Talk:Treviño enclave

Why this differs a bit from the es-wiki article

I used the linked es-wiki article and other related articles as my basis to write this. However, the es-wiki article has quite a bit of redundancy to their article on Condado de Treviño. I have tried to place the material that is more specific to the enclave as such here, and the more general history of the place in the Condado de Treviño article. - Jmabel | Talk 21:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Protected language

I've deleted the text which compared the linguistic situation in Treviño with that of western León. You are free to have the opinion that a language spoken more than 2 centuries ago deserves the same protection as languages spoken today, but that is still an opinion, and a weird one from my point of view. Now, if some relevant person or institution has made such an opinion public, that could be included, as long as the holder of the opinion is mentioned and sourced. --Jotamar (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

That can be taken as gratuitous removal of a content that helps to understand the situation, i.e. what you have done is just a judgment of an information you do not like, quite obviously, based on some linguistic criteria you have wanted to bring up. However, the people and institutions in Treviño do not think like you and it is not you who is making the news but the politics and social dynamics that takes place there. What is for sure is that the parties and institutions feel Basque as part of their heritage and something to be fostered, and some people there speak it.

I urge you to stick to cooperative editing by adding constructive proposals that can build consensus and not what you do, full removal and annoying, unhelpful interventions, like adding baffling explanation lines, citing information that is not on the source, which does not help build trust and does not help in building a reliable WP. I refer you to the motto of the association you claim to be part of, the inclusionist association. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

When you insist on confusing information with (anonymous) opinions, any further discussion becomes impossible. --Jotamar (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

To make things clearer for passers-by: a language (linguistic variety) is given the status of protected to help it to survive. Basque in Treviño cannot survive since it was lost 200 years ago. --Jotamar (talk) 16:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

??? You have given your opinion and decided by quickly removing information you do not like, something an inclusionist would not do, let alone when it does have a relevance in the context of the Treviño dispute, in which Castille-Leon is one of the sides. Again, you are making a quick judgement, it may be in order to guarantee the language's survival or it may be that its people feel the language as their own heritage and want to restore it. If it helps build consensus: "Unlike Basque, Galician and Leonese are recognized in the Castilian-Leonese Statute of Autonomy as minority languages, but Basque became extinct at least 200 years ago and has not been restored to some practical use until recently." Iñaki LL (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

If you're so determined to mention the question, just find a source where some relevant person likens the situation in Treviño and in Western León, that will settle it. --Jotamar (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

No relevant information will be removed on no grounds, clear. You do know something on the issue, point the problems with the information and that will do, as per WP:EQ. All information is accurate and related to the issue. "I do not like it" or "do as I say" attitude is not an option, more so after all the record in this and Treviño enclave dispute, to mention the most related articles. Iñaki LL (talk) 09:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

It's obvious that you can't find any kind of source, meanwhile the deleted text just reflected the opinion of whoever wrote it, and has no place in the page. As always happens with you and your stubbornness, a third opinion will be needed inevitably. --Jotamar (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I've been searching for a source myself, to no avail. I have absolutely no problem with the inclusion of such an opinion, as long as it corresponds to any relevant person: political representative, political party, institution, etc. --Jotamar (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, as I pointed out before. You do not want to engage in consensus building, or detailed discussion. The information is straightforward and balanced. Listen, I am not taking your bulldozing. Feel free to ask for a third opinion. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I've listed for 3rd opinion. I've also made a minor change that could be perhaps controversial, to benefit from a 3rd opinion if needed. --Jotamar (talk) 11:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Treviño enclave and cannot recall any prior interaction with the editors involved in this discussion which might bias my response. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." Jotamar is correct that the sentence in question cannot be included without a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia. The BURDEN section of the Verifiability policy says, in pertinent part, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." (Emphasis in original.) The part of the sentence that requires citation is the "This contrasts to" part, as I presume that the rest can be cited to the Statute of Autonomy itself as a reliable source. Without the citation, the suggestion that the status of Galician and Leonese in Castile and León has something to do with the status of Basque in Treviño is prohibited original research. I express no opinion pro or con about whether the material is suitable for the article if a reliable source is found; being sourced is the threshold for inclusion, but does not guarantee inclusion.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TransporterMan (TALK) 15:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Really? Editor with a disruptive and POV drive, a remover, rewarded. I guess you, TransporterMan, are not judging behaviour, I should think, despite having evidence in front of your eyes. An editor that makes false claims to source contents and uses personal irregular explanation lines, right there. Is not that subject to comment? A no? What kind of service is being done to the WP? Nag and disrupt. (See above and history)

The editor Jotamar failed to engage in dispute resolution based on content, so violating the discussion process by not engaging on the basic first step, attempt consensus. The subject poses no difficulty, since they are three basic statements X is Y, Z is Y, but W is not Y on a well know issue. Discussing the details and trying to find a middle-point, should have not been a problem for me. I am persuaded that the basic rule of attempting consensus is being violated.

A short comment on the content addressed. The language policy of Castile-Leon applies to all its territory. Basques exists in Treviño and lies in Castile-Leon. To say Leonese and Galician are X, but Basque is not, is not OR, it is accepting three elements exists, two are included in a legal document and another is not. However, I am not wasting more time here. I keep the possibility of taking further steps to get a right resolution. I will add the information with due references in time. Iñaki LL (talk) 19:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the present state of the discussion entitles me to remove the disputed text again, and so I proceed. --Jotamar (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

And I was right in foreseeing another dispute about my other change. And here a discussion is even more difficult. I haven't changed the facts explained, just the wording, so what on earth could a citation be helpful for? I've just said the same thing in a different, clearer way: that there might be speakers of other languages in Treviño, but they are not locals; they are from Vitoria, Romania, Morocco or wherever. Deleted until we get an explanation. --Jotamar (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

By Wikipedia and other commonly held definitions this is an "Exclave"

Just an observation... 99.4.120.135 (talk) 03:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)