Talk:María Corina Machado

Unsourced edits and deletions by anon

Well documented relevant info that was added to this page has been deleted. Please explain edits in regard to the deletion of the following:

Controversial exit polls, conducted in coordination with American polling firm Penn, Schoen & Berland, which showed President Hugo Chavez losing the recall referendum, were criticized by the Carter Center.

And,

Documents obtained through a FOIA request show the National Endowment for Democracy provided a grant for $53,400 to Sumate,

User:200.109.50.66 please explain your edits. You've provided no edit summary, have deleted accurate information from reliable sources, and have introduced POV into the article:

• Please explain your insertions of allegedly and Department of State. Please provide a reliable source that indicates that the U.S. Department of State was a founder of Sumate, and justifying the word allegedly.

Affirming that Sumate is a "pro-democracy" is a political statement and not actually a fact, Sumate is not universally considered a "pro-democracy" organization but more of a "antigovernment organization". One can allege that it is pro-democracy, but not affirm it. SOURCE: NEW YORK TIMES; Opposition Rejects Audit Plan in Venezuela Recall Vote Dispute. http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00D1FFE355B0C7A8DDDA10894DC404482 (200.109.50.66 02:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC))

I concede that i cannot find a reliable source that proves that the Us department of state funded sumate, even though it is widely known that its serves its interests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:200.109.50.66 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for responding. I have re-factored the entire talk page, in an attempt to improve readability. I hope you'll take some time to read WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BLP thoroughly. Opinions, and what "is universally considered" by some is not how Wiki is built: Wiki is based on information published from reliable sources. Please do take some time to thoroughly read the info above. It is particularly important when dealing with the biography of a living person to make certain that any edits you make to the article are based on the highest quality sources. Sandy 02:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the words "pro-democracy", as they are not cited to a reliable source. Sandy 02:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the BBC the correct term for sumate is "Opposition Group", i took the liberty of ading this term and its respective reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.109.50.66 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 18 August 2006 UTC (UTC)

The BBC didn't say "the correct term for Sumate is opposition group". They referred to it that way, and it will have to be attributed as such: many other sources call it many other things, and this is not the kind of controversy that is typically introduced into the lead of an article. I added comments below, because the talk page formatting is hard to read. If you could indent your talk page comments with the use of colons, that will help other editors. Sandy 03:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• • María Corina Machado is a founder of the Venezuelan allegedly pro-democracy volunteer civil association, Súmate, along with Alejandro Plaz and the United States Department of State.

read top — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:200.109.50.66 (talk • contribs)

• Please explain the deletion of reliably-sourced information.
  • The government of Chávez charged Machado and other Súmate officials with treason and conspiracy, charges which could result in more than a decade in prison. (Ceaser, Mike (July 5, 2005). Anti-Chávez leader under fire. Christian Science Monitor.) The trial has been postponed several times.
  • Machado was hailed as "the best of womankind and the difficult times many women face around the globe" on a list of Women the World Should Know for International Women's Day. (Women the World Should Know. National Review Online (Mar 8 2006). Accessed 1 July 2006.)

Machado being considered "the best of womankind" for "standing firm against the injustice in Venezuela" by Carrie Lukas is irrelevant in her biography, it is the sole opinion of a obviously biased journalist. The author affirms that there is injustice in the venezuelan democratic sistem without any proof. Its is yellow journalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:200.109.50.66 (talk • contribs)

It is a very reliable source, and that is what articles in Wiki are based on. Sandy 02:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• This is the personal article of Maria Corina Machado. The following items, which you have inserted twice, are covered in detail in the Súmate article.
  • When the referendum was held (supervised by the Carter Center and the OAS) Hugo Chávez won with 59% of the vote, however the opposition and Sumate refused to recognize the results.
• POV and unsourced allegations you inserted into the article:
  • Once evidence of covert U.S. financing was discovered,
    • NED is not covert financing. Please provide a reliable source for your edits.

I concede that although it is not covert, it is the case of a political organization recieving funds from a foreign government. This is in violation of article 132 of the venezuelan penal code and articles 6 and 130 of the venezuelan constitution SOURCE: http://www.aporrea.org/imprimir_noticia.php?docid=14206 — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:200.109.50.66 (talk • contribs)

Aporrea is not a reliable source. And we can't insert original research into Wikipedia. You (and others) may believe that it is a violation of Venezuelan law, but reliable sources say different. Sandy 02:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please provide an explanation of your deletion/change to the following:
  • Venezuelan newspaper El Nacional printed a list alleging that María Corina Machado's signature is among 352 signatures on The Carmona Decree, but there are no reliable reports of the significance of the list.

the auther doubts the significance of the list, not the fact that she signed, http://www.el-nacional.com/referencia/documentos/pdf/Listadeimputados.pdf, therefore it should read " el nacional printed a list that proves that maria machado signature is among..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:200.109.50.66 (talk • contribs)

The list printed by El Nacional proves nothing. There is no reliable source commentary attached to the list, and as such, it should be deleted from the article as a primary source (read the distinction on WP:RS between primary and secondary sources. The editor who introduced the list, without secondary source commentary, to this article should not have done so. Sandy 02:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Unless you have a reliable source backing up the allegation, it is only an allegation.

one of the most respected newspapers of venezuela showed the list. obviously there is some significance to it, the author tries to deny this alleging there are no "reliable reports" — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:200.109.50.66 (talk • contribs)

The significance that El Nacional attaches to the list has to be explained by El Nacional. If we attach significance to it, that is original research. Again, the primary source never should have been used here, as there is no secondary source commentary on the list. Sandy 02:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, please review WP:BLP. You are inserting inaccurate information about a living person into her biography, and deleting accurate, reliably-sourced information. Sandy 00:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

oh my gosh, I can't read this. I will try to re-factor the talk page to figure out what the responses are. Anyway, User:200.109.50.66, I'm glad you came to the talk page to figure this out. Give me some time to fix the talk page formatting to be able to read your responses. Please sign your talk page entries with four tildes ( ~~~~). Thanks, Sandy 02:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

sure! thank you for your time sandy, i would really like to "de- bias" the present state of the article. I apologize for omiting my sources, i hope we can keep in touch through this talk page so we can resolve this issue quickly as there are other articles referring to current venezuelan politics that i feel need to be cleaned up also. ps: forgive my ignorance but i don not know how to "sign" an entry as im am new in editing articles. like this? ( ~~~~) 200.109.50.66 02:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Just type four tildes right after your entry: don't include the nowikis that I had included. They were only so the four tildes would show, instead of my own signature. Sandy 02:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I left a welcome template on your talk page which covers most of the wiki basics. You should also read WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:BLP. Sandy 02:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Controversial comments in lead

200.109.50.66, it would be wise to discuss your edits on the talk page. For example, introducing controversy into the lead is an edit that will have to be changed, creating more work for everyone. You can introduce a referenced statement calling Sumate "an opposition group" somewhere in the text of the article (there is a paragraph already where it fits), but then that will have to be balanced with the other reliable sources which call it many different things, so that sort of ironing out of detail will need its own paragraph, and is not typically introduced in the lead. (See WP:LEAD for the purpose of the lead.) Also, deleting civil association isn't going to work, since that is the basic definition of what Sumate is, and that is backed by numerous sources. Do you have a reason not to call them a civil association? I know you plan to introduce changes to the article, but you might want to discuss some of them first, since you are new to Wiki and still learning policies. Sandy 03:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Calling sumate merely a nonprofit volunteer civil association constitutes a controversy on its own, granted there are some sources (i would like to see a reliable source call it just a civil association) that would call it that. I have found a very reliable source (BBC) affirming that it is in fact an opposition group. It must be left clear that Sumate is not considered by reliable sources as an objective organization as the term coined by the bbc clearly proves. I believe calling it an opposition group is much more precise and this is not just my opinion it is that of a reliable foreign news source. The lead concealed valuable information that was not presenting a balanced and fair definition of what sumate is. 200.109.50.66 03:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for signing your entry. I indented it for you by putting one colon in front of it. Again, if you want to introduce a controversial term, supported by one source when there are numerous other terms used by many other and equally reliable sources, that needs to be ironed out in the text, not in the lead. Other sources call it pro-democracy, and the lead is not the place to work that out, rather in the text. It is a civil association, that is basic, that belongs in the lead. Sandy 03:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I think anonymous has a point. BBC is a very reliable source JRSP 03:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course you do. Yes, it's a reliable source. And many other reliable sources say something different. The lead is not the place for a "battle of differing information from different reliable sources". The body of the article can say " the BBC says X but "A, B, and C" say Y. That content belongs in the body of the article. For an example, see Adina Bastidas. I'll be happy to add back "controversial left-winger" in the lead, because a reliable source called her that. Do you want to add every label Chávez has been called by reliable sources to the lead of his article? (That would be a long list, and not a pretty one.) The content can be introduced, and it will be refuted by a very long list of reliable sources which say something else, and that doesn't belong in the lead. If you want to give misguided information to a new editor, just so s/he can support your political ideology, that will be noted (and is harmful to Wiki). Anon also has to read what you are already aware of: undue weight. Not only do we not give undue weight to minority viewpoints: we definitely don't include them in the lead. Sandy 04:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I must insist on this issue; i have yet to see a reliable sources calling sumate exclusively a civil association, as for the "controversial term" of opposition group forgive me but if the BBC's standards of quality permit its use without the need for "ironing" i do not believe there is the need for us to do so. I am using a non-derogatory term accepted by one of the most respected news sources of the world therefore i dont see the need for it to be taken out of place and much less dedicate an entire paragraph devoted to its origin, use, controversy and alternatives. 200.109.50.66 04:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, 200, I will provide a very long list of reliable sources, backing up other terms. JRSP — who appears anxious to help you become a tendentious editor rather than learn Wiki policies, guidelines and procedures — can tell you just how well I can and will document statements :-)) As you learn about Wiki, you will find that introducing controversial or minority viewpoint information into the lead of an article isn't the way to go. (I gave you some information above to read up on about undue weight: just because a reliable source says something, doesn't mean we have to give it undue weight.) It's not about whether Sumate is *only* a civil association. It is a civil association, that is the basic definition of it, that belongs in the lead. Controversy gets addressed elsewhere. Anyway, I just wanted to encourage you to learn Wiki policies so that you can spend your time on productive edits. Sandy 04:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

A complete summary of every resource I could find in my local library and online is now included in the Sumate article, where this discussion belongs. I've moved it all there. As expected, the Chávez friendly media (Forero and BBC) called Sumate an "opposition" group, while almost no one else did. It is still a minority view, but I have expanded an entire paragraph in the Sumate article, to cover the controversy. Sandy 01:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

i believe some sort of consensus will have to be reached regarding this article sooner or later, i find your example of adina bastidas very interesting, would there be a problem if in the paragraph directly under the lead i would mention the the other terms coined by the bbc for sumates maria corina machado like Anti-chavez leader and opposition hero? as well as adding to the second paragraph after the lead comments made regarding maria corina machado by venezuelan government officials (establishing of course that it is their opinion and citing the source). I also thing the phrase The government of Chávez to the Venezuelan Government, or more specifically the exact judicial organism where the charge was originated.... i believe that saying that "the government of chavez" is charging her may give the impression that it is some sort of dictatorship.... which is absurd because the democratic elections where approved and recognized by the whole world... including the united states and the eurpoean union. i believe these facts to be much more relevant than some immature praise by an obscure publication. thank you and i appreciate your honest opinion. 200.109.50.66 04:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

This paragraph:

Venezuela's foreign minister called Machado's meeting with U.S. President George W. Bush on May 31, 2005 "a provocation," while Venezuela's interior minister says that she is a puppet of the CIA.[2]

is the place to continue the thought you introduced to the lead. Statements also have to be attributed. For example, "the BBC says X, but source A says Y, while source B says Z. The fact that the BBC *called* Sumate an opposition group doesn't make it an opposition group. I can't really address the rest of your comments, because they are entirely opinion and POV, which have no place in Wiki. At any rate, civil association belongs in the lead: controversial claims and counterclaims belong in the text, where they can be explored in greater detail. Sandy 05:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Moved and expanded the entire discussion in the Sumate article, which is where it belongs. Sandy 01:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

As for the immature praise i was referring to the right wing magazine the national review, which can in no way be considered a reliable source.... and if so i believe other descriptions from venezuelan left wing publications of her should be inserted here to create a sense of balance. however to counter such radical assertions it would have to be from the likes of the radical news source "Tribuna Popular" the official communist party of venezuela 200.109.50.66 04:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)