Talk:Death of Santiago Maldonado

First thread

Santiago Maldonado is not a Mapuche. He is from Buenos Aires. He has been backpacking around South America and happened to be visiting the Mapuche when the Argentine Gendarmerie started the repression. To those who claim that Santiago Maldonado is a Mapuche and a guerrilla fighter, PLEASE read news based on facts and not propaganda. Unless you are somebody working for the Argentine government, in which case I understand why you need to use misleading information.

I suggest that people contributing to this page take into account 1) that the Argentine government is diverting information about Santiago Maldonado as much as it can and 2) that a significant number of media outlets (in general, those owned by people who support the government) have been misleading their audiences casting doubt about whether Santiago Maldonado was there, whether he was murdered and whether the Gendarmerie actually took him. Also, these media have been telling their audiences that the Mapuche are allies of ISIS, that they want to create a separate state within Argentina, etc. There is no evidence to support any of these claims. So, I think Wikipedia risks becoming part of the manipulation if reliable sources are not used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvaristoDLR (talk • contribs) 15:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC) — EvaristoDLR (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

People who want to contribute may want to use the website created by Santiago Maldonado's family http://www.santiagomaldonado.com/ to check news that appear to be fake (see the entries labled "noticia falsa"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvaristoDLR (talk • contribs) 15:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC) — EvaristoDLR (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I suggest a change of title for this page (I don't know how to do it). The new title would be "Santiago Maldonado" or "Disappearance of Santiago Maldonado" (I prefer this one because it is the same title as in the Spanish Wikipedia). — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvaristoDLR (talk • contribs) 16:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC) — EvaristoDLR (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

See here, an article about about an interview by Ari Paluch to Facundo Jones Huala, leader of the RAM. He said, and let me quote: "Usted es un hijo de los europeos opresores. Nosotros queremos recuperar nuestras tierras" (Spanish: "You are a son of the European oppresors. We want our lands back"). There is your evidence. As for the website of the Maldonado family, it is a primary source, directly involved in the case, and not a reliable one to boot, as they have been accused of interfering with the investigation. Cambalachero (talk) 16:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Your take on this is absolutely biased in favor of the government. You keep deleting whatever does not agree with government propaganda. In a case of forced disappearance, the one that is under suspicion is the government, not the victim. On the other hand, the only Argentine source you cite is the Clarín newspaper (and other media that belong to the same corporation), clearly a pro-government source.EvaristoDLR (talk) 13:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC) — EvaristoDLR (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

And what does that have to do with anything? You said that there is no evidence of the RAM wanting lands, and I gave you a direct quotation from the leader of the RAM saying precisely that. Cambalachero (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Poorly written section

This section is problematic and unclear. Firstly, the author of this section mentions a supposed conspiracy accusation made against the Macri administration and supposed accusations that the death of Santiago Maldonado was equivalent to the Dirty War. The author of this section does not reference enough sourcesto prove that such conspiracy theories existed or that such accusations were made indeed by any human rights organizations or the political party of Todos or by anyone with an important role in the case. Even if these accusations were made by someone, such exaggerated allegations should be seen as marginal and fringe conspiracy theories. The section falsely conveys the impression that this or similar conspiracy theories are an important or prevalent hypothesis in the Maldonado case or that they have been put forward by a political party or a human rights organization. Again there is no sources. The whole section is hard to follow and poorly written. The section makes dubious and unfounded claims that the Asrgentine society has lost its interest in certain human rights issues or that human rights organizations are politically aligned with the party of Todos and the dubious claim that human rights organizations are discredited in the country. There is only one source mentioned for all this very strong claims, which is a fairly minor author. The source is not adequate to support such sweeping arguments. The section also makes reference to "Kirchnerism" working in tandem with human rights organizations for alleged political exploitation of the case without mentioning which human rights organizations it refers to or providing evidence for such alleged coordination. This claim is unfounded and potentially defamatory to the human rights sector. Human rights organisations in accordance with their role did review the Maldonado case but more evidence is needed in order to prove an alleged collaboration with the political party of Todos. As such I propose to delete the following section.

"Kirchnerism and human rights organizations exploited the case to advance a political discourse against Macri. Treating the case like a forced disappearance allowed to draw comparisons between his government and the Dirty War that took place during the National Reorganization Process, in the 1970s. According to this narrative, Macri would have a covert plan to kidnap and kill demonstrators, the gendarmerie, the judiciary and the media would be working alongside Macri in such a plan, and Maldonado would be just the first victim of it. Human rights organizations had aligned themselves with the Kirchners during the government of both Néstor and Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, even in topics unrelated to human rights, and often worked as their spokesmen. They kept this role since 2015, when Macri defeated Cristina Kirchner in the presidential elections. This, however, undermined their legitimacy in the Argentine society, as an increasingly portion of the population loses interest in the events of the 1970s, and their public image got tied to that of Cristina Kirchner." --ParisHistorian (talk) 10:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Misleading

This article contains too much errors to think otherwise. Here is a list of some of them:

• Santiago it's not a "member of the Resistencia Ancestral Mapuche". Source, another
• "On that day people of the Lof Cushamen community protested". They were protesting the previous day. Source
• The attack on the house of Chubut has no reason to be found in the introduction of the article.

The height of hypocrisy is the incredible falsity of insinuating that he has been murdered, hiding that hypothesis was discarded because of the multiple witnesses who saw him after the supposed date of the attack. Even the person who allegedly murdered him has come out to deny it.
This article should be deleted directly. --EMans (talk) 21:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, EMans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvaristoDLR (talk • contribs) 21:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC) — EvaristoDLR (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The hypothesis has not been discarded and it is still under investigation, see here. Cambalachero (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

In any case, the article must present all the ongoing hypothesis in a neutral manner. this edit, on the other hand, takes it for a confirmed fact that he was victim of a force dissapearance and that the Gendarmerie is responsable, which is far from being so. The prosecutor of the case said herself that the evidences for that are weak. You also used a primary source (the number of a judicial case that is not even closed) and an unreliable source, página 12. Cambalachero (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I would recomend expand your sources. If you only read Clarín you will be severe misleading.

This source talks with persons that testifies that Santiago was alive before the 1 f Ag.

--EMans (talk) 15:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

That info is already in the article, in the second paragraph of the "murder" section. As for those other who talked with "La Vaca", did they also testify under oath for the judicial case? Or do they just make bold statements in the press and nothing else? Cambalachero (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

As for "La Vaca", according to their "about us" section, we are talking about a cooperative that, among other things, published a book named "the end of journalism and other good news" and has "counter-information workshops". That doesn't sound as a reliable source with editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. On the contrary, they sound like the type of sources that would happily embrace conspiracy theories. So no, thanks, I may expand my sources, but not in that direction. As a side note, I'm not citing articles from La Nación because I have already used my quota of monthly free articles, and will add them once I can read such articles for free again in some days. Cambalachero (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Sory If "the cow" does not "sound like a reliable source" to you. In addition, if you only want to work with media "with editorial control and reputation for fact verification" would recommend not working with Clarín and La Nación, they are known for not checking and falsifying information (if it were for Clarín we would still think that Santillán and Kosteki he killed them "the crisis")... --EMans (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Let me remind you that working with media "with editorial control and reputation for fact verification" is not a weird request that I made up from out of nowhere, it's part of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Which is way more precise and demanding than the essay and the customs of Wikipedia in Spanish, where you edit the most. As for Kosteki and Santillán, I frankly don't understand what are you trying to say. Please reformulate. Cambalachero (talk) 13:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Maldonado a "guerrilla"? No source cited

Repeatedly, Cambalachero has re-inserted into the first sentence of this article the claim that he was a "RAM guerrilla." Yet no source is provided for this claim. Indeed, the source provided for that opening sentence says precisely the opposite. As such, I have changed the description to "backpacker" (which is what the source says). --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Not, incidentally, that it should matter. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

That's simply a case of WP:SPADE. If you join a guerrilla in their activities, of course that you may get called a member of said guerrilla. Which is, otherwise, the link? A backpacker that was roaming the country, enjoying the views and local customs, and engages in the touristic attraction of wearing a hood, blocking a road at least twince and spending so much time with a guerrilla that they have clothes that belong to him? Cambalachero (talk) 14:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Do not turn this article into a piece of government propaganda

Cambalachero wants to emphasize that the campaign to find out what happened to Santiago Maldonado is being promoted by Cristina Kirchner. This claim is absolutely false, as anyone living in Argentina can notice. It is clear, on the other hand, that Macri's government is not interested in the discussion of this issue: the disappearance of Maldonado happened during an attack by the Gendarmerie, which was acting under the supervision of Mr. Pablo Noceti, an attorney who has defended torturers in court and currently serves as the chief of cabinet of Minister Patricia Bullrich. All the sources that Cambalachero cites are from pro-government media (Clarín, TN, Perfil), known for having popularized in Argentina "post-truth" (i.e. neatly presented lies) journalism.EvaristoDLR (talk) 13:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC) — EvaristoDLR (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Clarín and TN are the Argentine media with the highest audiences, are considered reliable, and have existed for a long time before Macri came to power. And Macri, unlike populist governors such as Maduro or Castro, is not known for any attempt to create a supporting press network. Cambalachero (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

As for CFK, the BBC says "The former president, now head of the opposition, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner has repeatedly spoken out on the disappearance, which also coincided with the first round of congressional elections.". Cambalachero (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

First, "Macri, unlike populist governors such as Maduro or Castro, is not known for any attempt to create a supporting press network"... jajajajajajajajajajajaja

I suggest reading outside of Clarín and La Nación... [1], [2], [3].

About CFK no one it's saying that CFK didn't speak about Maldonado, but that it's different that "promoting the campaign". That afirmation has no real sources.-EMans (talk) 15:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

So what? Clarín is the highest sold newspaper, so it's natural that the highest ammount of state advertising goes to it. The purpose of such advertising is not to benefit the media, but to allow a state message to be received by the highest number of people possible. If Página 12 becomes the highest sold newspaper, then it will receive that ammount of money and nobody will bat an eye. Cambalachero (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Sweet Cambalachero, that's not whats says in the constitution, and the Supreme Court and the CIDH opinion it's contrary to yours (see the Perfil case). But that it's no the point to this discussion. --EMans (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Here is a description of how the Clarín Group has operated regarding the disappearance of Maldonado. The modus operandi is not much different from Cambalachero's: http://www.agenciapacourondo.com.ar/violencia-institucional/la-cobertura-de-clarin-sobre-santiago-maldonado-el-responsable-extraviadoEvaristoDLR (talk) 17:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's interesting. You claim to be concerned about Macri's "propaganda", and cite (and tried to use in the article) the "Agencia Paco Urondo" as a source for your claims. Which is a page for Kirchnerite propaganda, by its own confession. See here: "There is a third place of journalism that assumes the idea that access to reality is necessary to do it from a place, to take a position to narrate. There is a tradition in Argentina and throughout the West, which among many other names, have the one of Paco Urondo. Taking a position and a decision. It is the tradition that challenges an unjust order, which challenges the existence of a world as it is, which denies the administration of the order of the world, which thinks of the radical need to think another world. It is in that place this proposal of communication is inscribed. A proposal of communication that starts from a position: we are kirchneristas." They are not aiming for a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, they are aiming to twist the news as required to advance the agenda of the Kirchnerite political party. They are not reliable, and they can be openly called propaganda. Cambalachero (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

They are Kirchneristas, so what? Is that a crime? At least they confess their ideology. Clarin pretends to be neutral and has been supporting the Argentine economic elites and dictatorships since long time ago. The article was written by a professor of the University of La Plata, not by the the news agency staff.EvaristoDLR (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

It is not a problem for a source to have a point of view, as long as they do not twist the facts to support their point of view, which is what this source is outright claiming that they are proud to do. Have in mind that when there's a search for a missing person (specially if the case become newsworthy, as this one) there will likely be several false positives, and people who report by mistake about having seen the missing person. That's normal. To claim that a newspaper is actively disrupting the investigation by deliverately publishing such false positives will require some investigative proof, not a mere analysis of the headlines. For instance, they would need to have proof that Clarín was actively involved with the witnesses of the discredited sights, or that somehow they knew in advance that those sights were false. And remember as well that it is not the task of Clarín to find Maldonado, merely to report the news of the case. Cambalachero (talk) 14:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

New sources

After complaining about the use of the mainstream newspapers Clarín and La Nación, the article has been edited by EvaristoDLR and EMans, and it currently cites:

• Página 12
• Encuentro de la militancia judicial ("Gathering of judiciary activism")
• Cosecha Roja ("Red harvest")
• Centro de estudios legales y sociales (CELS, "Center of legal and and social studies")
• La Izquierda diario ("The left-wing newspaper")
• Infonews
• El Disenso ("The dissent")
• Santiago Maldonado homepage (run by his family)
• Cadena 3
• Agencia Paco Urondo ("Paco Urondo agency")

I would like to request those users to explain why we should consider them to be reliable sources. But, before doing that, have a careful read of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. It's not just a "it's reliable because I trust them" claim, you'll have to prove that those sources have a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight. To discuss each case individually, let's discuss each one in a specific subfolder. Cambalachero (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

It is good to know that you are now interested in the reliability of sources. Two days ago you were posting that Maldonado is a guerrilla fighter without citing any source. This is the kind of attitude the military and their intelligence services had when they disappeared 30000 people in this country.EvaristoDLR (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I would refuse such an absurd request if I did not know the behavior of who I deal with.

Either way (this seems to me to repeat it over and over again) this speaks more of Cambalachero's bias than of the realiabe of the sources.

On the other hand, I would recommend that the user read the policies he quotes.

reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

Then been biased it's not a valid objection to a realiabe source.

Finally, I ask the user that, since we will have to justify the sources that can be used in the article, do the same with Colaron and La Nación.-EMans (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

It is right that a reliable source does not need to be reliable. However, if a source tampers with the facts to accommodate to a certain way, then it is not reliable. If such a thing is done to benefit their bias, it is not an acceptable excuse (it may be for those who share that bias, but not for the rest). The source would not be reliable, but not because of their bias alone, but because of their unproffesional actions done to advance said bias.

Also note that those sources are not standing in an equal ground with Clarin and La Nacion. There is a big, huge difference between them: Clarín and La Nación are mainstream sources. Those others are minor and inconsequential sources. --Cambalachero (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Please re-read this sentence you wrote...

a reliable source does not need to be reliable

The discussion has already reached the point where there is no longer any reason to intervene.--EMans (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

That was just a typo. The second "reliable" was meant to be "unbiased". Just as when you wrote "Colaron", where I understood that you meant "Clarín", and replied ignoring the typo. --Cambalachero (talk) 02:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Yea, that whats a cheap shot. But why not have a little fun?

If you really think that " if a source tampers with the facts to accommodate to a certain way, then it is not reliable". Therefor both Clarín and La Nación would not be reliable sources: there are many examples that have "accommodated" the facts to serve their own bias. Without looking anywhere and just using my memorie, I would remind you of a Clarín cover that claimed that a minister earned two hundred thousand pesos, and it "mised" by two hundred thousand pesos.

Unfortunately, in today's media, this type of falsehoods exist (although it is now fashionable to tell them "post-truth"), especially if they perform war journalism. --EMans (talk) 02:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Página 12

Página/12 is an Argentine newspaper. During the presidencies of Néstor Kirchner and Cristina Fernández de Kirchner it had become a propaganda tool for the government. Having an editorial line favourable to a certain government does not make an unreliable source: the problem is that they give priority to advance their political views, even when that means distorting information, concealing information (even with self-censorship), using slander against politicians that oppose the Kirchners, etc.

• The Kirchner government benefited the aligned press with huge ammounts of money from state advertisments. Página 12 received 33.9 millions of pesos, the 26.5 of the total ammount of money invested in all the media (see here). In contrast, the government tried to push the non-aligned press to bankrupcy, by pressuring the standard advertisments to stay away from those newspapers (see the WSJ article next).
• As described by the Wall Street Journal here, when Jorge Bergoglio (who was so far against the government) was appointed as Pope Francis, Página 12 started a defamation campaign against him, linking him to alleges crimes during the dirty war. Their lead journalist, Horacio Verbitsky, was a member of the Montoneros guerrilla, a band that used terrorist tactics in the 1970s in a failed attempt to establish a communist dictatorship in the country. The WSJ points that this is not limited to the pope, the newspaper has a routine of making similar defamations against anyone who does not endorse the Kirchner's authoritarianism.
• In line with this, Página 12 published in the front page an alleged photo of Bergoglio giving the sacramental bread to dictator Jorge Rafael Videla (see here). Actually, that photo has another priest, and it was taken a pair of decades later, as detailed here.
• Eventually, Cristina Kirchner made a copernical shift towards the Pope, suddenly treating him as a saint beyond criticism. In line with that shift, Página 12 removed several articles by Verbitsky from the Página 12 web page (see here).
• Journalist Julio Nudler wrote an editorial in 2004, denouncing a corruption case that involved the chief of cabinet of ministers Alberto Fernández and the head of the Sindicatura General de la Nación, Moroni. The newspaper used self-censorship, and refused to publish his editorial (see here for the editorial, retrieved by another newspaper).
• The newspaper published a comic strip mocking victims of the holocaust. Even the Simon Wiesenthal Center had to call them on the outrage, forcing them to make apologies for it (see here)
• Jorge Lanata, who established the newspaper a pair of decades ago, is no longer part of its staff. Even he rejects the current newspaper's credibility (see here), and calls them the "anti-journalism".
• Cristina Kirchner made a speech in the 25º anniversary of the newspaper. She said that "there is a true cultural battle. We will wage it on all fields, and Página 12 as well". (see here). Translated: Página 12 is indeed used by the government as a propaganda tool to impose their ideas.
• Some weeks before the 2011 elections, the newspaper published that one of the candidates of the rival party was the son of a colonel that commited human rights violations during the dirty war (see here). He was actually the son of someone with a name similar to the aforementioned colonel (see here).
• The major Mauricio Macri, who was against the Kirchners, vetoed a law that allowed abortion. Página 12 published a controversial front page, with his face and the words "Violador serial" in big fonts (see here). The smaller subtitles then clarify that they talk about alleged repeated violations of women rights. Still, in Spanish language, the title may be easily misunderstood as "serial rapist".
• It is not a major newspaper. According to here, they are not among the top ten of the most sold newspapers. According to here, they sell just the 17th part of the sales of Clarín, the highest sold newspaper. Cambalachero (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The only response this deserves it's a simple question: "According to whom? ".

This is a bunch a unproven bias opinion about one of the larger news organization in the country (by many views the third).

There isn't an argument for the objection of this source. --EMans (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

According to each of the mainstream sources linked at each bulleted item. And no, Página 12 is not "one of the larger news organization in the country". I have already mentioned the sales. I may add http://www.totalmedios.com/nota/30839/clarin-la-nacion-e-infobae-los-sitios-de-noticias-mas-visitados-de-la-argentina this report] about the news websites with the highest views in Argentina: they are Clarín, La Nación, Infobae, TN, accuweather, Minuto uno, Perfil, Diario uno, Diario registrado, la voz, los andes, ambito, la capital, meteored, playgroundmag, el pais, el mundo, mdzol, telefe noticias, cronista. That's the top 20 websites, and p{agina 12 is not third, it's not even in the list! --Cambalachero (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I am going to correct because I made a statement based on old data, Page 12 is not the third newspaper in the country, but has fallen to be the fifth. You can check it here.

Now, a newspapper with more then ten thousand subscriptions can not under any circumstances be regarded as a reliable source.

End of the discussion. --EMans (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Página 12 is a better source than mere glorified blogs, like some of the other sources proposed, I may give you that. Still, the numbers should be placed in context: Fourteen thousand said alone sounds like a huge lot, but it's tiny compared to the one hundred eighty thousands sold by the mainstream newspaper Clarín. And, besides, sales alone do not make a source reliable. It must have a reputation as a reliable source among mainstream sources. Página 12 does not have such a reputation, quite the opposite. All the links provided prove that. --Cambalachero (talk) 02:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

That's simple false. Página 12 it's considered mainstream newspaper. Its on you to prove that it's not a reliable source.

On the other hand, seen and considering that this source is used quite a few more articles, you should take these proof not to this talk but where it corresponds.--EMans (talk) 02:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Encuentro de la militancia judicial

Their very name gives away their intentions. The judiciary should be, by definition, apolitical. Activism (which is what "militancia" stands for) is, by definition, a political action. If they are willing to subvert the apolitical nature of the judiciary and introduce political factions in it, what reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight could they possibly ever have? Cambalachero (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The only response this deserves it's a simple question: "According to whom? ".

This is a bunch a unproven bias opinion.

There isn't an argument for the objection of this source. --EMans (talk) 01:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Whatever. It is not a mainstream source, so the burden of evidence is on you to prove that it has a reputation as a reliable source. --Cambalachero (talk) 02:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

If you want it so much, this source you can remove. There are two others who say exactly the same thing.

You should not change a single comma to the text. Simply remove this reference.

I will not waste my time arguing with you if the same assert other sources and does not change anything at all.--EMans (talk) 02:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Cosecha roja

This article describes a theft that took place in the "editorial" site of Cosecha Roja. If we overlook the news about the theft and focus in the place, it happens that their editorial is merely a small rented apartment, and shared with another publication. One step above the mere guy with a blog, but not much. Cambalachero (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I guess you've heard at some other time: it ain't all about the size of the boat...

The "other publication" it's Revista Anfibia, which depends on the Universidad Nacional de San Martín.

Cosecha Roja, as their "about us" page says, it's a creation of the Fundación Nuevo Periodismo Iberoamericano and the "Open Society Institute" (OSI).

So, clearly it's a reliable source. --EMans (talk) 00:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Cels

This organization is run by former terrorist Horacio Verbitsky, which I have already mentioned in Página 12. Do I need to add something else? Cambalachero (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

So, wikipedia doesn't have to recognize this DDHH organization although the CIDH recognize them...

Ok, the world it's upside down... --EMans (talk) 22:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Recognition in other fields do not automatically transfer into being a reliable source (reliability is not the same than notability). It's still Verbitsky, the man who tried to frame the pope, and who commited self-censorship when Kirchner changed her hostile attitude towards him. Cambalachero (talk) 12:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not "recognition in other fields", the recognition is in relation with this case. See the "urgent action" of the ONU, requested by CELS.

There is nothing more to say about it. --EMans (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

La Izquierda diario

According to this google search, "La Izquierda diario" minus the domain gives just 347,000 results. And many of those results seem to be some of their own pages that, for some reason or another, are not part of the domain They do not seem to have much of a reputation of any kind to begin with. According to this article, they are produced by the Socialist Workers' Party (Argentina), a minor Trotskyist political party that hardly gets more than 3% of the vote in elections. Using this political newspaper may give undue weight to the perspectives of a really minor party. Cambalachero (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

If having a ideology its contrary of being a reliable source, then neither LID nor La Nación are one (see below).--EMans (talk) 01:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

A media produced by a political party (which is not the same as simply having a bias) has a conflict of interest when treating political news, as it is constrained by the needs of the political party. We could use this source saying that "the PST says that", but why we should bother to report the views of such a minor party --Cambalachero (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

The source is valid. It is being used to account for information that has little to do with politics.

Please, before proceeding with these grandiose statements, read the article. Thanks. --EMans (talk) 03:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

This article is talking about a political controversy. Cambalachero (talk) 12:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

This is an article is about a crime ([[[forced disappearance]]), see the resolution of the procecutor of the case (source).--EMans (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

El disenso

According to their "About us" section, the page is run just by a couple, as a family project. They used to have a blog, they closed it when they got heavy backlash, and then started this other page. There's clearly zero editorial oversight (there's not even an editorial to begin with), and may be easily treated as a blog, even if not hosted in blogger or some other similar blog publisher. Cambalachero (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Santiago Maldonado.com

This website is run by the family of Santiago Maldonado. They have a clear conflict of interest in the issue, and so are a clear-cut case of WP:NOTRELIABLE. Cambalachero (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I recommend reading the IOC policy, because you are confusing it with primary, secondary and tertiary sources, which is what would apply to this case. --EMans (talk) 01:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Check the link: "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest." --Cambalachero (talk) 02:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

As the policy says, this source is valid only to account for the position of the family or data of Santiago. That is all for what is used.

There is no more to say about it.--EMans (talk) 02:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Agencia Paco Urondo

I have already explained my concerns above, so I will copy my own text: "[...] is a page for Kirchnerite propaganda, by its own confession. See here: "There is a third place of journalism that assumes the idea that access to reality is necessary to do it from a place, to take a position to narrate. There is a tradition in Argentina and throughout the West, which among many other names, have the one of Paco Urondo. Taking a position and a decision. It is the tradition that challenges an unjust order, which challenges the existence of a world as it is, which denies the administration of the order of the world, which thinks of the radical need to think another world. It is in that place this proposal of communication is inscribed. A proposal of communication that starts from a position: we are kirchneristas." They are not aiming for a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, they are aiming to twist the news as required to advance the agenda of the Kirchnerite political party. They are not reliable, and they can be openly called propaganda." Cambalachero (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

If having a ideology its contrary of being a reliable source, then neither APC nor La Nación are one (see below). --EMans (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

La Nación

To show something, this "newspapper" it's clear about about what its objective is: its motto is "La Nación será una tribuna de doctrina" ("La Nación will be a tribune of doctrine"). In this case, it is clear that it publishes false and unverified information, for example this note from yesterday. Then denied by the protagonist itself.--EMans (talk) 00:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

You forgot the subtitle: "for the moment, the authorities declined to confirm or deny this". They denied the news after it was published, and the old news became obsolete by the newer ones? Fine. That's an everyday routine with ongoing news. --Cambalachero (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

You seem to forgot to read the line: "taking into account that the information provided by the media was not previously corroborated with the authorities of the establishment"...

In case you don't understand that means that newspaper does not check the information that published.--EMans (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, "for the moment, the authorities declined to confirm or deny this" means that they asked, but by the time the printing was closed they had received no response. --Cambalachero (talk) 02:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Everything EvaristoDLR and EMans edited and brought here is correct; their edits should be on the aticle. --Agustin6 (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits

There are several problems with the recent edits to the article, besides the questionable sources.

• The forced dissapearance theory has been disproved when the tests on the DNA samples at the trucks gave all negative results. Reliable sources say that, the judge himself says that.
• The idea of "The event" section is to mention just the parts of the August 1 event that are undisputed: that there was a protest blocking a road, that the Gendarmerie dispersed it, and that the protesters escaped. Everything else should go at the section of the respective theory. This helps the casual reader to understand what was it all about.
• The hierarchy of the Gendarmerie is pointless here.
• As a highly public scandal, it is completely trivial to start listing all the people who ever mentioned this. It should be limited to just the mentions that become newsworthy in themselves. A leading politician using it as part of her political campaign is noteworthy, the opinion of a former judge from another country who has no first-hand knowledge of it is trivial. And a list of newspapers that covered the news, more trivial than trivial. Cambalachero (talk) 19:01, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The truks were washe before the DNA samples were taken. Therefore this evidence is not conclussive. The judge was removed because he was found to be biased. The people protesting on August 1st were not members of the so called Resistencia Ancestral Mapuche. Baltasar Garzón is not just a "former judge from another country". He was involved in the prosecution of those who perpetrated the genocide in Argentina during the last dictatorship ("death flights").EvaristoDLR (talk) 18:35, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

That the trucks were washed is something said by Machado, but Otranto did not agree with him, and that's why he took the testings as a valid evidence for the case. As for Otranto's removal, the text as introduced is misleading. Yes, he was removed, and yes, the Maldonado family said that he was not impartial, but he was not removed for that reason. He was removed solely because he gave an opinion about the case to the press before making a sentence, and the sentence that removed him specifically clarified that they found no reason to doubt of his impartiality. And, although the Maldonado family celebrated the removal, they criticized that the judiciary did not validate their complaint (see here). As for Garzón, yes, he worked on those old cases, but that's neither here not there for this case, which is completely unrelated. And another recent edit mentioned a whatsapp message where a member of the Gendarmerie mentioned that another one had Maldonado; that theory was disproven in mere hours, when the analysis of the context made it clear that it was just a private joke (see here). --Cambalachero (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

The 'only things we know for sure it's the case it's still a forced dissapearance and not a missing person. Therefor, the leading theory it's the forced dissapearence.

@Cambalachero: I would appreciate if in the future, do not remove unilaterally the notices in the article. --EMans (talk) 12:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure you do. And to decide the status of any given theory merely by the current state of a wikipedia article is not acceptable, as wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. Cambalachero (talk) 13:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Cambalachero, why do you keep insisting that the Jones Huala family and the people at the Pu Lof Cushament belong to Resistencia Ancestral Mapuche (RAM)? They do not claim to belong to RAM and they even say that the RAM does not exist. See, for example, here.EvaristoDLR (talk) 17:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Good for him. According to reliable sources and the judiciary, the RAM exists. This conspiracy theory can only be worth a footnote at most. Have in mind that Fernando, as the brother of the detained leader of the RAM, is not a neutral or unbiased party, and in fact may be saying this in an attempt to help the case of his jailed brother. Cambalachero (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Could you please cite a realiable source (i.e. neither government propaganda nor the newspapers that campaign for the government, like Clarín or La Nación) that confirms the existence of the RAM and the relation between said organization and the Pu Lof of Cushament?EvaristoDLR (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Clarín and La Nación are reliable sources, and do not have any special ties with the government. But if you want to read something else, check La Tercera from Chile here and here. Cambalachero (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The theories over the fate of Maldonado are mutually exclusive, but the reasons for the Gendarmerie to be there to begi with are not. The older text ommited several key details: that there was a road block protest dispersed by the Gendarmerie, that there was a second one, that they attacked the Gendarmerie with stones and injured gendarmes, and that this started the whole thing. The older version is not denying those facts, merely hiding them. As it was written, it seemed like the Gendarmerie simply stormed completely unprovoked into a place where people were living and minding their own business, which is far from an accurate description of the events. The "According to Gendarmerie..." and "According to the Pu Lof..." style is completely out of place, so I will remove it. Cambalachero (talk) 13:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, the "Santiago Maldonado has been missing for already 56 days" goes against the manual of style, see WP:DATED. The day when he became missing is already mentioned. Cambalachero (talk) 13:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@EMans:, you restored the text saying "The version of Gendarmería it's proben false (one of the members was injured inside of the Pu lof), so maintein both version". Care to elaborate? Cambalachero (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Cambalachero: I do not have much time at this moment to be able to elaborate, but I leave the source: [4].

As you can see, the police experts realize that the nurse who was with Gendarmería admits that one of them was injured inside the premises.

The source also adds a lot more stuff than, when a while to do it, I will add to the article.--EMans (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, if that is your source, then "proven false" is clearly an overstatement. And, more important, it does not contradict the text that I wrote. Let me remind it: "Commander Juan Pablo Escola reported that two gendarmes were gravely injured in their faces during the attack. He sent a group of 30 gendarmes to the Pu Lof. Although he did not have a judicial warrant to do so, he considered that the attack could be considered as in flagrante delicto, which would have allowed to skip that requirement". The fact is that Escola, the commander of the unit, sent the gendarmes, and that he did so despite the lack of warrant under the reasoning described. The source you gave provides just the reports of some of his underlings who consider that the reasoning was not accurate. But, whether Escola was right or wrong, the fact about his action (what did he do) and his justification for the action (why did he do that) still stand. Also, such a report is not an absolute truth, it's just a report coming from one person. The judge must still evaluate it, weight the credibility of whoever said it, compare it with the reports of others, and then decide if Escola did the right thing or not. If something comes out of this, we may report it, but at the section about the judicial cases. But, as I said, if something comes out of this. So far, the only real news in that article is that the judge received all those things to add to the investigation. Mere paperwork so far, and it took place yesterday. It is also possible that nothing noteworthy comes out of this, and this paperwork is simply forgotten as a minor news. Cambalachero (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Either case, it's not a reason to quit (like you have done) other facts of the case, like that Gendarmería enter "without a warrant signed by a judge".

On the other hand, there is nothing for the judge to determine, it is the sayings of the gendarmerie nurse, does not affect if Escola did the right thing or not. --19:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Did you actually read the new text? The sentence "Although he did not have a judicial warrant to do so, he considered that the attack could be considered as in flagrante delicto, which would have allowed to skip that requirement" already contains that info. --Cambalachero (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Traumatic death

The lead says that the autopsy says "it was a "traumatic death", either by accident or homicide, and there were no signs of violence.". That sounds a bit weird. How can an autopsy suggest an homicide, without pointing any signs of violence?

I have searched for pages that talk about the autopsy and that it may have suggested an homicide, but couldn't find any (or the text itself of the autopsy). Quite the contrary, I found loads of pages saying that the autopsy confirmed that Maldonado has drowned.

I have made a search of the combined terms in Spanish (maldonado, muerte traumatica, accidente, homicidio), and this is the closest I got. "La autopsia abre una ventana de tiempo muy grande en la data de la muerte, tampoco explica la mecánica, dice que fue una muerte traumática, es decir accidente u homicidio, por eso hay muchos interesados en presentar esto como un accidente y asunto cerrado" (Spanish: "The autopsy opens a very long time window in the death data, it does not explain the mechanics, it says it was a traumatic death, that is, accident or homicide, that's why there are many interested people in presenting this as an accident and close the issue"). Check again: that's not what the autopsy itself says, that's what the lawyer Mauricio Rojas infers from it. The autopsy only talks about a traumatic death, and it's just Rojas' interpretation that that may mean either an accident or an homicide.

The "either by accident or homicide" bit should be removed then, as it is misrepresenting the content of the source. Cambalachero (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC) How can it be removed? That is EXACTLY what the case/investigation is about--Agustin6 (talk) 21:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Forced disappearance

The lead mentions in the last paragraph that the body was found, and that the experts that made the autopsy confirmed that he drowned and found no signs of violence. And then it adds a long paragraph with the lawyer's opinion (3 lines in my browser, just for that quotation alone), that ends with "we will continue insisting that there was a forced disappearance followed by death". And then, another sentence: "The case is still on investigation, under the guise of Forced disappearance followed by death."

That's an improper case of WP:SYNTH. As it is written, it sounds to the casual reader as if the judge was endorsing the forced dissapearance premise. He is not. As I detailed elsewhere, the case is still under that name, but merely because of formal procedures. There's no substancial evidence to consider it a possible forced disappearance. And the quotation, by the way, is just a Continuum fallacy: just because forensic science is not advanced enough to set the exact day of death, that doesn't mean that he did not drown as revealed. It may be simpler to just point, in wikipedia's voice and with no quotations, that the defense still considers it a forced disappearance, and leave it at that.

See also WP:FALSEBALANCE. If the forced disappearance theory has been discredited and only the defense lawyer insist on it, then it is not correct to inflate the data about it to be "neutral" between both. Cambalachero (talk) 17:17, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Again, the investigation itself is about possible forced disappearance, how could it be "discredited"? Your opinion doesn't matter, stick to the facts --Agustin6 (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)