A request has been made for this article to bepeer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.
The text of the entry was:Did you know ... that thelast use of capital punishment in Spain provoked international protests against the Spanish government, including the withdrawal of ambassadors and attacks on Spanish embassies?
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofSpain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofDeath on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Basque, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of theBasque Country,Basque people,Basque language, history and culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.BasqueWikipedia:WikiProject BasqueTemplate:WikiProject BasqueBasque
The executed men's families claimed they were denied access to their graves in the village graveyard and scuffles with police took place.However, Gustavo Catalán Deus, a photographer who witnessed the burials, said that some family members had been present, together with police, members of the military and lawyers.
Hello, John. As I said in the edit summary, it's perfectly standard in written English to include discourse markers in the form of adverbs of contrast or purpose. For example "though it was snowing, I went out wearing a t-shirt and shorts." You could say that without the "though" the contrast is still evident, but that isn't the standard way. In the case above, the however, does highlight the fact that there is a contrast between what the two groups claim about who was present, otherwise I do feel that would be lost.
Also, (and please don't take offence at this) while I appreciate you taking the time to do the copyedit, I did feel that a lot of it, rather than correct mistakes, which is the usual purpose of a copyedit, was simply swapping one perfectly valid form for another perfectly valid form. Future in the past for past simple, however for but, protestors for protesters (both valid spellings) or "a number of" for "several." In the latter case, in particular, several is usually defined as"more than two but not many" and I seriously question whether 15 countries is "not many." Also is "In Britain the governing British Labour Party" really better than "The governing British Labour Party" ? Is there another Labour party that governs Britain? :) I dunno, but I usually take the view that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Per,Muphry's law, I guarantee I have a typo in the above!Valenciano (talk)12:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these things can be valid choices with valid arguments on both sides, you're right. WP:EDITORIAL recommends using "however" with extreme care and I agree with this advice. In this case I think it better to do without the word as it is unhelpful editorialising. The Labour party one was my mistake. If the number is fifteen, wouldn't it be better to say "fifteen" rather than the vague, hand-waving, I-couldn't-be-bothered-to-do-my-research "a number of"? Zero is a number, and so is pi, and so is negative nine. I would value other opinions on this as I already saw your preferences from your reverting in the editorial "however" and your edit summary. --John (talk)17:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point about the numbers, though that wasn't down to lack of research as they are listed. Your change to 15 is better and also, thanks for delinking the countries, which I shouldn't have linked per MOS. As I said, I did think that the however was necessary, but I'm open to alternative wording.Valenciano (talk)18:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
were the protests, withdrawal of ambassadors, etc over 1) the death penalty in general, or 2) due to support for these particular prisoners and/or doubts about the legitimacy of these particular trials and/or disagreement with the suppression of this particular political position? Or both? The article (which is linked on the wikipedia front page today) doesnt seem clear to me. In discussing how the death penalty's use in Spain was falling out of favor in the 1960s, or the Pope's call for clemency, it seems like 1). In discussing the contemporary govt's re-opening the case, finding irregularities in the trial, compensating the victims families for the violations of the victims' right to a fair trial, it seems like 2).Snarfblaat (talk)17:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually more a case of 3): the Franco government, as Europe's last right-wing dictatorship was unpopular among the more left wing and social democratic governments in the post-war period and by the 1970s in particular was an anachronistic throwback to the fascist dictatorships of the 30s. Franco, although neutral in World war 2, was definitely seen as more pro-Hitler than neutral. 2) was true to a limited extent. There was international sympathy for ETA in the early period due to them being one of the only opponents actively fighting Franco in Spain.
"2011 memorial to two of those executed" I'd say memorial for, and give a date for when this picture is from. Also write their full names in the caption.
see comment below
"Franco had come to power after the Spanish Civil War" You could give a date for context.
Done.
"ETA(pm)" You need space before the parenthesis.
Done.
"Although up to 200,000 were" Add people.
Done.
"The Burgos trials (es)" I'm not sure links to foreign language Wikipedias can be made like this.
see comment below
Everything linked in the intro should also be linked in the article body.
Names of all organisations should be spelled out at first mention. Now, ETA is explained nowhere, for example, and others are only explaine din the intro.
"debated a socialist motion" What is meant by this?
Clarified.
"Juan Txiki Paredes, Juan Paredes Mano, Juan Paredes Manot, Txiki". Why is his name spelled in three different ways? You should be consistent, also in what name you use throughout.
Done.
"Angel Otaegui, Ángel Otaegui, Otaegi". Likewise. Check for more name inconsistencies.
Done. That was down to the Spanish and Basque versions of his name being used in the sources.
"with its ambassador to Portugal unconditionally withdrawn in protest at the embassy attack." Wasn't that attack in response to the sentence rather than the executions? "The Spanish Embassy in Lisbon was attacked and set on fire."
It seems the US downplayed international condemnation a few times, any elaboration of why?
Done.
"controlled by the Spanish government,[33] was supportive of the government." Perhaps say "supportive of the executions", to avoid repetition of government.
Done.
"authoritarian Spanish leader, Francisco Franco" Why is he only presented and linked second time he is mentioned in the intro?
Done.
"astorm of criticism" Too hyperbolic.
Done.
Sources in Spanish need the "language" parameter.
FunkMonk thanks a lot for taking the time to review this. I'll get to work on that, but there are some exceptions where I'd disagree that changes need to be made.
On the photo, I could change that to "2013 photo of 2011 memorial to Juan Txiki Paredes Manot and Angel Otaegui" but that seems a bit clunky and cumbersome.
Regarding Burgos trials (es), perWP:REDDEAL that is an acceptable way to link.
Regarding spelling out ETA, yes, acronyms should usually be spelt out on first mention. But perMOS:ACRO: an "exception is when something is most commonly known by its acronym (i.e., its article here is at the acronym title)." In this case, theWP:COMMONNAME is ETA, not Euskadi Ta Askatasuna, as it is hardly ever referred to that way in either English or Spanish.
Your exceptions seem fine, though I think the meaning of ETA could at least be mentioned in parenthesis in the article, especially because it seems to be a specific section of the group (pm), which sís not part of the common name, and therefore less known. As for the Portugal issue, you mention that the embassy was attacked in response to the sentences. But under responses to the executions, you write "with its ambassador to Portugal unconditionally withdrawn in protest at the embassy attack." So did they only withdraw their ambassador after the executions, even though it was in response to the earlier attack?FunkMonk (talk)15:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've added ticks so we can more easily see what's been done and what's pending. Let me know if any of my changes don't meet requirements. I changed ETA to ETA political-military. In the Portugal case, yes, it was in response to the earlier attack. Could change it to say that, but I thought it was clear enough from context.Valenciano (talk)16:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Changes look good. I've noted where something still needs to be done. As for the embassy, I was wondering why that info isn't in the Reactions to sentences section instead?FunkMonk (talk)18:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Linking and sources in Spanish still pending. Regarding the embassy situation, it isn't in the "reactions to sentences" section because it didn't occur then. There are 2 different events. The Spanish embassy was attacked as a reaction to the sentences. Following the executions, there were international reactions to them and Spain responded by withdrawing a number of ambassadors temporarily and the Portuguese one more permanently.Valenciano (talk)18:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Last issue apart from the language parameter and linking, something is wrong with reference 12. When these are fixed, I'll pass the articles.FunkMonk (talk)18:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Although up to 200,000 people were executed during the Spanish Civil War and its immediate aftermath, 48 people were executed in the period from 1948 to the time of the 1975 executions", and then a footnote follows, which is a newspaper article from 1979; its title is "En el período 1948-1975 fueron ejecutadas en España 53 personas". I do not have access to the article in full, yet the title seems pretty clear in its claim that the number of the executed was 53 [not 48]. ?? --2A02:A317:21C9:BD00:4539:9652:21A2:52FE (talk)10:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because during my candidacy in the admin elections last year, an editor said it was not far off Featured Article status. As I've never nominated an FA before, I'd like to know what improvements the article needs to get up to standard.
I don't think I mastered an exhaustive review (probably not FA level on quality of prose, structure and broadness). I still think 'Background' is a touch unfocused on the 'Last use of capital punishment in Spain', but cannot come up with any specific suggestions for improvement. Good day! —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr)19:23, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Image accessibility can be improved withWP:ALTTEXT
9th ref marked with 'permanent dead link'
(I'll put my comments in red, if I haven't replied to a point it's because I agree.) On this one that had no author so I can just change that to an offline ref.Valenciano (talk)14:09, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure filmaffinity.com is reliable; you can cite the film directly to verify its plot
There are refs on the film article I can replace that with.
Franco had come to power in 1939 after the Spanish Civil War, during which various factions had committed mass executions of political opponents. ---> During the Spanish Civil War various factions had committed mass summary executions of political opponents.
Numerous historians, including Helen Graham,[1] Paul Preston,[2] Antony Beevor,[3] Gabriel Jackson,[4] Hugh Thomas, and Ian Gibson believe that the summary executions of political opponents by the Francoist side, which became known as the "White Terror", was a deliberate policy ---> Numerous historians—including Helen Graham,[1] Paul Preston,[2] Antony Beevor,[3] Gabriel Jackson,[4] Hugh Thomas, and Ian Gibson—believe the executions perpetuated by the Francoist side, known as the "White Terror", were a part of a deliberate policy
In contrast, the executions their opponents perpetrated lacked the approval of the Spanish government which Franco was seeking to overthrow. Why in contrast when it seems that both Francoists and their opponents perpetrated unlawful executions
They both did, but the point about it being official policy from the leadership down on the Francoist side to kill political opponents is important in explaining for the context of why they were still doing it in the 1970s. The killings on the Republican side seem to have been more disorganised and ceased by 1937 (seehere)
The death penalty, which had been abolished in 1932 for civil cases, was revived by Franco in 1938 I think this sentence can be moved at the start of the section; good introduction for death penalty article
He maintained good relations with Nazi Germany and many Francoists remained sympathetic to Nazism ---> He maintained good relations with Nazi Germany, and many Francoists remained sympathetic to Nazism
This led Spain to be shunned by the international community, especially the Western European democracies and the United States, in the immediate post-war period.[10] Europe-wide popular demonstrations against the Franco government occurred in 1946.[11] In the 1950s, a thawing of relations occurred as Cold War tensions escalated and Franco's hostility to communism made him a reliable ally.[7] This would result in reluctance on the part of the US government to support measures which could destabilise the Franco government. Is it relevant to death penalty in Spain. European hostility toward Spain influenced history of death penalty?
It's vitally important for context. The hostility towards Francoist Spain explains why there were global protests, while other countries who were executing prisoners up to the 1970s and beyond didn't evoke the same global outrage.
Hostility to the use of capital punishment ---> Hostility toward the use of capital punishment
Both are okay per the dictionary, but perthis, hostility to seems far more common.
Fair enough! My thinking process was: 'hostility to/toward capital punishment' sound natural, but 'hostility to the use of capital punishment' felt a little iffy.Y
and ended in a coma and, due to his physical condition, was unable to sign his confession, instead having to place his fingerprint on a confession previously written which implicated Otaegui ---> and ended in a coma and, due to his physical condition, was unable to sign his confession, instead having to place his fingerprint on a confession previously written which implicated Otaegui
Garmendia was shot during his interrogations and ended in a coma and, due to his physical condition, was unable to sign his confession, instead having to place his fingerprint on a confession previously written which implicated Otaegui. Though witnesses failed to identify Garamendi and doctors testified that he was in no fit state to validate the confession, together with Otaegui, he was found guilty of the charges. ----> Garmendia wrote confession that implicated Otaegui, but was shot during his interrogations and fell into a coma incapable to sign his confession, instead placing his fingerprint on the confession. Though witnesses failed to identify Garmendia, and doctors testified that he was not fit to validate the confession, Garmendia together with Otaegui were found guilty of the charges.
as "assassins." ---> as "assassins".
Nicolás Franco has a page but it is insufficiently developed, so up to you to link or not to link
A group of French intellectuals, including the actor Yves Montand, the film director Costa-Gavras and the journalist Régis Debray, --> A group of French intellectuals—including the actor Yves Montand, the film director Costa-Gavras and the journalist Régis Debray—
'Executions' and 'Burials' section can be merged as they are thematically related and are pretty small.
had been present, together with police, members of the military and lawyers ---> had been present—together with police, members of the military and lawyers
As they are not too far apart in time, should we merge 'Reactions to sentences' and 'Reactions to executions', placing them after the burials? My reasoning: after reading about the trials I went straight to the execution part then came back to read about all the reactions. Additionally, 'Reactions to sentences' mostly isn't about the sentences but the opposition toward Franconian Spain in general.
Is distinction between 'Domestic reactions' (Basque reactions) and 'Reaction within Spain' really important? Can we merge them together as 'Domestic reactions'?
Done.
Y
