Talk:Peter Caruana

Removal of slingshot claim

The following line has been removed pending evidence to support it:

"As a young boy he had an accident with a slingshot from which resulted in him needing a glass eye." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.199.238 (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Re removal of controversy section

I removed this section for review and rewrite as it mentioned disputes, but lacked information as to their subject.

I also removed the entire trivia section as inappropriate in various ways. Labelling a statement that someone only has sight in one eye as trivia strikes me as offensive. If the type of car information has any relevance, that needs to be made clear. Labelling someone's background as trivia is rude at best.

I also removed some references pending further checking as to their relationship to the removed section, and the 2nd photo, nice though it is, as being one photo too many to fit in the present short article. Wanderer57 (talk) 11:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Very true. I've added some more background information. It would seem that this page has been vandalised recently. --Gibnews (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

"safe dialogue"?

The wording has been changed to:

"The GSD which he now leads, is robustly against any transfer of sovereignty to Spain, but remains in favour of safe dialogue"

Instead of "uncompromised dialogue". The wording in the reference beside the sentence is "Reasonable dialogue".

Wouldn't if be better to use "Reasonable dialogue" than "safe dialogue"?

Wanderer57 (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Peter Caruana used both terms extensively in news broadcasts, perhaps its better to say safe and reasonable. With a bit more time and effort I can dig up better references. --Gibnews (talk) 12:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It's better to use the term there is a specific reference for. Wanderer57 (talk) 12:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I took another look. That source doesn't quote Caruana at all.  ?? Wanderer57 (talk) 12:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the large banner at the end which says 'NO in principle concessions against our wishes - yes to reasonable dialogue' The wording at the end is a statement issued by Caruana. --Gibnews (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Review of Gibraltar Sources

I'm wondering about sources that were and are being used for this article. Vox, Panorama, and Gibnet.

I don't want to offend anyone by asking this, but is there any possibility that these are "biased" sources? Representing particular interests?

Understand, I'm not saying they are; I'm just asking the question.

Wanderer57 (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Vox is on a bitter crusade against Peter Caruana and attacks him on every level. The editor of 'New People' is in litigation. The other Gibraltar news media are reasonably unbiased. I have a hand in gibnet.com and the documents presented in the reference section there are 'as published'. The site is cited by the House of Commons library as a source of Gibraltar related documents. --Gibnews (talk) 12:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Much to the annoyance of

The reference now given after the words "much to the annoyance of Peter Hain" is about pension arrangements, not about bi-lateral talks.

Thus it is not a good reference IMO.

I understand that a connection I am missing might be obvious to someone more versed in Gibraltar-UK-Spain relationships.

However, since this is meant to be a general encyclopedia, references that require this much reading between the lines are not helpful. Are there some sources that are more directly relevant? Wanderer57 (talk) 01:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I take your point, however Hain expressed his annoyance in the rejection of the joint sovereignty concept he promoted by telling some big lies about Gibraltar, as evidenced by that reference. --Gibnews (talk) 12:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Your interpretation of the reference may well be true. However, since interpretation is required to get from "point A to point B", I have removed the "much to the annoyance" clause. Wanderer57 (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Re reverted edit to category

'Gibraltarian Roman Catholics' is indeed a subcategory of 'Gibraltarian people'. As I understand it, in the Wikipedia category system, a person who is in both a category and a subcategory is supposed to be tagged by the subcategory. Because the subcategory is more defining, it conveys more information. Wanderer57 (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal

I'm removing the following:

In the 1960s, Triay was one of the palomos or "doves", who aroused controversy by advocating an agreement with Spain.

Not only is it wholly immaterial, but may well breach BLP: "When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic". Biographies of living persons must also be "written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy".

Also note that "the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete disputed material".

This article was recently subject to an attempted lawsuit, so it is especially important that the article remains policy-compliant. -RedCoat10 • talk 11:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Please, define "immaterial".

Please, define "on-topic". As long as the familiar links of Caruana have been used to politically attack Caruana, a reader of wikipedia must have access to sourced and neutral material about such issues. The fact that Cristina is one of the daughters of Joseph Triay does not make Peter Caruana more or less pro-Spanish. However, it's a fact. Therefore, explain why it is off-topic. If you want, look for a third-party opinion.

Finally, can you please provide more information about such an attempted lawsuit?

To sum up, I can't see why the text you're deleted breaks any policy. --Ecemaml (talk) 15:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm working on an article on the palomos. Would it be objectionable to keep a sentence such as In the 1960s, Triay was one of the palomos or "doves"? --Ecemaml (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Immaterial means not relevant. On-topic means on the topic of the subject in question. Mr Caruana's father-in-law is neither relevant nor on-topic. Please remember, the burden of proof is on you to explain what makes this material worthy of inclusion, not me (see WP:BLP).

The article was almost taken into litigation earlier this year following claims of defamation. The claim was reported to OTRS and generated local media interest. That's about all I know. -RedCoat10 • talk 15:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Peter Caruana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070701225546/http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/chief_minister/chief_minister_index.htm to http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/chief_minister/chief_minister_index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)