Talk:Rafael Acosta Arévalo

English sources

This article depends too much on Spanish sources! --MaoGo (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out; I agree. I think rather than rushing to include every last detail from Spanish sources as soon as they coem out, a little more patience might be in order. A lot of what is covered in this page in Spanish received coverage in English shortly thereafter, and the article could easily have been built on those instead, saving us a lot of work replacing them now.

One major problem I want to mention is that there are a number of places where direct quotations are used, such as the following:

Days later, the head of the Armed Forces high command, Remigio Ceballos, assured that the captain "died while in custody" and that he had conspired against the state for more than ten years. However, the official mentioned that "the entire FANB regrets the events related to the loss of the retired officer". (source)

However, inspection of the source reveals that Ceballos, of course, did not say anything in English; whoever added the quotation has just translated it themselves. WP:NONENG says that In articles, the original text is usually included with the translated text when translated by Wikipedians. If there is agreement that these direct quotations are necessary, I think that the original text should be included, although since that would clutter the article, I actually think it might be better to just remove the quotations and re-add them when/if they are translated by a reliable English source. I'd be interested to hear what others think before I go and do that work, though. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 03:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Use of opinion article as source for facts

@Jamez42: I see that you have once again added information sourced from an opinion piece without addressing, either in your edit summary or on talk, that this contravenes WP:NEWSORG. I am copying below my message on 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis regarding the material:

Can you please indicate what in WP:SECONDARY allows for the use of opinion sources for facts other than the author's point of view? Your reversion appears to be contrary to WP:NEWSORG, which states that Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Mundaray is not the author of the piece, so it is not a reliable source for what he said. Nothing in WP:SECONDARY appears to contradict that part of WP:NEWSORG. In general, could you please provide more informative edit summaries when making disputed changes, or use the talk page, per WP:REVTALK? — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Please use the talk page before continuing to make controversial changes. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 02:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Cmonghost: I didn't have the time to respond satisfactorily until now, but thank you for moving the discussion. I only moved the content in the presidential crisis article here when it was trimmed. WP:SECONDARY specifically considers nalysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas as secondary sources. The content is not the author's point of view, but rather a translation of the original text in Spanish, which was added and removed in the article, based on the translation of the Spanish version, even before I started editing this article. I'm not sure if WP:SECONDARY is the most accurate policy to quote, but what I also meant is that the current PanAm Post is used as a support source for the Spanish sources (not sure if WP:NOENG applies in this case either), and the current content doesn't depend on it to be verified. In any case, I have added two more Spanish sources given that English sources seem to haven't picked up Mundaray's statement yet. Either that or my search engine isn't helping me. What I keep asking myself and I would like to know is why, after I added Mundaray's statement using only El Pitazo and with a similar translation, you decide to restore it without including many other of the findings, such as the Fracture of the nasal septum, excoriations (...), hematomas (...), whip-like injuries (...) the foot fracture and the abrasions? --Jamez42 (talk) 10:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: It's an opinion article, which it clearly says in multiple locations on the page. That means, per WP:NEWSORG, it is a reliable source for only one thing: Sabrina Martín's opinion. That means it's not a reliable source for what Mundaray said or how it would translate into English, and it can't be considered a "support source" for the Spanish sources. It also means that any reference to it in our article needs to be attributed to Martín. That is why I removed it, as I clearly explained already. WP:SECONDARY has nothing to do with this because not all secondary sources are considered reliable in and of themselves. If I wrote a post on my personal blog about Mundaray's statement, that would be a secondary source by virtue of being analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas, but it wouldn't be a suitable source to cite in this article.

Since I am not a fluent Spanish speaker, when I restored the text using the El Pitazo article, which is an actual news article and not an opinion piece, the only part of it that had been translated was the headline, so I included the details from the translated headline. This is the problem with excessive use of non-English sources: they make it challenging for editors (let alone readers) to verify sources. If we just waited until English sources covered the story, we wouldn't have this problem (see discussion above). In any case, if you had bothered to read my edit summary in the diff you linked, you would have seen that I said I removed some details from Mundaray's statement because they were quoted directly from the opinion piece, but someone who understands Spanish should feel free to re-add if they appear in the El Pitazo source. Crucially this would need to involve not reinserting the opinion piece and the direct quote from it. Rather than doing this, or clarifying on talk, you simply restored the problematic content with a vague reference to WP:SECONDARY.

Mundaray's statement has in fact now been covered in English, by the Associated Press, reprinted here: [1]. The language is: Zair Mundaray, an exiled former Venezuelan prosecutor, said Acosta suffered 16 broken ribs and burns on his feet that pointed to use of electric shocks. Mundaray said he was briefed on the autopsy findings by members of Venezuela's judiciary who had access to the report. The Associated Press could not verify the claims. This looks like a fine source to base the text on, and using this source would make it possible for readers and editors who don't know Spanish to verify the text. Besides being in English, it is also an improvement over the sources currently cited because explains how Mundaray, who is in exile, is supposed to have gotten this information (he said he was briefed by judiciary members). Looking at the Spanish sources, they seem to just be directly quoting all the details from his tweets without attempting to verify them, though again, it's difficult for me to tell because I have to rely on machine translation.

I don't think not having time to "respond satisfactorily" is a good excuse for making contentious edits without discussion, or for using excessively terse edit summaries. There is no deadline and it is not the end of the world if your preferred version of the article is not visible at all times. If you don't have time to explain your rationale, why don't you just wait until you have the time before you make disputed changes? — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 13:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: I tried again to fix the text, given that it's not acceptable for us to be quoting the opinion piece per WP:NEWSORG. I replaced the four (!) sources currently in the article (one of which was the opinion piece and three others which were in Spanish) with the AP source I mentioned above. I think the AP source is preferable vs. the three Spanish sources because although WP:NONENG states that Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia, it goes on to clarify that because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. Because this English source is available, we should thus prioritize it over the non-English ones.

If you (or anyone else) still have problems with the text, I would appreciate if you addressed them without just re-adding the opinion source and the quotation therefrom, which would clearly contravene WP:NEWSORG. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Cmonghost: I have added additional English sources to support the statement. --Jamez42 (talk) 07:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: These sources all appear to be very low quality.

• Whatever vaaju.com and shilfa.com are, they appear to be run by the same people (their about pages are identical: [2] [3]) and they seem to be sloppy or machine translations of non-English stories. I think that's pretty clear from the cited articles themselves which have a number of syntax errors, but one case that makes it really clear is this story: [4]. They quote Ilhan Omar as saying "All about the Benjamin, darling!". What she said—in English—was "It's all about the Benjamins, baby", and the only way I can imagine this mistake happening would be if her remarks were translated into some other language and then back into English. At any rate, I can't imagine any justification for citing these sources on Wikipedia.
• Am Post doesn't seem to be connected to vaaju.com or shilfa.com, but the article in question also appears to be a shockingly bad translation of some other article. They appear to have directly translated "Nicolás Maduro" as "Nicolas Ripe" and they describe Acosta as "accused of participating in an alleged coup attempt against Chavez in Venezuela", apparently unaware that Chávez is long dead. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to include these extremely dubious sources when we already have a good article from a reliable source in the article. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Cmonghost: I'm sorry, but I'm increasingly worried about wikilawyering. In the past, while it has been recognized that Spanish sources can be used per WP:NONENG, in practice part of their content have been left out with the argument that English sources are "more verifiable" and that it deals with the same content, when it is only part of it that is being included. The high quality source that includes the full translation in English is being left out because it is an opinion piece, when facts aren't being presented in an editorial voice. The content added was not Sabrina Martín's opinion, but rather a translation of Mundaray's statements, or at the very least, Martín's translation of Mundaray's statements, and it should mention that attribution is present at all times. To prove this and to leave a reference, I will offer a comparison between both texts here:

Sixteen fractured costal arches, eight on each side, the first three and the last one in good condition, on both sides. Fracture of nasal septum, excoriations on shoulders, elbows and knees, bruises on the thigh on the inside and both extremities. Injuries (whip-like) in back and thighs back, one foot fractured, multiple abrasions and signs of small burns on both feet (presumed to be electrocution).

Sixteen fractured ribs, eight on each side, the first three and the last in good condition, on both sides. Fracture of the nasal septum, excoriations in shoulders, elbows, and knees, hematomas in the inner thigh and both extremities. Injuries (whip-like) in the back and thighs, a fractured foot, multiple abrasions and signs of small burns in both feet (presumable electrocution).

As it can be seen, the translations are nearly identical. I wanted to offer the previous English sources as a possible compromise to include a complete translation, but WP:NOENG clearly states that English sources are only preferred only when they are "of equal quality and relevance". I have to ask why in the past there has been an insistence to quote the complete cause of death as detailed in the autopsy report, as opposed to explaining that Arévallo died of rhabdomyolysis due to polytrauma, while at the same time six out of eight injuries in the second report want to be left out. There shouldn't be doubts regarding the verifiability, there are even infographics about them [5][6]. Once again, I apologize, but this seems closer to WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

I will restore the original version, since it already included the translation of high quality Spanish references with proper attribution. My proposal is that either both reports are shortened or both reports are quoted completely, but per WP:NPOV, both versions should be included in the same conditions. If Spanish sources are to be replaced, they should be replaced with of equal quality sources that include the same content. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

To quickly summarise that for Jamez42: the opinions in the opinion piece are not sourcing anything, but it is a reliable English source that contains a valid translation of information that would be left out because it otherwise only appears in RS Spanish sources. Kingsif (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kingsif: It's not a reliable English source; it's an opinion piece which is explicitly not reliable for statements of fact, such as what Mundaray said, per WP:NEWSORG. It is only a reliable source for the opinions of Sabrina Martín. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: I'm not sure of any rationale that would justify simply returning to the original version, excessive blockquoting and all, "due to current dispute in talk page". You removed the formatting improvements, removed the AP source—the highest-quality source we've seen so far—and introduced a grammatical error. My understanding is that "current dispute in talk page" means discuss on talk page and come to a consensus, not restore your preferred version yet again with no changes. I have restored all of the improvements to the text and removed the opinion piece again, which has never had "proper attribution": that would be attribution to Sabrina Martín, given that she wrote it.

Don't worry, all of the claims Mundaray made in his tweet are still there. I won't remove them, but it remains unclear to me why they are necessary; the important points as emphasized by reliable sources such as AP seem to be the broken ribs and the burns. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Cmonghost: I don't think any action further needs to be taken, but I will challenge the not-RS comment; an opinion piece usually discusses opinion of fact, or will add facts to support an argument - the facts stated will be true, something that isn't taken away by the rest of the content. Disagreeing with the findings of a scientific paper doesn't make the statistics in it less true, but you can take those statistics away to examine and come to your own conclusion. Kingsif (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kingsif: My guess at the rationale behind WP:NEWSORG has to do with the fact that an opinion piece generally undergoes little to no fact checking, whereas a scientific paper undergoes a comparatively exhaustive peer review process. Because opinion pieces are written to provide support for a given perspective, it's also possible that they will distort or cherry-pick evidence to suit that narrative. For example, I would be hesitant to use an opinion piece as a source for a quotation because the quotation is likely to be taken out of context. This is even more thorny when we are dealing with a translation that was done by the author of the opinion piece. I'm not saying that happened in this case, but since there's more of a risk of such problems when dealing with opinion pieces, it makes sense to me that we would want to draw on sources that at least make a token effort to be neutral, such as news articles, if really high-quality sources like scientific papers aren't available. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 16:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Why not Death of Rafael Acosta Arévalo?

Sorry to fill the talk page with text, but I wanted to mention one more thing: coverage of Arévalo has been limited to his death and the circumstances surrounding it. Per WP:NOTWHOSWHO, which says Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic, I propose we move and redirect this page to Death of Rafael Acosta Arévalo, in a similar manner to how Caylee Anthony redirects to Death of Caylee Anthony. I would go ahead and do it myself but I thought it would be better to mention here first. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 03:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Support he is has become relevant because of that happening. Also it is hard that he will become famous for another event after his death.--MaoGo (talk) 12:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Weak Support I do think there could be some things we could add regarding his success as a military commander - for whom there are many bios - but until someone wants to do the work, it's a Death of... article. Kingsif (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Even if we add more it can be added as background, unless it is a major notable success.--MaoGo (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)