Talk:Spanish Civil War/Archive 7

message: The following near-essay was included within the Infobox as an HTML comment. Clearly, that is not a good place for it, so I have moved it here: - Jmabel | Talk 04:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essays moved from article 

message: More uncited changes to this article. Recently added:
* "20,000 soldiers (sent by Salazar) from Portugal." News to me, and if true, would be remarkable conduct for an ostensibly neutral power. Spartacus Schoolnet, who discuss Portugal's unbalanced neutrality at some length, say nothing of the sort. I plan to remove this unless a citation is provided within 48 hours. 
* "Although there were some Republicans that fled there were also some insurgents fighting on the outskirts of Republican surrender." I have no idea what this means. "Outskirts" is a geographical term. This makes no sense. I plan to remove this unless it is reworded coherently within 48 hours. 
-- Jmabel | Talk 07:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Volunteer aviators, observers: pretty much what came from a lot of other countries on one or both sides. No mention of 20,000 soldiers sent by Salazar; indeed, a statement that pretty much rules that out: "El gobierno del profesor Oliveira Salazar, aunque no ocultaba su simpatía por el bando sublevado, se encontraba con las manos atadas por la Sociedad de Naciones y la Comisión de No Intervención en la Guerra de España (C.N.I.G.E.) a la que se había adherido el 13 de Agosto." TRANSLATION: "The government of professor Oliveira Salazar, although they did not hide their sympathy for the insurgent band, found themselves with their hands tied by the Leage of Nations and the Commission of Non-Intervention in the Spanish Civil War, to which it had adhered 13 August." Possibly something deserves mention, but clearly I was correct to remove what was there. - Jmabel | Talk 23:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes challenged 

message: I'm not sure if this has already benen mentioned, but I think that this article should have the iconic image of the republican soldier falling in battle. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.69.40.37 (talk • contribs).
:I feel that that image has an American POV. The image humanizes a heroic 'Loyalist' soldier whereas the 'Rebel' soldier who shot him is just some unknown, unseen, vague and barbaric figure. That about sums up how the New York Times covered the war. I think that it would be better if the image was a montage like used in the American Civil War article and the World War II article. Gamecock 03:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image in Infobox

message: The "Combatants" section reads like a second, unnecessarily detailed introduction or even a second copy of the article, awkwardly placed at the top of the original. I recommende a better editor than myself come around and remove it, moving any necessary information to the body of the article.  I would almost guess that this is an addition made by one person who didn't like the orientation of the rest of the article...
-Dwinetsk 23:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combatants section unnecessary 

message: This article is very long and is well over the recommended article size. One way to reduce size would be to transfer info to articles about each year of the war and then link these articles back to the main article. This article should only be a general history of the war. The yearly articles can go into more detail. Djln --Djln 23:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Size

message: Unlike in a lot of bias reports. The loyalists got hugh amounts of arms and supplies for the Soviet Union. Many claims that this was a unfair fight cause the other guys have more help are bogus (which is usual when communist or socialist regimes or fighters lose engagements). I give the article credit in showing the specific amount of support these guys got. YankeeRoman(24.75.194.50 18:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article does good job in detailing communist support 

message: Hi -- the article is fairly long. We could split off the "Spanish Civil War in popular culture" section to its own article; I suspect it could grow significantly given the chance. Thoughts? --lquilter 00:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine in principle, but if I gather correctly, this was done and the new article isn't even linked. What is its title? - Jmabel | Talk 21:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  article long? popular culture works 

message: The weight is that the anti-religious activities of the Republicans at the beginning of the war, doomed their chances of eventual victory.  Why do you ask?  The United States could never support them because of Catholic support of FDR.  The Catholic Church weighed heavily in other parts of the world as well, and probably the most damaging blows to Republican respectibility in this respect were the pictures in Life Magazine  of militiamen sitting on altars, wearing vestments and committing other acts of sacrilege to the Catholic Religion.  Joseph P. Kennedy was very instrumental in persuading FDR to keep the USA out of the conflict.  France was too vacillating, Mexico too poor and too far away, and Stalin too feckless to save the Republic.
I might add that I am rather perplexed by the bias shown on this site about this subject which indeed was crucial in the conflict.  Why is that, a neutral observor might ask?
````GenghisTheHun
: The weight is that the anti-religious activities of the Republicans at the beginning of the war, doomed their chances of eventual victory.  No, actually, that's not the weight; that's the significance, and you didn't put it in the article.  The "weight", as we use it on wikipedia, means how much and what kind of verbiage is spent on one issue relative to others.  You actually didn't include any of the analysis you've added here in the section; you simply listed atrocities, statistics, some colorful detail (named after sports teams), and some unreferenced opinion & POV language ("aimed at manners and morals" ... "fury"); all of it was unnecessary detail, elaborating on anti-clerical violence acknowledged in several other places in the article.  Creating an entire section for this material encourages similarly detailed discussions of non-clerical-related atrocities, and atrocities on both sides, and justifications for the atrocities, and so on.  And then that encourages more discussion about other events of equivalent historical importance in the article: military strategy, battles, economics, and so on, to keep things balanced so that the article is not disproportionately about atrocities. That's weight, and that's why the section you added is WP:NPOV#Undue weight.  
: Now, the analysis you give here is actually more useful than any of the detail that you had previously added.  If you wanted to distill your above paragraph into something briefer that would go into foreign involvement, that could be a useful addition to the article, properly cited.  
: Please quit assuming bias when people have laid out for you here & on your talk page detailed explanations about why the material is too much for this article, and given you suggestions about starting new articles, how to edit it, and so on. You might read or re-read "assume good faith" as well as "no personal attacks".  --lquilter 17:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Weight of Anti-Religous Activities of Republican Spain

message: Both these sections are quite long, and could probably be cut to about 50% or less of current size; I suggest a spin-off into a separate article for more detailed discussion. --lquilter 17:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  sections: foreign involvement / number of foreigners fighting  

message: I linked in Spanish Civil War and Foreign Involvement that was removed to a new page.
````GenghisTheHun
:This article contains a lot of bloat on the subject and much of it could be moved to the child page you created.Fluffy999 10:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Linked in Spanish Civil War and Foreign Involvement

message: The section "Prelude" says "The Basque nationalists were not officially part of the Front, but were sympathetic to it."  It is completely unclear whether this "Front" is the Popular Front or the National Front.  Kevin Nelson 08:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Popular Front. - Jmabel | Talk 21:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing wording about Basque nationalists