Talk:Jean-Pierre Pury

Nationality
Hello Sapphorain, I have reverted your edits regarding nationality. I have started a conversation on that topic for this article, and for David de Pury, on the later's talk page here. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sapphorain, I have again reverted your edits, which you also made on David de Pury. Another editor, Aciram, informed you that "Wikipedia policy is to categorize from present day nationality and that part of Prussia is Swiss now. Its the same things with all other countries." Furthermore, the sources used in this article refer to Pury as Swiss. Please stop making this revision, as it is not constructive and, to be quite honest, overcomplicates the matter entirely. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have tried to explain to this user, for several years now, that nationality-categories follows present borders. When no longer excisting nations have their own categories, these categories are in turn sub-categories of present day nations. This user have always insisted on making Switzerland and Geneva an expection to this principle, and I do not have the energy to argue, but I hope someone else may some day deal with the issue and explain to this user, perhaps on their personal talk page, or in a wikpedia dispute discussion. I have never had the time or energy.--Aciram (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It appears that this situation is not only occuring on English Wikipedia, but also on the German and French language articles for David de Pury and Jean-Pierre Pury. If it continues, I will try to start a dispute discussion. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not an issue of David de Pury and Jean-Pierre Pury, but an issue of all articles prior to the unification of Switzerland. Look at the articles in for example "18th-century Swiss people" and you will find many more examples were this user has attempted to remove them from being sorted as Swiss. In many cases I did not have the energy to argue, and some articles of Swiss people simply have no nationality-categorization at all, and you can find them loose in categories like "18th-century writers" without being sorted by nationality at all. This is an old problem going back several years. I have tried to explain this in numerous articles over the years. I am happy if you have the energy to adress this issue.--Aciram (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, the proposition that "nationality-categories follows present borders" is a private opinion of two contributors in this discussion, and not a general policy. It would lead to endless absurdities due to anachronisms, such as categorizing Julius Caesar as an Italian, or diplomats of the Republic of Geneva discussing with Swiss authorities as being Swiss themselves. Etc...--Sapphorain (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As I stated before, the sources refer to Pury as Swiss. Examples: "Swiss colonizer Jean Pierre Purry", "Jean Pierre Purry, a wine maker in Switzerland", "Jean Pierre Purry, a Swiss Huguenot", "Swiss colonizer Jean Pierre Purry", "Jean-Pierre Purry, a native of Switzerland", "Born in Neuchâtel, Switzerland, Purry.. Swiss settlers". Removing him from Swiss categories makes the categorization and organization of articles much more complicated. Your edits are not constructive nor do they help make a more accessible and readable article. While the lead could certainly refer to him as being "Prussian", it makes more sense for him to be included in Swiss categories such as "Category:Swiss explorers" and "Category:Swiss wine merchants" than it does for him to be in just "Category:wine merchants". -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That he was a citizen of Neuchâtel is a fact. That he died before Neuchâtel joined Switzerland is also a fact. He was never a Swiss citizen. Sources that claim the contrary are simply misinformed and denying historical verifiable facts. The justification of simplification is already very disputable when it creates imprecisions; it is simply unacceptable when it allows statements that are plainly wrong. It might be true that "Removing him from Swiss categories makes the categorization and organization of articles much more complicated ». Well, too bad, but that's much better than stating false information.  --Sapphorain (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No one is arguing that he wasn't a citizen of Neuchâtel (which would make him Prussian, as I stated above). No one is arguing that he died after Neuchâtel joined the Confederation, either. You say, "Well, too bad", but the categories you created (i.e. "Protestants, Explorers, Philanthropists, Expatriates, Bankers, etc from the Principality of Neuchâtel) were all deleted or merged with Swiss categories as shown at here and here. Therefore, he should be categorized in these Swiss categories because they were merged together, and you keep removing him from them. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Just a remark. I would strongly support the idea to start a dispute discussion, but if you do, I suggest you do not limit yourself to adressing simply this article, but rather this user's tendency to make Switzerland the exception to the rule when refusing to categorize people of former countries within modern national borders. Of course people of former countries should foremost be placed in categories of their former countries, when such categories excist; but these categories are themselwes also sub-categories of the modern nations they belong to. This user have always refused to adjust to this praxis and wished to make Switzerland an exception. This article is merely one example of this. My point is: if you take this to a wikipedia dispute discussion, please highlight the entire problem. --Aciram (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * (1) I did not create any of the categories you mention. (2) They were deleted because of an insufficient number of pages in it, but they were not merged into Swiss categories. (3) Therefore the statement «  Therefore, he should be categorized in these Swiss categories because they were merged together » is incorrect and doesn’t make sense. If (and only if) there is a consensus consisting in a significant number of contributors (more than 2 …) on putting individuals who were not Swiss into Swiss categories, I would strongly insist in including a clear warning in the page, to the effect that the subject is not Swiss in any sense, but categorized as such for convenience purposes. --Sapphorain (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * so are you saying you did not read the discussion result which stated that to merge all? I see no need to put a warning template above the category section.. but if that is what it takes, then fine. I would suggest referring to him as a "Prussian" in the lead (and including a note after the fact explaining that Neufchâtel was, at that time, a principality in the Kingdom of Prussia) and sorting him in Swiss categories for organizational and accessibility purposes. Thoughts? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I did follow the discussion, and the issue was merge all into Category:People from Neuchâtel, not into a Swiss category (now of course People of Neuchâtel is a subcategory of a Swiss category, but at least the term « Swiss » is not used, thus giving a hint that one needs to be cautious). I am still very strongly opposed to putting this type of pages in « nationality-categorization that follow present day borders », which I still consider as the personal opinion of only two contributors in this discussion, and would not agree to your proposal until a clear consensus is possibly reached amongst a quite larger community of contributors.--Sapphorain (talk) 06:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)