Talk:Raúl Gándara Cartagena

Ponce's Park recognition

I prefer the language that says Raúl was " among the 29 "illustrious citizens" honored as distinguished in the field of Civism at Ponce's Park" because it gives the reader better context about the type of the recognition than the previous version, that used to say "Gandara has also been recognized as an outstanding civic leader at Ponce's Park".

Saying he was among 29 distinguished citizens is more real than just saying he was an "outstanding civic leader". --damiens.rf 14:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

1. Its not a matter of what you prefer but of what Wikipedia says its done in these cases. This article is about RGC and he is the one that needs to be discussed.

2. In Wikipedia we don't have to give a citation for every imaginable thing. Google Maps can be used to verify the Dr. Gandara housing project. Now, if you have been to GM or if you have been to Ponce and have seen NO housing project by that name then you can tag it with a CN.

3. The only tag there that's valid was the CN tag on the Award, and that's why I kept it.

Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 14:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I used "I prefer" just a way to express my feelings. No intention to imply that my preferences just govern article's content. It's just like saying "I believe", "I think", etc...

Saying that he was among 29 others in a given recognition is not escaping from the article's subject, Raúl Gándara. As I pointed above, it's just a way to give the reader more information about this recognition that just saying he won it.

Being recognized as an one of 20 distinct people in a given field is different that being recognized as an one of 200 distinct people, or 2000, or 2. The text is not even naming those people. We're not "discussing" people other that RGC. Just putting real weight on the statement. Don't yo agree? --damiens.rf 15:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

No I don't agree, and you should not keep reverting until this discussion is agreed upon. The article's focus needs to be on him. You can be blocked by repeatedly reverting without discussing in good faith first. Mercy11 (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Just saying "No I don't agree" doesn't add much to the discussion. Would you argue in favor of your point of view? Or elaborate on how you disagree with my aguments above? And we can always ask for more opinions. Can you suggest a board that would be interested? --damiens.rf 00:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

You cannot use 29 because yearly or so the city adds new people to their recognition list and neither me nor you may be here to keep that number up to date. It's just silly. Stating he is recognized at the park doesn't introduce that sort of problem. I see your point and it is a very valid one: you want to introduce solid, quantitative facts that will help the reader gauge the guy's notability. But here that doesn't work so neatly. Mercy11 (talk) 01:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

It's ok to say 29 as long as we're just mentioning how many people have been recognized at the same time. Of course it would be better mention this fact about the yearly additions. Do you have a reference for that, or is it just something you know by acquaintance? --damiens.rf 11:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not OK "to say 29 as long as we're just mentioning how many people have been recognized at the same time", becuase for that matter you might as well also add when the 29 were inducted, why they were inducted, why others did not make the cut but he/they did, etc etc etc blah, blah, blah. Again, that's a violation of WP:WEIGHT; it is uneccessarily convoluting what is a simple matter of stating he is recognized at that park. By the same token, we don't have to talk about yearly additions because it is irrelevant to Dr. Gandara's article. Just as an article about a given Baseball Hall of Famer doesn't talk about how the MLB goes about doing their inductions and how many they induct, etc, etc, etc, blah, blah, blah. This article's need is only to focus on Gandara's achievements/honor/legacy. You are welcome to create another article that compares his achievemenets to others, but not here. Please don't be WP:POINTy and disruptive - thanks. Mercy11 (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree it would really be out of this article's scope to mention " why they were inducted, why others did not make the cut but he/they did, etc etc...'".

As I said, I believe that saying "...Mr. Gándara was one of 29 people to be recognized as [insert honorable accomplishment here]" gives more contextualized information about his achievements/honor/legacy than "...Mr. Gándara was recognized as [insert honorable accomplishment here]".

And I respectfully disagree that the first version "talks about other people" to the point of displacing the article's focus on the subject, Mr. Gándara".

It may be that we just disagree on this point, and asking for third part opinions could help. --damiens.rf 16:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Look, have you heard of Yogi Berra and does the article on him say "He was one of 3 people elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame in 1972" because it gives more contextualized information about his achievements/honor/legacy than "...He was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame in 1972"? No, it doesn't. His article says "He was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame in 1972." So I respectfully disagree with your intentions.

If you want to change the wording in this article, here's a proposal I am willing to honor: Go to the Yogi Berra article make it read "He was one of 3 people elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame in 1972" right on the lead where's it's at and where it will get the right visibility. Then let's give it 30 days and if no one has challenged it in those 30 days, I will admit I was incorrect, will admit your edit is not WP:WEIGHT, and I will agree to an edit that says something which gives more contextualized information about Gandara's achievements/honor/legacy. Agreed? Mercy11 (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the analogy applies. It may be just be but, when I hear "hall of fame" I automatically understand it as a shared recognition. Do you understand what I mean? --damiens.rf 19:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

It sounds somewhat awkward (and does not add any important relevant information) to say that someone was "1 of 29 people recognized." It distracts from the simple, direct fact that Gándara Cartagena was recognized as an outstanding civic leader. Here are some comparable examples: when a person graduates from Stanford, we do not say "Ms. X is one of 168,679 Stanford graduates" or "Ms. X is one of 6,372 Stanford graduates in 2004." We simply say "Ms. X is a Stanford graduate" or "Ms. X graduated from Stanford in 2004." Similarly, when Daniel Day Lewis wins the Oscar Award, we generally don't say "Mr. Lewis is one of 82 actors to win the Oscar Award for Best Actor." We simply say "Mr. Lewis won the Oscar Award." This changes if we're talking about the Oscar Awards in general, or in a historical overview of the Oscars. But in this case (Gándara Cartagena) the article is about Gándara Cartagena, not about the 28 other people, or about the sanctioning body that selected them. Mercy, Damiens, you probably don't have time to do this -- but I strongly suspect that if you look up the Wikipedia entries for Oscar-winning actors, you'll see what I mean. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 05:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Everybody knows that "graduating from Oxford", or "winning an Oscar" is not an achievement you get alone. But "being recognized as distinguished in the field of Civism by Ponce's Park" is an obscure achievement, and it's important for the article to explain somehow the weight of this achievement. --damiens.rf 16:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how changing the language to "one of 29 people recognized" explains the weight of the achievement. Also, the prior language was "recognized as an outstanding civic leader," not "distinguished in the field of Civism." Please also consider that what may appear obscure to you, may be very meaningful to people in other parts of the world. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 23:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Damiens, Mercy, I'm not sure why, but the city of Ponce seems to have a great fondness for its firemen. The Museo de Bombas (Firefighter's Museum) is a famous landmark in Ponce, in Puerto Rico, and is even listed in the National Register of Historic Places. See this: [1]. Mercy, you're from Ponce and I saw the Bombas photo in your Flickr photos...so you probably know more about this than me. I found it interesting. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Nelson, yes, firefighters are like gods in Ponce. Also, here are two related articles you might want to read: Monumento a los heroes de El Polvorín (obelisk) and Monumento a los heroes de El Polvorín (tomb). Mercy11 (talk) 03:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
• Damiens, seeing that you lost the 3RR against me, in the spirit of true camaraderia and collaboration, I ask you to please "knock yourself out" -as the friendly phrase goes- and engage in tagging whatever needs sourcing at Monumento a los heroes de El Polvorín (obelisk) and Monumento a los heroes de El Polvorín (tomb). If you accept I will take it as an olive branch from you. Deal? Furthermore, since I created those 2 firefighter's articles I want you to know my invitation is evidence I don't own them as you claimed about another article. Deal? A truce perhaps? Thanks. Mercy11 (talk) 03:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

In Ponce, there is public housing complex named in his memory

I still think this passage needs sourcing, even if the housing complex "can be found in any PC with a browser and Google Maps"[2], as said in a edit summary removing that.

I'll try to find some reference for the existence of that place. But of course any editor can feel free to do so before me. --damiens.rf 15:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

If you want to look for a source, fine; but again, Wikipedia does not require one, so you are pushing your own POV on this. IAE, don't take forever as you are not following policy on this issue. The reason is that, if you know for a fact that there is NOT a residential complex by that name then you can CN tag it. But you don't know it for a fact so you are speculating. I am not. Mercy11 (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see how POV is related to that. Would you clarify that to me? And, doesn't the policy WP:RS requires that statement to be sourced? What am I missing? That you know for a fact that some statement is true is not enough, I guess. --damiens.rf 16:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

(I just asked for 3rd part opinions on the Reliable Sources noticeboard.) --damiens.rf 16:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

In the end, the discussion on that board revealed this information to be most likely incorrect. Thanks for removing it from the article, Mercy11. --damiens.rf 11:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, in the end, the discussion on that board revealed this information to be Proven Correct, but placed in the wrong article. I am sure the Wikipedia community is grateful that you have agreed to Discuss this matter instead of only Reverting as you were doing. And you are incorrect in your statement: I didn't remove it, instead moved it to the appropriate article. Two different things. Mercy11 (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)