Talk:Daniel Cardona

Recent edits

@GB1920: Regarding recent edits:

1. Employing ethnic and ideological editorialization (as in pulling ad hoc personal WP:SYNTH when doing in-text attribution nonsensically stating John Doe—a reliable source—is a "Spanish nationalist") is not ok. David Martínez Fiol is not a "Spanish nationalist" but a top source in the topic. Jesús Lainz might be a Spanish nationalist, yet that doesn't necessarily disqualify him for the purpose of verifying a simple quote, and in principle there is no justification for such an over-the-top in-text attribution.
2. Using the webpage of a fringe political organization (FNC) to which the subject was connected as source is dubious at best as it qualifies between WP:QUESTIONABLE and WP:SELFSOURCE as well as certainly WP:UNDUE.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
3. Barring further clarification on this point, the use of La batalla (a work by Cardona) is a case of WP:SELFSOURCE. If the source is a commentary by the editor of the book (Enric Ucelay Da-Cal, who is a quality source) it may be ok. But Cardona is not.
4. "historiavibrant.cat looks like a WP:SELFPUBLISHED source.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Asqueladd: I'm responding to your concerns one by one and undoing your changes:

1. Employing ethnic and ideological editorialization (as in pulling ad hoc personal WP:SYNTH when doing in-text attribution nonsensically stating John Doe—a reliable source—is a "Spanish nationalist") is not ok.
   
2. Response: John Doe is not in the list of sources.
3. David Martínez Fiol is not a "Spanish nationalist" but a top source in the topic.
4. Response: The article from Martínez Fiol is about Daniel Domingo rather than about Daniel Cardona. It does not provide the reference for when it says (in Spanish)that "Domingo contactó con Daniel Cardona, un furibundo nacionalista radical de Nosaltres Sols!, al cual se le había acusado de tener contactos con la Alemania nazi..." which would roughly translate into "Domingo contacted Daniel Cardona, a frenzied radical nationalist of Nosaltres Sols!, who had been accused of having contacts with Nazi Germany..." If Martínez Fiol refers to Cardona as "a frenzied radical nationalist" he should give a clear reference about whom accused Cardona of having contacts with Nazi Germany. Moreover, then Domingo, a communist, discussed a resistance strategy with somebody accused of having contacts with the Germans? If that is the case, we should have several sources indicating who accused Cardona and if possible not of somebody who defines Cardona as "frenzied" in addition to "radical nationalist".
5. Jesús Lainz might be a Spanish nationalist, yet that doesn't necessarily disqualify him for the purpose of verifying a simple quote, and in principle, there is no justification for such an over-the-top in-text attribution.
6. Response: The quote from Jesús Lainz states "1. He denounced an invasion of "Andalusians" and "Castilians" pointing out that "Feeling like an instinctive repulsion for work, they come to our land to look for the chickpeas that they find difficult to find in theirs" (Núñez Ruiz, 2018)". Are you sure about that quote? If Cardona said that, sure that you can find the original text in Cardona's writings. I'd certainly be very surprised that Cardona who died in 1943 referred to "Andalusians" who did not immigrate to Catalonia in big numbers until the 1960s-1970s. In the early editions, I had left that quote in the text because I have not found the article where Cardona refers to "chickpeas". But as said, I am looking for it. I will be very surprised if he talks about "Andalusians" in any article.
7. Using the webpage of a fringe political organization (FNC) to which the subject was connected as source is dubious at best as it qualifies between WP:QUESTIONABLE and WP:SELFSOURCE as well as certainly WP:UNDUE.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
8. Response: I think you got confused between a page explaining the 80 years history of the FNC and the current FNC which is not related to the organisation founded by Cardona in the 1940s. The FNC from WWII was one of the different Front Nationals created along Europe during WWII rather than "a fringe political organization".
9. Barring further clarification on this point, the use of La batalla (a work by Cardona) is a case of WP:SELFSOURCE. If the source is a commentary by the editor of the book (Enric Ucelay Da-Cal, who is a quality source) it may be ok. But Cardona is not.
10. Response: Are you telling me that I cannot quote an article from Cardona where he explicitly expresses his antifascist views? This is not within WP:SELFSOURCE. It could have been selfsourced if Cardona after WWII claimed that he had defeated fascism in case he had been alive. But a document by Cardona explicitly telling the members of the organisation Nosaltres Sols! that his nationalism is the opposite to fascism-nationalism is not within any of the points of WP:SELFSOURCE. When in note 1 you put "1. He denounced an invasion of "Andalusians" and "Castilians" pointing out that "Feeling like an instinctive repulsion for work, they come to our land to look for the chickpeas that they find difficult to find in theirs" (Núñez Ruiz, 2018)" is this also selfsource?
11. "historiavibrant.cat looks like a WP:SELFPUBLISHED source.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
12. Response: I would not define the mentioned URL as self published. The website is only used to refer that Cardona was known with the nickname of the Irishman, a very well known fact. I am sure that we will be able to find additional references for this quite well known fact.

--GB1920 (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The article from Martínez Fiol is about Daniel Domingo rather than about Daniel Cardona. It does not provide the reference for when it says (in Spanish)that "Domingo contactó con Daniel Cardona, un furibundo nacionalista radical de Nosaltres Sols!, al cual se le había acusado de tener contactos con la Alemania nazi..." which would roughly translate into "Domingo contacted Daniel Cardona, a frenzied radical nationalist of Nosaltres Sols!, who had been accused of having contacts with Nazi Germany..." If Martínez Fiol refers to Cardona as "a frenzied radical nationalist" he should give a clear reference about whom accused Cardona of having contacts with Nazi Germany. Moreover, then Domingo, a communist, discussed a resistance strategy with somebody accused of having contacts with the Germans? The secondary source states "Daniel Cardona, un furibundo nacionalista radical de Nosaltres Sols!, al cual se le había acusado de tener contactos con la Alemania nazi con el objetivo de conseguir una salida independentista para Cataluña en el marco de la Guerra Civil". That is a historian (Martínez Fiol), expert in Catalan history (not a "Spanish nationalist"), publishing in a peer-reviewed journal stating something about Cardona. That's precisely the kind of quality sources wikipedia favors. And the information of "Cardona being accused of holding contacts with Nazi Germany in order to get a separatist exit of Catalonia off from the Spanish Civil War" is what the article stated before you removed it. You are not entitled to do that (remove it) nor to reframe about a "Spanish nationalists" do whatnot because they "try to use the figure of Daniel Cardona to accuse Catalan nationalists of racism against Spaniards or of showing sympathy for Fascism and Nazi Germany". Because that is your unsourced and unqualified opinion.

"Are you telling me that I cannot quote an article from Cardona where he explicitly expresses his antifascist views?" If no secondary source highlights those alleged antifascist views... yes, exactly that, particularly drawing any conclusion from a primary source (read WP:SYNTH). You cannot insert your conclusions about what Cardona was or thought about from directly reading Cardona. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, not a place for original research. I don't know if the book (as it has been re-edited by a quality historian: Enric Ucelay Da-Cal) has any use, but pulling a personal essay from a book authored by Cardona has no place here. You should use the critical commentary by Ucelay Da-Cal about Cardona (if he states anything whatsoever about him), instead of cherrypicking from the primary source. Keep in mind, this is Wikipedia 101: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.

"(Núñez Ruiz, 2018)" is this also selfsource?" No, it is a secondary source (Núñez Ruiz) highlighting primary source material (Cardona, the topic of the article) and offering interpretation.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

"I think you got confused between a page explaining the 80 years history of the FNC and the current FNC which is not related to the organisation founded by Cardona in the 1940s." Well, who is the publisher behind www.fnc.com? It is some FNC, a fringe political organization? Or is it some unknown group (thus still WP:SELFPUBLISHED)?

"John Doe is not in the list of sources". John Doe is a conventional way to refer to a generic person in the English language. "Author X". You are not entitled to do that. Labelling authors as "Spanish nationalists", and stating alleged intentions (that is WP:SOAPBOXING).

"I would not define the mentioned URL as self published. The website is only used to refer that Cardona was known with the nickname of the Irishman, a very well known fact. I am sure that we will be able to find additional references for this quite well known fact." Awesome, we will try to find a good source to back that up (his alias).

And finally, please read WP:BRD. If you don't solve those concerns, I will undo some of your changes, including 1) recovering what you removed/what you distorted with that improper editorialization. 2) removing synthetic statements from primary sources. 3) I will still question the reliability of (at least) the sources vibrantcat and fnc.com as, barring further clarification, they are pretty much WP:SELFPUBLISHED (taking into account what you just told, pretty much fansites).--Asqueladd (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)