This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article depends too much on Spanish sources! -- MaoGo ( talk) 15:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Days later, the head of the Armed Forces high command, Remigio Ceballos, assured that the captain "died while in custody" and that he had conspired against the state for more than ten years. However, the official mentioned that "the entire FANB regrets the events related to the loss of the retired officer".(source)
In articles, the original text is usually included with the translated text when translated by Wikipedians. If there is agreement that these direct quotations are necessary, I think that the original text should be included, although since that would clutter the article, I actually think it might be better to just remove the quotations and re-add them when/if they are translated by a reliable English source. I'd be interested to hear what others think before I go and do that work, though. — cmonghost 👻 ( talk) 03:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
@ Jamez42: I see that you have once again added information sourced from an opinion piece without addressing, either in your edit summary or on talk, that this contravenes WP:NEWSORG. I am copying below my message on 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis regarding the material:
Can you please indicate what in WP:SECONDARY allows for the use of opinion sources for facts other than the author's point of view? Your reversion appears to be contrary to WP:NEWSORG, which states that
Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.Mundaray is not the author of the piece, so it is not a reliable source for what he said. Nothing in WP:SECONDARY appears to contradict that part of WP:NEWSORG. In general, could you please provide more informative edit summaries when making disputed changes, or use the talk page, per WP:REVTALK? — cmonghost 👻 ( talk) 21:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Please use the talk page before continuing to make controversial changes. — cmonghost 👻 ( talk) 02:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
nalysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideasas secondary sources. The content is not the author's point of view, but rather a translation of the original text in Spanish, which was added and removed in the article, based on the translation of the Spanish version, even before I started editing this article. I'm not sure if WP:SECONDARY is the most accurate policy to quote, but what I also meant is that the current PanAm Post is used as a support source for the Spanish sources (not sure if WP:NOENG applies in this case either), and the current content doesn't depend on it to be verified. In any case, I have added two more Spanish sources given that English sources seem to haven't picked up Mundaray's statement yet. Either that or my search engine isn't helping me. What I keep asking myself and I would like to know is why, after I added Mundaray's statement using only El Pitazo and with a similar translation, you decide to restore it without including many other of the findings, such as the
Fracture of the nasal septum, excoriations (...), hematomas (...), whip-like injuries (...)the foot fracture and the abrasions? -- Jamez42 ( talk) 10:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas, but it wouldn't be a suitable source to cite in this article.
I removed some details from Mundaray's statement because they were quoted directly from the opinion piece, but someone who understands Spanish should feel free to re-add if they appear in the El Pitazo source. Crucially this would need to involve not reinserting the opinion piece and the direct quote from it. Rather than doing this, or clarifying on talk, you simply restored the problematic content with a vague reference to WP:SECONDARY.
Zair Mundaray, an exiled former Venezuelan prosecutor, said Acosta suffered 16 broken ribs and burns on his feet that pointed to use of electric shocks. Mundaray said he was briefed on the autopsy findings by members of Venezuela's judiciary who had access to the report. The Associated Press could not verify the claims.This looks like a fine source to base the text on, and using this source would make it possible for readers and editors who don't know Spanish to verify the text. Besides being in English, it is also an improvement over the sources currently cited because explains how Mundaray, who is in exile, is supposed to have gotten this information (he said he was briefed by judiciary members). Looking at the Spanish sources, they seem to just be directly quoting all the details from his tweets without attempting to verify them, though again, it's difficult for me to tell because I have to rely on machine translation.
Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia, it goes on to clarify that
because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. Because this English source is available, we should thus prioritize it over the non-English ones.
@ Cmonghost: I'm sorry, but I'm increasingly worried about wikilawyering. In the past, while it has been recognized that Spanish sources can be used per WP:NONENG, in practice part of their content have been left out with the argument that English sources are "more verifiable" and that it deals with the same content, when it is only part of it that is being included. The high quality source that includes the full translation in English is being left out because it is an opinion piece, when facts aren't being presented in an editorial voice. The content added was not Sabrina Martín's opinion, but rather a translation of Mundaray's statements, or at the very least, Martín's translation of Mundaray's statements, and it should mention that attribution is present at all times. To prove this and to leave a reference, I will offer a comparison between both texts here:
Sixteen fractured costal arches, eight on each side, the first three and the last one in good condition, on both sides. Fracture of nasal septum, excoriations on shoulders, elbows and knees, bruises on the thigh on the inside and both extremities. Injuries (whip-like) in back and thighs back, one foot fractured, multiple abrasions and signs of small burns on both feet (presumed to be electrocution).
Sixteen fractured ribs, eight on each side, the first three and the last in good condition, on both sides. Fracture of the nasal septum, excoriations in shoulders, elbows, and knees, hematomas in the inner thigh and both extremities. Injuries (whip-like) in the back and thighs, a fractured foot, multiple abrasions and signs of small burns in both feet (presumable electrocution).
As it can be seen, the translations are nearly identical. I wanted to offer the previous English sources as a possible compromise to include a complete translation, but WP:NOENG clearly states that English sources are only preferred only when they are "of equal quality and relevance". I have to ask why in the past there has been an insistence to quote the complete cause of death as detailed in the autopsy report, as opposed to explaining that Arévallo died of rhabdomyolysis due to polytrauma, while at the same time six out of eight injuries in the second report want to be left out. There shouldn't be doubts regarding the verifiability, there are even infographics about them [5] [6]. Once again, I apologize, but this seems closer to WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
I will restore the original version, since it already included the translation of high quality Spanish references with proper attribution. My proposal is that either both reports are shortened or both reports are quoted completely, but per WP:NPOV, both versions should be included in the same conditions. If Spanish sources are to be replaced, they should be replaced with of equal quality sources that include the same content. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 12:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry to fill the talk page with text, but I wanted to mention one more thing: coverage of Arévalo has been limited to his death and the circumstances surrounding it. Per
WP:NOTWHOSWHO, which says Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic
, I propose we move and redirect this page to
Death of Rafael Acosta Arévalo, in a similar manner to how
Caylee Anthony redirects to
Death of Caylee Anthony. I would go ahead and do it myself but I thought it would be better to mention here first. —
cmonghost 👻 (
talk)
03:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article depends too much on Spanish sources! -- MaoGo ( talk) 15:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Days later, the head of the Armed Forces high command, Remigio Ceballos, assured that the captain "died while in custody" and that he had conspired against the state for more than ten years. However, the official mentioned that "the entire FANB regrets the events related to the loss of the retired officer".(source)
In articles, the original text is usually included with the translated text when translated by Wikipedians. If there is agreement that these direct quotations are necessary, I think that the original text should be included, although since that would clutter the article, I actually think it might be better to just remove the quotations and re-add them when/if they are translated by a reliable English source. I'd be interested to hear what others think before I go and do that work, though. — cmonghost 👻 ( talk) 03:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
@ Jamez42: I see that you have once again added information sourced from an opinion piece without addressing, either in your edit summary or on talk, that this contravenes WP:NEWSORG. I am copying below my message on 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis regarding the material:
Can you please indicate what in WP:SECONDARY allows for the use of opinion sources for facts other than the author's point of view? Your reversion appears to be contrary to WP:NEWSORG, which states that
Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.Mundaray is not the author of the piece, so it is not a reliable source for what he said. Nothing in WP:SECONDARY appears to contradict that part of WP:NEWSORG. In general, could you please provide more informative edit summaries when making disputed changes, or use the talk page, per WP:REVTALK? — cmonghost 👻 ( talk) 21:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Please use the talk page before continuing to make controversial changes. — cmonghost 👻 ( talk) 02:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
nalysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideasas secondary sources. The content is not the author's point of view, but rather a translation of the original text in Spanish, which was added and removed in the article, based on the translation of the Spanish version, even before I started editing this article. I'm not sure if WP:SECONDARY is the most accurate policy to quote, but what I also meant is that the current PanAm Post is used as a support source for the Spanish sources (not sure if WP:NOENG applies in this case either), and the current content doesn't depend on it to be verified. In any case, I have added two more Spanish sources given that English sources seem to haven't picked up Mundaray's statement yet. Either that or my search engine isn't helping me. What I keep asking myself and I would like to know is why, after I added Mundaray's statement using only El Pitazo and with a similar translation, you decide to restore it without including many other of the findings, such as the
Fracture of the nasal septum, excoriations (...), hematomas (...), whip-like injuries (...)the foot fracture and the abrasions? -- Jamez42 ( talk) 10:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas, but it wouldn't be a suitable source to cite in this article.
I removed some details from Mundaray's statement because they were quoted directly from the opinion piece, but someone who understands Spanish should feel free to re-add if they appear in the El Pitazo source. Crucially this would need to involve not reinserting the opinion piece and the direct quote from it. Rather than doing this, or clarifying on talk, you simply restored the problematic content with a vague reference to WP:SECONDARY.
Zair Mundaray, an exiled former Venezuelan prosecutor, said Acosta suffered 16 broken ribs and burns on his feet that pointed to use of electric shocks. Mundaray said he was briefed on the autopsy findings by members of Venezuela's judiciary who had access to the report. The Associated Press could not verify the claims.This looks like a fine source to base the text on, and using this source would make it possible for readers and editors who don't know Spanish to verify the text. Besides being in English, it is also an improvement over the sources currently cited because explains how Mundaray, who is in exile, is supposed to have gotten this information (he said he was briefed by judiciary members). Looking at the Spanish sources, they seem to just be directly quoting all the details from his tweets without attempting to verify them, though again, it's difficult for me to tell because I have to rely on machine translation.
Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia, it goes on to clarify that
because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. Because this English source is available, we should thus prioritize it over the non-English ones.
@ Cmonghost: I'm sorry, but I'm increasingly worried about wikilawyering. In the past, while it has been recognized that Spanish sources can be used per WP:NONENG, in practice part of their content have been left out with the argument that English sources are "more verifiable" and that it deals with the same content, when it is only part of it that is being included. The high quality source that includes the full translation in English is being left out because it is an opinion piece, when facts aren't being presented in an editorial voice. The content added was not Sabrina Martín's opinion, but rather a translation of Mundaray's statements, or at the very least, Martín's translation of Mundaray's statements, and it should mention that attribution is present at all times. To prove this and to leave a reference, I will offer a comparison between both texts here:
Sixteen fractured costal arches, eight on each side, the first three and the last one in good condition, on both sides. Fracture of nasal septum, excoriations on shoulders, elbows and knees, bruises on the thigh on the inside and both extremities. Injuries (whip-like) in back and thighs back, one foot fractured, multiple abrasions and signs of small burns on both feet (presumed to be electrocution).
Sixteen fractured ribs, eight on each side, the first three and the last in good condition, on both sides. Fracture of the nasal septum, excoriations in shoulders, elbows, and knees, hematomas in the inner thigh and both extremities. Injuries (whip-like) in the back and thighs, a fractured foot, multiple abrasions and signs of small burns in both feet (presumable electrocution).
As it can be seen, the translations are nearly identical. I wanted to offer the previous English sources as a possible compromise to include a complete translation, but WP:NOENG clearly states that English sources are only preferred only when they are "of equal quality and relevance". I have to ask why in the past there has been an insistence to quote the complete cause of death as detailed in the autopsy report, as opposed to explaining that Arévallo died of rhabdomyolysis due to polytrauma, while at the same time six out of eight injuries in the second report want to be left out. There shouldn't be doubts regarding the verifiability, there are even infographics about them [5] [6]. Once again, I apologize, but this seems closer to WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
I will restore the original version, since it already included the translation of high quality Spanish references with proper attribution. My proposal is that either both reports are shortened or both reports are quoted completely, but per WP:NPOV, both versions should be included in the same conditions. If Spanish sources are to be replaced, they should be replaced with of equal quality sources that include the same content. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 12:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry to fill the talk page with text, but I wanted to mention one more thing: coverage of Arévalo has been limited to his death and the circumstances surrounding it. Per
WP:NOTWHOSWHO, which says Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic
, I propose we move and redirect this page to
Death of Rafael Acosta Arévalo, in a similar manner to how
Caylee Anthony redirects to
Death of Caylee Anthony. I would go ahead and do it myself but I thought it would be better to mention here first. —
cmonghost 👻 (
talk)
03:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)