Talk:1933 Spanish general election

message: Somone should find out the actualy percentage of votes, not the percentage of seats, because it gives you the idea the Spanish were facist even then, which they weren't.
Sillyness about "even then" etc, but the core contention - ie that's percentage of seats. Distribution of votes was very different - is correct. 84.59.160.170 (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Hi.  I have signed up to do a bit of a copy edit as per request on the guild of copy editors page.  I tend to take my time and discuss my proposed changes before making any actual changes.  That often involves asking questions, so I hope I can do that here.  Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk  20:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyedit 

message: Grandiose, I am proposing re-wording the lead thus -
::Elections to Spain’s legislature, the Cortes Generales, were held 19 November 1933 for all 473 seats in the unicameral Cortes of the Second Spanish Republic. Since the previous elections of 1931, a new constitution had been ratified, and the franchise extended to more than six million women.  The governing Republican-Socialist coalition had fallen apart, with the Radicals beginning to support a newly united political right.
::The right contested the 1933 election as a coalition, the Spanish Confederation of the Autonomous Right (CEDA), favoured under new electoral laws enacted earlier in the year, and capitalising on disenchantment with the government among Catholics and other conservatives.  CEDA campaigned on reversing the reforms that had been made under the Republic, and on freeing political prisoners.  Anarchists favoured abstention from the vote, which led to a significant victory for the right over the left, with CEDA and the Radicals winning 114 and 102 seats respectively, while the Socialist Party won only 59.
Let me know your thoughts.  I won't make any changes unless you give me the thumbs up.  Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk  09:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll update the lead with some of your suggestions and some of my preferred language/factual corrections. See what you think. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs)  10:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The newly formed Catholic conservative Spanish Confederation of the Autonomous Right (Confederación Española de Derechas Autónomas or CEDA), gained 115 seats ...
As much as people with an interest in Spanish history may know what CEDA was, many others don’t, and articles ought to provide the stand-alone information necessary to make sense of the topic.
The re-wording also removes the synthesis of ‘By contrast’ to adopt a more neutral tone.  If this synthesis is nevertheless thought to be desirable because it paraphrases a source, consider putting it in quote marks to indicate it is the source’s assertion, not Wikipedia’s.
Please discuss or approve here, and I will make the change.  Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk  22:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Fine. ("By contrast" wasn't intended to be about the difference between parties, merely the difference in outcome, but I'm sure the reader can see that without it.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs)  08:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section 

message: Apologies for the delay in returning to the copy edit.  Life has an annoying tendency to interfere with my Wikipedia contributions.
As already flagged, I propose to amend the second sentence of the second paragraph thus –
:::The newly formed Catholic conservative Spanish Confederation of the Autonomous Right (Confederación Española de Derechas Autónomas or CEDA), gained 115 seats ...
As much as people with an interest in Spanish history may know what CEDA was, many others don’t, and articles ought to provide the stand-alone information necessary to make sense of the topic.
The re-wording also removes the synthesis of ‘By contrast’ to adopt a more neutral tone.  If this synthesis is nevertheless thought to be desirable because it paraphrases a source, consider putting it in quote marks to indicate it is the source’s assertion, not Wikipedia’s.
Please discuss or approve here, and I will make the change.  Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk  22:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine. ("By contrast" wasn't intended to be about the difference between parties, merely the difference in outcome, but I'm sure the reader can see that without it.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs)  08:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Mention of CEDA

message: Below is an edited version of the first sentence of the ‘Background’ section, with strikethroughs indicating further suggested changes as explained below.
::Elections in June 1931 had returned a large majority of Republicans and Socialists to the Cortes, with the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party (PSOE) gaining 116 seats and the Radical Republican Party under Alejandro Lerroux's leadership 94. The government was controlled by a Republican-Socialist coalition, whose members had varying objectives. The state's financial position was poor. Wealth redistribution supported by the new government attracted criticism from the wealthy. The government also  attempted to tackle poverty in rural areas by instituting an eight-hour day and giving security of tenure to farm workers, drawing criticism from landlords.
Is the leadership of Lerroux somehow more notable than the leadership of the socialist party?  If not, consider mentioning both leaders or none.  Does it need to be said that the Republican-Socialist coalition had varying objectives?  Is it ever mentioned again how that played out in practice?  The weight of this sentence seems to be on wealth re-distribution and agrarian reform.  Consider dropping the mention of the Republican-Socialist alliance altogether, since it is already inferred by the seat count, and dropping the mention of varying objectives, unless there’s a salient example of why this mattered (ie, conflicts within the government leading to instability or public criticism).
If I have altered the facts, or more detail needs to be added, please copy paste the sentence, make the necessary changes, and post it on this page in reply.  Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk  01:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background section, first paragraph 

message: My proposal for rewording the second paragraph of the ‘Background’ section.
:::Parliamentary opposition was led by three groups. The first included Catholic movements such as the Asociación Católica de Propagandistas.  The second group consisted of organisations that had supported the monarchy, such as the Renovación Española and Carlists, who wanted to see the new republic overthrown in a violent uprising.  The third group were fascist organisations.  Members of the Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (CNT) trade union movement willing to cooperate with the Republic were forced out of the CNT, which continued to oppose the government.  Opposition parties had the support of the church.  A new constitution was ratified on 9 December 1931.  It included many controversial articles, some of which were aimed at curbing the influence of the Catholic Church.  The constitution was reformist, liberal, and democratic in nature, and was welcomed by the Republican-Socialist coalition, but opposed by landowners, industrialists, the organised church, and army officers.  In opposing educational and religious reforms, Spanish Catholics were forced to oppose the government.  The press cricised government actions as barbaric, unjust, and corrupt.
 
The opening word ‘effective’ seemed ambiguous: does it mean that the three groups effectively comprised an opposition, or that the opposition comprised of the three groups was effective?  If the latter, how so?  I have omitted it here.
The final sentence seems unclear.  Was the press denouncing wealth re-distribution, the constitution, educational and religious reforms as barbaric, etc, or was there a separate set of actions being denounced, and if so, what were they?  Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk  02:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: (I edited the passage from Background of the Spanish Civil War [although I did write that as well!]). "Effective opposition" meant that the actions of the three groups were effective at opposing the government. (The groups failing to mount significant opposition not being mentioned.) The corrupt etc. part is supposed to stand for what it says: things the government did were criticised by the press. That included, but it would be guesswork to suggest it was limited to, the things given in the paragraph. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs)  08:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So, if I re-worded the above to start: 'Three groups led an effective parliamentary opposition ...', would you be happy with that paragraph wording?  Peter S Strempel | Talk  22:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background section, second paragraph 

message: All paragraphs in the background section have now been edited by me as indicated above.  While I edited carefully and proofread the finished section a couple of times, I think it could do with a once-over from you, Grandiose.  Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk 10:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  background section 

message: An image used in this article, File:Alejandro Lerroux.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 
;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) 18:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Alejandro Lerroux.JPG Nominated for Deletion