Talk:Venetian arsenal, Gouvia

Questionable section on "Conservation"

I have removed the following section from the article:

==Conservation and restoration proposals==

Spyridon Spyrou, the regional director of the Ionian Islands, submitted a plan to the Greek Ministry of Culture for the conservation and development of the ruins. The proposal includes the plans of the landmark which have been developed by the polytechnic of Bari which consist of photographs, historical analysis of the structure and diagrams. The study was funded by the European Union regional funding programme Interreg III Greece-Italy.

The application of the director, describes the current state of ruin and neglect of the arsenal which invites negative comments by visitors to the area, given the historical importance of the monument to the Ionian Islands and Greece, and suggests to the ministry the restoration of its walls and roof and its conversion to a Museum of the Sea. The application also includes mention of the support of the proposal by Mrs Rigakos, the director of the 21st Ephorate of Byzantine Antiquities of Greece, who approved of the idea calling it "very good and indispensable".

The ministry, in response to the application, has expressed interest in the idea, and has described the arsenal as a monument of high importance for the Venetian period of Corfu. The Ministry also explained that the arsenal is not yet eligible for the special government programme which provides funds for the development of the Greek provinces but suggested a joint funding project with the participation of the Ionian Islands directorate. The ministry also proposed that the gate of the monument be immediately repaired and structurally braced for safety reasons, suggesting the participation of the 21st Ephorate in any future repair works.

Apart from the non-encyclopedic tone (naming staff, uninteresting details, using press releases as sources, dead links, etc.), a major problem with this text is that the proposal was made in 2011 and, apparently, the response from the Ministry of Culture was "interesting, but no, sorry".
I think that the project does not deserve to be mentioned, until if and when it is approved.
All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 08:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

No, the proposal may need trimming, but cannot be removed in a wholesale fashion. It contains important information about how the arsenal is viewed by the government. So, again, no wholesale removals of sourced information. Please don't do this again. Dr. K. 04:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

You also removed the following paragraph:

The proposal includes the plans of the landmark which have been developed by the polytechnic of Bari which consist of photographs, historical analysis of the structure and diagrams. The study was funded by the European Union regional funding programme Interreg III Greece-Italy.[19]

Can you explain why you deleted this very important information about the study by an Italian university and its funding by an agency of the European Union? Dr. K. 06:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but, as explained above, Wikipedia is not a press release agency. It is not the place to announce projects that have been submitted to funding agencies but have not been approved yet. It is not to be used to gather political support. If and when the project gets approved, then a short note may be in order. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 09:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I think you are evading my very specific questions, and you are also exhibiting unWP:CIVil behaviour. This is not a good sign. Let me untangle this mess. First, these are facts supported by RS. Second, these facts are eminently important because they demonstrate how the monument is viewed by the various agencies of the Greek government. Third, they establish a timeline of the conservation efforts and deficiencies of this monument. Fourth, they are not press releases but facts supported by RS. Fifth, and I asked you that above, by deleting this section you also deleted the following paragraph:

The proposal includes the plans of the landmark which have been developed by the polytechnic of Bari which consist of photographs, historical analysis of the structure and diagrams. The study was funded by the European Union regional funding programme Interreg III Greece-Italy.[19]

Can you explain why you deleted this very important information about the study by an Italian university and its funding by an agency of the European Union? Finally, your comment It is not to be used to gather political support. is an abject failure of WP:AGF and a personal attack. Don't do this again. Dr. K. 14:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry if you took it as a personal attack; it was not the intention, and I in fact did not even refer to you or anyone else. Criticizing a text is not a personal attack on its author (and texts in Wikipedia do not "belong" to anyone).
Still, that text is clearly not appropriate. Just because something is a "fact" it does not mean that it is suitable for Wikipedia. Submission of a project to some agency, and what someone thought of it, is definitely not a fact that deserves mention -- even if it is true and supported by reliable sources.
Now that the project has been approved (a fact that was not mentioned in the text above), this fact deserves notice -- but without the details of submission, evaluation, etc..
On the other hand, the concert that was held to commemorate the grant is nowhere near the level of importance that would deserve mention. Again, please note that Wikipedia is not a news or press release agency.
As for the study by the Politecnico of Bari, I could not find any reference to it, neither in the Politecnico site nor in the Interreg site. Was it published somewhere? If so, please provide the bibliographic information (authors, title, date, how and where it was published, etc), or a link to the study, or at least a link to some official document or website that describes the study. The link that you provided is not working from here: the original (apparently a press release) is no longer available at the press agency, the archive site is not accessible here, and the quoted section (which was just copied into the text above) does not have any of that necessary information.
More generally, note that the purpose of any reference in Wikipedia is to make it possible for other editors to check some claim. To serve that purpose, the source document must be accessible, and of such nature that other editors can trust it.
Sincerely, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I get it. You don't want to own up to your WP:NPAs. Remember, PAs don't go away, even if you try to ignore them or not acknowledge them. So I advise you not to repeat them. As far as the university of Bari, this is supported by an RS. I have fixed the link through the Internet Archive and it works. I have no obligation to provide any further bibliography. Repeating to me WP:NOTREPOSITORY is nonsense. This information is important and it has nothing to do with that link. If you think that by repeating it I will be impressed, you are wrong. Dr. K. 20:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I have not engaged in any personal attacks, and you should not engage in them either.
The reasons why that text was removed were clearly stated, and are still unanswered. Merely repeating that "the information is important" does not make it so. Of course no one is obliged to provide sources; but no one has the right to have their claims included either. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I need no reminders about PAs as I have not engaged in any. That you fail to recognise yours, and instead you accuse me of them, is troubling. Of course no one is obliged to provide sources; Distortion of the facts will not work. I repeat: Everything is sourced. I also repeat: I have restored the Bari Polytechnic one through Internet archive and it works. I don't know how many times I have to repeat that. The 2011 proposal link does not work but it has details and quotations and per WP:LINKROT it should not be removed. I will add another equivalent source for the 2011 proposal in any case. Dr. K. 21:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Check all the times that you used the pronoun "you" in your comments, and check all the times I used it. Please do not make things worse.
The Bari Politechnic study claim is still not sourced. The link you provided is to a press release that (according to the piece you quoted) does not provide name, title, date, etc., and therefore does allow any editor or reader to check whether the claim is correct or not. I tried to verify it via Google and the search sites at Poliba and Interreg, but did not find anything. If I had found something, I would have gladly put the reference myself.
Now I am indeed suspicious that the press release may be too generous with its use of the word "study". That quote may well refer to a single page of the thesis of a Masters student from Poliba with an Interreg student grant, who took three pictures while on vacation and drew a sketchy map based on Google satellite images. How can we know?
See why we need a reference to the study?
--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Referring to your actions by using the personal pronoun is not a PA, so stop this line of defence. Here on Wikipedia we go by WP:RS, and WP:V. I have provided the RS and therefore WP:V is assured. Your attempt at deconstucting my RS by inventing scenarios is your own WP:OR and your problem, not mine. Dr. K. 23:25, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

[Resetting indentation]

• A press release is not a reliable source. It will not be one, even if you repeat your claim a million times.
  (By the way: you are not personally involved in that project, are you?
  All the best (in spite of everything), --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• I repeat once more: The study is not quoted by a press release but by a reliable source. Second, your question By the way: you are not personally involved in that project, are you? is a silly WP:NPA which only shows your aggressive stance during this pointless discussion. But if you insist on this type of clueless attacks I will report you. Take this as your final warning. By the way, I have a policy of not replying to stupid questions and PAs. Dr. K. 23:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

By all means report me if you think I have engaged in personal attacks.
I asked that question because there are wikipedia policies and guidelines about conflict of interest. Surely you know the right WP: tag for that.
Maybe you don't know, but a "news article" is when a staff member (reporter) of a news organization investigates some matter and writes an article based on her/his own findings. A "press release" is a text that some entity sends to a news or PR agency and gets published "as is". The line is often blurred because some reporters and some news organizations, big or small, often publish press releases pretending that they are news articles, perhaps with only cosmetic changes. The difference is whether the information has been critically reviewed, or has been accepted without any checking or critical judgement by an independent person.
A press release is not a reliable source. I just saw a case in Australia where an entrepreneur got a grant of $50 million from the government by claiming to have, among other things, the 15th largest supercomputer in the world. Supported not only by press releases, but by videos and even a supercomputer list maintained by respectable Berkeley professors. All fake; the computer simply did not exist, and he got it listed by tricking those profs.
A press release only proves that the entity that issued it made those claims; it is not evidence that the claims are true. It is fine to write "Enron claimed to have fantastic profits<ref=press release> but they were lying<ref=court documents>." Or even "Enron claims to have fantastic profits<ref=press release>". It is not ok to write "Enron had fantastic profits<ref=press release>"; this statement does not have a reliable source.
If that survey project was a specific project by Poliba and financed by Interreg, there should be some record somewhere in the sites of those organizations. I could try to find it if I had at least one author name, or a piece of the title. Do you know anything else about that study, other than what is said in the text that you quoted?
--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 05:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

You are doubling down with more silly insinuations about COI. I have told you already that I do not discuss stupid, sloppy, WP:AGF-defying, WP:NPA questions or insinuations yet you insist. You have converted this into a circus. I am not going to engage further your refusal to get the point. This is my last post here. The RS are on the article and WP:RS and WP:V are satisfied. No amount of walls of TLDR text in your reply will change that. Dr. K. 06:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)