Talk:Alejandro Peña Esclusa

Neutral POV - don't write he supported the "coup"

Since this article is about a living person it is important to describe his life with respect for his point of view, even though he is in the center of an ideological clash with Hugo Chavez as the other pole. For this reason the text must not say that he "supported the coup d'etat in Honduras", since his stated opinions are that (1) it was a legal succession and not a coup d'etat, and (2) violence is not a viable method in politics. It is his political enemies who say that "he supported the coup", why that language cannot be tolerated in this Wikipedia article - it is not neutral POV.

As regards the quote by his political enemy Nicolas Maduro, I consider that to be acceptable as long as it is presented as an example of what his enemies are saying about him, and that his own self-declared position is clearly contrasted with it. This highlights the war of words that brought him notoriety in the first place. Lindorm (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think the current text is balanced. Rd232 ^talk 21:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think we should discuss changes here before revoking back and forth more... Let's start with the first paragraph. You put in a quote by his political enemy (Peña Esclusa is quoted as saying that "Only a process similar to that of Honduras can rescue democracy and freedom in Venezuela."). To have that is only NPOV if the preceding text reflects Peña's POV and nobody else's; otherwise it becomes a misrepresentation and potentially slanderous. If you insist on mentioning that it was widely viewed as a coup d'etat, then we should be respectful enough not to let it seem that he supports a coup - especially since he is on record saying the exact opposite.Lindorm (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

He supports the process. The process unambiguously involved the elected president being exiled by the military - which is why, regardless of legal cover, the world called it a coup. Regardless of terminology, calling for that process to be repeated clearly means calling for Chavez to be exiled by the military. You cannot whitewash that away. Rd232 ^talk 22:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You are clearly misrepresenting his opinions, for which reason I doubt that you are able to edit this entry in a NPOV way.Lindorm (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not intending to misrepresent his opinions. Is the quote wrong, or out of context? I think you're just disagreeing with me about the nature of the event he is supporting. Rd232 ^talk 22:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Noted. So let me explain what I mean. In Pena Esclusa's opinion it was a legal deposing in agreement with the constitution, in fact in defense of the constitution, so when he said that he supported doing the same in Venezuela, he was not referring to a coup d'etat, but to legally deposing Hugo Chavez in agreement with the constitution. However, the "Chavista" propaganda mixes their opinion that it was a coup, with his statement that it should be repeated, to arrive at the polar opposite appearance compared to what his actual opinions are. Thus, there are different ways to express this, but the way you had written it was a direct copy of Venezuelan propaganda... and since that was apparently not your intention, how can we do instead? I propose either not include the "hostile" quote, or include it but then leave out any reference to a "coup" in describing his opinions. Or better, expressly say that he is opposed to coups, since the reason he was supporting Honduras democratic institutions - and their actions - was that they, as he saw it, stopped a coup. That is what has to be conveyed.Lindorm (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This edit adds irrelevance (What's Valladares doing here?), and opinion-stated-as-fact (that Zelaya's constitutional convention was "illegal"). It is not WP:NPOV. I'm not reverting at this point due to WP:3RR. Rd232 ^talk 22:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Valladeres is relevant since his political enemies (whose arguments you are reflecting in your edits) like to point out that he got that decoration as if it was damning to him (why did you use a second-hand reference that is openly hostile to the person that the article is about?); and the counter-argument by those supporting Pena Esclusa is that he was not unique in getting this decoration. To just tell half the truth is not NPOV. As regards that the constitutional convention was illegal it is not opinion but fact, and I will promptly reinsert it with a reference.Lindorm (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not justification enough to include Valladeres. Include it in his article, or make an article about the medal, it doesn't belong here. And there's no way you can show it is "fact" the constitutional convention was illegal; but more to the point, there is zero need to do so here. That lengthy argument can be left at the Honduran articles linked to. Please! let's not multiply work for ourselves entirely unnecessarily. Rd232 ^talk 22:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

(Smiling) I see that you took away the pajamas reference. Good, not because it is immaterial, but because it is a lie. I took some time off to think about the article. It seems that maybe it would be better to start out with his stated positions, and have the criticism from his political opponents separately, after, and gathered so that there is no confusion. Do you think that would be better?

The article about the political crisis is a mess. Full of references to opinions without legal value, which hides the legal facts. It is a very simple thing to show that the convention would be illegal as the highest authority on the matter expressly has declared it so in a legally binding verdict. Thus, that is one detail about which there can be no debate whatsoever.

Regarding Valladeres you are right, what he did should go there, and this article should only mention that Pena got the decoration at the same time as Valladeres and Giacoman.Lindorm (talk) 23:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, regardless of whether that article is a mess, that's where that debate should be. Please remove the unnecessary claim of illegality. If that article reaches a clear consensus, you can come back and re-add if you wish. Rd232 ^talk

Can't remove it since it is central for the sentence. The sentence is talking about what he reported Chavez to ICC for, and the reason was that Chavez supported an illegal act by the Honduran president. If it had not been illegal, there had been no basis for the accusation, if I'm not mistaken. (The allegation in the source doc says in fact "an illegal action according to the Honduran Constitution".) Lindorm (talk) 23:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Potentially libelous claim without factual support

The first paragraph now says that he supported "as constitutional the deposing of president Manuel Zelaya in Honduras, which involved Zelaya being exiled by the military". It leaves the impression that he supported the exiling of Zelaya by the military, which I don't know if he did or does. What he clearly supported was that Zelaya was arrested on orders by the Supreme Court, removed from office, and replaced by the person the constitution indicated as his successor (in this case Roberto Micheletti). The exiling was an illegal act, and I doubt very much that he would have supported that; at the very least, we cannot write such a potentially libelous claim here without a source that is clearly from him, not from a secondary source. In agreement with Wikipedia rules for articles about persons I will remove it for now, until this has been resolved.Lindorm (talk) 02:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

About UnoAmerica

About the provided reference [1]:

• it is an auto-definition, so it can have some NPOV problem
• from the artilce linket emerge a clear anti-leftis POV of UnoAmerica: they say that have the goal of counteracting FSP, defining FSP as an organization that brought together all the leftist movements and political parties in the region

So i edit the article based on what is said by the source --93.33.2.26 (talk) 19:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Fuerza Solidaria and UnoAmerica are - one may assume - after his arrest primary sources of what his wife says. Thus, to quote her as saying something based on the Fuerza Solidaria article must be about as good as it gets. On the other hand, one would like to have other sources about those organizations, and preferably not from any outlet linked in any way to Chavez, but that is difficult in the contemporary polarized debate in Latin America. Therefore I would suggest to accept the "he says, she says" presentation of the material until scholarly analyses become available.24.127.208.87 (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Fuerza Solidaria and UnoAmerica are - one may assume - after his arrest primary sources of what his wife says; the source concerns me because it is written by the wife and published on the website of his organisations. So it would be a LOT better with a third party source. I'm perfectly OK with it staying as-is - just was making a note.

The other things that were added back in I a less happy about the sourcing. They are very general statements and I would prefer a neutral source and more neutral wording - is it OK if I have a go at finding & rewriting that? --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 17:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'm not the editor :-) I just wanted to make a point about source. If Joe talks about himself and how he is, it is normally not a good source for how Joe is, and that is how most Wikipedia editors are used to thinking. But in the case that we are writing about Joe's political platform, then we have to take that from ... Joe. As a scientist I am so frustrated with using newspaper articles as sources, because they never cite references. To me as a scientist, in a scholarly article, it is OK to use Fuerza Solidaria's website as a source in this case, but not a newspaper article, for instance (unless the topic is how media report news).Lindorm (talk) 03:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Warning about the user Lindorm

Hello, this short message to inform you that the user Lindorm has been infinitely banned from it.wiki for systematic insertion of politically biased contents as Single-purpose Account. This user is acting as SPA across several wikies, as clearly evidenced here, editing on the same set of articles with clear political bias and reacting in the talks with personal attacks and strongly politically biased arguments (he did it in it.wiki as evidenced here). L736E, administrator in it.wiki (talk) 09:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No comments. I will let you who read this draw your own conclusions.Lindorm (talk) 15:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Just for the sake of information to all the readers: the behaviour of this user was discussed among the administrators of it.wiki and the common conclusion was the decision to operate the infinite block, considering also his cross-wiki activities almost exclusively finalized to promote one specific political position. This is an improper usage of Wikipedia as a "way to promote a specific/particular point of view", which is explicitly not allowed (against the second pillar). Also in this talk page, there are clear doubts expressed by other users here in en.wiki about the real "neutrality" of the edits coming from this user. I guess the discussions linked above are a clear evidence of his attitude to consider all the interventions against his own point of view, including the purely technical ones in defence of the local wiki's policies, as motivated by political reasons. The words he used here speak by themselves. This user didn't exhitate to rise unmotivated accusations (against the fourth pillar and against the "good faith assumption"), with strong and unjustified words. This is all what is behind the decisions of it.wiki's administrator for the infinite ban: this kind of user is not useful to the project and he behaved disruptively in it.wiki to promote his own political ideas. --L736E (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No comments. I will let you who read this draw your own conclusions. Lindorm (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

L736E: Thanks for the clarification about Lindorm. Given your arguments, and the fact that you have administrator's rights in it.wiki, when do you think we should expect equal decisions from administrators in en.wiki regarding users RD232 and JRSP? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alekboyd (talk • contribs) 16:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Material from Italian Wikipedia

Italian-language Wikipedia has for a long time had an article on this person. It has, however, been either unsourced, or sourced only to his ideological enemies, until I stepped in last week to try to make it NPOV. It is still NNPOV (in fact, it is libelous, accusing him of a crime without giving any support for it), but now, thanks to some users who have made an effort, there are some sourced statements. For instance, it appears he has been in the press in Italy in the past (although the ref cited is openly hostile to him) so there may be some valid sources for information in the time period missing in this article (i.e., 1999 to 2008). Just make sure to double-check the sources, because the page has had a history of unsourced potentially libelous claims being removed just to get immediately reinserted again. Even by a user who openly displays a communist symbol on his user page. So do check there for ideas, but judge the credibility for yourself. Lindorm (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

it.wiki has no relation to en.wiki. It is not relevant to discuss material here. Please do not use en.wiki to launch personal attacks on it.wiki members. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 20:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

When you stepped in the Italian voice, there were sources but you deleted the whole contents of the article, without any preliminary discussion and still claiming for the "absence of sources", which was not true. According to it.wiki policies, this is a vandalic behaviour and the adminstrator has no choice but to rollback and warn you. You adopted systematically this behaviour and then you moved to personal attacks, which eventually caused you to be blocked 36 hours first and then indefinitely as "programmatic user" due to the strong political bias of both your intervention in the article (you made it NNPOV on the opposite side) and to the personal attacks against other users just because they disagreed with your behaviour against any policy (you accused one admin of being a "portmouth of Chavez" just because he rolled back your improper deletion of the article). And I can see that your personal attacks do continue here. IMHO, this, joined with your similar cross-wiki activity, qualifies you more and more as "programmatic user". In en.wiki, you're apparently adopting a different style, but I think it's correct the other users be aware of your possible reactions and of the real attitude behind your edits. --L736E (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

There were no adequate sources. In fact, in about 10 sentences there was only one source, it was largely irrelevant to the topic, and it was from an ideological enemy of the person of the article. Furthermore the text was libelous. And no, I didn't delete the whole content, only the parts that contained potentially libelous statements without adequate sources. Finally, as user Errant points out above, this discussion belongs on the talk page on it.wiki, and not here. If you L736E hadn't blocked me from that, you wouldn't have had to bring it here. Lindorm (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but also your sources were not adequate: just reporting sentences allegedly pronounced by his wife... The fact that "you" don't like the political position of some sources is not an argument to say they are irrelevant. In any case, here's the smoking gun about your being a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account: the list of your cross-wiki contributions cleary shows your focus exclusively on anti-Chavez propaganda as well as your systematic attempts to promote your "personal" point of view as the "authoritative" one, against the "Neutral Point of View" pillar. Outside Wikipedia, your political ideas are perfectly legitimate and may be even shareable, but it's not legitimate to force the articles in Wikipedia to report "only" according to your ideas, by systematically removing what it's against. In it.wiki, this was enough to block you indefinitely. --L736E (talk) 10:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

And here is the smoking gun about you being a political hack: You wrote "cleary shows your focus exclusively on anti-Chavez propaganda". Let me remind you that the one spreading propaganda is Chavez. He has a minister of 'information' who is also head of TeleSur, an international so-called 'news' TV network, in other words, Chavez operates an international TV propaganda network that is the 'source' of much of "your" 'information', a network that defends Gaddafi in Libya, and still "you" label the truth as "anti-Chavez propaganda". Have you ever heard of Orwell, 1984, and newspeak? Well guess what, you are living it. You are one of the minions of the Ministry of Truth. Lindorm (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

NGO

User Rd232 asked what Civil organization means and replaced it with NGO. In their Spanish website it says organización civil, and I presume it can be called an NGO in (American) English. I put civil organization originally since I have noticed that the Swedish government uses that also in English, as being more restrictive than NGO, presumably referring to an organization similar to an "ideell organisation" in Sweden, i.e., that only has physical persons (as opposed to juridical persons) as members, and that operates according to participatory democratic principles. (In contrast, an NGO in the US can be - or rather is - a corporation, and it can be quite undemocratic with the "members" reduced to being a fund-raising base.) I don't know what the case is with Fuerza Solidaria in Venezuela, but I don't think it can be wrong to translate it to NGO. At least it is not a party, which the Italian page called it. Lindorm (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources

To user JRSP: you didn't like the first source because it was a blog, and you don't like the second source because it is "partisan". However, this is the problem: The government of Venezuela controls all media outlets in the country, directly or indirectly. The government when they publish a verdict only publish their decision to DENY the request from the defense, but they do not publish what that request from the defense was. The only way to find out what the request of the defense was, which the government's judge turned down, is to (1) read the docket as filed, why I provided the docket number, or (2) go to non-traditional media, i.e., blogs and the like. The rules for verifiability are consistent with this use. Remember that Wikipedia should be accurate, that is first and foremost. To allow the censorship efforts of the government of Venezuela to make Wikipedia inaccurate and unreliable is counter to the objective, and we as responsible editors must not allow that to happen. There is no problem with calling the attention to the fact that the source is openly biased - it is - but that doesn't make it unreliable. What is unreliable is, however, all the state-controlled media in Venezuela, and the government of Venezuela. Yet they are used as sources on Wikipedia, which obviously is equally objectionable. TeleSur, for instance, is a pure propaganda outlet, yet according to a formal interpretation of the Wikipedia:RS it is a major news outlet and should be accepted as reliable (Telesur is run by Chávez's minister of information). We have to use the rules according to the overall intention as good scholars, not according to the formal wording of them. Lindorm (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

If you disagree with the WP:RS guidelines, you can discuss that at WT:RS. For specific questions regarding the reliability of a source you can ask at WP:RSN. JRSP (talk) 09:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

re this revert I presume you're talking about the TFP stuff - most of the other changes are sourced directly or indirectly to Pena Esclusa. The TFP stuff is clearly attributed to the source given. Rd232 ^talk 11:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Reverted libelous edits Re TFP

It is good that others edit this article that I created, but it is not good that libel from the Italian Wikipedia article is reproduced here. The statement that A.P.E. was a member of TFP is libelous. I have personally asked A.P.E in order to verify this claim, and he has told me personally, as well as written in his book "350", that he has never been a member of TFP. Therefore, to all editors of this page: If you re-introduce that claim you expose yourself to potential lawsuits for libel. Furthermore, Venezuelan government sources or media are not NPOV in this case. They can not be used as sources for facts, only as sources for their own position. Lindorm (talk) 11:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

"only as sources for their own position.". Which is what I did, adding Esclusa's denial from a different source. Tone down the drama. Rd232 ^talk 12:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Your edit ended up with an article that was extremely biased, NPOV, and even potentially (likely!) slanderous. It is not for me to tone down the drama when there is a very legitimate reason for it, it is for you to step up to the plate and EDIT RESPONSIBLY! Let me ask you a question for the record: Do you in any way shape or form, directly or indirectly, work for the Cuban or Venezuelan government? Lindorm (talk) 12:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

What about it is biased? The vast majority of info is sourced to Pena Esclusa. You want it to be 100%? That's not how it works. And FFS, no I don't work for any government, or edit for or on behalf of any organization. Do you have any connection with Esclusa or any related organizations? Rd232 ^talk 12:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

No.Lindorm (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

So I've done what you recommended ("only as sources for their own position.") but you reckon this is libellous? So, what, you were recommending libel? Make some sense, please. Rd232 ^talk 13:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't try to be a smart ass. Your edits show that you are no fool. You know full well what I am talking about. Lindorm (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I really don't. Maybe if you tried fixing the perceived problem instead of simply reverting the entire article along with many uncontroversial improvements, I would know. Rd232 ^talk 13:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I find it beyond disbelief that any person could fail to understand that starting a section headed "Political Career" with slander from the political enemy of the person in question could be biased. You are not credible, Rd232. You simply are not. Lindorm (talk) 14:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The edits that you requested Rd232 have now been made. All your additions are preserved, but the order has been changed and some titles adjusted accordingly. I have not (yet) edited your paragraphs on the statements from the government of Bolivarian Venezuela, but they are now clearly visible as such. Lindorm (talk) 14:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You undid the edit without responding to my concerns expressed here. Please be aware that your behaviour is disturbing. Do take Wikipedia policy into account. Also, once again, your edit is libelous as I see it. I must remind you that it is you, as editor, who is legally responsible for any libel that you introduce. Lindorm (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I reverted the change but by so doing, some of your later edits with links regarding the LaRouche movement were also lost, unfortunately. If you edit responsibly we can advance the article, but as long as you keep reintroducing it in a libelous form I am obliged to revert it due to the policy of articles on living persons. Lindorm (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

And I must remind you that there is a policy of no legal threats. Much in the article is sourced to this, was actually originally from... UnoAmerica. You can't pretend that the Venezuelan govt invented Esclusa's PLV and LaRouchite background in 2010, especially when his organization acknowledges that background. Rd232 ^talk 15:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection to correct information being in the article, you are introducing a red herring argument, Rd232. Since you still have not responded to my complaint that his opponents' views are presented before his own record, which constitutes the reason for why the article is potentially libelous (which, my I remind you, it is OK to point out in Wikipedia!), I conclude that you have no counter-argument, and I will therefore again change the order to an acceptable one, and if you revert that without justification then you will be reported for violating the 3RR rule. Lindorm (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if someone would revert to the last version I edited, which apart from being in the appaopriate chronological order, has additional information and lacks Lindorm's WP:OR attempt to pretend that Esclusa pretends his political career began around the time that Hugo Chavez appeared on the scene, when by Esclusa's own account it began in 1984 (sourced in my version). The sole reason to turn the chronology upside down is to deny the known facts. These facts include the Venezuelan government's allegations of links with TFP, along with Esclusa's denial; this could go in the Arrest section if the claims did not predate the arrest by some years (I'm not sure if that's sourced in my version, but the claims certainly existed before that [eg here, from 2003). Overall, Lindorm's handling of these matters both now and in the past, here and on Italian Wikipedia is so POV and so aggressive that I'm moved to observe that on the Italian article an IP editing in English per his concerns geolocates to Miami (the capital of anti-Chavez Venezuelan ex-pat-land). Hm. Rd232 ^talk 21:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Rd232 wrote "geolocates to Miami (the capital of anti-Chavez Venezuelan ex-pat-land)" This suggests that you are indeed a chavista and that my suspicion that you work in Miraflores as a Cuban propagandist might not have been completely off the mark (wink wink). If you want to know who I am all you have to do is to look at my user page, mister. Lindorm (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Well that makes no sense at all; I think you're just treating attack as the best form of defence (and BTW it doesn't take a genius figure out I'm in the UK). FYI, I got the info from clicking "IP location" at the bottom of this page. However other IPs in that timeframe geolocate elsewhere, so maybe it was coincidence. (I only looked at one when I mentioned Miami above, I looked at the others to give you the link and found they're different.) Rd232 ^talk 21:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You are absolutely right about that, but what does that have to do with Miami being anti-Chavez? For you to mention that just reveals your prejudices for the world to gloat over. Lindorm (talk) 22:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Um, what, you don't know the significance of Miami? You must live a sheltered life. Rd232 ^talk 22:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

What you call to "know the significance of Miami" is a revelation of just how prejudiced you are, because you are quite obviously not referring to the fact that Miami is one of the most international cities in the world, a city in which local TV has more world news than CNN. As for living a sheltered life, as you can read on my user page I am a geographer who has travelled a bit. You can easily find out online that I have lived and worked in many countries on several continents, from the richest to the poorest. And you? Lindorm (talk) 23:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh FFS... I just find it hard to believe you don't have a clue of the importance of Miami for Cuban and Venezuelan communities. (Incidentally, "and you?" - I've done OK. Not exactly relevant though.) Rd232 ^talk 23:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what FFS means. As for "the importance of Miami..." that is a reflection of your prejudice. As a Swedish Geographer living in Miami, having studied Miami from a socio-political perspective (while active in a presidential campaign) I know quite a bit about prejudice and Miami, and your statements reveal quite a bit of ignorance IMHO. Since this is completely extraneous to this article I propose moving any further discussion to my talk page. Oh and BTW, the article is gradually becoming much better, thank you for your efforts. I just wish you would take criticism a little bit better ;-) Lindorm (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this "I'm just a geographer" stick is wearing thin. You're a Miami-based geographer who blogs on these issues from Esclusa's perspective, have promoted anti-Chavez rallies, and been described by people sympathetic to your views as an "Anti-dictatorship activist". And you had the cheek to file a WP:COIN report on me! (Ah, we're always swiftest to see sins in others we know well ourselves.) Rd232 ^talk 19:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply to JRSP: The quote mentions "trumped-up charges of being a terrorist" which I described as slander, but if you prefer we can change it to "spread trumped-up charges of [him] being a terrorist". Lindorm (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Interpreting the source as "defamation" sounded like original research to me. Please keep in mind that "trumped-up charges of being a terrorist" is something that this specific source says. Does this source has a reputation of neutrality or is it known for its editorial line? What do other sources say? If used, I would suggest attributing the statement to the source. Additionally, I agree with rd232 that his political career started in 1984 so I rearranged the paragraphs to restore chronological order. JRSP (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection to that. In fact, I kept your and his edits but rearranged only the NNPOV statements from his political enemies, since that was my sole beef with the text. Now it is acceptable to me. And all your edits are preserved. Lindorm (talk) 22:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Good to see you guys getting on so well and working towards agreements. Off2riorob (talk) 16:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Supporters

The article can not say that his "supporters" consider him falsely imprisoned or whatever, because that is biased. There are many prominent persons who have publicly expressed that opinion, without being his supporters; even a politician from another party, and foreigners, who have no stake in Venezuelan politics, and clergy, who have to stay out of politics. They can impossibly all be his supporters, why the use of that word is loaded and introduces a bias. I have therefore removed it. Lindorm (talk) 11:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Details: I wrote "Removed "by supporters" since there is no support for labeling the referenced persons "supporters" of A.P.E.; in fact, the congresswoman is from a different party even." Rd232 undid and wrote "no evidence for this; they are all Venezuelan opposition or US conservative" but first, that is not true (Bolivian senators someone?), and second that would still not define them his supporters. Rd232 again undid my undo claiming "neutrality is not established by WP:RS, and isn't plausible - they are all ideologically in the same camp"; however, that is a completely off the mark argument. Lindorm (talk) 12:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

diff of edit by another user covers it. Though I'd add that Esclusa has been active in Bolivia in relation to UnoAmerica, so it's hardly surprising he can muster some Bolivian allies to plead on his behalf. Rd232 ^talk 12:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It is now acceptably neutral. Another possible solution would have been to write it in the passive voice, thus avoiding having to categorize who says it. IMHO, the arguments from Rd232 reveal a bias that does not belong on Wikipedia. 74.164.41.7 (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, Lindorm, as am I of you. However constantly sharing that opinion in multiple fora, when it is not actionable, is potentially harassment. Quit it. Rd232 ^talk 16:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I have taken note that you consider a court order a "questionable source". No comments. This is it: "COMUNICACION JUDICIAL No 33, JUZGADO DE LETRAS CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO, Republica de Honduras, C.A., scanned copy, retrieved 2010-07-17, http://blog.erlingsson.com/bloggbilder/ComunicadoJudicialNo33.pdf" It was introduced by me when some other editor disputed that the action by Zelaya was illegal. It was, is, and always will be illegal under the law. (PS. The reason it is on my blog is that when all the attention was on Honduras in late June, 2009, none of these documents were easily available online, why I asked a contact in the Zelaya government to scan them and mail them to me, so I could put them on my blog. In case you wonder.) Attarparn (talk) 03:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The questionable source is, obviously, your blog, not the document. Were the document available from a reliable source, it would be fine. Blogs are not (generally) reliable sources. (I could put a blog up tomorrow with allegedly scanned documents "proving" the moon is made of cheese.) As to the legality - this has been endlessly discussed at the 2009 Honduras coup article, and those debates should not be rehashed here. Rd232 ^talk 16:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand your logic, because it is really not easy. If I put up a blog with a scanned document from the court, it is unreliable, but if an anonymous group calling itself, let's say "wikipeaks" would put out files they allege were given to them by anonymous sources, and not even scanned documents but ASCII files, then it would be a reliable source, yes? And if I would borrow a copy of Nature from the library it would be a reliable source, but if I borrowed the same issue of the journal from a hobo on the street it would not be? The reference is a court document. The fact that a copy of that court document is hosted on my blog has absolutely nothing to do with the source's credibility. Your arguments are pathetically irrelevant. PS. There is a better and relevant argument but as administrator you should be able to find it yourself. Attarparn (talk) 22:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikileaks verifies its material to standards generally accepted by world media. Nobody verifies PDF files on random blogs, so it doesn't matter what those files contain - they're not Reliable Sources. See WP:RS, or if you really want to hear it from someone else, go to WP:RSN. PS Incidentally, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Use of classified documents may be of interest. Rd232 ^talk 23:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alejandro Peña Esclusa. 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/20110203055820/http://schock.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Schock_CRS_Report_Honduras_FINAL.pdf to http://schock.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Schock_CRS_Report_Honduras_FINAL.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 01:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Alejandro Peña Esclusa. 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/20120930074243/http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw97-8/venezuela.html to http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw97-8/venezuela.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090919224635/http://www.poderjudicial.gob.hn/NR/rdonlyres/D689C75F-8803-4730-A6AA-41A91F5D2A6D/2398/COMUNICADOSITUACIONENHONDCSJ.pdf to http://www.poderjudicial.gob.hn/NR/rdonlyres/D689C75F-8803-4730-A6AA-41A91F5D2A6D/2398/COMUNICADOSITUACIONENHONDCSJ.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100326022807/http://thehrf.org/HRF_TheFactsAndTheLaw_Honduras2009.pdf to http://thehrf.org/HRF_TheFactsAndTheLaw_Honduras2009.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091219204026/http://www.sre.hn/Noticias/Diciembre/Ceremonia_de_Condecoracion_Orden_de_Jose_Cecilio_del_Valle.pdf to http://www.sre.hn/Noticias/Diciembre/Ceremonia_de_Condecoracion_Orden_de_Jose_Cecilio_del_Valle.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100628204219/http://www.nicaraguahoy.info/dir_cgi/topics.cgi?op=view_topic%3Bcat%3DDocumentos%3Bid%3D57239 to http://www.nicaraguahoy.info/dir_cgi/topics.cgi?op=view_topic%3Bcat%3DDocumentos%3Bid%3D57239
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.vtv.gob.ve/noticias-nacionales/39578
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716152422/http://www.laverdad.com/detnotic.php?CodNotic=37828 to http://www.laverdad.com/detnotic.php?CodNotic=37828

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) 11:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)