Jump to content

Talk:Mariano R. Vázquez/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 14:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Rollinginhisgrave (talk · contribs) 17:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this on over the next day. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]

I'll be adding little bits and pieces to this review until it's done, hopefully won't take too long. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for bringing this to GA, you've clearly put a lot of work into it. The following is going to sound a bit hot, but I want this page to be the best it can be. I'm a little over a 1/3 through by my estimation, and there's a lot of things that are not clear. A big part of the reason is that it I have NPOV concerns. I hope by reading the following you can see why. I also think the article could be improved with the surgical, precise addition of background information. The reader is assumed to have a lot of context, i.e. the CNT is never defined. I want to read your responses to my concerns before I continue, as I think you might be able to quell them. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this on! I hope I'll be able to address your concerns on this. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great work on the revisions, particularly over my NPOV concerns, essentially allayed. I'll do a second sweep now.

Prose/contents

[edit]
  • Idioms:
Come to a head
In the wake of the conflict
Vázquez hit back
  • The profession in the infobox is incorrect.

Lede

[edit]
  • getting involved in a debate on anarchist feminism with Lucía Sánchez Saornil that culminated in the establishment of the Mujeres Libres. I am sure the body will establish this, but could his position be clarified here?
You don't have to. The sentence just throws up a lot of questions; how could the debate culminate in the founding of a feminist org? Was it Vazquez who created it? Was it created in a reaction to criticism of Vazquez? You don't have to summarise the whole debate, just the position he took, or argued against. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added a bit more detail. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 18:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Me neither, I was trying to push the ambiguity. The sentence currently reads that he was criticised for not being loyal enough to the government, because that's what questioning loyalty usually means. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Already changed to "condemned", per comments below. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Early life and activism

[edit]
Just if two are equally readable, tiebreaker goes to more concise. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Always up to you though if it's more readable. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 18:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"a translation or explanation of a word or phrase." Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Translated. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • demonstrating sympathy for the problems anarchist women faced within the movement and recognising that they were effectively "slaves of slaves" so long as they continued to be subject to domination by men careful with wikivoice
  • in which everyone would have economic independence and women would thus be liberated from male domination ->
where everyone has economic independence, liberating women from male domination. even with this more concise version, reword for wikivoice, attributing
bring an end to -> end: Watch out for superfluous words
You can sum this up (He called for anarchist women... separate journal for anarchist women) in like 2/3 sentences. Thankyou for clarification; this changes the entire read of the debate and significantly helps with my concerns over NPOV. Other parts of the article that have this also need to be rewritten. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've attempted to trim down the debate somewhat. Let me know if anything you think was important got cut/unimportant left in, and I'll try to tighten it up further. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rise to the CNT leadership

[edit]
  • who appeared to having accepted the anarchist control over Barcelona. awkward tenses
  • defending the necessity -> arguing for the necessity unless it actually was a necessity
  • sideline: Did they sideline by bringing the Civil Guard in or was this separate?
    • It was related. The Catalan government wanted to get back some of the political power it had lost to the CCMA, which it attempted to do by bringing in the civil guard. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Joan Garcia i Oliver should this be Juan García Oliver? The topic article is not clear, although seems to lean towards the latter.
    • Juan García Oliver is the Castilianised version of the Catalan name Joan Garcia i Oliver. I used the latter purely because I'm more used to seeing it in Catalan. I can change if it's necessary. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • by force of arms I don't know what this means/euphemistic
  • Vázquez became a leading advocate of anarchist collaboration with the governments of Catalonia and the Spanish Republic. wordy
  • replacing the "bohemian" I don't feel comfortable with the lack of attribution here.
  • Throughout the war, Vázquez concerned himself with the situation of the Durruti Column, cultivating relations with Mexico, inviting foreign anarcho-syndicalists to Spain and making revolutionary martyrs of those people killed on the front. concise, encyclopedic tone
  • on the republican side capitalise Republican here?
  • Vázquez called for each party on the republican side to examine their own responsibility in the defeat that's all? Was the CNT not involved in Málaga, was he also referring to the CNT, or was he blaming the other parties?
    • The CNT was involved in Málaga, but the Communist Party was too. He was calling for each party, including the CNT, to take responsibility for the defeat. To quote Vázquez: "we will give one notice, so that the Central Committee may take it into account when they speculate about the fall of Málaga: that Antonio Guerra, delegate of the Communist Party in the Military Command of Málaga, stayed there with the rebels. We want to say that in speaking of the responsibility for the fall of Málaga, we must start by examining that part which each of us has." Grnrchst (talk) 09:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Highlight that he was also turning the blame on the CNT.
  • confederal militias what are these?
  • He promised that the militarisation would not be an authoritarian implementation difficulties with NPOV here. The only mention of criticisms is told through the lens of his justifications/defences, told in a factual manner.
This is better. NPOV from WP:BALANCE, WP:DUE type of things
  • "tidal wave of confusion" why was the PCE causing confusion?
  • that could better support the war effort how?
  • holding particular contempt for the "señoritos" (young bourgeois men) that spent their time relaxing in cafés rather than fighting on the frontline because they didn't join his military recruitment drives?
  • came under attack idiom
  • and charged him with adapting the newspaper to the strict discipline he saw as necessary. can you clarify what it means for an editor to enforce "strict discipline"
I think you can bring that in, not sure of the wording. I can have a think if you are having difficulty. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 18:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rollinginhisgrave: Hey, how's it going? I'm still looking forward to more of your comments from this, if you're still interested in reviewing this further :) --Grnrchst (talk) 08:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, getting back on this now, thanks for the ping. Sorry for the delay, lost some motivation. Give me a few hours. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 08:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No bother! Thanks for getting back! I'll see to this as soon as possible. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict and mediation

[edit]
  • as the latter faction increasingly attacked the former A small gloss of motivation would help
  • Inconsistency in capitalisation of communists (sometimes unclear why being referred to as ideology or party)
  • Vázquez believed that the Communists had sought to provoke the anarchists into open conflict How do we know this?
    • According to a memorandum written by Vázquez on behalf of the CNT executive committee, on 13 May 1937:

We observe the preparation abroad. From the moment that the first shots were heard, throughout the world the press raised a violent campaign against Catalan anarchism. The propaganda had been so rapid and extensive that it is not possible that it arose from knowledge of the events. One deduces easily that it was prepared... There is an important detail, that demonstrates that there existed a plot in the exterior. The Delegate of the National Committee intercepted in Barcelona a telegram directed by a distinguished member of the Esquerra and a separatist, to France in which it said textually: ‘Estic be, Tot marxa.’ (I’m well. Everything is going ahead.’) That telegram, was sent on Wednesday at noon when fighting was intensifying in the streets of Barcelona. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Although he saw the affair as a symptom of intra-Marxist conflict between the Stalinists and Trotskiysts, Vázquez publicly protested against the political repression of the POUM. why although?
    • Missed some key bit of context, that he didn't think at the time that the repression of the POUM was part of a broader political repression against the Stalinists' political opponents. So that he protested the POUM's repression, despite not thinking he had common cause with them, was significant for him. Added this in. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • He subsequently appealed to the Republican government to stop repressing the POUM. redundant two lines after Vázquez publicly protested against the political repression of the POUM
    • Not exactly? Publicly protesting against something isn't the same as appealing directly to the government. In any case, I've cut the second instance, as it's a bit repetitive. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vázquez appealed personally to President Manuel Azaña, demanding the re-entry of the CNT into government and a reform of the Republican war effort appealed vs demanded
  • may have been at risk clarify tenses; is it actually he may be or was this historical at the time of claim

Campaign for reintegration

[edit]
  • even after Negrín's rise to power redundant
  • who had taken up a personal vendetta against him The sourcing behind this would have to be very strong to be necessary beyond Vázquez was most vocally criticised by the Friends of Durruti Group
    • From Casanova: They [the FoD] were obviously not really concerned with the[ir] programme, but rather with the need to ‘proceed with the greatest energy against those who did not identify with the working class’. This was, in sum, merely the political rhetoric adopted to justify their personal vendettas against their rivals within the anarchist movement. As far as Balius was concerned, there were two names on his hit-list, Mariano R. Vázquez, the secretary of the National Committee of the CNT, and Jacinto Toryho, the editor of Solidaridad Obrera. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • were attacked by foreign anarchists a lot less colloquial
  • give them the confidence and support that they needed to win the war -> support them
  • "instead of helping us and defending us from the attacks made on us abroad by Marxists and reformists... all they know is how to criticise us... [thus] playing into the hands of the enemy, helping its campaign to undermine Spanish anarchism." sum up, i.e. "he criticised his enemies, saying they were "playing into the hands of the enemy""
  • This is a good example of the NPOV issues (which I know you will be able to address, just pointing them out for elucidation). When I was reading this paragraph, I was impressed that criticism of Vázquez was laid out concretely in "This made him a focus of criticism from other anarchists, who accused Vázquez of "revisionism" and a "betrayal of anarchist principles".". I then read almost 200 words of Vázquez defending himself, primarily through a string of his own quotes.
    • This is a very good point. I'll admit I definitely went overboard quoting him and not using summary style here. I've attempted to trim down, while keeping the jist of his remarks. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • decreed the legalisation of -> legalised
  • financial credit is this phrase used to distinguish from money?
    • Aye, it was definitely credit, not money. If I recall correctly, money wasn't often exchanged between official parties on the republican side. Also in much of eastern Aragon, money had been abolished entirely, so credit was more useful than money they wouldn't use. Added a link to clarify. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Servicio de Información Militar gloss
  • continued to support its existence how can they continue to support its existence if it is just now being established?
  • in spite of the repression against it so did he downplay the repression or its effects (i.e. did he make it seem less bad or did he just say despite it the CNT remains strong)
    • The latter. Full quote: The growth of the Communist party, the arbitrary acts of the reactionaries, the presence of our militants in Republican jails, etc., might suggest that our movement is declining and deceive some ill-informed observers. But the fact is that the CNT is on a good course, with a growing membership, with renewed combativeness and realism, and absolutely united in its point of view. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too many quotes from Vázquez. Summarise in prose. The majority of quotes in the article are Vázquez defending himself.
  • I don't think you need to gloss Emma Goldman.
  • where he asked her to defend the CNT's continued collaboration with the Republican government reword, awkward. Implies he was challenging her at the meeting.
  • cultivate indifference reword to be more clear.
  • As the Nationalists began to advance against the Republicans is began to advance a turn of phrase or were they just advancing?
  • with the formation of a pact between the CNT and the UGT on the basis of the CNT's reentry into the government reword a lot more simply.
  • Vázquez retorted that "we are indifferent to these malcontents... I embrace comrade Rodríguez Vega, the secretary of the UGT, as a symbol of the unity of the Spanish working class." unnecessary dunk: we get it.
  • By this time, the Nationalists were already seeing massive advances in their Aragon Offensive concise
  • starting to consider or just considering? Starting to consider implies ambivalence, which seems at odds with believing defeat is inevitable.
  • , believing their defeat to be inevitable probably redundant if you make the above change.
  • demanded the Republicans continue to resist the Nationalist advance -> refuse/don't surrender
  • peninsular committee what is a peninsula committee?
    • The FAI was a pan-Iberian organisation (i.e. based in both Spain and Portugal), so the peninsula here refers to the Iberian peninsula. It's basically their central committee, so I've reworded it to that. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • was even beginning to consider the possibility of an armistice with the Nationalists -> considered an armistice
  • Prieto refused to resign, which he considered would have been "equivalent to desertion", although he acknowledged that he would continue to occupy his post "without authority and without respect. probably too much detail; this is a biography of Vázquez after all.
  • Vázquez again reiterated his calls for representatives of the CNT be brought into the government so the pact wasn't followed?
    • The government had more parties in it than just the UGT, the pact was only between the CNT and UGT; at this point, only the UGT was in favour of the CNT rejoining the government. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Debates on continued collaboration

[edit]
  • but this was rejected by Vázquez reword, implies Vázquez chose for both.
  • within the communist-controlled government redundant
  • But Vázquez praised the formation of the new government NPOV, why is this a but
  • More long quotes of Vázquez defending himself against one sentence of criticism. This whole paragraph will need rewording to deal with balance issues. Skipping to next para
  • More imbalance in the next paragraph, one sentence of criticism and three sentences filled with quotes of defence. Better with NPOV as he does not get the last word in.
    • Cut two of the sentences, in which he was largely talking about things that happened earlier in the war. Kept it to the bits where he's looking forward, I think they're more interesting and less charged anyway. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In her correspondence with Vázquez, she attempted to appeal for clemency -> She attempted to appeal Vázquez for clemency
  • Goldman's office in London was closed by the CNT-FAI they were renting her offices while in a war?
    • The office had been set up by the CNT-FAI as a way of carrying out international outreach, which was hugely important for the Republican war effort. Goldman had been appointed by them as an international representative and revoked her mandate at this point. I didn't want to go too in depth about this, as this is Váquez's biography. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meanwhile, at this time, repetition

Exile and death

[edit]

Legacy

[edit]
I'm sure it is, but to respond to "He hoped to be remembered as a principled anti-fascist" with "but Burnett Bolloten didn't think of him that way" is a non-sequitur unless it can be established that Bolloten is representative in some way. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah right, I see what you mean. I've removed the "but" to try and make it less of a non-sequitur. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anarchist historian Josep Peirats.. are these criticisms contemporaneous with death?
  • noting how much wikivoice, implication of fact.
  • But Bolloten rejected the characterisation same issues persist. If historians are writing at the time of his death it is unfair for him to be debating with primary sources.
    • Gómez Casas wrote what we quote here in his History of the FAI, which was published 2002. Neither Peirats nor Gómez Casas are primary sources on the matter, nor is Bolloten debating primary sources. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vázquez was posthumously accused of by whom?
    • Both the cited sources attribute this generally to his opponents, but specifically mention Garcia i Oliver. I thought it was clear as this is mentioned later in the paragraph, but in hindsight, it's not. Attempted to clarify by moving some info. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • stressing his "intellectual limitation", other members of the anarchist leadership I don't understand
  • In his book El eco de los pasos, Joan Garcia i Oliver accused Vázquez variously of being a Soviet puppet or, stressing his "intellectual limitation", other members of the anarchist leadership. And these are linked to his Romani identity?
  • it was frequently highlighted and stereotyped by his opponents to discredit him. can you give me a quote for this?
    • "In the canonical account of Spanish anarchism, which discredited Vázquez in order to blame those who had promoted collaboration with other anti-fascist forces for their defeat, it is significant that many of the terms used to smear him – his ignorance, inconsistency, inability to theorize, corruptibility – can be ultimately traced back to his ‘Gypsiness’. For García-Oliver, Vázquez ‘was not to be trusted’ and ‘there was something unmistakably Gypsy about him’, as a result of which the political changes attributed to the Secretary of the CNT were described as ‘gitanerías’ (gypsy chicanery). Prejudice against ‘Gypsies’ also existed in the labour movement and left-wing ideologies and led to suspicions about the origins of Marianet, who ‘was not known to have any kind of family. Somewhat odd. In Catalonia, anarchists were almost always from well-known families’. [...] Both points are pertinent in the case of Mariano R. Vázquez, who never publicly alluded to his Romani status, but rather arrived at anarchism and campaigned in its organizations strictly as a worker. His effectiveness as the head of the CNT, one of the largest mass anarchist organizations in Europe, contrasts with the negative stereotypes of laziness, ignorance and dishonesty that his opponents used to attack him, launching unjustified criticisms based on prejudice that highlighted that he was a Gitano in order to discredit him. Sierra and Pro talk more about this in other parts of their article.--Grnrchst (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In contrast, while Federica Montseny Gloss her again, distinguish her from a historian
  • with his effectiveness as leader of the CNT attribute, contested

Suggestions

[edit]

Second go through.

Lede

[edit]
  • where he first found connection with he found connection with people (socially/in his heart) or became connected to the movement?

After this, I just performed a copyedit of the lede. I did make quite a few changes, but they are minor changes to aid clarity and concision. The text already met the threshold for clarity and concision, so I am not worried and won't fail based on this. These changes can (and should) be reviewed here.

Sources

[edit]
  • Ref #10 Red XN While Mariano R. Vázquez was not an artist, he too was very aware of the importance of cultivating the cultural territory of the worker: thus, he managed an anarchist newspaper, advocated opening up a platform for women within the movement, paid attention to international propaganda books, and wrote frequently for the workers’ press. This does not support "He became a leading voice within the anarchist press." NPOV concern.
  • Ref #20 Green tickY
  • Ref #34 Red XN Throughout the war, Vázquez oversaw the militia columns, engaged in diplomacy with Mexico and international volunteers, and publicised the deaths of anarchists fighting on the frontlines. Being concerned about the "situation of the Durruti Division" can't be extrapolated out to overseeing all militia columns.
  • Ref #65 Green tickY confusing in source whether decree was in June or July, appears to have been June
  • Ref #4 Green tickY
  • Ref #119 In contrast, while anarchist activist Federica Montseny agreed that the CNT's collaboration with Negrín had led to a "disaster", she also defended Vázquez's position of prolonging the war until the outbreak of World War II as having been vindicated by the pace of history. Can you give me a quote supporting this? I can't navigate the epub unfortunately. Magenta clockclock
    • Aye, here you go: Federica Montseny, a member of the peninsular committee of the FAI, who claims that the CNT's support of the Negrin government was leading to a "disaster," says in extenuation of Vazquez's position: "Mariano believed that we should prolong our resistance, because he thought that world war would break out and that it would create a favorable situation for us. If he agreed with Negrin and the Communists on this question, it does not mean that he had surrendered himself to them... Even today I ask myself who was right: we or he. If war had broken out at the beginning of 1939 instead of in September, the entire position of Mariano would have been redeemed. But the fact is that the Spanish people at that time could not stand any more and that any solution aimed at saving lives and the interests of the people—at least a minimum of those interests—looked like a collective salvation. How strange! Those days, the FAI, Azaña, and Indalecio Prieto coincided in their views." --Grnrchst (talk) 09:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other criteria

[edit]
  • Images: appropriately tagged with public domain Green tickY
  • Broad in it's coverage Green tickY
  • Neutral: unless something goes wrong with requested source Green tickY
  • Stable Green tickY
  • No OR/COPYVIO Green tickY (7.4% earwig)

This was a long review. Thanks for being so diligent and taking the commentary well, I think we can both agree the article is better now than it was at the start of the review, and that this is largely due to your solid reworking of it to meet the criteria. I'll wait until you can confirm with the quote and hit pass. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 08:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree that it is better off for it. Maintaining an NPOV is difficult when writing about controversial figures like Vázquez, so I really appreciate you give me a second set of eyes to get that done. Thanks for all your comments and your very helpful review. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mariano_R._Vázquez/GA1&oldid=1239598346"