Jump to content

Talk:Tareck El Aissami

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Tarek El Aissami)

Birthplace

[edit]

So the PSUV says he was born in Venezuela, while others say he was born on Mount Druze [1] or in Lebanon [2][3][4]. Mount Druze was also the name of a mountain range in Lebanon awhile back called Mount Lebanon, so he could possibly be from Mount Lebanon. Can we get more sources for this?--ZiaLater (talk) 13:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tarek El Aissami. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic Article

[edit]

This article is very partisan, heavily reliant on only extreme right-wing sources (some of them fake news sites like La Patilla) - and even then the article often mis-characterises what the sources say. I've removed some of the most egregious distortions but it needs more balance less partisan sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.244.42 (talk) 12:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 100%. This article is very obviously tainted by El Aissami's political opponents. Disgusting!184.145.42.19 (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Praising 9/11?

[edit]

Sort of wondering if that's really true. The Bloomberg piece is the first to my knowledge to say anything about "3 witnesses hearing him praise 9/11". All the previous commentary referred (almost all of it from unreliable sources) to a quote: "the great Mujahedeen, Sheikh Osama bin Laden." However, this has been attributed not to Tareck Aissami, but to his father Carlos.12. Both my links are to "fake news" sites, with #2 making false claims about passports, but they are OK for the purposes of research. Given that the The Hill has recently published a very sloppily sourced article, it seems dangerous to assume that Bloomberg's sourcing is bulletproof enough for such a serious allegation in a BLP, especially considering the fact that it's the only source that makes it. What's your opinion @ZiaLater:? Thx. Guccisamsclub (talk) 01:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't get your ping for some reason. Interesting enough, I just found more information about Hugo Cabezas, mentioned in your linked book, the founder of Utopia.--ZiaLater (talk) 13:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I don't think it worked because you have to add the "User:" part to the ping. Did this work @Guccisamsclub:?--ZiaLater (talk) 13:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nah it was just a typo on my part. I later corrected it, but the bot failed to pick up the correction Guccisamsclub (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Guccisamsclub: Ok, so for that Infobae source about the terrorist groups, I think they were talking about Utopia or something related. The book you linked above fits in with the Infobae source, so I'll try to use the book instead of Infobae for now.--ZiaLater (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ZiaLater: Utopia is not a "terrorist" group, and this "associated with (unnamed) extremist groups" should not be used at all.
I mean if the source making these "allegations" can't even be bothered to name the "groups" or to say exactly what Aissami was doing with them—much less prove anything—why should we even bother? It's a laughably vague smear and rumor—this is a BLP. So obvious solution is to refrain from inserting poorly sourced rumors into a BLP. Furthermore, the infobae source has already made a verifiable BLP-vio, so why use it again, especially for such a meaningless claim? The book I linked to is a slightly better source, but it has a pretty clear hard-right US Neocon bias, and thus should not be used to make any serious accusations against El Aissami (per BLP). But even the book comes close to saying that El Aissami was student leader at a time when there was a lot of criminal and "extremist" activity in the university, which he allegedly abetted (but HOW exactly?). Again, this is mostly smoke and mirrors and associations. You can vaguely associate both Democrats and Republicans to US domestic "extremism" with this kind of evidence. Don't forget this is a BLP: smoke and mirrors, vague smears, vacuous opinions from his haters, and spotty or fraudulent sourcing should all be avoided as much as possible. If a source has at least two of these flaws (say a spotty source issues a vague smear), it should be DELETED IMMEDIATELY. Otherwise the article will violate WP:BLP. Keep in mind that careless sourcing encourages careless editing. To see what I mean, you could compare the article before my edits and after. Not only were the sources themselves pretty crappy, but the sources were also frequently misquoted or improperly WP:SYNTHesized in the article, compounding the problems.
NB "terrorist or "extremist" groups: to tie an individual to any such group, you need to first know the group's name, then explain what the ties are, and then say who has designated them as "terrorists". "Terrorism" and "extremism" are fine for op-eds and news, but they are NOT NEUTRAL terms on wikipedia (unless you're talking about ISIS or Al Qaeda I guess). One might as well just write that El Aissami "was up to no good", "word's out that something fishy is going on". This is exactly the same as these allegations about "terrorism" at the university. Again according to BLP policy, none of this is admissible in an article. But for some reason it's been totally thrown out the window on articles dealing with the Latin American left. Guccisamsclub (talk) 15:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As for the 9/11 stuff, I'm still curious to hear your opinion. I'm not itching to delete the Bloomberg allegation or anything (I'm not a BLP fanatic :) ). Guccisamsclub (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Guccisamsclub: Sorry I'm working on another article too. I hate political polarization too and I have a feeling it's only going to get worse in the coming years... So, I have ANOTHER source talking about the shenanigans El Aissami was allegedly involved in. I would keep it for now and watch a future edit of mine. The sources I'm finding are pretty much putting the pieces together. I'm trying my best to keep this neutral but when there's so much meat on the bone...--ZiaLater (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck. I'd just beware of SYNTH and problematic sources. 16:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Critical information being buried

[edit]

Hello @Checkingfax and Cullen328: can you please address my concern that the information that this person was sanctioned by the U.S. government on February 13th is being "buried"? In your review of past edits you will see that this information was removed from the lead paragraph, and when a new section was opened detailing this fact it was removed too. This information is now buried in the article (IMHO), but with the U.S. sanctioning him for being a major international drug kingpin I believe it warrants a more important placement. ThanksScotKreek (talk) 10:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ScotKreek. Please remind me of my involvement here, so that I may assist you. Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 11:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. The word does not revolve around the US and this thing is just a few days old. The lead should convey key information about El Aissami, not what the US has done to him. The designation is part of the drug allegations, so it's already captured in the lead. Guccisamsclub (talk) 11:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, information removed from the new section was just a repeat of what was being said a few sentences later.--ZiaLater (talk) 13:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have never edited this article so I do not know why I am being pinged. Please clarify. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Checkingfax and Cullen328: I’ve pinged you both because of your expertise in these matters and your long past in successfully resolving issues of this kind. This is really a simple matter to resolve too (IMHO) and your guidance would be most appreciated. ThanksScotKreek (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Guccisamsclub: A U.S. Treasury imposed sanction is not an allegation; it is a statement of fact carrying the full force of American law. The timing of these sanctions has no bearing on its importance. Your saying that The word does not revolve around the US makes no sense to me, please explain. ThanksScotKreek (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a biography of Venezuela's VP, not an article about US law or policies. Being sanctioned implies that an allegation of drug trafficking has been made, hence the lead already covers it. If you have enough detail about the sanctions to start a separate section (so it's not so "buried"), go ahead. Guccisamsclub (talk)
Hi, ScotKreek. Over half the article content is about allegations, albeit serious ones. This gives the allegations WP:UNDUE weight. Since this is a WP:BLP, we must tread lightly regarding unadjudicated allegations. Most of the rest of the article I find to be unencyclopedic and poorly written. A big trim and a good copy edit is needed. I will defer to Cullen328. A good lead is a mini snapshot of the entire article. See the essay: WP:LEADCREATE. Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The allegations about "terrorism" and "pipelines" is WP:FRINGE conspiracy horseshit, imho (thank god it's at least not the lede, fingers crossed). But the stuff about drug trafficking is more serious and should mostly stay. For better or worse, the lede should reflect contents in a neutral and comprehensive way, meaning that reducing all the drug stuff to the US Treasury label would in fact be UNDUE. For example, the opposition has just voted for an investigation. Less important than the "kingpin" label? Maybe, but it's too early to tell. Best way to proceed is to keep working on the body, rather than focusing on the lede. Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to place some information about his tenure as interior minister to make it somewhat more neutral. His background at ULA is also important since this is where sources say he began his activities. I still have some more to add too so hopefully I can balance it some more. I kinda threw it all on there because I have a feeling you're going to trim it down quite a bit :) --ZiaLater (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Net worth

[edit]

@Guccisamsclub:, I figure since the United States Treasury tracked El Aissami's assets, that would be the estimate they placed on the assets they froze, etc. Would this be fringe? Also, if this does not fit in the infobox, I think it could be better in the body as well as long as it is attributed to the US treasury.--ZiaLater (talk) 02:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's true: i've heard reports of "millions" being frozen. A net worth of 3 billion would be surprising. That may make him the richest drug "terrorist" drug "kingpin" alive today, though presumably he has sources of income besides drugs. That is clearly an exceptional claim requiring exceptional sourcing and evidence. AFAIK, only the Miami Herald has reported this and gave few details about the methodology: a google search runs dry at Breitbart and Miami Herald. Per BLP, it should be excluded until better info is available. Guccisamsclub (talk) 08:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, it seems that this does originate from the Herald. It's also repeated by UPI 1 and International Business Times 2.--ZiaLater (talk) 02:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those two are good sources: the UPI falsely asserts that 3 billion were seized while the IBT's "tens of millions to 3 billion" is both imprecise and a classic case of citogenesis. Guccisamsclub (talk) 08:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times in depth

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tareck_El_Aissami&oldid=1198883963"