Talk:Asturian miners' strike of 1934

Harvard citation errors

I have corrected some obvious errors with incorrectly-coded Harvard references, but some others remain. They use {{sfn}}, and can be identified because the blue links in the footnote don't go anywhere. Perhaps someone with knowledge of the sources can identify the right version:

• Payne 1993: should that be one of the six Payne references in the bibliography, or another one entirely?
• Payne 1999: three possible targets; need to be disambiguated (e.g. by adding a/b/c suffixes to the year in the citation and reference). Blue link selects the first.
• Preston 2012: could intend to refer to Preston 2013 in the bibliography, but I can't know that.

I think I have corrected them all. J Pratas (talk) 10:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Lead section & NPOV

Hi JPratas, Please note that this borders on edit-warring. By reverting "my" version, to a version that, as I explained in my edit summary violates WP:NPOV, you have also restored several copyedit issues that I had resolved.

If you feel that any major points have been left out of the lead section I re-drafted, I will be happy to discuss them here (as you yourself pointed out, when reverting my edit, this is the place), but simply restoring your version is not the way to go. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 10:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted to the status quo ante. The lede was fairly stable. If someone wants to delete sourced material it should at least provide an explanation why. Is the text not in line with the source? Or are there other POVs that need to be added?J Pratas (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• If your bold edit was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. If your reversion was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. If you re-revert, then you are no longer following BRD.
• Discuss on a talk page: Don't assume that an edit summary can constitute "discussion": There is no way for others to respond. You can use the article's talk page (preferred) or the editor's user talk page, but one or the other is the proper forum for the discussion component of the BRD cycle.J Pratas (talk) 14:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Please follow WP:BRDJ Pratas (talk) 14:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit conflict: JPratas, Rather than discuss "any major points [..] left out of the lead section I re-drafted", as I told you I was happy to do, you simply, once again, reverted my edits which, in a clear and non-controversial manner introduce what is a highly charged subject, both socially and politically, to "your" POV version. Furthermore, and once again, you have restored several copyedit issues.

Do you understand how that is edit-warring?

And no, you did not revert to status quo: you simply reverted to "your" version, a version that violates NPOV, a policy which is a fundamental pillar of Wikipedia. Which is what I clearly stated in my edit summary.

Regardless of whether an item is sourced, the lead section is not where disputed content belongs. Although you are, of course, welcome to add "other POVs" (your term) elsewhere in the body of the article. Furthermore, and, as I pointed out above, your reversion restores several copyedit issues which I had ironed out. I therefore welcome you to restore the NPOV version that I left, and we can then take the discussion from there.

On the other hand, and slightly at odds with your edit summary "Significant amount of sourced material was deleted", what I actually did, apart from having added content, all fully in line with NPOV, with five additional sources from other related articles, to give a clearer background to an incomplete section, the only sourced content I removed, from the lead section, was the following: "... trying to overthrow the legitimate democratic regime. Fairly well armed revolutionaries managed to take the whole province of Asturias committing numerous murders of policemen, clergymen and civilians and destroying religious buildings including churches, convents and part of the university at Oviedo."(Orella Martínez & Mizerska-Wrotkowska 2015.). Such content, apart from the weasel words and POV take which need ironing out, is perfectly suitable at a later stage of the article but not, as I have now pointed out more than once, in the lead section. BTW, just in case you hadn't noticed, I did in fact leave that particular Orella Martínez & Mizerska-Wrotkowska source in place for content in another paragraph.

Oh, and I also removed that silly little bit up there in the lead section, where it really doesn't belong, about how "The war minister, Diego Hidalgo wanted General Franco to lead the troops". Again, perfectly suitable in the body of the article, if referenced, but hardly lead section material, is it?

So, where do we go from here? As you have shown no interest whatsoever in discussing the matter, simply reverting me twice, and the current lead section still clearly violates NPOV, as I may already have mentioned, do I simply follow your lead and revert, contrary to your action, to what is clearly a NPOV version? Do I slap a WP:3RR warning on your talk page? Do I invite you to join me in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution? Will you, yourself, ensure NPOV?

Before taking further action on this, I look forward to your reply on what appear to be the key issues here:

a) What specific content have I added that merits you reverting it all?

b) Do you consider the two points I mentioned above, cited, comply with NPOV?

c) Regardless of the disputed content, do you intend to go over the text again and fix the copyedit issues that I had already fixed (not to mention the others that I haven't yet had an opportunity to solve)?

Regards, --Technopat (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Technopat we can certainly use the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution but before doing so we should try to set any dispute among ourselves. Using words like "silly" will not help. I have already tried to include your content and the things you've fixed, showing respect for your work and for you contributions. I just don't agree with you deleting text like "... trying to overthrow the legitimate democratic regime. Fairly well armed revolutionaries managed to take the whole province of Asturias committing numerous murders of policemen, clergymen and civilians and destroying religious buildings including churches, convents and part of the university at Oviedo." Because it is a well sourced, widely accepted sequence of important events. I have never heard anyone disputing these facts or any other version of the facts. And these facts are important enough to be part of the lede.

Many other sources can be used. Find below a few more:

• armed insurrection in the northern region of Asturias...in Asturias a full-scale civil war broke out....They murdered some 40 people, mainly rich citizens and several priests. [1]
• they officially declared the proletarian revolution, abolished regular money, and also instituted a revolutionary terror that took more than a score of lives, mostly of clergy. Spain's First Democracy: The Second Republic, 1931-1936 by Stanley G. Payne page 219 [2]

Is this POV? Or just facts? Neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight. If you know of differenet POV please step forward. Neutral point of view does not mean exclusion. J Pratas (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

JPratas Thank you for your reply. I find it hard to credit that you seriously object to my use of the term “silly” to refer to anecdotal information, unsourced, about Hidalgo wanting Franco to lead the troops. As I pointed out above, “… perfectly suitable in the body of the article, if referenced, but hardly lead section material, is it?”. Obviously, if I had used the term "silly" to refer to another editor, I can well understand how that might hinder dispute resolution, but the use is clear: “… removed that silly little bit up there in the lead section, where it really doesn't belong…”. Would you accept the term “insignificant”? Always bearing in mind, something I have now repeated so often, that I am referring exclusively to lead section content? Regarding that particular point, what Hidalgo wanted and what, in fact, transpired regarding Franco’s presence in Asturias are two different matters and can be dealt with more fully, if deemed of encyclopedic relevance, in the body of the article.

Regarding the other content I removed “... trying to overthrow the legitimate democratic regime. Fairly well armed revolutionaries…”, surely you see the difference between the three versions: 1. How Payne refers to it (perfectly acceptable if cited as is); 2. The Financial Times’ version (that particular source might be acceptable on financial matters, but can hardly be considered a must-have source for an encyclopedic article on an event in History) and 3. The POV version I removed.

The facts, as stated by the Payne statement you provided above, are perfectly NPOV, and, as I mentioned above, I consider them fine, so long as they are specifically attributed to him, not interpreted by editors. The statement I removed clearly does not, to use your words: “convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias.” And, needless to say, but as you keep insisting on the fact that I removed it, "policemen, clergymen and civilians and destroying religious buildings including churches, convents and part of the university" are clearly unnecessary details for the... lead section.

And now that we are down to specifics, as I keep commenting, it is not acceptable for editors to interpret citations. Thus, readers are free to understand what they wish from Madariaga’s own words and Wikipedia should not tell them that he “is the author of a sharp critical reflection” (unless, of course, that statement appears as cited by another, reliable, source).

Likewise, it is evident that “Fairly well armed revolutionaries…” is nonsensical and much better left as in my version: “Armed revolutionaries...”.

By the way, I do not consider my original edit to have been neither bold nor controversial. It simply ensured compliance with a fundamental policy (pillar) of Wikipedia. As well as adding content and five other sources from other, related Wp articles. Plus copyedit...

I think that covers point b) in my preceding note. Regarding the other two points, is there any particular item I added that you consider unacceptable? Was any of it unsourced? POV? As for the copyedit issues, have these now been fixed? Regards,

Technopat

• According to Payne & Palacios "Hidalgo wanted to send Franco directly to Asturias to put down the revolution, but Alcala-Zarmora objected that the preson in charge should be a liberal officer thoroughly identified with the Republic. Therefore the chief of operations appointed for the region was Eduardo Lopez Ochoa, a noted republican and a mason." (Payne & Palacios 2014 page 89) This book dedicates roughly a page to the miner' strike, Payne & Palacios considered this paragraph to be relevant for a one page summary.
• On the Salvador de Madariaga's evaluation the source's exact words are "is the the author of the most critical reflection". I am fine with using the exact words. Although it does not make a big difference.
• As to the current text "committing numerous murders of policemen, clergymen and civilians and destroying religious buildings including churches, convents and part of the university at Oviedo." I would like to point out that the article published by Financial Times was authored by historian Anthony Beevor in 2008, the author of the book "The Spanish Civil War". Just because it was published by FT does not mean it should be discarded. Carlton Hayes says"Asturias was almost completely devastated and there was much killing and looting". Hugh Thomas says that thirty four priests, six young seminarists with ages between 18 and 21, and several businessmen and civil guards were summarily executed by the revolutionaries in Mieres and Sama, 58 religious buildings including churches, convents and part of the university at Oviedo were burned and destroyed. This is not about POV or NPOV. Facts are facts not views.
• As to the expression "fairly well armed" it is the exact text found in the book "Poland and Spain in the Interwar and Postwar Period". Sanchez says that "By October the Alianza Obrera in Asturias had at their disposal three thousand organized and armed men dividing into squads," but I guess : “Armed revolutionaries..."also serves the purpose.
• It was not my intention to delete your additions. I tried to reintroduce them. If I missed a few additions, just go ahead and add them again. Sorry for that. But please don't delete sourced material without discussing it here on the talk page.J Pratas (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

JPratas Thank you for providing those sources. As I think I have made clear, I do not object to the content or sources you provide, but rather to where and how you include them in the article. So, let’s see if we can now agree on how to proceed. To do so, we need to consider that we are dealing with an encyclopaedic article, not a signed article, essay or book, which would require a totally different approach to how we write, what we include and how we lay it all out.

There are two basic issues at stake here: first, the use of unattributed textual content. If the words “fairly well armed” are to be used in this article as-is, they must be set in quotation marks, and needless to say, with the source provided at that point, not further down the paragraph. As it stands now, it is simply plagiarism. Further, regarding that particular phrase, “fairly well armed”, even when correctly sourced, it means nothing and, as such, has no place in an encyclopaedic article, unless clearly included as part of cited text. As I pointed out earlier, “Armed revolutionaries” should be the Wikipedia take on this.

So I suggest including (elsewhere in the article, not in the lead section) the following:

As stated by Orella Martínez & Mizerska-Wrotkowska, armed revolutionaries, “managed to take over the whole province, and committed numerous murders of policemen, civilians and ecclesiastics. Lerroux reacted energetically and appealed to the army that eventually dominated the situation, which ended officially with nearly 1,200 dead and 3,000 wounded, who were mostly insurgents”.

Which brings me to the second, and main point I have insisted on from the start: whether or not certain content belongs in the lead section or is better placed elsewhere in the article. The lead section should not offer more than a brief summary of the established “facts” (see my comment below)… and, it goes without saying, as NPOV as possible. It should therefore not include cited statements (which are otherwise perfectly valid but better placed elsewhere in the article).

By the way, regarding the FT article, while Beevor is obviously an established source, the article is only available to subscribers, which obviously limits its availability to most readers of this article [even to this editor, who has forgotten his password to that account].

On a final note, although you insist all the time on facts ("Facts are facts not views"), I would like to point out that facts can and should, be disputed. Much, indeed I dare say most of what we consider “History” is based on what someone, under whatever circumstances and for whatever reasons, has transmitted and on how successive generations have further transmitted it. That we later take it as a given fact does not make it a fact. A case in point is the comment regarding Madariaga. The most we can say is:

Madariaga, who, according to Orella Martínez & Mizerska-Wrotkowska, "is the author of the most critical reflection against the participation of the left in the uprising" stated "The uprising of 1934 is unforgivable...".

or:

Madariaga, in his critical reflection against the participation of the left in the uprising stated "The uprising of 1934 is unforgivable...".

Regardless of what Orella Martínez & Mizerska-Wrotkowska claim, it is not necessarily a fact that Madariaga is “the author of the most critical reflection”, and we need to ensure that it is clearly understood as being Orella Martínez & Mizerska-Wrotkowska’s statement, not Wikipedia’s.

I reckon we now have enough common ground on which to proceed. Let me know your thoughts on this. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 10:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Before proceeding allow me to recall a few wikipeida guidelines that we are supposed to follow. The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. Its purpose is to summarize the article, not just to introduce it. As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate. In our case the current lede has only three paragraphs and the total size fits into half of a laptop screen. If you take a look at, for instance, the Oskar Schindler article, listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria you will notice that the lede is much longer. The presence of citations in the introduction not prohibited in any article. Some text of copyrighted material can be used under the "fair use".

Now, I have already eliminated the expression "fairly armed" and replaced it with the list of the weapons the revolutionaries were carrying. I hope that with this change we are done with this discussion. As to the citations in the last paragraph, I was careful enough to choose citations from left wing anti-Franco historians (Madariaga and Casanova). I understand that in your view the lede "should therefore not include cited statements" but your opinion is not in line with any wikipedia guideline. I thinkg that a short paragraph at the end with an evaluation benefits the article and goes in line with the need for the lede to stand alone. However, I have accepted your suggestion and have completely removed the Orella Martínez & Mizerska-Wrotkowska claim. So I also hope this one is also solved.

Last but no least the average Wikipedia visit is a few minutes long. The lead is the first thing most people will read upon arriving at an article. It gives the basics in a nutshell. I don' see any reason to eliminate any content (that is not being disputed) because the lede is already short and concise. I hope your major concerns were addressed. J Pratas (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

If content is not being discussed, the neutrality tag no longer makes sense.J Pratas (talk) 16:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, if further copy-editing is needed, by all means, do further copy-editing. However, an article tag is inappropriate for the amount of copy-editing needed going forward. Look into either Template:Copy edit section, or even better, Template:Copy edit inline. Donna Spencer^{talk-to-me⛅} 03:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

References