|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Spain article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7|
|This subject is featured in the Outline of Spain, which is incomplete and needs further development. That page, along with the other outlines on Wikipedia, is part of Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge, which also serves as the table of contents or site map of Wikipedia.|
|Spain has been listed as a level-3 vital article in Geography. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, realise, defence), and some terms used in it are different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
According to the new data released by the United Nations in 2015, Spain has the longest life expectancy in the world after Japan. I think this piece of data is more important that GDP etc. It is a real bottom-line piece of data that should be commented on. In fact, a woman in Spain has a whopping five year longer life than in countries like the US:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
Recent discussion on Civil War
All sources agree that the number of serious atrocities (i.e. systematic rape, mass murder of civilians etc...) was far far higher on the nationalist side as well as being a matter of policy. There is no academic debate on this issue. Until someone can provide a serious source disputing the sourced statement provided. It is sourced with at least six or seven expert historians on the Spanish civil war Spanish and foreign. I hope this ends this discussion.Asilah1981 (talk) 09:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Asilah1981: Hello, this is a controversial issue, and a consensus should be reached before changing the article. You did not provide url links to the sources you cited, but I searched a few of them in google books and found they mention atrocities by both sides. The only objective figure I could find is the number of casualties attributed to each side. It seems clear that there where more victims in the republican side. As far as the number of atrocities commited by the other side the list is also daunting )(according to the sources you cited) inhuman and systematic torture by the SIM using soviet technics (beatings of prisoners with rubber piping, hot and cold water treatment, sleep depravation of naked prisoners by making them lay in specially design cells with pointy bricks, mock executions, systematic cleansing of the priests and nuns burning of churchs rapes mass murder of civilians and a long etc...
- Nothing to be proud of for either side. There are articles on Red Terror (Spain) and White Terror (Spain). And as you can in Spanish_Civil_War#Atrocities the data is presented for the reader to make up its own mind, without making conclusions. According to WP:OR I think it is not our place to determine how to add up or compare atrocities or to side with any particular versión. In any case, I ask one more time that you let the article on its current state until a consensus can be reached. Thank you. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Crystallizedcarbon. No, you seem to misunderstand the concept of WP:OR. The sources specifically and explicitly support the statement of the sentence: That there were far more atrocities committed on the nationalist side than on the red side. No available source denies this fact. There is no controversy on the matter except insofar as, in Spain, some people sympathize with one side or another. There is no academic debate on this matter, which is crystal clear and closed. Conflicting political sympathies within Spain are irrelevant to wikipedia which is an encyclopedia. In my opinion, you are attempting to impose, as one other editor pointed out recently, a false balance. I cannot see the difference between this and censoring the article on the Champions League where it says that "Real Madrid has won the most championships - eleven times" to, "Multiple teams won the cup a few times." because Barça fans may find Madrid winning the cup so many times controversial.Asilah1981 (talk) 11:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Asilah1981: Thank you for agreeing to the discussion. I would appreciate it if you would show me a link to the sources that state that conclusion in the same terms that you propose for the article. If neither of the other three articles (Red Terror (Spain), White Terror (Spain) or Spanish_Civil_War#Atrocities) state that conclusion I don´t see the need to include it in a section that is supposed to be a brief summary of the event. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Crystallizedcarbon: I think you mistook me for Asilah? Because I only just came back to this page and you said here that he was edit warring. I think a problem with the article as it is is that it kind of downplays the nationalists. They won, yes. History is written by the victors, yes. But it was well known that Spain was borderline fascist until he finally died in 1975, after which democracy had to be virtually rebuilt. Also, it would be better not to say anything about atrocities at all if the alternative is "both committed atrocities". The difference was that Franco not only had direct help from the Nazis, he and his subordinates tried to wipe out the entire "left". This included, according to Paul Preston, feminists, vegetarians, unionists, Republican officials and schoolteachers. History that a former government has tried hard to rewrite/suppress (see: Pact of forgetting) should be carefully scrutinized on Wikipedia. See also White Terror (Spain) for why we can generally say a WP:FALSEBALANCE is entirely in the wrong here. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Prinsgezinde: Hello, I don't follow why you think I mistook you for Asilah, the edit summary says he did the edit. I agree with your proposal to remove the mention of atrocities if there are no objections by other editors I think is the best way to solve such a controversial issue.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with removing such an absolutely undeniable and well sourced statement. I don't see any reason for doing it except as a method of censoring an uncomfortable fact. Since we are unlikely to agree on this, I propose a RfC.
Here is an extract from the article (White Terror) you have directed me to for information.
Nationalist atrocities, which the authorities ordered to eradicate any trace of "leftism" in Spain, were common, ideological practice. The notion of a limpieza (cleansing) was an essential part of the right-wing rebel strategy, and the process of assassination began immediately after the nationalists had captured an area. In the rebel-controlled zone, the nationalist military, the Civil Guard, and the fascist Falange carried out the violence in name of the regime, which was ideologically legitimized by the Roman Catholic Church.
Historians of the Spanish Civil War generally agree that the death toll of the White Terror was greater than the death toll of the Red Terror, because the White Terror occurred as a matter of formal Nationalist policy. The assassinations continued until 1945, six years after the end of Spanish Civil War in 1939. Most estimates of the Red Terror's death toll range from 38,000 to 72,344 people; these estimates include, among others, the collective work Víctimas de la guerra civil (Victims of the Civil War), which reaches 50,000 people; Hugh Thomas (55,000 people); and Julián Casanova (fewer than 60,000 people). Meanwhile, estimates of the White Terror's death toll, such as Paul Preston's 200,000 people, range from 150,000 to 400,000 people.
According to Stanley Payne:
During the first months of the fighting most of the deaths did not come from combat on the battlefield but from political executions in the rear—the "Red" and "White" terrors. In some cases the murder of political opponents began more or less spontaneously, but from the very beginning there was always a certain degree of organization, and nearly all the killings after the first few days were carried out by organized groups.
There were some elements in common between Republican and Nationalist repression. Large numbers were killed in the course of removals of prisoners from prisons, the so-called sacas, and many others were killed after being "taken for a ride" (paseo). Most of the victims of these sacas and paseos were executed by death squads stemming from the trade unions and political party militias (CNT, UGT and PCE militias among the republicans and Falange and Carlist militias among the Nationalists), which were easily infiltrated by gangs of criminals. Many executions were justified as a reprisal for aerial bombings and many others were denounced out of envy and personal hatred. Nevertheless, there were significant differences between the two Terrors as was emphasized by Francisco Partaloa, prosecutor of the Madrid High Court of Justice (Tribunal Supremo de Madrid) and Queipo de Llano's friend, who observed the repression first in the Republican and then in the Nationalist side:
I had the opportunity of being a witness to the repression in both areas. In the Nationalist side it was planned, methodical, cold. As they did not trust the people the authorities imposed their will by means of terror, committing atrocities in order to achieve their aim. Atrocities also took place in the Popular Front zone; that was something which both areas had in common. But the main difference was that in the Republican zone the crimes were carried out by the populace in moments of passion, not by the authorities. The latter always tried to stop them. The assistance that I received from the Spanish Republican authorities in order to flee to safety, is only one of the many examples. But this was not the case in the Nationalist zone.
Historians such as Helen Graham, Paul Preston, Antony Beevor, Gabriel Jackson, Hugh Thomas, and Ian Gibson have concurred that the mass executions behind the Nationalist lines were organized and approved by the Nationalist rebel authorities, while the executions behind the Republican lines were the result of the breakdown of the republican state and the ensuing chaos:
Though there was much wanton killing in rebel Spain, the idea of the limpieza, the "cleaning up" of the country from the evils which had overtaken it, was a disciplined policy of the new authorities and a part of their programme of regeneration. In republican Spain, most of the killing was the consequence of anarchy, the outcome of a national breakdown, and not the work of the state; even though some political parties in some cities abetted the enormities, and even though some of those responsible ultimately rose to positions of authority.
- @Asilah1981: As I said before even though there is no conclusive evidence on the real death toll it is generally accepted that it was higher due to Franco's represión than to the Republican side but even on that subject look at the wording used (from Red Terror):
Figures for the Red Terror range from 38,000 to 110,000. The 'red terror' according to Beevor killed 38,000". According to Julio de la Cueva, the toll of the Red Terror was 72,344 lives. Hugh Thomas and Paul Preston said that the death toll was 55,000, and the Spanish historian Julian Casanova said that the death toll was fewer than 60,000. Previously, Payne had suggested that, "The toll taken by the respective terrors may never be known exactly. The left slaughtered more in the first months, but the Nationalist repression probably reached its height only after the war had ended, when punishment was exacted and vengeance wreaked on the vanquished left. The White Terror may have slain 50,000, perhaps fewer, during the war. The Franco government now gives the names of 61,000 victims of the Red Terror, but this is not subject to objective verification. The number of victims of the Nationalist repression, during and after the war, was undoubtedly greater than that". In Checas de Madrid (ISBN 84-9793-168-8), journalist and historian César Vidal comes to a nationwide total of 110,965 victims of Republican repression; 11,705 people being killed in Madrid alone. Historian Santos Juliá, in the work Víctimas de la guerra civil provides approximate figures: about 50,000 victims of the Republican repression; about 100,000 victims of the Francoist repression during the war with some 40,000 after the war.
- A death toll is more objective concept than atrocities, and notice how carefully the paragraph was written to include different views and meet WP:NPOV. Adding the text you propose with a subjective matter as it is the atrocities (how to count them, what is considered more atrocious etc.). If there are no sources that specifically mention that one side is responsible for "more atrocities" than the other using that wording we would be violating WP:OR, and even if we found some sources not citing different views on the matter (they exist) raises issues of neutrality.
- You chose to paste content from the atrocities performed by the rebel side if we are looking to be neutral we should not ignore what is also written on the red terror article about the other side:
According to recent research, the Republican death squads were heavily staffed by members of the Soviet secret police, or NKVD. According to author Donald Rayfield, "Stalin, Yezhov, and Beria distrusted Soviet participants in the Spanish war. Military advisors like Vladimir Antonov-Ovseenko, journalists like Koltsov were open to infection by the heresies, especially Trotsky's, prevalent among the Republic's supporters. NKVD agents sent to Spain were therefore keener on abducting and murdering anti-Stalinists among Republican leaders and International Brigade commanders than on fighting Francisco Franco. The defeat of the Republic, in Stalin's eyes, was caused not by the NKVD's diversionary efforts, but by the treachery of the heretics."
*Murder of 6,832 members of the Catholic clergy and religious institutes as well as the killing thousands of lay people. *The parish priest of Navalmoral was put through a parody of Christ's Crucifixion. At the end of his suffering the militiamen debated whether actually to crucify him or just shoot him. They finished with a shooting. *The Bishop of Jaén and his sister were murdered in front of two thousand celebrating spectators by a special executioner, a woman nicknamed La Pecosa, the freckled one. *Although rare, it was reported that some nuns were raped by militiamen before they were shot. However, according to Antony Beevor, the 1946 nationalist indictment of Republican atrocities contained no evidence for any such incident. *The priest of Ciempozuelos was thrown into a corral with fighting bulls where he was gored into unconsciousness. Afterwards one of his ears was cut off to imitate the feat of a matador after a successful bullfight. *In Ciudad Real, a priest was castrated and his sexual organs stuffed in his mouth. *There are accounts of the people connected to the Catholic Church being forced to swallow rosary beads, being thrown down mine shafts and of priests being forced to dig their own graves before being buried alive. *An eyewitness to some of the persecution, Cristina de Arteaga, who was soon to become a nun, commented that they "attacked the Salesians, people who are totally committed to the poor. There was a rumor that nuns were giving poisoned sweets to children. Some nuns were grabbed by the hair in the streets. One had her hair pulled out...". *On the night of July 19, 1936 alone, 50 churches were burned. In Barcelona, out of the 58 churches, only the Cathedral was spared, and similar events occurred almost everywhere in Republican Spain. *All the Catholic churches in the Republican zone were closed, but the attacks were not limited to Catholic churches, as synagogues were also pillaged and closed, though some small Protestant churches were spared. *The Bishop of Almeria was murdered while working on a history of Toledo. His card index file was destroyed. *In Madrid, a nun was killed because she refused a proposition of marriage from a militiaman who helped storm her convent.
- And the torture employed by the SIM. If you read all of the above, you will see that neither side can be proud. I don´t think it is our place to bring all of this to the main article of Spain. On our transition to democracy we chose to start over. I don´t think it is the role of an encyclopedia to take sides on such a controversial issue. I myself as a Spaniard am ashamed of the past behavior of both sides and also of those who seem to be trying to resurrect that hatred with political reasons. I am not implying in any way that that is your motivation just trying to justify my involvement in this matter. If you are still not convinced by my arguments you are welcome to open a RfC. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:20, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Crystallizedcarbon I am not taking sides in the conflict. If you want to know my personal political position, I think that had the Stalinists taken over in a victorious republic, the situation would be as bad, if not worse than it was in terms of civilian deaths. But that is not what happened and I think it would be a disservice to historical reality to put the Republic at the same level as the Nationalist side in the way killings were performed. I don't want to "whitewash" the "reds", as you may suspect, but this is historical fact, and the republican government was not the NKVD or the Checas. Can you explain a bit more succinctly what it is that you disagree with from the sentence? (I don't want to debate all of the details of the Spanish civil war).Asilah1981 (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Clarify: I never proposed to remove it altogether, that's the opposite of what I want. I said "Also, it would be better not to say anything about atrocities at all if the alternative is "both committed atrocities".", with which I meant that I'd even prefer removing that sentence over giving it a sense of false balance. But in my edit I clarified that I believe too much of the Francoist past is left unmentioned. There is no shame for a country's people to admit mistakes of the past, since they had no part in it. The key difference was that the White Terror was organized and very often justified both by Spain and the Allied, whereas the Red Terror was unorganized and only loosely connected. Another difference is that it was Franco who subsequently ruled the country for over 30 years. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 20:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hello @Asilah1981: I do appreciate your proposal. I can see that you are trying to reach a consensus. The text you propose is certainly an improvement, WP:OR has been addressed. But I still don't think that it fully meets our WP:NPOV. Let me elaborate: If you read this text
Previously, Payne had suggested that, "The toll taken by the respective terrors may never be known exactly. The left slaughtered more in the first months, but the Nationalist repression probably reached its height only after the war had ended, when punishment was exacted and vengeance wreaked on the vanquished left. The White Terror may have slain 50,000, perhaps fewer, during the war. The Franco government now gives the names of 61,000 victims of the Red Terror, but this is not subject to objective verification. The number of victims of the Nationalist repression, during and after the war, was undoubtedly greater than that". In Checas de Madrid (ISBN 84-9793-168-8), journalist and historian César Vidal comes to a nationwide total of 110,965 victims of Republican repression; 11,705 people being killed in Madrid alone. Historian Santos Juliá, in the work Víctimas de la guerra civil provides approximate figures: about 50,000 victims of the Republican repression; about 100,000 victims of the Francoist repression during the war with some 40,000 after the war.
- You can see that the numbers vary greatly and according to one of its sources of Nationalist repression would be a higher value than some of the estimated victims during the dictatorship. I know many say the opposite, but my point is that when there are different sourced versions in conflicting issues neutrality mandates that all points should be represented with proper attribution as it is the case in the text above. Now adding all of that detail to the main article for Spain I think is not appropriate, specially since we have the civil war and the white and red terror articles. I will not revert your edit since I can see your edit was clearly done in good faith, but I do ask you to please restore the previous version yourself until we can find a solution that meets our policies and then change the article. I hope that is acceptable to you. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hello @Prinsgezinde: I feel that in order to not violate our various neutral point of view rules the text on this matter would have to be much longer. I think that there is a more than sufficient level of detail on the article of civil war and white and red terror. So that is why your proposal sounded like it could be a good solution. I am ashamed of the that part of my countries past. We can´t be proud of the actions of neither one of the sides I don´t think it should be erased of forgotten it is important to remember what happened so we don´t repeat it but I feel the articles on the civil war are the proper place for it. Nowadays some people like to idealize and defend or justify the actions of one side over the other for political reasons when neither one is defendible. By ensuring that our neutral point of view policies are followed we also prevent the use of our encyclopedia as a tool for the means of either side (left or right extremists). Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Crystallizedcarbon Your argument that "the article on the civil war is the proper place for it", seems like a valid one to me. I agree to a point. However, I can't agree with you about varying estimates. The disparity is without question, not just because one side won and the other lost but because there was a centrally organized policy of mass murder decided by one side and not by the other (the Republican government actually attempted to restrain civilian killings). I am pretty sure that you are a native Spanish speaker and can find all the well sourced information in the Spanish wikipedia. https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%ADctimas_de_la_Guerra_Civil_Espa%C3%B1ola#Represi.C3.B3n_en_ambas_zonas
40 years of dictatorship following the war made sure that no nationalist deaths were exaggerated and not one forgotten and that many republican deaths were hidden and minimized. I don't come from a "revanchista" mentality, I won't push it further, but I do think that when non-Spanish academics have written books called "the Spanish holocaust" referring specifically to mass murder committed by one side, it leaves us to think whether portraying it as a balanced conflict really is the right approach. I leave other wikipedians to take it from here.Asilah1981 (talk) 13:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hello @Asilah1981: As editors it is not our role to interpret history. We can only add what sources say, but we must follow WP:NPOV That policy dictates that when there are conflicting information from different reliable sources they all should be presented with proper attribution to let the reader make up his/her own mind. Besides the view you included you can see that another source places Red Terror deaths at over 100.000 and as you can read at paracuellos massacre there are strong evidence (no proof) that the government and the communist party were directly involved in that massacre of political and religious prisoners. I do not want to get more into this subject or defend one side or the other and get into an argument of which side was more terrible. The proper way to present the information to follow WP:NPOV is as it is already done in the specific articles I cite again:
"Previously, Payne had suggested that, "The toll taken by the respective terrors may never be known exactly. The left slaughtered more in the first months, but the Nationalist repression probably reached its height only after the war had ended, when punishment was exacted and vengeance wreaked on the vanquished left. The White Terror may have slain 50,000, perhaps fewer, during the war. The Franco government now gives the names of 61,000 victims of the Red Terror, but this is not subject to objective verification. The number of victims of the Nationalist repression, during and after the war, was undoubtedly greater than that". In Checas de Madrid (ISBN 84-9793-168-8), journalist and historian César Vidal comes to a nationwide total of 110,965 victims of Republican repression; 11,705 people being killed in Madrid alone. Historian Santos Juliá, in the work Víctimas de la guerra civil provides approximate figures: about 50,000 victims of the Republican repression; about 100,000 victims of the Francoist repression during the war with some 40,000 after the war."
- That is the only way to meet our policy. you have just included the view from one particular source and one analysis without attribution and without adding other conflicting sources. It is not the way to do it. The matter is not trivial for the reasons I gave before. And I don´t think that section is the place to add all the information needed to ensure neutrality. So I ask you again to please revert the text to the status quo version and if you still think your edit should be added then please open a RfC afterwards. As I told you before in the spirit of reaching a reasoned solution I will not revert your edit, but since I think it violates our policy if it is not removed I would have to bring the issue to the attention of admins. They have more experience and can decide if it is OK or if it does indeed, as I think, violate our policy. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hello @Asilah1981: Thank you very much for been so constructive. If you need my help in the future you know where to find me. Regards.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Rajoy is president
- Yes and no. The title that he holds is Presidente del Gobierno, President of Government, e.g. head of government (as opposed to head of state). In the English language, heads of government in parliamentary systems, whether in the UK, Spain, Norway, Denmark, are prime ministers. Heads of state who are not in any legislature, such as Obama and Putin, are presidents Valentina Cardoso (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Koppen Climatic Map
P.18 of | this link has a correct Koppen climatic map of Spain. Up until now all of the attempts to make one have been way off the mark. Could someone please upload it to wikipedia commons and put it in this article? Other maps are included such as rainfall, average temperature etc...Asilah1981 (talk) 13:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Why doesnt it say spain is a european country and spanish is a european langauge I am confued? prefix:Talk:Spain/
Is Spain in Europe and is Spanish a European language and why doesn't it say that in the spain article?????????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 07:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)