Revision as of 21:08, 29 December 2019 editCinadon36 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,658 edits →wikipedia voice is George Orwell fictional book Homage to Catalonia← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:27, 29 December 2019 edit undoΑντικαθεστωτικός (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,951 edits →wikipedia voice is George Orwell fictional book Homage to CataloniaNext edit → | ||
Line 98: | Line 98: | ||
Is ''Homage to Catalonia'' a fictional book or memoirs. (to start with) ]] 21:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC) | Is ''Homage to Catalonia'' a fictional book or memoirs. (to start with) ]] 21:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC) | ||
::Just google it] (]) 22:27, 29 December 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:27, 29 December 2019
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Unclear sentence
Is it just me or is there something fundamentally wrong with the following sentece I have removed from the article:
She described the street-fighting in the context of a fascist anarchotrotskyist putsch ("anarchotrotskyist" is meant to include the POUM, a faction which the Stalinist Communists accused of being Trotskyist but which Trotsky himself repeatedly attacked. POUM itself resented Trotskyism, and never defined itself in relation to him.)
Please return it if it's OK. Thanks. --Technopat (talk) 03:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I may be misunderstanding all the anagrams but doesn't Orwell's Homage to Catalonia support the statement that "... under the influence of the Stalinist Communist Party of Spain and its local wing, the Unified Socialist Party of Catalonia (PSUC)" and should perhaps be cited as such? --TBWRB (talk) 08:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Obvious POV
The term Stalinist in slanderous and pejorative. You can say USSR-backed or Sovietphile, but the term Stalinist has been repeatedly rejected by Marxist-Leninists. If you don't change this, I will. Spartacus Marat (talk)
One of the few resources of this article is the propaganda work "Black Book of Communism". Not a surprise Trotskyist and anti-communists teaming together again. --Martxel Alexander (talk) 23:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Also the term 'revolution' is a huge POV. Anarchists and poum thought that they were doing a revolution. But i think this is a fringe anarchist friendly theory.
Major historian's views isn't this.Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 07:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
If someone wants to laugh they can compare how the article was before the translated article was fully restored. Even changing the text in Hugh Thomas references, he should be an Anarchist now. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=May_Days&diff=903687988&oldid=886482796&diffmode=source Buen Ciudadano (talk) 03:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Stormtroopers?
I'm no expert on military history but were Stormtroopers really involved in this? Maybe it's just a term and I'm being stupid... Skunkman3118 (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm uncertain they were involved, but stormtroopers is mostly a german-derived word for assault troopers (being the french-derived term) so it's a possibility given that the setup was still largely WW1 with slightly better kit. 216.252.75.220 (talk) 13:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
The retarded Trotskyists and anti-communists that made this article use that term for the Assault Guard. I'm translating the Spanish article that is more complete than this Church pamphlet. If somebody does not understand something once I end with the translation, please say it here. --Martxel Alexander (talk) 03:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Not historical
This reads more like a Marxist interpretation of what happened vice neutral historical analysis. If someone has the time and effort it would be useful to delete/revise statements like "wanted to defend bourgeois capital of UK and France" or all the references in general to bourgeois, Trotskyist, Stalinist, etc. unless supported by some form of impartial documentation. As it stands, this would not be accepted by even a high school level history teacher due to the massive amount of unsourced comments and overwhelming amount of unsupported Marxist class analysis in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.208.116.108 (talk) 02:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed, it's completely laughable. The article has obviously been written "from first principles," so to speak; the POUM represents the working class and the socialist revolution by definition, and therefore whatever happened involving it is "explained" in those terms.
- What actually happened was that Negrin and the Moscow Communists were committed to a centralist, "everything for the front" strategy and the POUM wanted, in essence, to defect from the war and look after its own. This is obfuscated in the article by presenting immediate social revolution as the crucial issue. As if Franco was just horrified to learn there were bread riots ("The Spanish Revolution") and chaos in the enemy camp... because it represented the vanguard of the inevitable world revolution, or some shit. Tiresome. TiC 01:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah exactly. But anarchist POV is everywhere in en:wp. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 07:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
For that reasons i have put the tempalte of neutrallity. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 11:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
The arguments here do not support the claim that there is lack of neutrality. Cinadon36 18:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- 1st user (153.208.116.108) said This reads more like a Marxist interpretation of what happened vice neutral historical analysis. 2nd user (TiC) said Indeed, it's completely laughable 3rd user (me) I agree with the previous users. 4th user (User:czar) :When i wrote to him that the article is full POV, he answered that he agreed yep, on my radar and will write soon .Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
The article was already restored. It is not the same than when it was edited by an Anarchist from London (according to his IP). It is exactly the Spanish article in fact, with only the "Popular Culture" part remaining. Buen Ciudadano (talk) 08:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- ok so i will remove the template of neutrality.Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 08:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Historians view vs public history essays
From Stanley G. Payne publications of Yale:
- Book 36-39: The anarchists did not view their ultimate insurrection as a civil war but as a kind of millennial takeover by the workers.
- Book 33-36:There were four principal sources of internal dissidence: 1) the revolutionary extreme left, especially (but not only) the anarchosyndicalists of the FAI-CNT, who at first sought to concentrate on social and economic revolution more than on the military effort; 2) Basque and Catalan nationalists, who sought to advance their own agendas, extending so far in the case of the Basques as the goal of outright separatism and attempted negotiation of the partition of Spain with foreign powers; 3) the Comintern and the PCE, which did not seek to impose a Communist regime but wished to dominate as much as possible, forming in 1937–38 a limited hegemony under Negr´ın; and 4) the growing opposition of the relative moderates, at first left Republicans and then more and moreofthe Socialists, who looked toward a negotiated peace and came increasingly to oppose Negrın and the Communists.
This is a historian view about the facts from a anti-communist prospective. Not an POV anarchist fringe theory as this article promote.Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 09:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Can you please elaborate? What 's the historians view (please cite properly) and what 's "the public history essay". How are these issues are related with {{POV}} you 've just added? Cinadon36 10:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
plz read here https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:May_Days#Not_historical It's not only my view. 3 users we say the same. Also a 4th user says similar thingsΑντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 10:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
I really can't comprehend what are you are saying. Is this section a continuation of the above discussion? From your quotation I cant see Payne discussing the May Days. (please link to google books so I can read the paragraph/chapter) Cinadon36 11:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
See the previous paragraph. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
wikipedia voice is George Orwell fictional book Homage to Catalonia
When historians have a different view.
Can we add what happened or for some reason Orwell's memoirs are more accurate than the most prominent historians? I had written the Greek article. Please have a look in my bibliography. Do you think it is better than Orwell's writings or not?Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Is Homage to Catalonia a fictional book or memoirs. (to start with) Cinadon36 21:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
- Just google itΑντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
- All unassessed articles
- Start-Class Philosophy articles
- Low-importance Philosophy articles
- Start-Class Spain articles
- Unknown-importance Spain articles
- All WikiProject Spain pages
- Unassessed socialism articles
- Unknown-importance socialism articles
- WikiProject Socialism articles
- Start-Class military history articles
- Start-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- Start-Class Spanish military history articles
- Spanish military history task force articles