up going ahead with the ideas anyway a couple days later. So I'm thinking I'll go ahead now, and if anyone hates it it can be reversed or we can figure out a compromise. delldot  &nabla;.  19:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, duh, that article already exists. In that case I want to move a lot of this info to it.  Objections?  delldot   &nabla;.  19:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think a stab should first be made at removing superfluous wording. For example, in the combatants section it listed all the parts of the Nationalist coalition.  Then about two or three sentances later it says "The actions of the Republican government slowly coagulated the different people on the right" and proceeds to list them again.  I deleted the repetative listing. Mamalujo (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we should do both, I doubt either alone will get it to a manageable size. Since the spinoff article already exists, this section should be nowhere near as long as it is (and in a lot of places it's actually more detailed than the daughter article).  I think that's the first thing we're going to hear about if and when we take this to PR or GAN--"shorten your summary sections per WP:SUMMARY." delldot   &nabla;.  20:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)