Talk:Spanish Civil War/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

peer review comment copied

Looks quite developed. I think that the problem here is not the lack of content, but too much of it. Assuming 'detailed chronologies', 'people' and 'Political parties and organisations' are moved to subarticles, do you think this would make a good featured? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:03, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)


From Wikipedia:Village pump:

How many images are too many? I've only ever seen one image. I wanted to add the famous picture of the soldier shot in the head to the Spanish Civil War page, as well as a typical propaganda poster of the times. wji 0000 EDT 23 May 2002

IMO, a couple more legal images would be fine. The article only has 1 image after all. MB 04:17 23 May 2003 (UTC)

I've recently brought over a lot of new content from the Spanish-language wikipedia. I've done my best to integrate it, but someone may want to take an editorial pass. Also, it seems to me that we ought to have several "sidebar" articles dealing with things like the internal situations in Madrid and Barcelona during the war and there should probably be a lot on Spanish anarchism and the various plitical parties of the time that either exists and should be linked to, or doesn't and should be written. -- Jmabel 09:02, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Could someone please explain the communism vs civilization comment in the intro? Thanks. - Jeandré, 2004-03-14t09:29z

An atttribution would certainly be nice, and I didn't put it there, but it's certainly on the mark as to how some viewed it. I've seen Hearst Movietone newsreels from the period, and that is pretty much the picture they present. It's also the rhetoric to be found in Franco's speeches during the war. It had very little basis in reality, in my opinion, but leaned heavily on communist atheism and anitclericalism, and the destruction of churches (and -- in some cases -- torture, murder, etc. of clergy and members of monastic orders) that occurred in the opening weeks of the war. I think the article is accurate in saying that the atrocities in those opening weeks were roughly equal, but the fact that many on the Republican side targeted the Church was endlessly exploited in the Nationalists' rhetoric, and struck a note with conservatives elsewhere who otherwise might have kept more distance from fascism. -- Jmabel 17:55, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Pro-Nationalist link

I for one am inclined to keep, for the moment, the recently added Professor Marek Jan Chodakiewicz on The Spanish Civil War. There ought to be at least one external link to a site more sympathetic to the Nationalists than to the Republic. However, I don't think it is a particularly good site: there must be a far more comprehensive presentation of this case (maybe even with some decent footnotes and/or external references itself?) elsewhere on the web. If someone could find a better one and substitute it, I think that would be an improvement. -- Jmabel 17:04, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Not Neutral

I added the note "The neutrality of this article is disputed." because of the insistence in that General Franco or his forces were fascist. This is just communist propaganda. We know better now. Communists wanted to overthrow the legal system of liberties in Spain to create a system similar to that of the Soviet Union. General Franco and his coup prevented that. Of course, the Republican legality was not restored, but that was because it had not proven safe from revolutionary risks. And Monarchy was not restored probably because King Alfonso XIII fled the country only because his partisans lost a municipal ballot, so it appeared to the victors in the war that that king was not reliable to grant individual rights. Of course, Franco's Dictatorship is more than objectionable, but it does not prove that it was a fascist regime.

(this was unsigned, but it's User:Makjavelo

Frankly, I think this one characterization does not make a non-neutral article. I disagree with much of what Makjavelo has just written, but I do agree with him that the article (or maybe an associated article) might gain from a more extensive explanation of the somewhat complicated relationship of Franco's politics (and Falangism in general) to fascism as such. -- Jmabel 17:44, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
This seems like petty apology for Franco, in my opinion. Not only the communists, but the anarchists, socialists and most Republicans refered to the Francoist forces as "fascist;" as well as many historians and authors, e.g. Hemingway. I forget the exact quote, but a Christian clergyman (who were notoriously right-wing at the time, in popular belief) stated that Franco's regime was totalitarian, because he "controls all aspects of one's life," which can be argued because of the high degree of censorship and repression under his rule. Okay, so: he brutally repressed opposition (through violence, censorship, etc.), he was a dictator, was highly militaristic and nationalistic. Not to mention the heavy influence from Nazi Germany and Italy. So you can call him whatever you like, but that which we call a fascist by any other word would smell as rotten. --Tothebarricades.tk 01:28, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
In my private life, I'd have no problem calling Franco and his forces fascist. However, an encyclopedia article should probably be more meticulous. I see no problem calling his opponents "anti-fascist", I see no problem characterizing his aid from Italy and Germany as aid from "fascist" countries, I don't even see a problem with our characterizing Franco as "pro-fascist". I also think it is appropriate to refer to refer to the Falange under the leadership of José Antonio Primo de Rivera as a fascist party. However, referring to "the rebels, also known as the Nationalists or the fascists" is probably a bit too POV. Again, we would do well to add a discussion of how, after the death of Primo de Rivera, Franco co-opted the term "falange" and turned it into something that was not quite what it had meant before. I would suggest that we take up the uses of the word "fascist", "fascism", etc. in the article one by one and see exactly which User:Makjavelo objects to, then discuss those one by one and see if we reach consensus. I wouldn't be surprised if there are only two or three of them at issue, or if we can find mutually agreeable language. -- Jmabel 17:17, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

I've placed a note on User talk:Makjavelo asking Makjavelo to clarify exactly which uses of the term "fascist" he finds objectionable. Assuming he responds within a few days, we should see if we can get consesnsus. If he does not respond (he is not a long-time wikipedian, so he may not), I think we should just unilaterally remove his dispute notice, since it's now been 5 days and he hasn't engaged in the conversation he started. -- Jmabel 23:45, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

Given that the person who added the NPOV note will not even engage in discussion, I am removing it. If someone wants to re-add it and actually engage the topic, I have no problem with that. -- Jmabel 18:50, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)

Franco assigning dangerous missions to political rivals

After the phrase "Franco was effective commander of all the Nationalists," the following was recently removed, "... and he unassumingly arranged events (including assigning missions to political rivals that would likely get them killed) so that at the end of the war there would be no opposition to his rule." I happen to believe this is true, but I have no citation for it, so I am not restoring it. If someone has a decent citation, I would love to see it restored to the article. -- Jmabel 15:28, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

It was I who erased this portion of the sentence, mainly because it is historically inaccurate and there is no sound basis for the affirmation. Perhaps it could be restored if it were affirmed: "Historian X affirms that Franco assigned missions to political rivals that would likely get them killed". User: McCorrection. 15:32, Aug 9, 2004 (EDT)

"official sources"

The same anonymous contributor (whose contributions look generally good), also added a passage beginning, "according to official sources, 330 people were assassinated..." I have no reason to doubt this, but can anyone give a citation? "Official sources" is a rather vague attribution. -- Jmabel 17:18, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

I thank you for the comments regarding what I added to the article. I thought it lacked some information, since it described the coup of July right after the February elections, not showing the considerable rise in tensions, from all sides, which led to the military confrontation. As for the "official numbers", they are mentioned by Warren Carroll, in "The Last Crusade: Spain: 1936", published by Christendom Press (1998). He collected the numbers from what is probably the most famous book on the religious persecution in Spain, "Historia de la Persecución Religiosa en España (1936-1939)", by Antonio Montero Moreno, published by the renowned Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos (3rd edition, 1999). I did not know exactly how to mention the authors in the text without lengthening it unnecessarily. User: McCorrection. 15:34, Aug 9, 2004 (EDT)

Great! I've placed it in the article as a "note" (with a footnote-style link). If someone sees a way to do it better, go for it, but I've seen a few other pages do it this way. -- Jmabel 01:46, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

Posters

I added two posters, one for each side of the conflict. I tried to be concise and neutral in the captions and I hope the images are appreciated.--McCorrection 16:14, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Cela

Recent anon addition to "Further Reading" section:

Camilo José Cela, The Hive. Dalkey Archive, 1953 Novel about post-Civil War Spain

I know Cela is a very major writer, so no question about notability. I haven't read the book, but was under the impression that it was set in the 1940s. Is there really enough in the book that relates to the war itself to make it relevant for this article? I could name a lot of fine novels about Franco-era Spain that I would not consider appropriate to mention in this article. -- Jmabel 04:12, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

I have read and studied La colmena (The hive) and, while a great book from a Nobel-prize winner, it really is more related to the Spanish post-war years than to the conflict itself --80.58.3.239 15:29, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Removed from article, per remark above: -- Jmabel | Talk 18:03, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Cela's book about the war is not The Hive but San Camilo 1936 (both great books BTW).radek 01:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Featured?

You have a nice article here. If there is any user/group working on this, I think you should consider putting in on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:43, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Foreign assistance

Ireland

Is it reasonable to mention those Irish who fought on one side In addition, there were a few volunteer troops from other nations who fought with the Nationalists, such as Eoin O'Duffy of Ireland. without mentioning those on the other side book: Connolly Column-the Story of the Irishmen Who Fought for the Spanish Republic 1936-1939. by O'Riordan, Michael. ISBN: 0905140753 --ClemMcGann 01:10, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Certainly feel free to add mention of Irish IBers. O'Duffy is probably worth a mention, precisely because there were so few idealistic foreign volunteers on the Nationalist side. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:50, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Communist support

I agree with TDC that it is appropriate to that the first mention of the International Brigades indicate Comintern support in recruitment. However, I'm uncomfortable with his change from a mention of "limited support from the Soviet Union" to:

The Republicans received extensive support from the Soviet Union. This included 1,000 aircraft, 900 tanks, 1,500 artillery pieces, 300 armored cars, hundreds of thousands of small arms and 30,000 tons of ammunition. To pay for these armaments the Republicans used $500 million dollars in gold reserves captured from the Nationalist stronghold.

While I can't say anything for or against the numbers (and, as seems to be a pattern, TDC has added a contentious statement without citing a single source: TDC, you must get this stuff somewhere, and you know it will be disputed, why don't you ever just cite your sources?), everything I've ever read on the subject says (1) Soviet aid to the Republic was dwarfed by German and Italian aid to the Nationalists. (2) During most of the war the Italian Navy prevented Soviet materiel from reaching the Republic. Hence, even if these numbers are accurate, I suspect that without comparable numbers for the Nationalists they may be misleading.

  1. Is there a source for these numbers?
    Why certainly. [1] [[2] TDC 19:21, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • Good citations. I'll add them to the article. -- Jmabel 20:26, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Do we have comparable numbers describing German and Italian support for the Nationalists?
    Comparable numbers for German/Italian contributions are available, I saw some when researching Soviet numbers. I dont know where exactly, but it was easy enough to find from google. TDC 19:21, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
  3. "captured from the Nationalist stronghold" is vague and confusing. Captured from what stronghold? Given especially that they were the legitimate government, this phrase is particularly suspicious.
    TDC, looking at the references you've provided, I see nothing to support this: quite the contrary and I will edit accordingly. -- Jmabel 20:38, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not going to remove this right now, because I've seen that TDC's stuff usually (though not always) has some basis, but given both the specificity of the numbers and, conversely, the vagueness of "stronghold", I'd really like to see a citation.

Also, reference to a $500 million dollar payment raises interesting questions. Were the Nationalists paying Germany and Italy for their armaments? There is an important distinction between selling arms to a belligerent and giving them without payment.

Well, it was more than just paying for arms. No one gives armaments to anyone without some from of compensations. Even the lend lease had financial strigns attached. I am sure some form of payment was required for Italian/German arms, but I dont have a source on it. I am sure one could be dug up easily enough if it exists. Some info on the gold payments can be found here: [3], although I cannot verify the accuracy of the source. (TDC)
  • Interesting: if accurate, this suggests that as sole suppliers the Soviets were charging extortionate rates for equipment. -- Jmabel 20:36, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Here is the book on which the article was written if you want to check it out from your local library [4] TDC 20:43, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
I sould also point out that the Soviet contribution was not only in armamnets but also in Soviet military personelle to train and operate this equipment. Normally, this would not be out of the norm; advisors to train on new equipment, but "advisors" (real advisors at any rate) dont participate in hostilities. TDC 19:21, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

If we answer all of this, we will have made a useful addition to the article, but I think that this change as it stands is not yet very useful. -- Jmabel 19:04, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

Granted, this section could use more work, but it should most definately be incorporated into the article one way or another. TDC 19:21, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
The gold reserves were those of the Bank of Spain, legitimately held by the Republican government. There is no evidence I can recall that the Soviets charged more than market rates for war materiel, but there was nationalist propaganda that the Republicans had transfered the entire gold reserves of the country to Moscow in exchange for Soviet help Benvenuto 02:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I have edited the line that claimed that "The Soviets worked to expand communist influence amongst the Republicans" which, in the context of the section, appears to be to be an assumption. There seems to be no basis for it and the majority of sources I have read would indicate that in reality, the opposite was true of Soviet actions and motives. Here are a couple of quotes I had lying around to back this up:-

“The Soviet government had exerted itself to become committed as little as possible in the Spanish affair” – Dennis Smyth, ‘We Are with You, Solidarity and Self-Interest in Soviet Policy towards Republican Spain: 1936-1939’ in “The Republic Besieged: Civil War in Spain 1936-1939”, (Edinburgh, 1996). P.91

“[Stalin sought to] supply enough arms to barely keep the Republic alive, while instructing his agents in Spain to make every effort to ensure that the revolutionary aspects of the struggle were silenced” - Paul Preston, “A Concise History of the Spanish Civil War”, (London, 1986), P.107

If someone can come up with some sources to support the original statement then fair enough, but all the main texts i've read imply that Soviet support was 'reluctant' at best. Also, feel free to tidy up my dodgy editing if it needs it.NickZGreek 17:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


...and fascist support

Following this up further (but on just a quick read, because this article is not a major focus of mine), the same sources show at least comparable assistance by Germany and Italy to the Nationalist side. Actual participation by troops appears to be (considerably) more extensive than from the Soviets:

  • From Germany - 19,000 troops, including the 12,000-strong Condor Legion, which dropped 16,953,700 kilos of bombs during the war and air units expended 4,327,949 rounds of machine-gun ammunition. 130 aircraft, 2,500 tons of bombs, 500 cannons, 700 mortars, 12,000 machine-guns, 50 whippet tanks and 3,800 motor vehicles [5]
Don't you think the estimates of ordinace expended is a bit too precise? I mean, lets get real here...
  • From Italy: 80,000 men, of whom almost 6,000 belonged to the Italian Air Force, 45,000 to the army and 29,000 to the fascist militia. 1,800 cannon, 1,400 mortars, 3,400 machine-guns, 6,800 motor vehicles, 157 tanks, 213 bombers, 44 assault planes and 414 fighters [6]

Also, no indication that Franco's side had to pay for their arms. It seems pretty clear that most of this aid consisted of simply sending entire, self-supporting military units.

Anyway, I'm not personally going to try to get this all into that article and smooth this out, but someone should. I suspect that we should get back to a briefer dicussion here in the intro and add an entire section comparing the foreign support received by each side. -- Jmabel 21:12, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

I think this would really make the article stronger -A

... and the article

Actually, I think these issues are so troublesome and of difficult independent verification that it would be better not to include them in the article at all. If they are included, they should be mentioned in the very end of the main text, under a new heading called "Foreign participation", never in the introduction.--McCorrection 19:12, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That seems wrong to me. The Germans and Italians unquestionably participated significantly in the war, the same way militaries normally participate in wars. The Soviet (and international communist) role is more complicated, but also major. This foreign involvement was significant to the course of the war and is a large portion of why people around the world still talk so much about this war today. Not to make it a significant piece of the article would be actively misleading. -- Jmabel 21:18, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Jmabel. Perhaps the most familiar thing in the war to most people, due to Picasso's painting, is the bombing of Guernica by Germany. The role of the Soviet Union was paramount. The non-intervention policies had a great impact on the direction of the war. Not to mention the International Brigades, the specific issue of French aid, etc...Definitely not footnotes but rather a key element that should receive a great deal of attention on this page. --Tothebarricades.tk 21:40, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I understand you both; but this is an encyclopedical article, not an academic paper. General details of foreign intervention are already mentioned in the article. Further information would demand a separate article. The edit page already mentions this "WARNING: This page is 30 kilobytes long. Please consider condensing the page and moving the detail to another article so it is not approaching or in excess of 32KB." That means that an extensive explanation of Foreign Intervention in the War would be better explained in a specific article. I think the article is now so good, neutral, and full of indispensable information, that it would be a shame to lengthen just one of its many complex aspects.--McCorrection 11:08, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
If we need to cut the article, what should move is the detailed timeline of events (which I added) not the overview information about who the combattants were. -- Jmabel 01:38, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
Actually, nothing should be cut. If however the information on foreign involvement in the war should become disproportionately large, it should be moved. As of now, all component parts of the article are proportionately balanced.--McCorrection 14:10, 26 Sep 2004 (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)


"inspired by" ?

This section spared from archiving 06:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC) , because it has had activity in the last month.

Recent addition: "Orwell's last two novels, Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four, were largely inspired by what he observed in the war." According to whom? If this doesn't get a citation within 24 hours, I am going to feel free to delete it. -- Jmabel 19:37, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

This has now been expanded on, but still not sourced. I'll give it a little longer, but as it stands it seems to me like speculation presented as fact. -- Jmabel 18:46, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

I changed it to "..Animal Farm was loosely inspired by...". I apologize for putting in "Nineteen Eighty-Four". Although I'm not really sure about the latter, based on several Orwell biographies ("Inside George Orwell" by George Bowker and "Orwell: The Authorized Biography" by Michael Shelden to name a couple), plus from reading various letters in "The Collected Essays, Journalism, and Letters of George Orwell" I'm fairly certain that Animal Farm was loosely inspired by his experiences in the civil war. He first conceived of the novel in 1937, while still fighting. -- Bean 13:58, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

Clearly his experiences in Spain increased his antipathy towards the Soviet Union, but for the most part Animal Farm parallels events in Soviet history. In many cases there are clear references to particular individuals. If there are any specific references to events of the Spanish Civil War, I'm unaware of them. I'm glad to see this toned down. With a specific citation it would certainly be relevant to say he first conceived of the novel in 1937, while still fighting. Again, clearly his sentiments were inspired by events during the war, but that is a long way from saying that the book was so inspired. But I've said my piece, and at least this is now toned down somewhere within the range of the reasonable. I'd still prefer to see a specific citation, but I won't delete the new, less ambitious claim (although I won't complain is someone else does. -- Jmabel 19:42, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

Orwell wrote "homage to Catilonia" about his views and actions as a member of the international brigade in the spanish civil war. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.135.96.26 (talk • contribs) 9 November 2006.

It's "Homage to Catalonia", and he fought with the POUM, not the International Brigades. But what does that demonstrate about there being references to this rather thatn to the USSR in Animal Farm. - Jmabel | Talk 06:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War/Archive 1 removed from Wikipedia:Good articles

Spanish Civil War/Archive 1 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because Biased in places,inaccurate in places, messy, badly written, incomplete.

Literature

Could I suggest a Liturature and the Spanish Civil War section? Or perhaps a separate article referenced in the See Also section? The Spanish Civil War has a particularly high profile in literature and resulted in some outstanding writing. Partly, I think, because the rest of Europe and the US were at peace at the time and so could pay attention, and also because the issue of outside support was so important in the conflict itself. Persuading the outside world seemed an important part of winning, I think. I'm imagining a brief intro and then a list of authors with their relevant books listed. Perhaps a brief sentence or two about each author and how or why he or she came to write about the Spanish Civil war. Hemingway, Orwell, Laurie Lee, Arturo Barea, I know there are some poets, etc. etc. If you think it's a good idea and no one else wants to do it, I'll be happy to do the work but I'm really history more than literature. Thoughts? WardHayesWilson 17:44, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Probably worth doing. Since this article is already awfully long, I'd suggest starting a new article. There are also a remarkable number of songs from both sides. Being a lefty myself, I mostly know the one from the Republican side, but the Nationalists also had a lot. If someone wants to start this, I'll gladly give you a "dump" of song titles from both sides, and some (print and maybe online) references. Ping me if you want that. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:19, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Detailed chronology

Please note that the copyright issue discussed here re: material in this article has been resolved, it's OK to use the material. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:33, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Recent additions to the detailed chronology of the first few days of the war seem interesting, but overly minute for this article. I've copy edited them and removed a bit of redundancy, but could we perhaps cut down the content here and spin out another article detailing the first week or two of the rebellion? -- Jmabel | Talk 21:39, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

Similar comments about excessive detail for this article apply to the enormous amount added by User:Jugoslaven since my previous remark. Is someone else interested in copy editing? I really don't want to take on this particular massive job. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:24, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

I saw your review about my detailed chronology of Spanish civil war.Yesterday I finished 1936 and in several days I am going to write 1937, then 1938, then 1939.So it is not just about begining of war.I dont think there is need fr another article. (unsigned remark by User:Jugoslaven 26 Dec 04)

The thing is, though, the article is getting too big. We try to keep articles to no more than about 32KB. At some point, there is a danger of losing the forest for the trees.
I suspect that in this case we are going to want to spin out multiple articles and turn this into more of an article series, with the major points of broad interest being in the main article and more of a blow-by-blow in separate articles, maybe one for each year. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:26, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)


U work for wikipedia?Who r wikipedia administrators?If wikipedians think that we need to seperate it from Spanish civil war then we should call it Chronology of Spanish civil war (User:Jugoslaven, unsigned)

No one "works for wikipedia". There are a few hundred administrators, I am one of them, but that has no bearing on the matter: this is an editorial decision, not an administrative decision. These decisions are made by an ongoing, loose, consensus approach which is a combination of official policy and precedent. What I'm suggesting draws on a combination of policy (desired length of articles) and precedent (we've usually approached detailed chronologies by breaking them out into shorter articles).
By the way, you are adding a lot of material, but not citing sources. From what I can tell, what you are adding is accurate, but do you have some sources to cite? -- Jmabel | Talk 20:11, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

How can someone became administrator?Is that work getting payed?Nobody citing sources. (unsigned, Jugoslaven again. Please sign with ~~~~: that's how the sigs get here.)

No one on wikipedia is paid. You nominate yourself (or someone nominates you) on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Admins are chosen from people who are generally considered experienced and trusted and to know their way around. The fact that you are asking what an administrator is, etc., means you are a long way from ready. Usually it's after at least a few months of active participation in a broad range of ways.
You are right that this article lacks good citations. That's one of the reasons it is considered a long way from Featured Article status. Nonetheless, most of what has previously been in here is a pretty general outline, relatively easy to confirm from any of a number of sources, and where many of us know from our general knowledge that it is pretty much on the mark. You are adding a level of detail that would be much more difficult to confirm, which is why I am asking for your sources. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:57, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

It looks to me like a lot of what User:Jugoslaven is adding comes from [7] or possibly some equivalent in another language. I haven't looked closely enough to see if this material raises copyright issues, I'd suggest that someone might want to look into it. In any event, if this is the source he/she is using, it should be acknowledged. And if it's not, they I would really like to know what source is being used. This is much more detail than anyone just happens to know off the top of their head. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:37, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

I hate to do this, but I'm reverting these massive edits, because they seem to be copyvios. I'll also leave a note at WP:CP. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:57, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree. Looking through the changes on this revert, it does look like many of the earlier additions are copyvios from the source Jmabel suggests. Some changes have been made, but I can easily find many sentences and phrases that are the same word-for-word (easily verifiable given that they contain the same grammatical errors as the source). Since the source is largely a list of facts, it would be possible to use those facts in a newly written chronology without being a copyvio, but this hasn't been done. -- Solipsist 06:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree that this detailed chronology is mostly a copyvio. Which is a pity, because the external site seems to have very good material. Somebody wants to try e-mailing the owner of the external site and try asking for permission to re-publish their content under the GFDL? If not, this stuff has to go. A note about rewriting: agreed, but what about the selection of facts they made on the external site? Is that copyrightable? We would need to double-check that info anyway to make sure we'd present a complete chronology. Lupo 07:34, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
There is a small issue about selection of facts, but it's not like we haven't already done a lot of research elsewhere. I wouldn't use 100% of what they mention (as I was saying even before I discovered it was plagiarism, some of this is over-detailed for the purpose of this article), I'd certainly keep the explicit reference to their site, and I'd try to avoid copying their wordings on what I did use. In short, I'd use them the same way we normally use a source.
I think a lot of information from http://www.lacucaracha.info/scw/diary/ belongs in separate articles, not in this main article on the Spanish Civil War (and, again, with due citation of refrence). That would also solve some of the intellectual property issue about selection, since we would not be bringing it over in one big mass.
In any case, just by linking, we've now given our readers a way to find this very good source, which beats hell out of lifting pieces of it without saying where they are from. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:37, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Jugoslaven contacted me, said he has permission from lacucaracha.info to use this material. Given the above, where he wouldn't initially tell me where the material came from, I can't take that at face value; I've contacted them myself to verify. I'll post their reply here, and if it's a "yes", we can restore the material. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:04, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I finally heard from La Cucaracha. Yes, apparently it's fine for us to pull material from their site (although the webmaster warns us to be careful about taking photos: the rights may not be clear). Here is the email giving permission:

Date: Monday, January 10, 2005 03:08 pm
Subject: lacucaracha.info, Wikipedia
Hello,
my name is Tomas Capdevila, I'm the webmaster of 'lacucaracha.info'. I was asked by 'lukjacov@globalnet.hr' if he can copy text from the web site La Cucaracha The Spanish Civil War into the wikipedia and I agree.
I explicitly allow anyone to copy the text content on La Cucaracha The Spanish Civil War web site and reuse it, unchanged or changed, with or without mentioning the source, partially or as a whole,

with the exception of text being marked as belonging to another author (like quotations) or mirrored web pages.

Please notice that some of the photography's could be copyrighted in your country.
In effect that makes the own text content of the La Cucaracha we site not only copyleft-ed, but public domain.
Said that, I would be flattered if you would use content from the web site in the Wikipedia :-)
...
Thanks for your patience, salud,
Tomas Capdevila
webmaster@lacucaracha.info

So now it's just a matter of copy editing and whether we want to factor some of this out to additional articles. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:33, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Detailed chronology - 2

Now that the legalities are covered...

  1. This is massive material. It tends to overwhelm the article, which is now bloated to three times the recommended size of a Wikipedia article. I think we need to summarize here and factor out to separate articles, maybe one for each year.
  2. While clearly well researched, the material is quite POV in the selection of what it covers. I'm firmly on the side of the Republic -- one of the first things I ever learned to say in Spanish was "Sueño y una ametralladero y Franco se va paseo, -- but this Wikipedia articles are not the place for partisan polemic. A chronology this detailed should also include the anti-Catholic atrocities by anarchists and other supporters of the Republic. This doesn't.
  3. The material is written in indifferent English. Right now, I'm engaged in a copy edit, which is being made difficult by the size of this article and the current miserable state of the servers.
    • Done, probably could be further improved. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:31, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  4. I do not think it is appropriate in Wikipedia to repeatedly refer to the Nationalists as "the Fascists". Would I call them that in my own writing outside Wikipedia? Sure. And someone on the Right would probably use different words than "Republicans", "legitimate government", etc. in his/her own writing. Here, I'd favor "Nationalists" or "Insurgents" almost everywhere that the article currently says "Fascists". Does anyone want to present an argument to the contrary?
    • Done, at least to my own satisfaction. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:31, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm trying to clean this all up. Suggestions are welcome. So is help. I'm not sure how much time I'll have for this -- it's not my main focus within Wikipedia, and I suspect that (for entirely good reasons) I may soon have a lot less time for Wikipedia than I've lately had. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:25, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

I just came here following links and had the same thought. Breaking up by years might not be the best way, perhaps by campaigns, but any split is better than nothing. Put one short section for each page of separate material. Warsaw Uprising shows an example of the benefits of splitting. Mozzerati 23:07, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
Well, OK, but that would be about 10 times as much work. Are you willing to do it? -- Jmabel | Talk 18:12, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
well, I'm prepared to break this article up. I have extremely limited knowledge about the article, but my past experience shows that this still helps. If I do it wrong, it can later be fixed more easily. However, I'd really appreciate if someone who does know could point out some important break points.
  • at what point did Franco stop being seriously threatened?
  • at what point did Franco start to look like he was winning?
  • were there any key points which started the human rights abuses?
  • what other turning points where there?
Also, the issue of POV slant needs a lot of work, probably by someone on the political right (because the current dominant POV is clearly pretty far left. For example, one of the few cases in which Nationalists systematically killed nuns is mentioned while the far greater violence against nuns and priests by anarchists and Republicans is not detailed. I am opposed to sweeping inconvenient facts under the carpet, but it's not material I know enough about to make the appropriate additions. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:12, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
right now the article is too long and broad. By having more focused articles, POV and missing points will become clearer. This will allow others who know about specific topics to make fixes. Thus, if we have an article on "Massacres of civilians during the Spanish civil war", any missing massacre will be more obvious. My plan for now, merely moving the cronology out to a few separate articles, will make the topics of the main article more easy to identify... Oh, and finally the guy underneath asking for help might be able to edit and fix everything :-) Mozzerati 20:45, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
Great, if you want to take primary responsibility for breaking it up, I'm all for that. Feel free to ask for my help where I might be useful, and I'll probably keep doing some polishing on this. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:22, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

So, nobody has commented on my questions about the break, so on the principle of be bold we just read through the Cronology and make a proposal. The Cronology is about 70k, further it's still to be completed at the end. Thus I propose breaking into three separate pages. Basically, the lead up to the war, the outbreak and everything up to August 1st, the point where the non-intervention committee is formed. Next, everything from there until just before the Start of the Battle of Teruel. and finally from the Battle of Teruel, where republican spain is split in two until the end. This will leave a bit of room for expansion, especially in the last section which doesn't seem to be complete yet. Any comments??Mozzerati 10:21, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)

No real objection, but your first one is going to be pretty tiny, and your second one is going to be enormous. The third is basically still to be filled in. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:52, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
I agree, but my thinking is that the middle one can be split again later, that many cronologies actually start before the war, so the first one will probably be extended back in time, and that this already should make three pages each < 32k. Mozzerati 07:26, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

Okay, I've now done it, but with a more normal year by year split; I decided that this makes reasonable sense. Still the middle page is >32k, but since it's a kind of list that's more okay than for a normal page. I also made a navigation box which can be extended as more articles get split off. Mozzerati 22:20, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)