Talk:1936 Catalan coup attempt

Fascist question

I have noticed that all references to Fascism had been carefully removed from the entry. I am not sure this is the right thing to do. Please let me elaborate somewhat more in detail.

why the issue?

In my edit I was very cautious when categorizing EC. I have not written it was a “Fascist” organization. I defined it as “national-socialist”, which combines info on Nationalist and Socialist penchant of the organization. I do not think any of these denominations can be reasonably questioned. Combining them does not mean that EC was Fascist and Nazi, though indeed it suggests there was something in the air, as discussed below. In both scientific and public discourse there is an ongoing debate on Catalan fascism, and EC and escamots repeatedly come up as related. This is also what I noted in the final review chapter.

examples from ongoing debate

this section is not supposed to demonstrate that EC was Fascist. It is supposed to demonstrate that there is a debate on this, and not few scholars tend to statements that there is something to it.

• “leading some to term them ‘Catalan fascists’” (Payne, Fascism in Spain, p. 126)
• “semi-fascist Estat Catalá movement” (Griffin, Feldman, Fascism: thre social dynamics, p. 152)
• "escamots, ... ‘fascistas’ y ‘aprendices de nazis’” (Culla, Estat Català: la alcantarilla, 2018)
• “nationalist Estat Catala - considered by some to be proto-fascist”, also “fascist character of the Estat Catala and the escamots” (Getman-Eraso, Rethinking the Revolution: Utopia and Pragmatism in Catalan Anarchosyndicalism, p. 196)
• “El Estat Catalá, partido netamente fascista en su espíritu y hasta en su manejo” (de la Cierva, La revolución de octubre: el PSOE contra la república, p. 35)
• “Estat Catala (the separatist semi-fascist)”, (Ugelvik, Hagtvet, Myklebust, p. 794)
• “ha recaído una acusación de fascismo sobre las Juventudes de Esquerra Republicana - Estat Català” (Arnau, Ucelay, Hay fascistas catalanistas, pero no un fascismo catalanista, 2018)
• when referring opinion of other historians - "la demonstración visible de oder nacionalista radical bajo Maciá era muy parecida a un ‘fascismo’", on his own: “fuera verdad o no, las JEREC habián mostrado ser unos ‘fascistas’” (Ucelay-Da Cal, Los ‘malos de la película’, pp. 157, 171)
• Nosaltes Sols! was “clarament influenciat pel feixisme italiá” (Siguán, El projecte català: del passat al futur, p. 54)
• “potencialidad fascista” of EC (Rama, Fascismo y anarquismo en la España contemporánea, p. 38)
• “questa organització [escamots], creada a principis de segle, passa avui per ser l'aixopluc dels nazi- skins catalans” (Viñas, Skinheads a Catalunya, p. 150)
• “Estat Català, la traducción catalana del fascismo” (Anguera de Sojo, Las juventudes de ERC recuperan la fascinación por los fascistas hermanos Badia, 2020)
• “Republicana-Estat Català (JEREC) va esdevenir, sens dubte, la imatge més semblant a un feixisme a la catalana” (Roig i Sanz, Joventuts d’Esquerra Catalanisme radical, nacionalisme integral i feixisme a la Catalunya dels anys trenta: historiografia, teoria i estat de la qüestió, p. 51)
• “se pudiera calificar a Estat Català ... como fascista” (Pujol, El pasado fascista de Esquerra Republicana, 2016)
• “había representado en el pasado una especia de ‘fascismo catalanista’” (Israel Viana, ABC 18.02.2019)
• ”organizaciones de corte fascista” (Benitez, Las juventudes de ERC reivindican el fascismo catalán de los hermanos Badia, 2020)
• “the ERC youth claim the Catalan fascism of the Badia brothers” (editorial, Web24, 2020)

current status in historiographic and public discourse

There are no universally accepted conclusions; currently – at least as far as I can say – the stand prevailing (though not exclusive) in historiography is that there is something to Fascist threads in EC, but that in principle, the organization does not merit the Fascist categorization. In popular discourse the opinions cover much broader spectrum, and it is not difficult to encounter opinions that yes, EC was sort of a Fascist grouping. All this seems quite relevant when discussing the question of a coup d’etat apparently planned by EC in late 1936, as it is related to the problem of violence in politics, radical Nationalism clashing with other political streams, anti-Republican conspiracy, and the complex tangle of international politics, especially in relation to Italy.

flagging the issue is not advancing conclusions

In my edit I did not advance any bold statements ("yes! EC was Fascist!" or “no! EC was clearly anti-Fascist!”); I merely flagged that there is an issue related. Now, you come and carefully remove from the text all references to Fascism. Following your edits, a reader will not learn at all that there is a discussion on the coup, CE, escamots, JEREC and Fascism. This is not improving the article, this is damaging the article. The entry I have written is not a 300-word stub, where indeed info on the Fascist-related debate would not fit and would put the text out of balance. The article I have written is pretty detailed, it covers lots of threads, it is set against a broad background, and it includes a section on historiographic coverage; in such an article a mention of an important related and hotly disputed question is a must.

why arbitary stigmatization elsewhere, and Not a Dicky Bird here?

And one more thing. The English Wikipedia tolerates rather loose application of the “fascist” category, also in case of Spain-related issues. For instance, if you type “fascism in Spain”, you will get re-directed straightforwardly to the entry titled “Falangism”, even though in historiography it is not rare to find some reservations about this qualification, with terms like “quasi-fascism”, “proto-fascism”, “para-fascism”, “fascistoid”, “fascisticized” used. However, all these subtleties are brushed aside in Wikipedia, as it simply equals falangism with fascism. Even the entry on CEDA contains a flamboyant statement that it “tacitly embraced Fascism”, which seems rubbish pure and simple to me. All the above demonstrates that in WP the application of the term “Fascism” is extended rather than abridged. And now comes a user who in this particular case intends to apply the abdridged interpretation. "no no, not Fascism! This is wrong! Let's be careful! Fascism out of the article!" This is odd. Wikipedia editors explicitly and at times at shaky ground stigmatize some groups as Fascist and get away with it, but in case of another group even a careful note that its activity is discussed in relation to Fascism gets edited out.

so what?

re-inserting my carefully crafted notes that there is a Fascist issue in the background. They do not advance any conclusions, form a secondary thread in the entry, and help to complete the picture of the coup in historiography. Regards, --Hh1718 (talk) 11:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Кольцов На Сарагосу Барселона 9авг17 1936.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

References

I've taken a run at fixing up the referencing in this article. In particular, I've separated footnotes (notes) from actual references (citations). There's more to do, but I'm out of steam for now. Several of the repeated references deserve the same treatment -- creation of a bibliography anchor, then use of footnote tags to identify references. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

OK ... maybe there are a few more things to fix, but that's about all I can do myself. -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Mikeblas, appreciated! apparently helped just with the intention to help, no strings attached. Yours bewildered, --Hh1718 (talk) 23:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Peer review

@Hh1718, have you considered nominating the article for Good Article status via peer review? czar 01:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello Czar, by no means. My experience is that once you float a pretty detailed article on broad WP waters, it gets rough. I mean, many people feel an overwhelming need to improve it. As there are usually very few people familiar with detailed issues, the whole thing soon converts into the author facing a siege against tens of, egh, corrections. Prefer to talk to people who for some reason, usually related to their own interests, stumble over the article. So no, Good Article etc - please no. Anyway, thanks for asking, very kind of you! --Hh1718 (talk) 23:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hh1718, gotcha. For what it's worth, the article has already been floated so it will be edited by others (...which is a good thing!) I've found that reviews by those who know little about the subject tend to suggest edits for clarity and don't challenge subject matter expertise. This makes the article a better read for Wikipedia's general audience. But I hear you and your call. Nice work on this and looking forward to your next articles! czar 02:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)