Talk:José Luis Martínez-Almeida

NPOV dispute - Little neutrality in recent editions

The latest editions made by Sanitroni, lead me to think that he is not being objective with the subject. He uses expressions like "outstanding performance" or "impressive performance" that points very little objectiveness. For example, he added "His interventions as leader of the opposition made him widely known because of his firm and effective, but quite funny also, rethoric and his attitude, both professional and friendly" and he uses a reference where that does not appear, and even if it did, it is an opinion, it is not neutral and it is not in quotes.

He comes to his own conclusions, like when he says that his actions have made him a national figure (what does that mean? who said that?).

He also gives him all the protagonist to the mayor for "unifying" the city council. How do we know if that's true? We can find also examples of the opposition offering him help, so, we can't say he unifyed nothing. Maybe he, as well as the opposition does, contributed to it.

And, of course, he takes the freedom of judging the political ideology of a television channel, as well as assuming that those who applaud him on the street are from the opposition (have he asked those who applauded their ideology?) TheRichic (Messages here) 14:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Last edition by Sanitroni

The part about his interventions as part of the opposition has been changed to meet with te concerns by Richic, same as the expressions on his performance, the part about my own conclusions, the biased relate of the Concil unified and the comment on the applause on the major media channel. I hope it is enough to meet any deficiency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanitroni (talk • contribs) 16:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think so. The article needs to be reverted back to the stable version. "The part about his interventions as part of the opposition has been changed to meet with te concerns by Richic" Yet so far they have not voiced an agreement in the talk page. The source(s) provided do(es) not directly back up the new content (the "infolibre" source—not centrally dealing with Almeida anyways—simply reports the announcement of a purposed pan-accord and only mentions him in the title and with a literal quote). The edit is highly problematic because it deals with the idea of conveying a narrative about the "political stature/moral stature" of someone (in chiefly hagiographic/flattering terms in this case although it generally applies either way), not with his policies or ideology. Quite tricky thing to do (usually avoided in en:wiki voice for quite good reasons), and certainly it cannot be done either 1) without inline attribution, which it needs to has WP:DUE weight 2) drawing WP:SYNTH from news reports. This is largely a case of WP:SOAPBOX, WP:BALASP, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:SYNTH, WP:PUFFERY. PS: Whatever "a national figure" (WP:WEASEL) is, may the "mayor of Madrid" office be conventionally considered so, officeholder notwithstanding? As, I started, the article needs to be reverted back to the stable version. Whatever new content may be included regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, it can be discussed here in terms of compliance to WP:NOTNEWS and aforementioned WP:BALASP, WP:DUE and WP:SYNTH. It may possibly may underpin other aspects rather than alleged "popularity" (actually unverifiable and/or failing to meet WP:DUE and WP:SYNTH to be included in wiki voice?).--Asqueladd (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

ALL THE REFERENCES MADE BY ASQUELADD HAVE BEEN CORRECTED AND HIS PREVIOUS STATEMENT DOES NOT TAKES IN ACCOUNT THE ACTUAL ARTICLE ANYMORE. PLEASE REMOVE THIS DISCUSSION AND THE NON-NEUTRALITY BANNER OF THE ARTICLE IF IT WAS INCLUDED BEACAUSE OF THE COMMENTS BY ASQUELADD. (Sorry fpr the capital letters i am too tired for rewrite it) Sanitroni — Preceding undated comment added 11:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think so. The last two statements are still the paragon of WP:SYNTH, WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL.--Asqueladd (talk) 14:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The two statements are proved by sources. The popularity is well measured by a poll in wich the votes to his candidature have widely increased since the last polls. Tht he is the first political authority in coming to consensus about the restar is also proved bby artiles in wich is said that he has came to those consensus before any other autonomic, municipal or national executive authority.(talk) 12:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

"During the COVID-19 sanitary crisis he received the support of an unified City Council" The source precisely put the focus (the subject) on the opposition, not on Almeida. But for some reason, you twist the tone of the source to flatter this man. "first spanish political figure" This is not verifiable. And even if it was it should be avoided in wiki voice because it is the paragon of weasel.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

My dear asqueladd I understand what you think, but it is not so, at all. The two statements refer to different phses, one in the moment in wich it is necessary to take measures, and two, when the sanitary crisis starts to come to an end and new phase of unity in the agreements starts. In this second one it is not the important information about the subject that he came to the agreements, that will be the case of almost all the administrations for the end of June, but that he was the first in doing so, he set a pecedent that eventually all the administrations of Spain start to follow. Would a change to"(...)the city council of Madrid was the first political administration in reaching transveral agreements(...)" meet with your idea of acceptable? -- Sanitroni (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

No. You'd like to think that way. They have been not. You've been pulling synth, biased statements and unverifiable information pandering to this individual.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

ASQUELADD your demands have been adressed, can we remove the tag or do you have more concerns? If you do not answer this time, the perrmission to remove the tag is given by the rules of the community. -- Sanitroni (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

ASQUELADD you insist on accusing me generally but there is not any specific demand o fault you can cite, if you go on with this act and do not cite any more demands, sections you perceive misguided or anythong like that I will remove the tag and it will be legal. Please collaborate. (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Final review before correcting the template

Praxidicae do you find last editions enough? Do you think there is anything more to be improved so the template may be removed? -- Sanitroni (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC) (and big thx for all the work) ASQUELADD feel free to contribute in pointing out the problematic things you see.

Cclarification needed

How mut it be explained, Praxidicae? Sanitroni (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC)