Talk:Segi (organization)

Links removed because not neutral

I removed several links (4) that had been recently placed as references but are not correct either because they are not references or do not stand Wikipedia's criteria because they are not reliable and/or have restrictions Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/examples#Use_of_electronic_or_online_sources & WP:EL#Restrictions_on_linking.

I'll describe case by case:

• "Terrorist": Flag of Convenience? This page is only indirectly related to the topic of the article, and is of a "partisan group" (in Socialist Lawyer)
• State repression of the Basque movement Same as before (indirectly related), and its from an anarchist group (i.e. with not neutral)
• Freedom For SEGI This is not an independent source for the petition, but the petition itself with an online option for supporting it (i.e. for people to join). It doesn't say who made the petition, as anyone can put anything on that website.
• Youth Parties Guide Segi is not mentioned in that page as a member of the group

I therefore strongly see that they should be removed. Escorial82 (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

They are the reliable source.--La voz de su amo (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Give me reasons for it, as I said they don't respect Wikipedia's criteria. Read them and explain in detail (as I did for their removal) why each one is suitable (that they are directly related to the article and not from partisan organisations of ANY

ideology; I made a couple of clarifications in my previous comment). And don't remove the explanation (title) of two sources previously added, there's absolutely no reason for it. This is Wikipedia not a debate forum, and it has rules we all have to respect. Escorial82 (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to add: One of those links (petitiononline.com) had been already removed in the past by an administrator. Please don't make me contact him. Escorial82 (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong on all accounts. You are the POV. You are not a reliable source. These are.--La voz de su amo (talk) 10:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain why they are a suitable (related to the article and showing its the source of that particular thing and not something else) and reliable (from internationally respected media or non-partisan organisations)? You just say that they are; please say why in detail. Your comments in this article or others (Talk:ETA#Definition) show that you do nothing but defend your own personal ideas. Escorial82 (talk) 09:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Being from a non-partisan source does not make it an unreliable source - you read WP:RS and you know this. Prove it is not reliable.--La voz de su amo (talk) 12:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

One more thing - Segi is mention in the Youth Parties Guide link.--La voz de su amo (talk) 13:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I quote you here a few points on those WP pages we've been talking about:

• "Websites and publications of political parties, religious groups, anti-religious groups, or any other partisan group, may exhibit bias and should be treated with caution. Neither political affiliation nor religious belief stated in these sources are in themselves a reason not to use them, as these websites can be used to present the viewpoints of these groups, if properly attributed. Such sources should be presented alongside references from other sources in order to maintain a neutral point of view."

This means that they can only be mentioned as something like some people/groups defend... but not as a source in itself.

• "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research".

The article mentioned in the link no. 4 gives no evidence, only a text by someone.

• "Material from bulletin boards and forum sites, Usenet, wikis, blogs and comments associated with blog entries should not normally be used as sources. These media do not have adequate levels of editorial oversight or author credibility and lack assured persistence."

Petitiononline.com can be considered as a forum as it is a site where anyone can post anything defending certain opinions. Also, you mention it as a source for a petition made by Segi. That does not prove it since anyone can post it.

• Segi is indeed mentioned in the Youth Parties Guide, saying that the Ogra Shinn Fein would like to be allied to them as well as with others. It is in a subjunctive mood, meaning that they are not current allies. And the other parties mentioned are as potential allies to Ogra Shinn Fein, not current ones of Segi (that's two different things).

I insist that those 4 links you mention as "sources" lack such a neutrality and are placed in such a way that the article can be even considered as a page defending some particular ideas. That's why I ask an administrator to check for its neutrality. It's forbidden to remove that template until we've received a reply.

Escorial82 (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I have had a look at the sources, and apart from the petition, which can be useful if placed in context in the article, I consider the to be WP:V and WP:RS, that you don't agree with them is no reason to want to have them removed. --Domer48 (talk) 01:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have added "links" which I think are useful to editors who would like to read more about Segi. --Domer48 (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This link Ógra Sinn Féin International Affiliations: 'Our main affiliations would be with SEGI (Basque). --Domer48 (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your edits. As per WP:EL, blog links should not be included. The above link to rte.ie should be used as a reference, but not as an external link. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 18:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced links per WP:EL the meet the criteria outlined. --Domer48 (talk) 18:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You're not understanding. One link is to a blog, which violates WP:EL. The other three should be used as references in the article, not as external links. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 18:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll be more specific. Read this section. The three articles can be debated as reliable sources, but they should be used within the article. As for the blog, see WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, specifically, #12. Blogs are unacceptable. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 18:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

No I think you are the one that dose not understand, now of the links are blog sites, though one has a link to a blog site. Using WP:EL clearly supports their inclusion. --Domer48 (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I feel EL add to understanding of this group. BigDunc (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That does not address the concerns raised by the relevant policy. Please address those concerns. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia articles should include links to Web pages outside Wikipedia if they are relevant," which the links are. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; which it is. The information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, basiclly the amount of detail. They also comply with points to remember, Restrictions, in fact the whole host of guidlines in WP:EL. And if you notice my first post on this subject "I have added "links" which I think are useful to editors who would like to read more about Segi," and covered all the subject matter already in the article. --Domer48 (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hey. I'm okay with the removal of three of the four links that Escorial82 removed. The only link I'm wondering about is this one. I understand it's a partisan source, but it does validate that SEGI is part of the Basque youth movement. Listing it in that context seems acceptable to me, but I'm wondering what the counterargument is. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 17:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems like maybe it's more appropriate as a reference than a link (even if it is a primary or unreliable source). --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

Four links have been removed and re-added to this page a number of times - the ones listed in this edit. It seems that those links violate WP:EL, but two users (one of whom potentially shopped for the other?) disagree. Should the four links remain on the page, or do they break EL? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 22:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There are already several opinions citing the parts of the relevant policy that these links violate. None of the disagreeing opinions have addressed these concerns. Until they do, there is no consensus to include the links and so we should not. To the editors who propose including the links, please explain why these links do not (as others have suggested) violate various parts of link policy. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"several opinions citing the parts of WP:EL, name them? Who are they? Now I know it can not be Escorial82, because we were discussing WP:RS. I also know it is not La voz de su amo, because they too were discussing WP:RS. So who was discussing WP:EL, well there was me. Then there was HelloAnnyong, who said they went against WP:EL, and pointed to this being the reason. Now the links were at the time, not used as sources, so that one is out the window. They also linked to #12 "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." Now if you look at the "blog" you will see it is not a personal "blog" but is in fact used by a recognized group. So who else is there, well BigDunc is there, and they think they should be used. So who dose that leave? Yes, Cheeser1, who says "several opinions citing the parts of WP:EL. Several meaning HelloAnnyong and Cheeser1 obviously being the other. Now we also have this comment "(as others have suggested)" by Cheeser1. One question, who are the others, apart from HelloAnnyong that is? --Domer48 (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"There are a number of opinions about these links, and many cite WP:EL as prohibiting them..." (talk). In light of the above Cheeser1, can you explaine who this "number" and "many" are?--Domer48 (talk) 00:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you here to write an encyclopedia, or are you here to pick a fight? You need to seriously cool it. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed reference

The reference quoted below, dose not reflect the statement in the article. The article states: "This was due to their strong involvement in the street violence (Kale Borroka) of the Basque Country."

The reference states they were arrested on suspicion of belonging to Segi.

"The youths were arrested on suspicion of belonging to Segi, one of three Basque organizations that the Supreme Court ruled last month were terrorist organizations. The groups, known as Jarrai, Haika and Segi, had already been outlawed - but not placed on the country's terrorist list - before the court's Jan. 19 ruling."

Could we have the statement changed to reflect what the sources says before re-adding it. --Domer48 (talk) 11:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The above reference contradicts the other reference which says the youthe were charged with "public disturbances," and not with membership of Segi. This reference dose not support the statement quoted above. "Police in Pamplona arrested two youths for public disturbances, said a spokesman..." "'Police arrested a 17-year-old on charges of public disturbance, she said." In addition this sourse states that "The police are absolutely certain these incidents are linked to (outlawed youth organisation) Segi,' the spokesman said." But the youths were not charged with membership, but for "public disturbances." --Domer48 (talk) 11:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with one of the removals, but The Independent article does mention Segi's members involvement in street violence (which is the reason for the reference):

Members of the three groups have been involved in recent years in street violence in the Basque region, burning buses, throwing Molotov cocktails and torching ATMs

I therefore think it should be placed back.

Escorial82 (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

My referenced text:

“ In its decision, on 27th February 2007, the Grand Chamber of the ECJ (European Union and the Court of Appeal) dismissed the appeal of the Basque human rights organisation “Gestoras Pro Amnistia” and SEGI against the dismissal by the CFO of its claim for damages suffered as a result of inclusion in the “terrorist list”. The UK intervened, with Spain, on behalf of the Council – the only other EU state to do so. The UK intervened, with Spain, on behalf of the Council – the only other EU state to do so. </ref>Case C-354/04 P, ”

You can not make changes like that without referencing it. Introducing "illegal Basque human rights organisation" is wrong. Now, before you alter referenced information, please use the talk page. You can add as much referenced information as you please, just ensure that it reflects what the source says, otherwise it will be challenged and removed. --Domer48 (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll now add that "Gestoras" is considered an illegal organisation member of a terrorist group with its proper sources, as well as Segi (I added it yesterday with such sources and you removed it, i.e. you removed valid referenced information). With respect to the article of the "Fundación de Víctimas del Terrorismo" is very suitable to put, as WP:RS mentions that adding references from partisan groups (anarkismo.net) when Such sources should be presented alongside references from other sources in order to maintain a neutral point of view.

"Gestoras pro Amnistía" is not a human rights organisation (eventually a self-declared one, put it like that if you wish), as this was dismissed by the ECJ. I'll put it as illegal organisation, with the reference saying illegal as considered member of ETA, having the same source as Segi being such.

Domer48, you mention the need of discussing here any new thing and wait for approval before its introduction. You've added many things (e.g. about Sinn Fein's support) without doing it. Apply what you say to yourself.

Escorial82 (talk) 09:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the information, and would suggest it alonge side the referenced information as you yourself have suggested. Just do not dismember a referenced source with an alternative one thats all. --Domer48 (talk) 09:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read what I have said, "You can add as much referenced information as you please, just ensure that it reflects what the source says, otherwise it will be challenged and removed." That is all I'm saying, did the ECJ call them "illegal?"

Replaced the Statewatch link with one in the ECJ's website (same document but from a more reliable source)Escorial82 (talk) 09:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

--Domer48 (talk) 09:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

References

This is not an Ogra Shinn Féin soapbox

This is not an Ogra Shinn Féin soapbox. As it stood until I changed it, most of this article was taken up with Ógra Shinn Féin statements calling for the release of Segi activists. Following the Wikipedia guidelines WP:SOAP and WP:UNDUE, I summarised this recently added content.--Damac (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Do not remove referenced information. --Domer48 (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Apart from the obvious fact that a lot of this "information" comes from a blog, some of it is misleading. For example, there is a supposed list of organisations that Segi has links with. Click on the link and you'll see that OSF maintains links with this group. Assuming that Segi also has links with them is synthesis. In addition, there is no such organisation as Cuban Youth. As this page is about Segi, a one line reference that solidarity actions have been organised in Ireland suffices. I think it's ridiculous to see the names of OSF leaders mentioned prominently and not one mention of anyone connected with Segi. This article should state fact, and allow readers to follow up on OSF's policies if they so wish.

You're giving undue weight to OSF in this article; Wikipedia is not a soapbox.--Damac (talk) 07:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Given that the Ógra page doesn't mention Segi at all - I quite agree! Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 17:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Read the policies before you try to use them, and get down of your soap box. You have again removed referenced information, based on a policy you have not read. --Domer48 (talk) 08:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Independently of that being referenced or not, is it normal that about 40% of the article (by number of characters) is related to Sinn Fein's support and not Segi itself? That tends to make the article one about that topic in itself and not the Basque organisation. Escorial82 (talk) 09:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Counting it better (text itself as seen in the article, not all characters in the root source), the Sinn Fein section is 55% of the article (i.e. more than half) in number of words Escorial82 (talk) 09:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well done, Escorial82. The article seems OK now in that it focuses on the organisation in question and not the statements of some junior SF functionary in Ireland.--Damac (talk) 11:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not agreed. This is the important information and is English language for everyone. La voz de su amo (talk) 12:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

What's more important: Segi in itself or the details of the support of another organisation? This article is about Segi, so indeed a mention that they've received support is suitable, but not for it to be more than half (put it in another article) Escorial82 (talk) 13:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The other peoples are talking directly about SEGI - it is important. La voz de su amo (talk) 13:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Escorial82, I find your removal of sourced material from this article as disturbing, as it is clear from your userpage that you are clearly bias against ETA, so rather then deleting material why don't you help expand the article to give more detail on Segi.--Padraig (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is there so much prominence given to the youth wing of a party that only manages around 25% support in Northern Ireland and 8% in the Republic of Ireland, when the article is about a Basque youth organisation? Definitely a case of WP:UNDUE and WP:SOAPBOX. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 17:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Referenced != important. As an outsider to this dispute, the long quotes and tracts of text here take away from the focus on Segi. Personally I find the current summarized version of that section to be much more succinct; the sources from the other version could always be added as external links. Mostly, I'd like to reiterate that edit warring over this is lame and if you can't all agree, try a request for comment.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Damac, great how it is now. It says it all keeping that section in a suitable size and with the references properly used. Escorial82 (talk) 08:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the reference to a motion passed at an OSF congress - it just leads to their home page, which doesn't mention it. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Move?

Shouldn't this article be at SEGI? That's what it is referred to throughout the article. Comments? -R. fiend (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

No. I corrected the references throughout the article. --Javierme (talk) 23:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

nominated to be checked for its neutrality.

What exactly dose the tag on the top of the article mean. Will someone actually check it? The reason I ask, is that the references do not reflect what is on the article, and some of the references appear in Spanish and Frence, when English versions exist for the same ones. I will put it on my to do list, but if the question I pose at the start could be answered it would be helpful. --Domer48 (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved to "Segi (organization)" -- per Jenks24's observation, the disambiguation was kept as-is and moved to Segi. Not a clear enough case for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to supersede the disambig page. -- Hadal (talk) 02:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

---

SEGI → Segi – External links feature only capitalise the first letter [1] [2] as in Jarrai or Labour, unlike acronyms like ETA or IRA. Javierme (talk) 23:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• I had moved this page to SEGI (Organization) because I use current SEGI as disambiguation page because I found 4 article in Wikipedia named Segi exists. WPSamson (talk) 13:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support If you say so. Marcus Qwertyus 15:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
• OK, here's my opinion on what should happen. SEGI (the dab page) should be moved to Segi (but retained as a dab page). There is no indication that this organisation is the primary topic and "organisation" seems like a clear enough disambiguation (can't think of a better one of the top of my head). That said, this article should be moved from SEGI (organisation) to Segi (organisation) because as the nom demonstrates, it is normally not capitalised. Jenks24 (talk) 23:34, 8 June 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Segi (organization). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070514044414/http://www.rte.ie/news/elections2007/youthparties.html to http://www.rte.ie/news/elections2007/youthparties.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)