Talk:Rory Carroll

Butterworth article

The opening section of the article currently ends with a revealing quote from The Guardian's unnamed Latin America correspondent in a cited 2008 article. The biographical details given by Siobhain Butterworth match those of Carroll, but an assumption that it is Carroll must surely be original research without a categorical statement that it indeed this article's subject being quoted. For this reason, I think the passage should be deleted. Philip Cross (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The person is identified as "The Guardian's Latin America correspondent". That person was Carroll, and has been since 2006, although the 2008 article doesn't use his name. We know it was Carroll from source 1 in the WP entry, and it's not hard to establish that he hasn't been replaced even now in 2011 (though that isn't actually sourced in the WP entry, if it bothers you, go do it). Rd232 public ^talk 18:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

As the latest reference to Carroll's work in Latin America only dates from the weekend the article already contains evidence "he hasn't been replaced". I have altered the comment in the citation to a direct quote from the article. Philip Cross (talk) 19:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Chomsky interview

User:Rd232 public added to the end of this section: "This showed that Chomsky's response on whether concentration of power was justified ("my own judgment in that debate is that it [is] not") was in response to the question "And so in the case of Venezuela is that what's happening or at risk of happening? [emphasis added]." This is not a fair summary.

From the interview:

RC: You have been described as an anarchist libertarian. From that perspective what’s your take on the enabling laws and the evolution of executive power in Venezuela?

NC: I am opposed to the accumulation of executive power anywhere. One would have to ask whether there is justification for them in terms of the security situation and the attacks on Venezuela. I personally don’t think so. But that would be the one consideration that I could think of that would ameliorate it.

RC: So that does mean you think the enabling powers are unjustified?

NC: In my view they are not justified. I can see room for debate about it but my judgment in that debate is that the arguments in favour are not persuasive.

And:

RC: With Hugo Chávez in Cuba the last several weeks a lot of people are saying this shows there is too much reliance on one man because everything appears to have almost stopped in his absence, at least in the political sphere. What’s your take? Is there too much reliance on one man and his charisma?

NC: Anywhere in Latin America there is a potential threat of the pathology of caudillismo and it has to be guarded against. Whether it’s over too far in that direction in Venezuela I’m not sure but I think perhaps it is.

Finally:

RC: Finally professor, the concerns about the concentration of executive power in Venezuela: to what extent might that be undermining democracy in Venezuela?

NC: Concentration of executive power, unless it’s very temporary and for specific circumstances, let’s say fighting world war two, it’s an assault on democracy.

RC: And so in the case of Venezuela is that what’s happening or at risk of happening?

NC: As I said you can debate whether circumstances require it – both internal circumstances and the external threat of attack and so on, so that’s a legitimate debate – but my own judgment in that debate is that it does not.

Chomsky has admitted this looks like a fair transcript, despite his comment to Joe Emersberger that he never said or meant to imply anything of the sort. The last comment, previously quoted, looks like a contradiction of what has gone before. Philip Cross (talk) 20:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I was just looking at the bit Carroll quoted in the original interview piece. In the context of the full transcript, it seems Carroll's presentation of the interview is closer to what Chomsky was saying overall. The bits quoted are a bit problematic, because they're not quite addressing the question Carroll implies they are. Rd232 public ^talk 20:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality etc

Is this thing about the neutrality solved or not? Do we take the tag or leave it?

Is there a final response from Chomsky?

--Periergeia (talk) 11:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I advocate removing the tag.GPRamirez5 (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rory Carroll. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.theguardian.com/southafrica/story/0%2C13262%2C943165%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130311075802/http://www.literaryreview.co.uk/sweeney_03_13.php to http://www.literaryreview.co.uk/sweeney_03_13.php

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) 20:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)