Talk:Flamenco/Archive 2

Recent additions
Hello, I have reverted your recent additions as they come from an unreliable source, the tourism board of Andalusia is not a scholarly peer reviewed source, and they contradict the established consensus that is built upon over 12 academic sources from the top Flamenco historians. I would recommend looking over the very extensive discussions that have led to the current consensus. If you’d like to change the current consensus, please start a talk page discussion that presents reliable sources that could be used to consider a new consensus. Cheers.  Tagawor  Shah  (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I won't entertain this kind of narrative whereby Flamenco is attributed to the Roma people- which it isn't. It is Southern Spanish and I shall, with more time and passing this sort of watchdog censorship which attempts by any means possible to separate 'Spanish' from Middle-Eastern, using in this instance the Romas. Quite laughable. Melroross (talk) 22:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox for your opinions on what narratives are correct or incorrect to be included, we base articles on reliable historical scholarship. The current consensus version was based on an entire month of extensive conversation that involved dozens of reliable historical sources, none of which I may add support the changes you are trying to make. Please remember to be civil, Wikipedia is not a battleground, comments should be focused on discussing the content based on reliable sources, not negating the work of other editors based on your own personal opinions. Also, “Romas” is not a word, the word Roma is already plural. Again, there is currently an established consensus in place based on peer reviewed reliably published flamenco specialists. If you want to change the current consensus, please bring forward any reliable sources to create a new one. If not, I will not support any additions based on poorly sourced information that contradicts the multitude of reliable sources present.  Tagawor  Shah  (talk) 06:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You sound very desperate to try and impose YOUR tunnel-vision viewpoints. Research and researchers can manipulate the truth if looking for or trying to discard specific data. One reminder: who are you or anyone to that fact, to dictate what is a reliable, impartial source? Wikipedia is open to everyone to contribute to. Try bearing that in mind. Seasons Greetings! Melroross (talk) 10:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


 * This is an encyclopedia not a forum, what constitutes a reliable source is clearly layed out for us in the Wikipedia guidelines (WP:RS), I would suggest you go take a look at them. If you believe that researchers are somehow “twisting” the truth, im afraid Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs, here we go by what the consensus among academic sources is, not user input of what the consider to be right or wrong. While Wikipedia is open to everyone, there are certain guidelines, reliable sourcing and consensus being huge ones, that editors must follow, this is not a forum, try bearing that in mind. And please stop casting aspersions about my “viewpoints,” you don’t know my viewpoints, I am focused on what the sources say because I am here to build and accurate and reliable encyclopedia.  Tagawor  Shah  (talk) 14:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)