Jump to content

Talk:Alicia Machado: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Archiving 33 discussion(s) to Talk:Alicia Machado/Archive 1, Talk:Alicia Machado/Archive 2) (bot
FRadical Bot (talk | contribs)
4,159 edits
m →top: replaced all instances of MiszaBot, MiszaBot I,MiszaBot II, MiszaBot III with Lowercase sigmabot III in {{Auto archiving notice}}
Line 18: Line 18:
|archive = Talk:Alicia Machado/Archive %(counter)d
|archive = Talk:Alicia Machado/Archive %(counter)d
}}
}}
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I |age= |units= 30 days}}
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age= |units= 30 days}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index
|target=/Archive index

Revision as of 10:08, 15 October 2018

"Trump's racism"

In the summary of edit #743031096, user @Marteau claimed that the phrase «Machado has compared Trump's racism to that of Adolf Hitler» is in "Wikipedia's voice and a blp vio", meaning that it was not in the source, I just want to note —regardless of whether it is a BLP violation or not— that the second source given (the first link from Publimetro is dead), from El Nuevo Herald, do states that Machado «realized that his [Trump’s] levels of racism are quite similar to those of Hitler» (original: [Machado] «se dio cuenta que sus niveles de racismo son muy similares a los de Hitler.»). Nika de Hitch (talk) 16:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Then put it back, but make it clear that it is Machado that is calling Trump's actions 'racist' and not Wikipedia. Marteau (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Publimetro colombia is not dead for me. If the link doesn't work try googling the html or title. NPalgan2 (talk) 19:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is basically hearsay and I don't see a reason to include it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it hearsay to cite Publimetro colombia and El Nuevo Herald repeating Machado's remarks to La Reforma, but OK for you to cite Washpo repeating what Trump said on Fox? NPalgan2 (talk) 18:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
La Reforma is not a reliable source, WaPo is, that's the difference.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
La Reforma (just like El Nuevo Herald and Publimetro Colombia) is a RS (I checked before I inserted the quote). Do you just assume that any Spanish language source is a trashy tabloid? NPalgan2 (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is out of context. The article says, "But things did not stop there, as Machado said that Trump is a man with dark interests and that while she was in her year in office had to work with him and realized that his levels of racism are quite similar to those of Hitler...." So the source says she says she realized. BTW I do not know why this is hearsay, or what relevance that has to policy or guidelines. Hearsay is second hand evidence. For example, were Machado repeating what someone had told her about Trump rather than her direct experience that would be hearsay. Hearsay is inadmissible in most circumstances in English courts, but Wikipedia rules of evidence do not rely on common law precedents. In this case, Trump's counsel would be allowed to raise the question in cross-examination, if I remember my rules of common law evidence correctly. TFD (talk) 18:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Publimetro: "Ojalá que la humanidad no permita que otra vez un Hitler vuelva a dominar el mundo, creo que ese señor sería capaz de hacer un nuevo holocausto una vez más", dijo la ex Miss Universo a diario La Reforma." A RS is quoting Machado directly and thus vouching for the fact that she said it. Wikipedia does not impose the strict rules of hearsay that law courts do, otherwise we could never cite everyday things like the NYTimes quoting a CNN interview. NPalgan2 (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New BLP violations

[1]. DailyBeast is not a good enough source for a BLP. This is going to wind up at WP:AE if this continues. Please stop trying to use this article to attack the subject.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but's there's washpo and RS spanish language sources. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/09/30/public-slut-shaming-and-donald-trumps-attack-on-a-former-miss-universitys-alleged-sex-history/ NPalgan2 (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How is quoting things that a well known telenovela actress coordinating with the Clinton campaign has said in public an attack? The Joe the Plumber page has lots of his dumbest quotes. NPalgan2 (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So? Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Northbysouthbaranof's edits

@NorthBySouthBaranof: made a number of changes which I have reverted:

1 at 3am should be ‘starting at’ 3am as he continued until 530am. Should the time stamp be there at all? This article is not about how trump is screwing up his own campaign. 2 ‘Unfounded’ is too strong for wikipedia’s own voice. Trump referred to Machado’s ‘past’, which RSs have taken to refer to the time that the judge went on TV to accuse Machado of threatening to kill him. Machado was not indicted, and there may not be consensus to include it in the article, but calling it ‘unfounded’ is going too far. We can find some way of noting that RSs called claim that the La Granja tape is a 'sex tape’ unfounded. 3 Meritlessly is good, as there is no evidence Clinton helped her get citizenship - Machado is perfectly capable of filling out the forms on her own. readding now. 4 "condemned in the media as self-destructive and unbecoming of a presidential candidate” a mixture of true but not the focus of the article and definitely NPOV. NPalgan2 (talk) 17:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfounded is not too strong — the reliable sources here are unanimous in describing them as such. Your personal disagreement with those sources is not at issue, and it presents a BLP issue to not accurately describe unfounded claims as unfounded.
Condemned in the media is certainly NPOV, because it's a true description of the reaction to those tweets, and it's necessary to place them in context. What makes the tweets notable is not what they said about Machado, but their obviously-negative impact on Trump's presidential campaign.
You also removed two gold-standard impeccable reliable sources without justification. I'll add more sources for "unfounded." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Washpo says "The allegation that Machado had a “sex tape” appears to be false. “ Points to the 1998 accusations but does not evaluate them, simply giving Machado’s denial and no indictment. cbs says 'unfounded smears’ but never explicitly refer to 1998. politico ambiguous but seems best interpreted as "stretching of the truth at best” re 1998 and “outright falsehood” for the citizenship and sex tape. WSJ cites slopes denial about sex tape, but just gives facts re 1998 http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/09/30/donald-trump-attacks-alicia-machado-in-overnight-tweets/

BusinessInsider: conservative-leaning publications have worked to discredit Machado, bringing up past allegations that she was a murder accomplice in Venezuela. They have also suggested that she appeared in a sex tape, a claim that was labeled "mostly false" by Snopes, the website that examines the validity of internet rumors. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-30/donald-trump-goes-on-anti-alicia-machado-twitter-tirade usnews details 1998 facts, but calls sex tape claims false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NPalgan2 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about 'unfounded accusations of a sex tape'? NPalgan2 (talk) 18:19, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, who are you talking to? I'm confused. Solntsa90 (talk) 15:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alicia Machado. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alicia_Machado&oldid=864137649"