Talk:Juan Martín (guitarist)

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Very suprised that people dont realise this guitarist used to be plain old John Martin From sussex!Ukbn2 09:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Dad is a friend of Juan's and claims that his spanishness is "as obvious as the day", something which I would have to agree with, whenever I have met him he seems like the real thing. What is your source for such claims? Can you please reference them or can someone confirm them, if not I will contact Juan and edit the page. Additionally, another website claims he was born in Malaga. Is this in fact correct? Finally, how does a box get put up above the page to indicate that this page is disputed and needs to cite references?

--212.44.32.134 09:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Martin was born in Malaga, Spain. So say the Encyclopædia Britannica, the Quid and his own site: [[1]]. A googlegroup page in which someone states the contrary is not sufficient to start disputing this fact, let alone replace it. You state that "There is a Brighton evening argus piece about this". First check that the date was not the first of April, then try to scan it. Then, and only then, could we even start to discuss your version of Juan Martin's history.

Unreferenced

I've tagged the article as {{unreferenced}}. Before going much farther in expanding or refining the article, it would be good to find references for the statements that are already made. The article, so far, is almost all original research. Expansion of the article will be easier and result in a better article if contributors are working from verifiable sources rather than memory. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Birthplace

"Juan Martín is a native of Andalucía" from www.juanmartin.com Yandman 07:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say "this is citable information". Cite it then, don't just give a reference to the book. Yandman 07:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John born in England...

Having done a google search and looked in google books, I can't find any mention of his English birth or his real name being John. Could Ukbn2 have some hidden agenda? Is his user name a code? Should we give him 24 hours to find those citations? Addhoc 11:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - uk "bn2" - is my post code - thats why i write about Brighton a lot on wiki. addhoc - you have googled around about Juan Martin - i dont doubt this - but remember there were experts who wrote books about this 30 years ago, of which i am quoting from - hidden agendas about the nationality of a flamenco guitarist !!!lol Im simply making wikipedia more accurate - do i have to scan D E Pohrens book? There is no mention on Britannica regarding Juan Martin, though i will look in the local library tomorrow.Ukbn2 18:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a "hidden agenda", however I do think UKBN2 is trying to be funny. The Brittanica says he was born in Malaga, as does www.juanmartin.com and the previous editor to this page. Yandman 12:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, by the way, does Cristóbal allude to crystal ball? Addhoc 12:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, this talk of agendas is silly. I am helping out report accurate information. Juan Martins website,does not say he was born in Spain. The information from esflamenco is simply incorrect. Being from the area where Juan martin lived before he left for Spain, it is pretty common knowledge, and D Pohren is the recognised expert in flamenco circles, whose book i have quoted from - why would D E Pohren make this up? Also - why do you think i would spend so much time on 1 flamenco guitarist - i do edit other articles.Ukbn2 18:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More credibility regarding D E Pohrens 'bible' of flamenco -

"For Donn Pohren, an American who's spent the past 45 years in Spain writing about a flamenco world that has slowly given way to Americanized commercialism, it's a sign of corruption. He's the only non-Spaniard ever awarded the title of "flamencologist" by the closed circle of writers and academics who make up the "Catedra de Flamencologia." And his books, praised by such Spanish artists as guitarist Andrés Segovia and dancer Carmen Amaya, have become underground classics fueling a quiet affair between legions of flamenco aficionados around the world and this uniquely Iberian art form."

This man is THE most respected authority on Flamenco, and he states quite clearly that Juan Martin is a gifted NON spanish flamenco guitarist. THis is citable evidence. http://www.salon.com/people/feature/1999/10/02/pohren/index.html Ukbn2 18:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the situation is as follows:

His agent's website [2] says "Juan Martín is a native of Andalucía", which obviously is in Spain.
The book you mention is real enough [3], but you haven't demonstrated that it says he was born in England.
Common knowledge counts for nothing in Wikipedia.
Ok, so Donn Pohren is an American, which is confirmed by [4], why is this relevant?
Unless you produce a verifiable citation, the dubious material is going to be removed tomorrow.

Addhoc 18:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

erm because D E Pohren is the most famous writer on Flamenco in spanish history - he has lived there 45 years and his writings have been recognised and praised by such artists as segovia - have you any idea how credible this information is? I am dumfounded that an expert in a particular field cannot be cited, this is ludicrous! naturally, you are an expert on 20th century flamenco guitarists i presume? If wikipedia cannot quote documented experts,then what can we quote? Does the internet become the only source of verifiable information? This is a terrible way to document history.Ukbn2 18:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That argument would be an example of appeal to authority, one of the major fallacies (i.e., that Pohren is an expert doesn't mean we believe him automatically when there is claims to the contrary). We may say that Pohren states or claims in his book that Martín is non-Spanish, but since other sources say that he is Spanish, Wikipedia may not take sides and say one or the other according to our policy about taking a neutral point of view. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ps - the bit "he is an american" EXACTLY! He emigrated [D Pohren] and became so famous for his flamenco knowledge that the spanish regarded his writings as "the bible" of Flamenco writing. Just Like the then John Martin became Juan Martin on stage, and was accepted by the Spanish.Ukbn2 18:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, his agent's website [5] says "Juan Martín is a native of Andalucía", which obviously is in Spain. You haven't commented on this, why could that be? Even if I was a world expert, in Wikipedia that would count for nothing. Also common knowledge counts for nothing in Wikipedia. I am not saying Donn Pohren made this up, I am saying you did. Given that you have already lied about the Juan Martin's website, which does say he was born in Andalucía, this is reasonable. Unless you produce a verifiable citation, the dubious material is going to be removed tomorrow. Addhoc 19:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that a verifiable citation doesn't have to be one that's easily accessible, so the book does count. However, to be a citation is has to include the page number where Pohren states that Martín is non-Spanish so that someone may verify the citation's accuracy without reading the entire book. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree. However in his case, he has clearly lied, for example about Juan Martin's website, which does say he was born in Andalucía. In this context, I would suggest removing the dubious content to this page, while we verify this information. Addhoc 20:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to assume he was just mistaken rather than duplicitous. As for the content, I don't care which version it remains at while we discuss this, just so long as discussion results in it being brought into line with the content policies in a reasonable amount of time. If you want to revert to the version before this information was included, that's fine—just don't get involved in an edit war over it as that'll distract us from doing useful work toward a solution. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saxifrage, have a look at WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL. The version that is potentially libellous should be removed. Your lecture about an edit war is misplaced, we have both signed up to WP:1RR. Addhoc 08:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Ukbn2 has requested mediation. The issue is References. Geo. 20:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the request may have been premature as there was some misunderstanding on how referencing works. I will let the results of my providing process information develop a bit before I accept or reject mediation. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My involvement was in response to his request at Harmonious editing club - talk page. Could I ask in what capacity you are offering to mediate, as you don't appear to be a member of the mediation-cabal. Addhoc 20:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a member, this is unofficial mediation. Geo. 20:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, fine. I would confirm that I only became involved following his request at Harmonious editing club - talk page. He has clearly lied about the Juan Martín web site. In this context, I do not believe he has any credibility and consequently, I suggest the dubious material he has introduced should be moved onto this page and only be reintroduced following verification. Addhoc 20:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Refrain from inflammator statements such as "he lied". We have to assume good faith or risk the page devolving into a shouting match. I don't see clear evidence of dishonesty, just a bunch of confusion on how referencing and NPOV works and a bit of panic at not knowing how to deal with opposition. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's informal, I'll accept mediation. More calm voices is a good thing. :) — Saxifrage ✎ 21:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Saxifrage, this a WP:BLP, where WP:LIBEL has relevance. Clearly UKBN2 lied on this page. That is an observation that does not constitute being uncivil or a personal attack. Nor are your comments relating to confusion very helpful. In this context the information he added to this article, which implies Juan Martín lied should be removed as potentially libellous. Note that WP:3RR does not apply to removing potentially libellous information from a WP:BLP. Thanks, Addhoc 08:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no clear evidence of lying on Ukbn2's part, and Wikipedia:Assume good faith is policy. If you can say what you need to say without accusing other editors of malfeasance, this is infinitely preferable. Unnecessary accusations of bad faith hurt the encyclopedia and make doing useful work harder, not easier. It's also unharmonious. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Addhoc is right in we should use the previous version of the page for the time being, pending further discussion and investigation. This means that although the information may be false (which I doubt), it will not be libellous. Yandman 09:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's also "Name:Juan Cristóbal Martín, Birth: 1948 Málaga" from www.esflamenco.com Yandman 09:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Addhoc 12:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid a flame war, i have decided to withdraw editing this article entirley. The statement "Clearly UKBN2 lied on this page" is an awful observation, i am still wondering why you think i would make this information up? Considering esflamenco and deflamenco have Juan Martins place of birth as Malaga,there is nothing i can do,and really dont want yo have troll like forum wars etc. It is so sad when internet citations [which,remember could be wrong] take precedence of archivist historians like D E Pohren,who i have cited again and again. Barr contacting Juan Martin personally [which i have done -but couldnt cite anyway] I feel it is futile to contribute anything more. As an example though, i ask people to look for instance to look at the allegations against the late elvis presleys manager [colonel tom parker] who always said he was a southern "good ole boy", when in fact it was revealed years later he was a dutch national implicated in a murder. Interesting stuff eh? I bow out! Ukbn2 16:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bye! Addhoc 17:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm on second thoughts i have changed my mind - i am going to edit this article, as i have more to offer to the article about the different type of compas and rasgeado techniques employed by Juam Martin. Ukbn2 09:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll give 24 hours to find citations for this material or it will be removed in accordance with WP:Verifiability "editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor". Addhoc 10:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and i will put all the information back in regarding flamenco styles and technique. i am not asking permission to add stuff that is cited - stop trolling,please,i have refrained from putting the contencious information regarding Juan Martins ethnicity,until i can get it verified,you are obviously launching some crusade now. Why dont you research flamenco and perhaps contribute?Ukbn2 13:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at this quote from Jimbo [6]. All material without exception has to be cited. You are not the first editor to partially cite material, suggest that other users shouldn't argue, but should find references, then accuse anyone who disagrees of trolling. Addhoc 14:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you are stalking me virtually - asking me to cite sources for the spanish word "rasgeuado" and "la feria"?!! Learn Spanish? That smacks of trolling - and yes, when i wrongly tried to cite unreferenced material, you gave me "24 hours" to remove it - and i accept it cannot be cited until such a time in the above paragraph. And i notice you arent doing the same on the Vodafone article,the brighton article or other articles i contribute to. Stop trolling my edits,please.Ukbn2 16:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at my user page, I have listed the articles in which I have some involvement. Giving someone 24 hours to find references isn't unusual in Wikipedia. Addhoc 16:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24 hours isn't unreasonable. It isn't necessary to dwell on the point, though. The article isn't going anywhere, so we don't need to be on "high alert" while discussing it. Someone will change the article, someone will disagree with something, we'll come here to have a chat and a cup of tea and discuss what's makes a better article and then do it.

On the point of translations, I don't think it shouldn't be necessary to cite one-word translations. If it was an entire quotation translated into English it would probably need a reference. I don't know of any policy to cite on that note, but that's my opinion and what I've observed by reading and working on articles about German subjects. — Saxifrage ✎ 17:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, removing potentially libelous material has to be done quickly, however this more general material doesn't matter so much. Also, I completely agree that individual Spanish words don't require citations. However, citations for these words have not been requested. The material that Ukbn2 has introduced is not substantially supported by citations, and accordingly could be removed. Addhoc 17:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]