Talk:Red Terror (Spain)

White terror

May I ask why the "Red Terror" of Spain, in which some 38,000 perished, has a devoted article on Wikipedia, while the "White Terror" executed by the nationalists which claimed some 200,000 victims in the same period is not mentioned here or even worthy of a sentence in the pitifully brief and summary article on White Terrors throughout history? As horrific as the anti-clerical murders were, this seems a deliberate attempt to paint an equivalence between the violence of the anarchists - which was denounced by Republican leaders, in another detail apparently unworthy of mention in this article - and the state-sponsored, catholic-supported brutality of the fascist regime. 140.247.153.14 21:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The crucial thing is - who did the counting for these interesting 'estimates'. David Lauder 18:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

A "neutral" page on "Atrocities during AND AFTER the Spanish civil war" should replace this monument to militant anti-Leftism and reestablish proportions. Also it should be explained why the Spanish Left had such ferocious hate for the Church: I do not think they were suddenly possessed by satan. The Church had done nothing to endear herself among the struggling populace, actually, constantly condemning every idea of social change and democracy and supporting the landed gentry and the rich. Basil II 20:29, 15 June 2007 (CET)

And who should write this 'explanation'? Someone from The Left? Would that be like saying that a Bolshevik should be invited to justify what they did in Russia between 1917 - 1925? All an encyclopaedia should be concerned with is stating the facts of the period, not overflowing with personal opinions and justifications (includes 'estimated' deaths). David Lauder 18:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

While you're at it, why don't you go to the holocaust page and explain why the German right "had such a ferocious hate for the" Jews. It doesn't matter how the murders were rationalized. Virtually all the clerical killings were of noncombatants. It cannot be explained away. As Robert Royal in his new book points out, there was "wholesale murder of entire religious establishments". About a quarter of the diocesan clergy were simply liquidated in those areas of Spain controlled by the Republicans. Is that really something you want to try to justify - or think you can? If you want to write an article on the white terror, go ahead, but spare us the logical errors. The fact that those killing may have been wrong does not mean that these were justified. Mamalujo 10:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Clergy in a time when the Church was roughly equivalent to the state in its power to compel action or inaction (especially in Spain where the Church was *officially* incorporated into the fascist state apparatus) were *not* noncombatants. And the priests who were targetted were often saboteurs and informants for the fascist police too, so they were doubly combatants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.135.169 (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Anti-semitism was rampant throughout Europe, particularly central and eastern, and whilst the Nazis may have been excessively public about how they felt, I think it slightly unfair to gather together everyone on the "German Right" in this fashion. David Lauder 18:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The origin of the German right hate you are talking about is actually already explained in the Holocaust article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Origins

And yes, context for an event is absolutely justified. Explaining the reasons for something is not the same as justifying. Murderbike 00:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Alas the explanations so often appear as justifications. David Lauder 18:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You could create a page on the "White Terror" or on any subject you believe is worthy of a Wikipedia article.--Gloriamarie 19:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Origin of the term

Please provide the information about the origins and the usage of the term "Rer Terror" in reference to the described events, or the article will be renamed. `'mikka 20:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• • The term is used by , among many others, Antony Beevor in The Battle for Spain. The term is not a neologism, it is commonly recognized and is not at all a matter of dispute. Mamalujo 22:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Nobody in Spain call these things "Red Terror" (or terror rojo as is read here. Well, it was quite lol). The same thing is for the "White Terror". Both are Anglo-saxons terms used in anti-communist and pro-communist slang. Seriously, one guy from San Diego that has "read something" about these topic can not write a whole article about it. --Hoygan!! (talk) 01:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Violation of NPOV

This page differs significantly from the depiction of events on the Spanish Civil War page. It appears biased in it's reporting of the events. Especially considering what was posted in the previous note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsunami7 (talk • contribs)

I added an {{POV-check}} tag, it would be good if this page is reviewed by someone who knows the topic, currently there is only a single contributor to this article so I fear the POV-concerns here are genuine. --Merzul 10:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I`m not quite sure this page violates NPOV, it does in the least make a good attempt at verifying, if one believes that this article makes any unwarranted statements he/she should come forward. It would be helpful if there would be some kind of 'white terror' article as well. --Isolani 16:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The citations from the Payne book were certainly selective. I've now fixed this. Payne makes it clear that the "White" terror was much more deadly. I can't at this point check if the other sources have been cited in a similarly selective (and rather misleading) fashion, but I wouldn't be surprised. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 08:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is embarrassingly biased. The information is inaccurate (e.g. the opening sentence seems to suggest the Republican government was a communist regime organising selective murders around the nation!). It is written in un-encyclopaedic language (with vague references such as 'things like that occurred almost everywhere in the country'). Quotes have been selected so as to provide a warped perspective of the events. I don't intend to defend those who commited atrocities in the past (in whichever side they were), but this article reads as a justification of Franco's regime and a monument to those who launched the coup d'etat.129.67.88.118 15:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

A lot of the incidents recited as fact are heavily disputed. The rosary incident, for example, is cited by George Orwell (who fought in the war) as an example of alleged atrocities entirely fabricated by the counter-revolutionary press.

Citations

In the spirit of verification, I thought I'd go through the citations. I found quite a bit of (mostly inadvertent) plagiarism and a few mistakes on those I could check online, so put a "citation needed" tag on the Beevor references and suggest that these and the Mitchell citations be double-checked. NB even if a few words are changed from the original, it is still plagiarism to claim such lightly-changed sentences as your own. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

similar atrocities occurred almost everywhere in Republican Spain??

The Spanish Civil war is always shown as a war between communists/socialists/anarchists and catholics/conservatives. To some extent, it was that. However, in the Basque Country, for instance, the nationalists (nearly all of them catholics and conservatives) were in the side of the Republic, side by side with the socialists and communists, and there was no catholic prosecution. It was also the same in some other parts of Spain.

I think the article should reflect that not all the republicans were burning curches, as it might be understood when reading it now.

Well, I think it would be obvious that not all republicans were killing priests and grandmothers who happened to have rosaries. But the authorities I've read, and at least one of which is cited for this point in the article, state that virtually all republican groups, with the exception of the Basque, were involved in the Red Terror. That is factually acurate. I believe the article does make the point that the Basques were not involved. But in every other Republican controlled region of Spain the atrocities occured on a vast scale and with Republican governmental complicity. With regard to the idea that the war was the left vs. conservatives/Catholics, that explanation is indeed a bit facile. The Catholics were not originally so universally (w/ the exception of the Basque) aligned. It was after the religious persecution in Asturias in 1934 and then again at the beginning of the war that they were given absolutely no choice - the Republicans had taken an eliminationist strategy toward Catholicism. Mamalujo 17:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought the article mentioned that the Basques did not participate (perhaps an earlier version did), but it did not. I've added a sentance to indicate their nonparticipation. Mamalujo 17:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Name change

I think the name change to "Atrocities committed during the Spanish Civil War", conflating the Red and White Terrors is not an improvement, and I am reverting it. For one thing the two are separate subjects and are best dealt with in separate articles linking to each other and with sufficient references to the other incidents for context. Conflating the two sets of atrocities tends to create a number of false dichotomies, for example, that one set of killings was bad and that the other was therefore good, or that one side killed more and they are therefore more morally culpable. The latter confusion is particularly misleading because a vast number of those killed in the Red Terror were not combatants or even active opponents to the Republicans (this fact is recognized by scholars and cited in the article). Also the title is innacurate, because some of the Red Terror (a substantial number of the killings) occurred before the war in 1934. As to the name change serving to eliminate the "bias" in the article, User:Jbmurray already did an admirable job of editing, reorganizing and adding context to the article to eliminate claimed bias. Rather than the facile "fix" of renaming, someone needs to get down to the hard work of creating the White Terror article. Mamalujo 18:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Red Terror - Spain → Atrocities in the Spanish Civil War — Or some other alternative such as "Red and White Terror- Spain". Following this , description of Nationalist atrocities in the war should be substantially expandedc. The White Terror in the Spanish Civil War was far worse than the Red Terror, yet this, the only article, on the atrocities on the war, only details the far less significant Republican atrocities, iwht only a brief mention of the White Terror. This is outrageously POV, out of proportion, and extremely misleading and historically inaccurate —Nwe 14:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The name change is a particularly bad idea. For one, neither the Spanish Red Terror nor the White Terror occurred entirely "in the Spanish Civil War". So the name would be inaccurate as to both events. Much of the Red Terror occurred before the war (particularly in 1934) and, if I understand correctly, much of the White Terror occurred in the many years after the war. Plus, they are sort of apples and oranges. Which explains the great misapprehension of those who see the Red Terror article, factual as it is, as POV. The fact that Franco's state may have killed more people (over a longer period of time) does not make the killings in the Red Terror any less egregious, and visa versa. Guess what? It is possible that both events were offensive to human life and dignity, for perhaps somewhat different reasons. Conflating the two does not shed light but only obfuscates and creates false dichotomies. As I have said before, if you think too little is said of the White Terror, write the article on it rather than complain about the dearth of information on it in an article about a different (but somewhat related) subject. Mamalujo 07:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support Good luck in cleaning this up. Arthur Koestler's Spanish Testament should be useful, but we really should use secondary literature. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• create separate one-one for red, one for white. Chris 04:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 08:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, in retrospect two separate articles might be a better idea, but in that case an equally detailed article on the White Terror is badly needed. I'll try set one up when I have time, but that could be a while, if anyone else here feels they can start things up please do so.Nwe 21:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

If you wish the tag removed, reduce the overdependence of the article on a single source. Hornplease 15:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is not overdependent on a single source. The article cites to Thomas, Mitchell, Beevor, Payne, Ruiz and de la Cueva among a number of other sources others. Hardly overdependent on one source. Even if it were true, overreliance on a single source is not the same as POV.Mamalujo 17:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, but the lead overquotes de la Cueva, and is thus unbalanced. Hornplease 17:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Title.

• Googling "red terror" spain -ethiopia -soviet -robespierre gives 767 gooogle hits, 75 scholar hits.
• Googling republican atrocities spain "civil war" gives 800,000 google hits, 6,700 scholar hits. Any questions? Hornplease 15:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

polling is not substitute for discussion and - frankly - we had this discussion, it's closed and there's no consensus. Too bad, perhaps, but true. --Isolani 15:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion is visible. It was not about this move, which eliminates the objections to the earlier prospective title. I do not understand the rest of your statement. Hornplease 16:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Hornplease's point. The term "Red Terror" in the context of the Spanish civil war is not widely used at all as a generic name as purported. Apart from google hits (which are quite revealing), I have never seen it in any Spanish history books or documentaries, and being a Spaniard and a history student, it's not that I'm not exposed to terminology on the subject. I really think the article title should be re-thought, or the article merged somewhere else. Cheers! :) Dr Benway 10:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The term is the moniker which is and has been used to describe this subject. It is not a novelty or neologism in its use with regard to Spain. It is used by Beevor, Thomas, and Payne just to name a few. It is used by prominent publishers (Ruiz, Julius, Franco's Justice: Repression In Madrid After The Spanish Civil War(Oxford University Press 2005) ISBN 0199281831 pp. 10, 23, 33,40, 233, 234). It was used by noted news periodicals and dailies at the time (Crumbling RepublicTime Magazine, Monday, Oct. 05, 1936), as it is today (Tonkin, Boyd A Week in Books The (London)Independent July 26, 2006). It is also used by scholarly journals (Chodakiewicz, Marek Jan Review of Las relaciones de Franco con Europa Centro-Oriental, 1939-1955 by By Matilde Eiroa The Sarmatian Review (January 2003 Issue, Rice University)). The argument that it is not the right name for the events is weak. Not to mention the fact the the White Terror - Spain article(also an accepted term) has now been created. Mamalujo 23:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If the context its used in is, as you claim, a tag to refer to the assasination of clergy at the start of and during the civil war, case rested, as far as I'm concerned *nodnods* :) . As to the White Terror article, it's only there because there's a Red Terror article. I find that term equally tendentious, and if it was up to me I'd be merging Red Terror and White Terror as well as Martyrs of the Spanish Civil War (in it's current format and projection; if it was a bio article on these martyrs I'd let it stay on its own) into an article about "Atrocities of the Spanish Civil War", or something like that. But thst's just me *shrug* Dr Benway 06:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, but there are a number of reasons why the merger of the two into one article is a bad idea, and why two months after the posting of the proposed mergers there is no consensus for it. One, they are apples and oranges, combining them does not make sense. Victims of the Red Terror were not necesarilly those doing the attacks in the White Terror and visa versa. They were each done for different often unrelated reasons. Two, the name "Atrocities of the Spanish Civil War" is not appropriate because neither occured entirely during the war. The Red Terror preceded it by years and the White Terror continued for years, if not decades, after. Three, combining the two creates false dichotomies which are already enough of a problem, i.e. the idea that if the White Terror was bad the Red Terror must somehow be justified (and visa versa), the idea that one "side" must be the "right" side. Mamalujo 19:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup, saw it further up in the page before, thanks for the reminder :) . I was just commenting. However, in most of the history books I've checked (Payne, and others) they are both dealt with in the same section, as related phenomena. In Beevor, where it is given its own chapter, it is treated in the context of an analysis of events and offers numerous counterbalances and comments, which this article does not and shows no intention of doing. And I heavily disagree with your argument against the "Atrocities of the Spanish Civil War" heading line and merge, mainly because all of these atrocities occured within its temporal and historical context, if not its specific dates. I think this approach would be the only one that would guarantee a moderate level of neutrality. Dr Benway 09:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, these subjects are handled together in a more abreviated fashion in the Spanish Civil War article. As to Beevor, I don't think he is any example to follow with regard to neutrality. His 1982 book I found to be decidedly anti-Catholic (of the sort that used to be more common among British authors in the 19th and mid 20th century). The context that he gives is often nothing more than an apology for murder. I think that Beevor is one of the examples of the "attempts at justification" that Julio de la Cueva criticises. Including that sort of crap in the article is like incorporating the work of holocaust deniers into the holcaust article in the name of balance. Mamalujo 11:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I actually liked Beevor and found him quite objective :) He gives a good explanation for what happened, and his account on the Terror is not skewed one way or the other as far as I can see. As for the analogy, I don't think denying the Holocaust in the Holocaust article has anything to do with inserting contextual information of what happened in the onset of the Spanish civil war with the murders of catholic clergy, firstly because nobody denies it happened and that it was murder, and secondly because one situation had absolutely no historical similarities with the other one whatsoever. Cheers! :) Dr Benway 07:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I would beg to differ. To say that the situations had absolutely no historical similarities shows no understanding of modern bigoted eliminationist mass murder. No the Red Terror was not the Holocaust. But neither were the killing field of Pol Pot, Rwanda or the pogroms in Russia. Mamalujo 06:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

No, Pol Pot, Rwanda and the russian pogroms had nothing to do with each other. That's like saying that AIDS and EBOLA are the same virus because they kill people. I'm afraid I don't quite follow your argument. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree ;) Dr Benway 06:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Euh... ?

"The Franco government now gives the names of 61,000 victims of the Red terror, but this is not subject to objective verification."

I'm not sure what Beevor means by this, firstly because the "Franco government now" does not exist as of today, and secondly because if his figure is "not subject to objective verification" I really fail to see what it's doing in an encyclopaedic article, despite it being a reputed source. I'll check the new edition. Cheers ;) Dr Benway 07:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Atrocities?

I was looking through "In El Pardo, near Madrid, a group of militiamen became drunk on communion wine while trying the parish priest. One militiaman used the chalice as a washing bowl as he shaved himself. [31]"

Firstly, I'm trying to figure out what is meant by "became drunk on communion wine while trying the parish priest". All help would be appreciated.

Secondly, in the context of mass executions, raping of nuns and other savagery, mentioning a "militiaman [that] used the chalice as a washing bowl as he shaved himself" is hardly reasonable if we're talking about atrocities, no? Cheers Dr Benway 08:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, cool, now we've added "desecrations" to the Red Terror. Why not also include the fact that militiamen were using foul language in consecrated ground? Oh, and that they didn't cross themselves before walking into the church and shooting the priests. I mean, come on, seriously... *rolls eyes* Dr Benway (talk) 10:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Roll your eyes if you want, but the fact of the matter is that all of the authorities on the subject include accounts of desacration in their reports. Despite your flawed analogy, desecrations are not the same as cursing or failing to cross oneself. Burning churches, destroying defiling sacred religious objects and the like are attempts by the persecutors to destroy the victims' religion. They are extreme violations of religious and civil liberties and fall within the definition of terror ("violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands" -Merriam Webster). Catholics believe that the consecration turns the host and the wine into the real presence of Christ's body and blood. Using the chalice as a washing bowl is not an inoccuous act. It is akin to (aruably much worse than) wiping your ass with to Torah while invading a synogogue. An actual example is the destruction of the Patriarch Joseph's tomb by Arab terrorists. Such acts are, and are intended to be, religious persecution. Your cavalier attitude toward them makes me wonder whether you really have an understanding of the subject matter. Mamalujo (talk) 19:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm extremely sorry if I have offended your religious beliefs, and please accept my apologies since it was not my intention. What I meant is that desecration is already implied by the fact that they're castrating and crucifying priests, raping nuns, executing clergy and burning churches to the ground. It simply makes the part on a militiaman using the chalice as a washingbowl sound absurd. Atrocities, I think, would refer to acts which would horrify any human being, regardless of ritual and belief. Mentioning desecrations such as the chalice being used as a shaving bowl is quite simply not equatable to assasination. Again, just an observation. Dr Benway (talk) 10:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

"Desecration" etc

I see this issue has already been raised by the above poster, and Mamalujo failed to respond. I suspect that Mamalujo's trying to use the talk page simply to resist fairly indesputable edits. Since without my edits this article violates NPOV, however, they should remain regardless of ancillary discussion. As already stated in the edit summary, improper use of proper isn't usually part of "terrors", that's an objective view, and undoubtedly while representatives of the Catholic Church were persecuted, it was for reasons not directly related to Catholicism and the Terror was not in itself anti-Catholic.Nwe (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

So what was it "anti-" exactly, if not anti-religious???

This is leftist BS and newspeak to put it mildly.

Current Disputes

Regarding current disputes;

• The two images suggested are completely inappropriate, neither depict events that were either part of or representative of the Red Terror; one being an image of a symbolic attack on a statue and the other the requisitioning of a building, therefore completely unconnected from the attacks on human lives of which the terror consisted.

• Inclusion of words such as "desecration" and "faithful" anywhere in the article is unjustifiable since they are completely POV.

• The discussion of Stanley Payne's opinions, which have undue weight in the article anyway, at the very least must be understood to be the very debatable opinions of one historian, and cannot involved the presentation of opinion as fact.

• The suggestion that the Red Terror was more violent or random than the White Terror is simply historical fiction.

• The lead section of an article should not include unnecessary elaboration of simple single facts or go into excessive detail on exact (and disputed!) numbers.

• The events described under the "atrocities" section are only reported atrocities from a few pages of one source. At the very least they should be titled "reported atrocities", though in fact that entire section is very dodgy in general; the inclusion of long, graphic and emotive description of isolated events using one source is extremely unencyclopaedic and I may get back to that.

• Wikipedia expressly prefers paragraph format to list format in its articles.

Nwe (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• To address each of your points:
  • The two images suggested are a fine example of desecration - virtually every source on the Red Terror discusses it. They are also examples of the virulent anticlerical sentiment of the time. The image of the Church is an example of the widespread expropriation/destruction of churches and church properties. The attack on the Sacred Heart statue is specifically mentioned in one of the sources, I believe Mitchell's book, when discussing atrocities of the terror. And by the way its not just the "requisitioning" of "a building"; its a church, and its theft and defilement implicates a serious violation of civil rights recognized around the world by democratic countries, as well as by internationally accepted standards. If we cannot resolve this, we may have to result to other means, and I have no doubt the images will remain.Mamalujo (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think "faithful" is POV, just descriptive (they are people who hold the Catholic faith), but out of a spirit of compromise I will concede that one (I don't know about the other editors). However, desecration is plainly and merely descriptive. When you wash your face in a ciborium, it is an act of desecration. When you burn down a Church or blow up Buddha statues it is desecration. No POV just precise factual description.
  • Re Stanley Payne's opinions, much of what you call his "opinions" are his reporting of facts. When he says at the outset of the war that most deaths did not come from the battlefield but from executions behind the lines, he is reporting fact widely reported by other historians. I have not seen this fact contradicted elsewhere. That the activity was semi-organized and conducted by all Republican groups except the Basque is also a statement of fact. I've seen it reported by other historians, too and do not believe is in dispute. Payne has a lot of weight because he is a preeminent scholar on Spain during this time. I've never read that he is biased.
  • I don't think the article suggests "that the Red Terror was more violent or random than the White Terror". The White Terror apparently killed more but took place over a much longer period of time. The article does say, backed up by reliable sourcing, that the White Terror acted against its opposition while the Red Terror sometime acted seemingly irrationally attacking those who were not engaged in opposition (clergy, etc.). This is indisputably true; the Reds did attack many more not actively engaged in opposition. I would disagree that it was "irrational". They were revolutionary seeking to change society, including greatly diminishing or destroying religion. Attacking clerics, even nuns, who were not actively engaged in opposition, arguably rationally supported their revolutionary goal. If you want to remove "irrationally", go ahead, but the rest is accurate.
  • "The lead section of an article should not include unnecessary elaboration of simple single facts or go into excessive detail on exact (and disputed!) numbers." Reporting the number of clergy killed in the intro is not unnecessary, it succintly describes the extent of what happened. The Holocaust article, for example has the number in the first sentance. And the numbers are NOT disputed. In a peer-reviewed historical journal de la Cueva says they are "[a]ccepted figures" and are the results of "painstaking research by Antonio Montero". See here.
  • "The events described under the "atrocities" section are only reported atrocities from a few pages of one source." Actually, five sources are cited, and we could cite dozens.
  • "Wikipedia expressly prefers paragraph format to list format in its articles." I am not disagreeable to that at this time. We'll see what other editors say.
• As a final plea, please do not make massive and controversial changes to the article (especially deletion of sourced material) without addressing the talk page. This page has been stable like this for a while and I believe there is a consensus to retain the material you want to delete (I would say "whitewash" but I'm trying to assume good faith).Mamalujo (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for length;

A terror or such-like is generally understood to describe atrocities, almost always committed on human lives or at the very least their freedom or ability to sustain themselves. Attacks on symbolic buildings or objects cannot, therefore, in any way be described as part of a “terror” . To make such a suggestion would be ludicrous, not least since one of the first, and normally least contested, acts of a new regime, particularly one overthrown in a popular, is to destroy the images or objects associated with the previous regime. Hence the demolition of communist statues etc. after the fall of Communism or the attack on the Stalin monument in the 1956 Budapest uprising, or the destruction of images of Saddam in 2003, hence the ever-symbolic lowering of flags by conquering armies. And the list goes on. Now monuments and flags are surely as well-regarded as churches by people attached to that previous regime, but I’d hardly call the actions of those anti-communist a “White Terror”. After the Russian Revolution, statues and images of the Tsar were destroyed, we talk about the Russian Red Terror but that’s never mentioned. The suppression and probable of Catalan, Basque or leftist symbols and ideas by Franco isn’t mentioned as unlikely ever to be in this articles impoverished sister on the White Terror. Bolshevik attacks on the Orthodox church aren’t mentioned anywhere in the article on that terror. Nor is the “desecration” of churches cited in the article of “the Terror” of the French Revolution.

Regarding desecration, no it isn’t; the word is plainly POV, it implies that some objects are somehow above others in values merely because of their association with a controversial institution; that is plainly biased in its assumptions. I don’t know about other religions, but humanists would definitely find the word very objectionable.

Regarding your comparison of the red and white terrors, may I speak frankly when I see this is when your views enter into the territory absolute and patent nonsense. The Nationalists, unlike Republicans, engaged in extensive massacres of civilian populations; in Badajoz, Malaga, etc. Among others they murdered teachers, intellectuals, civil servants, members of trades unions, “Freemasons”, waverers, people suspected of voting the wrong way and plain randomers. Among the worst perpetrators were Moroccan troops who embarked s of rape and murder. Now I don’t see how that consisted of “acting against its opposition” more than the Red Terror which generally attacked nationalist politicians, clergy and the wealthy; in other words the people who were almost certainly supporting the Nationalists. I don’t see how it involved the murder of more “innocent people “ and less “dangerous elements” unless being a teacher or an organised worker made you more likely to engage in opposition than being a priest in an unashamedly pro-monarchy church did, and less “innocent”. And the clergy weren’t attacked because the “Reds” in an attempt to eradicated religion, religion among the general populace was pretty much on the wane anyway, it was because the Church had been an invaluable supporter of the old monarchy and the unequal aristocratic system that lay behind and was to become a very useful supporter of Franco. Additionally, the Nationalists almost certainly had killed more people by than the Republicans by 1939, and according the Antony Beevor at least the White Terror reached its peak in September 1936.

Rest of the Payne paragraph; there are a number of problems here. Firstly lets deal with what’s “indisputable”, for example the claim that the attacks were not the outpouring of the oppressed ‘’very’’ disputable, in fact many would suggest that its quite wrong, considering that many of the first targets of the terror were individuals who’d exploited or abused their positions of power when times were better (e.g. Landowners, industrialists, clergy, blacklegs etc.), although often the more benign ones were spared. The idea that it was carried by “all leftist groups” is not indisputable; there isn’t much evidence of participation by most elements of the government, by moderate Republicans and by numerous other socialist, anarchist, nationalist and other factions, in fact there isn’t really clear evidence on who it was that carried it out. Such a statement is almost axiomatically doubtful. Incidentally the idea that they were “semi-organised” kind of contradicts the claim that the attacks were irrational. The final sentence, on the persecution of Catholics, is simply totally out-of-place, not a key fact to included in the description and discussion of the terror and clearly part of an agenda of using the article to push the some form of pro-Catholic message and anti-Republican message.

Regarding the intro. Firstly one of my problems, which you don’t address, was the linguistic detail, mention that the terror attacks included on clergy, fine, but that should be enough, no need to engage in greater detail than that. Regarding numbers, well inclusion of the total c30,000 number would be acceptable, but for a start simply focusing on one group is rather strange, and incidentally the figures, format and composition mentioned in the Holocaust article are apparently a source to fairly major dispute according to a brief look at the article’s talk page and talk page archives. The numbers in this article are also disputed as well. For a start you simply can’t round a number in its thousands, from a period as uncertain as the Spanish Civil War, to single figures. The article you give also only really engages in fairly significant praise for that research, he doesn’t call it categorical. This article is not so certain, it says Montero’s research “leave much to be desired at times”. I also, though with no particular basis, think some suspicions should arise from the fact it was carried out under Franco.

Atrocities; well actually only four different sources are cited at all in the paragraph, and really its only one. While ancillary details from Payne, Beevor and Mitchell are cited; with the exception of the first, all individual stories given are from pages 172-74 of Hugh Thomas. That’s an extremely narrowly focussed set of unverified reports, no matter how well-regarded (though also, it has to be said, quite old) the book from which they originate.

Religious persecution; I forgot this in my original list. The red terror should definitely not be included under the category of religious persecution; since the large majority of the of people weren’t attacked for the connection of the church, and for those that were it was more an attack on the church as an institution and its political connections, as opposed to anything to do with the beliefs of Catholicism in itself.

I find your “final plea” extremely disingenuous. For a start the “stability” of an article is no argument when it isn’t neutral, and “material” doesn’t automatically become good when its “sourced” when it pushes a particular viewpoint. But much more importantly, taking for example the images we’re discussing, the page’s history says that they were only re-added by you 1 month ago, following a 7-month absence during time which you had significant activity. Most of the problems regarding Payne were restored by you only 2 weeks ago, after a similarly long absence. For none of this did you make any contribution to talk. Finally, if it had not been for the intervention of other editors, the article as you originally created it around a year ago would be an appalling piece of propaganda. So cut the nonsense. Nwe (talk) 01:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Update; If you resort to the kind of personal insults and plain spiteful reverts as you just did in your last edit then you're guarenteed to lose the argument, never having begun to enage in it in the first place. Please see WP: TALK. Nwe (talk) 22:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Newcomer view

It is difficult to discuss views, which implicitly negate the Holocaust or other Crimes against humanity. It is almost impossible to negate the persecution during the Red Terror. In 2007, the Catholic Church beatified the largest number of persons in its history, all of them martyrs of thepersecution in Spain. The secular media reported this as persecution. Somehow, I am inclined to believe, that the rare unanimity of World Media and Catholic Church is the closest thing you ever get to infallibility.

I am somewhat new on this page and very surprised about some arguments above. This is an article about Red Terror in Spain, not about white terror or other topics. It is not an evaluation of the Spanish Civil War. The only issue is, what really happened. Since it is an emotional topic for many, sources have to be provided generously, and wording should be as neutral as possible, but, without loss of information.

The Catholic Church is the main focus of discussion here. It is therefore perfectly normal to use legal Catholic terminology, (Canon Law), to describe situations and events, including, Eucharist, Desecration, the Faithful (take a look at these two pages), etc. These are not value-judgements but technical terms, necessary to understand the story. It is irrelevant, if all here agree, whether the persecution actually took place or not, just as it is irrelevant to agree, whether Christ is fully present in the Eucharist or not. The only relevance which we have to judge extends to the facts and statements and their full back-up, whether we personally agree or not. The pictures, like many Wikipedia pictures illustrate and support the article. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

For a start, I find it hard to see how you regard an institution that has covered up paedophilia, supported numerous dictatorships around the world, has supported inequality through its endorsement of the status quo and has supported and supports policies of sexual repression and that still pursues policies that will leave millions of people to die from AIDS as anything but one of the most fallible institutions in the world today, which is leaving out much in the sordid history of Catholicism, along with the general farcical nature of many of its supposed beliefs. But that's just an aside, needless to say the views you express above about Catholicism are entirely unencyclopaedic at best. What we can also say from you're contribution to talk, while appreciated, is that you have a complete misunderstanding of both the role of this article and the criteria on which its contents should be based. You also seem to have a very thin understanding of the basic principles etc. of wikipedia. You views on Catholicism also imply that your current views are dictated by an extreme amount of bias. For a start no one is "negating" the Red Terror, if anyone was tryign to do that then we would be discussin its articles deletion. And I don't know what you're talking about when you bring in the Holocaust, are you accusing people of Holocaust denial or something?????? The only issue is not what really happened, it's also, more importantly in our discussion, how these events are presented and what they are seen to include. Additionally comparison with other, preferably well-rated, articles as a guideline for best practice is a perfectly good way to determine what should and shouldn't be in this article. The simple principle being that if this article is taken up with something or follows some type of format that every other comparative article doesn't (e.g. French Terror, Russian Red Terror, Spanish White Teror), then there's more than likely be something wrong with this article.

Your final paragraph, I'm sorry to say, is frankly even more bizarre, but seems, as far as I can understand it, to be completely missing the point. For a start the Catholic church is not the main focus, the main focus is neutral discussion and treatment of the terror; that means an article with no value-judgements which sticks to actual discussion of persecution, which doesn't digress into agenda-oriented tangents, which has a neutral tone and which basically sticks to the facts. Using legal Catholic terminology is not appropriate since this is a encyclopaedia's history article and not a Catholic legal document, and is besides about a persecution most of whose victims weren't killed for the connection to the catholic church, and of course words like "faithful" and "desecration" are value-judgements since it implies there's something special about Catholicism and Catholic institutions. Regarding your assertion that "It is irrelevant, if all here agree, whether the persecution actually took place or not", ya wha'? Of course its bloody relevant! Its the most relevant thing in the whole goddamn article, although incidentally no one is actually disputing that fact. When you started to bring in transubstantiation, you lost me completely and I gave up. I've already given my spiel on the images and I don't see a need to repeat myself at this time, I refer you back to the first par of my previous post and numerous edit summaries.Nwe (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I find it hard to see how you regard an institution that has covered up paedophilia, supported numerous dictatorships around the world, has supported inequality through its endorsement of the status quo and has supported and supports policies of sexual repression and that still pursues policies that will leave millions of people to die from AIDS(...as anything but one of the most fallible institutions in the world todayNwe (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC))

It seems to me, some people mix up their highly emotional personal views with this totally unrelated article.--Ambrosius007 (talk) 10:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I consider the following statements a violation of Wikipedia policy: (Following long discussion of page's edit history in response to false claim that I was being somehow disruptiveNwe (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC))So cut the nonsense... ("If you resort to the kind of personal insults and plain spiteful reverts as you just did in your last edit (full rv of edit with edit summary "bite me commie toadstool") then"...Nwe (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)) "you're guarenteed to lose the argument, never having begun to enage in it in the first place."

It seems to me that describing the Catholic Church as "the closest thing you ever get to infallibility" is as redolent of "highly emotiotional personal views" getting mixed up with "this totally unrelated article" as you can get, as is the impression you held that the main focus of this article is the Catholic Church. The above statement was merely a response to that claim, which you somehow believed was a a suitable basis of argument over the contents of this article. You called the Catholic Church infallible, I decided to point out that you were wrong. Unlike this post to which I am responding, it was actually dealing with the contents of the page. I would love to know which wikipedia policies you believe the other phrases violate, within the context they were actually stated if you wouldn't mind. Incidentally, do you regard "bite me commie toadstool" to a breach in Wikipedia policy? Finally, while not necessarily a breach in "policy", issuing a response on talk that only makes veiled personal attacks and fails to deal with my long, detailed arguments dealing with the actual contents of the article, as you just have, is a massive breach in protocol and generally bad form. Selective and out of context use also explicitly breaches wikipedia policy, I refer to WP:TALK "do not misrepresent people". I'd advise you to make your next response more constructive, and get me to actually elaborate on the reasons I give for my version of the page. Nwe (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Victory

A fascinating paragraph which has... erm... absolutely no relevance to the article? The only interesting piece of data, the sentence dealing with these anti-clerical guerrilla terrorist commandos is, quite unsurprisingly, unsourced.

This new Soviet-Mexican-Republican Spanish axis of anticatholic terror - again unreferenced- is another new occurrence which has genuinely surprised me.

As even the author will probably understand, I'm tagging this, for what it's worth, as POV.

Cheers. 80.32.151.233 (talk) Dr Benway 08:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree that the section has no relevance to the article but I do agree that sourcing of some of the assertions are needed. Perhaps the editor who made the contribution can provide them. I think the POV issues can be resolved with some subtle honing by editors. I would not be surprised if the Vatican saw the persecution of Christians in Mexico, Spain and the Soviet Union as related. Even the U.S. State Department was referring to Mexico at the time as "Soviet Mexico". Still, I think such assertions need a source. Mamalujo (talk) 19:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, a more convenient rewording of the section heading, for starters... Because... victory?? I mean, this is the article structure:

THE RED TERROR

1 Background

2 Red and White Terrors

3 Death toll

3.1 Toll on Clergy

4 Attitudes

4.1 Republican side

4.2 National Side

5 Reported Atrocities

6 Victory

It all sounds fine and dandy to me... until section 6. I mean, I read section I, I think "Hmm... the background of the Red Terror". I see section II, I think "I see, the white terror in relation to the red terror... ok". I see section III; "Aha... Death toll of the Red Terror". Section IV: "Interesting, attitudes towards the red terror". Section V "Reported Atrocities during the red terror, hmm hmmm." And then VI... Er... Victory ... of the Red Terror? I hardly think it's warranted. The only thing that it's talking about is the Vatican's reaction at the end of the Spanish Civil War. In which case, the proper article to slap it into would be the Spanish Civil War, right?

The "reliable referencing" to the wikipedia page on the Spanish Communist Party which you've made, Mamalujo, I suppose refers to the succint phrase "During the initial years of the Franco regime, PCE organized guerrilla struggles in some parts of the country." Sure, everybody knows that. But these actions were not directed at priests as part of any kind of organised aggression. I think that labelling this as a continuation of the "Red Terror" is, once again, streching it a bit too far, don't you think?

Dr Benway (talk) 13:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Tagging

Hi there, Ambrosius

Like most fellow Wikipedia Editors, usually when I tag something it's not out of whim or sudden caprice, but because I consider as an editor that something needs to be done.

I am aware that there is a difference between tagging an article and tagging a section. While I appreciate your will to help, if you take a careful look at the actual tag text, you will se it quite purposefuly states that the factual accuracy and neutrality of this article, as opposed to section, are in dispute, which is the reason I tagged it at the top of the article and not on top of the section.

So I'd like to ask you please, in future occasions, refrain from moving tags around without prior notice to the editor. As far as my experience in Wikipedia goes, it's regarded as common practice and shows courtesy to first try and settle any points in the discussion pages, and then moving in for changes. So if you find that there's any disagreement on this, I would kindly ask you first mention it here and then do the moving round bits after we've talked about it.

Cheers, Dr Benway (talk) 13:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not make the "'reliable referencing' to the wikipedia page on the Spanish Communist Party". That was the work of another editor. Also, I have renamed the controvesial section "Conclusion and aftermath" instead of "Victory". I hope that is agreeable to other editors. I would agree to another neutral heading that others feel would be more appropriate. Also, Dr Benway, I am curious as to why you tagged the entire article as opposed to just the new section. The only reasons, as far as I can see, are those that apply to the new section. When an NPOV tag is placed on an article, reasons are supposed to be provided on the talk page. If there are reasons for tagging the entire article, please state them, otherwise I will move the tag to the appropriate section. Also, I'm hoping we can edit the new section to alleviate concerns of POV.

I don't think there should be any reason for tagging the entire article, because, as you may recall, the article was reworked by a neutral editor (who did an admirable job) to make it NPOV. Specifically User:JBMurray edited on June 8 and 9, 2007 it to the point that he felt it was NPOV and then removed the tag. At the time he said "But given the changes I've made, I think this article now is basically NPOV, and so I've removed the tag". The article now is even less arguably POV than it was then (arguably inflamatory language was removed from the intro since then), possible honing of the last section notwithstanding.

p.s. I'm removing the factual accuracy tag. I haven't seen anything on the talk page about that and I don't think there's any basis for it.Mamalujo (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi there Mamalujo, again apologies, I thought it had been you doing the referencing there. I really need to get some practice in using the page History tool.... *blush* About the factual/POV dispute, I think there have been a number of changes to the balanced article you mention back in june, but I'm not sure. In any case, the reasons for the tags are as follows:

- POV and Disputed Facts: Intro section: "a program of systematic persecution of the Church was planned to the last detail". Most disputable, but aside from that, quoted from Antonio Montero's "Historia de la persecución religiosa en España 1936-1939" from the Catholic Press, 1961. I'd really have trouble using a pro-catholic source like this, especially written byu the Archbishop of Mérida, especially published in times of Franco, as a factually accurate referent to defend a disputed issue such as defining the aggressions against the Church as a "systematic prosecution ... planned to the last detail."

- Disputed Fact: Background Section: "the Popular Front, whose leadership was clearly moving towards the left (abandoning constitutional Republicanism for leftist revolution.[5])"... I would have thought Azaña was more the former than the latter. As well as most of the Republican cabinet. The nationalist (as in regionalist nationalists) elements of the Republican government were not great revolutionaries, either. The Communist takeover of the Republican government would occur much later, well into the war. There was a struggle between these "factions", sure. But this clear trend is extremely disputable.

- Disputed Fact: Death Toll section: "Figures for the Red Terror range from 38,000 to 110,000, with most estimates closer to the former.[13]" I think that if you give an approximate range where the maximum exceeds the minimum in almost 300%, and say that most estimates are closer to the former, well... bit of a weasel, no?

- POV and Disputed Facts: Ditto: "The Franco government now gives the names of 61,000 victims of the Red Terror, but this is not subject to objective verification." If there is a figure given that is not subject to objective verification, I really fail to see what it is doing in an encyclopaedic article. So I'd dispute it. Heavily.

- Disputed Fact: Ditto: César Vidal's figures are amply disputed. In fact, all of his works on the Spanish Civil War are heavily contested by most modern Spanish historiographers. I'd like to see a more concrete reference as to where he got the numbers from.

- POV: Attitudes: National Side: "The tone of the letter was balanced, describing the realities of 1937. [34]" I suppose the editor who put this meant the letter that calls Franco's rebellion a "civic-military movement"... and a great number of other things. SOrry, but this fact is again, contested.

- POV: Ditto: "The attitudes towards the Church had changed from hostility to admiration. [35]" Well... again... need I go into detail?

- POV and Disputed Facts: Conclusion and Aftermath: "although individual terror attacks seem to have continued sporadically, carried out by remnant Communists [46] and Socialists, hiding in French border regions, but without great results. " Factually disputed. A reference would be needed.

- POV: The part on the Communist Triangle of Terror would need a bit of balancing, in my opinion.

Anyway, these are the reasons why I tagged the whole article, again, as POV and factually inaccurrate as opposed to tagging the sections.

If the editors find these observations warranted, perhaps we should re-tag this? Because, in my opinion, I really think this article needs major work to have a minimum encyclopaedic standard. Cheers! Dr Benway (talk) 08:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the details.

-"a program of systematic persecution of the Church was planned to the last detail". I think that quote oversteps historical consensus. I do know one of the reliable sources refers to it as "semi-organized". Maybe Ambrosius (I believe he was the contributor) would be agreeable to deleting it, or it could be couched as the opinion of the author. So and so "opined that it was 'a program of systematic...'"

- "the Popular Front, whose leadership was clearly moving towards the left (abandoning constitutional Republicanism for leftist revolution.[5])"... I have seen a number of souces that say the Republic had abandoned constitutionalism by the time of the outbreak of the war. In fact, the replacing of Zamora with Azana was itself in violation of the constitution (although the right supported it, as well). I think the statement is accurate, althogh, granted the far left revolution in the Republican zones did not occur until the start of the war. If you want to change it to "In the opinion of some scholars it had abondoned..." I would be agreeable to that.

-"Death Toll section: 'Figures for the Red Terror range from 38,000 to 110,000, with most estimates closer to the former.[13]' I think that if you give an approximate range where the maximum exceeds the minimum in almost 300%, and say that most estimates are closer to the former, well... bit of a weasel, no?" I think it's ok, but how would you handle it? I also think its weasely and POV to compare the Red Terror deaths which occured mostly in 6 months to White Terror numbers which continued for years after the war ended. I think they are kind of apples and oranges. I don't like the idea that some have that unjust killing by one side makes the same by the other side o.k.

-"'The Franco government now gives the names of 61,000 victims of the Red Terror, but this is not subject to objective verification.' If there is a figure given that is not subject to objective verification, I really fail to see what it is doing in an encyclopaedic article. So I'd dispute it. Heavily." Well, I think a lot of these numbers are still a matter of debate. I think we still cite them and point that out.

-"César Vidal's figures are amply disputed. In fact, all of his works on the Spanish Civil War are heavily contested by most modern Spanish historiographers. I'd like to see a more concrete reference as to where he got the numbers from." Maybe you could include the fact that his calculations are disputed with a cited criticism.

-"The tone of the letter was balanced, describing the realities of 1937. [34]" I would not be adverse, knowing what I now know, to deletion of that sentance. I don't know what other editors think.

-"The attitudes towards the Church had changed from hostility to admiration. [35]" I think that sentance could be deleted, too, without any loss to the article. We might want to see what it's contributor says, though.

-"'although individual terror attacks seem to have continued sporadically, carried out by remnant Communists [46] and Socialists, hiding in French border regions, but without great results.' Factually disputed. A reference would be needed." Agreed, that refs are needed. Maybe a fact tag and then a period of waiting for sourcing?

-"The part on the Communist Triangle of Terror would need a bit of balancing, in my opinion." How? If there are scholars who say they weren't connected or something, I think that would be fine.

I'm glad to cooperate to address your concerns. As long as edits aren't along the lines of a white wash. I personally happen to think that, sadly for Spain, Franco was the lesser of two evils (and I think the death toll of a Red Spain would have far exceeded that of Franco), but I don't try to eliminate or minimize actual atrocities and injustices that he committed.Mamalujo (talk) 21:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

POV and Factual accuracy

Tagged this again, since the issues presented have not been addressed. I'd like to kindly request any editors who wish to remove them to please engage in a bit of dialogue before just erasing.

Reasons:

- POV and Disputed Facts: Intro section: "a program of systematic persecution of the Church was planned to the last detail". Most disputable, but aside from that, quoted from Antonio Montero's "Historia de la persecución religiosa en España 1936-1939" from the Catholic Press, 1961. I'd really have trouble using a pro-catholic source like this, especially written byu the Archbishop of Mérida, especially published in times of Franco, as a factually accurate referent to defend a disputed issue such as defining the aggressions against the Church as a "systematic prosecution ... planned to the last detail." ---> Still the same

- Disputed Fact: Background Section: "the Popular Front, whose leadership was clearly moving towards the left (abandoning constitutional Republicanism for leftist revolution.[5])"... I would have thought Azaña was more the former than the latter. As well as most of the Republican cabinet. The nationalist (as in regionalist nationalists) elements of the Republican government were not great revolutionaries, either. The Communist takeover of the Republican government would occur much later, well into the war. There was a struggle between these "factions", sure. But this clear trend is extremely disputable .---> I don't see where the footnoted reference supports the statement. On the contrary, I think Payne is even saying that the Republican leadership lost centralised control to a number of leftist factions.

- Disputed Fact: Death Toll section: "Figures for the Red Terror range from 38,000 to 110,000, with most estimates closer to the former.[13]" I think that if you give an approximate range where the maximum exceeds the minimum in almost 300%, and say that most estimates are closer to the former, well... bit of a weasel, no? ---> Numerically, statistically and informatively speaking, this reference is plain silly.

- POV and Disputed Facts: Ditto: "The Franco government now gives the names of 61,000 victims of the Red Terror, but this is not subject to objective verification." If there is a figure given that is not subject to objective verification, I really fail to see what it is doing in an encyclopaedic article. So I'd dispute it. Heavily.---> Ditto. Using Franco government figures is not really very neutral, is it?

- Disputed Fact: Ditto: César Vidal's figures are amply disputed. In fact, all of his works on the Spanish Civil War are heavily contested by most modern Spanish historiographers. I'd like to see a more concrete reference as to where he got the numbers from.---> And again

- POV: Attitudes: National Side: "The tone of the letter was balanced, describing the realities of 1937. [34]" I suppose the editor who put this meant the letter that calls Franco's rebellion a "civic-military movement"... and a great number of other things. SOrry, but this fact is again, contested.---> Ditto

- POV: Ditto: "The attitudes towards the Church had changed from hostility to admiration. [35]" Well... again... need I go into detail? ---> Ditto

- POV and Disputed Facts: Conclusion and Aftermath: "although individual terror attacks seem to have continued sporadically, carried out by remnant Communists [46] and Socialists, hiding in French border regions, but without great results. " Factually disputed. A reference would be needed.---> Ditto

- POV: The part on the Communist Triangle of Terror would need a bit of balancing, in my opinion.---> Ditto

Cheers! Dr Benway (talk) 14:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Lack of Socialist and Communist views

The attitudes of these folks towards religion in general and the Catholic Church in particular would be helpful in the context, as to why so many members of clergy and laity were killed. Was it hate? conviction? Or, a part of the Marxist-Leninist ideology? Or was it only an oversight, as claimed in the article? Hard to believe! I can see Benways frustration with the absence of this information, which makes these events look almost like a natural event (anti-Catholic bias). But for this, the article does not need to be tagged. Abelincoln —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.65.167.166 (talk) 12:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems that some of these folks do not want to face the music. Well, so be it for the time being! I will prepare a much larger background section to meet the concerns of an anti-Catholic bias in this article. If in the meanwhile others keep playing around with tags and reverts, is historically insignificant.Abelincoln --91.65.167.166 (talk) 12:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool, I think that's much needed. I'll be glad to lend a hand :) Dr Benway (talk) 10:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Added some info on this on the BACKGROUND section. Still a lot of w0rk to be done on this though. The issue wasn't as simple as "oooh, the priests stand with the fascists, let's shoot them all" either. Cheers! ;) Dr Benway (talk) 08:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC).

I think the only views needed from Marxists and Anarchists are their declarations of Terror against religious people. The Left reliably indicts itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.194.63.129 (talk) 10:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC) If anybody wants to examine what the Communist view of the war is, it might be worth examining Arthur Landis' book 'Spain: the unfinished revolution', International Publishers, 1972. Stevenjp (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:House of the people.jpg

The image Image:House of the people.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:SpanishLeftistsShootStatueOfChrist.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --16:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Just one example of unsubstantiated arguments

Under Conclusion and aftermath we find the following "Franco's victory was followed by thousands of summary executions (from 15,000 to 25,000 people [55])"

The note 55. tells us the following "# ^ Recent searches conducted with parallel excavations of mass graves in Spain (in particular by the Association for the Recovery of Historical Memory, ARMH) estimate that the total of people executed after the war may arrive at a number between 15,000 to 35,000. See for example Fosas Comunes - Los desaparecidos de Franco. La Guerra Civil no ha terminado, El Mundo, 7 July 2002 (Spanish)"

Those two statements are incorrect. The example provided talks just of people still in mass graves and gives the number as 35,000. Jorge P (talk) 13:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

"atrocities in spanish civil war"

It's indefensible that atrocities in the spanish civil war redirected to this page alone. Is the murder of trade unionists and journalists any better than the murder of priests and nuns? BillMasen (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Problem with provenance of image

I've commented out the photo which appeared in the lede section which purported to show Reblican militiamen shooting at a statue of Christ because its source, subject and purpose are unknown. Fopr more information, please see this discussion on the talk page of the editor who uploaded the image. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 23:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

American press

I read in some sites, about the support from American press, to this massive persecution of catholics.Some sites writes that only after protests from catholics, this support became over.Agre22 (talk) 12:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)agre22

Change of title, please

I have seen that this point has already been raised above, but I still do not understand why there is an article titled 'red terror (Spain)' in/on wikipedia. As far as I can see the arguments raised by like-minded fellows above have not been logically or intelligently refuted. For example, I saw several pointless and anachronistic 'Ad Hitlerum' associations of the red terror with the holocaust. The obvious point I would like to raise, and I haven't checked to see if it has been raised before, is that by titling an article with a contentious and POV term (one which is more likely to be used by amateurs on the right than by right/left academics... or even for that matter the vast majority of people as the google hits show) you are already giving an undue amount of weight to a point of view. This is even more the case for an article relating to the republicans in the civil war. By ascribing the political adjective 'red' to the republican side and its atrocities the article has already surrendered itself to a commonplace Francoist propaganda stance and fallacy... namely that the republic was guided chiefly by communists (and through the connotation of the Russian 'red terror'... the Soviet Union). There are in fact several pieces of evidence that show the republic worked hard in the later stages of the civil war to reverse the effects of persecution (this was under the socialist government of Juan Negrin, remember), which unlike the Russian red terror was largely unsystematic and directed mainly at the clergy. Whilst the term might carry some legitimacy (although I myself regard it as little more than an epithet), the fact remains that this legitimacy is highly contentiosu and by titling an article with the term wikipedia is taking sides. In addition, whilst I wholeheartedly agree that it is not wikipedia's palce to justify atrocities... they still must give background information and explain the cause for them otherwise this leads to systematic bias. Without explanations a reader might be led to assume that communist 'bad guys' randomly came out of the woods and killed 7 thousand priests for no reason... which we all know was not the case.

My suggestion is to either rename the article 'republican artocities during the Spanish civil war' (although even this feels a little wrong, considering that there was often little centralised control exerted by the republic) and keep the 'red terro' as a sub-heading, or simply to put all the atrocities commited in the war together in oen article. My feeling from reading above comments is that a few possible apologists do not wish this to happen because the republican side would look comparatively better... tough... in the interests of historical coherence and continuity, and in offering an exact explanatory narrative, this is probably the best solution.86.139.131.125 (talk) 13:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

+... who the hell is Julius Ruiz? Can he be used as a legitimate source?86.139.131.125 (talk) 13:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

With regard to Ruiz, he is the author of a work in the Journal of Contemporary History, you can see it listed at the bottom of the article in the References section - it would appear to be an academic journal and a reliable source. Regarding the name change, it was proposed before and did not have much support. You'll see there is also an article on the White Terror in Spain, i.e. atrocities commited by the Nationalists. I, for one would be opposed to the change for a number of reasons. One is that the Red Terror was not just during the war but began before the war, so the new name not be fitting. Also, this is the name which is generally used to describe these events. Mamalujo (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

"Background" section is very bad

The "Background" section as it stands right now is heavily biased, being essentially a justification of the repression. It doesn´t discuss previous incidents of anti-Catholic activities (for instance the events during the "Tragic Week in 1917, the assassination of Cardinal Soldevilla in 1923 or the burning of churches and monasteries during the Second Republic). It does not mention the explicitely antireligious stance of many of the Republic´s supporters (communists and anarchists, for instance). Essentially it claims that the "red terror" was a consequence of the support that the Catolic Church gave to Franco's uprising, while it could be argued that it was the other way around: that the Curch supported Franco because it felt that the Republic was trying to destroy it.213.4.112.58 (talk) 13:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I think some of the criticisms of the section are well founded. If you'd like, please make suitable edits. Mamalujo (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Nationalist Side section unintentional POV

There seems to be an unintentional bias in the second paragraph of the Nationalist Side section, due to lack of clarity as to what is quotation from the Episcopal letter and what is being stated as encyclopedic fact. I imagine it is quotation, in which case simple quotation marks would resolve the issue, or a paraphrase, in which case this should be more clearly denoted. I have removed the last sentence of the paragraph as this was clearly not a a reference to content but, as it stood, a POV judgement upon the letter; happy to see it go back if the view is attributed (as opposed to just referencing it, whether the author's own view or otherwise). Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Background section again

The whole background is heavily biased. Just take a look at the affirmations around the "Dilectissima Nobis" encyclical (which, by the way, is cited as "On Oppression Of The Church Of Spain" when the spanish version reads as "Sobre la injusta situación creada a la Iglesia Católica en España", a totally different subtitle with a milder meaning)text according to the Vatican. Not a single time are Masons or any other group mentioned on it, in spite of the affirmations on the article. --Richy (talk) 12:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're complaining about. It is a well established historical fact that the second Spanish Republic was an anticlerical government. You complain about the english title of the encyclical, but "ON OPPRESSION OF THE CHURCH OF SPAIN" is the title which the Vatican itself, which you link to, gives it. As to the reference to Masonic influences, I don't think the paragraph gave the impression that the encyclical made this claim. Nonetheless, I edited to make clear the historian who made the claim so there was no confusion. Mamalujo (talk) 00:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)