| Revision as of 23:42, 17 February 2010 editSandyGeorgia (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors279,126 edits →VIO letter: re← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:37, 18 February 2010 edit undoRd232 (talk | contribs)54,863 edits →VIO letter: rNext edit → | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| :The paragraph has no place here, or anywhere on Misplaced Pages. It is transparently ] and serves solely to link venezuelanalysis with VIO, and is part of Sandy's campaign to link VIO with anyone she can, however tenuously. (The reason being that VIO is an agent of a foreign government - a government Sandy clearly detests.) The UNDUE argument is so strong that we don't even really need to note the conveniently excluded which notes that "Miriam Kornblith, who is identified as the "Lead Social Scientist" responsible for your "Global Integrity" report on Venezuela is part of the Venezuelan opposition. Miriam Kornblith currently represents the opposition on the National Electoral Council (CNE). She is also listed (see NED Grant No. 2003-548.0, page 5) as an advisor to Súmate, a group that led the signature drive to recall Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez." ] <sup>]</sup> 23:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC) | :The paragraph has no place here, or anywhere on Misplaced Pages. It is transparently ] and serves solely to link venezuelanalysis with VIO, and is part of Sandy's campaign to link VIO with anyone she can, however tenuously. (The reason being that VIO is an agent of a foreign government - a government Sandy clearly detests.) The UNDUE argument is so strong that we don't even really need to note the conveniently excluded which notes that "Miriam Kornblith, who is identified as the "Lead Social Scientist" responsible for your "Global Integrity" report on Venezuela is part of the Venezuelan opposition. Miriam Kornblith currently represents the opposition on the National Electoral Council (CNE). She is also listed (see NED Grant No. 2003-548.0, page 5) as an advisor to Súmate, a group that led the signature drive to recall Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez." ] <sup>]</sup> 23:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :: Then rewrite it correctly. Another NPA. ] (]) 23:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC) | :: Then rewrite it correctly. Another NPA. ] (]) 23:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ::: You can't fix an UNDUE smear by rewriting - you fix by getting rid of it. And I'm not making personal attacks; you keep complaining of "tendentiousness" and the like, while I'm merely stating a fact: you are conducting a concerted campaign. I'll back it up with diffs soonish (tomorrow maybe). ] <sup>]</sup> 01:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:37, 18 February 2010
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
.svg){kind=small} | Venezuela Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Quote request
Please provide the entire paragraph, so it can be reviewed for context. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- I requested a quote two days ago, it hasn't been provided, moving text here for clarification. Please provide the full paragraph for context. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Writing in New Political Science, Walt Vanderbush calls it "a valuable resource for Venezuelan news and analysis."
- Fourth request, please provide the full paragraph to check for context and cherrypicking, and refrain from removing tags until resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
VIO letter
I'd tend to support the removal of this paragraph, at least in the form in which it was inserted. If we use this material from Bogardus, then we should present Golinger's side as well -- because Bogardus, the cited source, does so too. To wit, in Bogardus: "Golinger, who contacted the Center after this report was published, wrote that VIO's communications were not significant, and that, 'Long before that office came into existence...I was writing articles about Venezuela and engaging in efforts to educate on Venezuelan current affairs.'" (Which is demonstrably true.) In addition, Bogardus' article features a "Read the Response" box in the top right, with a response by Golinger et al. But by the time we give both sides, this would be fully one-third to one-half of the article devoted to the fact that VIO wrote a letter to Golinger asking her for her help. Hence I'd suggest it is not worth doing. The site is identified as "pro-Chavez" in the text. --JN466 22:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- As with most of my edits, I intentionally kept it as brief and neutral as possible initially-- the more one adds, the more it can get into SYNTH or OR. I don't think it should be removed, but do agree the text can be improved; trying to write neutrally is constraining, but we're seeing far too much deletion of well sourced text in all of these articles, resulting in what appears to be censorship of reliably sourced info. Doesn't mean text can't be improved, though; for me, just keeping up with the tendentious editing across so many different articles, as one of the few Spanish-speaking editors willing to engage, has precluded any effective article content writing, and my prose stinks anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- The paragraph has no place here, or anywhere on Misplaced Pages. It is transparently WP:UNDUE and serves solely to link venezuelanalysis with VIO, and is part of Sandy's campaign to link VIO with anyone she can, however tenuously. (The reason being that VIO is an agent of a foreign government - a government Sandy clearly detests.) The UNDUE argument is so strong that we don't even really need to note the conveniently excluded response letter which notes that "Miriam Kornblith, who is identified as the "Lead Social Scientist" responsible for your "Global Integrity" report on Venezuela is part of the Venezuelan opposition. Miriam Kornblith currently represents the opposition on the National Electoral Council (CNE). She is also listed (see NED Grant No. 2003-548.0, page 5) as an advisor to Súmate, a group that led the signature drive to recall Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez." Rd232 23:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Then rewrite it correctly. Another NPA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- You can't fix an UNDUE smear by rewriting - you fix by getting rid of it. And I'm not making personal attacks; you keep complaining of "tendentiousness" and the like, while I'm merely stating a fact: you are conducting a concerted campaign. I'll back it up with diffs soonish (tomorrow maybe). Rd232 01:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Then rewrite it correctly. Another NPA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Walt Vanderbush (2009). "The Bush Administration Record in Latin America: Sins of Omission and Commission". New Political Science. 31 (3): 337–359.
{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help)