Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:48, 9 May 2012

Venezuela Start‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Venezuela, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Venezuela on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VenezuelaWikipedia:WikiProject VenezuelaTemplate:WikiProject VenezuelaVenezuela Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elections and Referendums Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

BLP vio

There is an entire paragraph of deragotory information in this article, cited to state-run or non-reliable sources that don't rise to the level of sourcing demanded for living persons. I have removed the text once, it was reinstated, so I've raised the concern at WP:BLPN (where no one has responded). Short of consensus to include poorly sourced deragotory information, WP:BLP requires that we remove the poorly sourced text. We don't use pro-Chavez and state-sponsored websites to make deragotory statements about an opposing candidate, and particularly not when we have multiple accounts for high quality sources. I can find nothing at primicias24.com to indicate reliability or editorial oversight, RNV is state-owned and controlled and Venezuelanalysis.com is a pro-Chavez website, discussed several times at the Reliable sources noticeboard as reliable to state what Chavez's policies are, but not for BLPs-- certainly not when it is used to make claims of a coverup or threats. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason to fork this issue from Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#BLP issues in Venezuela.2FChavez opposition candidates in election articles, a thread that's been open less than 24 hours? By the way, can you quote the exact text you repeatedly say contains "derogatory" information? Rd232 19:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

You're asking why I'm raising on article talk an issue about text that is in the article still, when the default position for BLP is to remove it? You haven't gained consensus for that text but you haven't removed it; what is the question? The text in question is clearly tagged, where non-reliable and partisan sources are claiming threats and a coverup-- text not supported by the higher quality, reliable, independent sources. It's clearly marked, so I don't understand your question. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Bloomberg source in article: "Silva said Capriles had used his influence to force police to drop indecency charges stemming from the incident." Or does the fact that Bloomberg said this disqualify it as a reliable source? Rd232 08:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The question is what information is "derogatory"? Using "derogatory" to refer to information seems like an attempt to claim it's libelous without saying so... which puts you in conflict with WP:V by declaring that you can judge the truth of the matter better than the sources. But anyway, the question is, how is it not "derogatory" to report the central allegation of an indecency incident and coverup of it, but it is derogatory to explain the source of those allegations? The way you've rewritten the issue it's basically a coatrack to attack Silva, as if he was the source of the allegations not the policeman. How is that not a BLP violation? Rd232 13:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I've never claimed to be a great writer (I aim for brevity to avoid giving UNDUE weight to any given issue-- were that not the case, I'd be expanding this article significantly per the latest CNN report of possible successors to Chavez, and I don't think that would be helpful-- YMMV): if you think it reads like a coatrack now, then feel free to give it a try using the independent, third-party, reliable sources in English that we have (there are at least three). Claims made by this individual policeman have not been covered by independent sources and you know they can't be covered by private Venezuelan media due to the freedom of the press issues. Should you decide to reword from reliable sources required per BLP, please remember that when we quote multiple full sentences, instead of phrases, we have to use blockquote. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

"you know they can't be covered by private Venezuelan media due to the freedom of the press issues" - ROTLFMAO. Really? The private media can insult Chavez on a daily basis but not report details of an opposition candidate being accused of malfeasance in office? What a strange world we live in, eh. Basically, lots more attempt to distract from the fact that you can't explain how the additional details of the allegations are a BLP vio, or how RNV is not a reliable source for what RNV says. Rd232 15:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Staying on topic and avoiding sarcasm will be helpful; you know where to find and discuss the freedom of the press issues and the Law of Social Responsibility. In this article, WP:BLP applies to living individuals; specific claims made by this policeman have not been reported in independent sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Does WP:BLP apply to Mario Silva? Yes or no? Rd232 15:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Changed meaning?

I'm not seeing the changed meaning in this edit; please explain. Since my prose stinks (and if you don't mind me saying it, yours isn't much better), we both tend towards overquoting, and I'm relieved when an editor who can write rephrases. What is wrong with the rephrasing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sandy. Apart from the near-nonsensical "to generate this show", it probably doesn't really matter in the scheme of things whether we paraphrase or quote direct there, but I was curious at what seemed like pointless tinkering in the first place, so I've already asked for clarification over on Rd232's talk page (seemed like too minor an issue to bring up here). Steve  20:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks ... I just don't want you to think it's not appreciated since I tend to overquote and Rd232 and I have discussed his paraphrasing several times-- any quoting we can reduce is a good thing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

1. "the group's apparent level of organization" is a garbling of "it was an armed and organized group...."; "apparent level" doesn't mean anything without some detail that isn't given.
2. " to blame for starting the shooting" is not the same as "were the ones to start shooting". It's slightly ambiguous as to who started shooting (maybe the bodyguards did something to provoke the shooters?), and if read as saying that the bodyguards did shoot first, it can be read as implying that somebody is saying they're not to blame for starting it (eg they were acting reasonably in shooting first). It's a mess of additional ambiguity the original statement doesn't have.
3. "to generate this show" - is slightly awkward but perfectly clear, and clarifies the motive in Aissami's version of events, where the red-shirted ones were opposition supporters creating an incident to make the government look bad.

Rd232 07:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

List-defined references

The combination of extensive footnoting and use of cite templates renders wikitext impenetrable. List-defined references (footnotes defined in the References section) is the solution. I've done the intro so far. Rd232 13:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

See WP:CITEVAR-- do not change citation style without consensus. I do not like working with list-defined references as they separate sources from text and make editing harder. I am opposed to changing the citation style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Off-topic text on Zionism

Why is this text in the article? There is no connection made to the Capriles/election issue, and if there is one, is it original research?

The article also said "The rational and open fight against poverty, racism and anti-Semitism makes no sense if it is not directed against Zionism and capitalism, which represent 90 percent of the poverty in the world, the imperial wars, death and misery of millions of people, and the growing threat of extinction of all species on the planet and the planet itself."

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Required for WP:NPOV to show the article was about Zionism, not Jews. (And how the heck can it be original research?? It's sourced to the ADL translation for the original article.) Rd232 15:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Start-Class Venezuela articles
• High-importance Venezuela articles
• Venezuela articles
• Start-Class Elections and Referendums articles
• WikiProject Elections and Referendums articles
• Biography articles of living people