Talk:Spanish Civil War

Proposed merge-in of the article Red terror (Spain)

Red terror (Spain) strikes me as an attempt to take a particular aspect of the Spanish Civil War and ring-fence it so that a particular point of view (the pro-clerical one, as it happens) can be expressed with a vigour which might be blinkered, and without regard to other points of view. This strikes me as un-Wikipedian. It would be better for the topics covered to be covered here, in a manner that would be likely to be more broadly discussed and more measured in outcome. Any thoughts? —Ian Spackman 19:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The articles should remain separated. The subject is not a POV fork but a separate, although somewhat related, topic. Like Red Terror (Soviet), Red Terror (Ethiopia), Great Purge, Reign of Terror, Thermidorian Reaction and White Terror, the article recounts a distinct subject, even if it may have been part of a larger war. Each of those articles like this one, involve a purge, persecution, revolt or the like within a larger circumstance, but they are sufficiently distinct to warrant a separate article. It could likewise be argued (with equally poor reasoning) that Red Terror should be merged into the Russian Revolution or that Reign of Terror and Thermidorian Reaction be merged into French Revolution. But these, like the Red Terror in Spain are distict events that merit separate articles. Merging them into the larger article only makes the larger article too voluminous and cumbersome. Like those other articles, this is not a POV fork but an article about a distinct and recognized historical event.

While there are lots of good reasons not to merge, some of which are listed above, the typical reasons given to merge a page do not exist here. 1) The article is not a duplicate. 2)Overlap is not a good reason because there is not a "large overlap" as required - rather this is an article about the war itself but about persecution, killing, and purging of Nationalists and Catholics (specifically clergy). 3) The amount of text is not a good reason as it is only apt when an article is "very short and is unlikely to be expanded" - this article is substantial already and likely to be expanded, whereas the Civil War article, as noted at the top of this page in the to-do list, is already too long. 4) Context, i.e. where background from a broader article is needed in order for readers to understand it, is not a good reason either as the substantial "background" has already been added and the article was edited by one user, adding details of the nationalist killings (white terror), with the specific intention of removing POV. Mamalujo 23:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

(Duplicated comment; see Merger with.. section for further discussion. Xyl 54 11:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC))

I concur, also there is the risk of POV pushers who would like to see atrocities relegated to footnotes where they merit articles of their own.

It should be noted that the article White Terror - Spain was created today, substantially blunting the POV claims about the Red Terror article.Mamalujo 22:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It's now two months since this article was nominated for merger and there clearly is no consensus. It's about time someone closes the discussion. Mamalujo 00:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the merger. Both the Red and White Terrors deserve their own articles. Algabal 22:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge-in of the article Martyrs of the Spanish Civil War

Apparently a POV fork along the lines of Red terror (Spain). A thoroughly bad idea methinks. —Ian Spackman 19:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The articles should remain separated. The subject is not a POV fork but a separate, although somewhat related, topic. Like Korean Martyrs, Saints of the Cristero War, Vietnamese Martyrs, Martyrs of Uganda, Martyrs of Thailand and Martyrs of Japan, the article recounts Christians (in this case Catholic - but some articles like Martyrs of Korea also includes Protestants killed) who were killed for their faith. They are all separate articles about martyrs killed in war or persecution. Like those other articles, this is not a POV fork but a saints related article. As noted in the article, hundreds of those killed have already been, or are about to be, canonized. Presumably, the article will be expanded to include more information specifically relating to sainthood and canonization (miracles attributed, et cetera) - not really material which would fit within the Spanish Civil War article. Q.E.D.: it is a separate subject which requires a separate article.

While there are lots of good reasons not to merge, some of which are listed above, the typical reasons given to merge a page do not exist here. 1) The article is not a duplicate. 2)Overlap is not a good reason because there is not a "large overlap" as required - rather this is an article about persecution, martyrdom and the canonization process of those Christians killed during the Civil War period. 3) The amount of text is not a good reason as it is only apt when an article is "very short and is unlikely to be expanded" - this article is substantial already and likely to be expanded, whereas the Civil War article, as noted at the top of this page in the to-do list, is already too long. 4) Context, i.e. where background from a broader article is needed in order for readers to understand it, is not a good reason either as the Martyrs article already has a section called "background" serving this very purpose. Mamalujo 22:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Good proposal. Mamalujo repeteadly cancelled a note of mine, based on Beevor's work, as partisan and factious, but he's by far the extremist no.1 here around.(This unsigned post was added by Basil II on 13th July 2007)(moved here by Xyl 54 11:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC))

(Duplicated comment: see Merger with.. section for further discussion. Xyl 54 11:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC))

While I can understand the idea to merge, I agree that it would probably be less than productive. In this case, the Martyrs of the Spanish Civil War is, as has already been stated, more an article about those individuals who have been honored on the basis of their martyrdom during the war, rather than about the war itself. I can understand that the content might be hard to completely prevent from being somewhat POV on the war in this particular article. However, I do think that, potentially, the list of individual peoples so honored which should in time be listed here, as opposed to probably having separate articles about each one, will more than justify keeping this as a separate article. Also, given the chance of POV in the article, I think it would be a lot better to have that POV expressed in a separate less-often-accessed article rather than in the more central Spanish Civil War article. John Carter 13:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The Martyrs... article is a clear pov fork. The naming is highly pov, as it indicates that wiki would sanction the assertion of the Franquist propaganda on 'martyrhood'. The people killed by the fascists were also overwhelmingly Catholics, perhaps the material would better fit in a discussion on how the conflict was presented in political discourse during the Franco era. --Soman 10:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

the above is palpable nonsense, the Martyrs have been declared as such, and recognised as beati and saints by the Holy See. Unless Soman is willing to argue that B16 is a flukey for Franquism he/she should keep his/her notions to him/herself. --Isolani 16:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I find that the Martyrs article should not be merged with the Civil War article, mainly because it's atrociously biased. In fact, I don't think it should be an article at all. As Ian Spackman says, it looks awfully like a POV fork Dr Benway 13:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Now see discussion at AFD. Fayenatic (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It's now two months since this article was nominated for merger and there clearly is no consensus. It's about time someone closes the discussion. Mamalujo 00:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Merging with articles? discussion

Articles proposed to be merged with this one are unneutral, since they only talk about violence in one side, separating it from its context, screwing it up, by doing generalized accussations and by criminalizing, and by shutting up about status quo and initial situations, charesty, oligarchy, control and exploitation maintained from elites, by Estate, over humble masses, who started to become rebellious against that; missing up the whole context results in a biased, uncomplete view, very unjust with historical context and facts, and will not let us understand the whole nature of it, the reason of such "violent", subversive reactions, nor the subsequent revolutionary process that led to Spanish Revolution's attempt in 1934, and Spanish anarcho-syndicalist Revolution's success (during at least one year) in Republican side, once inited the war. Anti-clericalism, factories, bussiness and lands occupations, revolts and strikes, often repressed with hardness by Estate's forces, must be regarded into this context, then everything will make much more sense, and be more fair and equitable with facts.

Most of those articles referes to the same source or same author (it should be checke if they served a propagandistic or ideologized purpose, and similar strategies). Discussion's part from those articles are even empty, since they were just written by one single individuous. This article is much more complete and serious, and should not be mixed with limited and ideologized ones. That's my modest petition about proposal to merge with them. They (these articles proposed to be merged) should first be checked, analised and fairly and seriously neutralised (a change in title and a remaking would be most convenient), in order to be such proposal considered. DeepQuasar 21:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

As the proposer of the merge I agree with much of what you say here, except what is to be done. It seems to me that merging what are arguably POV forks is the best way of ensuring that the topics receive proper attention rather than being presented essentially from a single ideological viewpoint. —Ian Spackman 21:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you state it will be reviewed and rewritten, as a part of the article? If that's actually done, there would be no problem, of course, so I would also agree, always there exist a deep and contextualized debate. Always it's not biased and accords to demonstrable facts, explained in their context, as a whole. DeepQuasar 22:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I can’t guarantee what would happen and, to be quite straightforward, I would not expect myself to be involved as an editor: I simply know too little. (Besides I’d have to watch myself for pro-POUM bias.) But certainly I would hope and expect that the contents of the articles would be subjected to the usual Wikipedian processes of review and argument from alternative viewpoints. One way or another that seems very necessary: at the moment they exist in ghettos. —Ian Spackman 23:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

(Your pardon: I’ve moved stuff about a bit to follow the discussion better;)

For my two-pennyworth I would be against merger, though the reason for it, that the articles would otherwise be ring-fenced, or exist in a ghetto, has given me pause for thought.

My objection is that SCW is too big already, and this stuff wouldn’t enhance it. Besides, as it is contentious and may well start an edit war, maybe the best place is on a separate page.

If those articles need changing I think it should be done there; and having raised the issue and brought it into the open, there is every chance of that happening.

The “Martyrs..” talk page has nothing on it at the moment;

The “Red Terror” talk page has some discussion, including a long piece about White Terror

I think there is plenty that could be said on both subjects, both in the particular and in the general; there is a also need for a page on the Nationalist terror campaign, with links to all from the “Atrocities” section of SCW.

I think that would be a better way forward.Xyl 54 12:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I am opposed to merging Red Terror (Spain) with this page because the Civil War started after many atrocities etc., at the hands of the broad Left in Spain had already taken place and had been well reported in, say, London quality newspapers. David Lauder 18:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The Martyrs page should be merged; the Red Terror page should not because it involves events that did not occur during the Civil War and wouldn't fit well on this page.--Gloriamarie 19:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The Martyrs page was discussed at AFD with the decision keep. I have renamed it as Roman Catholic martyrs of the Spanish Civil War. - Fayenatic (talk) 12:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Atrocities during the war

This section appears biased in regard to the atrocities committed by the Nationalists. The source supporting the claims is titled "Memoria republicana", which is by no means neutral. Wikipedea is far more balanced on its actual page on the bombing of Geurnica, though similar bias with the same source surfaces on the Battle of Badajoz. There are additional sources listed that appear equally biased.

If inflammatory language is going to be used, suggesting "in the case of the Nationalist side these atrocities were ordered by fascist authorities in order to eradicate any trace of leftism in Spain," I believe passive should be used to indicate that some see it this way. This phrase sounds Hitleresque, and Franco was no Hitler. The killings surely also occurred to keep anarchists from killing more priests(and others of course) and not just to stop freedom of expression. As for eliminating the left, there were liberal monarchists and catholics on the side of the Nationalists as well. There is also always a section of the left that disdains marxism and anarchism enough to side with the right. Also, plenty of members of the left survived Franco. He evidently did a very poor job removing "any trace" of them. He committed atrocities to stop atrocities, remove resistance and win a war. This does not make it right, but simply different than described here. Within the 1938-39 section, one finds the closest thing to what is described here, but it is completely undocumented. Even these horrendous number would not prove this statement.

Furthermore, the Republican government is culpable in the atrocities committed by its supporters, and members of its governing coalition, which occurred even before the outbreak of hostilities. To say they were disorganized is no excuse. If a government or military does not act to restrain its members from atrocities, it is passively supporting them.

I understand the passion here, but please cite a more balanced source, list the atrocities in a more balanced manor (they are simply reported for the Republicans), or use passive to indicate the very reasonable assumption that some find more fault with the more unified command structure of the Nationalists.

---

After looking at the article some more, I noticed quite a lot of the pro radical Republic passages are completely undocumented. When I read that there was a huge success in land redistribution by anarchists in the middle of a war, my eyebrows go up. A good deal of this wiki entry is undocumented and the some of the documentation that exists seems third rate.

I find that the atrocities section seems more biased for the Nationalists than for the Republicans, and especially biased against Anarchists. The article has an entire paragraph devoted to Republican killings of Catholic clergy and religious but does not mention Nationalist killings of priests or Protestant clergy. It also implies that Guernica was bombed to "eradicate leftism" when it was actually bombed to terrorize civilians. Furthermore, the article mentions that on the Republican side, anarchists were especially responsible for atrocities, yet the article cited to support his claim makes little mention of Anarchists. This article even states that, when made "Special delegate of prisons," an Anarchist stopped the systematic killing of prisoners in Republican prisons.Ledhead1788 00:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is badly worded. However, "Franco was no Hitler" mainly in the rather trivial sense that he didn't have a toothbrush moustache. We already know that the Nationalists murdered "reds" whenever they conquered a town.

And this isn't even a right vs. left issue. Franco was not interested in tolerating rivals of the right or left. As soon as he was able, he would up the Carlists, Falangists and CEDA (all right wing), and merged them all into a completely meaningless new party controlled by him. BillMasen 00:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to put a bit of scholary input, those who can read spanish -or use reasonable translators-, pls. have a look at this article [1] by late Prof. Javier Tussell about Terror during the the war, and this other one [2], at the same site, by Prof. Stanley G. Payne on the repression after the war.

Prof. Tussell's article (just discovered today) is IMHO one of the best reflections i've ever read about, (even when i would object to some details ...)--Wllacer 14:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Bordered Spanish flag

How would I go about making a bordered version of the flag of Republican Spain? Soviet Canuckistan 04:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The European Library

I have added a link: *64 "spanish civil war" objects have been found in The European Library Harvest

hope you too think this is a good choice. greetings

PS - sorry...earlier I made a mistake in the syntax - fixed now...

André Marty

Someone should add a link to André Marty in the People of the Spanish Civil War table. He played a prominent rôle in the civil war, so his name should be included. If you know how to edit the table, please do so, and perhaps tell me how you did it. Thanks. Roger J. Ebert 19:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Welsh involvment

I was just have a little gander at this article and was shocked at the lack of information on the welsh involvment in this war. The welsh people are incredibly proud of their invovlment in the coflict and I hope someone could at something relating to them in this or the foreign involvement article (tower junkie doesn't know his password) 86.148.134.58 21:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Major archiving

Not only was this page 100+ KB long, but the two existing archive pages were also well over the (30 KB?) suggested size limit. Also, several entries were out of order, both on the archived talk pages and in this main talk page. I've gone and organized the comments and archived them by date. Please note that although I tried to find "natural" breaking points where the "conversation" seems to have lulled, these sorts of pauses weren't always readily available as archive pages grew to eclipse the space limit. Consequently, some of the replies from a certain month may be on a previous archive page; the date ranges refer to the starts of threads, not to all comments contained therein. _{``` W</sub> i k i <sub>W</sub> i s t a h <sub>```} 05:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Mexico as combatant?

Another can of worms reopened -- now comes an editor elevating Mexico to the list of combatants. Anyone have a source for this? _{``` W</sub> i k i <sub>W</sub> i s t a h <sub>```} 05:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Beside potential elements in the Brigadas Internacionales or the Legión there is no trace of mexican units, that i'm aware of. Another matter would be as arms suppliers (middlemen) for the republican side, what is widely documented, but I don't think it merits inclusion as combatant--Wllacer 08:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I brought this up. It seems the consensus here is to include only state combatants (governments that sent armies/air forces/navies), not to include nations that were "friendly" to one side, supplied one side, or sent non-state-sanctioned legions. I would have made the edit myself, but I didn't feel qualified enough as a scholar of the war to positively state that Mexico was not a state combatant. _{``` W</sub> i k i <sub>W</sub> i s t a h <sub>```} 02:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Mexico's support should be noted, but I wouldn't call them a combatant just because they sent aid. Murderbike 03:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Portugal?

Maybe Portugal should be added to infobox on Nationalist side? According to Foreign involvement in the Spanish Civil War Salazar was friendly to Franco and sent 20,000 troops to fight on nationalist side in Viriato Legion.--Staberinde 16:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

That question has come up at least once (must be somewhere in the talk archives). The problem then was that portuguese direct involvement seems to be a very elusive topic in the bibliography and none of us where able to locate a useful reference to the Viriatos. They seem to have existed (f.i. their uniform is depicted in J.M. Bueno work on "Uniformes de la Guerra Civil Española" (Madrid,1971)) but that is as far as we got. --Wllacer 12:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed there seems to be large lack of information. But I managed to find this: [3] Portugal, led by General Salazar, sent 12,000troops. Now here in article Foreign involvement in the Spanish Civil War#Foreign volunteers is given claim Antonio Salazar organised a Portuguese volunteer formation known as the Legião Viriato, numbering 20,000 men of which 8,000 were killed during the course of the conflict [3]. it has citation to "Hugh Thomas, The Spanish Civil War, 2001 (4th Ed) p.794". I don't know which of these is true but it seems quite obvious that Portugal contribution on nationalist side is enough notable for adding it to infobox.--Staberinde 20:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a couple of references more. In Jose Maria Gironella's historical novel Un millon de Muertos, they are referenced as being part of the nationalist forces which took Malaga (pg. 334 of the american translation by Doubleday, 1963). In "Paul H Davies; Latin Fascist Elites: The Mussolini,Franco and Salazar regimes; Praeger (2002), pg.147"; the Viriatos is put in its portugues organizative context; but uses Thomas as source for numbers. Most interesting in pg 157 where sketching the biography of one Lt.Col Arnaldo Schultz -interior minister in 1958- his membership at the Legiao's air wing is referenced.

My biggest concern is the source of Lord Thomas's numbers, which seem hardly credible. The casualty ratio (40%) is wide too high; and the absolute numbers would make their participation bulkier than the Legion Condor

I found a reference to a book (Rosas, F. (ed.), Portugal e a Guerra Civil de Espanha. Lisbon: Edições Colibri, 1998) which if could be traced probably could clarify a number of points.--Wllacer 09:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Republican commanders

Does anyone else think that the republican commanders should include more military staff and exclude some politicians? Don severo 17:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The appearance of civilians on the republican side would be justified if they were on top of the regular chain of command (at least on paper), but I feel the list isn't quite right, even for the nationalist side: f.i. neither Sanjurjo, not Jose Antonio had any influence in war command; for obvious reasons.

The main aspect would be first to agree who qualifies for this listbox. I would propose following individual types:

• Chief of State (CS)
• Prime minister or equivalent (PM)
• War/marine minister or equivalent (WM)
• Top military commanders (today's equivalent to Chiefs of Staff) or independent regional commanders. (MC)

Such a proposal would run more or less (there are blanks on the list, as it is done from memory):

• On the republican side

• Manuel Azaña (CS)
• José Giral (PM & WM)
• Francisco Largo Caballero (PM & WM)
• Juan Negrín (PM & WM)
• Gen. Castelló (WM)
• Gen Hernandez Saraiva (WM)
• Adm. Mata (WM)
• Indalecio Prieto (WM)
• Gen. Miaja (MC Centre)
• Gen. Rojo (MC Chief of Staff)
• Gen. Hidalgo de Cisneros (MC) (Air Force)
• whoever was in charge of the republican Navy

• On the nationalist side

• Gen. Cabanellas (CS)
• Gen. Franco (CS)
• Gen. Dávila (PM & WM)
• Gen. Gil Yuste (WM)
• Gen. Queipo de Llano (MC South)
• Gen. Mola (MC North)
• Gen. Kindelan (MC Air Force)
• Adm. Moreno (MC Navy)

As an exception, an extraordinarily successful military commander could make on the list, but i can find none

--Wllacer 08:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The list is now almost complete on the political side. Probably several regional commanders are lacking (esp. on the republican side) and some of the persons didn't had a serious influence (f.i. Giral and his ministers, Cabanellas) or are rather obscure (Gen. Gil, f.i.). Feel free to comment on it Wllacer 10:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

These reforms, along with anticlericalist acts and the expulsion of Muslims

What do you mean by that;That Republicans expelled Muslims;I think doesn't make sense.Eagle of Pontus 12:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Strange, yeah. It was added by a user who made only this one edit, back in April [4], and then remained untouched and undiscussed for half a year. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

USA 'economic' involvment

There was a significant economic intervention in favor for the 'Nationalists', especially in the supply of the petrol (oil), mainly from the USA. With the introduction of the embargo on the export of the arms to the both sides (Republic and the 'Nationalists'), USA stroke a hard blow on the legal Spanish government, and even more when the exports of the petrol, to the 'Nationalists', kept growing. (Main exporter, a company Texaco Standard Oil, during the war, delivered nearly two million ton of the petroleum/oil and gasoline/petrol). Deliveries were conducted on credit base... ...In the same time USA government denied attempt of the Mexico to acquire war materials from the USA, which would be then shipped to the Republican side. Meanwhile, Germany and Italy bought trucks and other vehicles in USA, and then 'gave to Franco'.

This is small (and personally reduced and degraded during translation) segment from the Yugoslavian Military Encyclopedia (13 tomes, 1981 edition, this tome is an 1975 edition, Tome 9, pg. 527-537), from the article "Spanish National-liberation War" which, just for this article, gives exactly 43 sources. I just have no nerves to write down all of them. But here are fews in which I think, this information will be found:

-Duval, Les lecons de la guerre d'Espagne, Paris, 1938;
-V. Rojo, Alerta los pueblos, Buenos Aires, 1939;
-M. Azmar, Historia militar de la guerra de Espana (1936-39), Madrid, 1939;
-P.A.M. van Esch, Prelude to War, The International Repercussions of the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939), Dan Haag, 1951;
-Les archives secretes de la Wilhelmstrasse;
-P.Broue, E. Temime, La revolucion y la guerra de Espana, I-II, Mexico-Buenos Aires,1951

• • Removed half-sentence referring to specific US involvement in International Brigades; this was superfluous (US volunteers are included under the generic banner of 'International Brigade'), and only serves to make the article (and the English-language Wikipedia by association) appear USA-centric - which it need not do.** —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.140.150 (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.46.171.113 (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Nationalists vs. Nationals

After several edits changing the term "Nationalists" to "nationals", because of very subtle definitional differences, I figured I'd bring the discussion up here. In my mind, the term should be "nationalists" as that's how most english literature refers to the rebels. But User:Mountolive believes they should be called "nationals". Any thoughts? Murderbike (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi all, this is copy-pasted material from my answers to Murderbike in his talk page. Please note that my preferred terms is actually the original nacionales over "nationals".

there is a Spanish term for "nationalist" which is "nacionalista". The rebels called themselves "nacionales" (nationals) not "nacionalistas" and they did so, among other things, to distinguish themselves from proper nationalists such as Catalan or Basque. Actually I am not very much for using the English term "National" but keeping the original "Nacionales" which has a rather impossible translation in English (but, for sure, that is not "nationalist").

As I said, actually I would support better keeping the original nacional(es) above any other wording, let it be "nationals" or, especially, "nationalistic" because, once again, they did not label themselves "nacionalistas" because they wanted to be distinguished from proper nationalists calling themselves so, like Basque of Catalans, whom they despised.

(...) Basque and Catalans nationalist parties are called so in the text and that is one more reason why the ill-translation nacional=nationalist must be broken, because by means of that we are labelling with the same term both Spanish centralists and Basque or Catalan separatists

On the other side, if, as Murderbike points out, the bibliography in English does choose "nationalists", while still thinking it's a serious translation mistake –a false friend in the best case or an interpretative translation in the worst– I am not the right one to change it, nor wikipedia is the place of so doing.

Maybe a couple lines should be dropped in the Nacionales section making this clear and, then, both terms "nationalists" and nacionales should be used interchangeably along the text, even though I'd still clearly go for preferring nacionales per the above concerns and because it is actually the original term, which deserves respect especially here when the translation proposed seems flawed. Mountolive _{our unsleepable friend gets the message on an ill wind} 21:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Mountolive, I think you've summed it up pretty well. [Moving my comments from Murderbike's talk page as well,] the verbal distinction is definitely there in Spanish, but pretty much all of the literature in English calls them "Nationalists". Yes, obviously, centralizing Spanish nationalists were and are in conflict—at that time violent conflict—with Basque and Catalan nationalists, but in English we use the same word for both meanings. And unfortunately, all other terms I've seen used are also problematic. The Royalists weren't Falangists (and vice versa); many on that side did not consider themselves fascists; and to call them Francoists is quite anachronistic when talking about the early years of the conflict (by 1939, it's probably a fair enough term). The usual practice in English is to say Nationalists for that side, and to always say specifically Basque nationalists, Catalan nationalists, etc. for the others. Yes, it can be confusing, but it's embedded now in 70 years of existing literature in English.

Similarly, English-speakers rarely make a distinction comparable to the nación / nacionalidad distinction that has been recently important with reference to Catalunya. We have "nation" and "nationality", but they just don't have the same difference in connotation.

An aside (of no consequence for our article, I suppose): I'd be fascinated to know how other European languages handle this. - Jmabel | Talk 01:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, so I'm surprised we haven't gotten more comments here, but it really seems like all the instances of "nationals" should be changed back to "nationalists", and I really think that any going back and forth between names would just confuse readers that don't have a good grasp on who was involved in the conflict. Murderbike (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd support you replacing "nationals" by "nacionales". Per my comments here, which include a confusion concern as well, dont think changing them to "nationalists" is any good, though. Mountolive _{our unsleepable friend gets the message on an ill wind} 19:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but I can bet that almost NO english speaker would understand the term "nationals". The accepted term in English is "nationalists", whether or not Franco and his supporters would have enjoyed the tag. I'm in the middle of Beevor's Battle for Spain right now (it won the La Vanguardia Prize), and he consistently uses the term "nationalists" as does Thomas, who wrote one of the other most respected books on the war. I'm sorry, but sometimes poor translations make it into common speech, and we have to stick with that. Though, I wouldn't be opposed to an explanatory note towards the beginning, laying out the translation issue. Murderbike (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Mhhh. Apparently you keep suggesting that I am for the use of "nationals", something which I have repeteadly said I am not. But that is not the case, anyway.

Since you understand my concern and I do understand yours and the nacionales/nationalist question is already mentioned in the lead, I suggested back in the day that both words "nacionales" and "nationalist" were used interchangeably, roughly 50/50. Being one the original term (always to be quoted in quotation marks to show is an alien term for English speakers) and the other is the received (yet I reckon, bad) English translation, I think it's fair enough for the both of us and we can spare us the pain of further discussion.

Is that ok with you? Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 20:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think going back and forth would just further confuse readers. Consistency in terminology is very important. Murderbike (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sure readers here have an IQ high enough to identify "nationalists" with "nacionales" and the other way. Readers here and elsewhere are not puzzled to see one thing quoted in its original language, nonetheless when this question has been made clear in the lead and, on the other side, both terms are nearly homophone.

Please note that my first option here is not using "nationalists" at all, so my compromise offer is there just because of that, for the sake of compromise. I do understand your concern on English bibliography, and that is why I changed my initial position. You say you understand my concern as well, so let's get closer by means of this solution.

Actually, if you want, same thing could be done (not 50/50) with "Republicans" and "republicanos", to shake a bit the monotony of the term in a long article like this one. Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 19:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I still have to disagree, you just haven't convinced me that there is any reason to use the spanish term in the ENGLISH wikipedia. WHY should we go back and forth? WHY should we do things any different than respected historians? Murderbike (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've been trying "to convince you" indeed and it was only a few days ago that you said that you understood my concern, which sounds nice and I appreciate. But let's just not lose sight that no one is owning this article (you either) and that I shall not feel obliged to how you see it. I'd like to hear other people, too. Because, reversely, you haven't convinced me of the reasons why we shouldnt use "nacionales" also but "nationalists" only (in spite of the translation issue I mention above which you seem to understand). On the face of it, your reasoning has gone from understanding but mild rejection to staunch rejection, and I can't see why this question should provoke the latter. Hopefully you'll be in a sunnier and more cooperative disposition later on and you allow my contribution in this regard.

Is it a crime to use the original too? I am not asking to do things any different from respected historians, just adding some other usage, which, being in the original language (and I'm sure it's been used in English texts, too) shouldn't be suspected of any hazardous quality whatsoever to the article.

BTW, let's just spare us the CAPITAL letters, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountolive (talk • contribs) 23:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Murderbike: I think alternating between the two terms is confusing. "Nationalist" is the standard label in English for the Spanish nacionales and wikipedia should follow this standard. I haven't seen any really confusing sentences in the article (or in any book or magazine article), like "The Nationalists were opposed by the nationalists" (i.e. Basque or Catalan nationalists allied with the Republic). It's generally clear from the context (and the capitalization) what kind of nationalist is being referred to. In cases where there is some ambiguity, the label "regionalist" can be substituted for "nationalist". However, the other problem Mountolive raises is that the term "Nationalist", while standard, is kind of misleading. The Nationalists weren't nationalists in the usual sense, they were more like strict centralists. So at the moment I'd support including a mention of the distinction between nacionales/nacionalistas, but I think using the terms interchangeably throughout the article would be very confusing. -Father Inire (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for piping in Father Inire. And Mountolive, I don't mean to make it a personal issue. I do think it's possible to understand your concerns, while disagreeing with what you want to do about it. And the capital letters are only meant for emphasis, to make the typed words mean the same thing as if I were speaking those words, not to be offensive. Sorry you took it that way. Murderbike (talk) 22:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually no worries, because I didnt take it in any way, I only said "let's just spare us the CAPITAL letters" only because I think that once I read somewhere in wiki guidelines that it is considered as shouting.

I'm waiting for more people to give us a SHOUT over here about this. I still don't think that using interchangeably these words is "confusing" whatsoever, given the fact that the matter is mentioned already in the lead (not to mention that they are almost homophone). Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 12:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

MI6

The main article tells MI6 brought Franco to Africa. This suggests a longer British interest in the Spanish situation. Can somebody give some more detail why this took place?