Talk:Spanish Civil War

NPOV tag

The NPOV tag was applied with this edit and an edit summary of "this section is tendentious -dogmatic Catholic opinion was decided for the Right before the scw- and one of the cites , an undergraduate essay?? and the other, payne, is right wing as anything is v". It may be related to the section two above as it is from the same editor. Could one if the regular editors address this issue, as we can't have a Good article with a NPOV tag on it. AIRcorn (talk) 01:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I worked hard to ensure this article was neutral at the time of its GA nomination and have kept an eye on everything since. Of course there are people who disagree, but each and every dispute has been resolved. Payne is a standard academic in the field, a Professor at a major US university, and has published articles in many leading journals. That doesn't make him immune but I would like to see such a claim substantiated.

I think on reflection "dogmatic Catholic opinion was decided for the Right before the scw" is what the tagger thought the truth was, and there is certainly some truth in that. I shall amend the article to make this clearer.Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. AIRcorn (talk) 12:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I think I've achieved that.Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of National Council of the Movement for merge into this article

I have nominated National Council of the Movement for merging into this article, as it does not appear to necessarily warrant article space of its own. besieged^talk 17:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The council doesn't feature in the war, so I don't think merging it here makes sense. More approriate would be Cortes Españolas or something - a successor body that can note its predecessor. Somewhere in the one of the articles about the Nationalists might make sense, as an alternative. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

SOMEONE FIX IT!

It says that the Spanish Civil War was fought between "the Mitt Romney and Barak Obama" Someone fix it to what it supposed to be.71.102.67.43 (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Pictures of evacuated children

I've removed the picture of the War Resisters' International children's refuge from this article in favor of an enlarged picture of evacuated children giving the Republican salute. Basically, I felt that the short paragraph about the evacuation does not leave space for more than once picture, and I felt that the other picture is better quality and easier for 21st-century readers to relate to. Besides, it sounds like most children were dispersed among residential homes rather than living in larger refuges. The WRI photo continues to be displayed in main article on Evacuation of children in the Spanish Civil War. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Anti Russian Sentiment

The Soviet premier created a section X of the Soviet Union military to head the weapons shipment operation, coined Operation X. Despite Stalin's interest in aiding the Republicans, however, most of the weapons and artillery sent to Spain were relics, some captured from past conflicts.

What exactly was a "relic"? was I-16 a relic? was T-26 a relic? On what source did the "historian" based this statement? Did he went to moscow, got access to archives, and gathered the statistics about what exactly was sent to Spain and in what numbers? Did he? No? Strange... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.52.101.196 (talk) 02:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

What concrete evidence do you have that Beevor didn't use proper historical research? He is a well respected historian. Do you have conflicting references of this situation which say otherwise? If so, provide them. Claiming bias in the whole article if it is just that paragraph fragment at issue isn't appropriate. If instead, you are suggesting every Beevor reference is western POV, you are going to have to provide a LOT of supporting information to back this up. (Hohum ^@) 21:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

the banner says "The neutrality of this article" So I am still convinced it meant to be used for the whole article. 84.52.101.196 (talk) 22:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Beevor accessed Moscow records, many of them recently released. I understand he speaks Russian, and had access to some new material which came to light some time after the break up of the Soviet Union. He lists some manifests (as does Thomas - the same records are one of the main differences between Thomas editions) on particular ships. You can check if you like, it's one of the appendices to Thomas; it's integrated in Beevor's case, as I recall. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd love to check it. Is it online somewhere? The Spanish wikipedia says only about I-16, I-15 fighters, SB bombers, t-26 and bt tanks. Non of those were relics.

Actually the whole part of the soviet involvement has a strong negative flavour in it. Something which is not in the Spanish or the Russian language version. 84.52.101.196 (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I stand by the factual claims - I'm having a look online, I just wish I still had Thomas - but I agree the section's tone isn't quite right and if it weren't Christmas I'd get on and edit it myself. It's just slightly loosely worded. I did manage to find: Michael S. Neiberg, Routledge: Most of these weapons were outdated World War I and Civil War surplus arms (here). There a few more but I'm going to look for more by way of hard facts. Given the date, I shan't be editing tomorrow. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't argue about the absence of a ref of the statement. I just argue on what the refs base it. _{not even to mention that the whole "Most of these weapons were outdated World War I and Civil War surplus arms" looks like a complete nonsense. Triplanes from WWI? Tanks? Or do they mean mosin-nagant rifles, which despite being quite old indeed were still used by SU itself.}

Anyway, merry christmas. There is no reason to hurry in editing the article. It stayed like that for years, can wait for few more ;) 84.52.101.196 (talk) 23:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

From memory, I think it's artillery and rifles in particular. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

So among all the types of weaponry sent, the rifles and artillery can justify "mostly relics" wording. British historians are so British. What exactly was send and in what quantity? Maybe the wording "mostly" could be justified at least by the weight of the equipment. BTW Spanish wikipedia says only about half a million mosin rifles. Which were hardly "relics" at the time. No other types of rifle mentioned there. 84.52.101.196 (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't question the veracity of Beevor's research, but the tone of the paragraph is non-encyclopedic. Just the facts and not the clever language. For example "relic" is clever but imprecise -- if you mean obsolete say it. I cleaned up the Soviet section and removed the tag. I don't have an axe to grind here. I just try to relsolve conflicts at WP and keep us up to encyclopedic standards. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a good start, once I have the books I'll give it another check. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Please do not remove the tag yet. We are yet to see the basis for the "mostly relics" statement. Planes were fine, tanks were fine. What could that be than? "Occasionally, modern weapons such as BT-5 tanks were sent." yeah, right. It's like t-26 was a relic. And only "occasionally" they were lucky to get the modern BT-5s 84.52.101.196 (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I've (finally) got what Beevor says and have rewritten the passage based on what it says. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! But still, "the rifles and field guns provided were generally old and obsolete." What exact types of rifles and guns were provided? And the amounts of each type, to justify the word "generally". As i said above - Spanish wikipedia says only about half a million mosin rifles. Which were hardly "relics" at the time. No other types of rifle mentioned there. 84.52.101.196 (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

We're relying on the judgement of a reliable source on that one. Beevor can be found online here (at least for me - these things sometimes vary by where you are). He refers to one set of artillery as of "Tsarist vintage", for example (hence why it's clear he means Soviet arms, not just those from other countries). I have also found Stanley G. Payne's notes on the subject: [page 156 and following which I should probably add to the article. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

So there is no factual basis of the "mostly relics" statement whatsoever. British historians are so British :) 84.52.101.196 (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Good article vs neutrality questioned

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

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

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

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

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

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