Talk:Maurist Party

Ask for references
May the user source the information "the Maurist Party organization became the Constitutional Centre in 1930" with solid sources instead of relying in his personal interpretation of a non-exhaustive chronology published in a (crappy) webpage ? Fallacy: as that chronology establishes at some point the creation of a "Maurist Party" therefore (SYNTH!) when it later says maurists join whatnot it can only mean the organization became that new organization (fail).--Asqueladd (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi pal, I already solved that about 10 minutes before your rather violent rant here. I obviously acknowledged that the sentence was wrong, so I re-edited it to match what the source say. And I don't think you need to be so rude to note on such a thing, actually.
 * Btw, it's not for us to judge whether a source is "crappy" unless there's proof on the contrary. So far, the historiaelectoral.com website is one of the most well-documented on Restoration politics, and on Spanish politics as a whole. If you can find a better source, do it, but then if you can't, I'm unable to comprehend what are you using as a basis to judge this one as "crappy". Impru20 (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * You have solved nothing. I don't think I have been violent to you, who in turn have passively-agressively adressed me as pal. You have created a fork based on flimsy grounds also making synth of the flimsy sources. You can start citing what secondary sources tell in that regard: that three leading mauristas (Silió, Gabriel Maura, Goicoechea) were (with Cambó and Ventosa) among the founders of such party (that was born dead) in March 1931 (not 1930, so much for the reliability of the webpage) or at least what your source tells (instead of your interpretation from it): that "(Gabriel) Maura and Goicoechea" (who where Maurists) created such party in 1930.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC) Of course we can evaluate the crappiness of a source reading Identifying reliable sources


 * Fallacy, fail, consistent use of capital letters and bold text in your sentence... well, if pal sounds "passive-aggressive" to you, then imagine what does that look to me.
 * Well, if you know so perfectly well what happened... why don't you go and add it yourself instead of coming here commanding others to do it in such an aggressive behaviour? This page was created because 1) the party existed, and 2) for use in election articles.
 * Again, if you have so very-well documented sources for your claims, then come here with them. But you only come here seemingly despising everything and not even putting forward any solution (well, yes, the one you suggested was already worked out 10 minutes before you even proposed it...). I don't know how it feels for you, but it definitely seems rude for me. Impru20 (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I can source what I have told (that those maurists created such party in that time). If you don't revert me because it doesn't fit your infobox template, your fork article, your electoral infoboxes purposes or whatnot. I cannot source that the "Maurist Party" was not "transformed" into the "Constitutional Centre" (a probatio diabolica). Nor you can do the opposite. Because your source doesn't even say that.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, then please, be bold and source it. The source will indeed be useful for the article. But if you have the source, I can't understand how you pretend to ask others to do a job you can do yourself.
 * I already removed the "transformation"-thing, which was wrong, and did it before you even complained about it, so stop it.
 * With all due respect, but stop being so disrespectful to me and I may care to keep in this discussion with you. Impru20 (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)