Jump to content

Talk:Izkia Siches

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by MeegsC (talk) 18:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Izkia Siches
Izkia Siches

Created by Mx. Granger (talk). Self-nominated at 08:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • I'll be reviewing this one.
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: No - While it is accurate per the source given, I'd recommend against sending the first hook to the Main Page if Siches has definitively said she will not run for president, which per the second hook, it appears she had. No issues with the second hook, however.
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: I'm not able to read Spanish myself, so thanks for adding the Time source, which verifies everything. An interesting article on an interesting person; I see no outcome other than to pass. Congrats! AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed material

[edit]

This material seems like undue weight to me – mostly flash-in-the-pan controversies that seem like they're being included to make Siches look bad. Pinging @Bedivere and Dentren: —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:47, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are, @Mx. Granger. It is not the first time Dentren has engaged in such behaviour (see talk pages for Gabriel Boric and inflation in Chile). I will report them. Bedivere (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As journalist Matías del Río remarked, pundits have been unanimous in criticizing Siches. This view is consistent with the analysis found by different pundits on reputable media. The previously existing article was a ridiculously unbalanced rosy picture of her, describing her as a champion of women's rights (have she actually done something, except declarations?) and healthcare. Politicians are criticized, that is normal. She made very questionable things and received more criticism than normal. Dentren | Talk 01:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS, WP:UNDUE, etc.. Removing again. Please stop edit warring and stop disregarding other people's comments. This goes too for El Líbero. Bedivere (talk) 05:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see this user has resorted to making groundless accusations about supposed sockpuppetry. I am not reverting them, but strongly suggest someone else do. As said above, and given their editing pattern, Dentren is making some POV-pushing edits and disregards policy and attacks others. They should and will be stopped. Bedivere (talk) 05:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again I am glad too see you are finally using the talk page. Please provide valid arguments for your removal of material regarding Izkia Siches first months in office that is sources in WP:RS. Regarding your status as the sockpuppet of a banned user the appropriate link is this. Dentren | Talk 11:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:Bedivere here – these look like flash-in-the-pan controversies that don't merit inclusion in the article, and they appear to be presented in a non-neutral way. I'm also concerned about the sourcing – two of the references look like citations to TV news broadcasts. Are they archived somewhere, or were they live broadcasts that are no longer accessible? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 11:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Mx. Granger, but Siches disastrous visit to Temucuicui can not be belittled as a "flash-in-the-pan controversy". When was the last time a Chilean minister was wellcomed with gunfire? Also, it is very unusual for Chilean ministers to provoke such strong reactions in Argentina. Chilean and Argentine WP:RS rightfully paid attention to this. One may disagree with the fundamentals of some controversies but one can not disagree with the fact the RS have considered them worthy of significant coverage. Dentren | Talk 11:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See? You disregard policies and continue to make false statements (attacks) against other users. This makes the discussion pointless. Behave properly and then return for a talk. Don't you think that if my "status" was that of "the sockpuppet of a banned user" I would not even be responding to your groundless attacks and fallacies? Bedivere (talk) 12:47, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Let's calm down. I have restored the stable version of the article. I do not support reinstating the removed content at this time because undue weight is given to recent events, which are not even written in a neutral fashion; in fact, they tend to be only negative to Siches. If eventually reinstated, once there is consensus to do so, they should definitely be rewritten. Bedivere (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • To respond to User:Dentren's point above, the Temucuicui visit does seem to be the most significant part of the disputed material. But the "somewhat artificial polemic", the claim about deportations that evidently didn't originate with Siches, and the TV news analysis from April strike me as minor (and I remain concerned about the sourcing for the TV news analysis). As a compromise, I might suggest restoring the material about Temucuicui but leaving the other paragraphs out. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mx. Granger, as noted by various pundits, including invitees Estado Nacional, ministers and public officials have responsibility for what they say. Siches confronted the opposition with a tone of indignation in the Senate, and ultimately everything was based on incorrect information. This is not the usual way ministers behave in Chile and this is the cause why this regrettable incident was picked up by all major Chilean media outlets. Dentren | Talk 15:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I may agree that the Temucuicui failed visit could be mentioned, but the rest, definitely not. We are not a news outlet. Bedivere (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NNPOV

[edit]

I have added a tag indicating that the neutrality of this article is disputed. It is disputed because the article willingly omits (after massive deletions) well-sourced controviersies of Siches and the wide criticism she has received (and this criticism is not only from right-wingers but from journalist and pundits of varying political positions). Dentren | Talk 00:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It reads neutral to me. @Mx. Granger, what do you think? Bedivere (talk) 04:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not knowledgeable enough to be sure, but bear in mind WP:NOTNEWS – we shouldn't give excessive focus to brief or minor controversies. I've solicited input from WP:WikiProject Chile; hopefully other editors who are more familiar than I am can weigh in. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 08:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bedivere, with your well-documented self-declared pro-Boric sentiment [5], this "It reads neutral to me" has little value in this discussion. Dentren | Talk 14:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please stop making ad hominem fallacies? Your disrupting behaviour is very annoying and does not contribute to a grounded conversation.
Thanks for your help @Mx. Granger. Hopefully we'll get more input. Bedivere (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Izkia_Siches&oldid=1210368921"