This page should be redirected to Hugo Chávez, in the manner of Fidelista and Reaganite which are redirected to their respective pages.-- Zleitzen 18:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Those of you insisting that blogs can be using for supporting colloquialism, could you show me where is that guideline? This is not what WP:RS says. Also, is this "colloquialism" used in all spanish speaking world or only in Peru. Colloquiallisms are often very local. The addition of this paragraph can be easily read as a message of hate and discrimination against some people because of their personal beliefs and therefore very anti-WP . JRSP 04:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I do not know about Peru, but I and my friends use that colloqialism in Venezuela. That blog just reinforces what I know. In addition, there are not guidelines for everything. Like, find me a guideline that says that blogs cannot be used as an "example of something". It is so generally seen as an insult, that there are even jokes about Zidane hitting Materazzi (you know what I am talking about ... right?) because he said his mama was chavista.[ [1]], [ [2]], [ [3]]. Need more? Anagnorisis 06:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Here is what the WP:RS guidelines say (emphasis mine): "Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers — like the New York Times or The Times of London — are likely to be reliable, and are regarded as reputable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia. At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are typically not acceptable as sources."
Now, since most people who know Venezuela know that chavista is commonly used pejoratively, I don't understand your objection to that straightforward statement. Further, since it is a colloquial term, we would not expect to find it used in formal media sources such as the New York Times or the BBC. They don't write colloquially. That is why I call your attention to the word typically in the reliable source guidelines. This article is not documenting a BLP or a historic fact; it is documenting a common colloquial term. The use of everyday sources, rather than formal media sources, to give examples is appropriate. You can't cleanse Wikipedia of every fact you disagree with; Wikipedia reports the world as it is, not as you want it to be. If you still disagree, perhaps we should add the very long list of examples to the main article? If you are in Venezuela and claim not to have heard chavista used pejoratively, you should get out more often. Sandy 12:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the change to "sometimes" instead of "commonly". Afterall, it is rare to found studies measuring how often a colloquial term is used. Any opinion as to "commonly" or even "rarely" would be subjective. For example, how often are the colloquial terms camel toe or muffin tops used? Or more to the point, how often are twinkie, raghead, oreo, coconut, wetback, redneck, chink, towel head, and so many more used pejoratively? Anagnorisis 18:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Turning to policy vs. guidelines, WP:V says, "For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." I'll let you do the homework as to whether a blog can be used to support a colloquialism, per interpretation of "largely". Sandy 19:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
|
quoted by JRSP 21:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Here, very easy, why don't you just google "CHAVISTA" by itself alone. Read the use it is mostly given in the first few pages and draw your own conclusions about the intentions people have when using the word. Anagnorisis
Better yet, google these two words together (CHAVISTA + PEJORATIVE) and lets see what you get [ [5]]. You will even get an article at VHeadline.com which is the free website version of an expensive weekly business, politics, and economics, subscription-only news service. It actually says in the article: They describe the President as a “communist” and a “dictator” and his supporters as “hooligans”, “chavistas hordes” (“hordas Chavistas”), “delinquents” (“delicuentes”), “scruffy” (“zarapastrosos”, “chusma”) and “killers” (“asesinos”). Some of them live in permanent fear that the “Chavistas” will one day come to kill them and to take their property away from them." Do you think that they think of "chavista" as a term of endearment? Uh? I do not think so, specially taking into account the other words that are there. Anagnorisis 02:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, as far as I am concerned, the sources provided are reliable (there are many, so you will have to try discredit all - not just try to discredit one and hope it covers them all). All I need is one source. I have more than one that is reliable (an academic research paper, and a paid subscription news service -not counting all the websites you don't like because theyare too pedestrian and colloquial). Thus, the statement stays. As far as I am concerned, I am convinced of what I am saying as supported by evidence. You have failed to convince me that the evidence shown doesn't support what I am saying or that the evidence is not reliable. There. I have spoken. ;-) Now your turn to say it is not reliable and for us to keep going in circles. This is not a forum. Purpose here is not to convince YOU. If you disagree, then escalate and go to a higher instance. Anagnorisis 03:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I do not notice because I disagree. IMO they support the meaning stated. Besides, many other sources have been provided which support that view. You are obviously shoosing to ignore them. Anagnorisis 21:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
This page should be redirected to Hugo Chávez, in the manner of Fidelista and Reaganite which are redirected to their respective pages.-- Zleitzen 18:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Those of you insisting that blogs can be using for supporting colloquialism, could you show me where is that guideline? This is not what WP:RS says. Also, is this "colloquialism" used in all spanish speaking world or only in Peru. Colloquiallisms are often very local. The addition of this paragraph can be easily read as a message of hate and discrimination against some people because of their personal beliefs and therefore very anti-WP . JRSP 04:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I do not know about Peru, but I and my friends use that colloqialism in Venezuela. That blog just reinforces what I know. In addition, there are not guidelines for everything. Like, find me a guideline that says that blogs cannot be used as an "example of something". It is so generally seen as an insult, that there are even jokes about Zidane hitting Materazzi (you know what I am talking about ... right?) because he said his mama was chavista.[ [1]], [ [2]], [ [3]]. Need more? Anagnorisis 06:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Here is what the WP:RS guidelines say (emphasis mine): "Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers — like the New York Times or The Times of London — are likely to be reliable, and are regarded as reputable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia. At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are typically not acceptable as sources."
Now, since most people who know Venezuela know that chavista is commonly used pejoratively, I don't understand your objection to that straightforward statement. Further, since it is a colloquial term, we would not expect to find it used in formal media sources such as the New York Times or the BBC. They don't write colloquially. That is why I call your attention to the word typically in the reliable source guidelines. This article is not documenting a BLP or a historic fact; it is documenting a common colloquial term. The use of everyday sources, rather than formal media sources, to give examples is appropriate. You can't cleanse Wikipedia of every fact you disagree with; Wikipedia reports the world as it is, not as you want it to be. If you still disagree, perhaps we should add the very long list of examples to the main article? If you are in Venezuela and claim not to have heard chavista used pejoratively, you should get out more often. Sandy 12:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the change to "sometimes" instead of "commonly". Afterall, it is rare to found studies measuring how often a colloquial term is used. Any opinion as to "commonly" or even "rarely" would be subjective. For example, how often are the colloquial terms camel toe or muffin tops used? Or more to the point, how often are twinkie, raghead, oreo, coconut, wetback, redneck, chink, towel head, and so many more used pejoratively? Anagnorisis 18:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Turning to policy vs. guidelines, WP:V says, "For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." I'll let you do the homework as to whether a blog can be used to support a colloquialism, per interpretation of "largely". Sandy 19:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
|
quoted by JRSP 21:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Here, very easy, why don't you just google "CHAVISTA" by itself alone. Read the use it is mostly given in the first few pages and draw your own conclusions about the intentions people have when using the word. Anagnorisis
Better yet, google these two words together (CHAVISTA + PEJORATIVE) and lets see what you get [ [5]]. You will even get an article at VHeadline.com which is the free website version of an expensive weekly business, politics, and economics, subscription-only news service. It actually says in the article: They describe the President as a “communist” and a “dictator” and his supporters as “hooligans”, “chavistas hordes” (“hordas Chavistas”), “delinquents” (“delicuentes”), “scruffy” (“zarapastrosos”, “chusma”) and “killers” (“asesinos”). Some of them live in permanent fear that the “Chavistas” will one day come to kill them and to take their property away from them." Do you think that they think of "chavista" as a term of endearment? Uh? I do not think so, specially taking into account the other words that are there. Anagnorisis 02:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, as far as I am concerned, the sources provided are reliable (there are many, so you will have to try discredit all - not just try to discredit one and hope it covers them all). All I need is one source. I have more than one that is reliable (an academic research paper, and a paid subscription news service -not counting all the websites you don't like because theyare too pedestrian and colloquial). Thus, the statement stays. As far as I am concerned, I am convinced of what I am saying as supported by evidence. You have failed to convince me that the evidence shown doesn't support what I am saying or that the evidence is not reliable. There. I have spoken. ;-) Now your turn to say it is not reliable and for us to keep going in circles. This is not a forum. Purpose here is not to convince YOU. If you disagree, then escalate and go to a higher instance. Anagnorisis 03:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I do not notice because I disagree. IMO they support the meaning stated. Besides, many other sources have been provided which support that view. You are obviously shoosing to ignore them. Anagnorisis 21:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)