Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Catalan Racism

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. There is a strong consensus here to delete. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Catalan Racism

 * &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

This is a contentious topic that has already been the subject of discussion here on Wikipedia. A day after this draft was submitted, material from it was added to the existing article on the Catalan independence movement. It was reverted twice for being out of scope for that article. More recently, a different user created Catalan supremacism. It was nominated for deletion and subjected to a lengthy and heated discussion (see here). I don't know how similar this draft is to the deleted article, but I have no doubt that if this draft were to be accepted, it would quickly be nominated for deletion. And so, we might as well have the discussion now, before it hits Main space. When reviewing the draft, I toyed with the notion of declining it along with a recommendation that the material be merged into the existing article on Racism in Spain. But that article is so short that the inclusion of the draft material would create a glaring issue of undue weight. For the record, I have not formed any opinion as to whether this draft should be accepted or declined. The deletion discussion for the Supremacism article gave much attention to the reliability of the sources and to the fidelity of the translations. I suspect that similar issues will be raised here. In a few minutes, I'll be notifying three WikiProjects about this discussion: WP:WikiProject Spain, WP:WikiProject Catalan-speaking countries and WP:WikiProject Discrimination. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Rename article to Racism in Catalonia (equivalent to Racism in Spain) and expand scope to all kinds of Racism present in Catalonia, not focusing only on Racism in Catalan nationalism. Nationalists certainly don't have a monopoly on racism in Catalonia, neither now nor historically. This will avoid a POV slant. I was the author of Catalan supremacism and I see now that there were issues with my article. Although a significant number of editors argued in bad faith based on their political views (leveraging language barriers to discredit perfectly acceptable reliable sources or, as mentioned, try to doubt the fidelity of translation), others gave poignant policy based arguments which did convince me on some level. But I do think an article should cover this topic on Wikipedia, we have to be careful on how we go about it. I suggest we take it easy, select an appropriate name and improve the draft before submitting.Sonrisas1 (talk) 19:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I have an interest&mdash;but not an opinion&mdash;on this, yet. I'm merely posting now to offer my services as a proofreader for Catalan-English (or ca-es) translations, should anyone want a second opinion on something. If I have time, I can do some brief translations (only → en), if necessary. Mathglot (talk) 05:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Reply: Mathglot Yes, please go ahead. I speak/understand Catalan fluently but any additional support on translation appreciated. Sonrisas1 (talk) 06:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Rename to Racism in Catalonia which makes it a notable topic. Than send to mainspace for further work by interested editors. Legacypac (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Note we could also have a large section on Platform for Catalonia, a political party which is anti-independence and is/was the only electorally successful xenophobic party in Spain. This would create some balance in the article. Sonrisas1 (talk) 06:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As currently written, this is a WP:POVFORK. There are better ways to split a broad topic than by such a divisive title. The decision of how to do so should be made at a top-level article talk page, not an obscure forum such as MfD. As a result, I think the best action here is to redirect to History of Catalonia and let content be merged/split from there as consensus in Talk: space determines. VQuakr (talk) 05:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Reply: VQuakr quick question, following your argument, should Racism in Spain be considered a POVFORK from History of Spain, the former to be merged with the latter.Sonrisas1 (talk) 06:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * A redirect and merge is an inferior solution to me. Concur with Sonrisas1's question. Legacypac (talk) 22:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF. The Spain article isn't great either, though, but it doesn't have the history that this one does of already having been deleted from mainspace after a deletion discussion. This is MfD and a poor place to be making editorial discussions about inclusion; my !vote addresses that by providing a path forward for discussion of what, if any, portions to include in mainspace. IMHO moving to mainspace directly would just be a waste of time since it would immediately be AfD'd and almost certainly deleted given this. VQuakr (talk) 02:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that both Catalan racism and Catalan supremacism are controversial POV names - this is why the proposal is to align name and structure with Racism in Spain. If it should be merged in any article, it is that one, although there is too much material for a merge. Sonrisas1 (talk) 06:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. There is virtually no difference between and, the article that was deleted at WP:Articles for deletion/Catalan supremacism. The deletion was not on the basis of controversial or POV names, but rather POV content, UNDUE and SYNTH. For instance, about half the article cites a book by Francisco Caja (13 cites), but there is no evidence that a substantial number of reliable published sources share Caja's views. To this is added further sections citing Francisco Martínez-Hoyos and Javier Barraycoa, but again there is no evidence that they represent the mainstream view of Catalan society. Finally, there are a couple of sections with quotes from Jordi Pujol, Oriol Junqueras, Artur Mas and others in the modern Catalan nationalist movement, followed by remarks by Spanish or Catalan unionist commentators that these were "racist". The whole lot is cobbled together to look like a coherent thread of racism from the 1870s to today. In short, an article that was deleted for very good policy-based reasons should not be re-created with a couple of extra edits and a change of name.  Scolaire (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Reply Scolaire no one is claiming it is "a mainstream view of Catalan society". Would you so avidly try to delete all references to Racism in the United States on the basis that "there is no evidence that it is a mainstream view of American society"? Btw, the main source of the article is not Caja but Catalan historian Francisco Martinez Hoyos. It is extremely similar in structure and content to this article. Pointing to the use of Caja to discredit the content may work in the short term, but in the long term the credible sources are available. http://revistaaportes.com/index.php/aportes/article/viewFile/70/55Sonrisas1 (talk) 09:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * First, as I said above, Caja is cited 13 times over two sections of the article/draft, "Racial element in the Catalanist discourse" and "Racialism", totaling 1,200 words. Martínez-Hoyos is cited once in the article body, for a short paragraph in the short section on Murcia in the 1930s. Can we try to keep it real, please? If pointing to the use of Caja "discredits the content" (your words), then we may consider the content thoroughly discredited. Second, it is very much a mainstream view of American society that racism has been a serious issue over more than a century, and that article cites literally hundreds of mainstream authors and academics who say so. Again, let's try to keep it real. If "no one is claiming" it is a mainstream view of Catalan society that racism is and has been an issue in that society, then there shouldn't be a Wikipedia article pretending that it is. Scolaire (talk) 10:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The article does not/would not pretend anything. It discusses historical Racism in Catalonia, just as other wider articles discuss Racism in Spain or Racism in France. Racism has not been mainstream or "an issue" in either of those countries but it has been a reality worth an article - just as it does in the Basque country or in Catalonia. It is of particular interest considering that racial supremacism has permeated Catalan nation building at its origins in the 19th and 20th century - as it did Basque nation building, much more profusely, in the same time period (see Sabino Arana - founder of Basque nationalism who built an entire ideology around racial purity.) The degree to which this has shaped modern Catalan nationalism and modern independence movement is a matter of intense debate at the moment - some say it has, citing Jordi Pujol's xenophobic rants against Andalusian immigrants, earlier systematic discrimation of Charnegos and modern day extreme under representation of non ethnic Catalans in political parties. Others say it hasn't, citing late 70s and early 80s attempts at integrating immigrants by the Catalan government. But that it is another variant of racism which existed in Spain at the time is beyond doubt and certainly of interest, as is the modern debate. Again, I don't see any valid argument falling outside the scope of WP:JDLI. Are Chillida and Hoyos not mainstream historians? Why? Because you don't like what they say in some of their academic studies? I struggle to see your logic, Peter. Sonrisas1 (talk) 11:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Scolaire In any case, a solution is perfectly feasible. Remove all references to Caja and replace them with Hoyos and Chillida. The content will effectively be the same. Sonrisas1 (talk) 11:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * LOL. If you think that's the way to write an encyclopaedic article, then no further comment is needed. Scolaire (talk) 11:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: relist to allow pinged editors to participate
 * Pinging all those who were involved in the AfD discussion:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and . --Scolaire (talk) 10:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC) Scolaire Peter, if you look at the Spanish version of Racism in Spain, it has a history section on Spanish (general) racism/supremacism, Basque racism, Galician racism and Catalan racism, as well as sections on racism against Jews, Gypsies, Blacks, Latin Americans etc... https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racismo_en_Espa%C3%B1a The Basque, Catalan and Galician variants of racism in Spain (particularly Basque racism) are an integral element of the history of racism in Spain, dating back from the Limpieza de Sangre statutes. Note that to be a member of the Basque national party you had to have only Basque surnames (be racially basque). This is not a controversial statement. It is a historical reality all Spaniards are aware of and has been discussed extensively by numerous authors. Why do you think they made comedy movies called Ocho apellidos vascos and Ocho apellidos catalanes - movies aimed to close old wounds rather than be provocative? I do however, agree that the future article Racism in Catalonia has to include much more than historical or present anti-Spanish racism and should mirror Racism in Spain i.e. include all types of racism including against all ethnic minorities and not necessarily linked to Catalan nationalism. Plataforma per Catalunya, Spain's only anti-immigrant/xenophobic party to have been electorally successful, is present only in Catalonia yet is unrelated to Catalan nationalism. This too should be highlighted in a relevant section - it is a far-right party led by Josep Anglada. Sonrisas1 (talk) 12:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Also Scolaire, to mention, the most important work on Racism in Spain is Chillida (Anti-semitism in Spain), the main source for the Racism in Spain article on Spanish Wikipedia. Pages 240-249 is the chapter on Racism in Catalan Nationalism. Chillida is the main scholar on the history of racism and antisemitism in Spain, so cannot be accused of being a fringe view. https://books.google.ae/books?id=fQ6DtgqAaDQC&pg=PA242&lpg=PA242&dq=Chillida+raza+catalana&source=bl&ots=O6Y8vjIKri&sig=T73CvpR-ffwlpYZ6FP1Bs9w5hSQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwizhr-m2crXAhVMyKQKHTASBUIQ6AEIQDAG#v=onepage&q=Chillida%20raza%20catalana&f=falseSonrisas1 (talk) 13:10, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not a discussion on whether such an article might be written. This draft is essentially a copy of Catalan supremacism, which was deleted on POV, UNDUE and SYNTH grounds. It violates core policies just as the deleted article did, and you do not seem to have any inclination to address those issues. Scolaire (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete This draft repeats many of the same errors of the now-deleted Catalan Supremacism entry. Specifically: it pushes a fringe interpretation of Catalan nationalism using a mixture of mis-interpretations of high-quality sources (Alvarez Chillida), and faithful interpretations of fringe history by polemicists with no credentials in history (Francisco Caja). The sourcing argument is so similar that I think Sonrisas1 is treading close to to gaming the system by creating yet another entry on the same topic. [[User:Nblund |Nblund ]]talk 18:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Reply: Excuse me User:Nblund but I did not create this entry. I'm just giving my opinion.Sonrisas1 (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * My mistake. The content probably looks familiar to me because this new user seems to have closely paraphrased several statements from your sandbox entry for Catalan Supremacy in drafting this. Compare the first line here, to this line. You also added several paragraphs directly from that sandbox yourself. Perhaps you are both working independently from the same source? Regardless: the content that was already rejected very recently, and it is disruptive to force the community to re-hash the same argument. [[User:Nblund |Nblund ]]talk 18:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * update - this probably explains the similarities: both this draft and the draft for Catalan Supremacy are minimally altered translations of Raza Catalana, from the Spanish Wikipedia. Since this content is mostly identical to the content that was discussed and deleted in Catalan Supremacy (which is mostly preserved on deletionpedia or the sandbox I linked to above), I think this one has a WP:SNOWBALL's chance. Nblund talk 19:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Reply A question User:Nblund. How is it a "misinterpretation" of Chillida as a quality source? Have you read pages 240-249 of Chillida's book? The bulk of the article content is a pretty faithful summary of its content. I would also point to page 71 of Christiane Stallaert's Ethnogenesis and Ethnicity (1998).Sonrisas1 (talk) 07:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * In regards to Raza catalana - both this draft and the deleted Catalan supremacism (a version of which may be seen in User:Sonrisas1/sandbox) contain a highly OR and SYNTHY 21st century section - which is not present in the Spanish.Icewhiz (talk) 11:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge or move to mainspace. The use of DraftSpace as a POV forking staging ground ground is a very bad idea.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Since it is in draft space, the problems noted at the AfD can be corrected . DGG ( talk ) 00:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Very similar (and probably translated from the same Spanish source with additional 21st century SYNTH/OR) to the deleted Catalan supremacism. Besides NPOV problems, this is a POV fork of Catalan nationalism recast as a primarily racist movement.Icewhiz (talk) 10:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete It's synthesis that draws together various sources none of which are about Catalan racism.  While racism exists in every society, the article implies that it is central in Catalonia.  TFD (talk) 11:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete It's almost a copy paste of the unbalanced supremacism article and as biased. I don't feel like repeating the same arguments and analyzing the errors I found at that time. It looks like a kind of obsessive harassment, to have this article at any price and any title. From the 19th century until the end of World War II there have been racist and eugenetic theories allover the world, sometimes indeed mainstream. Afterwards many countries tried to get over it, manage the phenomenon and reduce hate, not an easy job. This "new" article insinuates a lot, as if racism is a main current in contemporary Catalonia with very old roots, only cherry-picking some negative quotations to blame a whole region, which seems to me kind of racist too. One could write an article about racism in a region, as racism is still unfortunately everywhere in the world, but a good article would describe the facts, give statistics (e.g. about racist crime), explaining how schools, churches, politicians and civil society act and react. Flamenc (talk) 12:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete — The differences between this draft and the now-deleted article about Catalan supremacism are negligible. It's still clearly written from a POV and insufficiently sourced. We shouldn't be promoting the draft namespace as a blank slate where heavily opinionated articles can be written and safeguarded, so I support getting rid of this entirely. — mountainhead /  ?  13:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note — I am not inherently opposed to a Racism in Catalonia article; however, as Sonrisas1 mentioned, its scope should be broader to include all kinds of racism present in Catalonia. That would require a very drastic rewrite of this article, and I feel that it would be better to start over entirely. — mountainhead /  ?  13:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete – Blatant POV + designed to inflame. — JFG talk 13:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as per arguments above. I note that the two main contributors are... an SPA and the same guy who made the POVFORK Catalan supremacism page. Apparently the lesson from last time was not digested. Wikipedia must not single out nationalities like this and make SYNTHy pages of cherrypicked heaps of sources that fit their personal POV. Most nationalist movements have at some point especially around the lovely time of the 1930s had views that their people were superior. That belongs on the history of said nationalism page. --Calthinus (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: Calthinus Please avoid personal attacks. I have nothing to do with this SPA and have given my opinion here transparently. Btw, I find this whole discussion rather demented. I don't even understand why one should delete a draft in the first place. The whole process seems like a waste of time. As long as the Spanish article exists, editors will continue creating drafts translating it. The best way is to tackle the problems of the resulting translations may have, not to attempt to censor them.  Sonrisas1 (talk) 17:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Look it's not a personal attack, this is about editing. Which you did, on both the deleted page and the ... new one. I have every right to point that out. And well, tough. If you have something to say, a point to make, I recommend blogging or trying to get a book published. --Calthinus (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Look a number of editors are translating articles from Spanish to English, it is an ongoing natural tendency which won't stop. It happens. What I don't understand is the purpose of deleting a draft. Deleting from mainspace maybe. But a draft? Kind of defeats the purpose of drafts, no? My role was simply to try to improve/ propose improvements to someone else's draft translation. If it doesn't improve, it won't go to mainspace and no one will die as a result. This entire discussion is quite surreal. I have never heard of deleting drafts before...Sonrisas1 (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Raza catalana was created in October 2015. By sheer coincidence two different people tried to create articles by translating it into English two years later, in the same month, a month that saw a political crisis in Catalonia/Spain. There's no "ongoing natural tendency" to do this. What other articles do you know that are straight translations from es.wiki? Scolaire (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Scolaire Evidently, the ongoing Catalan crisis played a role. But the crisis is not going away, so expect more sustained attempts by bilingual wikipedians to improve en.wiki. Nothing wrong with that.Sonrisas1 (talk) 10:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I welcome any attempt by any Wikpedians to improve Wikipedia. I don't anticipate repeated attempts to re-create an article translated from this one Spanish Wiki article. It was pure coincidence this time, but if it happened again I would be very suspicious. Scolaire (talk) 10:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sonrisas1 You tried to be kind and underestimate your "simple" role. Some of the sourced fonts I quoted trying to countrebalance the unilateral supremacism hoax putting some other information, you just "forgot" to requote in this "new" article, only cherrypicking sources like voxpopuli a kind of Völkischer Beobachter and ABC not really known as being a neutral newspaper. Tout ce qui est exagéré est insignifiant they say in French. Racism is to serious a problem to let hate driven unilateral articles, even in draft. Flamenc (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sonrisas1 in answer to your question above about Chillida being misused: the pages that are available to me on google books appear to describe currents of racial and antisemitic discourse in early Catalan nationalism, specifically discussing Rossell. But the author notes that, in contrast to Basque nationalism, these currents remained marginal within the movement. They largely gave way to a "philosemitic" and civil nationalism after 1948. This is consistent with other mainstream historical sources that regard Catalan nationalism as mostly civic, and yet again, seems to contradict the narrative of people like Barraycoa and Caja. That's what I mean by "misused". [[User:Nblund |Nblund ]]talk 19:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Nblund Chillida's exact words in his 10 page chapter on racism in Catalan nationalism are "Although Catalanism is much more plural and modern than (Basque) Aranism, many Catalanists leveraged racism to justify the Catalan-Castilian/Spanish dichotomy. And although various used for this purpose the arian-semite contraposition, Stallaert also sees here the old "Casticismo", in other words, the defense of a north of the peninsula free of Moors against a deeply semitic centre and south. Then 10 pages of examples of racism in Catalan nationalism, all the way to 1980. It seems it is not me who is misusing this source and pretending it says what it doesn't. In any case, this chapter of Chillida will have to be fully translated to English in order to clear this matter. I will do so when I have time. Sonrisas1 (talk) 10:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Where's the contradiction with what I said, exactly? "Individual Catalanists" leveraged racism, is very different from saying that racism was a core ideology for Catalan nationalists. Chillada notes that some Catalan nationalists adopted racial frame, but the entry runs with that claim to argue that Almirall was essentially a racist and that racist thinking was the central impetus for the development of nationalist thought, all while ignoring far more prominent linguistic and civic nationalist traditions that Chillida mentions in that same section. [[User:Nblund |Nblund ]]talk 15:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Nblund You say "This largely gave way to philosemitic nationalism". There are 3 pages on Philosemitism in Chillida's book. Hardly, representing a new dominant wave in Catalan nationalism which replaced racialist thought. Chillida does not say this. You say this. Chillida quotes practically every important figure of the Renaixenca on his chapter on Catalanist racism - from Almirall to Prat de la Riba, to Maragall, to Gener, to Marfany, to Marti i Julia, to Casas Carbo to Pompeu y Fabra. All of which have statues or streets named after them in Barcelona. They are the fathers of Catalan nationalism. He does not find as many examples of philosemitism. Paradoxically, he finds many more examples of Philosemitism in Spanish Fascism and the Francoist regime. As I said, the chapter will be translated in its entirety to close this issue. These political WP:JDLI attempts to censor wikipedia are getting tiresome. Chillida is a valid enough source. Sonrisas1 (talk) 08:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * On page 251, Chillida says that "from the 50s, Catalanism is clearly philosemitic", and then (bottom of 252) continues on to explain that philosemitism after 1948 "replaced the discredited Catalan-aryan dichotomy" for a new one that contrasted anti-semitic Spain with philosemitic Catalonia. The source is fine, but you're misusing it - keep in mind that the policies on WP:OR note that any "interpretation" of a source should be completely non-controversial. If you're interpreting this source as supporting Caja, you're misreading it. [[User:Nblund |Nblund ]]talk 15:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Delete as per arguments above--ÀlexHinojo (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note both authors from the es:Raza catalana article in the Spanish Wikipedia had issues for not respecting ethics, one is permanently blocked and the other one almost. It could be a bad idea to have this article in English and maybe it shall be deleted in Spanish too.--Flamenc (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Might not be a bad idea to AfD (or whatever the equivalent process is) in Spanish. Looking at the article history there, it is mainly the work of Ecelan there (with minor input from Cock_Sparrow) - it doesn't seem like something viewed or edited by many.Icewhiz (talk) 14:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I would very much favour bringing that article to AfD, and I said as much to Flamenc. I'm more than half inclined to do it myself. The process is here, and the instructions are the same for our AfD, so should be easy to follow. Google Translate would probably give an intelligible reason for nomination if it was framed in simple language. The reason I hesitate is that I don't know the Spanish equivalent of POV, UNDUE, SYNTH etc. I also wouldn't know how to find delsort pages, for instance, or if they even exist. For that reason, I would prefer if it was started by an experienced editor on es.wiki. But the article is fairly recent and has very few contributors, no talk page and no counterpart in any other language, so it's not as though it was some venerable part of the wiki that would be sacrilegious to AfD. Scolaire (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You can try but it would be pointless. In Spanish language Wiki, editors can actually read the sources and distinguish credible from non-credible sources rather than take your word for it. There is absolutely no way that an article backed by solid secondary and primary sources will be deleted. I remind you that on Spanish language wikipedia, editors can actually read Spanish. Sonrisas1 (talk) 09:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think there is a fair chance for deletion there, particularly if this faces a wider community view there - given that most eswiki editors aren't in Europe national bias is probably less of an issue compared to other language wikis. I do think the nom there should be done by someone with a working knowledge of eswiki (not just Spanish - a google-translate nom would be a no-go).Icewhiz (talk) 09:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , I tried to neutralise one (1) sentence in the ES-wikipedia es:Raza catalana and as quick as lightning it was undone by Sonrisas. He did the same when I brought neutralising sourced infos to the fortunately deleted "supremacism" article. It is his first and only edition in ES-wikipedia, though in his comment above he does as if he knows ES-wiki very well, how it functions and how it deletes or not. This is surprising.--Flamenc (talk) 11:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have successfully managed to revert your deletion of a sourced statement on ES wiki, Flamenc. Clear evidence of a judeo-masonic conspiracy against the Catalan people. Shame on me.Sonrisas1 (talk) 11:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment A broad discussion of a topic like this needs lots of reliable sources, not just to be a parrot of one work on the subject. This is especially true since the term "racism" and "race" mean different things to different people in different contexts. I occasionally see people speak of others as "racist against Muslims" which considering there is no Muslim race, makes no sense at all. We need to be able to grapple with the various meanings of racism, one being the assumption that race makes people inherently different, another means mistreating people based on their race without implying that there is assumptions that race has immutable meaning, another is accusing people for using "race based" actions to treat people, which is then countered by others who say they do not object to race, but to actions, and it turns out t be cultural debates. Many insist race does not exist. Historically and presently the meaning of race has been all over the board. People go back and forth arguing if Jews are white or a non-white people, but others point out that all sorts of notions of being white or not or some other race are simplistic and ignore most of the complexity of human history.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment The term "racist crime" is in itself problematic. Some clearly are, but others one has to wonder if the claims of such is just made by prosecutors seeking a tougher sentence. Than at least in the United States there is a phenomenon where people have created all sorts of hoaxes of racists crimes, sometime going to extreme lengths to perpetrate them. Add to this the fact that anti-Jewish violence may or may not be clearly motivated by racist notions. It is also hard to see World War II as quiet the watershed turning point. While Eugenics seems to have largely failed with the Nazis (although some have but forth less racialized versions of it since), governmental and societal disabilities based on race were prevalent well passed the second World War. I think we need to recognize the fact that racism means different things to different people before we can speak of it. Some policies that to some people are needed attacks on racism to others perpetuate a different form of racism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as per arguments above --Panotxa (talk) 11:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I would suggest reading the following introduction to Martinez Hoyos' book on this matter. Note he is a well known Historian from Barcelona University, lately specializing in Latin America. A quote from this introductory chapter is what was attempted to be deleted by Flamenc from the Spanish version of this article.http://revistaaportes.com/index.php/aportes/article/viewFile/70/55 Sonrisas1 (talk) 11:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

[Copyrighted content deleted with the permission of the editor. Scolaire (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)]


 * I think we already knew what kind of biased rant Martinez-Hoyos's book was, and you only need to read up to the second sentence to see that he cites Francisco Caja. You're still missing the point. Martinez-Hoyos may be a well known historian in Barcelona, but he is not well-known in the wider world. He seems to have written a half-dozen books in his career, on subjects as diverse as J.F. Kennedy and the Mexican Revolution. He is no expert on racism or racial theory. How many books or articles on racism or racial theory have cited this famous book? None, would be my guess. An encyclopaedia article should be built on multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, not a non-notable book by a non-notable academician with an obvious axe to grind.
 * By the way, I'm pretty sure that such a lengthy quotation is a copyright violation. It needs to be reduced to a small number of key sentences, and very soon. Scolaire (talk) 13:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * This does start to seem like a range of pretty poor and desperate arguments, Scolaire. Hoyos is a Catalan historian and an expert in Catalan history. Hoyos mentions Caja for his notoriety and the amount of criticism he received from Catalan nationalists (clearly the only neutral source acceptable to you). He doesn't cite Caja as a source. Most of his citations are primary sources as can be seen in the study. I am very disappointed with you since I considered you a good faith editor despite your rather slanted political views. How long will it take until you announce that Chillida is also a non-notable academic "with an axe to grind" - do I have to translate that too, so that we discover from you his seminal work on anti-semitism was nothing but an anti-Catalanist propaganda "rant". Let me guess, when I do translate it you will claim it is Copyvio ask for it to be deleted and then deny the content of the source. I struggle assuming good faith with you now. You got Catalan Supremacism deleted by (falsely) arguing WP:SYNTH issues. There were no such issues as this and other sources show. The entire premise of your argument was fabrication taking advantage of a language barrier by other wikipedians. This is POV edit warring and classic WP:GAMING and frankly I'm done with this discussion. Will continue translating sources and articles from Spanish and try to keep away from these ridiculous discussions. After all, this is just a draft written by god knows who. Delete it if you like. It is not that well written. Sonrisas1 (talk) 13:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I hope you mean it when you say you're done with this discussion. Your constant hectoring of other editors was bordering on disruption. I hope you don't mean it when you say you will continue to post translations of copyright material. That would be a serious breach of policy and it could get you blocked. Scolaire (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I, as other editors, will continue to translate and source material from Spanish-language academia. There is no copyvio there and no, it will not get me blocked, as long as it is adequately sourced and paraphrased where required. But yes, I'm done here. Sonrisas1 (talk) 14:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me translate the English a little further: When an author opens a paper by saying something along the lines of "it is a cliche to say X", they are acknowledging that basically everyone else disagrees with them. It's more or less an admission that the author is about to delve in to a viewpoint that is, at best, held by a minority, and at worst, a fringe view. In some cases it might make sense to include some mention of a fringe viewpoint, but articles should not attempt to obscure mainstream views in favor of obscure ones. Read WP:DUE[[User:Nblund |Nblund ]]talk 15:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * He didn't open it there, I just chose to start translating there Nblund, but no matter. It is clear from the content of the translation and the citations that it is not true that everyone disagrees with him (except Catalan nationalist media, of course). Also when you refer to a "cliche" you are referring to popular belief, not to academia. A lot of talk of this Mainstrean view on this topic. Where is it? You keep referring to it, yet it doesn't seem to exist. Its hilarious to counter a source with a non-existent source which is assumed MUST exist, "because I dislike what these guys say so much". Sonrisas1 (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Conversi discusses Catalan nationalism as primarily linguistic, Guibernau emphasizes "rational" (arguments about economic productivity") and "emotional" (beliefs about shared heritage or history) currents, Nogue and Vicente suggest that the geography of Catalonia itself played a key role. None of these authors argue that Catalan nationalism is racist or antisemitic.[[User:Nblund |Nblund ]]talk 17:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting, Nblund. You point to three sources by Catalan academics / | known pro-independence activists (no better and more neutral expert in nationalism than a nationalist!) which have written books on how wonderful and progressive Catalan nationalism is - no surprise there. How does this invalidate racist/supremacist quotes, speeches from effectively all of the main historical protagonists of Catalan nationalism dozens of primary sources backed by secondary sources: Jacobson, Barraycoa, Chillida, Caja, Hoyos, Smith etc. As Hoyos himself says It is not a matter of discussing now whether, as Caja affirms, the racial component constitutes or not the doctrinal "nucleus" of Catalanism, which could take us to a Byzantine discussion, but to analyze the importance of this factor in the thoughts of its theorists and publicists, clearly attested by the considerable mass of documentation available. Racist discourse is there and is pervasive as attested. That is enough. Whining about how it is given undue weights because "actually Catalan nationalists have always been really cool and modern and this makes the Catalan struggle for freedom look bad and its unfair" is not really relevant to the subject matter: The history of Racism in Catalonia. WP:DUE would be relevant if this material was trying to be incorporated into Catalan nationalism. It's not. This article is about racism not nationalism. Racist thought is very much relevant to an article on racism.


 * But I like your strategy: If we discuss racism in a separate article tackling (surprise) racism, it's somehow a WP:POVFORK of "Catalan nationalism" (racism is fine as long as it doesn't taint political movements I support), but if you include it within the scope of article on nationalism, its WP:UNDUE or WP:FRINGE (?). A very effective circular argument to censor information you dislike. Sonrisas1 (talk) 07:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Not to mention that Angel Smith, one of the most well known British hispanist and expert on Catalan nationalism, openly confronts and directly contradicts Daniele Conversi's thesis that Catalan nationalism opted for language as opposed to race. The whole "mainstream" view argument really falls by its own weight. https://books.google.ae/books?id=3nqEAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT340&lpg=PT340&dq=Lo+Catalanisme+race&source=bl&ots=MNNfllm480&sig=qe5DJLc6YFJfZ7S0gGMWL5xTUik&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiikPnIzdTXAhXBL1AKHYu8CLQQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=race&f=falseSonrisas1 (talk) 11:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't have much of an opinion on any of these movements, and I certainly don't have any personal connection to this issue. Several other experienced editors with no connections to this issue have also pointed to the same issues I am pointing out here.According to Google Scholar, Conversi and Guibernau are the two most widely cited experts on Catalonia by a margin of a few thousand citations, and they publish mostly in the top tier peer reviewed journals on nationalism and history. You're absolutely right to say that Angel Smith has challenged Conversi regarding Catalan nationalism prior to the 1900s. The sensible thing would be to cite the mainstream research in the entry on Catalan nationalism - noting that there are disagreements among prominent scholars while acknowledging that neither Smith no Chillida believe that this view persists in contemporary Catalan Nationalism. But instead a separate article is created in which neither Smith, Conversi, or Chillida are cited at all, while Javier Barraycoa (a crank with no relevant expertise and who appears connected to right-wing extremist parties) is cited four times. This is indefensible, it won't fly anywhere on Wikipedia, and it undermines your credibility to continually defend it. [[User:Nblund |Nblund ]]talk 00:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Nblund: I'm not defending this article's sourcing structure, which evidently requires a lot of change (that is why it is not on mainspace). I actually believe it should be renamed and re-written from scratch. What I am against are efforts to delete any article which touches on this topic on principle, which is what is happening here.

I don't know much about Barraycoa, he seems to be a vice-rector of a university in Barcelona, a philosopher and politically active in the right-wing Catalan anti-independence movement, Somatemps. Just as Guibernau is seemingly active in the pro-independence movement, both at an institutional and civil society level (which in Catalonia, sadly, is effectively the same thing).

Note that the term "far-right" has to be used with extreme caution in the Catalan question. Catalan nationalist politicians who unabashedly discuss "genetic differences between Spaniards and Catalans" and refer to working class descendants of immigrants who don't vote for tem as "foreign settlers" do happen to consider everyone who doesn't agree with them "far-right" - that would be half of Catalonia or more.

In any case, Montserrat Guibernau has participated in pro-independence propaganda campaigns such as "Stop Espoli" furthering the myth that Spain "steals from Catalonia". Puigdemont proposed her as the replacement of Gasòliba to lead the Barcelona Centre for International Affairs, when he resigned due to pressures to upscale the think tank's support for independence. She refers to Catalonia's main opposition party Ciudadanos as a "populist party". Although I would never question her academic ability and prestige on the basis of her political views (please take a hint) she can hardly be regarded a neutral source if we decide to follow the Catalan government's practice of writing black lists of academics on the basis of their politics. Anyways, no more from me. Adeu. Sonrisas1 (talk) 12:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I actually believe it should be renamed and re-written from scratch. The more sensible thing is to delete it and write a completely different draft with a different name. But only if the completely different draft is an encylopaedic and neutral article on a verifiably notable topic using reliable published sources that are not questionable. Scolaire (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)


 * So long as such a deletion is not used as argumentation to immediately launch an AfD against a future article touching on the same topic, which is the only possible rationale I can think for wasting so much time on deleting a draft. Why else would anyone care? Attempting to delete a draft and (while we are at it) attempting unsuccessfully to delete the Spanish version of the article. It seems a bit like strategic gaming to me. Sonrisas1 (talk) 19:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.