Talk:Filipe Nyusi

Infobox parameters + format

User:Therequiembellishere reverted my update on the infobox:

• His official name as per the party's manifesto and his official website clearly uses a single letter 's'.
• Unexplained removal of his image that I specifically requested its author to share via the creative commons license. Also note the spelling in the background.
• He has since March '14 been replaced by Mr Modlande as the Defense Minister source 1, source 2 and source 3 (in English)
• I believe the appointment is by the President and NOT the PM. Therefore, stating all the three PMs is a bit of TMI.
• Place of birth: i believe a direct reference to Portuguese Mozambique ought to be made.
• Why are you agaisnt the use of the nationality parameter? We've also had a similar difference of opinion in the Peter Mutharika article.
• Unexplained removal of his spouse, no. of children and profession. Would you care to explain yourself?
• Might I also ask: why did you only leave the death date and place parameters blank? and removed the other blank parameters such as residence, signature.. which can of course be expanded in the near future.
• Website format: direct reference using the {{URL|example.com|optional display text}} template.

Thanks. Ali Fazal (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Religion

What religion he believe?--Kaiyr (talk) 11:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Filipe Nyusi. 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/20110722234134/http://www.imensis.co.mz/news/anmviewer.asp?a=12036 to http://www.imensis.co.mz/news/anmviewer.asp?a=12036
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140905225652/http://www.frelimo.org.mz/sites/frelimo/files/Nyusi_final%5B1%5D.pdf to http://www.frelimo.org.mz/sites/frelimo/files/Nyusi_final%5B1%5D.pdf

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) 17:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

NPOV, BLP issues

I have tagged the article (NPOV language) because it is full of OR, synthesis and statements which are not fully supported by the sources given. A single purpose account has added a great deal of badly sourced critical material. I don't have time to go through it all in detail right now. The article would benefit from scrutiny from other editors. In the meantime, Julian Brandon, please do not remove the tag or reinstate material that is removed without discussion. // Hippo43 (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I am a "government agent", how can I be of assistance? Teixant (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I untagged the article because your opinions/actions seem biased (you= Hippo43). This page needs to be watched by more editors/administrators because there is a possibility of vandalism by government secret agents (disguised as editors) who remove content "critical material" and add tags without proper debate and/or justification and/or research. It seems you cannot believe that the "critical material" can possibly be true because of your own culture, and because of that you believe it can only be NPOV language. You should instead invite other people who have time/skills to verify the passages you don't like by being "critical material". Also, it seems you have grandeur complex (judging by your statements like this one: "I don't have time to go through it all in detail right now"), and you think you don't need to fully justify your statements/actions, or that the public must be subjected to your own limitations of time/skills to do proper research/verifications. You believe, against Wikipedia policies, that if you have an opinion, then that opinion must be true, and everything must blindly be according to your own opinion. Please, list the specific issues that the page has by annotating in-text. Don't just run to remove a passage and/or label the whole page as NPOV language. For example, if you think a passage is poorly/badly sourced, then annotate in-text. Then someone else will explain/teach you where/how to locate such text from the source and/or rewrite the passage to address your concerns and/or add another source. For example, you identified some specific issues with some references, I solved these issues. Please, continue identifying these issues by annotating in-text as it is done on other pages. Also, court documents are identified as court documents, not as definite facts. Why you removed these? You don't want for people to know that there are court documents claiming something. Why? Your justification to remove court documents is: "allegations, not facts. evidence from one side of a court case is not a reliable source". But then, how can you support a statement that someone has been accused of something without providing court documents as evidence? As you can see, you have important limitations in your assumptions/skills. Please return the passages you removed and annotate in-text indicating your specific concerns. Meanwhile, I untagged the page. If you just remove a passage based on the limitations of your own abilities and/or time, then you are doing a disservice to society, because you are not giving other people opportunity to read, review, and improve the material. For example, some of the materials you removed, just because you are unable to comprehend or locate the text in the sources given (language barrier?), are important for the public to know because the legislation is complex and few people have the time, willingness, skills to do proper research. You should instead have raised the issues in-text and someone else could have explained (e.g., by giving more details, or rewriting the passage). So, you are essentially doing disservice to the public. Why? Is the regime paying you? Please, control your eggo and be reasonable. Wikipedia is by the people, for the people, and it has policies. // Julian Brandon (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2021‎.

Help request

• Can somebody please do something here? Like maybe some blocks for edit warring and some page protection? The topic area here is too far afield from my knowledge for me to help, but all you have to do is read the lede to realise the existence of a major problem. Section below is also part of this.174.254.192.159 (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

If there was a violation of WP:3RR, you can report that to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Otherwise, what we have here looks to me like an ordinary content dispute, if a bit heated. You're free to re-activate the request if you feel strongly that this isn't the case of course. 78.28.44.187 (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

I concur with Hippo43 in the previous discussion in that the language is particularly charged with terms such as "death squads", "Despite the fact that", "Moreover," "Despite their [insert ideology] agenda", and other words and phrases that come across as impassioned or designed to incite a certain response from the reader and therefore inappropriate for an Encyclopedia. It's okay to state the fact that people are being assassinated, but for it to be neutral you must refrain from appealing too much to the emotion of the reader and instead focus on the facts. I'm going to flag NPOV again until a consensus is reached. An editor should not remove the tag merely because they feel the article does comply with NPOV: The tag should be removed only when there is a consensus that the disputes have indeed been resolved. Tyrone Madera (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I untagged the article because your opinions/actions seem biased (you= Tyrone Madera). Verify the facts, do not react by emotion. If you have identified specific terms that are not supported by references (e.g.: ""death squads", "Despite the fact that", "Moreover," "Despite their [insert ideology] agenda", and other words and phrases that come across as impassioned or designed to incite a certain response from the reader and therefore inappropriate for an Encyclopedia"), then simply remove these terms and/or annotate in-text if these are badly referenced. As per Wikipedia policies: Arbitrarily labeling the page as not neutral "is discouraged." and "Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. (...).". Please, instead indicate specific and actionable issues so that the community can solve. Don't just run to label the whole page as not neutral without "pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. // Julian Brandon (talk) 06:31, 10 February 2021‎.

Julian Brandon, please stop. Now several editors have disagreed with your view on this. The article is a mess. You are trying to lecture editors on Wikipedia policy, but your contribution here has been to aggressively edit only one article to suit your POV. You obviously don't know what you're doing. Please read WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP etc. // Hippo43 (talk) 03:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Julian Brandon, the tag was not merely to correct a problem with the article, otherwise I would have indeed already corrected it. This tag is to establish that a discussion is going on and that a consensus has not been established yet. Please, don't remove it until a consensus has been reached. I stated my disagreement as part of that discussion. This is by no means meant as criticism or a personal attack. Please, do not remove the tag until the discussion is over or resolved. This is not simply because of a difference of opinion: it is because multiple differing points of view have been stated resulting in a dispute. Tyrone Madera (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Hippo43 and Tyrone Madera, I agree that the events described in the article are aggressive and shocking, but we need to find a better way to address that. The fact that the passages are "aggressive" does not really mean "not neutral". Please, try to verify carefully each passage. I am only trying to share with the public what is usually hidden. I can show you more "painful" (but true) facts if you wish. Should we hide these from Wikipedia just because these are painful facts? Let's collaborate constructively because I think we all have a common goal here at Wikipedia.org. There is no need for dispute. Let's begin by annotating in-text each passage you consider problematic ("non-neutral", "badly referenced", "slanted" , "critical material", etc). That way we can have a constructive, evidence-based, and transparent debate. Let's avoid just labeling the whole page. Let's be more specific. Let me know what you think. (By the way, Hippo43, I would like to do this on many articles on Wikipedia.org, but as you know this requires extensive time (to do things right), so I try to help the most disadvantaged societies first; countries where people have poor access to uncensored, reliable information and Wikipedia.org could help them. Also, Tyrone Madera, I am untagging the article because we need to find a better way to tell the public that there is no consensus on specific passages, indicating the specific passages that are not consensual, not labeling the whole article, which might give the wrong impression that everything on the article is poorly referenced).// Julian Brandon (talk) 03:57, 11 February 2021‎‎.

Julian Brandon, by all means state the facts. My issue is simply with wording. Hippo, as far as I can tell, simply wants reliable citations for those facts. In Wikipedia we try to make our writing Encyclopedic. This means that wording should be as neutral as possible, especially for living people. This is where I was coming from, that the page was written in a fashion that was not neutral. If you agree with me, and we agree with hippo, then there is consensus and we can remove the page tag. By all means, this does not mean that editing shall cease. This is just to notify people of the discussion/dispute. In the meantime, I will edit the wording if you don't mind. Can we agree that the section "Presidency (2015–present)" has very charged language at least? Tyrone Madera (talk) 04:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Tyrone Madera. Good that we agree that the problem is not the whole page, but that the wording needs to be improved in a specific section "Presidency (2015–present)" of the article. But this section is already labelled that it requires copy-editing, and I agree with that. So, I suppose copy-editing includes finding the right words (e.g., "less charged words") to describe some events. But at least we agree that there is no need to label the whole page. Let's then identify the specific passages that have "very charged language" in the section "Presidency (2015–present)" by annotating in-text to "notify people of the discussion/dispute" on specific passages in this specific section of the article, to facilitate action by other people who could help rewriting these specific "non-consensual" or "charged" passages in the section "Presidency (2015–present)" (instead of just labeling the whole page, making it unfeasible for other people to act, and might give the wrong impression that everything on the article is poorly referenced). (That is a relatively small section, so it should be relatively easy to annotate in-text, right?). As you see, after all, there is no need for dispute. A constructive, evidence-based, and transparent debate is what we need. But please indicate the specific "conditions" that need to be "met" to remove this tag from this section, to facilitate action. Otherwise, a more specific tag should instead be used in this section "Presidency (2015–present)", instead of "disputed neutrality" (that is, I will remove (or anyone can remove) this tag if "It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given"; or "In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.", as per Wikipedia policy, because "This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article.") // Julian Brandon (talk) 04:28, 11 February 2021‎‎.

I have tagged the article again. Please do not remove the tag until this has been resolved. In particular, the lead reflects the problems in the presidency section, so the whole article needs to be tagged. Right now the article is very badly written. It reads like it has been written by someone who does not speak English well, and who does not understand Wikipedia well. The tone is overly critical and presents allegations as facts. The use of sources is very poor - it includes primary sources and non reliable sources which are not appropriate, and draws conclusions (WP:SYNTH) which are not presented in sources.

For example, it is not appropriate for Wikipedia articles to say what is illegal, and then to state the conclusion that someone has done something illegal, if that is not explicitly supported by reliable secondary sources.

While some of these allegations may be true, and maybe Nyusi has done some very bad stuff, we need to remember this has to be a useful encyclopedia, and that this is a BLP.

Julian Brandon, if you want to work productively with other editors, please stop reverting changes that are made. Please read WP:OWN. This is not your pet article. When I wrote above that I don't have time to deal with this in detail, part of the problem is that any change I make is immediately reverted by an aggressive single purpose editor. JB, please take a step back and leave the article alone for a few days. If you want to make changes, discuss them here. // Hippo43 (talk) 06:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Hippo43, you need to be more specific, more collaborative, and provide evidence to support your opinions. You seem to believe that your opinions are always true, and should always be enforced without proper, detailed justification. Try to identify specific issues and annotate in-text or correct these specific issues. That is what a productive and transparent editing is, not just arbitrarily labeling the whole page. I am not going to repeat this again (I have explained this extensively above), so as it stands, I believe that I agree with Tyrone Madera that we need to be specific, to make it feasible for other people to contribute, labeling the specific section "Presidency (2015–present)". If you think some words are not appropriate elsewhere, replace these words with more specific words or annotate in-text indicating your concerns about some words that your think are not appropriate or references that you think are poor (and why you think each of such word/reference is not appropriate/poor; provide concrete evidence to support your opinions). That is what being productive is, and will help other people contribute to improve the article. Why you seem to run to just label the whole article? (For your reference, Obama's article also has the word "illegal"). Meanwhile, I will keep what we agreed with Tyrone Madera: only label the section "Presidency (2015–present)". That is, I will revert any tagging of the whole article, unless specific, evidence-based, and transparent issues are raised, annotated in-text. // Julian Brandon (talk) 09:03, 11 February 2021‎

You don't know what you're doing. Your knowledge of Wikipedia amounts to aggressively editing one article. Just stop. // Hippo43 (talk) 08:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Julian Brandon, When I offered to tag "Presidency (2015–present)" it was out of desire to find common ground. I also agree that the whole article should be tagged. I also wanted to hear from Hippo43. As for the reasoning for the justification, I gave mine in the first paragraph. This is not a blanket response. I named out specific examples. The criteria for removing such a tag has been made clear: consensus on our course of action. The details of the justification have been stated, and this is a call for discussion. The whole point of the tag is to get people talking instead of editing back and forth, as seems to be happening.

As for everyone here, I don't really like where this talk page is going, as it feels like it is becoming increasingly hostile. I myself am not very good at conflict resolution over the web, especially when it is text-based, so please bear with me. I know that we are supposed to be bold on Wikipedia, but it shouldn't turn into people accusing each other of bad faith and telling each other that we don't know what we're doing. As editors, we should try to be kind to one another and act under the presumption of good faith whenever possible, because without such grace no one would want to edit on Wikipedia.

So let's start by answering this question: what course of action, if any, should be taken to improve this article? If I understand you right Julian Brandon you wanted to start with annotation. What did you want to do Hippo43? Can we all at least agree that a dispute is happening? Tyrone Madera (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, I find it difficult to assume good faith when one editor pretends not to understand why the article is tagged, and accuses me of being paid by the regime, while ranting about secret agents editing the article.

The tag is necessary because most of the article text was added by one editor who clearly has a very anti-Nyusi view, has added a specific narrative to the text, and has no history of contributing to anything else in Wikipedia. The allegations may well be true, but they need to be written in an NPOV way. For example, the elections were described, in Wikipedia's voice, as "rigged", when the sources given did not specifically say this.

In terms of action, I think the article needs to be carefully scrutinised, almost sentence by sentence. Do the sources actually say what the text says they say? Are these reliable sources? Is it an example of synthesis? Are there other sources out there which say something different?

At the same time, it would benefit from editors looking at the bigger picture. The article should be about Nyusi, not about Mozambique in general or about things that have happened there, unless they can be attributed to him or his government. Right now there is almost nothing on his time as Minister of Defense. There is also nothing positive about his time as president. We need to look for other sources which cover this, not just those which cover secret loans and murders. Maybe there is nothing out there, but if there are sources which describe positive things he has done, they should be included.

Until we can make some progress on this, the tag needs to stay. // Hippo43 (talk) 00:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Tyrone Madera, I agree with you. Annotation is the way to go here because it enforces transparency and responsibility in editing (sentence by sentence, word by word). These are necessary for this article because people might have emotions and/or conflicts of interest and/or passions and/or limited time/skills. We know that what is written in this article might influence ongoing criminal investigations in the United States, United Kingdom, Mozambique, and perhaps elsewhere . It is not uncommon for Wikipedia articles to be used in courts of law . So, some powerful forces might be interested in controlling the rhetoric and content of this article (disguised as editors). Perhaps when I said that above some people might have not taken seriously. Also, as I said above, myself I am trying to share facts. Most of the time, people just do quick search on Google, and then edit Wikipedia articles based on that. For rich countries, that approach can help. But for countries like this one, it requires more work to identify reliable, detailed sources. That is what I have been doing. People of this country have suffered too much, and part of that suffering is because of lack of reliable, detailed information. When interpreting Wikipedia polices, it is important to always remember the overall goal of Wikipedia and its logo . Sometimes, the need to educate the public can make things uncomfortable for some powerful forces, and Wikipedia has paid a significant price for that . We need to realize that Wikipedia for many people is one of the first sources (or the only source) of information, particularly in countries like this one. So, this is not merely a writing exercise: the future of millions of people is at stake, so we need to be careful and verify facts carefully before removing. So, as you see, responsible and transparent editing is necessary here. This means, we need to justify our disagreements and opinions using in-text annotations, so that everyone can see and contribute. Sometimes, one editor might misunderstand one specific passage and be compelled to just remove it, but if they first annotate explaining their opinion about specific problem of that passage, perhaps other editors who are more knowledgeable and/or have more time might solve the problem. And because of that, just labeling the whole page as not neutral is more detrimental than helpful, and sub-optimal at best; it simply gives the impression that everything in the article is not reliable, which is not true. This does not mean that the article is perfect. Clearly, there is a need for improvements, as usual. Remember the logo of Wikipedia . But that is a gradual and collaborative process, so specific issues need to be identified and annotated, to ensure responsible, transparent, and collaborative editing. While balance is vital, but we need to ensure that the need for balance does not mean hiding facts just because these are perceived as being "critical" or "aggressive" or "charged". We can usually find better words to convey the same message but more appropriately. That is something that can be done gradually. But the facts need to be there. Just labeling the whole page as not neutral is sub-optimal at best. It creates opportunity for abuse of power by some editors, and also makes it harder for people to understand "what the neutrality issue is". Other than that, I have been analyzing some copy-editing that has been done on the article, and my view is that we are on the same side. So, no need for dispute, Hippo43. So, I untagged (specific sections/passages can be labelled, but not the whole article) because doing so it is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given for that. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Filipe_Nyusi#NPOV_dispute//> Please, annotate specific passages instead. Julian Brandon (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2021‎.

Julian Brandon, I and Tyrone Madera have both stated that we think the article should be tagged. Stop editing dishonestly. This is becoming vandalism. // Hippo43 (talk) 01:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Hippo43. Try to read carefully my detailed explanations. Let's have a content-centered and reason-based discussion. You will see that we are on the same side. The idea of Tyrone Madera is a good compromise (tag the relevant section: "Presidency (2015–present)"; annotate in-text sentence by sentence to enforce transparent and responsible editing). That approach (discussion and compromise), as suggested by Tyrone Madera), is in line with Wikipedia policies (not "brute force vote"):Experience shows that in smaller groups, discussion and compromise will produce a better product than a brute force vote and a "majority rules" approach. . Julian Brandon (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2021‎

The only brute force approach is your edit warring. Two of us have clearly stated that we think the article needs to be tagged. Only you have disagreed. This is not voting, it is editors trying to work together honestly. Give it up, please. // Hippo43 (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Hippo43, Again, try to read carefully my detailed explanations. Let's have a content-centered and reason-based discussion. I am serious about what I am doing here. This is not a game. I know what is at stake here. So I will only give up if we reach a compromise that is based content-centered and reason-based discussion. Other than that, I will untag and always provide detailed explanations for my actions. If you read carefully my detailed explanations, you will see that we are on the same side. The idea of Tyrone Madera is a good compromise (tag the relevant section: "Presidency (2015–present)"; annotate in-text sentence by sentence to enforce transparent and responsible editing). So, I will stay with that because that approach (discussion and compromise), as suggested by Tyrone Madera), is in line with Wikipedia policies (not "brute force vote"): Experience shows that in smaller groups, discussion and compromise will produce a better product than a brute force vote and a "majority rules" approach . Julian Brandon (talk) 10:26, 12 February 2021

You are being dishonest, obviously. Tyrone Madera wrote "I also agree that the whole article should be tagged." in their most recent comment. There is clear consensus that the whole article should be tagged. Obviously. // Hippo43 (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I did this before, but I did not receive any satisfactory justification, instead "brute force vote" was used, etc, although it is not advised in small groups, as per Wikipedia policy. So, from those who defend User:Hippo43's position, User:Hippo43, User:Tyrone Madera , etc, I request a detailed, content-based justification as to why the article is not neutral (pls, be specific, provide concrete examples, passages from the article). Before, you mentioned "charged words", etc, as the reason: could you pls annotate in-text, or list when responding to this request, these "charged" words, so that alternative words can be found, and used instead, to make the article neutral? Saying that editors X and Y also think so is not really a justification. The fact that other editors think like User:Hippo43 does not really make their view correct. Popularity of a viewpoint does not imply being correct. Truth is not democracy, or is it? I also request a detailed, content-based justification as to why the word "illegal" has been removed from the subheading. These two issues created edit-warring before, so let's try a different approach now. I am waiting for your responses. // Julian Brandon (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2021‎. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julian Brandon (talk • contribs) 21:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I have made this a more generic help request, as administrators do not settle content disputes, thus any editor may weigh in. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

331dot, Rotideypoc41352 - did not look too much into detail into this dispute, paid attention to the HelpMe Tagging - I would suggest to go the way listed at WP:THIRD. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The following changes have been made (=> changed to):

1. Tag "neutrality disputed" removed. //Justification: no content-based justification was provided after several requests from those defending the tagging. See above for more details. To ensure a principled, reason-based debate, I requested assistance from administrators. Nevertheless, no content-based justification was provided either. Please, do not revert this edit without content-based discussion, addressing point-by-point the issues raised above.

2. Secret loans=>illegal loans (subheading) or illegal loans (also known as "hidden debts") (elsewhere). //Justification: No content-based justification was provided after several requests from those defending hiding the word "illegal". See above for more details. To ensure a principled, reason-based debate, I requested assistance from administrators. Nevertheless, no content-based justification was provided either. Please, do not revert this edit without content-based discussion, addressing point-by-point the issues raised above.

3. The Frelimo government has been described as authoritarian by some journalists.=> The Frelimo government has been described as authoritarian by The Economist Intelligence Unit. //Justification: The journalists only reported the results of the analysis of the Economist Intelligence Unit. Please, do not remove "authoritarian by The Economist Intelligence" or the EIU citation without proper discussion.

4. In May 2020, Mozambique's Constitutional Court declared the loans illegal and void, as they were not approved by parliament, ruling that the country does not have to repay them. =>In June 2019 and May 2020, Mozambique's Constitutional Council declared the loans illegal and void, as they were not approved by parliament, ruling that “no expenditure can be assumed, ordered or carried out without being duly registered in the budget of the approved state ... which was not the case.” //Justification: There were two ruling of the top court in 2019 and 2020: https://www.reuters.com/article/mozambique-debt-idUSL8N23B5N8; "ruling that the country does not have to repay them" implies that the court said that the government does can pay the loans although it is not compulsory. This is inaccurate and has been replaced with the quotation from the original source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Quotations

5. Added: The U.S. Justice Department alleges that loans were a front for government officials and bankers to enrich themselves. Refs: https://www.bloombergquint.com/business/hedge-funds-enter-credit-suisse-bribery-fight-with-mozambique

6. Mozambican law prohibits public officials from receiving personal payments from third parties in connection with their current or former public office.Refs. https://www.pgr.gov.mz/por/Media/Files/CRV/Lei-de-Probidade-Publica; https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-31/french-billionaire-puts-mozambique-leader-at-heart-of-debt-scam

7. It has been alleged that he received up to 2 million dollars in bribes in 2014 in connection with these loans when he was Minister of Defence.=> It has been alleged that he received up to 2 million dollars in bribes in 2014 in connection with these loans when he was Minister of Defence and/or afterwards. //Justification: These court documents state that the bribes he received throughout 2014, not necessarily when he was Minister of Defense, but were in the context of his former office of Minister of Defence. Also, it is necessary to add references here (the court documents making these allegations), for verifiability. Feel free to edit but please do not remove these references/content without proper discussion.

8. During his time in office, Mozambique has experienced increased poverty, assassinations of prominent leaders of opposition parties, academics, journalists, and leaders of civil society organizations, as well as increased warfare in the central and northern regions of the country=>During his time in office, Mozambique has experienced increased poverty. According to Mozambique Workers' Organization (Portuguese: Organização dos Trabalhadores de Moçambique), 23% of Mozambicans do not have any job or a means to earn a living. Most of the unemployed in the country are young. Since 2015, prominent leaders of opposition parties, academics, journalists, and leaders of civil society organizations have been assassinated throughout the country. Several assassination attempts, believed to be ordered by the Nyusi government, were made against the historical leader of opposition party RENAMO, Afonso Dhlakama. After these assassination attempts against Afonso Dhlakama, who demanded governship in 6 provinces he and his party RENAMO had won in the 2014 general election, war resumed in the traditional bastion of opposition party RENAMO in the central region of the country. The war in the central Mozambique continues to date. In 2017, another war started in the resource-rich northern region of country. //Justification: The war in the northern region of the country started during his presidency. The war in the central province was preceded by assassination attempts against oposition leader Afonso Dhlakama. References added for verifibility. Feel free to edit but please do not remove these references/content without proper discussion.

9. On 23 August 2020, the offices of Canal de Moçambique were petrol-bombed. Canal de Moçambique is a reputable and independent media house, which usually reports corruption involving the ruling party Frelimo.=> Repression of freedom of the press and freedom of expression (suhheading). Nyusi's government has been accused of repression of freedom of the press and freedom of expression by AI and other national and international organizations. Several journalists have been attacked, kidnapped, and killed in the country during the Nyusi's governemnt.On 28 August 2015, Paulo Machava, editor-in-chief and senior investigative reporter for the Diario de Noticias news website, was shot by unknown assailants in the capital. On 31 December 2019, unidentified assailants attacked Guente, executive editor of the independent weekly “Canal de Moçambique”, in the inner Maputo suburb of Alto-Mae, and attempted to kidnap him. Although injured, he was able to escape to a nearby workshop. Passers-by who saw what was going on called for help, and the would-be kidnappers fled the scene. Guente received medical care at a private clinic. Ibraimo Mbaruco, a reporter for Rádio Comunitária de Palma, a community radio station in Palma, a remote coastal town in Cabo Delgado province, has been missing ever since 7 April 2020 when, in his last message, he said he was “surrounded by military". On 23 August 2020, the offices of Canal de Moçambique were petrol-bombed. . Canal de Moçambique is a reputable and independent media house, which usually reports corruption involving the ruling party Frelimo. On 13 September 2020, Luciano da Conceição was assaulted by strangers outside his home and taken to a beach area in the town of Maxixe, where he remained until the next day.It is alleged that investigations of such killings and other related crimes are not investigated. //Justification: Important details were missing on this matter. References added for verifiability. Feel free to edit but please do not remove these references/content without proper discussion.

10. It is alleged that investigations of such killings and other related crimes are not investigated.=>It is alleged that such killings and other related crimes are not investigated. //Justification: the previous form repeated "investigations".

11.Insurgents in Cabo Delgado in northern Mozambique seized a key port, Mocímboa da Praia on 13 August 2020, and two strategic islands of Mecungo (Mocímboa) and Vamisse (Olumbe, Palma) on 8 September 2020 (while still holding Mocímboa da Praia). The insurgents were recognised as local men. The insurgents are building on decades of local frustrations about unemployment, rigged elections, corruption and violence.=> A war started on 5 October 2017 in the northern region of the country when a group of insurgents occupied the district town and port of Mocimboa da Praia for two days. On 13 August 2020, the insurgents in Cabo Delgado in northern Mozambique seized again the key port of Mocímboa da Praia. On 8 September 2020, they seized two strategic islands of Mecungo (Mocímboa) and Vamisse (Olumbe, Palma), while still holding Mocímboa da Praia. Since then the war expanded rapidly; at least 1,500 people have been killed and an estimated 250,000 have fled their homes. The insurgents are building on decades of local frustrations about unemployment, rigged elections, corruption and violence. In the central provinces, Mariano Nhongo, who was elected leader of the dissident group called "Junta Militar da Renamo" (JMR), has renegaded the 2019 peace agreement between Nyusi and Ossufo Momade. JMR claims that Ossufo Momade, elected president of Renamo in contested internal elections after the death of the historic leader of Renamo Afonso Dhlakama on 3 May 2018, has betrayed the party ideology. Nhongo alleges that Ossufo Momade should resign as President of Renamo. The war in the central province continues to date. There are attacks on roads that connect the south to the rest of the country. Travel by road is only possible when accompanied with military vehicles. Nhongo has published a document detailing the requirements for a possible peace agreement with Nyusi's government. JMR alleges that all relevant state positions, promotions, and employment opportunities in the country require being a registered member of the ruling party Frelimo. This has been described by experts.//Justification: Date when the war in the northern region of the country started has been added. Human cost of the war has been added. Also, details about the war in the central region of Mozambique added. References added for verifiability. Feel free to edit but please do not remove these references/content without discussion.

12. Reference added to "The independence of the judiciary in Mozambique has been questioned by experts": Trindade, João Carlos (2020) : Rule of law and judicial independence, WIDER Working Paper, No. 2020/134, ISBN 978-92-9256-891-7, The United Nations University World Institute for Development Economics Research (UNU-WIDER), Helsinki, http://dx.doi.org/10.35188/UNU-WIDER/2020/891-7. Also: https://news.un.org/en/story/2010/12/361622-un-expert-calls-mozambique-enhance-independence-judiciary. //Justification: Citing this scholarly paper and UN report is necessary to support this statement.

13. The following ref added: https://cipmoz.org/documentos/ (PDF of all currently available court documents related to the loans). Please, don't remove without proper discussion. This source is important because it aggregated all relevant court documents in a single repository, facilitating verifiability.

14. Also, please don't just delete refs arbitrarily. Eg: former refs 69, 70, 71, 66, 67, 56, 57, 65, 12, 13 were deleted without proper justification, and a dead link was left in their place. This behaviour amounts to vandalism.

15. Between 2013 and 2014 state-owned security and fishing companies borrowed $622 million from Swiss bank Credit Suisse, and $535 million from the Russian bank VTB, ostensibly for a project involving tuna fishing and maritime security.=>Between 2013 and 2014 three state-owned companies (Ematum, Mozambique Asset Management (MAM), Proindicus) borrowed $622 million from Swiss bank Credit Suisse, and $535 million from the Russian bank VTB, ostensibly for a project involving tuna fishing and maritime security.// Justification: names of the companies added.

Please, feel free to edit the content. But please always provide detailed justification for your edits to ensure responsible, transparent, and honest editing. See above for explanation as to why this is necessary for this article. Do not simply remove passages or references without proper justification. Extensive justifications can be added as discussion on this Talk page. Details 1-15 may be deleted eventually (only the justifications will be kept for posterity), but have been provided here to ensure a transparent, honest, and responsible editing. I am setting an example myself, proving that what I said above is possible, and it is the best approach to avoid editorial abuse and edit wars for articles like this one where some editors might be compromised by emotions and/or conflict of interest and/or passions and/or lack of time/skills. --Julian Brandon (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest to keep the "neutrality disputed" tag. Here is my view about issues with neutrality in the article:

• "The Frelimo government has been described as authoritarian by The Economist Intelligence Unit" sentence in the first paragraph comes from a single source, that Unit. To make such a bold statement in the first paragraph, expert opinions by more than one (preferably more than two) sources would be preferred.
• Sentence "The 2019 election was characterized by instances of fraud, intimidation, and the murders of opposition leaders and election observers." is not attributed correctly. I would complement it with 'According to ..., the 2019 election was ...', and also complement it with remarks from people who think that the election was legitimate. Presenting opinions from both sides would in my opinion make this paragraph more comprehensive. Multiple sources are cited here but the excerpt is minimal and potentially biased.
• I don't like the third paragraph, "Nyusi has been accused of corruption in connection with illegal loans (also known as "hidden debts") that caused an economic crisis in the country.[11][12] It has been alleged that he received up to 2 million dollars in bribes in 2014 in connection with these loans when he was Minister of Defence and/or afterwards.[12], at all. In biographies of living people we don't include allegations usually, not unless they have been confirmed by legal authorities. I would suggest to add more clarity here about when these accusations were made and what is their legal status.
• The next paragraph "His time in office has been marked by increased poverty, assassinations of leaders of opposition parties, journalists, and academics, escalation of war in the central and northern regions of the country, and accusations of abuse of power." also lacks attribution, and also no figures have been provided. Poverty may be quantifiable, perhaps, and assassinations can be countable also.

I hope it helps you to see where the tag is coming from. Please keep it. Gryllida (talk) 00:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

(Re-added.) Gryllida (talk) 00:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi User talk:Gryllida, The specific issues you raised will be solved right away. Meanwhile, if you may please identify other issues to improve the article. No need to tag "neutrality disputed" because these issues you described are a matter of copy-editing because what you are saying is that there are a few passages that need to be written differently (and you suggested how these should be written, so it just a matter of writing as you suggest, right?) or that need more citations (so, this is a matter of adding more sources in the passages you identified, right?). Are these issues a matter of neutrality, really? I or some one else will work on these issues. --Julian Brandon (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Solving these issues straight away is okay. However, there is no instant availability of a volunteer to check. It would be appreciated if the tag stayed until someone goes through more than the first four paragraphs like I did. Please note that this is not my strong topic area: biography experts are best found in WP:WikiProject Biography. Thanks. Gryllida (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

For some parts citations are already found and for other parts citations are missing. Not only rewording will be required, but also the content will need to be changed, as I understand. Thank you for your prompt response and editing, this is appreciated. Gryllida (talk) 01:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi User talk:Gryllida, The specific issues you raised have been be solved. So, no need to tag "neutrality disputed" because these issues you described are a matter of copy-editing because what you are saying is that there are a few passages that need to be written differently (and you suggested how these should be written, so it just a matter of writing as you suggested, and I did it) or that need more citations (so, this is a matter of adding more sources in the passages you identified, and I did it).

Issue: "The Frelimo government has been described as authoritarian by The Economist Intelligence Unit" sentence in the first paragraph comes from a single source, that Unit. To make such a bold statement in the first paragraph, expert opinions by more than one (preferably more than two) sources would be preferred.

Solution: "The Frelimo government has been described as authoritarian by The Economist Intelligence Unit"=>"The Frelimo government has been described as authoritarian by various experts." (Expert opinions by more than one (three sources) have been cited as requested: https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2019.1671357; https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230609778_9; https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2020/)

Issue: Sentence "The 2019 election was characterized by instances of fraud, intimidation, and the murders of opposition leaders and election observers." is not attributed correctly. I would complement it with 'According to ..., the 2019 election was ...', and also complement it with remarks from people who think that the election was legitimate. Presenting opinions from both sides would in my opinion make this paragraph more comprehensive. Multiple sources are cited here but the excerpt is minimal and potentially biased.

Solution: "The 2019 election was characterized by instances of fraud, intimidation, and the murders of opposition leaders and election observers."=>"According to European Union Election Observation Mission in Mozambique, Commonwealth Observer Group, U.S. Embassy in Mozambique, the 2019 election was characterized by instances of fraud, intimidation, and the murders of opposition leaders and election observers."

Issue: I don't like the third paragraph, "Nyusi has been accused of corruption in connection with illegal loans (also known as "hidden debts") that caused an economic crisis in the country.[11][12] It has been alleged that he received up to 2 million dollars in bribes in 2014 in connection with these loans when he was Minister of Defence and/or afterwards.[12], at all. In biographies of living people we don't include allegations usually, not unless they have been confirmed by legal authorities. I would suggest to add more clarity here about when these accusations were made and what is their legal status."

Solution: "Nyusi has been accused of corruption in connection with illegal loans (also known as "hidden debts") that caused an economic crisis in the country.[11][12] It has been alleged that he received up to 2 million dollars in bribes in 2014 in connection with these loans when he was Minister of Defence and/or afterwards.[12]"=> "Nyusi has been accused of corruption in connection with illegal loans (also known as "hidden debts") that caused an economic crisis in the country.[11][12] Court documents filled in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern Distric of New York in 2019 and in The High Court of Justice in London in 2021 alleged that Nyusi he received up to 2 million dollars in bribes in 2014 in connection with these loans when he was Minister of Defence and/or afterwards.[12]"

Issue: The next paragraph "His time in office has been marked by increased poverty, assassinations of leaders of opposition parties, journalists, and academics, escalation of war in the central and northern regions of the country, and accusations of abuse of power." also lacks attribution, and also no figures have been provided. Poverty may be quantifiable, perhaps, and assassinations can be countable also.

Solution: "His time in office has been marked by increased poverty, assassinations of leaders of opposition parties, journalists, and academics, escalation of war in the central and northern regions of the country, and accusations of abuse of power." => "During his time in office the number of multidimensionally poor people increased by approximately one million in the period 2015–2018.[15] Since March 2015, at least 10 high-profile figures have been killed in the country. [16] These include leaders of opposition parties, journalists, and academics.[17][18][19][20][16] Nyusi has also been accused of abuse of power. Instances include 90,000 school desks publicly delivered by Nyusi in September 2018 that were manufactured by a company 50% owned by his daughter.[21][22] His time in office has been marked by escalation of war in the central and northern regions of the country.[23][24][25]"

As you see, Identify the specific issues and passages, and list these on this talk page. Then these will be solved. Don't just run to label the whole article as "neutrality disputed" without first discussing. It is true that the article needs copy-editing and that has been acknowledged. But for neutrality you need to justify your position with facts. See above for applicable Wikipedia policy. People who are not familiar with this topic might feel compelled to tag just because they are not familiar with the topic, etc. We need to avoid bias, conflict of interest, editorial abuse, etc, as indicated above. So, we need to have a content-based, reason-centered, fact-driven discussion. We need to enforce a responsible, transparent, honest editing. So, please discuss first your concerns. More details see above. --Julian Brandon (talk) 02:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

After someone adds a tag, could you please allow someone (not you) to check that issues have been fixed before removing it. We don't have enough volunteers to instantly proofread your work after it has been completed. I am waiting for your confirmation about this before continuing. Gryllida (talk) 02:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC).

Hi,Gryllida, if it is a matter of proof-reading, then add a proper tag saying proof-reading is needed. But again. After that person who will do proof-reading, has done proof-reading, who will check if this proof-reading is correct? Is it policy of Wikipedia to add "neutrality disputed" tag every time that someones edits an article on Wikipedia? Clearly, that is not Wikipedia policy. That is your desire because Wikipedia policy is clear regarding "neutrality disputed" tag. That is the type of bias I am talking about. We need to avoid these arbitrary desires and bias by enforcing objectivity in editing. What you are talking about is copy-editing or something else. For "neutrality disputed" tag, a justification is required. See here; --Julian Brandon (talk) 03:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Consensus implies that "someone else" can mark issues as fixed. It is not instant, there is no central authority for this and it is not you either. Gryllida (talk) 03:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I've checked the current revision:

• Adding "by several sources" does not help. The reader should know who claimed this. Otherwise "Someone said X" still reads as if "X is true". Wikipedia can not say this.
• "the 2019 election was characterized by instances of fraud, intimidation, and the murders of opposition leaders and election observers" has been improved by attributing it, but in my view it is not neutral to bring this claim to the top of the article about a person without putting in the effort to present other peoples' viewpoints about this. This is selection bias. I would suggest that in this article you mention that this election was controversial and give wikilink to a separate page about it; and in the page about the election, have a separate section where the fraud issues are discussed in more detail.
• "Nyusi has been accused of corruption in connection with illegal loans (also known as "hidden debts") that caused an economic crisis in the country." appears to be unfixed.
• "Court documents filled in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern Distric of New York in 2019 and in The High Court of Justice in London in 2021 alleged that Nyusi he received up to 2 million dollars in bribes in 2014 in connection with these loans when he was Minister of Defence and/or afterwards." is better now but (1) who filed these documents (2) conviction hasn't been recorded as I understand and this may make it inappropriate to include in a biography of a living person.
• "During his time in office the number of multidimensionally poor people increased by approximately one million in the period 2015–2018." is an absolute number. What is the respective relative figure? By how many % did it increase? By how many % does it usually increase over an average three year period?
• "Since March 2015, at least 10 high-profile figures have been killed in the country. Relevance of this is unclear. How is 'high profile' defined? How big is this figure? How many similarly defined high profile figures have been killed in the country previously?
• "Nyusi has also been accused of abuse of power." by whom and when and what happened then? We can not write rumours into Wikipedia.

Again just reminding that I just went through section zero and didn't touch other sections. Regards, Gryllida (talk) 03:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Gryllida, Wikipedia policy is clear regarding when to remove NPOV template. Please pay attention to the text highlighted in bold: " When to remove This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant. "

As you can see, the Wikipedia policy is clear. What you are saying is something different, your desires. Also, if you have specific concerns, then as I said above be specific indicating specific passages and list these on this talk page. Then these will be solved. The fact that there are issues that you identified does not really imply "neutrality disputed". You are confusing concepts. Meanwhile, if you don't mind please keep identifying other issues and list these on this talk page. That will help improve the article. I or someone else will solve these as I just showed above. No Wikipedia page is perfect. Perfection is something that will be achieved gradually. But that does not mean that whenever an article is not perfect, then it should be tagged as "neutrality disputed". That is not the meaning of "neutrality disputed".--Julian Brandon (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Personally I would interpret it as ability to remove the tag after this discussion is dormant and you are satisfied the issues have been solved, right? Gryllida (talk) 03:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi User:Gryllida. I solved these the other specific issues you identified. If you don't mind, please continue identifying additional issues. That will gradually help improve the article. But please provide the specific passages and specific issues. Regarding Wikipedia policy, I will not repeat myself. The passage above is clear: any of the three criteria is enough to remove the tag. Always I justify with details my actions as I did above. For now, here are the solutions for the issues you raised. These are about copy-editing, request for comparisons, request for additional details, and so on. Clearly, any new editor will always identify something that they thing should be added. That has nothing to do with neutrality. It is about overall improvement of the article, adding more details, etc:

Issue: Adding "by several sources" does not help. The reader should know who claimed this. Otherwise "Someone said X" still reads as if "X is true". Wikipedia can not say this.

Solution: "The Frelimo government has been described as authoritarian by by several sources[1,2,3,...]"=>"The Frelimo government has been described as authoritarian by The Economist Intelligence Unit,[2] Monjane et al,[3] and Manning et al.[4] "

Issue: "the 2019 election was characterized by instances of fraud, intimidation, and the murders of opposition leaders and election observers" has been improved by attributing it, but in my view it is not neutral to bring this claim to the top of the article about a person without putting in the effort to present other peoples' viewpoints about this. This is selection bias. I would suggest that in this article you mention that this election was controversial and give wikilink to a separate page about it; and in the page about the election, have a separate section where the fraud issues are discussed in more detail.

Solution: "European Union Election Observation Mission in Mozambique, Commonwealth Observer Group, U.S. Embassy in Mozambique, the 2019 election was characterized by instances of fraud, intimidation, and the murders of opposition leaders and election observers.[9][10][11][12]"=>"According to European Union Election Observation Mission in Mozambique, Commonwealth Observer Group, U.S. Embassy in Mozambique, the 2019 election was characterized by instances of fraud, intimidation, and the murders of opposition leaders and election observers.[6][7][8][9] The President of the National Election Commission acknowledged that the 2019 elections were marked by irregularities, stating that "that is why when [the National Election Commission] announced the results, nobody heard [the National Election Commission] saying that the elections were free, fair and transparent".[10] Frelimo described the elections as just and free.[11]".

Issue: "Nyusi has been accused of corruption in connection with illegal loans (also known as "hidden debts") that caused an economic crisis in the country." appears to be unfixed.

Solution: "Nyusi has been accused of corruption in connection with illegal loans (also known as "hidden debts") that caused an economic crisis in the country.[13][14] Court documents filled in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern Distric of New York in 2019 and in The High Court of Justice in London in 2021 alleged that Nyusi he received up to 2 million dollars in bribes in 2014 in connection with these loans when he was Minister of Defence and/or afterwards.[14]"=>"Court documents filled by Jean Boustani in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern Distric of New York in 2019 and by Iskandar Safa in The High Court of Justice in London in 2021 alleged that Nyusi received up to 2 million dollars in bribes in 2014 in connection with illegal loans (also known as "hidden debts") that caused an economic crisis in the country, when he was Minister of Defence and/or afterwards.[12][13]"

Issue: "Court documents filled in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern Distric of New York in 2019 and in The High Court of Justice in London in 2021 alleged that Nyusi he received up to 2 million dollars in bribes in 2014 in connection with these loans when he was Minister of Defence and/or afterwards." is better now but (1) who filed these documents (2) conviction hasn't been recorded as I understand and this may make it inappropriate to include in a biography of a living person.

Solution: "Court documents filled in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern Distric of New York in 2019 and in The High Court of Justice in London in 2021 alleged that Nyusi received up to 2 million dollars in bribes in 2014 in connection with illegal loans (also known as "hidden debts") that caused an economic crisis in the country, when he was Minister of Defence and/or afterwards.[14][13][14]" =>"Court documents filled by Jean Boustani in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern Distric of New York in 2019 and by Iskandar Safa in The High Court of Justice in London in 2021 alleged that Nyusi received up to 2 million dollars in bribes in 2014 in connection with illegal loans (also known as "hidden debts") that caused an economic crisis in the country, when he was Minister of Defence and/or afterwards.[12][13]" No justification has been provided as to why mentioning that someone was accused of some wrongdoing in a court of law. This fact is true regardless of the outcome. he can be convicted or not. But that does not nulify the fact that he was accused/mentioned in these court documents.

Issue: "During his time in office the number of multidimensionally poor people increased by approximately one million in the period 2015–2018." is an absolute number. What is the respective relative figure? By how many % did it increase? By how many % does it usually increase over an average three year period?

Solution: "During his time in office the number of multidimensionally poor people increased by approximately one million in the period 2015–2018."=>"During his time in office from 2015–18 the poverty reduction trend observed between 2009–11 and 2015 decelerated rapidly; the number of multidimensionally poor people increased by approximately one million in the period 2015–2018, from about 21.3 to about 22.2 million people, mainly located in the rural areas of the central provinces.[14] "

Issue: "Since March 2015, at least 10 high-profile figures have been killed in the country. Relevance of this is unclear. How is 'high profile' defined? How big is this figure? How many similarly defined high profile figures have been killed in the country previously?

Solution: "Since March 2015, at least 10 high-profile figures have been killed in the country. [16] These include leaders of opposition parties, journalists, and academics.[17][18][19][20][16]." => "Since March 2015, at least 10 high-profile figures have been killed in the country. [15] These include leaders of opposition parties, journalists, and academics.[16][17][18][19][15] Previously, no similarly defined high-profile leaders of opposition parties and academics were reported killed since the Peace Accord of 1992 between Renamo and Frelimo.[20]"

Issue/Solution: "Nyusi has also been accused of abuse of power." by whom and when and what happened then? We can not write rumours into Wikipedia. Response: This work (https://www.dw.com/pt-002/cip-conflitos-de-interesse-na-compra-de-carteiras-escolares-pelo-estado/a-45587940) was published by Centro de Integridade Publica (CIP), which is run by a respected UK researcher (https://www.dw.com/pt-002/foram-as-piores-elei%C3%A7%C3%B5es-de-sempre-de-mo%C3%A7ambique-diz-investigador-brit%C3%A2nico/a-50876399) and national researchers (https://cipmoz.org/). It is unethical to call their research rumor.

As you can see, identify the specific passages and issues. Then these will be solved. And the article will improve gradually that way. That is not related with biased, subjective, emotional "neutrality disputed" tagging. A content-centered, reason-based, fact-driven debate is the way to go here to avoid bias, conflict of interest, editorial abuse, etc, as indicated above. "neutrality dispute" tagging is a different concept as per Wikipedia policy. It requires specific justification, and the criteria for its removal are also clear as per Wikipedia policy. See above for further details. So, let's not confuse concepts. Meanwhile, if you don't mind please continue identifying the specific passages and issues that need to be improved. Then these will be solved. And the article will become more perfect gradually that way. --Julian Brandon (talk) 05:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Satisfactory explanation has been given here. The applied fixes did not fully resolve it. The tag should stay for now, please. Gryllida (talk) 08:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Gryllida. Thanks for acknowledging that satisfactory explanation has been provided. As I said above, if you identify specific passages and issues, then I or someone else will solve. Could you list the specific issues that the applied fixes did not fully resolve? I am waiting for your response. I am following Wikipedia policy regarding when to remove this tag, which says:

"When to remove This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant." --Julian Brandon (talk) 11:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Revised version with shorter top

Julian Brandon, now I keep in mind that the first section in article has to be neutral and short (see 'undue weight' if I understand correctly it applies?), created this revision. Would you find it appropriate? Could you please help with merging some paragraphs (currently marked as strike out) into their sections, and adding a few citations in one of the sentences at the top? I hope you have access to edit in my sandbox, I would like to do it rather than editing it in the main article directly. Thanks. Gryllida (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Gryllida. Why you want to hide the truth? Is the regime paying you? If your opinion is that there are only negative things about him in the article, then edit the article by adding positive things about him supported with valid references. But we need to avoid any attempt to hide the truth from the public. And we need to remember that there are evil people in the world, so sometimes, there will be people who will do more harm to society and little or no good: How about the biography of Hitler; will you also argue that it also needs to be tagged as "neutrality disputed"? As you can see, you are wrong. Your positions are based on emotions, bias, conflict of interest, limited time/skills to investigate the facts, etc. I invested decades investigating the history of this country, so please try to do honest research, which requires investing a significant amount of time, instead of acting impulsively, forcing your desires at Wikipedia.org without proper justification and/or research. Hiding these facts you want to hide in your proposed version from the public is not really the way to go. The public needs to know the truth. About when to remove the tag, Wikipedia policy is clear enough. For now, I think protecting the article is appropriate. Your excuse that the first section has to be "neutral and short" is baseless. How about the size of the first section in the biography of Trump, Obama and Hitler ? About "neutrality", you need to justify using a content-centered, fact-based, reason-driven discussion, that a specific passage of the article is "not neutral", as per Wikipedia policy. As I said above, if you identify specific issues in the article that need to be corrected, then provide such a list of specific passages and issues of the article on this talk page, and these will be resolved as I proved above. But your behavior does not surprise me at all. After all, the Frelimo regime pays academics (a group called G40) at home (and perhaps abroad too) to protect its reputation online. This group G40 acts by distorting facts online and using public media. See these sources: . Are you a member of G40? --Julian Brandon (talk) 07:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

No payment, just find the before-toc text should fit half an average screen. I've summarised the removed material in two sentences in it, it is not hidden. Gryllida (talk) 08:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)'

Hi, Gryllida. How about the size of the first section in the biography of Trump, Obama and Hitler ? Do these "fit half an average screen"? --Julian Brandon (talk) 08:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

No, but the examples that you linked are filled with mixed facts (positive, neutral, negative, whatever) and listed chronologically.

In contrast, the one that we are discussing is filled with horrible facts, carefully selected to not present any other possibly good things that the subject is notable for. I think writing a summary, even if one sided, at the top and having more detailed explanation in article body would work well.

Pinging a couple other people from related wikiprojects for their input shortly. Gryllida (talk) 10:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Gryllida. Again,if your opinion is that there are only negative things about him in the article, then edit the article by adding positive things about him supported by valid references. But we need to avoid any attempt to hide the truth from the public just just because someone thinks these facts are not beautiful. And we need to remember that there are evil people in the world, so sometimes, there will be people who will do more harm to society and little or no good: How about the biography of Hitler; will you also argue that it also needs to be tagged as "neutrality disputed"? And how about the biography of Osama bin Laden ; will you also argue that it also needs to be tagged as "neutrality disputed"? So, hiding facts from the public and/or distorting the truth (as the group G40 does: ) is not the solution. As to "neutrality disputed" tag, the Wikipedia policy is clear:

"When to remove This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant."

Above all else, we need to have a content-centered, reason-based, fact-driven discussion. We need to enforce a responsible, transparent, honest editing. So, let's make our discussion specific. Please, indicate specific passages and issues that you think need to be resolved, and how and why these need to be corrected, and provide valid references to support your opinions. For more details, see above --Julian Brandon (talk) 10:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

When do your 'hide the truth' accusations stop? Will you allow to shorten it even by 5% if I think there is undue weight? What are your criteria?

I have put a clear concise summary of these issues in one sentence, being careful to mention them all. The more details have been moved into the individual sections.

Just how 'not hidden' would you like it to be? Gryllida (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Gryllida. Because your criteria of size of the first section are baseless. I proved that by giving you examples of other Wikipedia biographies that have larger first section: Hitler, Osama bin Laden, Trump : Will you also argue that these also need to be tagged as "neutrality disputed", or need to have their first section summarized because "the before-toc text should fit half an average screen"? And, if your opinion is that there are only negative things about him in the article, I suggested that you could edit the article to add these positive things about him that you believe were left out, provided that these are supported by valid references. So, as you see, given that, your insistence to remove from the article content supported by valid references is baseless, emotional, suspect, questionable, biased, etc. That sounds like what a member of G40 would do. So, let me ask you again: are you a member of G40? That is the only possible explanation for your baseless insistence to remove content from the article just because you believe it is not beautiful. Why don't you add what you consider beautiful content instead? That could help you resolve your baseless, perceived "undue weight", right? Do that then. Could you share that content on this talk page so that we can first verify the validity of its references before you add it to the article directly? In truth, there are more details that need to be added in the subsequent sections of the article to expand more each of the points mentioned in the first section. So, removing content from the first section is not the way to go. Perhaps, because your knowledge of the history of this country is limited and you don't want to make any effort to do some honest research about it (instead your choice is to engage in baseless debate of emotions, not facts), you believe that the article is complete. It is not: more details need to be added in the subsequent sections of the article. So, the first section should provide an honest overview of the article, so distorting or removing facts in/from the first section is not the way to go. Could you try to teach yourself something about the history of this country by for example reading this interview with historian Michel Cahen for the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation Southern Africa / Fredson Guilengue? Perhaps, you need formal education in this topic: one thing is being a Wikipedian, another different thing is having basic knowledge/skills to engage in a productive debate about a specific topic. As I told you, I spent decades investigating the history of this country, so I advise you to do the same because it is not productive to engage in a debate with someone who seems to be acting emotionally, impulsively. So, again, we need to have a content-centered, reason-based, fact-driven discussion. We need to enforce a responsible, transparent, honest editing. So, let's make our discussion specific. Please, indicate specific passages and issues that you think need to be resolved, and how and why these need to be corrected, and provide valid references to support your opinions. --Julian Brandon (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

References