Talk:Spanish Constitution of 1931

[Untitled]

The following excerpt sounds slightly non-NPOV to me: "Until then, a woman's body was legally considered as a commodity by the bourgeoisie, like a sack of potatoes or a chair. In the field of general working conditions, some improvements were achieved, for example, the right to freedom of association and the right to belong to a union. On 1 July 1931, the 8-hour working day was decreed. Night work was regulated, obliging bosses to allow 8 hours of rest, and the Sunday Rest Law was granted to all workers. "

This should be cleaned up 15:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.73.159.7 (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The meaning of the purple band in the flag

The purple colour is inspired in the second quarter of the Spanish arms (both republican and monarchist), Leon (argent a lion purpure).

As far as I know the purple color actually came from the standards of the 'Comuneros', the first revolt against authoritarian rule in Spain (the commons of Castile vs. Charles I), but I'm afraid I can't offer any reference for that. --Estradin 19:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Catholic Church

So far the two examples of attack on the "civil liberties of the catholic church" given, suppressing the Society of Jesus and not letting them run schools/teach, don't seem to account for the prophecy of doom argument. Are there any more examples of suppression of the church? Or of Catholics? Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

POV section tag

Again, its Stanley Payne, gross over-simplification, right wing POV . how come the constitution wasn't largely abandoned in 1933 say, when the Right took power and article 26 for eg became a dead letter. The politics is complex and I have much reading to do but the summary offered here, looks POV to me anyhow. Sayerslle (talk) 12:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The claim of Payne's "right wing POV" is totally spurious. In fact, he is noted for his scrupulous scholarly objectivity. Sayerslle has in this and other articles erroneously painted Stanley Payne as an unreliable, biased, right wing hack, using this to remove or qualify material sourced to him. As noted below, he is actually considered part of what is called the “objective” group of historians on the subject, and the same academic journal specifically notes that he is NOT part of the right wing on the subject. Payne is noted more than any other scholar on this subject for his erudition, scrupulous research, prolific production and objectivity. No other scholar on this subject is continually described with such superlatives. The claims of bias and unreliability are demonstrably false. Indeed just the opposite is true.

To the contrary of the false claims of bias, Payne is actually noted for his objectivity and scrupulosity in attempting to avoid bias. Here he is noted for his methodology, designed, insofar as possible, to avoid bias. He has himself discussed his effort to avoid bias and maintain balance.

Robert A. Stradling, author of The Irish and the Spanish Civil War says Payne’s Spain “unfailingly maintains the standards of balance and objectivity that have always been the hallmark of his endeavor.”

The noted scholar of fascism Roger Griffin called him “the doyen fascist studies” who has written a “summa on the subject”. (Doyen -“a person considered to be knowledgeable or uniquely skilled as a result of long experience in some field of endeavor” –Websters) Oxford educated Berkelly professor, Ronald Hilton, noted hispanist and founder of the World Association of International Scholars called him “America’s leading specialist on modern Spain”, noting also that his nickname is “spayne”. The New York Times Book Review calls him "America's most prolific historian of Spain."

Library Journal called called Payne’s The Franco Regime a “balanced and coherent treatment”. Expert on totalitarianism, authoritarianism and the breakdown of democracy, Yale professor Juan Linz called Payne’s book Spain “An excellent, balanced discussion of important controversies.”

One hispanophile called him “the most objective of the historians writing on Spain today.”

Books and Culture says he is “perhaps the foremost American historian of 20th-century Spain” and “Don't suppose that Payne romanticizes the Nationalist cause—not in the least. He is quite clear about the orgies of violence on the other side as well, directed against Republicans. But unlike many historians—Antony Beevor, for example, in his recent history of the Civil War—Payne doesn't gloss over or rationalize the murderous anti-Catholic rampages.” As noted in the academic journal International Labor and Working Class History, Payne is part of a group of historians on the subject actually called the “objective” group. The article specifically does not group him with the “right wing”.

From the American Historical Review: “The generally neutral tone of his contributions in these areas [Spanish Civil War]—largely a product of the influence the social science model of "objectivity" has had on his historical approach—has meant that no serious scholar can legitimately accuse him of being an apologist for either the Nationalists or Republicans. … neither ideological nor polemical. Rather, it is a judicious and diligently researched study.” Mamalujo (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

We've been here before ' Preston - 'payne and robinson .went furthest in their denunciations of the Left in the 1930s..' so not 'totally spurious' you are so over the top in your veneration of this one writer - why - because he shares your sympathies. Sayerslle (talk) 20:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Just looked at a letter by ronald fraser to the tls, he wrote blood of spain , that mentions - 'a small revisionist school which justifies the franquista uprising and denies the insurgents atrocities, and which with the exception of Payne, who subscribes to some of its tenets is the work of non-profesional historians..' On the cath church talk page too you told me Franco was the best that could be hoped for, though of course he wasn't perfect blah blah..You didn't like the Guernica image because it was uncomfortable to be reminded the Church cheered the Nazis in the air.. the nuns in the convent school in seville, Lannon says, euphoric at the rising against the republic -its a long way from 'its wrong to kill, its wrong to even think wrong of your brother..'~ jesus said that - ever read the Gospel?Sayerslle (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)