Content deleted Content added
m →Survey |
m →Survey |
||
Line 513:
:::: No, there's no need to debate the meaning of the word nation. Using sources to infer conclusions not explicitly stated violates [[WP:SYNTH]]. E.g the argument "this source says a nation is X and Alsatians are X and also clearly lack a state so Alsatians are a stateless nation" is forbidden. Reputable sources need to '''explicitly''' claim that ''Alsatians in particular'' are a stateless nation.[[User:ImTheIP|ImTheIP]] ([[User talk:ImTheIP|talk]]) 18:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
::::: {{tq|You wrote "If you don't like or you disagree with the inclusion criteria you can always start a new RfC," thus signalling that the debate had reached an impasse.}} Indeed I have but I thought you wanted to challenge the criteria, not the inclusion of specific groups. That's a completely different RfC you have started and I'm adding sources to the debate according to the inclusion criteria for the specific group you are challenging its inclusion. Had you started an RfC for the inclusion criteria themselves as I suggested, then the conversation would be completely different.
::::: {{tq|The sources have to be good enough for Wikipedia.}} I'm well aware of [[WP:RS]] policy - there's nowhere any mention about a source being ''good enough''. Every source has its own value (especially books and academic material, such as journal articles) and it cannot be dismissed
::::: {{tq|Reputable sources need to '''explicitly''' claim that ''Alsatians in particular'' are a stateless nation.}} You need to define what a reputable source is for you according to Wikipedia policies please. I provided a source that explicitly does that but you dismissed it without sufficient explanation (I can add Minahan's books as well - they are still considered reliable for Wikipedia). I also have to repeat here how much impressed I am by your selection bias. You should be aware that the current literature on "Stateless nations" is quite sparse. Among the more than 90 entries currently in the list you won't find more than a dozen with any sources available using the exact phrase "Stateless nation" to describe them. Yet, you have selectively decided to remove a few of them and you have selected only one of them to include in the RfC. That seems to me a lot like a [[WP:POINT]] strategy to be completely honest. There's a set of inclusion criteria that have gained consensus and all current entries follow these criteria. You can't add your own criteria for just some or one of the included entries. If you have any constructive changes to propose make an RfC for the actual inclusion criteria, not for the inclusion of Alsatians in the list which is very well supported by the current criteria that were already decided by consensus! --[[User:Argean|Argean]] ([[User talk:Argean|talk]]) 20:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
| |||