This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Tourism in Vatican City 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: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
}}
Hi, everyone. This is a talk page. It's where people go so they can talk about an article, instead of just edit-warring endlessly or abusing admin rights by making empty threats on user's talk pages. This means you, User:Schrandit and User:Gentgeen.
Recently, these two Catholic partisans were offended by the casual mention, made in this article, of the issue of Vatican City's legitimacy as a state, so they banded together to censor Wikipedia. It's a simple fact that the VC's statehood is a very unique case and has been disputed. It's also a simple fact that the article I linked to, at the reputable Standing Group on International Relations web site, not only mentions the dispute but points out the VC's inability to use economic sanctions and the need for tourism to bolster the presence of a micro-nation.
Now we come to the reliable source dilemma. If I were to spell out the fact that, if not for tourism, VC would have an economy based entirely on charity, then I'd be accused of original research. If I let the facts speak for themselves, however, certain people would pretend not to be able to see the connection. Instead, I will present the dilemma and wait for third parties to join in the fray.
In the meantime, visit my talk page to see how User:Gentgeen abused his admin privileges to try to bully me into silence, and how he was unable to respond to my accusation and instead took sides in this conflict among editors instead of remaining neutral. People like him deserve not only to have their admin bit flipped back to zero, but their banned bit set to one. I would say that rogue admins like User:Gentgeen are a disgrace to Wikipedia, but the sad fact is that they're pretty much par for the course. Spotfixer ( talk) 03:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Here's what User:Gentgeen wrote on my talk page:
Gentgeen is either lying or lazy. You decide.
All I know is that even a quick search for "Vatican" would have brought up the following sentence:
Contrast this with the claim that "It never calls into question the legitimacy of the Vatican's statehood." (sic)
As for tourism, another quick search brings up:
Once again, it speaks for itself, at least if you stop counting on your rosary long enough to listen. The real question, though, is not the source of Gentgeen's errors but why he should be allowed to censor Wikipedia based on them. Spotfixer ( talk) 03:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The sentence that I tagged was the unsourced statement "It (Tourism in Vatican City) is also of political value for the Vatican State, which relies on the high number of international visitors to back its claims on statehood." The source you put up didn't back that claim. Developing a roundabout proof implying that the Vatican needs revenue from Tourism (which would be OR) in order to maintain a sizable economy in order meet the standards of statehood generally observed in the 17th centuries is a stretch at best. You're not being persecuted by some evil Catholic cabal, your source just didn't back the claim, its not a big deal. - Schrandit ( talk) 09:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Tourism in Vatican City 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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
}}
Hi, everyone. This is a talk page. It's where people go so they can talk about an article, instead of just edit-warring endlessly or abusing admin rights by making empty threats on user's talk pages. This means you, User:Schrandit and User:Gentgeen.
Recently, these two Catholic partisans were offended by the casual mention, made in this article, of the issue of Vatican City's legitimacy as a state, so they banded together to censor Wikipedia. It's a simple fact that the VC's statehood is a very unique case and has been disputed. It's also a simple fact that the article I linked to, at the reputable Standing Group on International Relations web site, not only mentions the dispute but points out the VC's inability to use economic sanctions and the need for tourism to bolster the presence of a micro-nation.
Now we come to the reliable source dilemma. If I were to spell out the fact that, if not for tourism, VC would have an economy based entirely on charity, then I'd be accused of original research. If I let the facts speak for themselves, however, certain people would pretend not to be able to see the connection. Instead, I will present the dilemma and wait for third parties to join in the fray.
In the meantime, visit my talk page to see how User:Gentgeen abused his admin privileges to try to bully me into silence, and how he was unable to respond to my accusation and instead took sides in this conflict among editors instead of remaining neutral. People like him deserve not only to have their admin bit flipped back to zero, but their banned bit set to one. I would say that rogue admins like User:Gentgeen are a disgrace to Wikipedia, but the sad fact is that they're pretty much par for the course. Spotfixer ( talk) 03:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Here's what User:Gentgeen wrote on my talk page:
Gentgeen is either lying or lazy. You decide.
All I know is that even a quick search for "Vatican" would have brought up the following sentence:
Contrast this with the claim that "It never calls into question the legitimacy of the Vatican's statehood." (sic)
As for tourism, another quick search brings up:
Once again, it speaks for itself, at least if you stop counting on your rosary long enough to listen. The real question, though, is not the source of Gentgeen's errors but why he should be allowed to censor Wikipedia based on them. Spotfixer ( talk) 03:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The sentence that I tagged was the unsourced statement "It (Tourism in Vatican City) is also of political value for the Vatican State, which relies on the high number of international visitors to back its claims on statehood." The source you put up didn't back that claim. Developing a roundabout proof implying that the Vatican needs revenue from Tourism (which would be OR) in order to maintain a sizable economy in order meet the standards of statehood generally observed in the 17th centuries is a stretch at best. You're not being persecuted by some evil Catholic cabal, your source just didn't back the claim, its not a big deal. - Schrandit ( talk) 09:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)