This article was nominated for deletion on 8 April 2018. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Institut Nova Història was copied or moved into Jordi Bilbeny with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
This article contains a translation of Institut Nova Història from es.wikipedia. |
This article contains a translation of Institut Nova Història from ca.wikipedia. |
I translated this article given his political present, due to the support of politicians, businessmen, journalists, organizations, all of them very important in Catalan society and also of other historians who do not belong to this institute, which is financed by the Catalan government and which also often gives conferences in the Catalan Assembly, and the vast number of common people who believe these theories within Catalonia, not because i am giving some validity to the theories raised. it is more an article of actuality than of some fringe theories.-- ILoveCaracas ( talk) 10:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
There is a current discussion that relates to this article. See: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Institut_Nova_Història-- ILoveCaracas ( talk) 10:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
There was a debate about whether the article should stay on wikipedia, the result was keep, see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institut Nova Història-- ILoveCaracas ( talk) 11:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
[Moved from
User talk:Scolaire
I get what you want from the article looking for better sources online. tell me what it is and I help find it.--
ILoveCaracas (
talk) 11:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Let me see if I can get it, I ask you: is it could be valid videos from youtube of ordinary people who record or upload videos for example of leaders of this institute giving speeches in the Catalan assembly?, or where any leader of a independence party's statement is made, and these videos are clearly real-- ILoveCaracas ( talk) 19:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Other question: There could be some problem if these links are erased after a while, for example, when any Catalan sector notice that is used for this article?-- ILoveCaracas ( talk) 19:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
No, Garín is the author of that chapter and if you see the ref I added, the others appear as the editors of the entire book with chapters by various authors. That is the correct way of referencing it. By the way, Alberto Garin does seem to be a reputable historian with many works on various historical subjects. Maragm ( talk) 07:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Can i use Spanish press or not? other thing, I do not say that it's reliable but I find this page that apparently is more international than Spanish, and also says that this institute is funded by the generalitat-- ILoveCaracas ( talk) 14:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
ok but the cuban newspaper too?-- ILoveCaracas ( talk) 15:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
There are many Catalan and British books that treat on the Catalan origin and some Majorcan origin of Christopher Columbus, but google does not allow access to their pages, only shows a few paragraphs or explicitly says this relation on Colombus on its covers-- ILoveCaracas ( talk) 16:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Just dropping a few notes here, but not intending to get involved with this article.
quote from press release'.<ref>INH</ref>". Any interpretive statements (motives, meaning, consequence, logical conclusions, and so forth) must be cited to a reliable secondary source.
dedicated to pseudohistoryas the lead currently claims. It is dedicated to promoting ideas that are ahistorical; they use pseudoscientific and pseudohistorical methods; and the ideas they promote are conspiracy and fringe theories. But the institute's aims are not "pseudohistory". The first sentence of the lede should be a neutral description of what the institute itself claims its goals are, and then tempered with the weaknesses in their goals and approaches
Lots of good work on the article recently, so kudos to all involved! I'm still concerned with the use of primary and non-reliable sources, which I fear, primarily, over-emphasise both the article's topic in general, its connections to and endorsements from various people, and aspects of the article's topic. When there's a dearth of good reliable sources, these poor quality sources tend to sneak in to fill the voids, and we end up with a badly skewed article. But at least there's been a significant improvement over the last couple of days. - ( talk) 09:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the help xover and maragm, The truth is that this is an institute that is being discussed hard in Catalona and Spain since the year 2011 that this began to debate these ideas, the media and people talk about these thesis in favor and against, important pro-independentist newspapers and popular platforms that openly support these theories and give it a big deal, however, the Spanish media, even those of good repute, judge most of news and some even mock of the theses, and you can check it in any social media on the internet as they very frequently talk of this institute, some in favor of some theses, other mocking them. People i have to say There is almost no one authors outside of Spain who have dealt with this institution, I do not know the Why. So, is it good fror you to use some Spanish references outside of Catalonia? Because of those references there are so many-- ILoveCaracas ( talk) 13:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Pro-independentists press and sites or populars with vast views talk about every time like: diaribalear.es, vilaweb.cat, unilateral.cat, racocatala.cat, naciodigital.cat, independenciaiprogres.cat, municipisindependencia.cat, llibertat.cat, radioarenys.cat (public radio of arenys de munt) even some links of tv3 wesite, novaconca.cat, etc.
Spanish press and sites or populars with vast views like burbuja.info, dolcacatalunya.com, elpais.com, cronicaglobal.elespanol.com, elconfidencial.com, elmundo.es, elcatalan.es, heraldo.es, ect.-- ILoveCaracas ( talk) 14:06, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
El País, for example, would be the Spanish equivalent to the NY Times or Washington Post, and asked whether those papers should be excluded from an es.wiki article on Donald Trump. My answer would be, a story with the headline "F.B.I. Raids Office of Trump’s Longtime Lawyer Michael Cohen" is factual and can be used; an article with the headline "Will We Stop Trump Before It’s Too Late?" is opinion and should not. It's not enough to say "if it's in El País, it's all right." We have to look critically at what is being said. Even in the case of Revista Internacional Digilec, a secondary source, language such as "his intellectual heirs are the now renowned Institut Nova História, a group of Catalan self-styled scholars trying to prove and promote the idea that, throughout History, a massive conspiracy by the Crown of Castille, the Inquisition, and any institutions that may be related to Castille has been orchestrated against the nation of Catalonia" must make us question whether this is what we understand by "reliable source".
It's best to just report claims (even if they are ridiculous) as opposed to outright saying "this is wrong, this is not". ApolloCarmb ( talk) 17:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
(outdenting since I lost the plot halfway through here)
@ Agricolae: My "insistence" was regarding a previous phrasing that suggested the INH themselves described their goals as "pseudohistory". No such group will have pseudohistory as a goal (they usually actually believe the things they espouse), it's just that the goals they do have happen to be pseudohistorical.
That being said, I agree with Scolaire: the article as it stands presents the information about the INH and what they claim neutrally, and equally neutrally what their critics say. Wikipedia cannot, by policy, have its own opinion, expressed in Wikipedia's voice, about the claims.
However, if a consensus should form that we need to strengthen this (I disagree that that's needed, but…), there is nothing stopping us from reporting what the mainstream scholarly consenensus is regarding Columbus, Cortés, Cervantes, da Vinci, etc.. For instance, we can report that they claim Shakespeare was Catalan, but that mainstream scholarship is unequivocal that he was English. We don't need journal articles to comment on the INH specifically in order to report what the consensus is on a specific historical figure. Doing this risks crossing the line on both WP:NPOV and WP:SYN, but with carefull balancing it is one way it could be done.
Iff needed. Which I disagree with. -- Xover ( talk) 18:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Lorem ipsumto
Dolor sit ametbecause X, Y, and Z."; or make the edits directly, self-revert, and then reference the diff on the talk page. The key is that the changes have to be very concrete and specific, and accompanied by the reasoning for the change. Otherwise we'll just get bogged down in high-flying discussions of principle, where what we really care about are the practical consequences. -- Xover ( talk) 09:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
See his talk page. Filiprino ( talk) 17:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Maragm has done a revert and an edit to remove any far-right adjective for Somatemps. Revert diff. Far-right adjectiv removal diff. Somatemps being a far-right association is widely known: [2] [3]. I am reverting those edits because its plain censorship. Filiprino ( talk) 12:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
@ Maragm and Filiprino: I think you both need to take a timeout. The above thread exhibits a fundamental failure to assume good faith, and you are attacking the other editor rather than discussing how to edit the article. Take two breaths (heck, take five) and then try again: assume good faith, discuss edits not editors, and talk first—edit later. Wikipedia operates by consensus not blunt force. -- Xover ( talk) 16:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
From the article:
The reference given is an article by Alberto Garín:Garín, Alberto (2018). " A Non-Manifesto of Liberal History". In Douma, Michael J. and Magness, Phillip W. (eds.). What is Classical Liberal History. Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books. pp. 211–212. ISBN 9781498536103:
The only reference for that is [5] http://www.inh.cat . So I think we need a better reference if we are going to affirm that the autonomous government is funding INH. This recent article La fundación que difunde que Colón y Cervantes eran catalanes recibe 7.000 euros anuales de ayuntamientos de ERC says:
which is a weaker claim than what Wikipedia is saying. -- Error ( talk) 00:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 8 April 2018. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Institut Nova Història was copied or moved into Jordi Bilbeny with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
This article contains a translation of Institut Nova Història from es.wikipedia. |
This article contains a translation of Institut Nova Història from ca.wikipedia. |
I translated this article given his political present, due to the support of politicians, businessmen, journalists, organizations, all of them very important in Catalan society and also of other historians who do not belong to this institute, which is financed by the Catalan government and which also often gives conferences in the Catalan Assembly, and the vast number of common people who believe these theories within Catalonia, not because i am giving some validity to the theories raised. it is more an article of actuality than of some fringe theories.-- ILoveCaracas ( talk) 10:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
There is a current discussion that relates to this article. See: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Institut_Nova_Història-- ILoveCaracas ( talk) 10:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
There was a debate about whether the article should stay on wikipedia, the result was keep, see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institut Nova Història-- ILoveCaracas ( talk) 11:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
[Moved from
User talk:Scolaire
I get what you want from the article looking for better sources online. tell me what it is and I help find it.--
ILoveCaracas (
talk) 11:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Let me see if I can get it, I ask you: is it could be valid videos from youtube of ordinary people who record or upload videos for example of leaders of this institute giving speeches in the Catalan assembly?, or where any leader of a independence party's statement is made, and these videos are clearly real-- ILoveCaracas ( talk) 19:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Other question: There could be some problem if these links are erased after a while, for example, when any Catalan sector notice that is used for this article?-- ILoveCaracas ( talk) 19:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
No, Garín is the author of that chapter and if you see the ref I added, the others appear as the editors of the entire book with chapters by various authors. That is the correct way of referencing it. By the way, Alberto Garin does seem to be a reputable historian with many works on various historical subjects. Maragm ( talk) 07:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Can i use Spanish press or not? other thing, I do not say that it's reliable but I find this page that apparently is more international than Spanish, and also says that this institute is funded by the generalitat-- ILoveCaracas ( talk) 14:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
ok but the cuban newspaper too?-- ILoveCaracas ( talk) 15:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
There are many Catalan and British books that treat on the Catalan origin and some Majorcan origin of Christopher Columbus, but google does not allow access to their pages, only shows a few paragraphs or explicitly says this relation on Colombus on its covers-- ILoveCaracas ( talk) 16:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Just dropping a few notes here, but not intending to get involved with this article.
quote from press release'.<ref>INH</ref>". Any interpretive statements (motives, meaning, consequence, logical conclusions, and so forth) must be cited to a reliable secondary source.
dedicated to pseudohistoryas the lead currently claims. It is dedicated to promoting ideas that are ahistorical; they use pseudoscientific and pseudohistorical methods; and the ideas they promote are conspiracy and fringe theories. But the institute's aims are not "pseudohistory". The first sentence of the lede should be a neutral description of what the institute itself claims its goals are, and then tempered with the weaknesses in their goals and approaches
Lots of good work on the article recently, so kudos to all involved! I'm still concerned with the use of primary and non-reliable sources, which I fear, primarily, over-emphasise both the article's topic in general, its connections to and endorsements from various people, and aspects of the article's topic. When there's a dearth of good reliable sources, these poor quality sources tend to sneak in to fill the voids, and we end up with a badly skewed article. But at least there's been a significant improvement over the last couple of days. - ( talk) 09:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the help xover and maragm, The truth is that this is an institute that is being discussed hard in Catalona and Spain since the year 2011 that this began to debate these ideas, the media and people talk about these thesis in favor and against, important pro-independentist newspapers and popular platforms that openly support these theories and give it a big deal, however, the Spanish media, even those of good repute, judge most of news and some even mock of the theses, and you can check it in any social media on the internet as they very frequently talk of this institute, some in favor of some theses, other mocking them. People i have to say There is almost no one authors outside of Spain who have dealt with this institution, I do not know the Why. So, is it good fror you to use some Spanish references outside of Catalonia? Because of those references there are so many-- ILoveCaracas ( talk) 13:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Pro-independentists press and sites or populars with vast views talk about every time like: diaribalear.es, vilaweb.cat, unilateral.cat, racocatala.cat, naciodigital.cat, independenciaiprogres.cat, municipisindependencia.cat, llibertat.cat, radioarenys.cat (public radio of arenys de munt) even some links of tv3 wesite, novaconca.cat, etc.
Spanish press and sites or populars with vast views like burbuja.info, dolcacatalunya.com, elpais.com, cronicaglobal.elespanol.com, elconfidencial.com, elmundo.es, elcatalan.es, heraldo.es, ect.-- ILoveCaracas ( talk) 14:06, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
El País, for example, would be the Spanish equivalent to the NY Times or Washington Post, and asked whether those papers should be excluded from an es.wiki article on Donald Trump. My answer would be, a story with the headline "F.B.I. Raids Office of Trump’s Longtime Lawyer Michael Cohen" is factual and can be used; an article with the headline "Will We Stop Trump Before It’s Too Late?" is opinion and should not. It's not enough to say "if it's in El País, it's all right." We have to look critically at what is being said. Even in the case of Revista Internacional Digilec, a secondary source, language such as "his intellectual heirs are the now renowned Institut Nova História, a group of Catalan self-styled scholars trying to prove and promote the idea that, throughout History, a massive conspiracy by the Crown of Castille, the Inquisition, and any institutions that may be related to Castille has been orchestrated against the nation of Catalonia" must make us question whether this is what we understand by "reliable source".
It's best to just report claims (even if they are ridiculous) as opposed to outright saying "this is wrong, this is not". ApolloCarmb ( talk) 17:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
(outdenting since I lost the plot halfway through here)
@ Agricolae: My "insistence" was regarding a previous phrasing that suggested the INH themselves described their goals as "pseudohistory". No such group will have pseudohistory as a goal (they usually actually believe the things they espouse), it's just that the goals they do have happen to be pseudohistorical.
That being said, I agree with Scolaire: the article as it stands presents the information about the INH and what they claim neutrally, and equally neutrally what their critics say. Wikipedia cannot, by policy, have its own opinion, expressed in Wikipedia's voice, about the claims.
However, if a consensus should form that we need to strengthen this (I disagree that that's needed, but…), there is nothing stopping us from reporting what the mainstream scholarly consenensus is regarding Columbus, Cortés, Cervantes, da Vinci, etc.. For instance, we can report that they claim Shakespeare was Catalan, but that mainstream scholarship is unequivocal that he was English. We don't need journal articles to comment on the INH specifically in order to report what the consensus is on a specific historical figure. Doing this risks crossing the line on both WP:NPOV and WP:SYN, but with carefull balancing it is one way it could be done.
Iff needed. Which I disagree with. -- Xover ( talk) 18:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Lorem ipsumto
Dolor sit ametbecause X, Y, and Z."; or make the edits directly, self-revert, and then reference the diff on the talk page. The key is that the changes have to be very concrete and specific, and accompanied by the reasoning for the change. Otherwise we'll just get bogged down in high-flying discussions of principle, where what we really care about are the practical consequences. -- Xover ( talk) 09:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
See his talk page. Filiprino ( talk) 17:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Maragm has done a revert and an edit to remove any far-right adjective for Somatemps. Revert diff. Far-right adjectiv removal diff. Somatemps being a far-right association is widely known: [2] [3]. I am reverting those edits because its plain censorship. Filiprino ( talk) 12:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
@ Maragm and Filiprino: I think you both need to take a timeout. The above thread exhibits a fundamental failure to assume good faith, and you are attacking the other editor rather than discussing how to edit the article. Take two breaths (heck, take five) and then try again: assume good faith, discuss edits not editors, and talk first—edit later. Wikipedia operates by consensus not blunt force. -- Xover ( talk) 16:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
From the article:
The reference given is an article by Alberto Garín:Garín, Alberto (2018). " A Non-Manifesto of Liberal History". In Douma, Michael J. and Magness, Phillip W. (eds.). What is Classical Liberal History. Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books. pp. 211–212. ISBN 9781498536103:
The only reference for that is [5] http://www.inh.cat . So I think we need a better reference if we are going to affirm that the autonomous government is funding INH. This recent article La fundación que difunde que Colón y Cervantes eran catalanes recibe 7.000 euros anuales de ayuntamientos de ERC says:
which is a weaker claim than what Wikipedia is saying. -- Error ( talk) 00:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)