Talk:Bombing of Guernica

message: "Since his appointment on the northern front, the Soviet aviation advisor Arjénoukhine had insistently called for air reinforcements, motivating his demands by high losses inflicted by nationalist aviation over Republican troops as well as civilian population. [25] On may the 8th, 9 I-15 and 6 R-Zet were sent by air from central Spain through Toulouse, in France. Planes were immediately immobilised by non-intervention committee, and later sent back unarmed to central Spain."
This seems to have been translated from the original Ukranian (joke). Apart from the style ('motivating his demands'?), the meaning is obscure.He wants more planes, so sends some *out* of Spain, where they are disarmed by a mysterious "non-intervention committee" and sent back. Say what? 
I can just make out that "9 I-15 and 6 R-Zet" refers to numbers and types of planes, but please make the article a little more user-friendly. Especialy this bit. 41.77.1.147 (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: What??

message: Let's see who was that Salas Larrazabal (Captain General when he retired in 1972) from whom Cesar Vidal builds its assertions: Salas Larrazabal. Idiazabal 20:38, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestingly, your assumption seems to be that fighter pilots shouldn't be allowed to write history books, or not trusted when they do. Perhaps only right-wing pilots? What about surfers? Or left-wing opera singers? Aussiesta 10:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Who was Salas Larrazabal

message: What is the citation for newly added statement about some historians doubting it was a market day? The only cited source for the article says it was; if there is a citation for this, it certainly belongs here, but "some historians" is no citation, and if someone can't do better than that, I'm inclined to revert. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:26, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Monday would seem to be market day now, and that is hardly likely to have changed.  See:  quota
Both Pio Moa and Cesar Vidal have repeatedly said, rightly or wrongly, that that Monday was not a market day. In any case, in case they were wrong one must ponder what the local authorities were thinking about, holding an open air market in the middle of a civil war, with enemy troops just a few kilometers away, and approaching fast. Aussiesta 10:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both were (and are) cited to Larrazabal, but there os no indication of who the "groups" were. That is, at best, very partial citation: citing someone else's weasel words, or writing a weasel-worded version of what your cited source says (I can't know which without seeing the source). Jmabel | Talk 02:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Market day 

message: Can we have citations for the Condor attacks, and payloads? Rich   Farmbrough. 19:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rich, can you be clear on exactly what numbers you are concerned with seeing cited? At least some of this is in the cited César Vidal piece. You may find my edit summaries from June 2004 helpful, because I made some mentions of where I got my material; I'm afraid this was mostly written before we were generally being careful about including citations in articles. - Jmabel | Talk 06:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: * Guernica, Lidice, Coventry, Oradour-sur-Glane, Dresden, and now Lebanon, an endless chain! Excelsior, 18:59, 14 August 2006
What are you talking about??Mdk0642 22:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oradour was a strict case of land-based massacre. Aussiesta 10:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endless chain 

message: In the section Motivation of the attack:
Because this assault on Guernica contradicted General Emilio Mola's earlier plans for the pursuit of the war in this region, Vidal argues that von Richthofen must have had either approval from Mola or a direct order from Franco himself. Additionally, by default, the entire Condor Legion force was under direct Franco's command. It is almost impossible that the Germans decided to hit such a target on their own. Most of the views about a 'test-bombing' have been created afterwards mainly by the European press based on discussions on the might of the bomber as an absolute weapon. Besides, the ridiculous claims of Franco that it was the 'reds' that burned Guernica, show that he himself tried to justify this act without ever making any insinuation for the Germans even long after the end of the war in Spain.
Everything in this paragraph is a recent addition and (except for the first sentence of the addition) strikes me as uncited claims and POV argument: "It is almost impossible… Most of the views… ridiculous claims… show that he himself tried to justify…". If this can be turned into something cited from reliable sources in the next few days, fine. Otherwise, it should be removed as against policy. (Understand, I don't disagree with what it says, but my agreeing with an opinion does not make it encyclopedic.) - Jmabel | Talk 19:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact that's what most historians (all non-fascist ones) think. I don't have time to gather sources now but it's not POV. It's just unsourced by the moment. (Note I'm not the author: I have not even edited this article a single time). --Sugaar 07:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV addition 

message: That is like a description of the Holocaust by Hitler. Anything but impartial. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.60.55.140 (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Based on Salas Larrazabal ? 

message: This person is acting in clear breach of consensus (and bad faith, in my unsterstanding). He has moved the article without any mention in the talk and he did the same with Gernika-Lumo. He has no real support from policy, which just has no clear guideline to use in these cases. How should we act against such abuse? --Sugaar 13:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unilateralism of Grant65

message: Should unify throughout this article the spelling of the town; either Gernika or Guernica.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.104.35.53 (talk • contribs).
:I thought I corrected the spelling but maybe I missed some items. The idea is that official name of Gernika is used for the town and Guernica is reserved for Picasso's picture as happens for instance in Basque and (often) in Spanish. --Sugaar 04:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unified Spelling 

message: It strikes me that a 2006 PNV local administration would label a street in a town with a sizeable number of Basque speakers as calle and not kalea.
However the Times article states "Calle George Steer".
I tried to confirm with Páginas Amarillas and Google Maps, but they apparently haven't updated their street names.
So is it officially calle, kalea or both?
--Error 00:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Calle George Steer

message: The article currently says "Even before the bombardment, Guernica was a place of great significance to the Basque people, which is the reason why Franco ordered its destruction." I see no attribution for this claim of motivation. Franco had only limited control over the Condor Legion. It is somewhat controversial whether he even knew in advance about the attack; assuming that he did know about it, it is controversial whether he ordered the attack or merely acquiesced; it is very questionable whether anyone knew in advance how destructive the attack—the first ever with these particular tactics—would be. If he was consciously intending the attack as a propaganda act of this sort, it seems a bit odd that the Nationalists did their best to suppress accurate reports of what they'd done. This claim to know the answers to all of this, plus his motivation, appears to be based on nothing. So I am removing this. If someone can find a reasonably reliable source that attributes this motivation then cite it and let's mention it. - Jmabel | Talk 00:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncited claim about motivation 

message: I've taken this page out of :Category:Spanish Civil War as it is already listed under the subcategory :Category:Battles of the Spanish Civil War. Richard001 22:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the bombing isn't really even close to a battle is it? I'm not sure how it should be categorized, perhaps the category should be renamed 'Military campaigns of the Spanish Civil War' or perhaps it should only be placed in Category:Spanish Civil War. Richard001 23:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Bombing of" or "Attack on" articles are categorised with battle articles, see e.g. Bombing of Dresden or Attack on Pearl Harbor. Grant | Talk 01:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Categorization

message: removed this from article. what purpose is it supposed to serve? have more respect for the dead and less for those who did the bombing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.16.126.168 (talk) 11:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see your point. Shall we remove any image of Hitler from the Holocaust page, so we don't offend the dead there? I think as much info as possible should be included, including pictures, as long as we don't go into gore territory. Aussiesta 13:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Plane images

message: added detail on the tonnage to deaths ratio compared to other air raids and also added some details on the republican forces that were in the area of guernica and in the town itself. the article is now getting a little bit messy so might clean it up some when i have time. 82.16.126.168 21:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont think there is an article about fear of the bomber in 1930s, but i mentioned that it existed and that the media hyped Guernica attack to feed that public perception. Fluffy999 21:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Propaganda

message: I removed the pointed language and disputed numbers of dead.--AveryG 19:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The main dispute around this is focused on the number of dead. One should be careful when editing that part. I absolutely agree with citing a wide range of estimates, so all POV from historians are included. Aussiesta 11:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change in 70th Anniversary section 

message: The main reason a person would look up this incident is to learn the details of what is widely understood as one of the first examples of terror bombing. Whether this is precisely true and detailing that are important also, but the reporting by Steer and the widespread popular impression he and similar created is of primary importance. Where is the widespread Western reaction to and condemnation of what most in the West believed was the heartless 'terror bombing' innovation? In addition, the precise details of the military bombardment seem over-emphasized.Haberstr (talk) 02:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Completely misses the modern understanding of what 'Guernica' means 

message: This isn't a reliable source, suitable reliable sources should be found or else the cited statements removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.180.143 (talk) 18:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Answers.com is a reliable source.Haberstr (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

text: The writer of the answers.com guernica blurb was Alex Alexandrou, who is an historian. So, when and if the writer is a reliable source 'answers.com' is a reliable source.Haberstr (talk) 23:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: However the general objection is correct, answers.com or similar sites are not reliable sources for Wikipedia and should be avoided. The particular answer looks ok and if you say the author is an historian even better, however while probably useful for personal information it is not sufficient for WP. You have to use the sources given in that answer or other reputable publications. There is an ample amount of reputable publications on this particular subject and hence no need to resort to answers.com. If you know the author of particular answer then in exceptional cases (and in lack of other sources) you might temporarily use answers.com, but that's not the case here. Moreover that short note on Guernica contains nothing you don't find in plenty of other reputables sources.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Answer.com 

message: I suggest this subsection be eliminated (though there is perhaps good research here that should be included in the Dresden, Hiroshima and so on sections). Seems to be a covert POV apologia, as if terror attacks with higher death tolls excuse this one. I really just don't get the point of this section other than insertion of POV.Haberstr (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is fine.  It's not about POV apologia; it's about actual comparisons people have drawn between other historical events and Guernica.  The one that didn't fit is the Gaza one, and I thus removed it. Mbarbier (talk) 19:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I support removing the section, or at the very least making it more encyclopaedia-like, with clear statements on such and such people made comparisons to the Guernica bombing. More concise, and less POV. The issue of how inappropiate it is to compare Guernica to attacks like those of Dresden has already been referred to in this talk page. Aussiesta (talk) 08:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Having read this article for the first time I have to agree the "Historical Comparisons" section seems somewhat incongruous. Rather than adding anything to the article it seems to detract as it appears not to be from a NPOV and overly detailed. There is a wide variation in the methods, tactics, reasons and outcome between the cited examples and the attack on Guernica. The inclusion of the Gaza, for example, seems to be there because someone cited Guernica in a speech, which seems a very flimsy reason for inclusion. Also the detail into which some of the examples go is beyond that necessary as an aside to a main article. Given these grounds I too would suggest that this section is removed.Nshimbi (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Further on my previous suggestion. We could replace "historical comparisons" with "historical significance," make it shorter, say that such and such people throughout history invoked the memory of Guernica in such and such situations. Aussiesta (talk) 07:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I love this suggestion, and it seems to fit with what is needed here. I do agree that 'Guernica', like 'Hiroshima', has become a lasting symbol for morally depraved air war on civilians, or some such.Haberstr (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Historical Comparison' section 

message: From Gibraltar#Spanish Civil War:
:In June 1937, the German pocket battleship Deutschland arrived in Gibraltar with dead and wounded after Republican planes bombed it in Ibiza in retaliation for the Condor Legion's bombing of Guernica.
The Deutschland page does not mention Guernica.
Was it really retaliation?
By the way the Germans re-retaliated bombing Almería.
--Error (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battleship Deutschland 

message: The article correctly presents the shameful role of the Nazi-German airforce in the air attacks on Gernika. The role of the Fascist-Italian airforce, however, is grossly understated.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.104.80.95 (talk) 10:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italian Role 

message: Passages like the following:
However, the calculations of James Corum do not account for the use of other kinds of ammunition and weaponry, such as plane-mounted guns, by the attackers. They also ignore the general unpreparedness of the Guernica population to that kind of an aerial attack. In contrast, at the later stages of World War II even civilians were trained in survival techniques and often had the benefits of advanced warning and designated shelters.
are not acceptable without being attributed to a source. Articles are not an appropriate place for us to put in an editorial on any flaws we personally may think exist with a source. Another reliable source is required to have made that argument, and to be cited. If you think the source is unreliable altogether, you can bring it up here to argue that we shouldn't use it at all, but you may not editorialize to argue with it in the article body. We're not here to state our own views.
There seems to be a lot more uncited editorializing in the article, as well. I'm going to start flagging it, and removing it if it's not sourced soon. It seems the article might suffer from some nationalism, but it's not here to be a battleground to refight the battle, it's to be a neutral account from sources only. If you've got any nationalism, please leave it at the door before you edit the article. If you can't do that, do not edit the article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources, editorials, and nationalism

message: I removed the irrelevant section on Cast Lead. Its inclusion was an attempt to exploit the historical tragedy of Guernica in service of the contemporary campaign to delegitimize Israel. Not appropriate for encyclopedia scholarship. Hickorybark (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree --Kmhkmh (talk) 16:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of reference to Cast Lead 

message: Russian archives, through the historian Sergei Abrossov, mention 800 dead as of May 1, 1937. This is an incomplete figure and does not take into account either the people later found under the rubble, nor those who died later of their injuries, but is certainly objective.
No reference is provided to Sergei Abrossov's work.
In any case there is not reason to believe this figure is "objective", since the Soviet Union supported the Republicans in the war.
The rest of the paragraph (which I didn't quote) contains original research that needs to be sourced or removed. In any case it isn't relevant to the question of the number of casualties at Guernica. Lexington50 (talk) 08:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the major changes by User:VG-35 should be completely reverted - I don't think the sources used have a neutral view on the action but heavily biased towards republican spain/soviet propaganda view. --Denniss (talk) 12:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Mural del Gernika.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: The long quoted texts are emotional but not exactly encyclopedic. The Bombing of Wieluń isn't described here.Xx236 (talk) 10:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison to subsequent historical events 

message: In section 1, "Guernica," the following appears: "Not only was Guernica considered the identity of Basque,".  What does that MEAN?  If anyone understands it, please rewrite it comprehensibly.Saintonge235 (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad writings 

message: *Courtesy of the IP 2.99.52.199:
"Until recently it was disputed, but now I have these 40 supportive sources to spam and can conclusively say that it no longer is."
Really problematic. I know about the pact of forgetting but this is plain bad. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  How not to represent a point of view 

message: Under See Also there is a link to the January 28 Incident. I don't see why that is relevant? It has no relation to Guernica, the Spanish Civil War, or aerial bombardments?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.162.192.18 (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also link to January 28 incident 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bombing of Guernica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.deia.com/2011/04/27/opinion/editorial/verdades-sobre-gernika
*Added  tag to http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SPguernica.ht
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060907234228/http://www.sbhac.net:80/Republica/TextosIm/Guernica/Guernica.htm to http://www.sbhac.net/Republica/TextosIm/Guernica/Guernica.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070210141106/http://archives.cnn.com:80/2000/STYLE/arts/04/25/guernica.anniversary.ap/index.html to http://archives.cnn.com/2000/STYLE/arts/04/25/guernica.anniversary.ap/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090625145350/http://www.internationalnetworkforpeace.org:80/spip.php?article210 to http://www.internationalnetworkforpeace.org/spip.php?article210
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080723184013/http://www.mayorsforpeace.org/english/speech/Gernika.html to http://www.mayorsforpeace.org/english/speech/Gernika.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Under the "Casualties" heading, we say  "Were" should be "was". 165.234.252.11 (talk) 19:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2016 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bombing of Guernica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061231200445/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/03-14-46.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/03-14-46.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bombing of Guernica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304083022/http://www.derwesten.de/staedte/duisburg/willkommen-im-club-id1427424.html to https://www.derwesten.de/staedte/duisburg/willkommen-im-club-id1427424.html
*Added  tag to http://www.dresden-1945.de/download/03_02_08_Pressemitteilung.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Its waaay too long, and there's clearly POV pushing several places. 
Anyone interested in rewriting it or give it some heavy editing?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.237.134.53 (talk) 00:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is a mess. 

message: The UK Independent looks like a reliable source:; read WP:RS...Modernist (talk) 22:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The Independent has been rejected as a source on other articles on this site. (JohnFanud (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably only by editors who do not know that The Independent is a highly reputable and respected British newspaper. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: "The Independent" is a tabloid like "The Sun" and "The Mirror". It should never be used as a source on wikipedia. (31.53.205.241 (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliable source

message: The bombing of Guernica was completely legal under the international rules on aerial warfare in 1937. Nobody was ever tried for the operation so it can't be called a war crime. (JohnFanud (talk) 22:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: We should stick to facts published by historians and not those made-up by newspapers. --Denniss (talk) 09:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: As nobody was ever indicted for war crimes over Guernica it is POV to call the operation a war crime. The Spanish government requested the raid. (86.160.157.45 (talk) 11:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really the (elected) government but the faction leadership. --Denniss (talk) 12:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Britain and France recognised Franco's government as the legitimate one during the civil war. "The Independent" is not considered a reliable source like "The Telegraph". The bombing of Dresden in 1945 is not described as a war crime on this site, so neither should the bombing of Guernica. (86.160.157.45 (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Arguing that Guernica is not a war crime stretches WP:AGF, especially since it was specifically mentioned in the negotiations leading up to Geneva. Trying to delegitimise the Washington Post, the BBC and The Independent from being reliable sources pushes the assumption of good faith to the very limits of credulity. Even that limit is shattered by the contention that facts a person does not like are somehow "made-up by newspapers." Unless you can find legitimate sources that say this atrocity is not a war-crime, I think this discussion would best be filed under "T is for Trolling."Last1in (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

text: PS: Bombing of Dresden in World War II devotes nearly 4000 words to the debate amongst notable scholars over whether or not that atrocity qualifies as a war crime. The scholars seem split between "Yes, that's a war crime" and deniers who largely use weasel-worded excuses for why it somehow is just a moral crime and not technically a war-crime. If you can find reliable scholars that explicitly say, "The destruction of Guernica by the Nazis assisting Franco was not a war-crime," then it might warrant such a section. Just purging the statement based on your personal POV simply does not cut the mustard. Last1in (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: "The Independent" is a tabloid. You might as well use "The Sun" or "The Mirror" as a source. (31.53.205.241 (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  It was not a war crime 

message: There seems to have been some argument here already. I agree that journalism shouldn't be used in a controversial subject. The reason for this is quite simple; they take everything out of context. This article uses a random journalist article from the Independent to assert that the universally–held view is that this attack was a crime against humanity. This is totally wrong. James Corum, Richard Overy, and Williamson Murray have already done work on this. Corum was von Richthofen's biographer. Their view is it was in compliance with the very vague 1929 Geneva conventions with contained plenty of loopholes for practitioners. They acknowledge the popular view of Guernica as a war crime, and some other historians who support it, but these experts are quite clear about how it should be viewed. Dapi89 (talk) 08:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly we should tell the reader about these historians' analysis and conclusions, but they don't erase decades of contradictory scholarship. Binksternet (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering the diversity and dichotomy of opinion I agree both sides should be heard and represented...Modernist (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

text: Exactly. And my revision of the article lead reflects that. Dapi89 (talk) 17:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  War crime 

message: Much of this article seems devoted to defending, in some way, the actions of the bombers and/or minimizing the death toll without clearly laying out what happened. In particular, the entire section seemingly devoted to defending the Luftwaffe from allegations of terror bombing based on a narrow reading of its policies, without reference to what actually occurred in Guernica, along with the extensive reference to downward revisions of the death toll, might be useful in the context of a broader article. But the fact that they constitute the majority of the text here seems like a major flaw. Are there any objections to making substantive edits here? I am happy to wait a few weeks for input before doing so, and would love some help and collaboration. But it seems like there are a necessary set of changes to make this article factual and impartial. Sammytwiki (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need for substantive revisions 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The bombing served as a testing ground by the Axis on reactions to mass casualties. Quote from source: "Guernica had served as the testing ground for a new Nazi military tactic - blanket-bombing a civilian population to demoralize the enemy. It was wanton, man-made holocaust." Thanks.HistoricReminder (talk) 04:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: And the source is highly questionable. Not even the facts are right, completely missing the italian bombers. --Denniss (talk) 10:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: What is "questionable?"
So what test did Goering mean by his testimony, in your opinion?
From Reuters,When on trial in Nuremberg after the war, Hermann Goering, chief of the German Air Force, testified that “the Spanish Civil War gave me an opportunity to put my young air force to the test, and a means for my men to gain experience.”
It’s not clear, even now, what Goering (and Benito Mussolini’s) young men were getting experience in; it certainly wasn’t precision bombing. The strategic targets were the bridge and an arms factory. Neither were damaged – nor was the Tree of Guernica, an oak, the original of which was planted in the 14th century, under which the lords of the Basque country swore to uphold freedom for the people. But the 1937 attack killed at least 200 inhabitants (the exact figure is still disputed) and wounded hundreds more. The town, a center of Basque cultural life, was largely destroyed.
There’s a majority view that the attack was a practice exercise for blitzkrieg, the “lightning war” of terror from the air much used by the Luftwaffe to demoralize civilian populations in World War Two. Wolfgang Schmidt, an expert on the air force at the Military History Research Institute in Potsdam, says that "for the German air force, Guernica was a trial run on how one can spread horror and distress through attacks on cities and towns.”
Nick Shepley ("creator of the Explaining History series of e-book") in his book: 
Guernica would be a test experiment in the Spanish Civil War, which had become Hitler's laboratory into new methods of fighting.. 
A dank.HistoricReminder (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

text: It looks like you are cherry-picking the sources to confirm your opinion, judging from the wording they all have the same and wrong origin, possibly from propaganda. --Denniss (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Any contradicting reliable sources to Reuters, PBS? What do you mean by "propaganda?" I always knew that about Guernica, as a basic concept in Spanish history of WW2, but since you removed it,  I searched for sources. I'm surprised you are unaware of it. Do you diasgree with Goering about it? Ich verstehe deine Position einfach nicht.  DankeHistoricReminder (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 18:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Test run by the Axis 

message: I've invited comment at NORN here: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Bombing of Guernica
Meanwhile, I'll also post some sources which can be used to shore up the claim:
First, here are a few scholarly sources calling the bombing of Guernica a "war crime" and/or presenting the question as a serious scholarly debate: 
* Luke Cashman, "Guernica: Tactics or terror?", Agora (2021): 
* Katherine O. Stafford, "Archeology of an Icon: Picasso’s Guernica and Spanish Democracy", Narrating War in Peace (2015): 
* Ronald C. Kramer, "From Guernica to Hiroshima to Baghdad: the normalization of the terror bombing of civilians", State Crime in the Global Age (2013):  (There are several other pieces by the same author as well, arguing similar points.)
* Nikola Lusk, "Crimes Against Humanity: The Struggle for Global Justice", University of Queensland Law Journal (2001): 
And here are a few sources calling it a "massacre": 
* Herbert Southworth, Guernica! Guernica! A Study of a Journalism, Diplomacy, Propaganda, and History (2021): 
* Jordi Xifra and Robert L. Heath, "Publicizing atrocity and legitimizing outrage: Picasso’s Guernica", Public Relations Review (2018): 
* Valérie Auclair, "Guernica de Picasso. La masacre en el taller y el compromiso político", Archivo de los Filmoteca (2010): 
There are plenty of high-quality journalistic sources for these terms too (mentioned in discussions above), but I'll stick to scholarly ones for now. These can definitely be added to the article. Generalrelative (talk) 23:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the confusion may come from a point made in an edit to the page I've reverted. In 1899 and 1907 aerial bombardment of civilians didn't exist and was probably unheard of as a tactic. By the time of this event new guidance had been provided as to criminal and non-criminal acts. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:26, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continued discussion of war crime / massacre designation 

message: The section Republican media reporting solely cites España: los años vitales or Spain: the vital years, written by Luis Bolín, who was appointed by Francisco Franco as the head of the Spanish State Tourist Department. The book is a Nationalist spin on the regime, where Luis claims on page 275 that Asturian miners were dispatched to dynamite Guernica instead of the Condor Legion and Aviazione Legionaria bombing the town. The writing accompanying this citation is very reckless and reads like a statement of fact (WP:VOICE) when it should be explicitly attributing this line of thought to Luis. Salmoonlight (talk) 05:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luis Bolín