Jump to content

Talk:Cross and Sword

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Statement in Article

[edit]

"while St. Augustine's decline as a tourist destination in the last part of the 20th century led to lower ticket sales."

I've reverted this and apparently, Mgreason disagrees. Here's the ref in question. http://www.lostparks.com/crossandsword.html

First, I question the validity of that source as a ref. Secondly, while it might make for a fine narrative or hypothesis, I seriously question the notion that St. Augustine declined as a tourism destination in the last part of the 20th century.

Even if we were to concede that (which I absolutely do not- as someone who lived there during that time and saw the reality myself, I would bet real-world cash against that statement being true), the correlation between declining interest in the C&S play and regional tourism statistics doesn't establish causation. Anecdotally speaking, based on my own observations as someone who worked in the tourism industry in St. Aug for quite a while, it was more attributable to changing public sentiments and tastes, which is also why other stalwarts of St. Augustine tourism (such as the Tragedy Museum) closed, however I'm not trying to make the case for that to be put in the article.

I believe the ref cited is very tenuous. I'm open to discussing this in the context of demonstrable facts. LoverOfArt (talk) 08:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you believe that this article should rely on your personal opinion rather than a tenuous reference? Can you find a source that supports your position? Mgrē@sŏn 13:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Struggle with logic, much? The point I'm making is that the reference cited does not rise to the standard accepted as fact. I noticed the fallacious statement as being something that ran contrary to my own observations and wasn't too surprised to see the citation wasn't from a reliable source, ergo, the delete. 184.78.52.121 (talk) 03:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that in Wikipedia, you can't use your 'own observations' when editing an article. Wikipedia:Verifiability states:

"Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.[1] When reliable sources disagree, their conflict should be presented from a neutral point of view, giving each side its due weight."

I'm going to request that an uninvolved 3rd party administrator review this and give an opinion on how the article should be worded. Mgrē@sŏn 03:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cross and Sword. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 17:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cross and Sword. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 20:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cross and Sword. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 21:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

St. Augustine

[edit]

{{Copied | from = Cross and Sword | to = St. Augustine, Florida | diff = https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=St._Augustine,_Florida&diff=prev&oldid=1171015798}} Mgrē@sŏn (Talk) 14:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cross_and_Sword&oldid=1201246086"