This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Segi (organization) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I removed several links (4) that had been recently placed as references but are not correct either because they are not references or do not stand Wikipedia's criteria because they are not reliable and/or have restrictions Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/examples#Use_of_electronic_or_online_sources & WP:EL#Restrictions_on_linking.
I'll describe case by case:
I therefore strongly see that they should be removed. Escorial82 ( talk) 22:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
ideology; I made a couple of clarifications in my previous comment). And don't remove the explanation (title) of two sources previously added, there's absolutely no reason for it. This is Wikipedia not a debate forum, and it has rules we all have to respect. Escorial82 ( talk) 18:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Can you explain why they are a suitable (related to the article and showing its the source of that particular thing and not something else) and reliable (from internationally respected media or non-partisan organisations)? You just say that they are; please say why in detail. Your comments in this article or others ( Talk:ETA#Definition) show that you do nothing but defend your own personal ideas. Escorial82 ( talk) 09:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I have had a look at the sources, and apart from the petition, which can be useful if placed in context in the article, I consider the to be WP:V and WP:RS, that you don't agree with them is no reason to want to have them removed. -- Domer48 ( talk) 01:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
This link Ógra Sinn Féin International Affiliations: 'Our main affiliations would be with SEGI (Basque). -- Domer48 ( talk) 17:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
No I think you are the one that dose not understand, now of the links are blog sites, though one has a link to a blog site. Using WP:EL clearly supports their inclusion. -- Domer48 ( talk) 18:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
"Wikipedia articles should include links to Web pages outside Wikipedia if they are relevant," which the links are. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; which it is. The information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, basiclly the amount of detail. They also comply with points to remember, Restrictions, in fact the whole host of guidlines in WP:EL. And if you notice my first post on this subject "I have added "links" which I think are useful to editors who would like to read more about Segi," and covered all the subject matter already in the article. -- Domer48 ( talk) 23:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey. I'm okay with the removal of three of the four links that Escorial82 removed. The only link I'm wondering about is this one. I understand it's a partisan source, but it does validate that SEGI is part of the Basque youth movement. Listing it in that context seems acceptable to me, but I'm wondering what the counterargument is. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 17:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Four links have been removed and re-added to this page a number of times - the ones listed in this edit. It seems that those links violate WP:EL, but two users (one of whom potentially shopped for the other?) disagree. Should the four links remain on the page, or do they break EL? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 22:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
There are already several opinions citing the parts of the relevant policy that these links violate. None of the disagreeing opinions have addressed these concerns. Until they do, there is no consensus to include the links and so we should not. To the editors who propose including the links, please explain why these links do not (as others have suggested) violate various parts of link policy. -- Cheeser1 ( talk) 22:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The reference quoted below, dose not reflect the statement in the article. The article states: "This was due to their strong involvement in the street violence (Kale Borroka) of the Basque Country."
The reference states they were arrested on suspicion of belonging to Segi.
"The youths were arrested on suspicion of belonging to Segi, one of three Basque organizations that the Supreme Court ruled last month were terrorist organizations. The groups, known as Jarrai, Haika and Segi, had already been outlawed - but not placed on the country's terrorist list - before the court's Jan. 19 ruling."
Could we have the statement changed to reflect what the sources says before re-adding it. -- Domer48 ( talk) 11:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
The above reference contradicts the other reference which says the youthe were charged with "public disturbances," and not with membership of Segi. This reference dose not support the statement quoted above. "Police in Pamplona arrested two youths for public disturbances, said a spokesman..." "'Police arrested a 17-year-old on charges of public disturbance, she said." In addition this sourse states that "The police are absolutely certain these incidents are linked to (outlawed youth organisation) Segi,' the spokesman said." But the youths were not charged with membership, but for "public disturbances." -- Domer48 ( talk) 11:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
My referenced text:
“ | In its decision, on 27th February 2007, the Grand Chamber of the ECJ (European Union and the Court of Appeal) dismissed the appeal of the Basque human rights organisation “Gestoras Pro Amnistia” and SEGI against the dismissal by the CFO of its claim for damages suffered as a result of inclusion in the “terrorist list”.
[1]The UK intervened, with Spain, on behalf of the Council – the only other EU state to do so. Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the
help page).The UK intervened, with Spain, on behalf of the Council – the only other EU state to do so. </ref>Case C-354/04 P,
|
” |
You can not make changes like that without referencing it. Introducing "illegal Basque human rights organisation" is wrong. Now, before you alter referenced information, please use the talk page. You can add as much referenced information as you please, just ensure that it reflects what the source says, otherwise it will be challenged and removed. -- Domer48 ( talk) 20:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with the information, and would suggest it alonge side the referenced information as you yourself have suggested. Just do not dismember a referenced source with an alternative one thats all. -- Domer48 ( talk) 09:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Please read what I have said, "You can add as much referenced information as you please, just ensure that it reflects what the source says, otherwise it will be challenged and removed." That is all I'm saying, did the ECJ call them "illegal?"
-- Domer48 ( talk) 09:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
References
This is not an Ogra Shinn Féin soapbox. As it stood until I changed it, most of this article was taken up with Ógra Shinn Féin statements calling for the release of Segi activists. Following the Wikipedia guidelines WP:SOAP and WP:UNDUE, I summarised this recently added content.-- Damac ( talk) 23:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Read the policies before you try to use them, and get down of your soap box. You have again removed referenced information, based on a policy you have not read. -- Domer48 ( talk) 08:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Damac, great how it is now. It says it all keeping that section in a suitable size and with the references properly used. Escorial82 ( talk) 08:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the reference to a motion passed at an OSF congress - it just leads to their home page, which doesn't mention it. Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 10:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article be at SEGI? That's what it is referred to throughout the article. Comments? - R. fiend ( talk) 20:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
What exactly dose the tag on the top of the article mean. Will someone actually check it? The reason I ask, is that the references do not reflect what is on the article, and some of the references appear in Spanish and Frence, when English versions exist for the same ones. I will put it on my to do list, but if the question I pose at the start could be answered it would be helpful. -- Domer48 ( talk) 20:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Page moved to "Segi (organization)" -- per Jenks24's observation, the disambiguation was kept as-is and moved to Segi. Not a clear enough case for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to supersede the disambig page. -- Hadal ( talk) 02:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
SEGI →
Segi – External links feature only capitalise the first letter
[1]
[2] as in Jarrai or Labour, unlike acronyms like ETA or IRA.
Javierme (
talk) 23:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Segi (organization). 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Segi (organization) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I removed several links (4) that had been recently placed as references but are not correct either because they are not references or do not stand Wikipedia's criteria because they are not reliable and/or have restrictions Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/examples#Use_of_electronic_or_online_sources & WP:EL#Restrictions_on_linking.
I'll describe case by case:
I therefore strongly see that they should be removed. Escorial82 ( talk) 22:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
ideology; I made a couple of clarifications in my previous comment). And don't remove the explanation (title) of two sources previously added, there's absolutely no reason for it. This is Wikipedia not a debate forum, and it has rules we all have to respect. Escorial82 ( talk) 18:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Can you explain why they are a suitable (related to the article and showing its the source of that particular thing and not something else) and reliable (from internationally respected media or non-partisan organisations)? You just say that they are; please say why in detail. Your comments in this article or others ( Talk:ETA#Definition) show that you do nothing but defend your own personal ideas. Escorial82 ( talk) 09:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I have had a look at the sources, and apart from the petition, which can be useful if placed in context in the article, I consider the to be WP:V and WP:RS, that you don't agree with them is no reason to want to have them removed. -- Domer48 ( talk) 01:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
This link Ógra Sinn Féin International Affiliations: 'Our main affiliations would be with SEGI (Basque). -- Domer48 ( talk) 17:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
No I think you are the one that dose not understand, now of the links are blog sites, though one has a link to a blog site. Using WP:EL clearly supports their inclusion. -- Domer48 ( talk) 18:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
"Wikipedia articles should include links to Web pages outside Wikipedia if they are relevant," which the links are. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; which it is. The information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, basiclly the amount of detail. They also comply with points to remember, Restrictions, in fact the whole host of guidlines in WP:EL. And if you notice my first post on this subject "I have added "links" which I think are useful to editors who would like to read more about Segi," and covered all the subject matter already in the article. -- Domer48 ( talk) 23:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey. I'm okay with the removal of three of the four links that Escorial82 removed. The only link I'm wondering about is this one. I understand it's a partisan source, but it does validate that SEGI is part of the Basque youth movement. Listing it in that context seems acceptable to me, but I'm wondering what the counterargument is. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 17:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Four links have been removed and re-added to this page a number of times - the ones listed in this edit. It seems that those links violate WP:EL, but two users (one of whom potentially shopped for the other?) disagree. Should the four links remain on the page, or do they break EL? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 22:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
There are already several opinions citing the parts of the relevant policy that these links violate. None of the disagreeing opinions have addressed these concerns. Until they do, there is no consensus to include the links and so we should not. To the editors who propose including the links, please explain why these links do not (as others have suggested) violate various parts of link policy. -- Cheeser1 ( talk) 22:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The reference quoted below, dose not reflect the statement in the article. The article states: "This was due to their strong involvement in the street violence (Kale Borroka) of the Basque Country."
The reference states they were arrested on suspicion of belonging to Segi.
"The youths were arrested on suspicion of belonging to Segi, one of three Basque organizations that the Supreme Court ruled last month were terrorist organizations. The groups, known as Jarrai, Haika and Segi, had already been outlawed - but not placed on the country's terrorist list - before the court's Jan. 19 ruling."
Could we have the statement changed to reflect what the sources says before re-adding it. -- Domer48 ( talk) 11:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
The above reference contradicts the other reference which says the youthe were charged with "public disturbances," and not with membership of Segi. This reference dose not support the statement quoted above. "Police in Pamplona arrested two youths for public disturbances, said a spokesman..." "'Police arrested a 17-year-old on charges of public disturbance, she said." In addition this sourse states that "The police are absolutely certain these incidents are linked to (outlawed youth organisation) Segi,' the spokesman said." But the youths were not charged with membership, but for "public disturbances." -- Domer48 ( talk) 11:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
My referenced text:
“ | In its decision, on 27th February 2007, the Grand Chamber of the ECJ (European Union and the Court of Appeal) dismissed the appeal of the Basque human rights organisation “Gestoras Pro Amnistia” and SEGI against the dismissal by the CFO of its claim for damages suffered as a result of inclusion in the “terrorist list”.
[1]The UK intervened, with Spain, on behalf of the Council – the only other EU state to do so. Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the
help page).The UK intervened, with Spain, on behalf of the Council – the only other EU state to do so. </ref>Case C-354/04 P,
|
” |
You can not make changes like that without referencing it. Introducing "illegal Basque human rights organisation" is wrong. Now, before you alter referenced information, please use the talk page. You can add as much referenced information as you please, just ensure that it reflects what the source says, otherwise it will be challenged and removed. -- Domer48 ( talk) 20:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with the information, and would suggest it alonge side the referenced information as you yourself have suggested. Just do not dismember a referenced source with an alternative one thats all. -- Domer48 ( talk) 09:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Please read what I have said, "You can add as much referenced information as you please, just ensure that it reflects what the source says, otherwise it will be challenged and removed." That is all I'm saying, did the ECJ call them "illegal?"
-- Domer48 ( talk) 09:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
References
This is not an Ogra Shinn Féin soapbox. As it stood until I changed it, most of this article was taken up with Ógra Shinn Féin statements calling for the release of Segi activists. Following the Wikipedia guidelines WP:SOAP and WP:UNDUE, I summarised this recently added content.-- Damac ( talk) 23:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Read the policies before you try to use them, and get down of your soap box. You have again removed referenced information, based on a policy you have not read. -- Domer48 ( talk) 08:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Damac, great how it is now. It says it all keeping that section in a suitable size and with the references properly used. Escorial82 ( talk) 08:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the reference to a motion passed at an OSF congress - it just leads to their home page, which doesn't mention it. Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 10:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article be at SEGI? That's what it is referred to throughout the article. Comments? - R. fiend ( talk) 20:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
What exactly dose the tag on the top of the article mean. Will someone actually check it? The reason I ask, is that the references do not reflect what is on the article, and some of the references appear in Spanish and Frence, when English versions exist for the same ones. I will put it on my to do list, but if the question I pose at the start could be answered it would be helpful. -- Domer48 ( talk) 20:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Page moved to "Segi (organization)" -- per Jenks24's observation, the disambiguation was kept as-is and moved to Segi. Not a clear enough case for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to supersede the disambig page. -- Hadal ( talk) 02:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
SEGI →
Segi – External links feature only capitalise the first letter
[1]
[2] as in Jarrai or Labour, unlike acronyms like ETA or IRA.
Javierme (
talk) 23:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Segi (organization). 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)