Talk:Martyrs of the Spanish Civil War
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
||It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
|This page was nominated for deletion on 2007-09-05. The result of the discussion was keep.|
- 1 Untitled
- 2 Merge to Spanish Civil War
- 3 Article title
- 4 Editing and such
- 5 Tags Added
- 6 Tags Removed
- 7 Support to Republican Government
- 8 Martyrs of the XXth Century vs Martyrs of the Spanish Civil War
- 9 Law for Historical Memory
- 10 Last Edit
- 11 Unbalanced tag
- 12 Recent Edits
- 13 Controversy section
- 14 Picture
- 15 Saint Innocencio of Mary Immaculate
La iglesia católica cometió las peores atrocidades en España durante siglos, apoyando a dictadores mientras el pueblo agonizaba y se rebelaba. La iglesia católica cometió ejecuciones de trabajadores y trabajadoras sindicalistas durante la Dictadura de Primo de Rivera, apoyaron a Franco en su golpe de estado contra la República Española elegida por el pueblo y se unieron a los fascistas para derribar la democracia en la Guerra Civil. La iglesia y sus sacerdotes asesinaron y torturaron durante la postguerra y apoyaron hasta el último momento al Régimen de Franco. ¿Y tenéis las narices de decir aquí que fueron mártires y no os sabéis explicar porque los mataron? ¿Sabéis a que, excepto en 3 ocasiones, todas las veces que los españoles han votado libremente, han elegido un gobierno socialista y anticlerical? ¿Mártires de quien? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 01:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Merge to Spanish Civil War
It never ceases to shock me. Catholic have spent the Twentieth Century being fed to every flesh eating, viral ideology imaginable, but are forbidden for some reason to have the names of our dead read, to have the truth about what killed them made known--the furies of anti-Catholicism and anti-Catholicism. If this were an article about the Jews slaughtered in Medieval Germany, or the Muslims and Eastern Christians (Eastern Rite Catholics and the Orthodox) who were slaughtered during the Crusades, would it still be on the way to the trash heap? Would there even be discussion about it? The article has major deficiencies, but that is simply NOT why it has been marked for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yupamonarchist (talk • contribs) 05:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. To be honest with you and without wanting to offend, I perfectly understand it's deletion tag. It's simply not an encyclopaedic article. It's biased, simplistic, written like a pamphlet rather than an article, and so non-NPOV even the article name tells you where it's coming from. All the relevant information that could be gleaned from its content is already in the Spanish Civil War article. Dr Benway 14:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
So long as the article is factual, I find nothing wrong with allowing it to stand, even as part of the the main Spanish Civil War article. If every group added their individual information, we would only have more details as to the history of the 20th century, on bother sides. I think more knowledge in general is a good thing for all of us. User: FrancoB411 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 03:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
This article was created as Martyrs of the Spanish Civil War, moved to "Martyrs" of the Spanish Civil War, then back. It was proposed and not opposed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"Martyrs" of the Spanish Civil War that it should be renamed as Roman Catholic martyrs of the Spanish Civil War, as the title Martyrs of SCW is sometimes also used for Republicans. I completed this move, which is also consistent with e.g. CFD:Martyred priests. - Fayenatic (talk) 12:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Editing and such
Hi there :)
I see that finally the article has been voted for keeping, and I was wondering wether anyone is interested in working on it. Personally, I'd gladly lend a hand but I really don't know where the original writers of this article want to start from or go to. What I'd expect to see in an article such as this one is 1) An objective background summary, and 2) references to some of these martyrs and a factual, sourced account of their martyrdoms. I particularly liked the tone and style of Martyrs of Daimiel which was, to my liking, practically dispassionate and apolitical, and constrained simply to informing of the massacre of priests at the hands of Republican militias, but then again I'm not sure that tone would fit for this article... Dunno... What do the rest of you reckon? Dr Benway 18:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Added templates for what I think most claims against the neutrality of this article point out. Mainly:
- Use of simplified rhetoric ("... vast numbers of Catholics were murdered simply because of their faith")
- Controversial and biased one-liners lacking relevance or analysis that could justify inclusion ("Despite supposedly being a democracy...")
- Weasel paragraphs ("Leftists and parts of the republican bourgeoisie tended to be anticlerical, while Conservatives tended to support the church with more or less intensity")
- Biased sources (the Catholic Herald, where many of the most controversial statements are copypasted from, almost verbatim)
Added tags to the most important issues that need looking into:
- ""Martyrs of the Spanish Civil War" is the name given by the Catholic Church to the tens of thousands of people who were killed during the Spanish Civil War because of their connection to the church ." = We need a source of an official church authority stating that usage. We need a reference for those "tens of thousands". As far as the info i've been looking at, it's 10,000 approx. I'll check my sources for an exact number/estimate.
- "During the Spanish Civil War 1936-1939, especially in the early months, vast numbers of Catholics were murdered simply because of their faith. [opinion needs balancing]." = I think this deserves much more detail. Of course it's a given many Catholic clergymen were murdered "because of their faith". But there's many, many socio-historical issues in this as well that ought to be minimally mentioned. There was nothing simple about these murders.
- "Not including the much larger number of lay people killed for their faith, almost 7,000 clergy were killed." = We need some hard numbers from a reliable source. Who were these "lay people killed for their faith"?
- "Despite supposedly being a democracy, not a single western nation gave support to the Republicans[opinion needs balancing]." = As far as most historians are concerned, the Second Spanish Republic was a democracy. There was nothing hypothetical about it. We need to balance that statement by expanding on it, or make it less tendentious.
- "Only the Soviet Union and Mexico, also engaging in religious persecution at the time, gave support to the Spanish Republicans[opinion needs balancing]." - We have to source these claims. What support are we talking about? Diplomatic support? Economic? And when? Once the war was underway? When the Republic was proclaimed?
- "During the 19th and the 20th centuries, the role of religion on the Spanish society was one of the issues polarizing Spanish society" - I think we should specify a bit more. Mainly it wasn't the role of religion, but rather the role of the catholic church and its ties to other institutions and socio-political movements (left wing and syndicalist movements, Carlism, fascism, etc). I think this part should be significantly expanded to provide context.
- "Leftists and parts of the republican bourgeoisie tended to be anticlerical, while Conservatives tended to support the church with more or less intensity." A bit weasily, no? This is the kind of thing we should be trying to avoid.
- The whole section on the PNV and the basque clergy is... I'm not sure how to say it... a bit irrelevant in its current state. What's the point of it being there? I'm not being funny or anything, btw, I simply don't see what it's doing there.
I also added a template for absence of biography notability, mainly because it's not being focused as a biography.
Anyway, I hope we can do some work and start improving this article, given that it looks like it's going to stay. Cheers! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Benway (talk • contribs) 10:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC) Dr Benway 10:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Butler's Lives of the Saints p. 169 lists them as "Martyrs of the Spanish Civil War" and notes that that usage is pursuant to the New Roman Martyrology. The book actually gives a good and reasonably balanced account of the events. For example, it notes that many more lay people were executed, but because the Nationalists almost immediately adopted a Catholic banner, it is difficult to tell whether they died because of their faith or military or political allegiance. Of course, I am only referencing it to note the use of the term "Martyrs of the Spanish Civil War" and that grouping them as such is pursuant to the new Martyrology's "stated policy".Mamalujo 23:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. I have no qualms about the number of clergy executed. That's a given, and it's been investigated, and most numeric sources coincide. However, the topic on "catholic civilians" being persecuted is far shadier. I'll take a look at any sources I can find about that. However, this article is not about the issue of how many catholics were killed by the Republicans in the civil war and the onset of the conflict (that's what Red Terror (Spain) is there for, right?), so if they're not Martyrs according to the church and the authors of this article are putting it up as a biography, I really don't see the point of going into this. But again, I'm still not sure where this article is meant to be going, and I'd really like to know before I do any work on it. Cheers! :)Dr Benway 07:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
As to editing and where this article should be going, here's some examples of similar articles: Korean Martyrs, Saints of the Cristero War, Vietnamese Martyrs, Martyrs of Uganda, Martyrs of Thailand and Martyrs of Japan.Mamalujo 20:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- *nodnods* Completely agree with the examples. Cheers for clarifying :) Dr Benway 09:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. Taken a look at the tag removals. Removed the weasel tag since that's out of the way. However, I really would have appreciated a bit of discussion before the other tags were actually removed, as a matter of common courtesy, that's all. I'm not going to go through it all again, but there has been absolutely no significant change in the article to warrant the tag cleanup, quite honestly (see list above with explanation for each tag).
Please indicate wether you would actually want any serious work on this so I can bother to actually do something, or if otherwise your aim is simply to have this up as it is currently so I can go and invest my time and efforts somewhere else. Thanks. Dr Benway 07:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry about the tags. If you really think they are warranted, please, post them again. I think contribution to the article would be great. It still needs a good deal of work. If, however, it's just going to be drivel trying to justify the murders of noncombantant clerics, don't bother. Such contributions would either be factually erroneous or POV or both. Saying Franco was a bad guy is really irrelevant to this article, as are the facts that the Nationalists also engaged in attrocities. They don't really add balance to the article they just obfuscate it. Those kind of facts are more appropriate to the Red Terror article since that article is about atrocities surrounding the war, whereas this article is about martyrdom. If you disagree, by all means, please make your contributions as you see fit, and I will edit as I see fit.
- Some of the things that the article actually needs is, for example, the names and details on the eleven who have already been canonized, details on the beatification of 498 more which will take place this Sunday, details on the religious communities which were slaughtered wholesale, and more of the facts that are typically found in the Saints template (i.e. patronage, attributes, dates of cannonization [we only have beatification dates, so far]). Mamalujo 18:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- No, no, don't get me wrong, that's really not my intention. I think what this article should basically be is a listing of the clerics who have been/will be canonized as a result of having been brutally murdered in the prelude, duration and aftermath of the Spanish Civil War, an account of their deaths if resourced and finally details on canonization and other ecclesiastical issues that are relevant. So sure, I'll be steering it in that direction, and as you say, we both edit as we see :) Sounds good to me :) Cheers! Dr Benway 12:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Support to Republican Government
This paragraph is an attempt to justify the coup d'etat perpetrated by national side. Republican Government was legitimated and recognized by all european nations before the war. During the war, the fact that no many nations taked part on war were due to the spread of fascism and the fear of a new world war. France got total support to republican side during 1936 and 1937. Furthermore, the own paragraph doesn't match with the article. If you want to discuss the legality of republic, do that in another article.Vorodin
Martyrs of the XXth Century vs Martyrs of the Spanish Civil War
Is there any actual reference from the Pope or any of the church officials who have conducted the procedures of these beatifications that refer to them as "Martyrs of the Spanish Civil War"? Added FACT tag, but feel free to source and remove. I'm taking a look and apparently the church officialy calls them "Martyrs of the XXth Century", and not "Martyrs of the Spanish Civil War". Please bang me over the head if I'm wrong and I'll shut up, but I can't find any official sources using this term. Otherwise, I think some editing should be in order. Cheers ;) Dr Benway 14:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Butler's Lives of the Saints, which is cited, uses that term. I believe Roman Martyrology also uses the term.Mamalujo 18:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hi there. Absolutely right, but Butler's Lives of the Saints is not an institutional source from the Catholic Church, as far as I know. I could be wrong though, Mamalujo, and you know more about the subject, I guess, since you're a practicing Catholic. I'm still looking through sources though. I haven't found any reference to these Martyrs of the Spanish Civil War in Roman Martyrology or calendar sources, nor in the speeches of the clerics who carried out the offcial ceremonies. Dr Benway 14:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Law for Historical Memory
I really don't think it's a good idea to mix the debate in Spain of the Law for Historical Memory with this topic. Dunno, I think it's convoluted enough as it is, and the less we stray away from the topic the better. What do you guys think? Cheers :)! Dr Benway 09:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. Was wondering the reasons for the revert in the opening paragraph:
""Martyrs of the Spanish Civil War" is the name given by the Catholic Church to the tens of thousands of people who were killed during the Spanish Civil War because of their faith."
1) We still have no sources from the Catholic church (and I mean official, i.e, from an officer of the church acting in public capacity, not by a catholic journalist giving his opinion in a local parish articlem, which is very valid in that source, but not in an encyclopaedia) calling it in such a way.
2) The death toll does not ascend to "tens of thousands". The cited sources you cite for this(the Catholic Herald, which is the church's newspaper of the Diocese of Arlington, and Butler's "Lives of the Saints" which is a hagiography from a press that belongs to the church) and are non-authoritative and speculative. Butler's even states that in the cases of those not accounted for and hypothetically slaughtered for their beliefs, “… it must be impossible to the cases of most of them to say with certainty wether they suffered for their faith or for their political or military alleigance.” Hitorians quote the previously mentioned numbers, and stick to numbers ranging in the 5000-7000 margin. Again, I respect the opinions of your sources, but they're not quite as authoritative as an encyclopaedic article demands.
3) Many of these Martyrs were not killed during the Spanish Civil War, but previously.
And Mamalujo, I thought the idea of the article was to talk about those beatified by the church in the ceremonies mentioned, and not about hypothetical mass murder of unsourced victims and of straying into the arena of the Red Terror, which is treated in its own article. I really think the previous intro gave a more balanced feel to the article and a more concrete content, and would like to discuss this firther before this simply becomes an edit issue in which I can't be bothered to participate. Cheers! Dr Benway 15:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, you are plainly wrong about the numbers killed for their faith being only 5000-7000. The undisputed number of clerics alone is over 6,800 (that number has been recognized currently by scholars as being accurate and documented by meticulous research - see de la Cueva). But I don't think it is a major point. I did not actually intend to include the word "tens" when I made the revert. And I will grant with regard to the lay people who were killed for their faith some sources point out that it is often difficult to detirmine exactly why they were killed. I think it is sufficient to say "thousands". With regard to the name, we're kind of treading over old ground. There was a rename proposal and it failed. It is the most common name used, including by the Church as well as secular news and Catholic news services (CWN, CNS, Zenit). Lives of the Saints uses the name (at p. 169, cited in the article) and says that this grouping is in accord with the new Roman Martyrology (i.e. an official Church categorization). I will remove the word "tens" and remove the tag. Please replace it if you think it is still warranted. Cheers.Mamalujo 16:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hi there. I guess "thousands" will be an appropriate compromise, "qué remedio". Regarding the title, I would however really appreciate if we could find a concrete reference in the cited Roman Martyryology to it, because I certainly can't find anything about "Martyrs of the Spanish Civil War" in any "new Martyryology" source. I have the uncomfortable feeling we're drifting back to square one, and I don't really see where this article is going...Dr Benway 14:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- As to article title, case rested as far as I'm concerned. See  , straight from the horse's mouth. The Vatican calls the homily in the ceremony the "MASS FOR THE BEATIFICATION OF 498 MARTYRS WHO DIED DURING THE RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION OF THE SPANISH CIVIL WAR". Dr Benway 15:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The recent edits of this article and it's expansion are starting to look really good, focussed, and neutral. Congrats :)
The only bone I have to pick here is the paragraph in the 498 martyrs:
"In this group of people, the Vatican has not included all Spanish martyrs, nor any of the 16 priests who were executed by the nationalist side in the first years of the war. This decision has caused numerous criticisms from surviving family members and several political organisations in Spain."
I think the current wording is trying to deviate attention from the fact that these 16 executed priests, the only ones shot by the Nacionales, are the only clergy out of all of those executed in the civil war who have not been beatified.
- Actually the 16 are not "are the only clergy out of all of those executed in the civil war who have not been beatified". As you know, almost 7,000 religious and clergy were killed. Just under a thousand have been beatified or canonized. That leaves another six thousand who have not been beatified. Process is underway for beatification of another two thousand, which would still exclude 4,000 of the killed clergy. All that notwithstanding, how would you propose to remedy that sentance from the problems you see? Mamalujo (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Been doing some research on the main issues that are being controversial over this highly-sensitive theme in Spanish media. I've tried to put it down as dispassionately as possible, see what you guys think. Cheers! Dr Benway (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC).
- I am not opposed to issues of controvery being in the article but I think the section has some problems that I noticed even at a quick glance. First, it has undue weight. Second, it could use some work on NPOV. Third, it should have reliable sources - letters to the editor are not reliable sources.Mamalujo (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, probably it would need someone to take a look at POV issues; I don't see anything tendentious, but then again I am not a completely objective party so I guess there could be something.
- As to undue weight, perhaps it would be better to expand on the martyrs rather than cut back on the controversy section. You yourself have often argued against this type of editing purely on the "oversized" criteria if the facts were reflected.
- As to sources, the letter to the editor is written by Floren Dimas, hisotrical researcher and president of the Association for the Recuperation of Historical Memory of Murcia, an official government-sponsored historical organisation whose function is to study and document the period of the Spanish Civil War, and it has been published in Izquierda Unida's website (IU being one of the main political parties in Spain) and with as much reliability, in my opinion, as the press articles and reporter's opinions from the Catholic Herald, L'Osservatore Romano, the Arizona Star, the Independent Catholic News, Zenit.org, or father Pablo García's account on the Passionist's webpage which are all used as references on the rest of the article.
The picture of the cross-eyed fellow with the bible is quite large, and it's not even identified by name. Could someone post a smaller picture, and put the name of the guy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Saint Innocencio of Mary Immaculate
how can this guy be considered a martyr of the Spanish Civil War, given that he died in 1934, and the war started in 1936? Or maybe his first miracle was to travel in time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 23:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)