Talk:Confederación Nacional del Trabajo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Confederación Nacional del Trabajo article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Confederación Nacional del Trabajo as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Spanish language Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] inspired the fascist flag?

"It inspired the flag of Fascist Falange."

I know they're both red and black, but "inspired"? That would imply idelogical similarities between the anarchists and fascists, a silly proposition at best. --Tothebarricades.tk 00:40, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think it is correct. When José Antonio Primo de Rivera founded Falange they tried to use workers symbols (red and black flag and the blue shirt, like the ones used by industrial workers) to try to reach proletariats. That doesn´t mean there were ideological similarities, Falange just tried to use CNT´s image. Zetakah (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Needs cleanup.

The article is grammatically incorrect and needs cleanup to make it easier to read.FET 02:17, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sentence makes no sense

In the First Congress of the CNT (taken place in 1911, year in which the union received its name officially) a general strike, reason for the one was already summoned which the union was declared illegal up to 1914.

This sentence makes no sense, I am not even sure what it is supposed to mean. Can someone correct it please?

UnHoly 21:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trade union or federation?

Is CNT a trade union, like the article currently states, or is it actually a federation of more or less independent regional and sectoral trade unions? / Alarm 13:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Final Paragraph

It is interesting to note that many authoritarian left wing and right wing movements have made a point of appropriating the colors of anarcho-syndicalists in particular in order to try to lessen or re-direct their popularity and impact at crucial times in history.

Is there any sort of evidence for this at all? It seems to me that it's an attempt to boost the supposed significance of this group by suggesting groups such as the Nazis and Soviets were somehow terrified of it - which is, of course, ridiculously POV.

--Cruci 17:03, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The only case I know is the flag of Falange. --Error 02:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The Sandinistas appropriated it, but I thought they were the only ones. -- 69.243.54.110 01:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

I added the infobox, but I don't have current info about the secretary general, or membership. I also moved the CNT-FAI flag into the box - is that the best image, or should it be just the CNT logo?--Bookandcoffee 17:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The flag does it. Or does CNT-FAI have another logo? I should add the SAC flag to Sveriges Arbetares Centralorganisation, come to think of it. Jobjörn 18:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The secretary general is Rafael Corrales Valverde http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Corrales

[edit] Notes and refs

I've never seen a Notes section like the one in this article. I think it should changed to not only be more editor-friendly, but consistent with other wikipedia articles. If nobody has a problem with it, I'll go ahead and do it. Murderbike (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to defend this implementation, but I have found a separate footnotes/references section useful in a manner similar to the use in academic articles e.g. body of text: "Dave was not actually a cat, but a chihuahua" footnote: "For an account of allegations surrounding Dave's felinity, see Obrador, 1994" reference: "Obrador, Consuela, "Anthropomorphic Felines" in Journal of Furry Thought, vol.4 issue 3 pages 43-45". This is what this article was aiming for, I think, though the refs here are arguably unreliable. For a proper implementation of this system, see here. Skomorokh incite 00:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think it's not useful, just having never seen it, it through me. I haven't checked WP:MOS, though I assume it it stayed in William Gibson, it's probably acceptable, eh? As to the rest, I think a lot of the places that now have OR tags, could maybe just get FACT tags, as they seem fairly obvious points, though some of them would have to be reworded. Sorry to not be specific though, I don't have much time. But well done on the other fixes. Murderbike (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Seeing you tagged the footnotes section, what do you suggest is changed about it? Murderbike (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Basically, avoid self-references and addressing the reader. It should make factual claims, backed up by reliable sources, or in the case that it's simply a reference, be converted to <ref> format. Skomorokh incite 05:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, they mostly seem to just be links to outside info on the CNT website, links to images, or "further reading" type of material. I don't know that much of it really even deserves to stay in at all. Murderbike (talk) 05:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Essay

Oh yeah, and do you think that the whole thing reads like an essay? Just certain parts? Murderbike (talk) 05:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Essay might not be the best tag to use, but I think there is definitely a tone problem here - it reads as if it is a report by a single author drawing from primary sources. This is probably an issue concerning Wikipedia as a tertiary resource rather than secondary, but it is perhaps also due to differing style requirements on the Spanish Wikipedia compared to ours. The article needs recasting according to our writing style guidelines. Skomorokh incite 20:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you see it as the same in the history section and the sections before describing how the union works? And is the "wikify" referring to something separate, or is it redundant with the other two? Murderbike (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] transcluded from Skomorokh's talk page

Hey, so I did a bit of work on this article over the holidays, lots of sourcing, changing a lot of awkwardly translated wording, etc. So I wanted to see if you'd be up for outlining in detail the problems you see with the article that warrant the tags at the top, so I can keep plugging away at it and try to get it up to Good Article status. Hope your break was good! Murderbike (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It is good, and hopefully will continue to be so to the extent that I will be unable to comply with your request. Cleanup tags are just cries for attention (and possibly warning), and seeing as you're attending to the article, they are superfluous so I have removed them for now.
Off the top of my head some things to consider would be integrating some of the sub-subsections and the blockquotes of the Organzation and function section (i.e. Plenary sessions), subsectioning the Civil War section (as a rule, no less than one and no more than three full-length paragraphs per subdivision) and integrating, removing or radically expanding the Noted members section. In most cases, the lists should be integrated (e.g. committees and secretaryships).
I'd also question whether the Org section goes into too much (uncited) detail about the unions structure - undue weight might be a concern here. Given access to the Beevor/Fernandez/Martinez books the history section could very quickly be brought up to a Good article standard of citation - similar to the bulk of Anarchism in Cuba. And obviously, that Footnotes section needs to be overhauled completely. Good luck with it! Skomorokh incite 15:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Organizational section

On the whole, unlike Skomorokh, I think the lengthy organizational section is useful. True bottom-up organization like this is so unusual that I think a detailed description is informative. However:

  1. It will need to be cited.
  2. Can anyone clarify the following sentence: "Direct representatives of the craft and general unions attend the CNT Congress with agreements from previous assemblies, independently from the local and regional levels."

In particular, in "agreements from previous assemblies" is very confusing. What assemblies, precisely? Does "previous" just mean "smaller and held earlier in the process" or does it refer to assemblies from previous years? - Jmabel | Talk 19:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

this is actually an issue i've been meaning to get to. In the Roca Martinez article (see sources, it's a PDF), what appears to be the "craft" unions that are referred to in this translation, are referred to as "branch" unions. "To be a 'branch union', which is a union of workers in the same field of activity..." The article frequently refers to "Various Posts" branches as well, which seem to be random members that don't necessarily have a group of people in their workplace or trade that they are directly affiliated with (outside of the broader organization). I'll try to read it (again) more thoroughly today and see if this sentence can be cleared up. Murderbike (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, big news. There's been a major mess up. The Spanish article talks about the sindicato de ramo being the base of the CNT, which I originally translated as craft union (I think because the interwikis said so), but it is really an industry union (craft union = sindicato de oficio), so this is the basic structure:
  • many people of the same craft (e.g. a welder union) = craft union = sindicato de oficio
  • many people of the same industry (e.g. welders, electricists, cleaners, etc, all working for the automobile industry) = industry union = sindicato de ramo
  • some people (less than 25 of the same particular industry) of different crafts and also maybe of different industries = sindicato de oficios varios (various crafts union) =? general union

--Wafry (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As well, I don't really understand referring to the National Confederation as the "Anarchosyndicalist" really makes sense, along with the diagram showing the structure listing "Anarchosyndicalist". Again quoting from Roca Martinez, "The unions in one place are linked through the Local Federation; the local federations through a Regional Confederation; the regional confederations through the National Confederation, which in turn is federated to the AIT..." I would change the header to National Confederation, and change the diagram, partly because we can cite it, and partly because I feel like the "Anarchosyndicalist" qualification may just be a glitch of translation. Murderbike (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and changed the header, does anyone know how to change the chart? Murderbike (talk) 09:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I translated this part of the article. The name "Anarchosyndicalist" is a bit misleading, but that's how it is referred to in the Spanish article (Confederación nacional o anarcosindical). It was me who created the chart ([1]) from the Spanish one ([2]) using MS Paint. I can update it later tonight.--Wafry (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, I think there is a little mess with the different meetings. In the Spanish article there are 4 different concepts (asamblea, pleno, plenaria and congreso) while in the English one asamblea and pleno have been merged into Assembly. I'll look into it later (now I'm at work...).--Wafry (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, I think this addresses more clearly the original quote in question: "Almost all the unions are 'Various posts' sections. It is in these that decisions are made and that delegates are elected who then attend the regional plenary sessions. Here, all the union delegates from a region meet...Some unions, particularly the less active ones, usually send their resolutions - properly stamped by the branch - by fax to the Regional Committee or the the place that the Plenary session meets." (p.110) So, I THINK that the "previous" may just refer to "lower" in the confederal hierarchy. Murderbike (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been reading some of Anarcosindicalismo básico and this is what I got:

  • Asamblea = Everybody inside a union can participate to make decisions.
  • Comité = A selection of people from one union. They cannot make decisions.
  • Pleno = It takes place inside a federation to make decisions. Pleno local = representatives of each union in the municipality attends to make decisions based on the decisions previously made in their own union's asamblea. Pleno regional = representatives of each union in the region attends to make decisions based on the decisions previously made in their own union's asamblea. Congreso = representatives of each union in the nation attends to make decisions based on the decisions previously made in their own union's asamblea. Pleno nacional = It doesn't work as the rest of plenos, as the attendants are representatives of each regional confederations, not of every single union in the nation, so they cannot make decisions.
  • Plenaria = It can be attended by a local committee (plenaria local), by the committees of a certain region (plenaria regional) or by the committees of the whole nation (plenaria nacional). Neither of them can make decisions.

So, how do we translate each one? I propose: Assembly, Committee, Plenary Assembly, (Congress), Plenary Commitee, in that order. Should we use simply "plenary" to refer to one of the concepts, which one then? --Wafry (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think your choices are good. Given that there are two types of plenary, one with decision-making power and one without, I'd avoid calling either just a "plenary". - Jmabel | Talk 22:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regional Federations

I was thinking that maybe the map and list of all the regional federations could just be condensed into one item. The two things take up way more space than the actual text of the section, and I think the whole list of federations may be a little to weighty. Any thoughts? Murderbike (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you can transform it into a smaller list (as some regions are the same as the geographic autonomous communities) this way:

Or maybe put it into prose.--Wafry (talk) 00:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively, the image could be updated with the list converted to a key (in the cartographical sense). Given the coloration of the list, the section is in effect a separated map and key. Images are generally preferable to prose where illustration is concerned, I feel. See Spain#Languages for an example of a superior key/image combination of Spanish territory. Skomorokh incite 00:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, a combined image/list would be awesome. I don't really have any experience with that kind of thing though, anyone else? Murderbike (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone have the talent and motivation to combine these two items? Murderbike (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Done. Now let's try to fit it in (can we do something with the Secretaries General's chart?)--Wafry (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Cool, the map looks great! And honestly, the SG chart seems kind of superfluous to me, I would just remove it. Maybe there could be a List of CNT Secretary Generals or something, but as it is, a partial list just kind of looks sloppy. Murderbike (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Layout

Does anyone know a clean way to get a margin between the text and those three right-aligned tables? - Jmabel | Talk 06:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just added adjustable borders to the first two, is that what you meant? Skomorokh incite 13:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I made some further changes, but you gave me the key piece. - Jmabel | Talk 18:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revista Polémica

I cleaned up a citation that I've now characterized as "A series of three articles about the Scala Case from the CNT point of view", but I'm not sure it really qualifies under our policy about reliable sources. This series of three articles is part of the Revista Polémica site. I know that they do put out an actual magazine, but it's not clear whether these articles by Jesús Martínez actually appeared in the magazine. He is a moderator on the site, so he isn't just a random person blogging there, but it's not clear how much that means (e.g. a Wikipedia administrator doesn't speak for Wikipedia editorially, just in process matters). Also, what exactly is Revista Polémica's relationship to the CNT? - Jmabel | Talk 07:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know anything about RP, but I did find a source that referred to that case, though not by name. I added it to the text, so really, I don't know that the footnotes to the CNT's opinions about it are all that necessary, other than just providing links to opinions. Murderbike (talk) 09:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
As well this] book in Spanish talks about it, and I THINK it says that the explosion turned out to be a police infiltrator, but maybe your Spanish can make better sense of what's written, and use it as a better source than the RP site? Murderbike (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
It lays the blame on Joaquín Gambín and says he was a police infiltrator, but it doesn't say in so many words that he threw the bomb. - Jmabel | Talk 05:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Massive list of posters

What do you think we should do with that massive list of pages full of posters that are currently in a footnote? Previously, it was just a bunch of basically blind URLs, all captioned as "here" (see Click here for why that is a bad idea). Now they are properly explained, but the result is a monster footnote. Is there any way conforming to MoS that we can give this a section of its own (maybe within external links) and still somehow use this to cite for the statement about their use of posters? - Jmabel | Talk 18:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

How about just changing it to this article, which is A) in English, and B) doesn't just SHOW posters, but talks a lot about them. Murderbike (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
No objection to that—go for it—but somewhere (probably in external links) we should keep links to the posters, which are really worth a look. - Jmabel | Talk 05:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Done and done. Murderbike (talk) 09:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "under the dictatorship"

I've added a bit to this section, though the mix of the new material and the old is a bit awkward at the moment. Does this article warrant an "under construction" tag at the top? Murderbike (talk) 23:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Feel free, as far as I'm concerned. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CNT congresses

In the article, there is a reference to the "CNT 7th congress (in Granada)" but the table shows a 7th congress in Bilbao, and an 8th in Granada. Something is wrong, either the number, the place, or the table. - Jmabel | Talk 05:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The Spanish version says VIII, not 7th, I fixed it. Murderbike (talk) 09:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anarcosindicalismo básico

There are a lot of translated quotations from Anarcosindicalismo básico in the article, some of them translated rather poorly. They are attributed as Basic anarcho-syndicalism. Is there a published translation of this work? If so, we should quote the published translation. If not, and if we intend to keep this many quotations (and I think they are generally good) we should translate these passages more carefully and include the Spanish originals of passages in footnotes. In either case, we should (if at all possible) include page numbers in footnotes (using the Harvard-style citation we use elsewhere) and be clear about what edition we are quoting. - Jmabel | Talk 05:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Similarly for the quotation from Joan Ferrer and any others originally in Spanish, Catalan, etc. - Jmabel | Talk 05:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like Basic Anarchosyndicalism is here, though it appears to be only parts of it, I haven't taken a good gander at it yet. Not sure about the other one, I'll look around. Murderbike (talk) 09:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
It looks like the Manuel Villar book comes in French, but I couldn't find it in English, and none of the others either. Murderbike (talk) 09:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The PDF you posted had all quotes in the article but one. I've changed those I could.--Wafry (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks! Murderbike (talk) 19:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Wordings look much improved, but the citations still need to be brought in line. - Jmabel | Talk 20:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Can we use the Harvnb style - as in "Beevor 2006, p.24" - citing page numbers for the Basic Anarcho-syndicalism .pdf, or is it inappropriate to cite page numbers for an unpublished (in the conventional sense) work?Skomorokh incite 21:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Entirely appropriate. Page numbers should be cited when citing from a PDF. - Jmabel | Talk 05:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, for the Spanish-language Anarcosindicalismo básico: there seems to be an online PDF at [3], but there is no way to tell that the text corresponds to any particular edition. Worth linking? (This is mostly for the one quotation we've had to translate ourselves, which, judging by this copy, is not all that literal a translation, though accurate in spirit.) - Jmabel | Talk 01:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orwell

Similarly, it looks like Orwell is at least slightly misquoted, but I don't have the original at hand. - Jmabel | Talk 20:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Reliable source for first quote:[4]. Unreliable sources for second:[5] [6]. Skomorokh incite 23:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] So many quotes

Ok, so I'm mainly asking this in the context of wanting to bring this article up to at least GA status, if not FA. Does it seem like all the huge quotes are a bit much, and should be worked into the text as much as possible? I'm thinking particularly of the Basic Anarchosyndicalism stuff, and the two largish quotes from Orwell (which unfortunately is not browseable on Google Books, maybe I'll see if the library has it). Murderbike (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:QUOTE, quotes should only be included when using a unique phrase/term or when dealing with controversial issues. I doubt that many of the issues illustrated by quotations in this article are controversial. I propose that a quotation only be used here where its rhetorical impact, eloquence or precision make it clearly superior to a summary, or where a summary would somehow contravene neutrality, original research or verifiability policy. Skomorokh incite 23:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I have to say: in this case, I favor keeping at least most of these quotations. They capture a tone that is relevant to the subject matter. - Jmabel | Talk 05:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm with Jmabel on this one -- quotes capture flavor; they're pictures in words. It looks fine from "Methods" on below; the only reason it looks bad (IMO) in the material prior to the "Methods" & "History" sections is because of the profusion of variant typographies -- bulleted lists, charts, pictures, lots and lots of wiki-subsections, and relatively little text. If that were cleaned up I think the quotes would appear more balanced. --Lquilter (talk) 07:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Multitudinary"

"…multitudinary meetings…": an odd phrase. Does this simply mean "mass meetings" or something else? - Jmabel | Talk 05:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard this term, in english or spanish. Murderbike (talk) 06:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe a mangling of "multitudinous"? --Lquilter (talk) 07:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, probably a bad translation. Multitudinario in Spanish means "involving a multitude", so probably either mass meetings or multitudinous meetings works.--Wafry (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Mass. "Multitudinous meetings" would mean many meetings. - Jmabel | Talk 01:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Subventions"

"One year later, a group of CGT members left this union to be able to receive subventions…" Does "one year later" here mean in 1980 or 1990? Two different events had just been alluded to. Also "subventions" is vague (and, in English, rather obscure). Does it refer specifically to some kind of government subsidy, and if so precisely what? - Jmabel | Talk 05:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I had never heard that word before, but I'm pretty sure what that's referring to is the money that the CNT has gotten from the government since the transition as compensation for all of its assets being confiscated by the Franco governement. I wouldn't really no what else to call it, "settlement" money, or something. Seems like it would have to get explained a bit more. Murderbike (talk) 06:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
A/ In 1989 CGT split from CNT, and in 1990 es:Solidaridad Obrera (España) split from CGT. B/ Here subventions meant subsidies (The same state subsidies refered to a paragraph before, i.e. economic help from the State to the Union). I hope it helps.--Wafry (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, just to be sure, "subsidies" are definitely different than the money the CNT has received as compensation for the property it lost as a result of the Franco regime. Do you mean just money from the government that maybe all unions get? Murderbike (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I don't know if they get it nowadays, but the government helps or helped them as they normally do good to society and they don't get money for it.--Wafry (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] German-language article

We might want also to look at the corresponding (stubby) German-language article. I notice, for example, that its lead (which is really all there is to it) mentions the peak membership during the Spanish Civil War, probably worth doing; also, it appears to give a whole different set of references, probably worth a look. - Jmabel | Talk 01:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Avoiding duplication

We need to work out how to factor some material between the historical sections here and the article Anarchism in Spain. They cover a lot of the same territory; in general, we will want the main narrative in one place and a link and a summary in the other. - Jmabel | Talk 01:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to make more sense to put a "main article" template over at Anarchism in Spain, especially because that article isn't cited at all, and this one will be cited very well by the time we're "done" with it;) Hmmm, citing that article could be a big project in and of itself. Murderbike (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nature of assembly

Wafry, I see that in "The decision-making power of the industry and general unions resides in the assembly, you changed the link from popular assembly to deliberative assembly. I'm not sure which is best, but the assembly in question appears to be both deliberative and popular: deliberative in that it makes decisions, and popular in that it comes from the base, and everyone participates directly rather than through representatives or delegates. It seems to me that broad participation is one of the things that distinguishes the CNT from most other unions, and hence it is the link I was more inclined to choose.

Not a big deal either way, but it might suggest something that should be more spelled out in the article. ~- Jmabel | Talk 21:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As well, like I noted above, what is now being referred to as a "general union", is referred to as a "Various Posts" union in the translation of Roca Martinez's article. I know this is just a weird translation thing, but it seems to make sense to defer to the one we can cite. Murderbike (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
So, how about "The decision-making power of the industry and general unions resides in the popular assembly", and "When there are fewer than 25 people working in one particular industry, a various posts union is formed for that industry" ? (check the wikilinks)--Wafry (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
That looks good to me, good thinking! Murderbike (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
And Page 109 of Roca Martinez says "To qualify as a "Various Posts" branch, at least five members were needed. To be a 'branch union', which is a union of workers in the same field of activity..., twenty five members are needed.", so that can be cited for that. Murderbike (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved.

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was - not moved as no support.

Confederación Nacional del Trabajo → National Confederation of Labour — In accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), I would like to move this article to National Confederation of Labour. The current WP policy states, in part, "If you are talking about a person, country, town, film, book, or video game, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works. This makes it easy to find, and easy to compare information with other sources." Does anyone object? - N1h1l (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Weak oppose, yeah, i feel like it's way more common for sources to use the spanish name instead of translating it, or even just using "CNT". Murderbike (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Moderately strong oppose FWIW, "CNT" is probably the most common, but is ambiguous. I don't think translating is all that common, especially in scholarly sources. I suspect that some of the GHits identified below will be similarly-named IWA affiliates in other countries; in any case, "National Confederation of Labour" or "of Labor" is ambiguous because of those similarly-named affiliates. - Jmabel | Talk 00:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Looking at the first 20 on each of the two English-language spellings, about a third were other organizations or not proper nouns at all. - Jmabel | Talk 00:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The nutshell summary of WP:NC reads in part with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity. Translating the title from Spanish makes the subject less recognisable, rather than more recognisable. Andrewa (talk) 11:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose What is the source for this English name? You can't just translate their official name into English (and assuming they would use British English, although that has nothing to do with my Oppose vote) unless you have proof that it is official. For example, when a video game is unveiled in Japan we have to use the Japanese title until an official English name is announced (if ever, some games don't get released outside of Japan). TJ Spyke 23:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
    Boldly closing per WP:SNOW. Murderbike (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Any additional comments:

Note: 7940 Ghits for "National Confederation of Labour", 8489 for "Confederación Nacional del Trabajo" on English language pages. Skomorokh incite 23:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, there are an additional 5,780 results for "National Confederation of Labour" using the American spelling of labor. - N1h1l (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Bookchin

I am aware of, but have not read, a book by Murray Bookchin called The Spanish Anarchists. I would guess that if someone wants to do a serious job on the history portion of this, they should read it. - Jmabel | Talk 00:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Google Books has a copy. Pages 142-169 are devoted exclusively to the CNT, from the Tragic Week on. Skomorokh incite 00:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Objectives

OK, so I noticed that this article isn't getting pretty long, probably pushing TOO long, so I looked around to see what I could trim, and found the Objectives section. I redid it in my sandbox minus all the quotes. I put one in the ref, and the bylaws can be found at wikiquote, so don't seem necessary to me. Anyone object to me putting this in, or want to make any changes, have concerns? Murderbike (talk) 05:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the guidelines about length of articles do not count footnotes, etc. - Jmabel | Talk 07:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Support sandbox version. Skomorokh incite 13:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The shortened version looks fine to me. I never liked how that section read, too untidy.--Wafry (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Noted members

I have removed this stub section from the article as it in effect a list/category, and needs to be converted into prose to meet encyclopedia standards. If the individuals mentioned below are notable, their contributions to the CNT should be mentioned in the relevant historical section. Skomorokh incite 13:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm kind of surprised there isn't a category for them. Would Category:Confederación Nacional del Trabajo work, or should it be Category:Confederación Nacional del Trabajo members? Murderbike (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Technically, it should be latter, which in turn should be a subcategory of the former, but I'm not sure on the policy re:underpopulated categories. Skomorokh incite 22:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think the "members" one would be fairly full, though i don't really know what else would go in the parent, I guess the Soli Obrera paper, Durruti Column, etc. I always mess up creating cats, you wanna do it? Murderbike (talk) 23:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Y Done I'll leave the categorization of members to others. Skomorokh incite 23:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure there's more, but I populated both. Murderbike (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Congresses/Voting

I'm feeling that the table listing all the congresses is not just ugly, but a bit weighty, and would be better replaced by a note along the lines of "There were X congresses between 1910 and the outbreak of the Civil War, and have been X congresses since the transition to democracy." Anyone attached to the table?

As well, I think the Voting section is way too quote-heavy, and would love to just summarize all the quotes. Now that we have a PDF of the document to point readers to, it seems silly to keep so many quotes from it in there. Murderbike (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent leaning towards remove on the congress issue, and definitely in favour of summarizing the quotes in the vote section. A section not devoted to speeches or writings should never be dominated by direct quotes. Skomorokh incite 22:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I've started working on the Voting section in my sandbox, and I'm gonna go ahead and remove the congress table, and reword it, but feel free to tell me if there's issues with it. Murderbike (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FAI

What's the difference between Confederación Nacional del Trabajo and CNT-FAI? On the face of it, I'd merge the latter with the former.

I could be wrong, anyway. In any case, despite I see some refernces to FAI in this article, some clearer reference should be made to their mutual relationship in the lead, if not a proper merging itself. Mountolive all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair 13:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Despite the long relationship, the FAI completely independent from the CNT. The two organizations have always shared members, and collaborated, but remain autonomous from each other. Murderbike (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
And by that I mean that they definitely shouldn't be merged, but the CNT-FAI redirect should be changed. Murderbike (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I strongly oppose the merge; the FAI is an historically notable organisation even considered independently of the CNT. I'd prefer 3 articles, not 1. Skomorokh incite 21:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I was basically just asking more than suggesting. Still, whatever their mutual relationship is (between the CNT/CNT-FAI and the FAI proper), it should be better reflected in both articles, this one and FAI's because, as it is now, they are both intermingled, that independence one from the other is not perceived nor the nature of their actual ties (which I asume they still have). Please you guys who know better, take some time to make this clearer whenever you have the chance. Mountolive all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair 00:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the ties are definitely still there. And I'll definitely try to make the relationship more clear as we whip this article into shape, and then try to work on the FAI page when this one is "done". Murderbike (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assemblies and Plenary sessions

So, I merged these two sections to cut down on single paragraph subsections, but it's kind of confusing, as I can't really tell the difference between the two things being described. Can anyone enlighten me? Murderbike (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I already talked a bit about it in these discussion page. As I understand it in the Spanish article, there are "plenos" with decision making powers because every union in the federation sends a delegate. At National level, the "pleno" is called Congress, bu there is also a "Pleno Nacional" which doenst have decision-making powers because not every union sends delegates, but only the delegates of the regional federations assist. Then, there are the "plenarias", which are meetings of the committees, who never had decision-making powers of there own to start from. The main problem is that pleno and plenaria both translate to English as "plenary". (In Spanish normally pleno is also the same as plenaria. It's just the CNT that seems to differentiate the meanings).

I just tried to fix this in the article.--Wafry (talk) 12:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Weird, funny how many problems translation can throw at us. Thanks for trying to clarify! Murderbike (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good article nomination?

Firstly, well done to all concerned on your hard work on this article lately. I think in order to move the article forward we might want to consider nominating it for Good article status; although the article might not be up to scratch now, I think editors have the resolve if not the agenda to make serious improvements to this article, and an experienced GA reviewer could give us the suggestions necessary to get to work. Any thoughts? Skomorokh confer 00:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be stoked if it could wait until I have constant internet access (a week from yesterday), so that I can be more a part of the process. I also feel like there's still a bit of stuff that needs to be fixed before it'll qualify, and think that it would be possible to get it up to FA status if we can hold off a bit. It would also be cool to wait until Jmabel is done doing whatever he's concentrating on. However, maybe we could have VanTucky take a look at it and give some suggestions for what still needs to be done, or even a friendly FA reviewer? Murderbike (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I think there is no haste in doing the nomination if you still had some improvement changes in mind. Nevertheless, I agree with doing the nomination (now or next week) as the reviewers can give us great outside help.--Wafry (talk) 08:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Really, I haven't recently gone all the way through the article, just doing bits and pieces, so I'd like to do that, and have others do it as well. I'd also like to know if other people think that it's possible to shoot for FA instead of just GA. Murderbike (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
To be even more specific, off the top of my head I can think of a few things that need to be done before moving on. First, the "Structure" section needs to be better cited (the Roca Martinez article is perfect for this), at least one cite per paragraph. I'd like to expand the section on the CNT during the Franco period, and figure out if there's a way to wrap the text around the A Las Barricadas sound clip so it doesn't looks so ugly, and also see why the references section isn't showing two columns, despite having the "2" parameter specified. I'll try to take a closer look at it later and see what else needs to be done. Murderbike (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, don't expect me to be back to being as available as I was. What I'm "concentrating on" is a fulltime job I just started, and which I hope I will be doing for many years. I'll try to help, but simply will be less available. - Jmabel | Talk 02:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe I've adequately cleaned up the formatting of the sound clip.

Do we still have reason for the {{Underconstruction}} tag, or can we remove that? - Jmabel | Talk 02:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Multi-column reference section should work on Firefox, but IE doesn't support it. - Jmabel | Talk 02:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, the sound clip looks way better, and i'll remove the construction tag, as the article isn't near the mess that it was. Murderbike (talk) 02:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought we should get feedback from outsiders if the editors of this article had ran out of ideas for developing it; if it's just a case of time/access limitations then there's not much point in rushing a nomination. I'll leave the nomination issue up to you fine encyclopaedians. скоморохъ 14:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm trying to gather up steam to finish this beast. Things I still want to work on (in case anyone feels like pitching in):
  • Citing the Structure section with the Roca Martinez document, and probably Spanish-language CNT sources
  • Expand the "In Exile" section
  • Clean up the pre-Civil War history sections.

I'll probably wind up adding more. Murderbike (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)