Talk:Spanish Civil War

Good article vs neutrality questioned

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spanish civil war?

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

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

Neutrality, again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<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)

How about adding a section: Outbreak of the war: breaking the defence of the Republic with external forces

Think: how civil can a war be, if there are foreign STATES and later literally FOREIGN ARMIES involved on the attacking side?

Desde1931 (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

Why are the CNT referred to as "simply" anarchists?

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

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

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

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

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

Sluffs (talk) 00:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

1) It is a very good point.

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

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

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