The subsection "Target of the Venezuelan Government" violates WP:NPOV policy:
JRSP 03:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, you would expect it to be just as biased. English-speaking Venezuelans and people who have emigrated from Venezuela are extremely likely to be rich, right-wing and anti-government. So most of what you hear in the English language, and in foreign media is going to be biased. People with free time and easy internet access are also more likely going to fit that demographic.
The government are socialist and most media outlets are owned by the rich. Naturally they will take an editorial stance against the government. This is the case in Venezuela too. Somehow even respected organisations like the BBC manage to demonstrate a deep misunderstanding of basic facts, context and history.
So the people who are likely to be editing english wikipedia pages on Venezuela are going to have an anti-government agenda. And they have plenty of "reputable" sources from which to cite their lies. Conradteixeira ( talk) 01:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Sandy 15:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
The signer of the decree is actually López Mendoza's father (not the grandfather as I said in the edit summary). JRSP 10:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Accordingly to WP:V "[...] self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources". They cannot be used if it is contentious or involves claims about third parties. Also, do not delete material sourced with reliable, third-party published sources to replace it with material from a blog such as vcrisis: According to the Venezuelan Controller General, Lopez received a grant to his party, Justice First, from PDVSA while working in this company. The grant was given by his mother, Antonieta Mendoza de López, who was the manager of public affairs of PDVSA. Both were sanctioned with a prohibition of holding public jobs for three years. López sanction will start as soon as his term as major ends. [6] JRSP 22:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Please, do not use vcrisis ( or any other blog) as a source, it is against WP:V, see also this mediation case. – JRSP 22:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Some editor has removed several times the contents of the "Investigations and accusations of corruption" section. If someone has some objections to these contents, please discuss this issue here. JRSP 12:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
This editorial by Jackson Diehl is a lopsided piece of opinion and therefore cannot be used to source statements of fact. It is first used to source López was "was detained and assaulted by the state intelligence service" when actually this is López version. Also in the section "Investigations and allegations" there is a long paragraph taken from this article that should be condensed por the sake of balance. JRSP ( talk) 12:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
This WSJ article does not mention López. Chávez has nothing to do with López sanction; the Comptroller General and the Supreme Tribunal (and López and his mother, of course)are the relevant parties:
The Wall Street Journal describes Chavez' actions as an "ambitious power grab" following his "humiliating defeat" in a December referendum, and quotes Luis Miquilena, a former government minister and Chavez ally: "We are in the presence of a dictatorial government which has given a coup d'état to the constitution," Miquilena said. "Here we have no constitution, no law and the president does exactly what he wants." [1]
JRSP ( talk) 15:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
This paragraph is too biased, it contains opinion articles as refs and sometimes cherrypicks sentences:
Miami Herald Latin America correspondent Andres Oppenheimer writes that "The government's argument is a sham because the law says that only candidates who have been sentenced and found guilty can be barred from running for office. That's not López's case, nor that of many other barred opposition candidates." [2] BBC News calls the list of individuals barred from office a "blacklist," noting that "there is little that Mr López and others can now do that will allow them to take part in November's polls." [3] The Economist observes that López is the "main apparent target" of the "decision by the auditor-general to ban hundreds of candidates from standing in the state and municipal elections for alleged corruption, even though none has been convicted by the courts." [4] The Wall Street Journal notes that the ban "has elicited comparisons to moves by Iran's government preventing opposition politicians from running in elections in that country" and singles López out as "a popular opposition politician who polls say would have a good chance at becoming the mayor of Caracas, one of the most important posts in the country." [5]
-- JRSP ( talk) 16:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I also think there is no need of so many quotations, specially from opinion articles.
I'm not sure about the pertinence of you last addition, it is from 31 July. Both actions were answered in August by the Constitutional and the Politic-administrative chambers just on time for López to register as a candidate had these decisions be favorable to him. In the light of these later events, this reference to "undue delay" is outdated. Regarding López quotations, I think they are too emotionally charged for an encyclopedic article. Balancing it with quotes of his opponents saying also emotionally charged words about López and his mother is not the best thing, IMO. I think it is better just reporting the facts: there was an administrative sanction, López did not agree with his political interdiction, the Venezuelan tribunals ruled against him and he is trying to put his case at some international organisms. Using editorials as Oppenheimer's is not good for neutrality in my opinion. The neutrality of the The Economist article can be put into question just from reading its headline; it is basically an opinion article in line with The Economist editorial line. Same thing with the WSJ article. And they are not the only "major media worldwide", I don't know if People's Daily, Izvestia or the The Times of India, for instance, have given any importance to this case, the USA media is not the only world media. On the other hand, the BBC article is somewhat more balanced as it at least give us a hint of the Venezuelan government point of view. The BBC has a reputation of balance and is usually a good unbiased source on Venezuelan affairs. JRSP ( talk) 04:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Looking back through the edit history of this article, I see many instances of reliably sourced text that has been deleted, not in accordance with due weight. We don't balance articles by deleting reliably sourced majority viewpoints; minority or other viewpoints can be presented for balance, but deleting due weight and reliably sourced text is not the way to produce neutral, unbiased articles. I'm working back through the edit history to reinstate reliably sourced text; it would be helpful if links that go dead (like AP google links or Miami Herald links) were avoided, as I can't verify that text. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
AP Google sources should be avoided, as the links always go dead. There are surely El Universal sources that can be used to replace these.
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
This is a BLP. We don't use inflammatory biased POV section headings to describe politically motivated allegations. Please keep section headings neutral. [10] "Traffic of influence" is not a common English phrase, and translation is OR; COI is the more common English terminology. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the following text, original research, partially sourced to a non-reliable source (Youtube) and partially sourced to a partisan source. If the text can be adequately cited, perhaps it could be copyedited and reinstated, but more than one sentence on the matter also gives undue weight to the incident in relation to Lopez's entire bio and career. (Also, dates are no longer linked on Wiki.) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
On 25 June, 2008 After his arrival from Washington D.C., Lopez declared in Globovision with his shirt pocket ripped that he was physically attacked by more than 5 DISIP officials. [6] Two days later, journalist Mario Silva presented on his program the recordings of the airport's surveillance cameras, from the moment he got off the plane until he left the airport, which showed: There were only two officials involved in the incident and it was Lopez instead who tried to attack one of them. Also, he was provoking the officials by taking pictures of them with his cellphone in a restricted area however they didn't respond violently. On the other hand, the video also showed that his pocket was intact, and he was putting things on it, by the time he left the airport. Moments later he came back to the airport with a Globovision team to make the denounce. [7]
López was not "sanctioned along" other 137 political candidates. He was sanctioned in 2006 but Supreme Tribunal ruled that an elected officer could not be removed because of an administrative sanction ( only through judicial sentence or recall referendum); the same rule stated that López would start his sanction at the end of his term as mayor in 2008. His case is unrelated to the other 137 (or whichever number) except for the temporary coincidence that they were barred from office when the 2008 regional elections were held; also, most of the other people in the list never expressed any intention of running as candidates in these elections so "political candidates" is inadequate. Additionally, I'm not sure if citymajors.com can be considered a reliable source. JRSP ( talk) 19:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I've taken but a precursory glance at this article but faults are glaring. Most importantly, it seems there are a few dead links and thus unsourced material, and, even when material is sourced, phrasing often obscures who is making claims, what is being reported, what sort of evidence there is. This is an important figure and it would be nice to have some comprehensive information .. but I can't see how an article this badly composed can be saved. At the very least, we should add a banner warning users about the credibility of the information presented here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.118.163.99 ( talk) 16:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Not a forum |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Actually, you would expect it to be just as biased. English-speaking Venezuelans and people who have emigrated from Venezuela are extremely likely to be rich, right-wing and anti-government. So most of what you hear in the English language, and in foreign media is going to be biased. People with free time and easy internet access are also more likely going to fit that demographic. The government are socialist and most media outlets are owned by the rich. Naturally they will take an editorial stance against the government. This is the case in Venezuela too. Somehow even respected organisations like the BBC manage to demonstrate a deep misunderstanding of basic facts, context and history. So the people who are likely to be editing english wikipedia pages on Venezuela are going to have an anti-government agenda. And they have plenty of "reputable" sources from which to cite their lies. Conradteixeira ( talk) 01:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC) |
I think I will make a sub-section under the 2014 protest section about his imprisonment since the section is pretty large. Please let me know or make changes as necessary if things are not that great.-- Zfigueroa ( talk) 22:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay, this article needs a cleanup. I applaus the efforts of DaltonCastle, but I think that in its current state, this article is seriously biased... → Call me Hahc 21 23:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Ive looked at this page again to see what changes have been made. I applaud User: ZiaLater for his tireless effort. Its had major overhaul. I think this page will always ruffle some feathers since Lopez is a controversial figure in his own country. But I think it is presented as unbiased and neutral as possible given the turmoil.
The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Leopoldo López Mendoza →
Leopoldo López –
Mostly per
WP:COMMONNAME. Leopoldo's second family name is rarely mentioned in sources (unlike
Henrique Capriles Radonski, where both family names are used), and he is the most prominent public figure with this name (the other one being Chilean geochemist
Leopoldo López Escobar). Additionally, and since
Leopoldo López already redirects here, I don't see why we shouldn't move the article to that title. → Call me
Hahc
21
01:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Hey folks! I took another look at the page and found there were a couple details that cited a news story that didnt actually mention the details. Im sure this was somebody's mistake and if proper sources could be found, by all means, we can add these details back in. Also, I removed a number of details that seemed trivial, like him "being a hit with the ladies"... doesn't really affect the page. If somebody thinks they've got some better sourcing let me know! Im happy to help! DaltonCastle ( talk) 21:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
The article still gives undue weight to trivial details, including but not limited to all the praise bestowed upon him. The essential facts relating to Lopez are being buried. For example, all the info and statistics regarding the alleged success of certain police reforms in Catia, a different city, under a different mayor, is not directly relevant to Lopez's allegedly stifled attempt to implement allegedly similar reforms as mayor of Chacao. It seems to imply that Lopez's reforms, had they been implemented, would have produced the same result--an unwarranted assumption. In addition, the article still reads largely as a fluff piece written by Lopez's campaign staff--it is better now than in the past, but still has a ways to go.-- Riothero ( talk) 18:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Lopez' father is also named Leopoldo López. In 2002, it was his father who was pardoned by Chavez. Due to the similarity of names, there is often confusion about Lopez' activities during this time. Neither were involved in the coup but were active in anti-Chavez demonstrations. DaltonCastle ( talk) 01:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
This article has been chunked up with over-quoting. At any rate, will the editors who are adding quotes please review MOS:QUOTE and WP:PUNC? Wikipedia does not use curly quotes-- it uses straight quotes. There are too many for me to fix. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I've removed this category because I couldn't find anything with AI actually declaring him such. One article saying that it happened months ago doesn't convince me. When AI declares someone a prisoner of conscience, they make it known. (That's the point.) I think we need a much better source on this one. -- Irn ( talk) 01:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
"The charges brought against Venezuelan opposition leader Leopoldo López smack of a politically motivated attempt to silence dissent in the country"..."Venezuelan authorities must either present solid evidence to substantiate the charges against López or release him immediately and unconditionally".
Parts of the article, particularly the lead section, are biased in favor of the subject. The subject is a controversial figure, but the lead section does not reflect this, emphasizing his status as a political prisoner of conscience, but does not mention his role in and possible support of the coup.
The article should be modified to include material from https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/09/07/the-other-side-of-leopoldo-lopez-venezuela-opposition/ and other secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Groceryheist ( talk • contribs) 17:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with User:Groceryheist who boldly states "Parts of the article, particularly the lead section, are biased in favor of the subject". I only see facts in the lead section, not opinions. I've placed an invitation tag in the article, aimed at settling this discussion for once, or at least for the time being. Otherwise, no progress will get rid of the 'Neutrality' tagging. -- AVM ( talk) 21:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
According to the The Los Angeles Times, NPR, and Foreign Policy, Lopez didn't just support the coup, he was actively involved in instigating it, and even personally detained the former Minister of Interior and Justice Ramón Rodríguez Chacín. The cited sources keep getting removed from the article, somehow. Solntsa90 ( talk) 03:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
174.20.73.143 (
talk)
03:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC) I know that I just removed this because the citations in no way shape or form even supported this statement. They were entirely about a different subject and none even mentioned Leopoldo Lopez by name.
It's poorly written, riddled with grammatical and spelling errors, seems like it was put together by a political advertising company--It's an atrocious article, and I for one would be committed to help scrub it. Solntsa90 ( talk) 07:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
In editing this article, I've noticed all of the heavily pro-Lopez comments, including all of the ridiculous hyperbole, is pretty much restricted to El Universal, a newspaper known for having a very slanted editorial stance. I think we need to include some more non-biased sources, possibly from abroad, or at least, independent media. Solntsa90 ( talk) 08:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
In response to your first point:
1.) This is not up for debate. Both the NPR source and LA Times source explicitly list Lopez as being at the very least partially culpable for the 2002 Coup d'etat attempt, whereas NPR implicitly puts the blame on him for fanning the flames that lead to the coup. If anything, my edits are extremely generous (and a bit dishonest), since they minimise his role in the coup d'etat attempt.
In the NPR article, they even admit that Lopez has worked tirelessly to spread the fiction of his own minimalised role in the 2002 coup d'etat attempt. I suggest you read the sources that you are supporting, since they do not support half of the claims in the article.
"He detained the minister for his own protection from violent crowds. "
Nothing in the sources cited stipulates this, except for Lopez and his own political team. Every source in fact, states that his illegal detention of the former Minister of the Interior and Justice was highly controversial.
2.) As to your second point, I have consistently cited adequate reasons why I have removed content, such as bad sources (undergrad student papers are NEVER valid sources) or words that insinuate a political position.
3.) As to your final point, you have tried to explain it three times, all times, yet all three times, you don't explain why your opinions trump the cited sourced material. I am going to restore the page to the last version I edited, since you don't seem to realise that the sources I'm removing are overwhelmingly poorly cited, don't even reference the claims in the actual article, etc. and also, the attempt to scrub any mention of Lopez' involvement in the 2002 coup makes it hard to take your edits in good faith. Solntsa90 ( talk) 06:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Basically, at this point, I'm going to assume vandalism, because despite being told that you are removing well-cited info, you think your personal opinion that Lopez' involvement is 'debated' (the way you edit the article, it removes any mention of his role in the coup from the lead at all) trumps the research bureau of NPR, Foreign Policy Magazine, and The Los Angeles Times.
Thank you for clarification, as it is always good to have a 2nd opinion. I think I read too deeply into NPR's analysis. In regards to the undergrad student source I was talking about, It was removed already in the first edit, it would seem. Solntsa90 ( talk) 08:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: External link in |title=
(
help)
The Education section focuses way too heavily on his own personal statements and the anecdotes of others, of which all of them portray him in a very positive (i.e, very partial) light. This needs to be rectified, as, with the exception of very notable world leaders, personal quotations and anecdotes so heavily utilised in an article is a bit inappropriate, since that allows someone to spin an article in anyway they see fit.
Solntsa90 ( talk) 09:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I see that various editors have expressed concern with regards to the neutrality of this article. Reading through the article lede, I think that they do certainly have a point. The way that the lede has been constructed at points does certainly appear to carry a pro-Lopez and anti-government bias, which ideally it should not do. I'm placing a POV tag onto this article; please do not remove it until the situation in question has been dealt with and the wording has been altered to deal with the problem. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 13:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I am not opposed to an inclusion of a "controversy" section. But what was there was literally just personal attacks on his character. That is not suitable for a biographical article. It mentioned only one of the Wikileaks cables mentioned. Why not include, then, information that is not a personal attack against someone's character? Dont add personal attacks back in. DaltonCastle ( talk) 21:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Leopoldo López. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Leopoldo López. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Leopoldo López. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
The subsection "Target of the Venezuelan Government" violates WP:NPOV policy:
JRSP 03:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, you would expect it to be just as biased. English-speaking Venezuelans and people who have emigrated from Venezuela are extremely likely to be rich, right-wing and anti-government. So most of what you hear in the English language, and in foreign media is going to be biased. People with free time and easy internet access are also more likely going to fit that demographic.
The government are socialist and most media outlets are owned by the rich. Naturally they will take an editorial stance against the government. This is the case in Venezuela too. Somehow even respected organisations like the BBC manage to demonstrate a deep misunderstanding of basic facts, context and history.
So the people who are likely to be editing english wikipedia pages on Venezuela are going to have an anti-government agenda. And they have plenty of "reputable" sources from which to cite their lies. Conradteixeira ( talk) 01:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Sandy 15:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
The signer of the decree is actually López Mendoza's father (not the grandfather as I said in the edit summary). JRSP 10:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Accordingly to WP:V "[...] self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources". They cannot be used if it is contentious or involves claims about third parties. Also, do not delete material sourced with reliable, third-party published sources to replace it with material from a blog such as vcrisis: According to the Venezuelan Controller General, Lopez received a grant to his party, Justice First, from PDVSA while working in this company. The grant was given by his mother, Antonieta Mendoza de López, who was the manager of public affairs of PDVSA. Both were sanctioned with a prohibition of holding public jobs for three years. López sanction will start as soon as his term as major ends. [6] JRSP 22:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Please, do not use vcrisis ( or any other blog) as a source, it is against WP:V, see also this mediation case. – JRSP 22:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Some editor has removed several times the contents of the "Investigations and accusations of corruption" section. If someone has some objections to these contents, please discuss this issue here. JRSP 12:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
This editorial by Jackson Diehl is a lopsided piece of opinion and therefore cannot be used to source statements of fact. It is first used to source López was "was detained and assaulted by the state intelligence service" when actually this is López version. Also in the section "Investigations and allegations" there is a long paragraph taken from this article that should be condensed por the sake of balance. JRSP ( talk) 12:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
This WSJ article does not mention López. Chávez has nothing to do with López sanction; the Comptroller General and the Supreme Tribunal (and López and his mother, of course)are the relevant parties:
The Wall Street Journal describes Chavez' actions as an "ambitious power grab" following his "humiliating defeat" in a December referendum, and quotes Luis Miquilena, a former government minister and Chavez ally: "We are in the presence of a dictatorial government which has given a coup d'état to the constitution," Miquilena said. "Here we have no constitution, no law and the president does exactly what he wants." [1]
JRSP ( talk) 15:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
This paragraph is too biased, it contains opinion articles as refs and sometimes cherrypicks sentences:
Miami Herald Latin America correspondent Andres Oppenheimer writes that "The government's argument is a sham because the law says that only candidates who have been sentenced and found guilty can be barred from running for office. That's not López's case, nor that of many other barred opposition candidates." [2] BBC News calls the list of individuals barred from office a "blacklist," noting that "there is little that Mr López and others can now do that will allow them to take part in November's polls." [3] The Economist observes that López is the "main apparent target" of the "decision by the auditor-general to ban hundreds of candidates from standing in the state and municipal elections for alleged corruption, even though none has been convicted by the courts." [4] The Wall Street Journal notes that the ban "has elicited comparisons to moves by Iran's government preventing opposition politicians from running in elections in that country" and singles López out as "a popular opposition politician who polls say would have a good chance at becoming the mayor of Caracas, one of the most important posts in the country." [5]
-- JRSP ( talk) 16:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I also think there is no need of so many quotations, specially from opinion articles.
I'm not sure about the pertinence of you last addition, it is from 31 July. Both actions were answered in August by the Constitutional and the Politic-administrative chambers just on time for López to register as a candidate had these decisions be favorable to him. In the light of these later events, this reference to "undue delay" is outdated. Regarding López quotations, I think they are too emotionally charged for an encyclopedic article. Balancing it with quotes of his opponents saying also emotionally charged words about López and his mother is not the best thing, IMO. I think it is better just reporting the facts: there was an administrative sanction, López did not agree with his political interdiction, the Venezuelan tribunals ruled against him and he is trying to put his case at some international organisms. Using editorials as Oppenheimer's is not good for neutrality in my opinion. The neutrality of the The Economist article can be put into question just from reading its headline; it is basically an opinion article in line with The Economist editorial line. Same thing with the WSJ article. And they are not the only "major media worldwide", I don't know if People's Daily, Izvestia or the The Times of India, for instance, have given any importance to this case, the USA media is not the only world media. On the other hand, the BBC article is somewhat more balanced as it at least give us a hint of the Venezuelan government point of view. The BBC has a reputation of balance and is usually a good unbiased source on Venezuelan affairs. JRSP ( talk) 04:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Looking back through the edit history of this article, I see many instances of reliably sourced text that has been deleted, not in accordance with due weight. We don't balance articles by deleting reliably sourced majority viewpoints; minority or other viewpoints can be presented for balance, but deleting due weight and reliably sourced text is not the way to produce neutral, unbiased articles. I'm working back through the edit history to reinstate reliably sourced text; it would be helpful if links that go dead (like AP google links or Miami Herald links) were avoided, as I can't verify that text. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
AP Google sources should be avoided, as the links always go dead. There are surely El Universal sources that can be used to replace these.
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
This is a BLP. We don't use inflammatory biased POV section headings to describe politically motivated allegations. Please keep section headings neutral. [10] "Traffic of influence" is not a common English phrase, and translation is OR; COI is the more common English terminology. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the following text, original research, partially sourced to a non-reliable source (Youtube) and partially sourced to a partisan source. If the text can be adequately cited, perhaps it could be copyedited and reinstated, but more than one sentence on the matter also gives undue weight to the incident in relation to Lopez's entire bio and career. (Also, dates are no longer linked on Wiki.) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
On 25 June, 2008 After his arrival from Washington D.C., Lopez declared in Globovision with his shirt pocket ripped that he was physically attacked by more than 5 DISIP officials. [6] Two days later, journalist Mario Silva presented on his program the recordings of the airport's surveillance cameras, from the moment he got off the plane until he left the airport, which showed: There were only two officials involved in the incident and it was Lopez instead who tried to attack one of them. Also, he was provoking the officials by taking pictures of them with his cellphone in a restricted area however they didn't respond violently. On the other hand, the video also showed that his pocket was intact, and he was putting things on it, by the time he left the airport. Moments later he came back to the airport with a Globovision team to make the denounce. [7]
López was not "sanctioned along" other 137 political candidates. He was sanctioned in 2006 but Supreme Tribunal ruled that an elected officer could not be removed because of an administrative sanction ( only through judicial sentence or recall referendum); the same rule stated that López would start his sanction at the end of his term as mayor in 2008. His case is unrelated to the other 137 (or whichever number) except for the temporary coincidence that they were barred from office when the 2008 regional elections were held; also, most of the other people in the list never expressed any intention of running as candidates in these elections so "political candidates" is inadequate. Additionally, I'm not sure if citymajors.com can be considered a reliable source. JRSP ( talk) 19:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I've taken but a precursory glance at this article but faults are glaring. Most importantly, it seems there are a few dead links and thus unsourced material, and, even when material is sourced, phrasing often obscures who is making claims, what is being reported, what sort of evidence there is. This is an important figure and it would be nice to have some comprehensive information .. but I can't see how an article this badly composed can be saved. At the very least, we should add a banner warning users about the credibility of the information presented here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.118.163.99 ( talk) 16:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Not a forum |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Actually, you would expect it to be just as biased. English-speaking Venezuelans and people who have emigrated from Venezuela are extremely likely to be rich, right-wing and anti-government. So most of what you hear in the English language, and in foreign media is going to be biased. People with free time and easy internet access are also more likely going to fit that demographic. The government are socialist and most media outlets are owned by the rich. Naturally they will take an editorial stance against the government. This is the case in Venezuela too. Somehow even respected organisations like the BBC manage to demonstrate a deep misunderstanding of basic facts, context and history. So the people who are likely to be editing english wikipedia pages on Venezuela are going to have an anti-government agenda. And they have plenty of "reputable" sources from which to cite their lies. Conradteixeira ( talk) 01:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC) |
I think I will make a sub-section under the 2014 protest section about his imprisonment since the section is pretty large. Please let me know or make changes as necessary if things are not that great.-- Zfigueroa ( talk) 22:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay, this article needs a cleanup. I applaus the efforts of DaltonCastle, but I think that in its current state, this article is seriously biased... → Call me Hahc 21 23:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Ive looked at this page again to see what changes have been made. I applaud User: ZiaLater for his tireless effort. Its had major overhaul. I think this page will always ruffle some feathers since Lopez is a controversial figure in his own country. But I think it is presented as unbiased and neutral as possible given the turmoil.
The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Leopoldo López Mendoza →
Leopoldo López –
Mostly per
WP:COMMONNAME. Leopoldo's second family name is rarely mentioned in sources (unlike
Henrique Capriles Radonski, where both family names are used), and he is the most prominent public figure with this name (the other one being Chilean geochemist
Leopoldo López Escobar). Additionally, and since
Leopoldo López already redirects here, I don't see why we shouldn't move the article to that title. → Call me
Hahc
21
01:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Hey folks! I took another look at the page and found there were a couple details that cited a news story that didnt actually mention the details. Im sure this was somebody's mistake and if proper sources could be found, by all means, we can add these details back in. Also, I removed a number of details that seemed trivial, like him "being a hit with the ladies"... doesn't really affect the page. If somebody thinks they've got some better sourcing let me know! Im happy to help! DaltonCastle ( talk) 21:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
The article still gives undue weight to trivial details, including but not limited to all the praise bestowed upon him. The essential facts relating to Lopez are being buried. For example, all the info and statistics regarding the alleged success of certain police reforms in Catia, a different city, under a different mayor, is not directly relevant to Lopez's allegedly stifled attempt to implement allegedly similar reforms as mayor of Chacao. It seems to imply that Lopez's reforms, had they been implemented, would have produced the same result--an unwarranted assumption. In addition, the article still reads largely as a fluff piece written by Lopez's campaign staff--it is better now than in the past, but still has a ways to go.-- Riothero ( talk) 18:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Lopez' father is also named Leopoldo López. In 2002, it was his father who was pardoned by Chavez. Due to the similarity of names, there is often confusion about Lopez' activities during this time. Neither were involved in the coup but were active in anti-Chavez demonstrations. DaltonCastle ( talk) 01:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
This article has been chunked up with over-quoting. At any rate, will the editors who are adding quotes please review MOS:QUOTE and WP:PUNC? Wikipedia does not use curly quotes-- it uses straight quotes. There are too many for me to fix. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I've removed this category because I couldn't find anything with AI actually declaring him such. One article saying that it happened months ago doesn't convince me. When AI declares someone a prisoner of conscience, they make it known. (That's the point.) I think we need a much better source on this one. -- Irn ( talk) 01:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
"The charges brought against Venezuelan opposition leader Leopoldo López smack of a politically motivated attempt to silence dissent in the country"..."Venezuelan authorities must either present solid evidence to substantiate the charges against López or release him immediately and unconditionally".
Parts of the article, particularly the lead section, are biased in favor of the subject. The subject is a controversial figure, but the lead section does not reflect this, emphasizing his status as a political prisoner of conscience, but does not mention his role in and possible support of the coup.
The article should be modified to include material from https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/09/07/the-other-side-of-leopoldo-lopez-venezuela-opposition/ and other secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Groceryheist ( talk • contribs) 17:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with User:Groceryheist who boldly states "Parts of the article, particularly the lead section, are biased in favor of the subject". I only see facts in the lead section, not opinions. I've placed an invitation tag in the article, aimed at settling this discussion for once, or at least for the time being. Otherwise, no progress will get rid of the 'Neutrality' tagging. -- AVM ( talk) 21:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
According to the The Los Angeles Times, NPR, and Foreign Policy, Lopez didn't just support the coup, he was actively involved in instigating it, and even personally detained the former Minister of Interior and Justice Ramón Rodríguez Chacín. The cited sources keep getting removed from the article, somehow. Solntsa90 ( talk) 03:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
174.20.73.143 (
talk)
03:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC) I know that I just removed this because the citations in no way shape or form even supported this statement. They were entirely about a different subject and none even mentioned Leopoldo Lopez by name.
It's poorly written, riddled with grammatical and spelling errors, seems like it was put together by a political advertising company--It's an atrocious article, and I for one would be committed to help scrub it. Solntsa90 ( talk) 07:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
In editing this article, I've noticed all of the heavily pro-Lopez comments, including all of the ridiculous hyperbole, is pretty much restricted to El Universal, a newspaper known for having a very slanted editorial stance. I think we need to include some more non-biased sources, possibly from abroad, or at least, independent media. Solntsa90 ( talk) 08:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
In response to your first point:
1.) This is not up for debate. Both the NPR source and LA Times source explicitly list Lopez as being at the very least partially culpable for the 2002 Coup d'etat attempt, whereas NPR implicitly puts the blame on him for fanning the flames that lead to the coup. If anything, my edits are extremely generous (and a bit dishonest), since they minimise his role in the coup d'etat attempt.
In the NPR article, they even admit that Lopez has worked tirelessly to spread the fiction of his own minimalised role in the 2002 coup d'etat attempt. I suggest you read the sources that you are supporting, since they do not support half of the claims in the article.
"He detained the minister for his own protection from violent crowds. "
Nothing in the sources cited stipulates this, except for Lopez and his own political team. Every source in fact, states that his illegal detention of the former Minister of the Interior and Justice was highly controversial.
2.) As to your second point, I have consistently cited adequate reasons why I have removed content, such as bad sources (undergrad student papers are NEVER valid sources) or words that insinuate a political position.
3.) As to your final point, you have tried to explain it three times, all times, yet all three times, you don't explain why your opinions trump the cited sourced material. I am going to restore the page to the last version I edited, since you don't seem to realise that the sources I'm removing are overwhelmingly poorly cited, don't even reference the claims in the actual article, etc. and also, the attempt to scrub any mention of Lopez' involvement in the 2002 coup makes it hard to take your edits in good faith. Solntsa90 ( talk) 06:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Basically, at this point, I'm going to assume vandalism, because despite being told that you are removing well-cited info, you think your personal opinion that Lopez' involvement is 'debated' (the way you edit the article, it removes any mention of his role in the coup from the lead at all) trumps the research bureau of NPR, Foreign Policy Magazine, and The Los Angeles Times.
Thank you for clarification, as it is always good to have a 2nd opinion. I think I read too deeply into NPR's analysis. In regards to the undergrad student source I was talking about, It was removed already in the first edit, it would seem. Solntsa90 ( talk) 08:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: External link in |title=
(
help)
The Education section focuses way too heavily on his own personal statements and the anecdotes of others, of which all of them portray him in a very positive (i.e, very partial) light. This needs to be rectified, as, with the exception of very notable world leaders, personal quotations and anecdotes so heavily utilised in an article is a bit inappropriate, since that allows someone to spin an article in anyway they see fit.
Solntsa90 ( talk) 09:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I see that various editors have expressed concern with regards to the neutrality of this article. Reading through the article lede, I think that they do certainly have a point. The way that the lede has been constructed at points does certainly appear to carry a pro-Lopez and anti-government bias, which ideally it should not do. I'm placing a POV tag onto this article; please do not remove it until the situation in question has been dealt with and the wording has been altered to deal with the problem. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 13:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I am not opposed to an inclusion of a "controversy" section. But what was there was literally just personal attacks on his character. That is not suitable for a biographical article. It mentioned only one of the Wikileaks cables mentioned. Why not include, then, information that is not a personal attack against someone's character? Dont add personal attacks back in. DaltonCastle ( talk) 21:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Leopoldo López. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Leopoldo López. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Leopoldo López. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)