Talk:Treviño enclave dispute

Three Treviños on the English WP, merge proposal

Hi there, I realized there have been changes lately to the Treviño articles. If there were too many before, now another has been added. What is the point??? Condado de Treviño, Treviño exclave, we only need Treviño (municipality) and Treviño (village) to loop the loop. The former two are just overlapping articles for the most part. This new article could just make a section of the Treviño exclave, where it should belong. The fact that someone is interested in creating an article in Spanish does not make it automatically relevant in the EN WP. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Definitely shouldn't be merged. The whole political controversy is entirely separate from the main article, which needs expansion to cover other areas. Inclusion of the material here in that article would unbalance it. This meets WP:SS and WP:GNG. Valenciano (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The points presented are discussed long enough in the original articles. Apart from a pair of legal references, the only difference may be that it elaborates more on Castilian and Spanish, Madrid based views, but even them can be added to the original article. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok then, this topic happens to be long and relevant enough. So be it. Iñaki LL (talk) 23:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Linguistic links

I already made my point in the edit summary, and nobody has given any counterargument, but ok, let's work on it:

• The source speaks of linguistic links in the lead, but its body doesn't clarify which links are those. The only mention to something linguistic is that youths from Treviño who study in Alava must study Basque language, which is a compulsory subject there. Is this what the average reader of the page would understand by linguistic links? Certainly not. The average reader would probably think that the same language is spoken in Treviño and Alava, which is indeed true: Spanish! However that is irrelevant, as Spanish is also spoken in Burgos province and in most of Spain. The mention of linguistic links is absolutely misleading for the reader, and can be interpreted in a number of ways that have nothing to do with the real situation. My point is very clear, I have no idea of what could be argued against it. --Jotamar (talk) 17:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The linguistic links are clear from the source. It says that the children in Trevino study Basque. It doesn't say that they study it in Alava. Valenciano (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Sigh... This (on Jotamar) is a typical case of POV pushing. Do you understand you were removing sourced information and insisting (edit warring) on it? In fact you removed meaningful content according to your own subjective take. Do you understand it talks of linguistic ties, whatever they are? (Children's schooling, new adult Basque speakers, common historic-linguistic tradition or place-names, whatever it is) There is an upsetting attitude problem going on. You do have a point of view, that is certain, which turns out to be disruptive and time wasting (a glimpse at the article history is telling enough). By the way (this is the 2nd time I point it out to you), WP article talk-pages are not topic discussion forums sorry, it`s about how to improve the article. You might as well add accuracy (as detailed as possible), relevant info and/or verifiability, that may help. Add your positive contribution to the article, that will do the trick. We all will be happier. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Does the source say that the children in Treviño study Basque?? It says (and this is the only mention of any linguistic link in the body of the source article): Los niños estudian en euskera, they study in Basque. How is that possible? A user comment clarifies it: there are ikastolas in Treviño. Now, it is clear from other sources that a fair number of residents of Treviño were born in Álava or elsewhere in the Basque country. They surely send their children to the ikastolas. And how many purely local people do the same? From the source, we don't know, perhaps none. And do you think (I'm addressing Valenciano) that that can be summarized as a linguistic link? Do you think that is giving good quality information to the WP readers? --Jotamar (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

"Does the source say that the children in Treviño study Basque??" Yes it does. You even go on to answer that question yourself...

"Los niños estudian en euskera.... there are ikastolas in Treviño." So there you go. The kids there study in Basque.

"Now, it is clear from other sources that a fair number of residents of Treviño were born in Álava or elsewhere in the Basque country. They surely send their children to the ikastolas." That's pure guesswork on your part. See WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."

"And how many purely local people do the same?" Why are the people who live there not local people? Why are their kids who were born there not local? If people who live there study in Basque then that's a clear linguistic link, regardless of whether they meet your definition of "local" or not.

"From the source, we don't know, perhaps none." Again, pure guesswork.

"And do you think (I'm addressing Valenciano) that that can be summarized as a linguistic link?" I don't need to make that call. The source has already made it. The source summarises it as a linguistic link. Valenciano (talk) 17:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

You're doing a lousy service to WP by copying word by word a phrase that is ambiguous and misleading in the source and gets even more ambiguous and misleading in this page. The source was probably selected in the first place to consciously promote that ambiguity. --Jotamar (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

What is a real mystery is what you are doing still on the WP. I urge you to remove your claim on your personal page of being an inclusionist. That is highly misleading, be more humble and do not say what your are not. One just needs to take a look at your record, fraught with reactive and exclusive, time wasting edits, instead of sticking to a path of building on what you really know. We could keep on talking on the subject for ages, but as per WP policies (see above link) this is not the place for it. That the linguistic link is settlers from Vitoria coming to Treviño is your own conclusion (again POV pushing), do you understand? I will also remind you: The article is not meant to demonstrate nothing.

What we all know is that the local population there has repeatedly voted for ages to be part of Álava, and they have repeatedly got a frontal refusal to their will, that is sure. However, it holds true, and that is the claim of the paper added, that the ikastola relies to a greater or lesser extent on people coming from Vitoria, so I separated both claims as per WP:SYNTH (thanks Valenciano for your honest, criteria based help). Iñaki LL (talk) 10:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Valenciano seems to be missing lately. I think that when you have been in WP for almost 10 years, you should spot right away editors with an agenda, those who emphasize every fact that is meaningful for them, and then use all kind of tricks to mislead the reader about those facts which are uncomfortable for their ideologies. And I'm not even talking about verbal abuse. --Jotamar (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

First of all, can I ask both of you, whatever your past history, to please tone it down a bit and focus on the content? Talk of "agendas" isn't going to get us anywhere constructive and is a big negative for casual editors who may come across these discussions. Regarding the text added, I don't see a problem with mentioning that the local Ikastola was set up at the request of parents from Vitoria, it's what the source says and is still a relevant linguistic link. Valenciano (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

For editor Jotamar, listen, I say that actions speak louder than words, you may want to continue with your dismissive hotch-potch bla-bla-bla, I won´t bite it. You have all your incoherent explanation lines, removal of sourced information, litigating style, and time wasting edits to make any good editor realize what is going on (WP:DISRUPTSIGNS), here or in the article Talk:Navarre, for example. You (ironically may I say) call yourself inclusionist, be more humble, feel free to remove that, add what your real interests are on the WP, define yourself. Congratulations about the reference on the article, this is the first time I see you add any at all as far as the articles I check is concerned. I will take a closer look at the content of it. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

For Valenciano, sorry I know a bit the context and that is a risky assumption, the assertion in the source is vague. It may have been created, or they may have been an important driving force. (I added further material) There is an association in Treviño fostering Basque culture and heritage, including language. I should apologize if the tone took a turn up, I don´t know if it's a fixation with me, but the above editor has a long history of obstructive edits and POV oriented remarks in Basque articles (it may not be the only domain). Iñaki LL (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)