Talk:Henrique Capriles Radonski

Should be more about his Jewish roots

I see here that while Capriles does not self-identify as a Jew (and therefore can't be ethnically Jewish), his Jewish ancestry is still notable as it has caused him to be the target of anti-Semetic attacks. Any way this can be incorporated into the article? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 20:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Capriles does not self-identify as a Jew (and therefore can't be ethnically Jewish)"

Ethnicity is not the same as or even related to chosen self identification. Ethnicity is related to ancestry. "His father ... was a Catholic[5] of Sephardi Jewish ancestry ... his mother was born in Venezuela to Ashkenazi Jewish immigrants" Unless the above information is false, he is ethically Jewish, period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dagme (talk • contribs) 16:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch, Russian, Jewish, "Catholic whose maternal grandparents were Jews from Poland". Hilarious. Look at his last name... it's obvious what he is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.173.134 (talk) 07:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Original research in education policy discussion

Regarding this text, none of the sources supplied mention Capriles or compare the PISA issue to Chavez policies. One of the sources is a primary source, and nowhere are we told if PISA only accepts one location per country. Please supply sources that don't involved synthesis or remove; we need a citation that is not a primary source that directly discusses Capriles, PISA and a contrast to the Chavez administration if that clause is to be included. As it stands, it is original research, drawing conclusions not drawn by the sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-semitism deletion

Per this deletion of an important topic, here is some of the WSJ text (I can't provide all of it per copyvio, but since it's behind a paywall, I'm providing some here):

QUOTE

Vyas, Kejal and Jose de Cordoba (15 February 2012). "Chávez rival hit by state sttacks". Wall Street Journal.

CARACAS—President Hugo Chávez's new opponent in the October presidential elections faced a hail of vicious attacks from state media Tuesday and a judicial challenge from the government-influenced Supreme Court.

Henrique Capriles, who on Sunday won an overwhelming victory in an opposition primary, was vilified in a campaign in Venezuela's state-run media, which insinuated he was, among other things, a homosexual and a Zionist agent. On Sunday, Mr. Capriles won more than 1.8 million votes out of more than three million votes cast, stunning the government, which had predicted a far smaller turnout.

...

The normally garrulous Mr. Chávez has kept a rare silence since Mr. Capriles's triumph. Not so state media, which published a column Monday by a government-run radio network titled "The Enemy is Zionism." Written as a profile of Mr. Capriles, it lists activities the writer says shows the candidate's attempts to subvert Mr. Chávez's self-proclaimed "21st century socialist revolution" and claims Mr. Capriles participated in a fascist, white supremacist group.

...

"Using anti-semitism as a political weapon to intimidate, discredit and disparage has been a constant modus operandi by sectors of the Chavista movement," said Dina Siegel Vann, an official at the American Jewish Committee in Washington. "We were just waiting for the barrage to start."

UNQUOTE

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A source already used in the 2012 election article, for the same topic. Do we really need to double our workload by having the same thing here? It's all ephemeral electioneering nonsense anyway. Rd232 ^talk 15:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"ephemeral electioneering nonsense"? Goodness. I don't suppose the subject of the attacks sees it that way. Yes, text about Capriles belongs here. Was the text that was there before you deleted it well written? I don't know, haven't had time to check. This article is severely underdeveloped, and this issue should be/could be covered here in more detail than in the election article which is also underdeveloped as it hardly explores the candidate platforms. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The text was borderline copyvio, and relied almost entirely on an opinion piece. I wouldn't explore the issue in more detail without further details of specific problems, not sourced to opinion pieces. For instance, the 2012 article on this is all about one opinion piece; it doesn't take much to see that news coverage of it is disproportionate. Wikipedia reflects that disproportionality to some extent, but being an encyclopedia and not a news aggregator, it has a responsibility to not have its own coverage be driven entirely by the ephemera of 24 hour news cycles. There ought to be a lot more about policy differences. What would Capriles do differently from Chavez if elected? Not much of a clue on these pages, at present... Rd232 ^talk 16:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand where you're coming up with one opinion piece. We have sources as diverse as The Wall Street Journal (conservative), The Huffington Post (liberal), and Bloomberg (I don't know), covering the story and it was also covered in scores if not hundreds more. Yes, the articles are underdeveloped, but this is a story covered by a multitude of diverse reliable sources. (I haven't yet looked at the IB Times piece, since we already have enough sources.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about the content I removed here. That was sourced (borderline copyvio) to IB Times, plus a WSJ footnote thrown in but the source not really used. Rd232 ^talk 23:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my humble opinion, info about antisemit attacks against Capriles should be mentioned here, because it concerns him and his public life especially. And the fact that is covered in 2012 election article is not essential for deleting this sourced info, especially by a user who didn't even discussed it with other users, rather then delete it like he has some preponderance over this article.--Bbrezic (talk) 22:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was borderline copyvio. If you quote a source, it has to be in quotes. See WP:Close paraphrasing. If you insist on having this here, start by copying the 2012 election article paragraph, and go from there. Rd232 ^talk 23:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy?

Can someone explain me, why is receiving a recommendation to form a democratic coalition to face your political opponent in a presidential election controversial?--Rivet138 (talk) 11:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prison?!

The article just casually mentions that when in prison in 2004, he found Jesus (or God, or whatever). But no where else in the article does it mention why he was in prison in 2004. What happened? This very relevant.

-G

Undue

Currently, undue weight is given to subsidiary facts or events that are only distantly related to Mr Capriles' biography or political work. The article should be more focused. That Chavez claimed to be against anti-Semitism in general and condemned acts of anti-Semitism (that were not personally related to Capriles) is not directly related to Capriles and should therefore not be noted in this article (it might be relevant to Mr Chavez' article). This is different from very specific anti-Semitic attacks against Capriles himself which are, of course, relevant and have to be noted here.

The fact that the prosecutor who conducted the investigation against Mr Capriles was later killed is not connected to the case against Capriles (unless the connection can be proven). If we mention his murder here, it may inadvertently create the impression that the investigation against Capriles would somehow stand in connection to the killing of Mr Anderson, or even that Capriles would have been behind his killing, which, of course, would constitute blatant libel. The article about Anderson and his killing is already linked in this article. So, readers who want to inform themselves more detailedly can follow this link and learn more. So, it does not need to be mentioned in this article, which is exclusively about Capriles' biography and not about some other persons who are somehow connected to him. --RJFF (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My Response:

If you want to have a section about the 2012 election in the bio page, then Hugo Chavez's views on the subjects being discussed are needed for balance & accuracy. As written before I edited the article, it gave the rather dubious impression that Chavez won 56% of the vote in the 2012 election because of some obscure anti-zionest article posted to the web site of a public radio station. The single anti-semitic incident that the media sources mention is more goofy than vicious. In web searches that I have done in Spanish & English, it is very difficult for me to find any specifics beyond the single incident mentioned, leading me to think that the one incident is simply a basis for a rather typical corporate media exaggeration.

Regarding the court cases involving Capriles role in the attack on the Cuban embassy & the arrest or "detaining" of a government official during the failed coup attempt; Danilo Anderson was murdered because he was the lead prosecutor conducting the investigation against Capriles and others involved in the coup, making the murder very much connected to the case against Capriles. Simply mentioning the very significant fact that Anderson was murdered does NOT in anyway say that Capriles was involved with his murder. Mentioning his murder will make it more likely that people will look at that Danilo Anderson wiki article and help improve that article. I also think not mentioning the murder make it look like the wiki article is trying to hide the murder.

All in all, i think you are too eager to delete key information and too afraid that people can't think for themselves.Lance Friedman (talk) 11:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to consider our key principle of assuming good faith. I do not impute bad intentions to you. You should not, either. If we start to assume that our discussion partners have bad intentions (to disinform or manipulate readers) we cannot lead a constructive discussion. We have to find a compromise, because we both have the same rights to edit Wikipedia and neither one owns this article. WP:edit warring is forbidden. Actually, you have already breached the "three revert rule" yesterday, but as you are a relatively new user I have merely warned you. Hopefully other users will join this discussion and moderate our dispute to find a solution. When I read the article (the version I proposed), I do not find that it creates the impression that Chavez won because of the anti-Semitic attacks against the Capriles. Neither does the article say that Chavez himself kicked off the attacks. Of course, he is not automatically responsible for every stupid campaign by his supporters. But obviously our persceptions differ in this regard. In your view, mentioning Anderson's murder in Capriles' article does not create the insinuation that Capriles might have been involved in it. In my view, it does. I find your claim that Anderson was killed because he investigated against Capriles unfounded and problematic. This is a strong claim and needs strong sources to back it up. It surprises me that you have found it difficult to detect sources for the anti-Jewish and anti-gay attacks when this article cites MSNBC, Bloomberg, and Wall Street Journal: media that are usually considered reliable by Wikipedia. If you generally distrust what you call "corporate media", I will find it very difficult to discuss and compromise with you, because Wikipedia widely relies on these media. --RJFF (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for emphasizing the importance of the three revert rule to me. It seems like there were a lot of other people who were violating that rule as well. I might be wrong about that. Regardless, I apologize for any rules that I broke. Also, I regret if anyone thinks I was trying to impute any bad attentions about their wiki edits.

This is actually my first time interacting with anyone on a wikipedia talk page. My impression and understanding is that it is ok to talk freely and give opinions on the talk page?

I'd like to say I NEVER said that I was unable to find multiple incidents of gay/homophobic attacks on Capraile. I am actually considering expanding that part in his bio article, if no one disagrees. Caprailes clearly was a victim of multiple attacks that most people woud consider to be homophobic from public media and from Chavez himself.

Regarding anti-semitics attacks on Caprailes, maybe i wasn't clear. I was able to find plenty of articles claiming that Chavez was a terrible anti-semite, but if the articles mentioned any specific incident at all, it was just the one goofy article posted to the web site of the public radio station. Going farther back i found a slew of articles all FALELY claiming that Chavez during a christmas speech multiple years ago said a "jewish cabal" was responsible for all the world's problems. http://fair.org/take-action/media-advisories/editing-chavez-to-manufacture-a-slur/

As far as corporate media, I read it like everybody else and like huge swathes of it. I consider Steven Colbert who is employed by Viacom to be my icon. I am in fact using corporate media as the source for the information that you want to delete. The source itself was already in the wiki article before i edited. I'm just asking that the information not be deleted.

I would like to add that i'm more than willing to compromise about anything anyone suggests. I am not from Venezuela and I am well aware that i am not any kind of expert on Venezuela. I'll respect what anyone decides as far as compromises or reverts. Lance Friedman (talk) 06:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New photo sucks - can't we find something better?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Z6Mg0PeHJkU/UT6TnZpfQQI/AAAAAAAAE_c/5PARgtSjFaI/s640/henrique_capriles_mensaje_l.jpg

Obvious that would be the primary choice, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.146.252 (talk) 03:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with this photo? It is a rather charismatic photo of Capriles Radonski smiling, wearing his trademark Venezuelan baseball cap, and doesn't seem to have him in the midst of moving or in an awkward pose. I will restore this photo, as it is fair use as it is a self-published work submitted by the author for usage on Wikipedia. Solntsa90 (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting nonsense

"His parents agreed to educate their children in the Catholic faith until they were old enough to decide for themselves.[8]"

Is that how that works now? Impressionable young minds are kept neutral "until they['re] old enough to decide for themselves" by... putting the church in charge of their views on religion? Does that work for other ideologies outside of religion now? "I'm going to raise my children as supporters of Pol Pot until they're old enough to decide for themselves."

So yeah I deleted the rest of that sentence after "faith". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.246.54.181 (talk) 23:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't your soapbox, it's what the source says. Hammersbach (talk) 02:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Henrique Capriles Radonski. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 21:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Title

Why is this article placed at his full name as a title, when the name he is most commonly know as is "Henrique Capriles"? Should not this article title be Henrique Capriles according to Wikipedia policy at WP:COMMONNAME? Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. --Bejnar (talk) 00:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For example, see the article Vicente Fox. Or the article Carlos Salinas de Gortari. Oh well, what is the consensus? List of heads of state of Mexico has all possible permutations, plus some fascinating facial hair. A Google search for each name version finds Capriles (about 1,920,000 results ) leading Capriles Radonski (about 1,060,000 results).--Quisqualis (talk) 01:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone like to institute a Move? I'm feeling ill right now.--Quisqualis (talk) 01:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good idea. Currently Henrique Capriles redirects to this page so there shouldn't be a problem with not being able to find this article. Hammersbach (talk) 01:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 April 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Already moved. the move was done without closing the original request. (non-admin closure) Yashovardhan (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Henrique Capriles Radonski → Henrique Capriles – This shorter form is the most commonly used form. Change per WP:COMMONNAME. See earlier discussion Talk:Henrique Capriles Radonski#Title. A look at the Google retrieved sources using "Henrique Capriles Radonski" indicates that "Henrique Capriles" is the more common form. See for example https://www.britannica.com/biography/Henrique-Capriles. Bejnar (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, this would be a good move. Hammersbach (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. It is a simple, uncontroversial move. I've marked the redirect for speedy deletion to make way for the move. Holy Goo (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.