Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Background of the Spanish Civil War/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 16:33, 3 November 2011.

Background of the Spanish Civil War

 * Nominator(s): Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The background of the Spanish Civil War, is, in a way the story of how a country as 'western' as Spain could come to a bitter, deeply held conflict that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. The previous FAC met with little tangible opposition, but failed to garner sufficient support, so I am relisting it now.

A word on sources: I've scanned Beevor pp. 8 and 9, 30, 31, 32 and 33, although imperfectly; Preston 42, 43, 44 and 45 almost perfectly; Thomas 14, 15, 16 and 17 and can make these available for source review because I am moving to university and cannot physically take the books with me. One or two of the lesser used cited works are online. Previously passed an A-class review.

I'll be away from Monday to Friday and possibly that weekend, but active thereafter and until then. (I should be able to keep up in any case, as a priority.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: Ucucha okayed the 10-day gap between FACs. - Dank (push to talk) 17:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Edition notations should generally not be italicized (out of curiosity, why is a print edition being published by an online library?)
 * Would suggest either just "New York" or complete "New York, NY, USA"
 * Thanks! Sometimes reviewers reject "New York", which makes me want to facepalm. - Dank (push to talk) 18:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * According to their homepage, the correct capitalization is Library of Iberian Resources Online. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I maintain that "Oxford, UK; New York" looks unbalanced, but I've deferred. Done the others. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Copyscape review – No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Support. (I raised many issues, all of which were resolved and then moved here.) Sourcing and organization are excellent. All issues with the prose have been resolved. Thorough and informative, this fully deserves FA status. – Quadell (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 03:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I'm going to be supporting on prose, except in the lead ... but this support is an admission that, if there are problems here, I don't have the background to address them. The title of the article is Background of the Spanish Civil War, and I kept expecting to find, but not finding, a discussion of connections to or implications for the Spanish Civil War.  I don't know enough about Spanish history to make any assertions about what's missing ... but something seems to be missing.  I'm not happy with the lead, but I don't know enough about the subject matter to rewrite it. - Dank (push to talk) 03:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * All your edits are fine. I thought about the direct link between the content and the title, and I think it rests on two things:
 * The vast majority of the article is referenced to works on the Spanish Civil War in general;
 * If you take things like all the people mentioned (quite a lot) they turn up in the war, as do the institutions. It would be impossible to put down here what exactly there role later was, it would simply be unmanageable - and we have the advantage of being able to link to them (nowhere in the books is this link established, either, on the whole).
 * Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer, except as above. Resolved issues moved to the talk page. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Adding: I think I could accept the text below the lead as-is if the lead did a really good job of explaining the connections between the genesis of the Spanish Civil War and the material in the text. - Dank (push to talk) 14:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added a fairly short fourth paragraph to the lead (were being vague and drawing inferences from the article is more acceptable). I wonder what you think. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if we could get a roomful of experts together, show them the text below the lead, and then ask the question, "Okay, why do so many authors mention all these things in connection with the Civil War? How did the constitution, the latifundia, the geographic and political divisions of a hundred years all contribute?  Explain it so that someone who doesn't know much about Spain can follow, starting with the most important factors" ... which to some extent will mean in reverse chronological order (in the lead), since more recent developments would have been more relevant. - Dank (push to talk) 20:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I really don't know what that's going to look like. It's like the story of how Spain got to the point of Civil War. I actually think you can already trace a narrative on certain key issues through the article, such as militancy. There are several people and organisations whose position during the war is justified with the context. Picking out one thing and saying "this helped cause the Spanish Civil War by..." is impossible, if not misleading. There are no featured articles in this position, I don't think, so no help there. We can retitle the article along the lines of the multiple suggestions made before, namely: "Origins of..." or "Events leading to..." if you think these are most appropriate (my previous position has been one of only minor support for the current title, and general arbitrariness). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think retitling would change things. I agree that the perceptive reader can trace the connections, which is why I'm supporting the text below the lead.  But imagine a reader who's only got about 10 minutes worth of time and interest and not much background, and wants to know "just the facts" in 3 or 4 paragraphs.  What's the single most important factor that led to the civil war?  Then, what's the second most important factor? Etc. I'm not saying it's easy to write a lead that is going to make everyone happy ... it's not. - Dank (push to talk) 11:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've had another go at the lead with this aim in mind. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Johnboddie has offered to rewrite the lead later this week, I'll have a look after he's done. - Dank (push to talk) 12:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * He's had a look and doesn't know what to do with it, and I'm not sure either. What you say above would help: "the story of how a country as 'western' as Spain could come to a bitter, deeply held conflict that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people."  It would also help to know where historians have come out on which factors were the most important in tipping the country into war.  I'm still supporting the text below the lead on prose only. - Dank (push to talk) 11:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Changed my mind after working on this yesterday.  All things considered, the prose is very good ... but per my understanding of what's been supported at FAC in the past, I think this probably isn't sufficiently accessible and compelling to the general reader. - Dank (push to talk) 14:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:Manuel_Azaña.JPG: can we translate the source info? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Is anyone prepared to do a spotcheck exercise? I have the scans ready but can't upload them because of copyright, but can send them. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll do spotchecks. E-mail me, and we'll set it up. Meanwhile, I'll do the online sources. – Quadell (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Spotchecks: I checked 20 footnotes referencing seven independent sources: 1a, 1b, 12, 18a, 18b, 20a, 26, 36b, 37, 42, 55, 56, 58, 75, 97, 100, 107, 113, 114, and 116 of this version. The following minor issues were uncovered: I'm sure these can be fixed with minimal difficulty. In every other case, the information in the article was fully backed by the sources, and there was no verbatim copying or close paraphrasing. – Quadell (talk) 17:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) The statement "Rivera had close to total control of fascism in Spain." was only suggested by Preston in ref 42. The statement should be toned down, or another source should be provided.
 * 2) Footnote 56 refers to page 4 of Paz. The information is actually on page 2, so the footnote should say that, and the link should be changed in the "sources" section.
 * 3) The information in footnote 75 (Brincat) is presented in this article in a way that's rather closely worded. After I asked one of our resident experts, it seems this is not a serious problem. But I would feel more comfortable if the material were either reworded or directly quoted from the source.
 * 4) Footnote 113 sources this sentence: "By early 1936, Azaña found that the left was using its influence to circumvent the Republic and the constitution; he was adamant about increasingly radical changes." But the source appears to me to say that the left was adamant about such changes, whereas he (Azaña) was resistent.
 * I don't disagree with any of that and have made appropriate changes. With regards to #3, I have reworded it (although if anyone can find a less clunky wording, please change) and have left a short note at the thread Quadell links. Thanks again. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This satisfies all my concerns. – Quadell (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If it helps, when I read the last two sections of Miguel Primo de Rivera, 2nd Marquis of Estella, I feel like I get a clearer picture of what led to the Spanish Civil War. That article is barely referenced, so it could all be completely wrong; nevertheless, the narrative feels more like the kind of narrative readers are expecting, when the question is, "What caused this war?" - Dank (push to talk) 18:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is almost identical to sections of the article describing the period in Spain until the abdication of the monarchy. Everything it says is in the article. Of course the actual period of the Republic is similarly important. I'm reviewing other books, but I have no idea what I'm looking for. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, we have a paragraph in hand for the lead if strictly necessary. One paragraph in one book caught my eye, but I still don't feel like I understand the problem. It reads:
 * "Nevertheless, even in the immediate aftermath of the July military coup and before any international factors could come into play, extreme forms of internecine violence were already occurring throughout Spain. So historians are required to explore what this violence meant and how it related to the pre-war domestic environment Three factors were crucial here. First, the extremely uneven levels of development that obtained inside Spain [sic] by the 1930s. This meant that the military coup unleashed what was in effect a series of culture wars: urban culture and cosmopolitan lifestyle versus rural tradition; secular against religious; authoritarian against liberal political cultures; centre versus periphery; traditional gender roles versus the 'new woman'; even youth against age, since generational conflicts were also present. Second the force with which the opposing elements clashed owed more than a little to the cultural influence of a manichaean brand of Catholicism that sill predominated in Spain, affecting even many of those who had consciously rejected religious belief and the authority of the Church. Third, since the detonator of events was a military coup, we must also examine the role played by Spain's army and, in particular, the emergence of a rigid and intolerant political culture in its officer corps during the early decades of the 20th century."
 * Is this the sort of thing you think the lead needs? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You've done a good job of avoiding blaming the war on "bad guys" or hooking the readers by getting them attached to "good guys", as required by NPOV. You haven't done as well at the job of creating a narrative that speaks to readers, that makes connections between the facts as you know them and the readers' likely beliefs about Spain and about the origins of war, even if you're 100% right in your representation of what the sources say.

I suggest that we let the protagonist be Spain itself, and I don't think we can get most readers to follow the events or significance of most of the 19th century stuff ... at least, not without covering it in more depth, which would make this article too long and too dense. My recommendation FWIW is to lose the first quarter or so of the text below the lead (use it to seed a new article), down to the last two paragraphs in Twentieth century. The next-to-last paragraph there begins "Increasing exports", but it needs a little fleshing out, and a little more passion ... get readers to feel some connection to Spain, to identify with its suffering.

The next paragraph has a lot of good stuff, but I want more there, too ... I'd like to see something about Spain's modernization and economic success in the 1920s. That will help the readers feel a connection to the country and its story, and also make it intuitively clear how disappointing it was when it all fell apart. Maybe add something like this, and I'm borrowing a lot from the largely unreferenced Miguel Primo de Rivera, 2nd Marquis of Estella here:


 * Spain shared in Europe's economic boom. By the end of the 1920s, after six years of surprisingly progressive rule under the military dictatorship of Captain General Miguel Primo de Rivera, foreign trade had increased x% [where x is probably > 300%, since that was the increase from 1923 to 1927], Spanish laborers were enjoying significant influence and prosperity under the protection of government arbitrators, and massive spending on public works had created [summary of new infrastructure], including Europe's best road network. Unemployment had largely disappeared.


 * But Primo de Rivera had brought order to Spain with a price: his regime was a dictatorship, albeit a mild one, and much of the populace felt oppressed. He censored the press. When intellectuals criticized the government, he closed El Ateneo, the country's most famous political and literary club. To suppress the separatist fever in Barcelona, the regime tried to expunge Catalan culture. The inflation generated by huge public spending disproportionately hurt the poor.


 * Traditional institutions also felt threatened, and by the very reforms that most felt were insufficient. According to British historian Gerald Brenan, "Spain needed radical reforms and he could only govern by the permission of the two most reactionary forces in the country—the Army and the Church." Primo de Rivera dared not tackle what was seen as Spain's most pressing problem, agrarian reform, because it would have provoked the great landholding elite. Writes historian Richard Herr, "Primo was not one to waken sleeping dogs, especially if they were big." [And you have some good stuff about what was inflaming the Church and the Army that could go here.]


 * As Spaniards tired of the dictatorship, the economic boom ended. The value of the peseta fell against foreign currencies, 1929 brought a bad harvest, and Spain's imports far outstripped the worth of its exports. Although no one recognized it at the time, the final months of the year brought the international economic slump which turned into the great depression of the 1930s.


 * When Primo de Rivera lost the support of the king and the armed forces, his dictatorship was doomed. The Spanish military had never unanimously backed his seizure of power, although it had tolerated his rule. But when Primo de Rivera began to inject politics into promotions for the artillery corps, it provoked hostility and opposition. Troubled by the regime's failure to legitimize itself or to solve the country's woes, the king also began to draw away. Alfonso, who had sponsored the establishment of Madrid's University City, watched with dismay as the country's students took to the streets to protest the dictatorship and the king's support for it. A clandestine pamphlet portrayed Alfonso as Primo de Rivera's dancing partner. Yet the king did not have to remove Primo de Rivera. On 26 January 1930, the dictator asked the military leaders if he still had their support. Their lukewarm responses, and his recognition that the king no longer backed him, persuaded him to resign two days later. Primo de Rivera retired to Paris, where he died from fever and diabetes on 16 March 1930.

I prefer this approach because it's more likely to mesh with what readers are expecting and what they know. Readers don't think of civil wars as caused by a series of events over a hundred years (and even if they did, it's generally too much for them to process in one article), but because good times turn bad, popular leaders become unpopular, and people get angry. Readers also generally expect that there are powerful reactionary forces lurking, which of course there were here. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 21:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the time and effort you've put in. I'm sorry, Dank, but I think we may have to agree to disagree over this. All the sources I've read (Thomas, Preston, Beevor, Payne) take a single narrative through to the start of the civil war, and, barring some summarising, this is it. We are asked not "What caused this war?" but rather "What should the reader know to understand the Civil War best?". We do, I think, set the reader up to put the civil war in its historical context. In many ways, the article achieves what you want it to; the further before the civil war events are the more succinctly they are described. I would therefore think it wise to cling to the thoughts of the historians. In my opinion, we have a narrative of 'good' times turning bad, of popular leaders becoming unpopular, or people getting angry; it's just written so as not to force things to conform to the simple "black-and-white" model that would be most understandable but misleading. I wonder what other editors think. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying the historians are wrong, I'm saying that IMO the article should be broken into two pieces, because if you add enough to make some of the bare facts here more accessible and compelling to the average reader, then the article would be at least twice as long as the rough upper limits for FAC articles. YMMV. - Dank (push to talk) 14:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sort of with Dank on this I suppose. As a "background to the war", however well researched, the article perhaps lacks focus (where does one stop? What is it that we're trying to tell a story about?), whereas a "causes of the war" article is inevitably going to be more tightly bounded, even if some causes will go back quite a way in history. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn. I realise it is rare for an article with supports to be officially withdrawn, but at a month in, I suppose it could also be considered unsuccessful. I think it would be most helpful to pause and come back to this issue at a later date, perhaps also when I have more time (and full access to the sources). There is more to Wikipedia than this, and I feel I should direct my efforts to other things for now. I thank the commenter of all varieties, they have all been noted. I wonder if a coord could effect this for me. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.