Talk:Casa Pueblo

Move?

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: move. --  tariq abjotu  17:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Casa Pueblo Puerto Rico → Casa Pueblo – Potentially controversial move was not discussed. I am submitting this request per the instructions on this request page (Specifically, "If the page has recently been moved without discussion, you may revert the move and initiate a discussion on its talk page. If you are unable to revert, request it below. " Regards. --Relisted. jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC) Relisted. BDD (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC) Mercy11 (talk) 13:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Casa Pueblo may refer to several place names or organizations in Spanish-speaking areas. Move to Casa Pueblo (Puerto Rico)? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, Casa Pueblo, when spelling is considered, is the name of only one place: the one in Puerto Rico. Of the other two names, one (Casapueblo) is disimilar since it is a single word, not two words, and does not capitalize the "P" in the "pueblo" part; and the other (Casa del pueblo) is even more dissimilar yet since it consists of three words, not two, and does not capitalize the "P" in the "pueblo" part, plus it introduces a new word altogether ("del"). What is truw is that the three places/organizations (and particularly Casa Pueblo and Casapueblo) do indeed have names that sound the same.
 * As for your question/suggestion to move Casa Pueblo Puerto Rico -> Casa Pueblo (Puerto Rico), well, you know that has already happened since you went ahead and did it yourself (HERE) !
 * My name is Mercy11 (talk) 13:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.


 * Question. What happens to the current page Casa Pueblo? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am going to respond to your question but will make no reference to the "current" because several moves of the contender articles and their disambigution pages have occured since this Move was requested on 13:24, 12 June 2013 and, thus, the use of the word "current" would be ambiguous (it has different meanings depending on what time when you are viewing the "Casa Pueblo" article that you are wikilinking to).
 * IMO, Casa Pueblo should be the one of the three articles that is actually named "Casa Pueblo", both officially as well as customarily in English language sources. There could then be also a "Casa Pueblo" disambiguation page that takes care of listing wikilinks to all three articles.


 * Comments. The are only two contender articles in this matter, and I do not see any conflict that would had generated the original unilateral move since the two entities, one an environmental org in Puerto Rico, the other a castle/museum in Uruguay, are not spelled identically any way - hatnotes would had sufficed perfectly. I propose hatnotes. Mercy11 (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In addition, according to WP:hatnote, hatnotes and -not- a disambiguation page is the standard practice in this case.
 * In addition, the unilateral, no discussion, move by the other editor gave preferential treatment to one of the two articles, that is, to "Casapueblo". This shouldn't have been - unless one of the articles is more widely known than the other. This is also not the procedurally acceptable, per WP:move.
 * The cards are also stacked against "Casapueblo" of Uruguay in that it is lesser known than "Casa Pueblo" in Puerto Rico (Uruguay's 0.5 million hits to Puerto Rico's 1.5 million hits). Per WP:Disambiguation.
 * I have included the hatnotes for both contender articles; they are the solution that needed to be implemented form the start and also moved and created a disambiguation page for the other instance to keep everything neatly in sync.
 * Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments Update. A third "contender" surfaced (Casa del pueblo) since this move request was started. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 13:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.


 * Question. If the decision is not to move as proposed, is Casa Pueblo (organization) a better target? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all, I am not sure what you mean by the first half of your question ("If the decision is not to move as proposed") as it seems to be somewhat ambiguous. It could be read to mean "If the decision is not to move [from Casa Pueblo (Puerto Rico) to Casa Pueblo] as [it has been] proposed [by X editor above]..." or to mean "If the decision is [reached] not to move [from Casa Pueblo (Puerto Rico) to Casa Pueblo] as proposed [by the nominator]...". Perhaps you may want to rephrase your question. Thanks.
 * In any event, IMO, I don't believe this case requires alternative qualifications, i.e., "(organization)". The two contenders (now potentially 3 with the surfacing of Casa del pueblo (Spain)) are all spelled differently, with different use of spaces and different capitalization of words. Seems to me that what we need are 3 disambiguation pages (Casa del pueblo, Casa Pueblo, and Casapueblo) and, then, (per WP:TITLE: article titles should be "no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects") to move the three articles as follows
 * Casa del pueblo (Spain) -> Casa del pueblo
 * Casa Pueblo (Puerto Rico) -> Casa Pueblo
 * Casapueblo (Uruguay) -> Casapueblo
 * If a consensus is reached here to move a single article, IMO that article should be, as nominated, Casa Pueblo (Puerto Rico) -> Casa Pueblo, because it is, of the 3 articles, the only one so named (spacing, capitalization and all) and the most documented in English language literature as I showed above. This seems to be the simplest and most obvious solution as well as the one called for by policy (that is, per WP:TITLE, where it states that the ideal article title resembles titles for similar articles, precisely identifies the subject, and is short, natural, and recognizable.), since an overwhelming number of English language sources use "Casa Pueblo" to refer to the organization in Puerto Rico.
 * My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.


 * I can't really tell what's going on here, but I support all three moves in Mercy11's indented list above. No disambiguation pages necessary; each can link to the others in a hatnote. Partial title matches and translations need not muddy the waters. --BDD (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Move but keep the disambiguation page where it is, or move it to casa-pueblo, as a useful link, since "People's House" (casa pueblo) and "House of the People" (casa del pueblo) is grammatically equivalent. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Casa Pueblo's mission
I am reinstating the mission information into this article. For some odd reason, their website currently appears to have done away with its mission statement. However, the mission information that follows was at their site when the article was created on 30 March 2012 (It was in Spanish back then and I translated it as their site in march 2012 was only available in Spanish).

(Mission statement as it read at Casa Pueblo's website on 30 March 2013: ) "Casa Pueblo's mission is to explore, enjoy, and protect the wild places in Puerto Rico; To practice and promote the responsible use of the land's ecosystems and resources; To educate and enlist others to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment; and to use all lawful means to carry out these objectives."

In any event, the mission statement is consistent with that which the organization does; I don't think any reasonable person with have a problem with it. As such, it pasess WP:BLPGROUP which be the only real concern here. As for the statement "if supporting source is found, it must be made clear that it is a claim 'Casa Pueblo says that its mission is...')", found at the edit summary HERE, I am not aware of any WP:PG where this is stated.  Mercy11 (talk) 02:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This is only an organisation's claims, even if sourced (which it's not). This is really a pointless issue; it's far more relevant and meaningful to say that the organisation has done such-and-such (with 3rd-party source) than that it claims so-and-so. A list of campaigns it has "been involved in" also doesn't say anything if the involvement isn't detailed and sourced - did they provide funding, send people out to do things (how many man-hours?), mention the campaign in a newsletter seen only by members? I'm not trying to criticise the organisation or say anything is false, but information does need to be objective and supported. Before any comment is made, it should be considered if the arguments could also be applied to an organisation whose mission statement is "support family values and traditions, help the motherland" which actually is violent and oppressive; there are plenty of examples. I repeat, Casa Pueblo seems admirable, but the article needs to stand on facts, not waffle.  Opinions on this from a range of people would be useful. Pol098 (talk) 11:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)  [later] As an example here are the admirable headings of the mission statement of the toxic English Defence League:


 * 1) HUMAN RIGHTS
 * 2) DEMOCRACY AND THE RULE OF LAW
 * 3) PUBLIC EDUCATION
 * 4) RESPECTING TRADITION
 * 5) INTERNATIONAL OUTLOOK
 * Following Mercy11's thinking, it would be quite all right to say "The EDL's mission is to support HUMAN RIGHTS, DEMOCRACY AND THE RULE OF LAW, PUBLIC EDUCATION, RESPECTING TRADITION, and INTERNATIONAL OUTLOOK. Pol098 (talk) 13:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Pol098, I agree with a lot of your points. I am not familiar enough with the EDL to speak with sufficient authority on that, but a brief look at that article (protection lock, "extreme right wing" labeling in first statement of the lead section, a mouthful of cites in the lead section, etc) seems to indicate it has been quite controversial. This is not the case with Casa Pueblo. So I don't think we can compare the two. I do agree that if a section is not sourced we should label it accordingly (which you did - thanks). Also, I am not sure what WP:PG you might have been thinking of, but so far as I know, there is nothing that prevents us from using an organization's own website to support statements about themselves. According to WP:SELFPUB, "Self-published...sources may be used as sources of information about themselves".


 * I agree with you that it is very useful to say that an organization has "done such-and-such" - and there is no lack of that for Casa Pueblo. But the article is a work-in-progress; it was created only last year, and you are the first editor to have noticed it and made any contribution. Perhaps you can expand it in those areas that you see as beneficial since you are the strongest crusader for it so far. That doesn't mean I wont help as I can. On the contrary, thanks for your tips - As I come across more information I will be sure to keep adding cites which appears to be one of your points.


 * I am removing the entry you made referencing me via a wikilink, "According to an editor" as that is not the way we deal with these situations in Wikipedia; instead we use the Unreferenced template, which you already did. Thanks for your sections header tips - I intend to use them, albeit in a much less "toxic" manner than EDL! Mercy11 (talk) 01:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Basically I disagree, and maintain what I said. Regardless of lawyer-like examining of guidelines (which aren't rules), any form of editing which legitimately allows a really nasty organisation to be described in a totally, false, benevolent way because it has an anodyne mission statement is to be deprecated. I should think the guidelines can be searched to find examples, but I'm not interested in doing any more. This disagreement has been aired enough for someone else to contribute, so I will leave the text as it is, though I think it's totally inappropriate. (A guideline I could quite legitimately apply is that unsourced text should be deleted, not flagged.) The English Defence League probably needed more context; for anybody who reads this my meaning is that even totally evil organisations publish mission statement and other material that presents them in a beautiful light (the EDL is an easily-found example of a malevolent organisation masquerading as benevolent); quoting a mission statement as fact (as this article now does, without even a citation) rather than making clear it is what the organisation says of itself. I encourage others to edit this article as they find appropriate. Pol098 (talk) 09:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC) Later qualification: I see that the text has been altered to reflect that statements are what the organisation says, rather than definite fact; my comments apply most strongly to an earlier version. While I don't know the organisation, it seems worthy, and deserves a proper factual and sourced article saying what if has done, rather than PR. Pol098 (talk) 10:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)