Talk:May Days

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unclear sentence[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Obvious POV[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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/w/index.php?title=May_Days&diff=903687988&oldid=886482796&diffmode=source Buen Ciudadano (talk) 03:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stormtroopers?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Orwell refers to "shock troops" on the Republican side during the Jaca road fighting ... whether this refers to actual inflitration-assault troops with Hutier training (or equivalent) or something else... 31.185.62.135 (talk) 20:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Not historical[edit]

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)[reply]


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 (talk) 01:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah exactly. But anarchist POV is everywhere in en:wp. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 07:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


For that reasons i have put the tempalte of neutrallity. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 11:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments here do not support the claim that there is lack of neutrality. Cinadon36 18:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

ok so i will remove the template of neutrality.Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 08:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Historians view vs public history essays[edit]

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)[reply]

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? [1] Cinadon36 10:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

plz read here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)[reply]

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)[reply]

See the previous paragraph. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia voice is George Orwell fictional book Homage to Catalonia[edit]

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)[reply]

Is Homage to Catalonia a fictional book or memoirs. (to start with) Cinadon36 21:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just google itΑντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should we mention criticism to a primary source, within the main body of the article?[edit]

It comes as a surprise to me. I have never seen it in another article. Primary sources are used to state facts. Also, Graham does not "heavily criticizes Orwell". Maybe not even Preston. He identifies some fallacies, but, as he writes: "Homage to Catalonia belongs in any list of important books on the Spanish civil war. It has informed opinion in the English-speaking world about the war – providing the inspiration, for instance, for Ken Loach’s Land and Freedom"Cinadon36 23:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


What a joke!! https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/may/06/george-orwell-homage-to-catalonia-account-spanish-civil-war-wrong

  • Preston:

George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia is included in most lists of important books on the Spanish Civil War, despite being simply a vivid eye-witness account of just two fragments of the war. It demonstrates little understanding of Spanish or Catalan politics and does not present a reliable analysis of the broader politics of the war and particularly of its international determinants. Its underlying notion that the crushing of revolution in Barcelona would contribute to the eventual Republican defeat makes it too easy to forget the contributions to that defeat made by Franco, Hitler, Mussolini, and the pusillanimous self-interest of the British, French and American governments. Based on the partisan views of anarchist and POUM comrades, and misled by ignorance of the wider context, Orwell's analysis and prediction are misleading. This article aims to raise awareness that the views expressed in his book, based on insufficient information and prior prejudice, are often mistaken. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14753820.2018.1388550

  • Graham:

Many more reasons, indeed, than met the eye of the events’ most famous chronicler, George Orwell, who, it should be borne in mind, read neither Spanish nor Catalan. In Homage to Catalonia, he rightly identified the fighting as having to do with conflicting models of how to organize Republican society and politics. But he exaggerates the role played by both Catalan and Spanish communists. Untenable too is his conspiracy theory – that the May Days were somehow deliberately provoked. In fact, social and political tensions had been building up in the city since the beginning of 1937. The Catalan government, of which the communists were a part, but only a part, had gradually been restoring to itself the executive powers it had lost to workers and trade union committees in the aftermath of the military coup. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 23:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is common for authors to point to fallacies and strong points of previous authors. That does not constitute of "heavy criticism". Graham says he believed that May Days were a consp. theory. Ok, that is criticism to an opinion of him. She also says that he is the "most famous chronicler". Also "he rightly identified the fighting as having to do with conflicting models of how to organize Republican society and politics" The same token goes on Preston as well, but I am (and I was ok with the phases "heavily criticizes Orwell") Oh! and you didnt address my first concern. Lastly, pls use brackets properly. Cinadon36 00:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


The aim the same: CENSHORSHIP. So you reverted me 3 times. You went to ANI and now you are (and was!!!!!!!!) with that. This is a bad joke. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 00:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Anonymous users vs Historians 1-0[edit]

Wikipedia article:

Historian:

  • the climax of the confrontation between those who wanted o n l y revolution and those who wanted to win the war.


But Wikipedia voice is based on anonymous users!!!!!


I was reverted cause i just add [citation needed]

Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 09:18, 30 December 1984 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you were not reverted for adding a template. Second, mostly anonymous users contribute to WP (like you and me who do not disclose our names). Third, when you add the opinion of a historian, you have to give full citation to his work. Forth, it seems that historian opinion is taken out of context. He/She talks about the climax of confrontation. Anyway, pls provide proper citation and we will take it from there. Cinadon36 09:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1.So why don't put it back if u are honest?


2. I am an anonymous user too who writes based on historians and I provide full citations not writing essays without citation from my mind.

3.4. You ask for a full citation but you have already concluded that "that historian opinion is taken out of context." How can you do this?? Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 09:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. Pls refrain from questioning my integrity, 2. You didnt do it this time 3.4. I wrote "it seems" coz you only provided a small sentence. Cinadon36 11:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On Orwell[edit]

@Αντικαθεστωτικός: [2] Can you pls provide the quotation from the Guardian article making that claim? Thanks. Cinadon36 09:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


The May events were about removing revolutionary obstacles to the war’s efficient conduct. He acknowledged this in his 1942 essay Looking Back on the Spanish War: “The Trotskyist thesis that the war could have been won if the revolution had not been sabotaged was probably false. To nationalise factories, demolish churches, and issue revolutionary manifestos would not have made the armies more efficient. The fascists won because they were the stronger; they had modern arms and the others hadn’t.”

Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 09:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a distance among what you inserted at the article, which is quite vague by itself, and what is stated at the Guardian's article. Pls revert and I will help you rephrase.Cinadon36 11:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, i feels that the sentence added is about Orwell, not May Days per se.Cinadon36 13:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


what's now your argument? It is very clear what the historian had written "'The May events were about removing revolutionary obstacles to the war’s efficient conduct. He acknowledged this ". Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 13:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:May_Days&oldid=1211105074"