Talk:1936 in the Spanish Civil War

message: In this chronology omits that in the first days of the republic the socialist and the communist start murdering priests and nuns, and burning churches. In some of the churches the religiuos images where destroyed and communist offices were installed, this events were one of the main reason of the uprising of the nacionalist, and because Spain is a catholic nation, there was a lot of discontent from spaniards to the republicans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.62.208 (talk • contribs) 2 Jan 2006
: Upon looking, you are correct, that is missing from this article; it's decently covered at Spanish Civil War, but not with the day-to-day (or even week-by-week) detail that would easily fit this chronology. If someone has that level of detail, please do add something here. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anticlerical attacks

message: With reference to the taking of Badajoz, the following was recently removed without comment: "There was a systematic mass rape of the female populace. This was the official policy of the Nationalist generals, as proved by many radio speeches of General Queipo de Llano, who was very proud of the sexual behavior of his troops. First in line to rape and kill were the so-called "moros"…" I've heard this elsewhere, but can't say where; does someone have something citable? Assuming this is accurate, it would certainly belong in the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Badajoz 

message: This article is in clear violation of WP:NPOV. Statement like "Fighting, ironically, on the side of the colonialists against the common people of Spain, they were to become elite troops of the fascist army" (to describe the Moroccan troops fighting for the Nationalists) and "Instead of helping the legally elected democratic government, the democratic nations turn away, in favor of the Insurgents" (to describe the meeting of the Non-Intervention Committee) are just a couple of dozens of examples in the article. This kind of obvious bias needs to be removed for the article to be in fit wikipedia shape - and I would also suggest that the content itself may well also be biased (see comments above eg on the anticlerical attacks). The article needs to be looked at by someone more knowledgeable about the subject than I. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Salim555 (talk • contribs) 2 November 2006.
: I agree that a lot of work could be done on making this neutral. The content was originally "donated" by someone who maintains a site that definitely takes the Republican side. It is well researched, but biased. (Initially it wasn't all that well written; I think most of the work that has gone into this within Wikipedia was spent correcting non-native English, I don't think anyone has yet taken it any further than that.) - Jmabel | Talk 09:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Balance in this article

message: I noticed that this article is basically a small version of the Spanish Civil War article. In fact, the first link in this page even links to that page! I strongly suggest merging the 2 articles. I really did not expect there would be 2 pages on the same topic going unnoticed for years. --Hamster X 10:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really care either way, but I think the point of having this article, is to be able to expand on details of the war year by year without making the root article too long. Murderbike (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the Spanish Civil War article is way too long, so it's good to know there's  a lot of duplication there.  I'll work on removing the redundant stuff from that article so we can leave this as a spinoff.  Removing merger tag.  delldot ∇. 20:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger Proposal