Talk:Poncho Nevárez

Editing biographies of living persons

On the page for Poncho Nevárez, you’ve reverted an edit I made that removed an exact quote from Nevárez. Your given reason was:

reinserted the exact words that Nevárez. This quote has been in the article for many months. Other editor must take his removal of the exact quote to talk and build a consensus for its removal. Editor has not done that. That is the proper protocol. Not just reverting.

Two things I want to address in response:

• Length of time is not a proxy for consensus. Many articles (or just portions of articles) go unreviewed for extended periods, the fact that something was put on a page doesn’t necessarily mean there’s active consensus to keep it. It’s possible no one fact checked the source, due to lack of engagement on the page. We’re discussing an article that last had its Talk page edited 3 years ago, here.
• This page is a WP:BLP, and when you edit, you should see the message above the editor box warning that contentious material “must be removed immediately” (emphasis original). On BLPs, the “proper protocol” is to remove anything flagged as contentious right away. The quote was being given WP:UNDUE weight as if it was Nevárez‘s only response, when it is clearly only part of Nevárez‘s denial of Rinaldi’s claim. While quoting from your WP:RS can be appropriate, it’s important for use of any quotes from LPs to be consistent with the context of the RS they came from. An article should only use quotes from LPs in a manner clearly supported by the RS. The quote was instead being presented as the extent of Nevárez’s denials, which doesn’t match what’s in the RS, which makes it important to immediately remove from a BLP once spotted by an editor.

I just wanted to explain these important concepts, or at least my understanding of them, and give you a chance to consider them and read the relevant policies.

Thanks, Shelbystripes (talk) 09:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

No thank you for not re-inserting a comment by Nevárez about Rinaldi, where N called R names that do not be need or should be in this article about Nevárez. You incorrectly, inappropriately inserted them into the article (See here: Non-encyclopedic, inappropriate, probably BLP violating comment by Nevárez about Rinaldi) and then you accused me of inserting "bias" in the article right after you inserted those comments. That comment is not needed to make the article better. You should have never put the quote in the article. You should review all of the information that you shared with me so you can get an understanding of BLP as we move forward. This article is not about Rinaldi, but we still should not be repeating personal attacks by Nevárez in this article. It does not make the article better. That is what this about. It injects "bias" as you claim. I have removed the quote and I am telling you, you must come to this page (not my talk page) to discuss re-inserting your inappropriate (possibly BLP violating quote). Thank you for refusing to put that possible BLP violation back in the article.--CharlesShirley (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I didn’t re-insert any quote, nor does my post suggest any intent to do so. I spoke above only about removing quotes, and the tension between why I had removed a quote and what you claimed (through your edit comment, quotes at the top of this thread) I needed to do before I removed it.

(For others, for context:) I previously inserted a different quote than the one you kept re-inserting, but you had already removed it, and I did not insert that quote again in my last round of edits before commenting on your talk page. I removed the quote you re-inserted again, but instead of fighting over which quote might best convey Nevárez‘s denial of Rinaldi’s claims, I proposed new edits with summarizing language that didn’t require any specific quote from Nevárez to be understandable.

Because I was not pushing to include the quote I’d originally proposed anymore, and the feedback I wanted to give you had more to do with your aggressive and possibly inappropriate use of “consensus” in edit comments than the actual article itself, I wanted to give you the chance to discuss on your Talk page instead of a more public article page. That was, well received or not, meant as politeness. Since nobody was contesting removal of the quote I’d inserted anymore (not even me), and my feedback was about your edit comments and not about the article itself, I felt it more appropriate to comment on your talk page and give you a chance to discuss there instead of on an article page.

Please note that comments like "You should have never put the quote in the article" are not consistent with WP:BOLD, especially after you aggressively defended inclusion of another quote from the same LP, from literally the same RS, and about literally the same third-party LP in response to literally the same incident. Both are quotes from Nevárez, sourced from the same Texas Tribune story, giving two of Nevárez‘s reactions to Rinaldi and Rinaldi’s claims about Nevárez. They’re just quotes given at different places and times, though the same day. Both quotes were inherently about Rinaldi, because both were Nevárez’s reaction to Rinaldi and what Rinaldi claimed he did, so that can’t be it either. And I was careful to insert the quote in a factual and relevant manner, so that it was not Wikipedia saying Rinaldi was a liar or a hateful man at all, only explaining that Nevárez claimed that he was, and specifically made that claim as his response to Rinaldi’s claims mentioned in this article. Rinaldi is discussed here, on this page, and my reasonable edits to capture the event between Nevárez and Rinaldi were, well, reasonable.

While I’ll assume WP:GOODFAITH, the sort of "never" comment you made could easily be taken as hostile and intended to suppress good faith editing. Shelbystripes (talk)

• Additional comment - I notice in the diff for your personal Talk page, that you removed my comment from your Talk page with the following edit comment:

  removed the comments of an editor who was giving me an incorrect and self-congratulatory lecture on BLP, while at the same violating BLP by putting false comments about Matt Ranaldi in the PN article.

I emphatically deny that I "put false comments about Matt Rinaldi" on this article’s page. Everything I put on the article page was, as written, true and drawn from WP:RS. I added a reliably sourced quote indicating that the quote’s source did make the allegations in the quote, and I presented it in the article in that manner (I was careful not to present the allegations as fact). It is literally impossible to assess whether these comments are true or false (both men make conflicting allegations about the other) and when I added the quote to the article, it was clearly added as Nevárez‘s response, not as an assertion of encyclopedic fact. It is a factually correct statement to write that Nevárez called Rinaldi a liar and a hateful man, and at that point I just put “liar and hateful man” in quotes since it seemed awkward to effectively quote him without just quoting him.

For clarity, again, none of this was the purpose of my comment on the above editor’s talk page. I stopped inserting the Nevárez quote into the article already, and moved on to edits eliminating the need for any quotes. I’m just making the rather obvious point that I did not “violate BLP” by accurately indicating that one representative publicly called another representative a liar and worse, in response to said other representative accusing him of assault. If the objection is that this is all unproven material even if the allegations themselves are properly sourced, shouldn’t everything about Rinaldi come out of the Nevárez page? On the other hand, if CharlesShirley is simply coming to a personal conclusion that the allegations made against Rinaldi are factually false, without any WP:RS to back that conclusion up, that sounds like a possible failure to maintain WP:NPOV. Shelbystripes (talk) 00:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

This discussion is over. I agree with 98% of what you wrote above. I made my point that what I was working to remove the quote--that you placed in the article--where N called R a "L and a H man". There is no reason to repeat N's personal attack (and you don't need to repeat it on the talk page either). No reason whatsoever. It does not make the article better. It provides nothing of substance that could be considered encyclopedic. It is just venom from someone who clearly hates another man. I think the current version of the article works for both of us. Also, when I said "false" I did not mean what you wrote was false. I meant that what N said about R is false. There are millions of pieces of information that are backed up by RS that should not be in this encyclopedia. What you placed in the article about what N said about R is not encyclopedic even though you presented in an appropriate manner and did not attempt to present it in a false light. That was not my point. N's statement about R is false. That word "false" is not directed at you. Even though N said X about R and it is supported by RS does not mean should be in the article because of: (1) lack of relevance, (2) not encyclopedic, (3) possible BLP violation, etc. Finally, you wrote on my talk page about this article. You should have written on the talk page of this article.CharlesShirley (talk) 14:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• If you genuinely wanted this conversation to be over, you should have ended at “This conversation is over” (or perhaps at “I agree with 98% of what you wrote above”). Talk pages are for discussion, and since you insisted on discussing here on this Talk page, excerpting the quote on this Talk page was entirely appropriate for rebutting your accusation against me. It was a statement accurately quoted from a reliable source, and you saying that I shouldn’t have even mentioned it on this Talk page, after you chose to make it the subject of discussion, is wildly inappropriate. I remind you that I was not the one who brought up the quote on this Talk page, you were. I wasn’t originally planning to discuss it at all. You should seriously consider not telling other editors that they can’t make good faith edits or comments. Shelbystripes (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

You should have made your comments on this Talk page for the article and not on my personal talk page. And the personal attack by N against R is inappropriate for the article and you should not have put it in the article. Discussion over.--CharlesShirley (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I am attempting to assume good faith, but I must point out that your repeated hostility is coming across as attempted bullying. Perhaps you don’t intend that, but if not, you need to take a break and consider why another editor is taking your comments that way. I do not agree with what you are saying. I am allowed to register my disagreement. At this point it seems apparent you are attacking me and repeatedly saying I should have never made a good faith edit, which is wrong. You already had your desired outcome before this Talk conversation even started. Let it go, man. Shelbystripes (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I have nothing to take a break from and I won't.CharlesShirley (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

As long as you understand that you're not allowed to silence me and you can’t, that's fine. Shelbystripes (talk) 01:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

No one is trying to silence you. That comment is silly.CharlesShirley (talk) 23:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Then you'll stop doing inappropriate things, like telling me that I can't discuss on this Talk page if we should include Nevárez calling Rinaldi "a liar and hateful man" in the part of the article about Rinaldi? Good to know, thank you. Shelbystripes (talk) 02:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC)