Talk:Spanish Civil War

Anti Russian Sentiment

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

What exactly was a "relic"? was I-16 a relic? was T-26 a relic? On what source did the "historian" based this statement? Did he went to moscow, got access to archives, and gathered the statistics about what exactly was sent to Spain and in what numbers? Did he? No? Strange... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.52.101.196 (talk) 02:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

What concrete evidence do you have that Beevor didn't use proper historical research? He is a well respected historian. Do you have conflicting references of this situation which say otherwise? If so, provide them. Claiming bias in the whole article if it is just that paragraph fragment at issue isn't appropriate. If instead, you are suggesting every Beevor reference is western POV, you are going to have to provide a LOT of supporting information to back this up. (Hohum ^@) 21:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

the banner says "The neutrality of this article" So I am still convinced it meant to be used for the whole article. 84.52.101.196 (talk) 22:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Beevor accessed Moscow records, many of them recently released. I understand he speaks Russian, and had access to some new material which came to light some time after the break up of the Soviet Union. He lists some manifests (as does Thomas - the same records are one of the main differences between Thomas editions) on particular ships. You can check if you like, it's one of the appendices to Thomas; it's integrated in Beevor's case, as I recall. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd love to check it. Is it online somewhere? The Spanish wikipedia says only about I-16, I-15 fighters, SB bombers, t-26 and bt tanks. Non of those were relics.

Actually the whole part of the soviet involvement has a strong negative flavour in it. Something which is not in the Spanish or the Russian language version. 84.52.101.196 (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I stand by the factual claims - I'm having a look online, I just wish I still had Thomas - but I agree the section's tone isn't quite right and if it weren't Christmas I'd get on and edit it myself. It's just slightly loosely worded. I did manage to find: Michael S. Neiberg, Routledge: Most of these weapons were outdated World War I and Civil War surplus arms (here). There a few more but I'm going to look for more by way of hard facts. Given the date, I shan't be editing tomorrow. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't argue about the absence of a ref of the statement. I just argue on what the refs base it. _{not even to mention that the whole "Most of these weapons were outdated World War I and Civil War surplus arms" looks like a complete nonsense. Triplanes from WWI? Tanks? Or do they mean mosin-nagant rifles, which despite being quite old indeed were still used by SU itself.}

Anyway, merry christmas. There is no reason to hurry in editing the article. It stayed like that for years, can wait for few more ;) 84.52.101.196 (talk) 23:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

From memory, I think it's artillery and rifles in particular. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

So among all the types of weaponry sent, the rifles and artillery can justify "mostly relics" wording. British historians are so British. What exactly was send and in what quantity? Maybe the wording "mostly" could be justified at least by the weight of the equipment. BTW Spanish wikipedia says only about half a million mosin rifles. Which were hardly "relics" at the time. No other types of rifle mentioned there. 84.52.101.196 (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't question the veracity of Beevor's research, but the tone of the paragraph is non-encyclopedic. Just the facts and not the clever language. For example "relic" is clever but imprecise -- if you mean obsolete say it. I cleaned up the Soviet section and removed the tag. I don't have an axe to grind here. I just try to relsolve conflicts at WP and keep us up to encyclopedic standards. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a good start, once I have the books I'll give it another check. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Please do not remove the tag yet. We are yet to see the basis for the "mostly relics" statement. Planes were fine, tanks were fine. What could that be than? "Occasionally, modern weapons such as BT-5 tanks were sent." yeah, right. It's like t-26 was a relic. And only "occasionally" they were lucky to get the modern BT-5s 84.52.101.196 (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I've (finally) got what Beevor says and have rewritten the passage based on what it says. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! But still, "the rifles and field guns provided were generally old and obsolete." What exact types of rifles and guns were provided? And the amounts of each type, to justify the word "generally". As i said above - Spanish wikipedia says only about half a million mosin rifles. Which were hardly "relics" at the time. No other types of rifle mentioned there. 84.52.101.196 (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

We're relying on the judgement of a reliable source on that one. Beevor can be found online here (at least for me - these things sometimes vary by where you are). He refers to one set of artillery as of "Tsarist vintage", for example (hence why it's clear he means Soviet arms, not just those from other countries). I have also found Stanley G. Payne's notes on the subject: [page 156 and following which I should probably add to the article. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

So there is no factual basis of the "mostly relics" statement whatsoever. British historians are so British :) 84.52.101.196 (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Good article vs neutrality questioned

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reassessment of GA status

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Spanish Civil War/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

• There's an unresolved neutrality tag due to systemic bias on the article for a while. As a result, the article no longer meets criterion 4 - "It follows the neutral point of view policy".

That appears to have been removed. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

1. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   It seems like newly attracted zealots just started to resort to edit wars to remove the tag they don't like. 84.52.101.196 (talk) 14:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

2. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

3. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I would like some proper comment on whether the section above is still actually biased, rather than merely asserting that it is based on the use of the neutrality tag. I believe that I have clarified and dealt with those concerns. If it were up to me I would simply remove it, but I am retiscent to do so myself where I have been part of the process. The criterion is that the article is actually not biased, and a tag itself can never be sufficient to show this. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I am new to the discussion, having only stumbled into it when I came to look something up. Having no particular axe to grind, let me make the following observations:

The tag has been up since December, and there is no justification for having a major article flagged like that for two months. Anyone thinking there's a problem should have addressed it by now. If the article suffers from anti-Soviet bias, it isn't obvious to me, and there should be plenty of pro-Soviet publications in the world to correct the balance. The fact that none has been introduced suggests to me that the claim of bias is rather exaggerated.

The basis for the allegation of bias is that the sources cited are unreliable, based in large part on a comparison to the Spanish version of the article. The Spanish Wikipedia isn't itself a citable source. An editor's critique of the reliable source cited in this article is also not a basis for flagging the article; that evaluation is definitionally original research. Consequently, I have removed the bias flag. DCB4W (talk) 05:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

"I stand by the factual claims"

"We're relying on the judgement of a reliable soure on that one."

I believe you were unable to find any factual claims in your heavily biased source, and just refuse to admit that no such claims exist there, only some vague words. I also believe the warning banner above is required, so people can go to talk page and see for themselves on what "reliable sources" this article is based on 84.52.101.196 (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

"heavily biased source" - do you mean Beevor and/or Payne and/or Howson? These books are by acclaimed academics. These are leading books on the Spanish Civil War and they're published on major publishers. The discussion above is about the "Soviet Union" section - do you refer to anything else? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

"History will be kind to me for I intend to write it." (c) guess who? It's not only the other people who are being brainwashed and live in a well orchestrated mythology, it might as well be you. Those "acclaimed academics" have absolutely no basis for their statements, as was shown above. And guess what? They are all British! Hence the systemic bias tag. 84.52.101.196 (talk) 02:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

So apart from the opinion of the one anonymous editor that the reliable sources relied upon are systematically biased (i.e. "So British"-- fortunately he's above bias), is there any reason to think the article is ACTUALLY biased? Bear in mind that allegations of bias have to themselves be based on a reliable source. No Wikipedia editor's personal opinion re: Beevor is relevant. DCB4W (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

"is there any reason to think the article is ACTUALLY biased?" Yes, there are actually 2 reasons sir:

First. The refs have absolutely nothing to back up their statements. Furthermore article uses their opinions and estimations, rather than facts. Hence the wording. E.g. instead of "X peaces of equipment was of model Y from year Z" it says "most of the equipment were relics"

Second and most important. The Spanish and Russian articles about the subject ( the actual involving parties ) have no such negative flavour about soviet involvement. Only the English has it. And as we figured out without any facts behind it. Only opinions of the British myth writers "acclaimed academics". 84.52.101.196 (talk) 02:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

You're rather missing the point here. Individual editors don't get to fact-check reliable sources. If an issue is controversial and you have questions about the veracity of a reliable source, then find another reliable source and use that as a basis for either removing the cited statement, or including another statement in the article to indicate the dispute. If you have a source that does so (not a foreign language Wikipedia article, although the sources cited in that article would be relevant), you've been curiously reluctant to mention it in this debate. You may consider the "acclaimed academics" to be myth-writers, but your opinion is irrelevant. (Unless, of course, you are yourself an acclaimed academic and you have a published work to back up your opinion. In which case, cite it.) DCB4W (talk) 05:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

"You're rather missing the point here." Or rather you do. It is not about lack of refs, or their reliability, it is about systemic bias. Please make an effort and familiarize yourself with the essence of it at the according page 84.52.101.196 (talk) 12:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, what's the basis for alleging the systemic bias? Your evaluation? That's insufficient. You need a reliable source to critique the sources cited in the article. I'll check back in 48 hours before I remove the tag again, to give you or anyone else a chance to actually provide a source. DCB4W (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Question about Beevor: About 41% of this article is based on one source - Beevor (99 cites out of 238). However Beevor's work is not found in the Bibliography section. Is it The Spanish Civil War published in 1984 by Orbis? Articleye (talk) 09:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

It's in the bibliography as "Beevor, Antony (1982, 2006). The Battle for Spain: The Spanish Civil War 1936–1939. London: Weidenfield and Nicolson. ISBN 0-297-84832-1. First published as The Spanish Civil War." Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have missed it earlier. Articleye (talk) 12:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• How goes the review? AIRcorn (talk) 11:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that this article should lose its Good Article status and should be simply translated from the Spanish article which is of much higher quality. This would at once deal with the issues of bias. Isthisuseful (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• I think this so-called re-assessment should be concluded immediately. It was initiated as an individual re-assessment by User:Articleye who has not edited since 7 March. I conclude that it has been abandoned. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Spanish civil war?

Isn't the correct English spelling "Spanish civil war"? See for example Libyan civil war. Gryffindor (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Neutrality, again

I'd just like to put what I think has happened here down on paper. The article used to use some rather loose language, which was construed as anti-Soviet. I tightened it up so there is now a mere breath between the sources (Beevor, Payne and Howson) and the article. As I understand it, another editor is prepared to accept that the article reflects these sources, but considers those sources to be themselves biased. I would like to further state they are very well known authors whose work is an accurate reflection of the published English-language material on the topic. That other editor has indicated that he or she believes "English-language material" as a whole to be biased. If it is, I wouldn't like to conclude either way – only to say that the authors concerned remain well-respected among their peers internationally. The more important point is that Wikipedia only purports to be a summary of published material on a topic: "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." If the editor concerned would like to raise sources in other languages that contradict the information in the article, I would more than happily consider them in light of the last sentence to see if inclusion represented their proper weight. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Your views of the editor's position are distorted. I don't mind using Beevor or any other of the saint trinity, mentioned by you above, as far as using them follows wikipedia guideline "stay with the facts". "mostly relics" isn't fact. It's a personal assessment. You seem to push on authority of the trinity, and willing to put into article anything, just coz they mere say so. I appreciate your effort in trying to find the factual basis behind their statements. But when you realized that there is none, the next step became too hard to take.

The source with criticism of the saint trinity's "research" obviously does not exist. coz nobody knows/cares about them outside of english world, and inside they seem to be taken with religious zeal.

The systemic bias, by it's nature, can not be countered by "giving weights", since this is exactly the way it's introduced. Blindly following guideline "this is verifiable so shall be in" while ignoring other ("stay with the facts") will mere make wikipedia a collection of cliches and stereotypes, popular among the prevailing editors. This is reflected in details on the systemic bias page.

According to the guideline "they should seek to improve articles by removing any examples of cultural bias that they encounter, or making readers aware of them", I've put the warning tag. 84.52.101.196 (talk) 06:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

and about the "That other editor has indicated that he or she believes "English-language material" as a whole to be biased" This belief is in the wikipedia guideline now. Please embrace it. British long lasting tradition to polish history in their favor made it's way into Russian anecdotes and folklore. the phrases i've cited "British historians are so British", "British documentaries are so British" and so on, are just Russian proverbs. Here is a better example of the hypocrisy of British historians: When do you think WW2 started? With invasion of Poland, right? No! This is a mere British view of it. Poland was not the first county invaded by Hitler. The warfare started when Britain and France had sold Czechoslovakia to Hitler (read up on Munich Agreements, preferably not in wikipedia ;) ) with the invasion of Czechoslovakia. To deal with the shameful fact, the historians had just polished it out of the WW2 history. And now British public believes that the WW2 started at 1 Sep 1939 and is largely unaware of the Munich agreements. Hop! Britain is the knight in shining armour again! ... in the eyes of the British public at least. I know for a person with particular personality traits this might be hard to accept. But British historians are hardly a model of objectivity, and, in fact, truth 84.52.101.196 (talk) 07:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

That "British = biased" line isn't going to cut it. If you think that this source is not reliable for some claims its used, then you can raise that issue at WP:RSN.--Staberinde (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The word "relic" is not in the article. Please adjust to fit the actual content of the article. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The "relic" is just an example. There are plenty of others. The main problem remains. The article uses views of some historians, instead of facts. And apparently the facts are the weakest point of the sources used to make the article. Furthermore the relic was essentially rephrased. It's still there.84.52.101.196 (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe I'm right in saying this is the problematic (or most problematic) paragraph (references removed):

Stalin also created Section X of the Soviet Union military to head the weapons shipment operation; this was called Operation X. Despite Stalin's interest in aiding the Republicans, the quality of arms was inconsistent. On one hand, the many of the rifles and field guns provided were old, obsolete or otherwise of limited use. On the other hand, the T-26 and BT-5 tanks were modern and effective in combat. The Soviet Union supplied aircraft that were in current service with their own forces, but the aircraft provided by Germany to the Nationalists proved superior by the end of the war.

Is that correct? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

No. At least the whole section is. I used the "relic" part to show it, coz it was an obvious utter nonsense. Not found anywhere apart from english wikipedia. And i was certain you won't be able to find facts to back it. I was right, but it did not shutter your uncritical perception of the saint trinity ;) Unfortunately you can't read the article on other languages to have better impression of what am i saying. And how ridiculous the english one is looking. For the provided example paragraph the factual statement would be "the SU provided X canons of type Y from year Z..." essentially using facts, rather than views (interpretations) of a particular historian whether they are British or Russian or from another galaxy. And that is btw how it's done in Spanish and Russian versions. There are just plain numbers of types of equipment delivered, sometimes with models. ( Btw facts about the numbers of delivered armaments are different too )

Again, the paragraph is just an example. The rest of the section at least also should be factual. 84.52.101.196 (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

<offtopic>BTW, about the hypocrisy of British historians. Spanish wikipedia also says about financial support to the fascists from British and American companies. For example, Shell and Texaco were selling petroleum to Franco throughout the whole war in credit. Is this fact reflected in your beloved Bevor research? ;)</offtopic> 84.52.101.196 (talk) 19:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, here. It's mentioned in the article in more vague terms as Spanish Civil War#Others.Beevor is not "my beloved", he is merely a respected historian. His history was also published in Spanish and won critical acclaim in Spain. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh ok. It's not that bad as i thought than. Take it as an example of my cultural bias ;)

BTW He is nowhere in the reference section of the Spanish wikipedia. But it's an offtopic anyway. 84.52.101.196 (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Almost all our articles would be immesurably worse off if they did not involve a reliably sourced narrative - that is to say, something like mentioning whether the weapons supplied were good or bad weapons rather than merely listing them. With that in mind, and that the converse is most definitely not guideline or policy, what excerpts would address the perceived bias? What mentions or incidents, added or removed? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 00:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

"Almost all our articles would be immesurably worse off if they did not involve a reliably sourced narrative - that is to say, something like mentioning whether the weapons supplied were good or bad weapons rather than merely listing them." It may be worse in your opinion, but it's exactly how it meant to be. "Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts and only facts" It's not about good and bad. If you prefer to be fed with that sort of information, I'd recommend to stick to BBC or any other TV channel. 84.52.101.196 (talk) 13:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

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

I have to agree that the tag seems unwarranted. The basis of the dispute seems to be that it relies heavily on western historians that some editors believe display an anti-soviet bias (there doesn't seem to be any question as to their reliability). The solution to balance this out is to add information from other reliable historians that have a different take on this. At the end of the day we can only say what others have already said. AIRcorn (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The tag actually had been removed at one point, as only 84.52.101.196 seems to think it's necessary. This has led to some disputes previously. With due trepidation, I'm removing the tag. Again. DCB4W (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Page protection

Per a request at RFPP, I've protected the page for a week while you all sort out whether or not the tag should be there. If you happen to reach a consensus before then, feel free to request unprotection. Thanks. Rjd0060 (talk) 05:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

There already is a consensus to remove it since everyone here with the exception of an IP-user in Saint Petersburg, Russia, are in favor of removing the systemic bias tag (see discussions above). The only one to readd the tag is said IP-user, who is currently blocked both under his normal IP and another IP for edit warring on another article (plus abusing multiple accounts), but has now started to IP-hop in order to be able to readd the systemic bias tag here. I was going to request long-term semi-protection of the article because of the IP-hopping but you protected the article before I had a chance of doing anything. Thomas.W (talk) 08:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I was the one who requested temporary semi protection. I probably should have left a better rational, but this will do the same job I suppose. If the IP doesn't continue the discussion here or starts readding the tag after protection has expired without consensus then it might be time to go long term semi. AIRcorn (talk) 09:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The IP (84.52.101.196) will most probably not be willing to discuss the matter since he has a documented history of not wanting to collaborate with others. His current two wetek block is for a combination of edit warring (3RR) and "non-collaborative repeated battleground mentality", and one of the reasons for his previous block was WP:NOTHERE. Which is why I was going to request long-term semi-protection. Thomas.W (talk) 09:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

so much hypocrisy and blatant lie! neither i am the only one who see bias there, nor the consensus was reached. but once in a while ppl with particular mentality come here with "I read the article in its current version and could not detect an anti-Soviet basis." and remove the tag right away with pretence that it's not justified, or there is a consensus reached. It's pointless to "discuss" anything with you, since you don't base your position on wikipedia guidelines. Only on "I found" "I think" and other "I"s and now "we"s. Have fun discussing it with each other. And reach "consensus" even though you never were in disagreement, but it won't stop you to call it "reach consensus". 83.149.2.85 (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

It is clear that the IP (84.52.101.196) is so far not willing to discuss the matter on substance. He keeps reinstating the POV tag without discussing the matter on the talk page. I support that the page remains protected until the issue is resolved and I call on the anonymous user to let everyone else involved know where there still is an anti-soviet bias in the article.--Mschiffler (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 March 2013

When the protection was added it messed up the infobox. {{Infobox military conflict needs to be added back in. AIRcorn (talk) 05:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind. Fixed. AIRcorn (talk) 05:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Canaris

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

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

jaque mate (escándalo político internacional para el futuro)

jaque mate (escándalo político internacional para el futuro)

http://422x.wordpress.com/

sección: P.S.

---

Desde1931 (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)