Talk:Gandaulim (Ilhas)/Archive 2

Lead
Hi. A paucity of sources doesn't give us carte blanche to use unreliable sources and none of the sources is even remotely reliable (two are generated by unknown people and Times of India - which likes to use Wikipedia without attribution - is not reliable, especially for historical material). None of the three should be used in any Wikipedia article (but feel free to take them to WP:RSN if you disagree). Also, note that the lead should summarize the content of the article succinctly. The lead you've restored merely duplicates material in the body, which is pointless. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

What's the point of reverting good faith edits without giving any reasons?
Here are arguments for my (minor) edits that were reverted by User:TrangaBellam, with comment they are "not an improvement".
 * There is evidence for historical connections between Goa and Dubrovnik, as noted in the source by Andrijanić (2018), which seems the most reliable of the sources quoted. Andrijanić in turn cites the 1605 annals by Lukarević, which I can't corroborate (I can handle an 18 page searchable article in modern Croatian, but not a 220+ page facsimile in 17th century Italian). Noting that there's no historical evidence at all for a colony is of course correct, but saying this in the absence of pointing out there is evidence for a connection is misleading. Makes the residents of the two places seem deluded, whereas their beliefs do have historical grounding.
 * The fact that the local church was "lavishly decorated" by Ragusans is a direct translation of the wording by Andrijanić, which is a more reliable source than Tomas (2014).
 * Removed "sometime soon" in regards to Gomes Catão's reports, and replaced it by dating Catão to the last century. From a few web searches there seem to be at least two people named Gomes Catão who wrote on Goa, one Marcos who apparently passed last year, the other Francisco Xavier who published in the 1960s and is quoted copiously in the article on Chorão (island) in the same geographical region. I can't tell which one was meant by Tomas without looking into it further, but noting that these remarks were written in the 20th century seems reasonable. In contrast, "sometime soon" doesn't mean anything. Soon after 1605? Not likely.
 * The part about the town having the population of 12,000 with "wealthy ladies ... carried to the churches by slaves in canopies", taken I'm assuming from Tomas's piece, has no bearing on the subtance of this article. Without locating the original Gomes Catão source there's no way of knowing how well corroborated it is, and Tomas' suggestion that these might have been Ragusan gospoje is of course pure speculation.
 * If the note on which Dubrovnik church might've been a model for St. Blaise's in Gandaulim is at all included, moving it a sentence earlier seems fitting.

While my knowledge on the subject is not great, these changes seem to address some issues with the (fairly messy) article in light of the sources that are quoted. Specifically it seems it's best to rely on Andrijanić and Mirkovich as much as possible rather than Tomas, and this is an incremental step in that direction. While I understand why people are prone to quick reactions in response to thoughtless and badly sourced edits, which I do see in this article's history, I am submitting good faith work which is as considered as possible given these sources and my own time limitations. Would appreciate actual arguments on how any of it is "not an improvement" prior to reversion.

Many thanks. – MirancheT C 22:24, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The discussion in the article points to there being no evidence ("elusive" is, apparently, the operative word there). The lead should summarize the body of the article and "no historical evidence" is more accurate than "no sufficient evidence". --RegentsPark (comment) 23:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm reading the rest of the article and it is very poorly written. Not cohesive at all and there is too much emphasis on the Ragusan connection, a connection that appears to be faint at best. If you want to rewrite the section so that it explains the why of the "popular memory" of the inhabitants of the village, go ahead. A brief exposition starting with "The inhabitants of Gandulim and Dubrovinik believe that ..." might not be a bad idea. What we have now is a bit of a mess. --RegentsPark (comment) 23:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a mess. There is, however, evidence for a connection, and I disagree it's faint. Decorating a church halfway across the world would have been a significant investment in 1500s for a state with between 50k and 100k population, the great majority of whom were peasants. With scant documentation that we have, taking this as indicating a more substantial commitment is not unreasonable -- not something that should be overstated, but also not discounted out of the question.
 * With this in mind, I am trying to tweak the mess that the article is. Don't have the time to rewrite it entirely at the moment, as this would require reading through the Mirkovich source in detail and trying to locate what Gomes wrote. I don't see the point of reverting the edits rather than trying to iron out whatever you believe is inadequate through tweaks of your own. I may be contributing little by what I'm doing, but you're not actually contributing anything by reverting it to a worse state. – MirancheT C 00:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call "no sufficient" a better state than "no historical". Write clearly, don't draw your own conclusions about the scale of investments, and you may not find yourself reverted. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:41, 10 December 2021 (UTC)