Talk:Mark Weisbrot

Blogs are not reliable sources

Using information from blogs to make claims about third parties is against the wikipedia verifiability policy, please check WP:SPS. This is particularily important when making claims about living persons. Recent additions are using nooilforpacifists and vcrisis as sources. -- JRSP (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Wholesale deletion of pertinent reference material is inappropriate

We are definitely going to need some mediation here. This guy deletes major sections of artiles citing them as 'terrible... irrelevant sources'. I did a search on wiki and there is no page on terrible...irrelevant sources. The sources deleted in fact are publications the subject has done in legitimate fora. Speeches given, articles given... book reviews (not amateur, professional). These are facts not in dispute and continued deletion of them is in error.

I'm calling for mediation here.--Altoids Man (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, first off, I'm replacing your pasting of your version here on the talk page with a link to that version: your version. You can get these links to old versions by clicking on the History tab (from the article, not from the talk page), and clicking on the time/date of the old version, and then copying the URL. Second, I'm not sure what you mean by "mediation" or whether you expect something to happen merely by saying something on this talk page. You can check out dispute resolution for a summary, but you should really look at some key policies you seem to be unfamiliar with first. Those would be reliable sources and undue weight, as well as editing policy and WP:CONSENSUS. Also, it may help to lower the temperature a bit by reminding yourself that there is no deadline. cheers, Rd232 ^talk 16:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, and WP:BLP, which emphasises discussing controversial things before putting them in (and especially before putting them back when someone else contests them). Rd232 ^talk 16:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, one specific issue in your version not covered by the policies above (it's more of a verifiability issue) is your "heterodox economics" sentence supported by a Weisbrot article which says nothing about Weisbrot being heterodox. The source doesn't support the statement, in other words. Rd232 ^talk 16:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok here is the deal -- the referenced material is the AUTHORS OWN WORK AND THE SOURCE WHERE HE PUBLISHED IT. It is completely relevant to the situation. I'm calling for mediation since you are a biased clown deleting things willy-nilly just because you don't like it. The material goes in. It is the subjects own work.--Altoids Man (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I am putting the references back in to the socialist places where is work is published, in addition to the main-stream media locations -- it is relevant, verifiable, it meets all the tests of wikipedia.--Altoids Man (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

One at a time:

1. The book review is published by AMAZON so it is verifiable, it is relevant because they employ professionals to review those kinds of books. This is not a self-published review. It stays.

2. The SCRIBD piece "taggs" his work with heterodox and socialist -- it stays. I'm finding many more like it so there will be more coming.

3. The interview he gave to a socialist organziation stays -- it is verifiable, and relevant. It is also representative of his work -- as there is no evidence he gives interviews to the capitalist organizations. If he did, we could put that in there as well.

4. The article he wrote for ALTERNET stays, it is representative, relevant, verifiable

5. The discussion about the speech he gave to the Left Forum, 2007, where the topic was "Forging a Radical Political Future ". where he represented "movements and tendencies on the Left" is verifiable, relevant, representative of his radical views.

You may not like it, but you can't keep it out by calling it what it is not... your story keeps changing about why you want to review things.

For a good representation of what is allowed to be posted in a biographical article -- go check out Ann Coulter then come back here and discuss. Practically the whole thing is a vicious attack, a list of attacks people make on her, tiny snippets of conversations she has with people.

All I am trying to do here is provide the information that people come here to see. YOU and HE are probably the same person, trying to pass off as a centrist, giving interviews, when in fact the views taken are radical. The subjects OWN WORK and words are relevant. They stay and we are going to get this dispute resolved. The material isn't controversial, he did those things, he said those things to those people and gave those interviews. The best argument you have is that it is not representative of his work but that is laughable given what passes for "representative" on some of these bios. Undo one more time it will be dispute resolution time, I'm sure you are aware of the three-reversions rule.--Altoids Man (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your edits, I made small separate edits to explain my concerns in the edit summaries: 1) If being "liberal" is a prominent feature of the subject (so that it deserves mention in the opening sentence) there should be lots of better sources than just an amazon review. 2) Why picking those particular interviews and not one to the BBC, for example? 3) heterodoxnews, monthlyreview and Scribd don't support your claims. JRSP (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Weak weak weak -- You are trying to keep out relevant information -- your bias is showing, It shows in the other edits you make. You keep changing your story. You have now reverted my edits three times without reason -- other than your strong desire to keep out important and relevant information. Just because you sympathize (or identify with) the subject. Your reversion are undone. --Altoids Man (talk) 00:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Your personal opinion about what whether an interview is 'good enough' or 'special enough' is irrelevant. The facts speak for themselves. If it is appropriate to mention this or that place where he writes, it is certainly appropriate to mention the various places where he works -- your personal view on which of his works are 'special' is not something I find in POV or RS or any other wiki page -- your unethical and irresponsible continued reversion of these edits make me question the 'admin' tag that you claim to have. Dispute resolution is forthcoming... go ahead and undo these edits a fourth time clown. I'm not going away. I'll be back here every day. --Altoids Man (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I mean that the subject has been interviewed by lots of media, so why picking up these ones instead of others? I also think that if "liberal" is important enough to appear in the opening sentence then it should be easy to source on multiple reliable sources, not just a book review. And the sources you've provided don't support the "heterodox economics" claim, a tag from SCRIBD is not enough. Finally, I really don't understand why you keep reinserting dead links in the "external links" section [1] --JRSP (talk) 01:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted reference to all interviews granted and all articles written. They were unreferenced non sourced unsupported cherry picked assertion. Now we can start to put references to his work BACK IN that are representative and documented if you like. Also deleted category of 'american foriegn policy writers' he does not 'write foriegn policy' nor is he in the category of Washington and Jefferson --- what a snort! --Altoids Man (talk) 04:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe Category:American foreign policy writers is for people who write about US foreign policy, not people who create said policy. I've restored it to the page. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, a word of advice for you, Altoids Man. People who see your request and come here are less likely to be sympathetic when they see you calling other editors "clowns" and "unethical". Disagreeing with each other is fine, and when it leads to debate and compromise can help improve articles - but it's usually easiest to do so if we assume our opponents are mistaken but not malicious. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Where is "Category:American foreign policy writers" defined? The plain reading of it, (along with a casual review of the other 98 policy writers in the group) show that it isn't for people who write about foreign policy -- Theodore_Roosevelt has a whole paragraph about how he wrote about foreign policy and he isn't listed in the category. --Altoids Man (talk) 15:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Check what the category is a subcategory of. "American political writers" is hardly likely to be people creating American politics in prose form, so I guess that clarifies what the aim of the category is. It's normal for WP categories to both contain people they shouldn't and omit people shouldn't, partly because most of the time categories are outstandingly uninteresting things. PS to reference other WP articles, paste the article title and wrap in [[ ]] square brackets. Rd232 ^talk 15:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I will echo Olaf above. Altoids Man, you must present content instead of attacks. I believe that I have the opposite view on many things Venezuela than do Rd232 and JRSP. However, I find them to be very strict about the rules and rather reasonable to work with. But rule number 1 on Wiki is that you destroy your argument if you can't be civil. So work with them.

I will be around from time to time, though not much over the next 2 weeks, to check in on what is happening here. For now I suggest that JRSP's suggestion of finding a more major source than a book review for the liberal assertation would be good. It may seem obvious, but much craziness can ensue if Wiki doesn't hold to an anal-retentive standard of verificability. Awickert (talk) 17:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all thanks for coming I appreciate it. I have not found these two rd232 or JRSP to be reasonable, but if you say they they are or can be I'm willing to try, at least - now for first time they didn't just 'undo' my work without offering a compromise. We now have some references to some of the publications Mr. Weisbrot is credited with, apart from MSM. I'm going to edit that section some more now since it places a huge emphasis on major newspapers, which actually is a very minor part of Mr. Weisbrots' publications. That will be started in a new section on this talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Altoids Man (talk • contribs) 01:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not necessary to characterize Weisbrot ideologically. As of this version, I've tried to complete the work that was never addressed before, by simply stating for whom he writes (I'm sure more can be added still). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Weisbrot is a liberal

That Weisbrot is a liberal economist is not in question. In the introductory paragraph, his "major work" is a book on the so-called social security system. The book "Social Security: The Phony Crisis" is listed for sale at Amazon. Amazon's book reviewer http://www.amazon.com/Social-Security-Crisis-Dean-Baker/dp/0226035468 -John J. Miller says " The authors are both liberal economists," The position they take in the book is radical, opposite of conservative. According to the tag team of JRSP and his sidekick rd232, that isn't good enough for them. Now they say ": 1) If being "liberal" is a prominent feature of the subject (so that it deserves mention in the opening sentence) there should be lots of better sources than just an amazon review." now critcizing both where the word is and questioning it.

There is no question he is a liberal, or a progressive, or a left-leaning economist.

1. He is described so in book reviews. http://www.amazon.com/Social-Security-Crisis-Dean-Baker/dp/0226035468 The very book so prominently displayed in this article.

2. He writes articles for socialist magazines, like alternet and many others documented in the 'disputed' text.

3. His Progressive CEPR is ranked as only one of three left or progressive think tanks out of the top 25. There are seven conservative but only three progressive. http://www.cepr.net/documents/costeffective_2008_05.pdf

4. His articles are published by many progressive, left, green pacifist, social justice, economic justice, and similar organizations it would take an entire article just to describe them all.

So he is a progressive/leftist/liberal economist, one of only a few, in fact. There is no question about it, and, because there are so few, and he is so far to the left, it should figure prominently.

We have established the man is a liberal/progressive/leftist or radical economist. I didn't even have to show his relationship to the socialist Chavez to do it. But that is a whole other chapter.

--Altoids Man (talk) 05:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is one extra source. The CEPR info seems to be good, possibly should be put here, likely would be important on the CEPR page. I personally find such labels ('liberal', 'conservative') to be very uninformative. I would suggest that rather his stances on various issues were presented; sourcing for this is much easier, and it isn't a floaty term like "liberal". Awickert (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, my source says that CEPR is a liberal organization as opposed to Weisbrot being liberal, so perhaps that page is the better one for what you want to say. I mean, unless you want to email Weisbrot and ask if he considers himself a liberal, in which case you'll probably get no straight answer sine his viewpoints are not the mainstream USA liberal ones. Awickert (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with your assessment here Awickert. I believe the 'liberal' tag is 'floaty' as you put it. Weisbrots work speaks for itself... I'm going to focus on getting the facts right in the article and if necessary will come back to the 'liberal' tag. Thanks. --Altoids Man (talk) 03:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

This is (I think) the way to go. Things like "he writes columns for X Y and Z in support of W". Stuff like that will be able to stick, since it is prominent (in major newspapers) and consists of simple facts. Awickert (talk) 03:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Since this work was never completed, I've tried to address some of this in this version, agreeing with Awickert that we only need to state for whom he writes, without characterizing that. The reader can decide for themselves what his ideology is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Wesibrot publications and appearances paragraph proposal for a new para...

From the source [1] cited by the editor, http://www.cepr.net/index.php/mark-weisbrots-op-eds/ here are the counts for 65 different publications claimed by the Subject: (Where is the monospace font?)

Source Frequency AlterNet 24 The Guardian Unlimited 24 Common Dreams 15 Truthout 14 Janesville Gazette (WI) 13 Kansas City Star (MO) 11 Fresno Bee (CA) 10 Modesto Bee (CA) 10 Duluth News Tribune (MN) 10 Bellingham Herald (WA) 9 Sacramento Bee (CA) 9 Rock Hill Herald (SC) 8 Belleville News-Democrat (IL) 7 International Business Times 7 Bluffton Island Packet (SC) 6 Kennewick Tri-City Herald (WA) 6 Lake Wylie Pilot (SC) 6 News and Observer (NC) 6 Anchorage Daily News (AK) 5 Asheville Citizen-Times (NC) 4 Augusta Chronicle (GA) 4 Charlotte Observer (NC) 4 Columbus Dispatch (OH) 4 Eureka Reporter (CA) 4 Kokomo Sunday Tribune (IN) 4 Rochester Post-Bulletin (MN) 4 Tri-City Herald (WA) 4 Bloomington Pantagraph (IL) 3 Cleveland Plain Dealer (OH) 3 Columbia State (SC) 3 Great Falls Tribune (MT) 3 Newport News Daily Press (VA) 3 Página/12 (Argentina) 3 Tacoma Tribune (WA) 3 Wapakoneta Daily News (OH) 3 Wisconsin State Journal 3

All the rest have 2 or less articles published.

Of note, "major" Newspapers Cleveland Sunday Plain Dealer (OH) 2 Los Angeles Times 2 Miami Herald (FL) 2 WashingtonPost.com 1 New York Times 0 Washington Post 0 Boston Globe 0

This is the period Jan 1, 2008 through 31 July 2009. Clearly the primary publications of this individual are not "Major" newspapers, (however that is defined). Thus the source does not support the current prose. I would propose the following text, giving the most frequent publications the most prominence. The top four publications, arguably, are liberal, progressive, left of center or just plain left wing. See The Guardian, alternet, Common Dreams and truthout.

His opinion pieces have been most frequently published on progressive and alternative websites such as The Guardian, alternet and Common Dreams, both as original work and as republication of syndicated columns. Weisbrot also writes a column on economic and policy issues that is distributed nationwide by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services. His opinion pieces have appeared in the Los Angeles Times, and more frequently in other U.S. newspapers.

That takes care of the first source. The second source is used to source his appearances. Let us see now about those. The current text says:

He appears regularly on national and local television and radio programs; appearances have included CNN, the BBC, National Public Radio and the Fox Business Network.

According to the reference, he appeared on CNN twice, the BBC six times, and was on NPR five times, and Fox Business network twice. This is since March of 2006. I think regularly is being used here as a weasel word... it is -- at best -- exaggerating the truth. It would be just as accurate to say "He appeared infrequently" on that media. It almost appears as shameless self-promotion, a big WIKIPEDIA NO-NO.

His most frequent appearances:

KPFA 10 PRI 7 BBC 6 CNBC 5 NPR 5

He has thirty or forty appearances on the radio/tv media, so that is about once or twice a month. I'd say that is occasionally, not frequently. He has also appeared on Al-Jazeera twice. So I would propose to re-write this sentence as follows.

He appears occaisionally on national and local news television and radio programs, appearances have included PRI, the BBC, NPR, CNBC and local radio programs on KPFA. He has also appeared on the Fox Business Network and Al-Jazeera.

So the whole thing would read:

His opinion pieces have been most frequently published on progressive and alternative websites such as The Guardian, alternet and Common Dreams, both as original work and as republication of syndicated columns. Weisbrot also writes a column on economic and policy issues that is distributed nationwide by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services. His opinion pieces have appeared in the Los Angeles Times, and more frequently in other U.S. newspapers. He appears occaisionally on national and local news television and radio programs, appearances have included PRI, the BBC, NPR, CNBC and local radio programs on KPFA. He has also appeared on the Fox Business Network and Al-Jazeera.

If anyone insists on cherry-picking the Fox Business Network, then Al-Jazeera has to figure at least as prominently. So there you have thorough research on the source cited by the editor. I have not even included other sources, and I know they are out there. and include sever self-identified socialsist publications. Lets see if we can come to agreement on the above text or a version of it, that is supported by the source. --Altoids Man (talk) 03:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

This sounds better, be aware however that this frequency analysis may be original research. And The Guardian is a major newspaper, BTW. JRSP (talk) 04:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

That comma after 'radio programs' should probably be a semi-colon. JRSP, are you remarking on The Guardian's stature because of its inclusion in "progressive and alternative websites"? If so then I agree that there's a slight ambiguity as to whether that means "websites which are both" or "websites which are either". I can't off-hand think of a better wording though.

Also, I'm glad to see the argument has shifted to constructive consensus-building. It makes a much more pleasant talk page environment. Olaf Davis (talk) 08:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, first off, I'm pretty sure that the above frequency analysis is WP:OR. Second, it's flawed in a number of ways. It only looks at 2008/9 publications (the publication list on the website goes back to 2001). It entirely ignores the distinction between primary publication and re-publication - for example there are in fact only 10 primary Alternet publications, the other 14 are re-publications; on the other hand all but one of the 24 Guardian publications are primary. And it ignores the fact that publication in major papers is more notable than publication on websites. Similarly, that someone progressive like Weisbrot appeared on Fox Business is a lot more significant than him appearing on Al Jazeera. That's not "cherry-picking", it's significance. Basically the para as it stands may be tweaked, which I've just done, but your proposed re-write is unwarranted and supported by WP:OR. Rd232 ^talk 09:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)3

First -- don't go "tweaking" the thing while we are discussing it here and tell me that you are done. That is a foul -- I came here to discuss it but if you are going to go off and start changing the text before we have come to any compromise it is not constructive. You are also not the only editor here -- So, I have noted your proposed "tweak" which, while it is an improvement, it is not enough. I have also UNDONE and kindly refrain from editing the page until we have some agreement here thank you.

Second: I am not proposing to publish OR. I'm not proposing to publish the frequency counts. The data was gathered to see if the existing prose is supported by the reference (it isn't), and if it is being cherry picked (it is), and if the author's works are primarily published as described in the article(they are not). The question we are discussing is "where is the man's work published" so let us have that discussion. You yourself perform an analysis of the alternet publications some are re-publications (whatever those are) and some are primary to justify your points. So kindly quit throwing the OR flag. Otherwise there is no point in even having a Talk page.

Third: -- On the question of "Major Newspapers" Where is that term defined? What is a "Major" as opposed to "minor" newspaper? It sounds like a weasel word. I went through the other years of his publications you reference (2002 - 2007) and I cannot find but one single reference to the boston globe, only three to the LA Times, and none to the washington post, only Washingtonpost.com. On the other hand, most of the data on the referenced pages points to "minor" dailies and alternative publishing cites. What are the "other major newspapers?" It is weasel wording... let us be accurate. Say which papers he has "also been published in"

Fourth -- You say "someone progressive like Weisbrot appeared on Fox Business is a lot more significant than him appearing on Al Jazeera" I don't agree -- they both merit a mention, or neither does. First of all, if you are willing to call the man a "progressive" then we should put that in the article. Second, it is astounding to me he would willingly go on a network so radical and controversial as al-jazeera, where in some parts of the western world many leading people have an unfavourable view of Al Jazeera. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera#Controversy However, you cannot cherry pick Fox Business Network over Al Jazzera any more than you can cherry pick the one Boston Globe publication or the three LA Times appearances over the 30 or 40 atlternet, the 30 or 40 Guardian, the many many minor daily newspaper publications. So the existing text is completely unsatisfactory.

fifth -- I'm willing to give the so-called "major" newspapers you want to cherry pick an "also has appeared in" but that is it. A half-dozen or so "major" US newspaper appearances, do not merit the lead. If even once a month he appeared in the LA Times as a regular communist then he would merit a mention as a 'regular columnist in the LA Times or Boston Globe, whatever, but that is simply not the case. It does not merit the opening sentence of his publications. The Guardian may or may not be a "major" newspaper (circulation ~350,000) but it is certainly not a US newspaper like the others you want to cite, it also has a The Guardian "reputation as a platform for liberal and left-wing opinions " so it is not in the same class as the Los Angeles Times (circulation 739,000) or the Washignton Post (which you have not shown the page he appeared in, circulation 673,000).

sixth, you fail to address the issue of "regular appearances" on the networks cited and the current reference does not support the existing text, you have no other alternative proposal then it stands.

seventh -- I take your point about paper publications weighing being in a different category than websites. I don't agree they have any more weight, no more than Radio has over TV or TV has over Newspapers for example, but I have changed the text to emphasize print over websites as you desire.

So the text would now read:

Weisbrot writes an opinion column on economic and policy issues that is distributed nationwide by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services. His opinion pieces are also frequently published in The Guardian and in progressive and alternative publications such as alternet and Common Dreams, both as original work and as republication of syndicated columns, His opinion pieces have also appeared in the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe and and more frequently in other U.S. newspapers. He appears occaisionally on national and local news television and radio programs, appearances have included PRI, the BBC, NPR, CNBC and local radio programs on KPFA. He has also appeared on the Fox Business Network and Al-Jazeera.

Kindly make your proposed edits here prior so other editors might see them as well. Thank you. --Altoids Man (talk) 15:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

First - tweaking it in the direction your comments suggest and I agree is entirely unfoul. Further changes can still be discussed. Also, blocking tweaks is not exactly developing a spirit of cooperation.

Second. OK, you're right. Basing text on uncited WP:OR is much better than citing it. The distinction between OR and looking at sources is basically what's obvious. A skim of the source publication list shows what I said. And a re-publication is, erm (isn't this obvious?), something that was written either for a syndication service or for another publication.

Third, OK if Washington Post is online only, that needs correcting (for that matter, the Guardian needs correcting to Guardian Unlimited). I'm not sure what other major papers are meant.

Fourth, well I disagree but OK, maybe can mention Al Jazeera English, but not for the reason for you make out. Sir David Frost is also on it you know.

Fifth, well with minor corrections as mentioned, and some spelling and formatting, I guess your text above is OK. Anyone else? Rd232 ^talk 15:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Allright then I'm thrilled we are close to consensus on this paragraph. Do you want to make the minor corrections or do you want me to do so?--Altoids Man (talk) 00:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, progress :) I don't mind either way - but it's kind of your baby. Rd232 ^talk 08:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I see that this work, and that of several sections above this one, was never completed. I don't think all of this original research on his appearances and opinions is needed. I hope my cleanup to this version addresses the issues raised here and in the sections above (the article was clearly poorly sourced, POV and incomplete before this cleanup). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Reverted two edits

I've reverted two recent edits. Most of the material they added was unsourced negative POV which, per WP:BLP, has no place. The bit about the 'squabble' with Rodriguez was just sourced to Rodriguez's criticism of him, which for this context is a primary source. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

And which could have been included with proper attribution to Rodriguez as the primary source; the Financial Times might have also been included, and there are thousands of google hits on this issue. I've added just a few of those to External links for future expansion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Chávez supporter?

Is that a defining feature of the subject to be put in the opening sentence? I also see a lot of oversourcing. Per WP:NOR we cannot generalize from individual examples; in order to prove that this claim is verifiable and notable, secondary reliable sources *explicitly supporting the claim* are necessary. Discoverthenetworks and infoshop don't appear to be WP:RS, all the articles are opinion pieces that cannot be used to source an statement of fact. JRSP (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I know it's not convenient information, but there it is: fact. Take your pick of sources (more can be found); there's plenty to choose from, but since he's published all over the place about Chavez, clearly it belongs in the lead so readers will understand the connection. In the future, it would be collaborative of you all to request a citation on info known to be sourcable, rather than simply reverting it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Please quote a secondary reliable source explicitly supporting your claim in a report (not an editorial or opinion piece). JRSP (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

They're all there,[2] yours to dispute (characterizing all of them as "opinion pieces" isn't going to work; all you have to do in that case is attribute those that are opinion and are backed by sources). Let's start off on the right foot by not denying the obvious, and reverting it, rather writing it correctly; edit warring is not the way to write articles, and I'm not going to waste time on articles where that is happening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

If we need to attribute it as an opinion then we cannot present it as a fact, even less as claim of subject's notability in the opening sentence of the article. JRSP (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Since he writes heavily about Chavez and Venezuela, what is your argument that it doesn't belong in the lead? "Mark Weisbrot" Venezuela gets 45,000 ghits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have secondary reliable sources explicitly stating as a fact that MW is a "Chávez supporter"? Do RSs usually present MW as a "Chávez supporter" so that we can consider this feature so notable that it must be in the opening sentence of the article? I also got a lot of ghits with the query "Mark Weisbrot George Bush". JRSP (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Considering that Weisbrot is in Washington, George Bush is considerably more written about than Chavez, and there are two George Bush's, it's interesting that Chavez Weisbrot gets three times as many hits as Bush Weisbrot. I guess that makes the case. But let's not have another diversion and edit war; exactly why are we trying to hide info about Weisbrot and Chavez from Wikipedia's readers? I'm going to be reading FAC for the next 24 hours; perhaps we can cut through this quicker without edit wars (or removing a clearly justified POV tag from the coup article, which manages to overlook all events leading to Chavez's removal in the lead, going straight to the Carmona debacle)? Has anyone bothered to write a complete lead there yet, or is it just easier to remove a tag and wait for others to do work that is clearly needed with a tag that is clearly justified? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources explicitly supporting your statement of fact or not? I'm still waiting for that reliable secondary source quote... JRSP (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The article now lists ten sources documenting Weisbrot's position on and connection to Chavez (and the Stone film). Could you please explain why we want to conceal this information from Wiki's readers? It's such a small point, I'm having a hard time following the urgency on such a clear issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not a question of quantity but quality. 10 sources, 100 sources, that means nothing if none of them support your claim. Please show a quote from any of those sources stating your claim as a fact. JRSP (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

As you can see, there are plenty of independent reliable secondary sources there and already cited; I'll spend my time attributing those that you consider as opinion once you specify them and I know the edits won't just be reverted. Working on Venezuelan articles can be so time consuming, since edits which are clearly factual are so often reverted :), so I'll do the cleanup once I know the facts will stick. Which "opinion" would you like attributed, and which sources do you consider unreliable and why? More specifically, perhaps you can place your answer in the context of why *Weisbrot's opinions* are used to cite nine Wiki Chavez articles, please. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I never asked for any opinion to be attributed; you are making a statement of fact about a living person so it is your duty to properly support that statement. What I am asking is that you show a quote from any of your sources that supports your statement of fact. JRSP (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The statement is supported; which of the sources have you not read or do you not agree with? The statement was supported when it was reverted earlier. Now there are merely more sources for same; you may classify some of them as opinion, whose opinion among the known writers cited there do you dispute as reliable? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not disputing anybody's opinion; I am saying that opinions are not facts. You are making a statement of fact in the article so please show me a quote supporting your statement of fact. JRSP (talk) 03:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I realize some editors may find talk page debating and reverting is faster/easier than actually collaborating and building Wiki articles correctly, so how about get to the point and propose the text as you would like it written? There are many supportive statements in all of the sources; reverting what you don't like isn't the way to write articles when the text is supported by statements. Please feel free to propose text and explain which you consider "opinion" so it can be attributed; Weisbrot's opinion has never troubled you in any article that I've seen, so I have a hard time understanding the issue here. Is The New York Times also "opinion"? Why was it reverted ? While I've been waiting for you to clarify the issue, I've cleaned up the rest of this article and the film article, but I've got other work to do, so can we get to the point, please, on Weisbrot's support of Chavez, so that text can be written? Once you specify your concerns, I'll continue cleanup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The point is that the WP:BURDEN of proof is in the editor(s) that want to add the information so you have to be able to quote any of your "many supportive statements". Please show a quote supporting your statement of fact. JRSP (talk) 04:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

All right, perhaps if we take them one by one, you will talk about text. What is the problem you have with the original NYT source added? What do you want changed with that one? Do you want Simon Romero attributed? Doing all of the work on Venezuelan articles, in constant edit wars and with talk page obfuscation, gets tiring. WHAT do you want attributed? Simon Romero? Oppenheimer? Petroleum World? The New Standard? How do you want the text written? Simply objecting and reverting isn't the way to collaborate on Wiki, without specifying what the issue is, as you see it, particularly when you never seem to object to Weisbrot's opinions, and accept them as fact. I'm not excited about taking the time to write text just so it can be reverted without discussion, so please explain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, how many times do I need to repeat the same thing? You are making a statement of fact in a biography of a living person, the statement is very poorly sourced, as I said before it is not a question of quantity, none of the sources support that the statement is a fact. To make things worse, the statement is made in the opening sentence implying that this is a very important feature of subject's notability. This is a WP:BLP, things must be well done from the start, you cannot present opinions as facts and later try to fix it by asking "WHAT do you want attributed?". If it were a fact, attribution would be unnecessary. JRSP (talk) 04:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

In other words, you'll have no problem going back to the original statement that Awickert sourced to The New York Times, and was reverted, and adding on attributions from the many other sources which are opinions? The issue here is, whom do you consider opinion? New York Times apparently yes, Weisbrot apparently no, since you accept his opinion in other articles. The article had a statement supported by the NYT; many other supporting sources were added because that was reverted. Please clarify what is wrong with the NYT, or if you want their statement attributed. I'm not going to take time to rewrite until I know what you want, since reverting is a highly common method of editing on Venezuelan articles. I've done all I can do here for now; nothing written by CEPR was attributed in this article (I've done it now), and some of it is dubious, so please clarify your standards for attribution. I'll be glad to write it another day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, the quotes are supplied, and the article is cleaned up the best I can. In the future, instead of just edit warring and reverting correct changes while adding faulty sources that haven't been checked, please take more care with reverts and don't leave eight hours of cleanup work to other editors. Please clean up the rest of this article; I'll wait a few days before removing the unsourced peacockery. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Before cleanup, the article was POV, included statements unsupported by the citations, lack of attribution, copyvios, and multiple and valid issues which had been raised on talk or could be cited had been summarily reverted, apparently with little collaboration to actually improve the article. As of this version, the paragraph on CEPR is still unsourced and contains WP:PEACOCKery; see next talk section. I'll clean up in a few days unless someone finds sources. Collaborating to write articles correctly, rather than just reverting anything unwanted that can easily be sourced, would be desirable in the future. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that you have rewritten the sentence to present it as an opinion and not as a fact. As it is not a main feature of subject's notability, I'll move your sentence from lead to a paragraph in the article dealing with Venezuela. JRSP (talk) 15:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a main feature, and there is no reason to move it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Please explain why you consider this a main feature. JRSP (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not engaging in a word game again, JRSP. If your problem with the previous sentence was the way it was worded, it would have been much faster for all if you had just said so. I spent ten hours cleaning up this article, deferred promoting FAC, and today I need to promote FAC. When Chavez/Venezuela is such a big part of his work and this article and Weisbrot's publications, how about if you instead make your case for why you think it's not? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not a "game of words" but a couple of simple questions: 1) Is the claim a fact or an opinion? (According to your recent edits[3] I understand we have consensus that it is an opinion) 2) Is it significant enough to subject's notability to be in the opening paragraph? I think that reaching consensus on the answer of these questions is necessary to take editorial decisions on whether we include this or not, and in the first case, how and where in the article we should put it. JRSP (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I repeatedly asked (above) how you wanted the text written, and got no answer. In the future, please collaborate by suggesting alternate wording. No, we don't have "consensus that it is an opinion" when it is sourced to the New York Times-- what we do have is neutral and succint writing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, back to the begining; if it were a fact, why writing "has been described". Sandy, I won't disrupt wikipedia to make a point but what would you think if someone edited Thor Halvorssen Hellum and put in lead that he "has been described as a terrorist" or, even worse, stating it as a fact. JRSP (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Straw man. Let's talk about sourced text, not hyperbole. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Valid point! However, the same applies to arguments like "check all the sources" (you should have been able to produce a quote), "I worked all night" ( commendable but irrelevant to this discussion), etc, etc. The points in discussion are if the statement must be presented as a fact or as an opinion and (if presented) where in the article it should appear. Although you said above that we don't have consensus that it is an opinion, the article says "has been described" and not "is" as before, so I won't insist in this point. However, there is no reason to believe that "he has been described" by some sources as a "supporter" is notable enough to appear in lead. JRSP (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

"Has been described as" is much more succinct than a long sentence with all the various attributions, and is perfectly fine considering those sources include multiple reliable sources such as NYT. It doesn't mean it's "only" "opinion"; sources show it's not. And it's certainly more expedient than haggling for days over wording and attribution. "Worked all night"-- this is the sort of work y'all should be doing when you just revert, which creates extra work for other editors. I realize that takes time, but that's why we're here, right? To *write* articles correctly? *Write* articles rather than *reverting* valid additions. Of course it's notable enough to include in the lead; read WP:LEAD and check his writing and ghits (as you already pointed above), and read the third opinions. And then expand the article if you don't like what's currently there; I've already done most of the work here; I wouldn't even have noticed this if a valid addition, sourced to The New York Times had not been summarily reverted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

"Of course it's notable enough" is not an argument. *Why* is it notable enough? "Check his writings" is original research. Number of ghits is not a valid reason either, I got 3 million hits for "Britney Spear porn", that doesn't mean that fake porn is a notable feature of her notability. JRSP (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

BLPN

• 3rd opinion (coming here from WP:BLPN) I read through the section in question, and the sources, and I think SandyGeorgia has done an admirable job of researching and neutrally summarizing a large mass of material. JRSP, I don't think you have a leg to stand on here. Weisbrot is clearly one of Chavez's more significant American proponents. Ray^Talk 17:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, Rd232; much appreciated! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I've never seen any particular need to notify people about posting at BLPN / RSN etc. It's a request for external input, not an attempt to move debate elsewhere. Rd232 ^talk 23:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see any justification that those opinions are a significant feature of Weisbrot's notability so I think this should not be in lead. JRSP (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

CEPR section cleanup

The paragraph has several instances of peacockery and dubious claims that aren't sourced, and the prose is garbled. I had earlier added attribution to CEPR, but since not even the CEPR sources verify these statements, I've removed the attribution and added tags.

Weisbrot was one of the first economists to document and call attention to the long-term economic growth failure in the vast majority of developing countries since 1980, as well as the consequent decline in progress on such social indicators as life expectancy and infant and child mortality. This challenged the conventional wisdom that neoliberal reforms since 1980 had at least contributed to increasing economic growth, even if other problems (e.g. inequality) had remained or in some cases worsened. He has been one of the most widely cited critics of IMF-supported policies in developing countries.

As far as I can tell, unless someone can find sources, the only salvageable sentences from this paragraph would be something like:

According to CEPR, long-term economic growth has failed in developing countries since 1980, and progress on such social indicators as life expectancy and infant and child mortality have declined. Weisbrot has been a critic of IMF-supported policies in developing countries.

But the first sentence, even if rewritten to something like this, doesn't belong here; it belongs in the CEPR article, so it looks like all gets deleted except that he's an IMF critic, unless someone can source and rewrite to match sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Further, the article has been a copyvio of his CEPR and other bios basically since its inception; I removed some of the text to address the copyvio. Someone else can rewrite it. I hope there are no more copyvios here, but since most of what I haven't rewritten is unsourced, it should be removed soon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Can someone else please check the work I did in this section; I rewrote that section to conform to the sources listed, but had no idea why those specific issues were mentioned or what the context was. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Banco del Sur

Re this edit, I'm unclear why these changes were made and have the following questions:

1. Why was "artifice" changed to "architect"? They are two different words, and all of the sources specifically say "artifice". Is there some Spanish subtly that I'm missing? No sources call him the "architect".
2. That Banco del Sur was proposed in 1998 is a level of detail that belongs at Banco del Sur; why was it included here? Adding it here required the addition of a new source, when the previous sentence was fully cited to mainstream sources. Splitting the sourcing could give the appearance of synthesis, when the sentence as originally written was fully cited to mainstream sources, without the need to introduce another source.

I suggest a return to the original sourcing via revert; the 1998 can be discussed at Banco del Sur; what is the reason for adding that level of detail here?

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

artifice -> architect as a matter of English. Artifice is not a noun for describing a person. On the other issue, the text already said "first proposed by Chavez" so adding a date for that is merely relevant context, linking with the date of establishment. It's particularly relevant because the nature of Weisbrot's involvement with the Bank of the South is extremely unclear; frankly I'd leave the claim out altogether. I've seen no good sources that actually explain his supposed role, and many sources about the Bank don't mention him. I fear it may be one of those all-too-frequent urban legends, perhaps based on him once saying it was a good idea (as no doubt he did, though we don't actually have source even for that)! Rd232 ^talk 23:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

So, still and again, why is the "1998" detail needed here? Is it somehow relevant? Artifice, noun; that's what the sources called him, it's not our choice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I just explained why 1998 is relevant. And how does pointing to an English dictionary help? The source is in Spanish. Really, if we can't even agree on not using a bizarre description, I'd be inclined to drop the whole thing. Sourcing remains weak (eg the MSNBC article makes no such claim despite quoting Weisbrot on the Bank). Rd232 ^talk 00:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I see no relevance here to the date; pls clarify. And we use reliable sources, not our own conclusions of what is "bizarre". Do you have an alternate definition or source that uses the word "architect" (arcitecto intelectual)? Artifice, Spanish and English. Sourcing is not weak; there are multiple sources calling him the "artifice intelectual", including one linked on his own page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

According to DRAE,[4] artífice means autor (‖ persona que es causa de algo). so I think that "architect" or other synonym of "creator" is a valid translation. JRSP (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, good enough! Now, the 1998 issue ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I corrected the citation and added a more reliable source (BBC) that also mentions Weisbrot. Since the relevance of 1998 to this article isn't established, and the sources disagree (BBC says 2006), I removed "in 1998"; that level of detail can be sorted at Banco del Sur. It remains unclear why we are expanding Banco del Sur content in this article, beyond saying that Weisbrot is considered the "artifice intelectual", as mentioned in several sources. The date discrepancy and other nuances of the launch of Banco del Sur should be sorted in that article, unless the context here is to establish that Weisbrot has at least a 12-year relationship with Chavez. It that is the context, it should be explored and stated explicitly, based on reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The sources don't disagree, they're talking about different things. Bank of the South#History makes it quite clear that the concept was first mentioned by Chavez in 1998, while actual concrete public attempts to get it off the ground began in 2006. The date the idea was first publicly discussed is obviously relevant when discussing Weisbrot as "intellectual architect"! Of course, as I said, the meaning of that remains unclear, and I suggest again dropping the whole thing unless a better source on Weisbrot's contribution is found. Rd232 ^talk 09:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis

moved from article

According to a 2004 National Review article, the Venezuela Information Office (VIO)—a lobbying agency whose goal is to improve the perception of Venezuela in the US—"coordinates a media response team" that includes "representatives from the Center for Economic Policy and Research"; Weisbrot was a signer on a letter to the editor of the Center for Public Integrity, saying that their statements about the VIO were "highly misleading".

It seems to me that these sentences clearly constitute original research via synthesis, creating a connection between VIO and Weisbrot which is not supported by the original sources. Rd232 ^talk 10:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• He signed the letter in support of the VIO. Pretty straightforward. Please stop edit-warrring to remove sourced information. UnitAnode 22:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not an answer to the WP:SYNTH issue. And it's not edit warring to remove contentious BLP material pending discussion. Rd232 ^talk 00:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Without the response letter cosigned by Weisbrot, this would be a crystal clear case of OR & Synth. What does an NR article on Chavez which mentions CEPR in passing have to do with the subject of this article? So in any case the first sentence should go, by WP:OR, and the next is hard to understand without it. Why should this one letter with several signers be so singled out in Weisbrot's biography? Again, a too tenuous connection to him, and trivial in relation to him. Undue emphasis and coatracking. This material might belong somewhere on wikipedia, but not here; that's what internal links are for. Surely there are better sources for Weisbrot's relationship with Venezuela, ones that directly and significantly mention him in particular.John Z (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• (e/c) I do see what Rd232 is getting at. In theory, if each sentence is perfectly sourced, it could still be synthesis if you are using that information to get the reader to come to a conclusion that isn't supported by the references. However, in this case, I don't see it as synthesis, so much as two examples of the same basic idea. Sentence one establishes that the CEPR is associated with the VIO. Sentence two establishes that Weisbrot is sympathetic to the VIO. Do I understand correctly that your synthesis concern is that a reader might come to the unsupported-by-references conclusion that Weisbrot is sympathetic to the VIO because of the VIO's ties to the CEPR? But Weisbrot is so strongly linked to the CEPR that I don't see this as a synthesis at all. If, say, the NR article had said only that the VIO had a team of "economists" in their media response team, and these sentences were put next to each other, I would agree with Rd232 that an unsupported implication was being made. But here, I don't think this rises to the level of WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Well that's pretty much the issue, but I disagree with your conclusion. You must understand that VIO (Venezuela Information Office) is a registered agent of the Venezuelan government, and that associating Weisbrot with them directly serves to discredit him. The source doesn't permit any actual conclusion to be drawn on the nature of the relationship between VIO and CEPR - it could easily be merely information exchange; or it could be a financial relationship. The reader is left to read between the lines, and when Weisbrot's signing of a single letter is thrown in (WP:UNDUE much? as John Z notes), it's either intending to insinuate or unintentionally leaving dangerous ambiguity that Weisbrot is a paid agent, indirectly, of the Venezuelan government. Rd232 ^talk 01:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Those are interesting conclusions; from what planet did they come? There's nothing like that in the very neutral text. I have a hard time imagining how you came up with that scenario. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Further, if that's where your mind goes with the text, it is easily solved by splitting the sentence, and separately discussing the two sourced events. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
        • That would produce the problems John Z described above. Rd232 ^talk 01:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
          • Well, if that is what correctly sourced information leads people like you to conclude, how is that against Wiki policy? The info is there, the sources are reliable, how do you propose to write it, or do you just want to keep reliable sources out of the article entirely? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
            • I could answer that, but if you're going to come up with stuff like "do you just want to keep reliable sources out of the article entirely?", I'm going to go to bed instead. See you tomorrow. Rd232 ^talk 01:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
              • I've re-read John Z's comment above, and it fully explains the issue. Neither the letter nor the CEPR/VIO link are worth mentioning in isolation here. Rd232 ^talk 10:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

collapse distraction - article talk is for content discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is unacceptable. Rd asks for outside opinions. He receives them. He still edit wars to keep out well-sourced information. It's a bit ludicrous that he's allowed to get away with this and remain unblocked for edit-warring. UnitAnode 01:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Neither you nor Sandy addressed my WP:SYNTH question. If there's any edit warring, it's in the repeated re-introduction of contentious BLP material without sufficient discussion. WP:DEADLINE springs to mind. (Also WP:NOTAVOTE for claims of consensus when it was 2:1 without a proper discussion.) Rd232 talk 01:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Where did you get the 2:1 (since we're not counting votes)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC) you + unitanode : me, earlier today. Rd232 talk 01:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC) So, you left off the feedback from BLPN, where JohnZ earlier mentioned no problem, but has now changed, and Ray, who also had no problem? If we *are* going to count votes, let's count correctly. Then add on all the other readers of BLPN who saw no problem, an apparently resolved issue, and moved on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Er, no. The point on synthesis seems to have got lost in the initial BLPN post; nobody addressed it specifically. Only some time after I moved that bit from the article to talk did UnitAnode revert, and I posted a new subsection at BLPN only a couple of hours ago, in response to his cursory reply. Eventually there is more input and some substantive discussion. PS boy you are keen on historiography. You writing a book on Wikipedia or something?? Rd232 talk 01:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Sure, want a chapter of your own? Now, can you please explain why you want to keep reliable sources out of the article, lest someone read into it all that you did, and propose a way to write the text that will satisfy you? You can't just keep something that is reliably sourced out because you draw conclusions from it. Rewrite it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a question. Is that letter so important really? Do other sources mention that letter? Does just being mentioned by CEPR make this letter a notable issue? JRSP (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The letter is a primary source. We need reliable secondary sources to demonstrate that a single letter is worth mentioning in a bio of one of the signers - prima facie certainly WP:UNDUE. Rd232 ^talk 11:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sourcing

Sandy, if you wanted to bring attention to the current discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Venezuelanalysis, why not just post on the talk page? This edit, incidentally, casts an interesting light on the WP:SYNTH issue above with regard to the intent of the disputed text. Rd232 ^talk 13:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You still haven't justified the need to introduce a biased source only so you can give a date, whose relevance hasn't been established. As to whatever else you're implying, we still prefer reliable sources on Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

What I'm implying is that you clearly believe that any association with VIO is poison to someone's credibility. (The links you gave in the edit summary don't even show that - see RSN discussion - but you seem to think they do.) Rd232 ^talk 13:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from reading my mind and words I didn't type. Second AGF reminder in one hours ... and that discussion is at WP:RSN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to assume that all of that is done in good faith. But if you think a relationship with VIO is unimportant, explain your citation of those links as evidence that VA is unreliable? Rd232 ^talk 14:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion of VA's reliability is at RSN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I want to know here why you cite those links here in your edit summary here - because you're not answering that question at RSN. Rd232 ^talk 14:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You don't always get what you want (particulary when that means splitting discussions that you started :). But in case you haven't read those links, they clearly discuss Global Exchange and its (non)reliability for Wiki purposes. Once again, that discussion is at RSN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

And it's that sort of ludicrous evasiveness and misdirection which is really unhelpful. I have read them, and that's why I asked both here and at RSN, and you haven't answered anywhere. And BTW, we're discussing Venezuelanalysis not Global Exchange. Rd232 ^talk 14:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh crap, the tag is attached to a Global Exchange source. I just copied it from Bank of the South and hadn't noticed. Cross purposes; move to strike, y'honour. Sorry. Rd232 ^talk 14:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem, now I see why we were talking past each other, apology accepted and appreciated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This is what happens when you read diffs in a hurry - I only saw my error when I looked at the article. That, and that I really ought not to rush because of pressure to get down to RL work, are lessons to be drawn here... Rd232 ^talk 14:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm also out of time, but later one of us should find my comment that you're becoming agitated, and clarify that there was a simple confusion about a cn tag, so we were talking about two different things without knowing it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Adviser?

Explaining my edit:

1. the "described as an adviser" claim was based on two sources, one calling him the "intellectual architect" of the Bank of the South, whatever that means; the other is a source which can hardly be called reliable.
2. no evidence it belongs in the lead
3. attempt to show wider support for Chavez' policies than just economic ones by over-referencing doesn't work. Passing mention of "policies" when the context is economics doesn't work, however many sources do it (and many were op-eds too).

Rd232 ^talk 17:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Aside note, Rd232's statement above is completely incorrect; I'm coming to the conclusion that perhaps Rd232 doesn't read Spanish, or doesn't read sources. The Bank of the South info above is completely wrong, a red herring; no such source was used. This source describes him as an advisor and the second source, hosted on Weisbrot's own website, says Chavez frequently consults him. Neither has anything to do with Banco del Sur, and Rd232 has now completely removed the source that describes him as an advisor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I've explained that, twice now. And re-added text on that "adviser" issue which reflects the Spanish original. Rd232 ^talk 19:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• I've reverted. You've built nothing resembling consensus here for your edits. That's not how we do things here. UnitAnode 18:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Absolute nonsense: you've been here long enough to have know that simply isn't true. In any case, allow me to remind you of WP:BRD. I brought it to the talk page for discussion (the D part) - this requires engagement on the part of those disagreeing. So do you have anything to say? Rd232 ^talk 18:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Also I remind you that per WP:BLP we act carefully in relation to contentious material. Describing someone as an adviser to a foreign government is clearly contentious, so this should be settled on talk *before* re-adding. Rd232 ^talk 18:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Um, I think you've got a tough row to hoe claiming it's a BLP violation, when the "advisor" statement is hosted on Weisbrot's own website (CEPR.net). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Link? The statement is contentious until properly sourced. Then it's fine. Rd232 ^talk 18:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Responding to #2, I did a database search of Weisbrot's academic publications, and while he certainly does more than just Venezuela, there is a strong focus on Venezuela in particular and related issues in Latin America in general. I can provide the results if desired. I think that a problem with this debate in general is that a compilation of sources is inductive rather than deductive; if lots of sources are found for something relating to someone, it goes in the lede; there is nothing that ever really says "this is what is important and what is unimportant about person X".

To #3, you might have missed this source in the large number of recent edits; it says that Weisbrot has supported Chávez' policies. Awickert (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes well the database search is problematic - that's clearly WP:OR. If it was clear enough from looking at his CEPR publication page it might be OK but I don't think it is. On point 3, no I didn't miss that - it's another reference clearly in the context of economic policy. Quote: "'Obviously, Chavez has been affected by these food shortages,' said Weisbrot, who has supported Chavez's policies." Rd232 ^talk 18:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

And I previously supplied sources where he was talking about much more than economic policies (I'm pretty sure that was the Financial Times debate). You're doing original research, and all the article says is he supports policies, which includes economic policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you felt the need to supply half a dozen sources suggests a certain weakness in your position. One good source which clearly indicates Weisbrot addressing non-economic policy would probably do it. Rd232 ^talk 18:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Uh, no. Half a dozen sources were supplied because you edit warred the text away, even when The New York Times was the first source given. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be the NYT source which says "broadly supportive of Mr. Chávez’s economic policies" and is currently still in the article. Rd232 ^talk 19:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, looking at publication histories is a standard way of figuring out what is important in other areas of Wikipedia in which I'm involved. Otherwise this becomes a "No, you can't see what he's done, but this is clearly unimportant". I'll look for a publication list on his website though.

And if we play by the most conservative rules possible, as we seem to be doing, it is OR to infer from a previous clause. And if we are more liberal in our usage of the source, in the previous paragraph, Weisbrot is "skeptical" about the polls for both political (popularity) and economic (oil) reasons. So I don't think we can infer that is economic. Awickert (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to. Which source/paragraph? Rd232 ^talk 19:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph right before the one that we were quoting in the USA Today piece, sorry for being unclear.

Here are his publications (both academic and CEPR). They reflect IMF criticism and support of the LatAm socialist left (or whatever you'd call it) with Vzla. represented much more than anywhere else. These seem to be his major things. So the lede should also reflect the IMF issues and should retain LatAm with a focus on Vzla. Awickert (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Right. But "Mark Weisbrot, co-director of the Washington-based Center for Economic and Policy Research, was skeptical of the polls' results, citing Chavez's longstanding popularity and the growth of the country's oil-rich economy." does not support the claim that he is generally supportive of all of Chavez' policies, which is what the dispute is about. "supporter of his policies" was the previous article text - pretty strong and unqualified, and needing better sourcing. Rd232 ^talk 19:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Precisely, keeping the wording based on that phrase is just as untenable as changing the wording to reflect another phrase. So I think that we should just quote the article as-is, with him supporting Chávez. But we are in opposition on this, so we'd better just get another opinion because I can't see either of us changing our minds. Awickert (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

We have a multitude of sources calling him a supporter, period. Wiki reports what reliable sources say, and none of them restrict it to economic policies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Meaning doesn't work that way: it's carried by context. (Example: "cancer". What do I mean here? Star sign or disease?) I object that you once again re-add the disputed text with a stack of sources (op-eds et al) which don't clearly support your view, when this is still under discussion, as is the due prominence to be given to the Chavez advice and support. Rd232 ^talk 21:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Link as requested; the info is hosted by CEPR.net, where Weisbrot is co-director. There is no BLP argument and there is no support or claim for your consensus; please stop using BLP as an excuse to edit war. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said at BLPN (how about keeping discussion in one place?): the article turned an activity - "Chavez himself consults Weisbrot with a certain frequency" into a position: "adviser". I saw that issue before but overlooked it this time, I was distracted by the quote in the footnote referring to the Bank of the South. So yes, the claim the source actually makes, vague as it is, can be included. Not something significantly different. PS How about cutting some WP:AGF slack?? Rd232 ^talk 18:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

If you would read sources before you revert, it would help; your method of editing via the revert button and splitting discussions takes a lot of time that could be better used away from other editors. When you edit war, claiming a BLP violation, you should have read the sources. Again, do you speak Spanish, or shall I translate in the future ... that will take less time than all of this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I do read Spanish. Rd232 ^talk 19:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know; that (and if you will please read sources more carefully before you hit the revert button) should save us some time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Rd232, you have also completely watered down the text from what is supported by multiple sources, which you deleted. "Weisbrot is supportive of Chavez' economic policies ... " is not what the reliable sources say; it is your original research. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Would you calm down please? It's reduced to the clearly supportable, for now. Discussion about sources justifying a wider claim is ongoing. There's really no need to constantly act as if there's a deadline and the current version of the article is about to go to print. WP:DEADLINE. Rd232 ^talk 19:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite calm, but thanks for the concern. What there is no need for is you to revert and remove text that has already been reviewed at multiple forums of disute resolution, has consensus, and which you are the only editor objecting to. Discuss before reverting more than once in the future, thank you. We now have a wording change that you should be happy with, but it would have been much more expedient for all if you had not reverted, not misread the sources, and simply proposed your revised wording. That woulda been easy; instead we have multiple long discussions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Parts of it have consensus. Others are disputed. Rd232 ^talk 21:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Citations

And by the way, Rd232, must you replace fully and correctly formatted citations with incomplete and incorrectly formatted citations? The correct citations are in previous versions; would you mind restoring them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, don't know what you mean. The very recent edits didn't add any sources. Rd232 ^talk 19:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Before the edit warring started, the article was clean (at great effort from me :) All sources were fully formatted and complete. Now we have "CEPR, Mark Weisbrot" as a citation ... somewhere along the way, you lost the complete citation. And you dropped the citation to advisor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

er, do you mean this source? Lane, Walker (April 10, 2006). "An Anarchist At the World Social Forum". Fifth Estate. infoshop.news. I didn't peg you for calling that a reliable source. Rd232 ^talk 19:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It has a person directly saying Weisbrot told him that, but delete if you wish. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

In fact, as you've rewritten the text it was associated with, it's probably no longer needed; let me know if you want me to delete it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I deleted before as a not very good source. Rd232 ^talk 11:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Rd232, will you please add the exact quote in a footnote for this? It took me a long time to restore the consensus version and incorporate your changes, and my computer hung when trying to find the text. It should be added to the footnote, per WP:V on non-English sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

? the original quote isn't required by WP:V. It's the first page of the Clave source, it's not hard to find. The full quote is a paragraph, which is unnecessary in the article, and the PDF is a scan so I can't copy and paste here. Look it up. (I can provide it if you really need me to....) Rd232 ^talk 20:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Correct, they can be added on talk or elsewhere, but you wouldn't get a BLP through FAC without it :) At any rate, because it's a BLP (and now a contentious one), it's good practice to add the quotes and translations where all future editors can find them, as they may get lost in talk page archives. Also, so differences can be resolved. I added the quote and translation, and disagree (only subtly) with your translation, so we need to look at this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Text in the article now:

... rejects the claim, saying it was not his idea, though he was involved in the discussions and provided specific consultancy to the governments involved.

My translation:

Yo no soy el padre, porque no tiene nada de original tampoco, es simplemente establecer prestamos con filosofias diferentes. Yo estoy muy involucrado en las discusiones y de asesoria especifica a los Gobiernos cuando me solicitan.

I am not the 'father', because (the idea) is nothing original, it's simply establishing loans with different philosophies. I'm very involved in the discussions and specific advisement to the Governments when they ask.

He did not necessarily reject the claim with such a polite disclaimer, he said there was nothing about the idea that was original ... the difference is subtle, but we should sort that text. In a case like this, sticking as closely as possible to his exact words (since it's a translation) would be better. Also, the quote is present tense (ongoing), while the text in the article now is past tense (implying no longer involved). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Minor difference - applying the precise words to the clear context of the conversation. Past tense because the interview is from Sep 2007, when the Bank of the South creation was underway, and that's what's being talked about in both the article and the interview, so any extension of activities into the present would be presumptuous. Rd232 ^talk 11:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Re this edit, you're edit warring agin :) Saying that the idea is not original is not the same as saying the idea was not his. You've reverted to an invalid translation. Why can't we use his own words; is there a reason to disassociate Mark Weisbrot from Banco del Sur? Is it not going well? In a translation and BLP, we're better to stick with his words, not one editor's interpretation of them, and we do have his exact words, since it's an interview. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

If anyone's edit-warring, it's you: this conversation was ongoing, and you made the text reflect your view without responding to my comment. If you want to be literalist about the translation, fine - put "'I am not the father', said Weisbrot, when La Clave asked him if he was the father of the Bank. 'There is nothing original, it is just establishing loans with different philosophies'." Rd232 ^talk 11:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Reboot

Parts of this have been resolved, others have not.

1. Due prominence of the "advice to Chavez".
2. Phrasing of the "policy support".
3. Due prominence of 2.

On 1.; this can stay in the lede as well as in the body text where it's relevant, but the lede should be expanded. It floats a bit contextlessly at the moment. On 2. I think "support of Chavez' policies" is too broad; he's an economist, and the best source available (the NYT one) talks about economic policy. The other sources are op eds or clearly mentioning "support" in the context of economic policy, or both. The statement is too general, and no amount of throwing the same quality of sources at it is going to change that. One good source that clarifies broader support than the NYT specifies is enough. On 3. I see no reason to mention his "support" in the lede unless there's some sourcing that clarifies that it's important enough to mention there. PS collaborative editing in a BLP would generally suggest that resolving one issue is not a licence to revert prior to resolving other issues. Rd232 ^talk 21:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

With the amount of feedback and independent review this article has gotten from multiple noticeboards, I'm unclear why you feel anything is unresolved. (Except the pending translation issue, and the unnecessary use of Global Exchange as a source.) I'm also a little confused about your statements about how we establish what goes in the lead, since at 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt, you insisted on leaving a word in the lead that is supported by only one source, against a multitude of reliable sources. Since Weisbrot is quite prominently involved in Venezuela, and the article discusses that, it belongs in the lead. Leads are written in proportion to reliable sources and text in the article. This lead is correct; why one UNDUE word remains at the "coup" article is a mystery, and your arguments seem inconsistent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It's really quite sad that you feel the need to stonewall and distract by bringing in other issues - invariably misrepresenting them - and generally consistently employ tactics clearly designed to shut down debate, both here and at noticeboards. (By the by the discussion about that other article is at that other article's talk page, and anybody who goes there can clarify that your claim that the word is "against a multitude of reliable sources." is complete and utter nonsense: not a single source has been provided to argue the opposite case.) Rd232 ^talk 10:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, I did misrepresent. Now that the actual text at the coup article has been supplied, there are no sources which support the one word in the lead. Your source doesn't say what it's sourcing. So, let's have consistent standards across articles, and follow policy and guideline: see WP:LEAD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Your persistence in misrepresenting easily verifiable things is perplexing. If anyone cares, see Talk:2002_Venezuelan_coup_d'état_attempt#Illegaly_detained. Rd232 ^talk 13:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, I encourage others to ignore Sandy's distraction and stonewalling tactics. Some issues have been resolved, and others not - hence the Reboot section to clearly distinguish. Rd232 ^talk 10:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Important OTRS ticket related to this article

OTRS volunteers, please read https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=4467232. NW (Talk) 17:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Having read the email, I believe that given the BLP issues and the issues with credibility of the sources that are creating the negative perceptions and association with a world leader unpopular in the United States, this article certainly merits broader eyes. Bastique ^demandez 18:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It has been looked at, [5] the sources are reliable (and certainly more reliable than Venezuelanalysis), but I can understand why some may find it inconvenient for this reliably sourced info to come forward:

Weisbrot is Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) and founded Just Foreign Policy.

According to sources:

• Collier, Robert (2004-08-21). "Venezuelan politics suit Bay Area activists' talents". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2009-02-09.
• "Deborah James, Director of International Programs". Center for Economic and Policy Research. Retrieved 2009-02-07.
• Naiman, Robert (26 July 2004). "Chavez Gets Strong Support From Brazil" (PDF). Venezuela Information Office. Retrieved 2009-02-07.
• Bogardus, Kevin (September 22, 2004). "Venezuela Head Polishes Image With Oil Dollars". Center for Public Integrity. Retrieved January 24, 2010. Letter to the editor in response.
• Miller, John J (December 27, 2004). "Friends of Hugo: Venezuela's Castroite boss has all the usual U.S. supporters". National Review. Retrieved January 24, 2010. {{cite web}}: Text "publisher-findarticles.com" ignored (help)

Deborah James, who used to work for Global Exchange, then Venezuela Information Office, now works for CEPR.

Robert Naiman, of Just Foreign Policy, also used to work for Venezuela Information Office.

Eva Golinger, of Venezuelanalysis.com, was asked to be on Venezuela Information Office "rapid response team". Venezuelanalysis is a pro-Chavez website that often cites CEPR literature.

Wikipedia is not censored.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Significantly, the "advisor" statement is hosted on cepr.net, Weisbrot's own site, so any claim that it violates BLP is a stretch. Why is it hosted at Center for Economic and Policy Research if it's a problem? National Review, San Francisco Chronicle, and Center for Public Integrity are additional info; how can those not be reliable sources, when the Chavez backed and funded Venezuelanalysis.com is spread throughout the Venezuelan articles, and used to source BLPs? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is that sources five and six are not legitimate (Sorry, five and six on the page, not the discussion). Weisbrot says that six is fictional and he was never interviewed by anyone named Lane Walker. And reference number five is all anonymous sources. How could that be considered credible information? Also, when Weisbrot himself is saying that he isn't a critic of globalization, and a claim on his Wikipedia page (with no attribution, by the way) says he does, who are we supposed to believe? I think many of you on here have a political axe to grind. User:Scalabrineformvp (Talk) 09:22, 12 February 2010

Which "five and six" are you speaking of (there's a list at the bottom of this page which is unrelated)? Could you specify a publisher, since refs on dynamic pages change? Also, our concern is not to judge the "truth", but to report what reliable sources say, neutrally, without violating WP:BLP. If Weisbrot himself hosts information on his website, how is it a BLP violation for Wiki to re-report that same info? If Weisbrot says he isn't a critic of globalization, then you can expand the text from a reliable source to say that. But please stop putting claims into the article that he is the "first to do so-and-so" unless the sources support such claims. You can expand text from reliable sources, if those are available, to reflect missing content (when I expanded the content here, it was entirely unclear to me why certain aspects of his work were highlighted, so I merely expanded the sources that were already there). If you want to expand text further, you can propose additions here on talk, while the article is protected, and others can edit in those additions, if they are supported by reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Here they are: (Spanish) Pino, Soledad (September 2007). "Mark Weisbrot entrevista: El modelo americano no es mejor que el europeo" and Lane, Walker (April 10, 2006). "An Anarchist At the World Social Forum". Fifth Estate. Neither of these are reliable or credible sources (and neither are housed on CEPR's site). User:Scalabrineformvp (Talk) 13:25, 12 February 2010

Pino is hosted at CEPR.net, see:

• http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/MW_LaClave_elmodeloamericano.pdf

and if CEPR.net hosts it, that can't say Wiki is posting defamatory info. Lane is merely a backup. I do hope you also understand the issue about your other edits-- that you continue to install text that says "Weisbrot was the first at so-and-so", which is the sort of claim that needs verification to an independent (not connected with Weisbrot) reliable source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Otrs ticket discussion

So, what is the position here, I have had a quick look and the citations are a big mess, they should be tidied up so that we can see where they are cited to and there appears to be some excessive tagging on of Chavez and suchlike a bit unnecessarily imo, I like the trimmed down version which clearly has no BLP violations at all and suggest we revert to it and err on the side of caution especially in the face of a ticketed complaint. Off2riorob (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The shortened version was written by someone with a likely conflict of interest, so I'm not sure if it's the better one. It also eliminates nearly every single cited source. As always, the current version could be improved, but I'm skeptical of the linked version. Awickert (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Well the long list of citations that is there now look a big mess of poor quality links imo, who is the coi ? Off2riorob (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to have to waste my time cleaning up this article, lets just roll it back to the trimmed down simple version and we can add to it from there with quality sources, this first citation in the lede is clearly not WP:RS is it. Off2riorob (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

What are the poor-quality sources? I see a couple that might not be up to par, but not enough issues to delete all but 5 of them. The COI is here. Awickert (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

That link in the lede is brand new, and the person who added it mentioned that they wouldn't mind if it were removed. Awickert (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Start with this, do you think that this first citation is a WP:RS ? A big mess of citations is not a fantastic thing, in a BLP is is better to have a few strong citations supporting less content than a clutch of weak ones. I will look at the coi. Off2riorob (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

See above and look at page history; sorry for the confusing double-post, accidentally pressed "save". Awickert (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes I see the coi now, personally I listen to the issues that the subject has with his article and they usually have good strong points, they know themselves best, well, if you think it is worth working on and the content as it is now is worth saving them if you want to help you could do a bit of formating of the sources so that we can see where there are from and take the weaker op ed ones either out or the the rs noticeboard for checking, I will do some as well, what a waste of time, can you not see how messy it is and that it would be easier to simply revert to the simple version and then be srtonger as to the content that is inserted? Off2riorob (talk) 21:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

That user is not Mr. Weisbrot, in case you didn't notice, and has been reverted by multiple other editors. I'm heading out of town in 36 hours and have to prep for that, so not much time, but will clean a little. I don't see the giant mess that you do, and I believe that instead of doing what is easy, we should do what is reliably sourced. There's quite a history with this page recently at RSN &c.; are you familiar with it? Awickert (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I looked through and don't see the issues; the only opinion pieces I found were part of "has been described as supporting Chávez' policies". We could change this to "has been described by X, Y, and Z as supporting". The questionable sources I saw were used with respect to Weisbrot being associated with them as a commentator. Awickert (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I am a bit familiar with it, its basically fall out from the two opposing chavez sides, awful and it appears to have dumped some of its whatsit on this article, I am a neutral interested in BLP protection are you involved on one side or the other? Off2riorob (talk) 21:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Not really involved in that debate at all - a couple posts here is it, and the overwhelming majority of my Wikipedia editing is in geology. But I unfortunately may have lit it off as I'd seen stuff in the news about him 'supporting Chávez', and put it back in when it was removed. So this page is more the start than the fallout. But I'm boring so we should get back on-track: could you find any issues in the article's sourcing? Awickert (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

OK - I'm heading out and probably won't check on this in over a week. So if this debate continues, it will have to be with other editors. Awickert (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

First, Off2riorob, where are the "messy sources" and citations you are describing? This version (with the exception of a recently added source to "progressive", now removed) is completely and well cited, with clean citations. Second, the trimmed down version contains uncited claims. You're speaking in ill-defined generalities; can you please specify the issues you see ? I honestly can't see what you're up to here; you are proposing to revert a fully and well-cited version, to this sort of completely uncited text:

• Weisbrot was one of the first economists to document and call attention to the long-term economic growth failure in the vast majority of developing countries since 1980, as well as the consequent decline in progress on such social indicators as life expectancy and infant and child mortality. This challenged the conventional wisdom that neoliberal reforms since 1980 has at least contributed to increasing economic growth, even if other problems (e.g. inequality) had remained or in some cases worsened. He has also been one of the most widely cited critics of IMF-supported policies in developing countries.

Those sorts of claims cannot be cited to Weisbrot or CEPR (they require independent sources), and the sources that were there before don't source these claims. You've made some unsupported statements about the current state of the page, and considering your recent removal of a well-supported POV tag from Hugo Chavez, I'm concerned about your edits here; they don't appear to improve neutrality, and have nothing to do with BLP that I can see. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I realise you have a very strong POV on this issue Sandy, there has been a complaint about this article and I see weak citations to opinionated locations and I will be investigating the total content here.Off2riorob (talk) 23:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you answer the direct questions please? Why did you remove a well-substantiated POV tag from Hugo Chavez (are you neutral on these articles); where are the messy citations you refer to; what are the BLP vios you are alleging in this text; and why are you proposing a reversion to wholly uncited text? The current version is well and correctly cited; please specify your objections. And, please refresh yourself on WP:NPOV and what it says, Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Turns out I'm back - got some work done and checked Wikipedia. Now Off2riobob, please tell us your specific issues with the article; as it stands, you've done nothing but tell both Sandy and I that you're suspicious of our motives. Let's move on and get some work done. Awickert (talk) 05:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

To be honest Sandy, your comments about chavez are nothing to do with this complaint and you should address that issue at some other location, there has been a complaint about this article and I will not be bullied or chased off, I am going to look at all the citations and contents of this article, anyone else's position will not affect my doing that and I will do it at my own good time. Off2riorob (talk) 07:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you please answer the questions, Rob? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Socks on CEPR articles

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scalabrineformvp. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Corrections

Off2RioRob, when editing a well-sourced article that conforms to MOS guidelines and other Wiki policies, if you're unsure how to apply those guidelines and policies, it might be better to first propose your edits on talk. First, please take care with marking edits as minor if they're not (for example, removing a POV tag). Second, please be sure that the title of a webpage used in a citation agrees with the title of that page. Third, please don't leave refs hanging when you remove text, so that the refs are left attached to text they aren't citing. Fourth, please understand the difference between "opinion" and text well cited to, for example, The New York Times and USA today. And finally, when removing text entirely, please don't use an edit summary stating you removed it from the "lede" because you claimed it was opinion, although it wasn't. I've corrected your citations, reattached the citations to the text they were citing, and restored the cited text to the body of the article.[6] You should be aware that Wiki is not censored, and removing text cited to The New York Times, USA Today and backed by numerous other sources is not neutral editing. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Just moved another citation tag that was attached to new material that it didn't support. Off2riobob, I appreciate your desire to try to fix things, but if you say that you have issues with the citations, then you have the personal responsibility to not create more referencing issues in whatever fixes you apply. Awickert (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

COI

Pleaso don't re-add untill you obtain consensus. Thank you 187.47.23.230 (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)