Talk:Institut Nova Història

Article translated
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: Village_pump_(miscellaneous)--ILoveCaracas (talk) 10:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Article for deletion debate
There was a debate about whether the article should stay on wikipedia, the result was keep, see: Articles for deletion/Institut Nova Història--ILoveCaracas (talk) 11:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Better sources
[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)


 * It's not always easy to find what you want online. That's why I'm always suspicious of articles like this. What is wanted is reliable, independent sources that verify the stated facts. By "independent", I mean preferably not Catalan or Spanish. Has anybody, anywhere in the world outside Spain ever written a factual article on this "institute"? If not, is it important enough for an encyclopaedia article this size? It's easy to write a large article when you have a large number of citations to the institute itself, and an equally large number of citations to Spanish (unionist) media denouncing it. WP:NEWSORG says, "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact", but then says, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces...are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." So if a news headline says "L'Institut Nova Història serà guardonat amb el Premi Nacional President Lluís Companys" ("The INH is to be awarded the Presiden Lluís Comanys National Prize"), that's likely to be factual, and therefore reliable if Libertat is considered a well-established news outlet; but if it says "La Asamblea Nacional Catalana se apropia también de Santa Teresa de Jesús" ("The Catalan National Assembly is also appropriating to itself Saint Teresa of Jesus"), it's likely to be some journalist's opinion. If you were able to find good sources, that would be great, but if not, it might be better to edit down the article to what can be shown to be relevant and important. Scolaire (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As an example of the dodgy use of primary sources, this INH page has a heading, "Adhesions", followed by 80-odd names. It is used in the article to reference the sentence "The Institute has received the support of various Catalan intellectuals and politicians, such as..." It looks to me more like a list of people who attended, or maybe just people who were invited to attend, the 2009 symposium. Maybe the INH would like us to think that they are all supporters, but it is not a reliable source that they are. That long sentence should be removed. Scolaire (talk) 16:36, 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)


 * I added a few more sources in English. I believe the article now is ok and with sufficient references.  The coverage in English is not very broad, but the sources I added at least do confirm that INH does spouse these theories and that, I believe, is the crux of the matter. Since there is not that much coverage in English-language sources, I believe Spanish and Catalan sources are acceptable. I do not agree with Scolaire when he says that "What is wanted is reliable, independent sources that verify the stated facts. By "independent", I mean preferably not Catalan or Spanish".  El País, for example, would be the Spanish equivalent to the NY Times or Washington Post, it is a reputable publication and used often as a reference.  Saying that it would be preferable not to use Spanish or Catalan sources means that this article would have to be deleted for lack of sources. It would be the same case as if the two US newspapers I mentioned could not be used to reference an article in es.wiki on Donald Trump because their view could be negative and that it would be prefereable to use, for example, German or British sources rather than US sources because he is the president of the US and any US source would be biased one way or the other.  The fact that this Institute promotes the idea that there has been a conspiracy since the 16th century by Castile to "steal" from the Catalans their achievements in history, literature, etc. is a fact and that cannot be denied.  Just looking at their webpage confirms it. Interesting news they report on 1 April of this year. The head of INH has finally confirmed the birth year of Columbus as 1414.  Wouldn't he have been a bit too old (78)to undertake the discovery and such a long arduous voyage?  Maragm (talk) 06:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)  pd: ILoveCaracas, I'm going to add the last book you mentioned as ref.  Good source. Maragm (talk) 07:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

A few notes on problematic sources and other issues
Just dropping a few notes here, but not intending to get involved with this article.


 * The article cites INH itself extensively. This is problematic and needs to be reviewed with a critical eye. Typically you could use a primary source very sparingly and only for factual statements about itself. Typically "On such and such date, the INH wrote in a press release 'quote from press release'. ". Any interpretive statements (motives, meaning, consequence, logical conclusions, and so forth) must be cited to a reliable secondary source.
 * The article still cites "llibertat.cat" (whose name translates as something like "Freedom [for] Catalonia", the word connoting liberation from a state of bondage), and from all hallmarks is a highly partisan publication pushing an agenda. I would consider it to be a reliable source for what llibertat.cat has written, but not for anything else. In particular, it should not be used as a source about any person's views or statements, if llibertat.cat is the only source for the relevant claim. If an actually reliable secondary source is the cite primarily supporting a claim (including demonstrating due weight for inclusion in the article), llibertat.cat might be used to supplement that main cite for things like direct quotes or other details that are not controversial.
 * Youtube is not a reliable source for anything. There are qualifications to this statement in the general case, but for this article it holds as a rule of thumb.
 * The Institut Nova Història is not dedicated to pseudohistory as 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
 * We also don't need to tell people that Barcelona is in Catalonia, much less that it's in Spain, in the first sentence of the lede. If relevant (if reliable secondary sources make mention of the fact, for instance to emphasise the connection with Catalonian separatism) it can be mentioned somewhere down in the body of the article.
 * News sources from Spain, provided they are reliable, can certainly be used. But all explicitly Catalonian sources must be assessed a little more critically than usual before use, since the tensions in the area, which this articles subject is primarily a symptom of, make it highly likely that such sources have more local blinders and biases than could otherwise be expected. Sources from Spain in general (e.g. El Pais) are somewhat safer to rely on, but cannot automatically be assumed to be free of bias (typically the opposite one of that expressed by Catalonian sources, but bias all the same). The very best sources will always be the ones most far removed from the issue. Wherever possible, pick sources from outside of Spain entirely; and use as reputable sources as possible.

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, Xover, for weighing in. I agree with most of your remarks. I also see that some sentences might be "over-referenced", i.e, too many refs for just one phrase.  The article does need more work and, bit by bit it could be improved by replacing some of the references with better ones. This is not a topic that I cover (mostly early medieval Iberian history) and I just learned about it when I saw that the article had been included in the "See also" section of some articles, such as the one on Shakespeare, El Cid, etc. and that's why I became involved. But this is the type of article that, because of the current situation in Spain, could lead to arguments and edit wars. I'll try to find more refs to replace other ones, they are not easy to find. Regards, Maragm (talk) 10:56, 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)


 * First, as regards the quality of sources, I accept that the topic has not been covered in secondary sources, and that it has not been covered in foreign media, and therefore we must rely to a large extent on Spanish/Catalan news media. But I must repeat what I said about WP:NEWSORG: there is a difference between the reporting of facts and the expression of views. said, 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".
 * As regards the number of refs, I fully agree with and Maragm that there is no need for a string of refs where a single ref verifies the sentence.
 * But the main thing I want to stress is the size of the article. There seems to be much talk of expanding it, despite the fact that we are reliant on news items for what is already there. In my opinion, much of what is already there could be safely removed. Do we really need 1,000 words to tell us that the INH claims that Columbus, Cervantes and the author of Lazarillo de Tormes were Catalan, when that has already been said back at the beginning of the article. Would a bulleted list of its claims not be more informative? Do we need biographies that tell us that a researcher was "one of the ideologues of the 'V' performed in Barcelona for the 2014 National Day of Catalonia"? Does an image of Jordi Bilbeny really need a caption reading, "Commission evaluating the 2009 Catalan independence referendum in Arenys de Munt. From left to right, Jordi Bilbeny, Alfons López Tena, J.M. Ximenis, Uriel Bertran and Oriol Junqueras (president of Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya)"? Do we need block quotes just to say that Pujol or Carod-Rovira approved of books by Bilbeny? Improving an article doesn't always mean expanding it. A little trimming would make this article much better. Scolaire (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree it should be trimmed. I tried to fix it as best as I could, did erase a long paragraph on Palos de Moguer vs. Pals, would remove surplus refs, but this is a subject I don't particularly like or cover so I leave it to anyone else who wants to go ahead and trim it. Maragm (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Your edits were excellent, . Thanks for putting in the effort. Scolaire (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Article translated 2

 * 1)  No, you did NOT translate this article.  In both Spanish and Catalan, it is stated clearly at the beginning of the article that the INH is devoted to PSEUDOHISTORY.  You have relegated that to a less prominent place.
 * 2)  Your uncertain command of English leads me to believe that you have included this article as propaganda.
 * 3)  No, not a single historian, or any other academic, has supported the theories of the INH.
 * 4)  The organizations that have supported the theories of the INH have nothing to do with the study of history or anything else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.57.60.178 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * It was who translated the article from Spanish and Catalan, including having "pseudohistory" in the first sentence. There was then a long discussion, where it was agreed that the Spanish and Catalan articles were very badly written, and didn't have a neutral point of view (NPOV). Besides myself and ILoveCaracas,  and  took part in that discussion. Xover specifically stated that having "pseudohistory" in the opening sentence was wrong, for encyclopaedic reasons. Maragm then edited the article extensively to make it more NPOV and take out some irrelevant and unsourced content, and then I edited to add (encyclopaedically) relevant content, remove unnecessary or biased content, and move content around so the article flowed properly. So now, of course, it doesn't look anything like the Spanish or Catalan articles. And that is a Good Thing.
 * My command of English is better than yours, mate. And given that your only edits to Wikipedia are this, this, this and this, it looks as though you are the one who is only here for reasons of propaganda.
 * The article quotes Javier Barraycoa as saying that the INH "has absolutely no recognition in the academic world". What we don't have is any academic writing in an academic journal that the INH is devoted to pseudohistory. If we had that, it would be great, but according to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, the article can't say it without the proper sources.
 * Again, the article states that those who support the theory are Catalan nationalists; it doesn't pretend that they have anything to do with the study of history or anything else. Scolaire (talk) 09:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, I know a good bit of good-faith effort has gone into improving this article but it does not get the point across. One could be excused for reading the whole thing and coming away with the distinct impression that they do indeed have 'something to do with the study of history', that they are a legitimate organization that has a few detractors, rather than that their "radical and unscientific claims" are an expression of a Catalan leadership intent on "revising history for political gain", to provide a justification for succession.(Garín)  Compare to Institute for Creation Research where you can't get past the first sentence without knowing exactly what it is, and is a good indication of how Wikipedia deals with such fringe (contrary to Xover's insistence otherwise). Agricolae (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no way this article could have a neutral point of view. Other than nationalistic Catalans, nobody could take their claims seriously. Maragm (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Which is, of course, the challenge of covering fringe - when it is so 'out there' that legitimate academics don't even bother refuting it, most of the 'reliable' sources available end up coming directly or indirectly from the purveyors of the fringe, and Wikipedia risks becoming their bullhorn. Agricolae (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Pseudohistory, like religion, cannot be refuted (hence the lack of response from the academic world.) Any document that contradicts the views of the INH is automatically assumed to be false.  The true documents, of which there were surely millions, have all been destroyed.  The very fact that no existing documents support the arguments of the INH thus "proves" the arguments of the INH.
 * As far as your English is concerned, I had to base my opinion on the article as it was written.
 * Anyway, here's an op-ed from the Los Angeles Times, by an important scholar, that refers to the INH (see the paragraph that begins, "On the separatist side...."): http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-cole-catalonia-independence-20141001-story.html. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.57.60.178 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I do not agree that the article cannot have a neutral point of view; I would say that, as it stands, it does have a neutral point of view. It states – factually, not emotionally – that the institute claims that major figures in world history were Catalan, that it has been criticised as pseudohistory, and that it finds support only among Catalan nationalists. This is what an encyclopaedia article is supposed to do. It is not meant to "get the point across", i.e. to hammer home the point that they are all crackpots by stating it three times in the lead, and at least once in every other section. That is the essence of WP:NPOV. To my mind, the Institute for Creation Research article is a masterclass in how not to write an intro, where you can't get past the first sentence without being bludgeoned into submission. As I said to the IP, it would be ideal if we could cite an academic source that critically evaluated the institute's output and concluded that it was pseudohistory, but failing that, we cannot say it in Wikipedia's voice. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Garín is certainly not a reliable source; his denunciation of the institute is as strident as anything in El País, and totally lacking in scholarly disinterest. Neither is it true that "the 'reliable' sources available end up coming directly or indirectly from the purveyors of the fringe"; most of the sources come from the critics. Scolaire (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And no, an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times – even by a university professor – is not an academic article in an academic journal. Scolaire (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * An op-ed by a relevant academic is a reliable source, for some things, it just isn't as reliable as a journal article or scolarly monograph. If the author of the relevant article is an accredited expert in a relevant field (I haven't checked), we can use it, just with some care. We could even use a blog post, if that had been the case, with similar caveats. --Xover (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That wasn't my point. We could "use it", somewhere in the article, by all means, but it would not be a strong enough source to say the INH is "dedicated to pseudohistory" in the first sentence. According to the LA Times, "William Cole is a university professor of humanities in Barcelona and an art and rare book dealer." I can't find anything about him on Google. So probably not an accredited expert, then. Scolaire (talk) 08:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * (e/c) It is an extreme double standard to say that that to be consistent with verifiability a critique has to be scholarly and academic and restrained and disinterested, while the original claims are none of these.(WP:PARITY) You said it would be ideal if we had an academic source that critiqued them, and then you dismiss an academic source that critiques them because it is too strident?  There is something wrong with the process when, as you claim, 'most of the sources come from the critics', but those source's critiques are excluded.  Agricolae (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

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)
 * No, it's not. It is best to contextualize, either with direct criticism (in situ, not saved up for a 'criticism' section at the end) or by contrast with scholarly consensus.  Otherwise you end up with a fringe walled garden. Agricolae (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I personally would consider it condescending if someone(s) was telling me what is right or wrong, as if I could not decide for myself.ApolloCarmb (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I personally consider it arrogant for someone to claim that they and every other reader are expert enough, no matter how obscure the subject, to always tell the difference. Agricolae (talk) 05:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

(outdenting since I lost the plot halfway through here) 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 : 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)
 * This explanation of the removal of 'pseudohistory' makes more sense than what I took from the edit summaries - now I see what you were getting at. That being said, I don't know where it comes from, this idea that to contrast a fringe theory with the decidedly different scholarly consensus somehow violates NPOV.  Indeed, it is POV to present a fringe 'theory' as if it doesn't fly in the face of mainstream thought. Agricolae (talk) 05:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Nobody, that I can tell, is arguing that it violates NPOV to contextualize and contrast a fringe view with the mainstream view (i.e. that part is actually a strawman, though I presume you didn't intend it as such). What we have a disagreement about is how, specifically, we achieve that. And in that discussion, and myself (and possibly ) argue that the article as it currently stands already achieves that common goal admirably. In other words, the best way to avoid an impasse here is probably for you (and anyone else that disagrees) to start posting concrete suggestions for changes that can be discussed. --Xover (talk) 06:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If adding contradictory context doesn't represent NPOV, then what does "Doing this risks crossing the line on both WP:NPOV . . ." refer to? And my problem with the page is about a lot more than contextualizing - it is about whitewashing. Agricolae (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Only there's no whitewash. Did you miss the bit where the lead states that the institute claims that major figures in world history were Catalan, that it has been criticised as pseudohistory, and that it finds support only among Catalan nationalists? You are basically saying that unless the article says immediately and categorically that the INH is wrong, the article itself is wrong, and is bound to mislead thousands of gullible readers into thinking everything they say is true (does this article even have thousands of readers? I doubt it). That's not how Wikipedia works; it's not how any encyclopaedia works. Look at History Channel: it's a far better place to find pseudohistory, but does the intro say "don't watch this channel, it'll mess with your head"? No. In fact the structure of the lead is pretty well the same as this article. Look at 9/11 conspiracy theories: does it say "you mustn't believe any of these theories"? No. In fact the structure of the lead is pretty well the same as this article. Look at the version of at five minutes to midnight on the eve of world destruction: it didn't say "this is not going to happen!" – it didn't even mention the fact that scholars dismissed the idea until the third paragraph of the lead – and yet there was no "War of the Worlds"-type panic when people all over the English-speaking world read it. On the other hand, do you seriously believe that people who are susceptible to theories of creationism will not get past the first sentence of Institute for Creation Research without having their minds firmly set against it? People read Wikipedia articles and believe what they want to believe. It's no part of Wikipedia's job to tell them that they're not allowed to.  Scolaire (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "…risks crossing the line…" means exactly that: if we do that, and aren't careful, we risk doing it in a way that crosses the line into no longer being neutral or conducting novel synthesis. If, for instance, we follow every line of "The INH claims X." with "But Y says this is hogwash."—particularly when Y doesn't comment specifically on the INH and its claims—then the article no longer takes the neutral point of view. And by combining sources to say what the sources themselves do not say directly we are engaging in novel synthesis. For example, if we write "The INH claims Shakespeare was Catalan" and then find a source that does not comment on the INH and its claims, but does say "The overwhelming scholarly consensus is that Shakespeare was English", we are interpreting and adding meaning to what the source actually said (i.e. original research).We can do this, but we need to be very very careful with how we do it and to what extend (see Shakespeare Authorship Question for a FA that tries to walk this line). Collecting the criticism and mainstream view in a separate section (which is then summarised into the article's lede so it isn't buried) is the safest approach, because it avoids the "he said, but everyone else thinks" that is almost impossible to do without violating NPOV. This is much easier when mainstream sources comment on the INH and its claims directly, because then you can more easily combine the views in running prose while remaining neutral. This is, for example, the approach taken for genuine controversies in literary criticism: we report that critic A thinks Titus Andronicus is juvenile dross, but critic B, who specifically comments on critic A's opinion, thinks it's a masterpiece, while critic C thinks it wasn't even written by Shakespeare. Absent such direct links we have to be extremely careful in making them ourselves.This, among other things, is why I think the most productive approach towards reaching consensus is for those who wish to change the article to propose specific changes that can be discussed on their merits. Either proposed as "Change the sentence Lorem ipsum to Dolor sit amet because 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)

Creator of the article has been blocked indefinitely for block evasion
See his talk page. Filiprino (talk) 17:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * So what? He did his best translating the article from two other wikis and it has nothing to do with his block. Maragm (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your obvious answer. Try again. Filiprino (talk) 12:04, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't have to try again. He was blocked for other reasons, nothing to do with the translation of this article from ca. and es. wiki. Check with the sysop who blocked him if you have any doubts. Since you're so busy white-washing and trying to discredit others who don't agree, I suggest you edit the articles on Leonardo da Vinci, Erasmus, El Quijote, Cervantes, Shakespeare, Columbus, etc. and let the world know the great historical discoveries made by the INH, a bunch of lunatics... or maybe add some quotes in article on Quim Torras shedding light on his racist and xenophobic thoughts and writings.Maragm (talk) 12:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * With your answer you are violating WP:PA by saying I am doing whitewashing (not white-washing). But that is false, because I am not censoring anything. It's you who is censoring. Filiprino (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Far-right Somatemps reversion
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:. I am reverting those edits because its plain censorship. Filiprino (talk) 12:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Great ! I'll add the pseudohistory stuff back to the article then. Maragm (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Add whatever you want. Neither of their claims have been demonstrated nor refuted and they don't pretend to show them as truth. Filiprino (talk) 13:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No serious scholar would even waste their time refuting their claims. Just removed one of the references you added (haven't checked the others yet) which only says that Somatemps is "catalanista antiindependentista" no mention of it being far-right (unless your definition of far-right includes anybody who is against Catalan independence).  Maragm (talk) 13:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * We are not talking about who would or who wouldn't refute their claims. But I can say I won't waste my time inspecting the additions you have made. The reference you have removed stated that Barraycoa belongs to Somatemps. The reference was not added to define the ideology of Somatemps. The second reference you removed states the following: "Los vecinos de la plaza Artós habían convocado, con el apoyo de organizaciones ultraderechistas como Somatemps, una concentración de rechazo a la manifestación convocada por Unitat Contra el Feixisme y el Racisme (UCFR), que tenía el lema "Unánomos contra las agresiones fascistas". The opinion of Iolanda Maurici comes at the end of the article. It's really bad that you remove content even without checking the sources. That's vandalism. I have restored the reference to Antena 3. Filiprino (talk) 14:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Didn't see that phrase before. But, anyway, TV3 is not really a reliable source. I'll be generous though and let it pass. Guess anybody who does not agree with INH's theories is Fascist, extreme right, or simply inferior beings, as your new president would have it.Maragm (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC) ps...I'm still waiting for you to edit the articles on Shakespeare, Erasmus, Cervantes, El Quixote, etc. and add these great discoveries. Maragm (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's from Antena 3 the reference we are talking about. Filiprino (talk) 14:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know it's Antena3, and I stand by my opinion: not a reliable or neutral source. Maragm (talk) 14:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You said TV3, not Antena3. Filiprino (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

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)

Generalitat funding
From the article:
 * It is funded by the Catalan autonomous government,
 * The INH is funded by the Catalan autonomous government.[14]

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 Institut Nova Historia[5], the historical research center funded by the Catalan autonomous government[...]

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:
 * Este diario ha podido comprobar que en ninguno de los presupuestos públicos de la Generalitat recientes aparecen transferencias directas hacia esta entidad ni hacia actividades directamente relacionadas con la misma. Según esta documentación pública, la única vez que la Generalitat concedió una subvención directa a la citada fundación fue en 2010, por valor de 3.200 euros con motivo de haber ganado un concurso de concurrencia pública. Sin embargo, tal y como se ha revelado, sí se han inyectado recursos a través de otras administraciones, como los Ayuntamientos citados, en fechas mucho más cercanas.

which is a weaker claim than what Wikipedia is saying. --Error (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/09/catalonia-pays-3-to-firms-linked-to-shakespeare-was-catalan-theory
 * https://elpais.com/cultura/2020-03-10/tv3-pago-184000-euros-a-una-fundacion-que-dice-que-colon-y-shakespeare-eran-catalanes.html
 * --Ecelan (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The Guardian article says the govenrment "two media companies owned by Albert Codinas, the joint founder and current president of the New History Institute (INH)". It doesn't say it funded the Institute. The El País article specifically says that they didn't: Estos contratos, que suman más de 2,5 millones de euros entre 2012 y 2019, no guardan relación con la actividad del INH (These contracts, which total more than 2.5 million euros between 2012 and 2019, are not related to INH's activity). Scolaire (talk) 12:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)