Talk:Terrorism in Spain

Civil War period
has removed the following paragraph from the article...


 * The Spanish Civil War saw both a White Terror by the Nationalist faction, responsible for 58,000 to 400,000 deaths, and a Red Terror by the leftist groups, responsible for 38,000 to ~172,344 deaths. Individual events include the massacre of Badajoz in which Nationalist soliders killed 500 to 4,000 civilian and military supporters of the Second Spanish Republic. The Paracuellos massacres saw Republican troops and militiamen kill 1,000 to 12,000 civilians, soldiers and Catholic priests.

Asqueladd is concerned that the citations in that paragraph do not make explicit a link between the Red and White Terrors and "terrorism". Asqueladd left the following comment on my Talk page, which I repeat here, as here seems a more useful place to discuss it!


 * The context offered by those sources is not terrorism (but civil war and afterward repression). If you are interested in expanding the entry without entering into WP:NOR, Juan Avilés Farré is among the foremost scholars dealing with terrorism in Spain from an holistic understanding of the topic. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the material should be retained. I suggest the connection is clear and that it is important context for violence to political ends in Spain. It is no accident that the Red Terror and White Terror are called that. This is not a long article, we're not running out of space, we're allowed to have some context. I am not bothered about the specific wording, just that we need to talk about the Civil War and the Francoist period after it.

I note that other Wikipedia articles make the connection, including White Terror (Spain) (which redirects to Francoist Repression in Spain). The Category:Terrorism in Spain includes White Terror (Spain) and Red Terror (Spain).

In terms of citations that specifically connect the Red and White Terrors with terrorism, there are a number, e.g.. During the Civil War, the Republicans referred to, for example, "la barbarie del terrorismo rojo". Resistance against Franco after the Civil War was often called terrorism, thus the 1947 law was called "Ley para la represión del Bandidaje y el Terrorismo". Bondegezou (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * References


 * It is original research (WP:NOR) heavily distorting the entry. What it is needed here is to actually bring an history of terrorism in Spain that properly weighs and whose purpose is to actually to give a review of the history of terrorism in Spain (ideally of all time, but if not still aspiring to give a partial review), instead of pulling synth and cherrypick ("those entries are categorized as terrorism... something something", "this is called terrorism in this primary source and whatnot, so therefore bringing an arsenal of civil war books not dealing with a "terrorist" frame is ok"... editing through degrees of separation). You have secondary sources online (available) developing an history of several episodes of terrorism in the country (transition; far right; ETA, et al.)anarchist terrorism of the 1890spost-11m yihadism), (an understanding of political violence of Falange during 2nd Republic as terrorism), Why don't you start from there?--Asqueladd (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This article certainly could do with expansion in many different ways. I am very supportive of more content being added, if you,, or anyone else would like to do that.
 * However, my concern here is about material being subtracted from the article. I'm afraid I found your comments above a bit vague as to what your objections are. How was the removed text "heavily distorting"?
 * The history section needs to cover the glaring gap in the current article between anarchists in 1906 and the beginning of ETA terrorism in 1961. We can hardly pretend that Spain was some peaceful paradise in between, free from political violence or terror. So what should we say about that period? Concrete suggestions would be helpful.
 * I'm not wedded to the original text (as above) at all. However, I do think we need to cover "Red" and "White" political violence, some of which took a form more akin to the anarchist terrorism before it, much of which segued into Civil War and the large scale atrocities described in the removed text. I realise we also need to discuss the maquis period. The Muñoz Bolaños paper is interesting: I'll look at that. I'll work on expanding what was written. I think any new text is, however, still going to link to White Terror (Spain) and Red Terror (Spain). It still seems useful to give those broad figures for total numbers killed, and I think it useful to mention some of these very large events, like the massacre of Badajoz and the Paracuellos massacres. More about the period leading up to the Civil War and the period after would be good. More about how events were characterised at the time seems useful. What else would you like, or what specifically do you object to (and why)? Bondegezou (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * But versing about how "not-well" Spain was at an specific period is not (and should not) be the purpose of the section purposed to present the history of terrorism in Spain (nor the drive of editors), and should not be our concern as long as it is not the concern of the sources framing the history of terrorism. That is the purpose you would expect from history of Spain (or whatever aspect of history sources frame a period through), don't worry. If there are sources for it we could as well create political violence in Spain (of which Spain was also fraught with, suggesting Spain "was not well"), regardless if it is arguable they very much overlap. In any case I concur the current state is very much an stub and it welcomes expansion.--Asqueladd (talk) 23:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have tentatively tried to expand the anarchist part a bit here, using secondary sources with a focus/frame on terrorism introducing some sort of nuance suggested in the sources regarding different forms of political violence. I undid myself but if you think it is useful in the context you are looking for, you might want to recover that.--Asqueladd (talk) 01:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Hotel Corona de Aragon fire was an accident
Both the government and ETA agrees it was an accident, apart from if you seriously believe that the spanish government would lie to defend ETA there is no proof ETA did it, I have removed it. The basque savior (talk) 11:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)