Talk:Catholicism in the Second Spanish Republic

The Red Terror

The section on the "Red Terror" has this sentence "The Republican government was anticlerical and supporters attacked and murdered Roman Catholic clergy in reaction to news of the military revolt." which I copied from our article on the Spanish Civil War. I know from discussions on Talk:Catholic Church that there is some dispute as to whether the Catholic Church sided with Falange before or after the outbreak of anticlerical violence. I suspect the truth is that the Catholic Church was already beginning to side with the Falange before the violence and it felt it necessary to throw its chips in with the Falange after the violence. We should review the article text for oversimplifications such as the sentence above and provide a more nuanced explanation of how the Church came to side with the Falange. --Richard S (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I have now brought over a lot more text from our article on the Spanish Civil War. I hope that this helps provide the more "nuanced explanation" that I suggested that we needed. Nonetheless, there might be POV issues with the new text so I invite other editors to review the text and help make it more NPOV if necessary. --Richard S (talk) 16:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Sayerslle removed the text on the Red Terror. Why is the Red Terror now outside the scope of this article? I recognize that there is a main article on the topic but I think we need a brief overview of it in this article. --Richard S (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry , I've so got it in my head that everything changed after the rebellion of july 1936 that the political transformation equalled the end of the republic . i 'll restore it. Sayerslle (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Lead is POV

obviously its a sketch but the lead is 'editorialised' - so the story basically is to explain, justify why the Church had to support franco - in the face of terror, blah , blah. franzen is cited by the way, cite no 2,no book title, no page number, - but mary vincents book, just because i ve finished reading it i keep on about it, is 100s of pages about the rightward drift of much influential Catholic thinking and writing, its authoritarian bias, its hatred of any secularising tendencies, - this all pre dates the terror - as vincent also says the jesuits as one example in Salamanca rushing to join the rebellion - from February 36 the JAP the catholic youth wing of the CEDA, joining the Falange, it has to be up front, in the lead - the Church can't be said to have been apolitical until they were badly tortured and masacred and martyred by the satanic left - there should be an immediate mention of complexity and pre-history in the lead, - and mention of the intemperate anti-semitic language, ( why are the lovers of the Church so shameless about this aspect, so blase, bad conscience maybe, this all led one place - the camps of the mid century and they know it)the Church's talk of masonic conspiracies, and foreign elements destroying Catholic spain - happy enough of course to rush to support francos rebellion against a legally elected government with Moslem troops from spanish Morocco ah, the sodding irony, - and in time , the Nazis and the Condor Legion as they bombed Guernica and the Basques where the Church, loyal to the legally elected government was untouched .the lead should mention deniels 'Two cities' speech i think as it is a paradigm of the apocalyptic language of the Church - the lead has to change. THis is garbled, theres no particular hurry , i need to read much more - the red terror article, decocted in mamalujos laboratory is terrible - one of the cites was to a book by Frances Lennon - turns out to be an artist - should have been Frances Lannon, really a bloody shoddy article that one - Sayerslle (talk) 14:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

As you can tell, I've been working primarily on the main body text rather than the lead. The lead is probably copied from one of the Catholic Church articles (e.g. History of the Catholic Church) and thus reflects whatever bias was in the original text. Eventually, we will have to go back to all the related articles and fix them. --Richard S (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've moved some text out of the main article text into the lead with the hopes that this will make it less POV. Whaddya think? --Richard S (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not thrilled with the current lead. It is getting too much detail. We need to slim down the lead so that it is just a few short paragraphs rather than a mini-article which is where it is headed now. --Richard S (talk) 16:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The lead is still probably a little too long but it's not nearly as bad as it used to be. Sayerslle slapped a POV tag on the article although I think his major problem is with the lead. However, I don't think the lead is that biased. It seems that Sayerslle is objecting to the numerous citations to Stanley Payne. However, if we ignore the citations and look at the actual text of the lead, I just don't see it as being that POV. I think it would be useful to discuss the specific wording in specific sentences that Sayerslle objects to. --Richard S (talk) 02:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Anticlerical Second Republic

I must say that, based on what I have found through my online research so far, it looks as if the story of an anticlerical Second Republic is the one most commonly recorded. The initial violence seems to have been the 1931 "burning of the convents". CEDA is portrayed as a Catholic right-wing organization that spanned both moderates and extremists. It could potentially have kept Spain together except that the right-wing extremists left it to form the Falange. The story that I'm getting from what I have read so far is the failure of the center to satisfy the left or the right and thus began the downward spiral into civil war. Is your understanding different from this? --Richard S (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

My understanding isn't much different from that - but the anti-clerical republic didn't last long far as I can see 31-33, the burning of the convents in 31, an isolated event, and petty things like the removal of crucifixes from hospitals got reversed in 33. and then the trigger for the descent into war was the defeat of CEDA in february 1936 and the Catholic right going over to anti-democratic politics - falange, carlism, - the impression I have is of a feeling of the endless portrayal in catholic circles of a catholic spain threatened by alien ness and the rhetoric and the politics all got heightened and that this was unhelpful and not inevitable, as moderates like Miguel Maura proved - catholicism and republicanism could go together. the thirties of course was tragic for the loss of all moderation - ' a mean and sordid decade' - W.H.Auden Sayerslle (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

At first, I was unwilling to accept your assertion that "the anti-clerical republic didn't last long" but then I recalled that many of the 1931 reforms were repealed by the Lerroux government of 1933, a fact that is conveniently omitted in many pro-Catholic accounts of the era. It would help if we could provide reliable sources who make this assertion. Otherwise, it just sounds like original research. --Richard S (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Some bits from Vincents book - centres on the province of Salamanca, situation after 1933 - but still generally relevant to changed situation after 1933 elections

" the rights impressive triumph in Salamanca in November 1933 was not an exact reflection of the national results. the disintegration of the old Republican-Socialist coalition meant that the left had done badly throughout Spain - the ousting of the Republican-Socialist govt had an immediate effect. In Salamanca the anticlerical measures introduced in the constitution fell into abeyance, while the implementation of the Law of Congregations was halted. (Vincent ch X 'Catholicism in the Second Spanish republic ).. other bits, chapter 10 of her book

" In Salamanca by the end of 1933 the Society of Jesus had resumed its pastoral work..by the end of 1935, with the CEDA finally participating in govt, the Salamancan Jesuits had also returned to their community residence. Holy week processions returned to Ciudad Rodrigo and other towns and villages in the province at easter 1934.." Sayerslle (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Although the ban on Catholic education was temporarily repealed in late 1933, the anti-Catholic provisions of the constitution remained in force, and many of the schools had altready gone anyway. The minority participation of CEDA in government in 1934 led to the first wide-scale leftist violence and the first of the systematised killings of priests. The Civil war itself was preceded by a refusal to allow CEDA to lead a coalition, and a new election in 1936, producing a socialist-communist-anarchist majority following a collapse of the Radicals. At this time, the ban on Catholic education was put into force once more, and among other violent acts, over three hundred Catholic churches were burned down or attacked. Xandar 23:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

This is Frances Lannon, fellow and tutor in Modern History at Lady Margaret Hall Oxford :

" in October 1934 a new Radical govt, headed by Lerroux,was formed, which contained three CEDA ministers , in the key ministries of Labour, Agriculture and Justice. For many on the left, this was the end of the Republic in any meaningful sense...decided that the CEDA in govt was the beginning of a fascist takeover ..and determined on a revolution for which they and their allies had made few preparations..Only in the northern mining area of Asturias [ wide scale?] had the revolution been seriously prepared. revolutionary committees took over towns and villages, many buildings were destroyed and some Civil guards, industrialists and priests were killed. " [Compare with inflammatory 'first wide scale leftist violence and the first of the systematised killings of priests..' very irenic, very xtian. Lannon is closer to the NPOV rule than you xandar and she's not a wikipedian.( Are 'wide-scale' and 'systematised killings' in your sources or in your head ) ]

Frances Lannon,

" Lerroux called in Franco, the Spanish Foreign Legion and Morocccan troops..The death toll was high, not just during the fighting but also in the brutal military repression that followed. About a thousand workers were killed in the pacification, and many thousands of political prisoners were taken in Asturias and elsewhere in Spain..Gil Robles was appointed Minister for War. Projects for a revised land reform were abandoned." Adiós. Sayerslle (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

"Lerroux called in Franco, the Spanish Foreign Legion and Morocccan troops". It's important to remember that Lerroux was a leader of the Radical Republican Party which was center-left in coalition with the CEDA which was center-right. As commented on below, it's not just a war of right against left but also both extremes against the middle. The suppression of the leftist rebellion is not an act of the Francoist extreme right but one of the center. Now, we might argue that the military did more than what the center left wanted but I haven't seen anybody make that argument yet. Is there any record of Lerroux objecting to excesses in what the military did at his behest? Someone said that the Spanish Civil War was not a case of good people vs. bad people but rather bad people vs. bad people. I would take it one step further and say that it was a case of bad people on the left vs. bad people on the right vs. bad people in the center. No one is blameless here and no one is the helpless victim (except possibly for the parish priests and religious who were just pawns in this power struggle.) --Richard S (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Finding an NPOV presentation of both POVs

Hey, I know you guys have been going at it back and forth at Talk:Catholic Church. So far, your discussion has been unproductive and, IMHO, I think the reason is that each of you insists on presenting your own POV without accepting that the other side's POV may have some validity. I think it would be productive for us to find an NPOV way to present both POVs. This is an area that I've only started learning about but I think there was plenty of nasty stuff happening on both sides. Here is the narrative that I have been able to piece together over the last few days:

We start with the socialist "revolution" of 1931. It's a pretty bloodless revolution at first in that it comes to pass via a democratic election forcing the abdication of Alfonso XIII. We have to remember that democracy is not perfect because there is always the risk of a "tyranny of the majority" which rams things down the throats of the minority, abrogating what they feel are their rights. For example, the Zamora government passes a new constitution which severely limits the power and wealth of the Catholic Church by abolishing public religious processions, religious education, expropriating property, imposing rents on the Church to use property that had formerly been theirs. On top of that, there is the "burning of the convents" which may have occurred in a relatively short time period but cannot really be dismissed as an "isolated incident". (There are also, I think, measures against the landed aristocracy but let's ignore those for the time being so we can focus on the Church.)

At this point, the Spanish right is already quite incensed and starts mobilizing in opposition to the left's assault on the landed aristocracy and the Church. It's important to note that, while deploring the left's anti-Church rhetoric and actions, the Vatican does try to maintain diplomatic relations with the Zamora government.

In 1933, CEDA is formed and actually wins a plurality of seats in the Cortes. However, Gil-Robles, the leader of the CEDA, is too controversial and President Zamora asks Lerroux to form a government. CEDA ultimately gets 3 ministerial posts in the Lerroux government. The Lerroux government suspended most of the reforms of the previous Manuel Azaña government, provoking an armed miners' rebellion in Asturias on October 6, and an autonomist rebellion in Catalonia. Both rebellions are suppressed harshly and both left and right become increasingly committed to armed struggle and the center collapses as the political ethos becomes irreconcilably polarized. Spain experienced general strikes and street conflicts. Noted among the strikes was the miners' revolt in northern Spain and riots in Madrid. Nearly all rebellions were crushed by the Government and political arrests followed.

In 1936, CEDA loses the election and Lerroux loses his seat as the center-right evaporates and a right-wing coalition called the Frente Nacional is formed. The left-wing coalition, the Popular Front, wins by a narrow margin but the Opposition Parties claim that 200 of those seats were won by election fraud and that the Popular Front really only won a tiny number of seats. The stage is now set for the situation to go very far south very quickly.

The assassination of the right-wing opposition leader José Calvo Sotelo by government police troops, possibly acting on their own in retaliation for the murder of José Castillo, precipitated the rebellion of the generals. But it's not just this one incident that sparks the rebellion of the generals. Spain is in chaos (at least from their perspective) and the coup d'etat is along the lines of other coup d'etats in Latin America. (I'm not defending Franco here, just explaining what I understand the situation to have been.)

It's not clear to me exactly when the Catholic hierarchy in Spain turned to support the Nationalists or when the Vatican shifted from a strategy of diplomatic negotiation with the Second Republic to calling for volunteers from other nations such as Ireland to help fight against "godless Communism" in Spain.

Clearly, the Church felt itself the victim of government reforms and government inability/unwillingness to suppress anti-Church violence in the 1931 burning of the convents. However, the Church did not immediately support the extreme right after 1931. Before the center-right evaporated in 1936, some of the hierarchy may have supported the center-right (so-called moderates) and some of them supported the extreme right. After the center-right evaporated in 1936, the Church unsurprisingly wound up supporting the extreme right rather than the extreme left. Given the anti-Church agenda of the left, there is no reason to expect the Church to support the left (despite the social teaching of the Church, the Church is not going to support any government which has an agenda of expropriation and other limitations of the Church's prerogatives. At best, they could hope to reach an accommodation with such a government.).

Were there atrocities committed by both sides? Yes. Has the Church generally focused on its suffering and glossed over or ignored the suffering caused by those who sided with it? Yes.

The main reason that I started this article is that it became clear to me that the reason the two of you have been unable to come to a compromise is that you are working with accounts of the events that are impoverished by the POV lens through which you view history.

If you agree with the narrative that I have set out above (most of which I have cobbled together from Wikipedia articles and some Google search results), then can we work together to find an NPOV way to present this to our audience both here and ultimately in summary-style at other related articles such as History of the Catholic Church and Catholic Church?

--Richard S (talk) 05:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Knee-jerk reaction to the above is that it's a pretty fair summary but too static about the role of Catholic politics as the situation was developing, its ideology, its newspapers sought to discredit moderate catholic opinion, politicians who sought to negotiate with the republic and meet it half-way denounced as traitors, men like Miguel Maura called 'a man of 31' a reference to the burning of the convents etc in june 31 in Madrid,, papers like Herrera Oria's Gaceta Nacional driving the political dialogue away fron the centre - the church and catholic politics had authoritarian preferences and tendencies - not all, not everywhere, " The fall of the Republican northern front ( jumpimg forward to 1937) meant the end of Basque autonomy until after Franco's death. Franco was particularly incensed that the catholic Basque nationalist party had fought against him." It is a complex situation before and after - I don't like to see that pulverised with a right wing POV and obviously don't agree i have an impoverished POV - i dont have a settled POV on it because i know I haven't read enough about the era. i don't know who Nicola rooney is - i'll read the article linked to - but again its about more than the hierarchy anyway its about the world of catholic attitudes. Mary Vincent is very clear that even in Catholic heartland Salamanca in 1931 there was willingness to give the Republic a chance and the government enacted insensitive and too dogmatic measures and so by 1933 this had changed - " it is one of the main arguments of this study [catholicism in 2 sp rep] that the descent into war resulted from the closing down of the moderate political options these men - conservative republican figures like Miguel de Unamuno, Villalobos, Marcos Escribano - represented." Sayerslle (talk) 09:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Sayerslle wrote "too static about the role of Catholic politics...". Yes, I readily admit my ignorance about this period. However, it seems obvious that the period from 1933-1936 was a period in which the two extremes demolished the center. Perhaps the center failed because each part of the center (center right and center left) was more committed to being right or left than to being center. In any event, the story is not just one of left vs. right but also one of both extremes against the center. The lead should make this clear to the reader.--Richard S (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's an interesting paper that I dug up on the Internet: The role of the Catholic hierarchy in the rise to power of General Franco

I've only read the first few pages but the author's thesis asserts that "although the Catholic bishops clearly shared the counter-revolutionary goals of the rebels, the Church had played no part in the conspiracy that led to the military insurrection against the Popular Front government on 18 July 1936". Instead, she argues that "The inaction of the Republican government (vis-a-vis the anticlerical violence of 1936) left the clergy with no other alternative than to seek protection from the Nationalists, and the bishops were thus, ironically, driven to collaborate with the rebels by the persecution inflicted on them for a conspiracy of which they were innocent"

The point here is that it is true that the Catholic hierarchy favored the right-wing from 1931 onwards but they did not side with Franco's rebellion until after the anticlerical violence of 1936.

(P.S. Anybody know who the author (Nicola Rooney) is?

--Richard S (talk) 08:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I looked up Quest - Nicola Rooney , and she was , in 2007 when she wrote the above paper,, 'a final year PhD student in the department of Hispanic studies, trinity College, Dublin.' Sayerslle (talk) 10:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeh, I rather suspected something like that. So, she's basically an academic nobody but I think what she wrote (at least in the first three pages) is spot on. What's needed is to find more authoritative authors who make similar points. --Richard S (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The centrality of the massacres of 1936 to the Catholic reaction needs to be prominent.

Some additional sources:

• Stanley G. Payne, Franco and Hitler: Spain, Germany, and World War II, Yale University press, p 13.
• Stanley G Payne, Spain's first democracy: the Second Republic, 1931-1936 Univ of Wisconsin Press, 1993, ISBN 0299136744, pp. 81-84
• Graham , Helen, The Spanish Republic at War, Cambridge University Press, 2002, pp. 28-30
• Víctor Pérez Díaz, The return of civil society: the emergence of democratic Spain., Harvard University Press, 1993. Xandar 23:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thats a POV thing to say . What needs to be is - the views of a wide range of academics presented. Frances Lannon for eg. doesn't agree that it was a defensive holy war that began in 1936 - she believes it isn't that simple. Sayerslle (talk) 00:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The Diaz you link to, p.128 'the church reacted to all this (anti-clerical legislation/ convent burnings 31) by mobilizing the masses of peasants and the middle classes and channelling them into professional and political right wing organisations prepared for by decades of organisational work. the extreme right soon took upon itself the task of conspiring to overthrow the regime - the moderate right refused to state its unambiguous loyalty to the new institutions and openly flirted with authoritarianism. ' that rather denies the centrality of the massacres in determining Catholic alignment Sayerslle (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Reconsidering the title and scope of this article

Sayerslle wrote "too static about the role of Catholic politics...".

It seems to me that we need to make two decisions:

*First, is this article about "Catholic Church and the Spanish Civil War" or about "Catholic Church and the Second Spanish Republic". The latter is a more accurate description of the scope and we cannot tell the full story unless we start in 1931. However, the former is more likely to be what people would be searching for. Of course, Catholic Church and the Spanish Civil War could be a redirect to Catholic Church and the Second Republic.

*Second, do we want to focus solely on the "Catholic Church" and its official pronouncements and actions or do we want to include "Catholic politics" which includes the actions of politicians and other laymen who supported the Catholic Church but did not speak or act officially on its behalf? Xandar likes to draw this distinction and it's a valid one but focusing only on the Church's official words and actions tells only half the story. As Nicola Rooney states, the Church wound up paying the price for a conspiracy in which it had no part. It should also be said that it later benefited from the evil acts of Franco even though he did not act officially on behalf of the Church. Perhaps the title needs to change to something like Catholic politics and the Second Spanish Republic.

Thoughts?

--Richard S (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I think 'Catholicism in the Second Spanish Republic' would be a useful article - could discuss official words and actions and the wider Catholic politics and, something I personally think you understimate, the role of catholic literature and ideology in propagating an idea of anti-spain - a spain threatened by Soviet Communism, freemasons and Jews, and the spread of social darwinist ideas, the language of racial decline asturias was the first manifestation of 'anti-spain' the JAP, the Catholic Ceda youth wing -'intoxicated by the new fascist style' M,.Vincents words, (Univ of Sheffield, senior lecturer, modern history) mobilised to defend 'true' spain against Marxist tyranny. 34 priests were killed in asturias ( the most clerical blood shed in Spain for over a 100 years) -, 1,000 Asturian fighters killed, 30,000 imprisoned and many tortured . then leading to this one 'C C and Spanish Civil War' - - then that would mean the expanding lead of this article could be trimmed - I think there are 4 titles on Amazon that if read and used could leave decent articles :

• The Splintering of Spain, a book of essays .pmanderson recommended this
• Gunpowder and Incense - the Catholic Church and the Spanish Civil war (Routledge - good publisher! publish Simone Weil titles too)
• Frances Lannon, (Principal, Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford, ) - Privilege, Persecution and Prophecy the Church in Spain 1875-1975
• Martin Blinkhorn - Democracy and Civil war in Spain - an 80 page pamphlet, but Blinkhorn is an expert on Carlism I think. With these 4 I think the articles could be made pretty o.k( Mary Vincent by the way, writes that 1933 -36 was under a right-wing coalition - Lerrouxs 'centre ' party she writes , ' in fact drifting to the right throughout the Republic' [P.S. I didn't mean to imply it isn't a decent article, the work you've done on it, i haven't read the whole article , I tend to focus on a section, get distracted, or annoyed, and then go away to look up something about the point I'm annoyed about or questioning]. Sayerslle (talk) 21:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Sayerslle (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

the constitution was generally sound but

" When the Constituent Assembly approved an amended draft on 9 December 1931, it created a secular democratic system based on equal rights for all citizens, with provision for regional autonomy. It introduced female suffrage, civil marriage and divorce. " p.20 frances lannon, the Spanish Civil War 1936-1939 Sayerslle (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeh, I saw that too and wanted to comment on it. Seems like a judgment made from a POV. If we were going to say that the constitution was "generally sound", we would want to indicate the POV from which it was considered to be so. --Richard S (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see now that there is a budding edit war between Mamalujo and Sayerslle. I'm inclined to go with Sayerslle's version but can we discuss what the concerns are here? Can we find a compromise that will address Mamalujo's concerns ? --Richard S (talk) 19:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Erroneous claims of unreliability and bias in the work of Stanley Payne

Sayerslle has in this and other articles erroneously painted Stanley Payne as an unreliable, biased, right wing hack, using this to remove or qualify material sourced to him. As noted below, he is actually considered part of what is called the “objective” group of historians on the subject, and the same academic journal specifically notes that he is NOT part of the right wing on the subject. Payne is noted more than any other scholar on this subject for his erudition, scrupulous research, prolific production and objectivity. No other scholar on this subject is continually described with such superlatives. The claims of bias and unreliability are demonstrably false. Indeed just the opposite is true.

To the contrary of the false claims of bias, Payne is actually noted for his objectivity and scrupulosity in attempting to avoid bias. Here he is noted for his methodology, designed, insofar as possible, to avoid bias. He has himself discussed his effort to avoid bias and maintain balance.

Robert A. Stradling, author of The Irish and the Spanish Civil War says Payne’s Spain “unfailingly maintains the standards of balance and objectivity that have always been the hallmark of his endeavor.”

The noted scholar of fascism Roger Griffin called him “the doyen fascist studies” who has written a “summa on the subject”. (Doyen -“a person considered to be knowledgeable or uniquely skilled as a result of long experience in some field of endeavor” –Websters) Oxford educated Berkelly professor, Ronald Hilton, noted hispanist and founder of the World Association of International Scholars called him “America’s leading specialist on modern Spain”, noting also that his nickname is “spayne”. The New York Times Book Review calls him "America's most prolific historian of Spain."

Library Journal called called Payne’s The Franco Regime a “balanced and coherent treatment”. Expert on totalitarianism, authoritarianism and the breakdown of democracy, Yale professor Juan Linz called Payne’s book Spain “An excellent, balanced discussion of important controversies.”

One hispanophile called him “the most objective of the historians writing on Spain today.”

Books and Culture says he is “perhaps the foremost American historian of 20th-century Spain” and “Don't suppose that Payne romanticizes the Nationalist cause—not in the least. He is quite clear about the orgies of violence on the other side as well, directed against Republicans. But unlike many historians—Antony Beevor, for example, in his recent history of the Civil War—Payne doesn't gloss over or rationalize the murderous anti-Catholic rampages.” As noted in the academic journal International Labor and Working Class History, Payne is part of a group of historians on the subject actually called the “objective” group. The article specifically does not group him with the “right wing”.

From the American Historical Review: “The generally neutral tone of his contributions in these areas [Spanish Civil War]—largely a product of the influence the social science model of "objectivity" has had on his historical approach—has meant that no serious scholar can legitimately accuse him of being an apologist for either the Nationalists or Republicans. … neither ideological nor polemical. Rather, it is a judicious and diligently researched study.” Mamalujo (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to get bogged down arguing with you, I 've scanned the above, i confess i so dislike you and your tendentious 'contributions' , that I can barely stand to read what you write - I'll quickly reply that whatever Payne is, and how old are his books now?, you constantly resort to this source, or else pro-Franco Catholic 'historians' and thats not right for wikipedia i don't think. In Paul Preston's essay, (I know he is a left wing writer but also an academic (univ of london when he wrote the essay in 1984) so has credentials) the Spanish Civil War and the historians - " Franco's backers preferred an apocalyptic and religious interpretation of the war. By dwelling on, and exaggerating, anti-clerical atrocities without examining the background, by pretending that working class excesses had been inspired and manipulated by Communists and freemasons, the Francoist 'historians' helped cement the alliance between the regime and the Catholic Church. Changing political needs led eventually to a move away from the hysterical denunciations of the crimes of the red rabble and the semi-religious veneration of Falngist martyrs. After the fall of the Axis, the central necessity of the Franco dictatorship was to wipe away the opprobrium of its fascist connections. ..Franco [became] a clairvoyant pioneer in the war against communism. he became the bulwark of the Western defence against the Soviet threat...Throughout the 1950s the evil machinations of communism became the dominant theme of Francoist historiography, especially in the works written and edited by three policemen, Eduardo Comin Coilomer, Mauricio Carlavilla and Angel Ruiz Ayucar." [ this is where mamlujo, you turn up, with Payne, like when you said "Well, my friend, Orwell and Weil were what we call stalin's useful idiots.." You patiently explained to me how these were idiots who helped Soviet Communist aims.So you see franco was really the best we could hope for,to ..yeh, thanks for explaining...] "In the 1960s an ex-Jesuit official Ricardo de la Cierva, was given the task of modernizing official historiography..great damage to the regime's highly tendentious account of Spain's recent history was delivered by Ruedo Ibericos translation of Hugh Thomas's THe Spanish Civil war, and Herbert R Southworths el mito de la cruzada de fRanco delivered another blow to the regimes credibility.. la Cierva s stream of books was directed vainly at discrediting Thomas and Southworth...[Meanwhile, on the right..not unbiased..] Conservative historians ..whose work was greeted by La Cierva with the utmost profound relief...The books which occasioned his excitement were by J.W.D Trythall. E.E.Malefakis, Stanley Payne..and Richard Robinson..all were critical of the left during the 1930s..the tendency supportive of the neo-francoist position that the war was the fault of the left..the historians who went furthest in this direction were Payne and Robinson,, Payne's denunciation of the Spanish left owed more to the earlier work of the Francoist Comin Colomer than to any fresh investigations of the social misery of Spain during the depression... Anyway ive seen enough of your work Mamalujo to know that anything you say about POV is a sick joke Sayerslle (talk) 21:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

So you're pointing to one leftist historian, who admits that he writes with a POV and does not try to be objective, as authority for Payne's lack of objectivity. He calls Payne profrancoist because Payne, fully endevoring to be objective, comes to a conclusion which Preston does not like. Preston is in a small minority in casting Payne as unobjective. For every one Preston, you will find ten who say Payne is objective - and mind you this is among academics, which have a strong tendency to be left of center.

Historian Nigel H Jones calls Preston biased and Payne, along with Thomas and Beevor, objective, saying with regard to Preston I do think that all his books on Spain display a consistent pro-Republican bias that I do not find in the books of Thomas, Payne, Bolloten or Beevor. …I don’t think that Paul can reasonably dispute that his many books on the Spanish Civil War are not impartial: he is passionately and eloquently pro-Republican”. I can guarantee you, you’ll find a lot more opinions that Payne is objective. Even Preston, himself and his defenders (see the following source) admit he has an unabashed POV. “Previous reviewers have accused Preston of ‘leftist bias.’ In the book’s preface, Preston himself acknowledges that he has no sympathy for the Nationalists. He writes, ‘it is not a book which sets out to find a perfect balance between both sides.’” and even Preston’s own book lists Payne as one of the “essential accounts of the breakdown of the Second Republic.” Mamalujo (talk) 23:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

'While the second republic may hve been undermine d by the left, it was destroyed by the right.' Not paul preston - Mary Vincent. this seems more mainstream - 'destroyed by the far left' -FRancoist , historians, like Payne.There is more than one interpretation - I see from several articles that you just take Stanley Payne's ( dinosaur) interpretation, pro-Francoist, yuor argument that just because you come to pro-FRanco conclusions doesn't mean you are 'n't neutral is a bit precious - in any case I don't seek to silence Payne as you do any leftist voices, just say who is speaking when it is a question of interpretation and emphasis rather than just the bare facts, don't seek to smuggle in a right wing historian's voice as a neutral voice. You seem to think once you've patiently explained that a writer isn't a right winger , then thats it and we can get back to the good stuff all that nutritious stanley payne stuff just affix funnels to the mouths of articles and pump in the payne material, what they do to geese to get foie gras. i prefer 'free range' chickens and free range articles - draw from many sources, stop using payne as a single paradigm and then forcing his view on every section from the lead to the end. i read what Nigel JOnes wrote and he seems to have fought against Preston too, says he wouldn't have minded living in FRancos Spain so obviusly isn't hostile to right wing leaders - fair enough, but again, hardly neutral. Sayerslle (talk) 14:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Damn shame, thought the editing was coming on well and was looking forward to try and lend a hand. But here he is, once again: Mamalujo!... Good luck gents. I don't work with soapboxers, they sap too much energy off you. I recommend you do the same (Dr Benway (talk) 15:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC))

Labeling sources as "historians" and as "hostile to the Left"

Here and there throughout the article, sources such as Payne and Lannon are labeled as historians as in "According to historian Frances Lannon". In general, I don't like using such labels because they either add little information or sometimes even give the wrong impression. One example of the latter is the situation where we mention Mary Vincent without saying "historian Mary Vincent" and then immediately afterwards mention "historian Frances Lannon". Doing that suggests that Mary Vincent is not a historian but Frances Lannon is. Is that what we intend to imply? I assume not. But saying "historian" before every historian is not a good idea unless we are trying to differentiate them from other speakers. I can imagine times when one might need to do this kind of characterization. However, I am not convinced that we need to do this in this article. If anyone disagrees, please explain to me what the rationale is. This also leads to the question of characterizing Stanley Payne as a "historian hostile to the Left". This may be true but what is the purpose of this characterization? I can imagine doing that if the intent is an attempt to neutralize the opinion of Payne. However, in the lead, the assertion attributed to Payne was that "the role of the Catholic Church and the rights of Catholics was one of the major issues". To put "historian hostile to the Left" into this sentence is to suggest that historians favorable to the Left would disagree with the assertion. Is this true? If it is true, then we should address that by providing the view of historians favorable to the Left on this issue. If it is not true, then this is not the place to comment that Payne is "hostile to the Left". I'm not saying that we cannot mention this fact. I'm just saying that doing so at the particular point where we were doing that had an implication that I didn't think was justified.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Women's suffrage

I am uncomfortable with the following text which is found in the intro to the section titled "The Second Republic":

Women constituted the majority of practising Catholics, but in church always listened to men preach and celebrate the sacraments. Male priests told them to obey their husbands , ' at every turn the message was clear; men were born for authority and social responsibility; women were born for domesticity, motherhood, or sexual renunciation.' ( Lannon, p.55 ) Political militancy did not fit easily with these stereotypes, there was no Catholic equivalent of the anarchist Federica Montseny, 'though the Falange's Sección feminina was aggressive in its propagation of an authoritarian, anti-feminist and ever more conservative ideology.' ( Lannon, p.55 ) "When some Catholic Basque nationalist women turned their attention in the 1930s to organising meetings and making public speechess, they shocked Catholic contemporaries..after conquering the Basque country during the first year of civil war, soldiers of the Catholic Crusade expressed their loathing for both Basque nationalism and politically active women by subjecting these Emakumes to the humiliation of being dosed with castor oil in public and having their heads shaved." (Lannon, p.56)

My concern here is that the text, as written, blurs the distinction between the opinion of Lannon and the detached, objective voice of an encyclopedia. Lannon has a viewpoint as one would expect from any scholar or historian. However, it seems that we have taken her assertions and put them in the voice of Wikipedia suggesting that these are assertions of objective fact rather than assessments, judgments and opinions of Lannon. In a case like this, we would almost do better to have a blockquote from Lannon than to paraphrase Lannon and assert the result as indisputable fact. Or, failing that, we should use locutions like "According to Lannon" or "Lannon asserts" or "Lannon argues".

I can't fix this myself because I don't have easy access to the source. Can someone who does have access to Lannon help fix this problem?

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

'According to Lannon ...'- that would be o.k. I don't think the words are disputable particularly are they? Maybe the taking from her words is too much here, I add material as I read her book - if I leave it too long after reading and taking notes I forget the drift of arguments, and threads of narrative..probably overloading the article with material from the source. also I feel on guard against the marmaliser who will blame everything on the Left and paint Franco as a hero the moment one looks away so I add material a bit frantic sometimes. Sayerslle (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The historians

Now it says 'Since the far left considered moderation of the anticlericalist aspects of the constitution as totally unacceptable the historians (??) have opined that 'the republic as a democratic constitutional regime was doomed from the outset.' why - couldn't those who still wanted a confessional state , argue their case? accept they might lose a democratic vote? they didn't anyhow.. the right won the sodding elections in 1933, the anticlericalist sections of the constitution were largely dead on arrival, the education sections never enacted, 1933-36 the Right was ruling..the de facto abandonment of republican reforms,- what does 'the historians have opined that..'mean? Mary Vincent and Frances Lannon seem to blame the CEDA, then Falange and japista anti-democratic tendencies more than anticlericalism for the death of the republic as a democratic constitutional regime. Sayerslle (talk) 19:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess the Lannon ,p.20 quote 'Spanish civil war 36-39' - 'the articles on property and religion, with their exaltation of state power and their disregard for civil rights, virtually destroyed any prospect there had been for the development of a Catholic, conservative , republicanism.' I suppose that is close to Payne's formula, though not the same as 'doomed from the outset'. elsewhere lannon has written that anti-republicanism was endemic in Catholic circles from the very start - the Catholic revival of the late 19th century, early 20th century, pro-monarchist, pro-rivera,pro- rightist dictator - anyway - lotta continua, for a balanced article..Sayerslle (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Catholicism in the Second Spanish Republic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081229174839/http://www.azstarnet.com:80/allheadlines/187121 to http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/187121
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080927201415/http://www.indcatholicnews.com:80/spanima436.html to http://www.indcatholicnews.com/spanima436.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)