Talk:Villa del Cine

Notability and NPOV

There is only one independent source-- please expand to meet notability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I found Hugo Chavez, Movie Mogul at Danny Glover; adding it should cover notability and missing balance, to remove the article POV. There is quite a bit of missing info in that source needed to NPOV the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you be specific? ValenShephard (talk) 02:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources are cited, but balanced commentary from those sources isn't included-- this could be considered "cherrypicking". Also, pls review WP:NN; articles generally need more than one independent source (that is now corrected). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Cherrypicking argument again? I wanted to create a small outline of an article here and found that that statement was the most important in the BBC report. That is an opinion yes, but you need to assume good faith. Anyway, it has improved now because I had time to add more from the BBC. I dont have an agenda to cherrypick only the positive, assume good faith. ValenShephard (talk) 00:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, what is not notable about this? Its a major movie studio in a south american power which brings out about a dozen major million dollar films a year. ValenShephard (talk) 00:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Notability has been resolved here because I added more reliable sources, but please note Wiki's notability guidelines for future reference; the first version of this article that was put up did not rely on third-party, independent sources (only one independent source, BBC), notability was not established, and it's better to establish notability first in a new article than to risk a trip to WP:AFD. I've printed all the sources now, will begin working on the smaller stylistic matters first, and will work on NPOV last, after I've read all sources and worked on reliability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Unbalanced

Please read the only source cited, and balance the text with information from the "Skeptics" section; otherwise, the article will need a POV tag. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I found a Time source (see above), and switched the tag to POV, as the article clearly does not present all views. Choosing only "Villa del Cine has been described by the BBC as 'a state-of-the-art production house that is changing the face of Venezuelan cinema'." is rather clearly a one-sided presentation of the BBC article, and the Time content should also be added. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The article is in its infancy, can you please be more positive? Instead of going on a tagging spree, why dont you do what you said, or be more helpful? ValenShephard (talk) 23:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Tagging alerts editors to issues that need to be fixed, and readers that the article has issues; it is a standard part of how Wiki evolves, and encourages other editors to improve the article as well. I recognize the article is in its infancy, but I don't have time to do it all, and WP:NPOV is a pillar of Wiki. In fact, seeing how a new article develops is a very good way to learn about Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Reliability of sources

I cannot locate an "About us" or equivalent page at this source to ascertain reliability; perhaps it's there and I just haven't located it. I do see at the bottom of the page that it is a "magazine", but can't tell if it's hardprint or web only, and what the editorial oversight is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time to do same for this source, but reliability needs to be checked, and the citation needs formatting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

We now have at least four sources for which reliability has not been established, including the two above, this one, and the wordpress "bloggish" site. ValenShephard, could you please confirm that you have read these sections of the talk page, and if you don't understand how to resolve these issues, discuss it here-- otherwise, please refrain from removing tags until issues are resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, ValenShephard, could you please point me to where the discussion you reference here occured? I am unable to find any such discussion, and am unable to ascertain who "we" is. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The information in those sources is written by academics. ValenShephard (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you please read the page on WP:RS and WP:V and specifically explain why you believe the four sources listed above are reliable sources, according to Wiki policy, not your own opinions? ON most of them, I can locate no page that speaks to editorial oversight, fact checking, and whether the self-published meet WP:SPS. If you can't establish reliability, then the tags should not be removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Villa_del_Cine; for now, I'll work from the known reliable sources, and wait for more feedback on the marginal sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Cite Style

Hey everybody. Editors, visitors, meddlers of all shapes and sizes! I would like to inform you that you are now a proud member of the "Schwindt Style" of citations. Give yourselves a pat on the back. Just a heads up. This is what "Schwindt Style" entails. (Please follow the link you will see it under "Citation style I use".)--Schwindtd (talk) 01:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear User:SandyGeorgia: I appreciate your hardwork at citations. That being said I would like to point out WP:CITEHOW. You should follow the established style. Also, WP:ITALICS does NOT mention ANY difference between electronic and print journals (it also says GENERALLY). Your beliefs insofar as what should be cited are NOT a wiki policy. I would like to bring your attention to the citation style that was being used (see User:Schwindtd. I don't really care what cite style is used, actually. But what you just did is in no way different from what I did at Hugo Chavez. You changed the original cite style, believeing it to be incorrect, while it was actually its own cite style as you can see from my page. Do what you want, but ... --Schwindtd (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:ITALICS, "Periodicals (newspapers, journals, and magazines)" are italicized (websites, etc. are not). So, I'm not following your logic, but more sigificantly, please don't eliminate publishers like the Venezuelan Gov't from citations. More generally speaking, if you want to inituate an obscure and non-standard citation style on this article, you could probably achieve consensus to do so, but that will not fly on Hugo Chavez, which formerly had a standardized citation style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:ITALICS does not mention immutable rules. It uses the term GENERALLY. In addition it makes no clear difference between online periodicals or print. The Venezuelan Government is an indirect publisher. The publisher is DIRECTLY the website. That's like saying you have to include the US government as the publisher of the CIA WORLD FACTBOOK. Would you do that? Obviously not. As far as consensus goes there was plenty of time for editors to talk about it. I do recall you saying at Hugo Chavez that I should stop and talk about changing style. I did. Couldn't you have at least humored me? As far as Hugo is concerned there is no "standardized cite style" there. Why do you think we were discussing it at WT:VEN? To be frank, I don't really care about the style. I would have preferred to have a discussion, but "you can't always get what you want." I am removing myself from Venezuela related articles, though. I wish you the best and bid you adieu! --Schwindtd (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Dont be silly boyo, stick around. ValenShephard (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

I do not see the reasons for the tags. Regarding other issues, for which the article has not been tagged: the subject is notable, and no longer relies on a single source. But neither of these issues would justify the tags. Could SandyGeorgia please explain why these tags are still required. At that point we can make the required changes or set up an RfC so that other editors may comment on the issue. TFD (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Remove tags in near future? ValenShephard (talk) 17:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Sandy is on a trip, so I think you'll have to wait a while for a response. --Schwindtd (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Two editors in agreement here against Sandy's tags, so we might just go ahead with removal. ValenShephard (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Having read the article I don't see any POV. The article includes facts and opinions from the government and independent film makers and journalists. I think that it matches NPOV, but I will review why Sandy tagged it. --Schwindtd (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes please do. You'll see that the article hasn't changed much since the tags were added. I just added more info from the sources. Which gives you an idea that it didn't really need tags in the first place. Never seen such a small article with so many 'faults' as Sandy has developed in this talk page. ValenShephard (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we best wait for Sandy. I think it meets NPOV standards, but until Sandy gets here we can't know for sure if this dispute (she may still dispute it) is over.--Schwindtd (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Do we have any obligation to wait? ValenShephard (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, since she is disputing it I would. She might just come back, see that the tag is gone, and then re-add it. I'd prefer to wait and then settle it with her. Trust me, with a little patience, you will get the results you want.--Schwindtd (talk) 18:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I was asking of sincere curiosity, I just wanted to know whether that is useful and 'good manners' or an actual obligation. But I agree with you. ValenShephard (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't know if its an obligation, but it's definitely good manners and probably more useful in the end. I think Sandy would be very impressed with your maturity and reasonableness.--Schwindtd (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for waiting; I am still traveling, and won't be online much until next week, but did a wee bit to remove at least one tag this morning. The article is still quite unbalanced, and I suggest that "writing for the enemy" might be helpful to editors here-- try to reread all of the sources used in this article and note that the presentation of the very info in those sources is one-sided here. If others don't address this before next week, I'll have to find time to get to it myself. Also, I'm unable to determine reliability of some of the sources used (pls see my edit summaries). Re "Two editors in agreement here against Sandy's tags, so we might just go ahead with removal" and with respect to this article and others, I highly recommend that all editors working on Venezuela articles carefully review the proposals at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision, particularly 3.1.4 and 3.1.7. When core Wiki policies are clearly violated, ArbCom is unlikely to look favorably upon blocks of editors using sheer numbers to assert faulty consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Dude, come on. That is a) not very productive b) a threat and c) perhaps you should just chill, relax. Things will get done. You don't need to cite arbcom cases or whatever. We waited for your discussion! Valen even agreed to my suggestion to wait! Please be more sympathetic and friendly. If there is one thing I resent it is having Wiki policies thrown at me and threatening hints about arbcom. The article will improve, despite such unproductive measures. --Schwindtd (talk) 15:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Schwindtd, I didn't mean for it to come across that way at all (pls account for the inadequacies of the written word), and am sorry it appeared that way-- in fact, I do appreciate that y'all waited, and am happy to see Valenshephard's editing improving, but thought it would be helpful for him to understand how Wiki policy is applied in dispute resolution, which that case shows well, and this article is a less heated environment for learning than other broader articles. Best, off til later, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Article still needs work, especially clarifying the funding: CNAC apparently provides funding to filmmakers with decisions autonomous of the state, and state-run Villa del Cine just provides production facilities - does it charge the film-makers, and/or allow anyone to use them? that would make some sense of the "autonomous but state-funded" apparent contradiction. Needs explaining better. Rd232 ^talk 14:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree-- I think this can be sorted with some time and elbow grease, but I'd need a large free block of time to dig in, which I don't have right now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Villa del Cine provides the facilities and expertise. They themselves do not make the decision of who is funded (as a source in the article explains), the CNAC does. Villa del Cine is only a bunch of facilities after all. This seems pretty simple to me, the state funds the cameras, studios, light guys, the people who build sets and the CNAC decides who will get to use them (to be funded by the state, after much deliberation). And SandyGeorgia, please be productive. ValenShephard (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not what the article says. Please try and be more precise, eg are the Cine facilities free to use? Charged at market rates out of CNAC funds? etc Rd232 ^talk 18:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I made a simple presumption, based on what I know of how state funded studios work. They are funded to make films, not to write scripts. And in this occasion, unlike in the USSR for example, it is a non politicised committee which decides on funding. ValenShephard (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:OR which describes why you can't do this. Read the entire page. It's a core policy, and you really need to understand what it says. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I simply meant to say that Villa del Cine recieves funding based on the decisions of what appears to be an independant committee, thats all. ValenShephard (talk) 22:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, can you explain what is unbalanced about the article? ValenShephard (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

ValenShephard, could you please confirm that you have read the sections above of this talk page, and my edit summaries, and could you please refrain from disruptively removing tags until you understand the tags and have resolved them? There are at least four sources now used in this article which present views about this institution neutrally, examining all sides: this article selectively presents only the parts of those very articles that present the most favorable (i.e., pro-Chavez) views of the Villa. When citing sources, you should try to present a balanced representation of those sources-- to fail to do so is often referred to as "Cherrypicking", and you can avoid that by attempting to "write for the enemy", in the sense of making sure you've included even those parts of the sources that don't reflect your own POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You make continued bad faith assumptions against me. The argument that I am omitting parts of articles I disagree with does not hold water. As far as I am concerned, I am giving quite good summaries of the article. Of course, this is an opinion, but we have different ideas about what is balanced and what is cherrypicking. For you to have 'balance' the article must contain much more negativity. There are personal disagreements and subconscious reasons over what from within sources should be included, and this is quite different from a malicious intent to offer a perverted view of the source. ValenShephard (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Are we still disputing neutrality?

Only one other user has mentioned neutrality issues. Are they still relevant? ValenShephard (talk) 00:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Saw this pop on my watchlist: my guest will be leaving day after tomorrow, and then I should have time for a new look-- has balance been added from the sources yet? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Taking a quick look, I see it will take me some time to identify the areas of imbalance, as the tags were removed-- has this been corrected yet? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be useful to get the opinion of other editors here, because you were the only one to point out neutrality issues, so its hardly a consensus. ValenShephard (talk) 09:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll repeat my question: has the imbalance from the last version I edited been addressed yet? If not, I'll just put the article {{inuse}} as soon as I have time, and address the issues myself. I again refer you to this arb case: "mere strength of numbers is not sufficient to contravene Wikipedia policy, and an apparent consensus of editors is not sufficient to overrule the five pillars of Wikipedia". Re-reading every section of this talk page indicates no resolution yet of any of the many issues I raised-- in fact, no responses to any of my queries-- have any of the sections above been addressed yet ? While you are waiting for me to catch up, addressing the issues I raised would save time for all of us. That I am the only editor to point out neutrality issues in Ven/Chavez articles is status quo, but I had hoped others would take advantage of the opportunity this new and short article presents for collaboration towards achieving neutrality. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think any of the issues raised here by you exist, so I can't force myself to adapt the article to what you consider balanced. I would prefer the input of third parties. ValenShephard (talk) 15:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you re-read all of the sources as I suggested on your talk, taking note that all points of view present in those sources are not present in this article? I hope you'll give it a try, Valen, as this will improve your editing skills-- for me to do it myself won't be as beneficial to you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I've taken into account everything said and recommended to me since my block. You referred me to "writing for the enemy", and as far as I am concerned I have adhered to that part of acheiving NPOV. In the BBC article, the most interesting and notable analysis I could find, I plainly explained the worries of some parties (indepedent film makers) towards Villa del Cine. Do you just want more to reach your conception of a balanced article? The sources I have found are generally positive towards the Villa del Cine. I can't think of any criticism made in the other sources, except the worries of a handful of individuals, that is already mentioned. ValenShephard (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, it sounds like you've done the best you can (except you haven't reinstated the tags you removed, although I've tried to impress upon you the importance of not removing tags until issues are resolved, and each issue is explained here on talk), so I will do this work myself as soon as my guests leave. Just for you to know how the {{inuse}} template works and how I edit: the inuse template is used to avoid edit conflicts while an editor is doing a major article update, and to indicate work in progress. Some editors make all of their corrections in one large edit, which I find very difficult to follow, because you can't tell what was done or why without printing out before and after versions to see what was changed. Instead, I put the article in use, and work in small edits, so you can follow everything I've done and see my reasoning in edit summary. Once I put the article in use, you can follow my edits, but please consider it a work in progress until I'm finished and remove the inuse tag. Then others can come in and correct any issues I may inadvertently introduce-- the idea is to avoid edit conflicts in the interim. I will try to do this work as soon as I can, but the comadres had me up til 4 am, and while I don't mind commenting on talk pages when I'm bleary-eyed, I need some sleep before I can seriously read sources and edit the article. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I am quite worried by your desire to make major changes. I don't think the article needs any major changes. Keep in mind that the sources provided are overwhelmingly positive, so if negativity and criticism appear in a disproportionate amount, then that will not be appropriate. Also do not over represent the critical opeds you have sourced here. I am having good faith here, I am just laying down my worries honestly. ValenShephard (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Per the discussion here, please point out any opeds I have suggested using, or cease and desist from "casting of aspersions" by mischaracterizing my editing. In fact, there are several sources used in this article now whose reliability has yet to be established. Valen, I explained on your talk the importance of you not repeating less than exemplary behavior because you see other editors getting away with it; please study the arb case I've linked. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC

The one I meant was the Time article, the Chavez as movie mogul one. I was just trying to lay down my worries before the editing began. My main point was to give you a heads up to maintain due weight when editing this article, based on my understanding of the sources present. I'm sorry if my honesty seemed harsh. ValenShephard (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I understand your confusion, but regret that you may be misled about reliable sources by other editor commentary elsewhere-- when I begin to edit, I will include posts to show you how to determine reliability of sources, as there are sources in this article now whose reliability has not been established, and Time magazine is a reliable source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't immeditately doubt my intentions and behavior and claim I am making a comeback to my 'old ways', that is not assuming good faith and is quite discouraging. ValenShephard (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not doing that-- please note "OK, I understand your confusion, but regret that you may be misled ... " Where do you find "not assuming good faith" in my post? I'll be glad to clarify. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Immediately on seeing a potentially contentious wording on my part, mentioning opeds, you assumed that I was trying to make a statement and mischaracterise your editing. This turned out to be a misunderstanding, but you were a little quick to assume negative behaviour on my part. I concede that maybe it appeared negative. It was an unfortunate coincidence that on the Chavez page someone else mentioned opeds in relation to you, maybe that compounded the idea. ValenShephard (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Understood, but you also need to AGF; my aim here is to get you to see that you should not let your behavior be guided by that of others, as discussed on your talk. Even though you may see others (who should know better) characterize my editing as considering opeds reliable sources, you should avoid repeating that claim. Let's close this chapter; I will try to edit here after I've had some sleep. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am still disputing neutrality; we have now more than half a dozen sources, including the partisan Venezuelanalysis.com that discuss criticism of the Villa in depth, but we have only two lines of such text in this article as of this version, and selective quotes only supportive of the Villa from the sources, although no reliable source fails to mention the issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:TALK

Valen it is confusing to other readers to remove your comments after another editors has responded to them, and not good practice-- it changes the context of the discussion and renders it unintelligible to subsequent readers. When you want to retract something you said after other editors have already responded to it, it is better to strike your commentary, so other readers aren't confused. If you aren't sure how to strike commentary, perhaps someone can explain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I returned the material on the realisation of the confusion I caused, so there is no need to make furhter references to my behaviour. I don't know how to strike out commentary, and it would have been more useful to tell me this on my talk page. Instead of creating an issue here and affecting my credibility.

Anyway, there is no need to drag out fringe issues that are not the main point here. My main point was that I do not think major changes should happen to the article without discussion first, and the input of other users, which as been started. The other issues are comparatively unimportant and take away from the main point of this discussion which is, is the article bias and that it would be better to discuss major changes first, especially when I don't think major changes need to happen. ValenShephard (talk) 16:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

No, this is not a fringe issue. The changed commentary happened here, and this page needs to be intelligible to subsequent readers. And what you've done now is more serious; you've removed a post of mine, which is something you should never do ! These two edits of yours make this page very difficult for another editor to follow! I realize you're trying to help and to improve your editing, and I do not put this forward as criticism of you-- only for you to learn why you shouldn't remove commentary after the fact or delete other editors' comments. This small, uncontroversial article is a good place for you to learn-- if similar occurred at the Chavez talk page, it would be a mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know removing others' text was a no go. This is still not the appropriate place to give me advice, and would be much more appropriate at my talk page. You also realise that I reverted what I realised was an error on my part immediately with no argument? ValenShephard (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

No, you removed it after I had already commented here, which makes it hard for other editors to understand subsequent commentary on this page-- and that's why it has to be cleared up here rather than on your talk. An editor coming here will not be able to make any sense of the discussion, because it was altered twice after other editors had already responded. Anyway, I think we can consider this resolved, since JRSP has showed you how to strike, and you now understand (I had linked you to WP:TALK before, as part of recommended reading, and hope you will review again). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed a non-issue because the text I removed has long since been brought back with no fuss. You can put back my mistaken removal of your text but it doesn't matter much anymore. ValenShephard (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Brought back after I had already responded, which renders my subsequent commentary unintelligible-- this is why it's not good practice to remove comments after another editor has already responded (strike instead if you want to retract), and you should not remove another editors' comments except in very specific circumstances (BLP, etc). Valen, I'm becoming exasperated here :) I've spent more than two hours on this with you today-- time I don't have, and only because I'm trying to help you learn better editing practices-- and this is what occurs (not only with you, but with others) on all of the Chavez articles, which makes it darn near impossible to ever accomplish any actual editing to articles. I hope you see the problem :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I agreed its not good practise after you explained it, this was never in dispute I think. But I get you. ValenShephard (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Good! I appreciate your desire to improve your editing, and am glad when we can understand each other. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Misunderstanding seem amazingly easy here. Especially when you get two smartasses like us talking. Kidding : D ValenShephard (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I resemble that remark! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Is that a Freudian slip, did you mean to say "resent"? : D ValenShephard (talk) 19:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a play on words-- instead of "I resent that remark", "I resemble that remark" is akin to, the shoe fits, so I'm wearing it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's not get bogged down in semantics chica. : D ValenShephard (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources

I'll just make a list of sources here so I don't need to keep them in my favourites:

• [1] more information on the project VdC is active in, and information on Jose Antonio Varela

ValenShephard (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Several queries, comments

I corrected the full names in Spanish of several of the entities that make up Villa del Cine (see Entities that make up Villa del Cine, another indication of the "autonomy" between these orgs).

Villa del Cine's Organizational structure indicates that Lorena Almarza is no longer director, so we should remove this from the lead, or the article entirely, unless we have some specific need to refer to her.  Done [2]

Lorena Almarza was a director and former student of social and political theory, where she specialized in community organization and the Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci, an approach she says she brought into her work.

This text needs attention and discussion:

The BBC article concluded that "... if the foundation's bosses are to be believed [that production is not politically motivated], then it will simply be good films that come to life, whatever the message", and "[u]ltimately that has got to be good for Venezuelan cinema."

Although the article still doesn't reflect the significant concerns and criticism mentioned in all reliable sources (even the partisan Venezuelanalysis.com), this text is a purely speculative, journalistic opinion; Wiki is an encyclopedia, and speculative journalistic opinion doesn't really belong here. There are many excerpts from the Venezuelanalysis article that might accomplish similar in terms of content, absent the speculation, so I suggest replacing this with something more encyclopedic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The BBC line is really just repeating the previous line, but adds the comment that if true it would be good for Venezuelan cinema. So it could be deleted. TFD (talk) 12:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I have limited time today; perhaps you can find time to replace that line with something from the source above? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Partly  Done [3] Text removed, expansion to create balance from all sources still pending. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

This source has a discussion of the new Law of Cinematography, that I will incorporate as soon as I have time, as well as some statistics on film viewership in Venezuela. It also has some wording that might be used to replace the BBC journalistic opinion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It also has some wording about the uniqueness of Villa del Cine within Latin America, which we might also include (since this source is in Spanish, Valen, I realize you won't be able to add this text, and I will work on it unless someone else gets to it first-- my time is limited!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• (in Spanish) Villazana, Libia. De una política cultural a una cultura politizada: La República Bolivariana de Venezuela y su revolución cultural en el sector audiovisual (PDF). Raab, Josef; Thies, Sebastian (Eds.), "E Pluribus Unum? National and Transnational Identities in the Americas" (Inter-American Perspectives/ Perspectivas Interamericanas 1), Münster: LIT and Tempe, AZ: Bilingual Press, 2008. Retrieved 13 September 2008.
  • I have no idea how to format this citation (another example of the sometimes-utility of citation templates-- it appears to be a paper presented at a university conference, and the cite conference or cite paper template would handle it correctly. By the way, what makes this a reliable source? Just because it shows up on Google scholar (as does Wikipedia!!!), how do we know it is peer-reviewed, has editorial oversight, etc? Who is the author and how do we know it's not just some grad students musings ? I'm just not familiar with all the gobbledy-gook in the citation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It is published as an article in the "Inter-American Perspectives" series[4] by LIT Verlag,[5] an academic publishing house and therefore a reliable source. TFD (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, then I guess I've formatted it correctly, and I assume the "1" refers to volume, so I've bolded it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think both of these would be useful. If something like this is unique, that is definatily notable. ValenShephard (talk) 12:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

This source has a discussion of the potential for discrimination against actors, that I will incorporate once I've had time to read it thoroughly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)  Done [6] and  Undone [7]

• International Labour Office (Editor). Application of international labour standards 2009(I). United Nations, International Labour Conference, 98th Session, 2009, Geneva. p. 425. Available at Google books. Retrieved 13 September 2010.

This source is a wordpress blog and not likely to be reliable; we have similar text in several other sources that could replace this:

 Done Replaced with RS, it was a copyvio from a different reliable source, already in the article, which is why we should avoid marginal sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• According to Latin American film, a website dealing with advancements in regional cinema:

Villa del Cine offers support to veteran filmmakers like Román Chalbaud [the director of one of President Chávez’s favorite films, El Caracazo] and Luis Alberto Lamata while it enables young filmmakers like Efterpi Charalambidis or Hernán Jabes to make their first projects. The sharp increase in the number of features produced by Villa del Cine over the last years is unquestionable proof that this form of Government support has stimulated media production in the country in terms of the number and variety of films, and it has proven a valuable alternative to the Hollywood and neoliberal models of production.

Also, why are we citing something else within a cite? And why do we care what Chavez's favorite film is (trivia, unrelated to Villa del Cine, as the film wasn't even produced by them)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

References

ILO

I don't really like this 'analysis'. It is not definitive at all, they reach no real conclusions. There are too many possibles, possible discrimination... We don't deal with maybes and could haves. I think this is too vague. The fate of one actress, which is not even fully established, is not note worthy to be mentioned in this article. Everyone else who is mentioned is a respectable source, ministers, BBC editors etc. The ILO is reliable and notable, but the fate of one actress is not. Not responded to a concern? This is not notable. The concern is not very notable, and not replying is not very notable. I think this section needs cutting, to just say that the ILO suspects ideology figures in production. ValenShephard (talk) 22:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Valen, it looks like you deleted text here, based on a conversation with yourself, and leading to edit conflicts with me while I was expanding the article. Would it be possible for you to wait for further feedback, and propose suggested wording on talk, before chopping text? I have worked slowly and accorded you all that courtesy. The current text is ungrammatical and unclear and the reasons you give above for deleting reliably sourced material are dubious. You took out the as of date, and left the account with no context for the reader to understand the issue; in fact, you've now created doubt as to how pervasive the issue is, by removing the mention of one actress. [8] Further, I mentioned this on talk this morning, and you didn't oppose the source, which was suggested by TheFourDeuces search at the WP:RSN-- it would be helpful if you would mention that you don't approve of a source before others take the time to expand text. I will leave the article to you for a while, rather than trying to continue expanding; if you want the article to continue in its POV state, we can leave it as is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That paragraph came from 1/3 of a page from a report, while I have cut down praise and information from several pages to form concise paragraphs. The issue was given undue weight, the possible fate of one actress and 'suspected' discrimination is not very notable. The reader knows there was a possible issue with discrimination and employment and what 'appears' to be a ideological aspect. That is a fair representation of this very minor case in the history of VdC. ValenShephard (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You've left a completely ungrammatical sentence that gives no context and makes no sense:

• However, the International Labor Office (ILO) of the United Nations reported being concerned about the lack of response to the discriminatory employment issue as of 2008 on the part of the Villa del Cine and its governing bodies,

You refer to "the discriminatory employment issue" ... what discriminatory employment issue? What is the reader supposed to guess from that? You cut off the 2009 as of date on the report. And what does the bloated wording "Villa del Cine and its governing bodies" add? And "as of 2008 doesn't modify "discriminatory employment issue". It would be helpful if you would propose text on talk; I don't have unlimited time to clean up here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I combined it with the paragraph above it. A PDF version may be found at ILO's website. The section on the U.S. on p. 247ff. is interesting - it makes the Venezuelan section seem mild by comparison. TFD (talk) 23:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice of you to combine it, but that didn't fix the grammatical errors, and I was still working, so the paras would have ended up differently, with text in between. What the ILO has to say about the US isn't relevant here. Anyway, Valen's impatience is draining, so I'm done for now. If someone wants to balance this article from the sources, we can talk about removing the POV tag at another time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the wording. I've made it more general, because there is no need to elaborate on the specifics of the case, they are not notable, mentioning there was a possible discriminatory issue is enough. Its clear enough for the reader and I think its a good summary of that part of the report. ValenShephard (talk) 23:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

She was never "an actress at Villa del Cine", so your text is now wrong as well as confusing. Do you understand that proposing text on talk might be more productive for all? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It was actually fine, it was a punctuation/wording issue. I didnt mean actress at villa del cine, but actress, at villa del cine. I wasn't saying she was an actress there, but an issue arose around an actress, at villa del cine. ValenShephard (talk) 23:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

POV and unbalance introduced, obfuscating the issue, where the Culture Minister clearly threatened all actors with ideological differences, not just one actress. Original wording, based on a reliable source:

• The International Labor Office (ILO) of the United Nations reported in 2009 that the Venezuelan government had not responded to a 2007 concern about potential discrimination at Villa del Cine raised by the Venezuelan Trade Union (CTV) after an actress disagreed with proposed constitutional reforms and "the Culture Minister indicated in public statements that perhaps certain actors ... could be banned from the 'Villa del Cine', a public institution". The ILO was concerned about the lack of response to the discrimination issue as of 2008, and about "statements which would appear to make access to employment and occupation dependent on ideological support for government positions ...".

Your wording, which introduces POV by simply removing what happened with the culture minister, where he was referring to all actors, not just one. This introduces POV, leaves the reader confused about what happened, and only saves one sentence, so what is the point-- it only confuses the reader.

• However, the International Labor Office (ILO) of the United Nations reported being concerned about a possible discriminatory employment issue at Villa del Cine, saying the organisation had made "statements which would appear to make access to employment and occupation dependent on ideological support for government positions ...".

And please see WP:WTA on "words to avoid"-- the "however" needs to go, and I thought we were using US English (organization?). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

"However" makes sense because "none was linked with politics" is qualified by ILO concerns that there may be. However is not included in words to avoid. However, you may wish to have "however" included. TFD (talk) 00:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it is excessive to quote the ILO report on a possible ideological issue, then repeat the same worry again afterwards; basically spelling it out twice, duplicating it. Firstly, that looks like POV, to try to damage VdC, and secondly, the section is given undue weight. It is one report (as TFD says not discussed elsewhere) and it is a few sentences which we haven't really summarised but written out in different language. If I did that with the other sources I have used (where I specifically took out the most informative information for and against) then I would have to fill half this article. I will remove that last sentence soon. ValenShephard (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Revert. I meant paragraph not sentence

I meant "paragraph" not "sentence". I meant the summary of half a page receives the same weight and exposure as the summary of a whole BBC article. ValenShephard (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

More faulty reasoning for two reasons: clearly the article is being expanded, and clearly the BBC article is not yet fully represented in this article. Valen, we've discussed your love of the revert button at length, but you can't seem to resist it, and don't seem to understand that battleground talk pages and editing style will never produce neutral articles. Articles are works in progress, yet you just can't seem to bear to see words on the page you disagree with. Bye, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I make excessive reverts, and I always try to explain my reasoning. For example, most of my reverts today were vandalism, or actions I considered or thought were directly against consensus or discussions I have seen/been active in. Also, even if the BBC article section expands, the discrimination issue will still be about that size. For example, it used two quotations from the same source, while you removed one of two quotations used from the BBC article. I didn't mind that, but I want to be consistent. ValenShephard (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I wonder how notable the ILO story is. I cannot find any source that carried it. That includes op-eds. Since WP articles should reflect the views of subjects in reliable sources, I will delete this topic. See the "international labor organization" " villa del cine" Google search - only 3 hits. TFD (talk) 03:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I read somewhere that we should avoid over representing or giving too much importance (weight) to some fringe sources, even if they look very reliable, like from a UN body. So maybe TFD is right. ValenShephard (talk) 14:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't read Spanish, Valen-- that must make it very hard to work on Venezuelan articles. Perhaps TFD doesn't speak Spanish either, as it is not hard to find reliable sources discussing this matter. I suggest you refrain from using the revert or delete button again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Erm, I didnt? ValenShephard (talk) 15:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I only searched in English. I suggest that we add this source and limit discussion of the subject to what the press found sufficiently notable to publish. Suggest something like the following: "However, following allegations that employment in the Villa del Cine would be restricted by political ideology, the ILO asked the Venezuelan government to provide information on measures taken to prevent this practice". TFD (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Please begin searching in Spanish before you delete text; alternately, if you don't speak Spanish, you can ask someone who does to do it for you. I suggest incorporating precise language (WP:MOSDATE#Precise language) as events change and we don't always know if we're reporting the most recent, and providing context that the issue began with the Culture Minister's statement:

• However, following allegations of discrimination based on a statement from the Venezuelan Culture Minister that employment in the Villa del Cine could be restricted by political ideology, the International Labor Organization of the United Nations asked the Venezuelan government in 2007 to provide information on measures taken to prevent this practice", but had received no response by 2009.

Need to re-check the source for the dates, but I think that's right, followed, of course, by *both* citations now there. I'm unsure why you included quotes or which part is directly quoted, so that would need fixing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That looks fine, I support that. We still have to be careful not to bloat these allegations, because they are only based on a few sentences in a report, while elsewhere I have heavily summarised (as is correct) much larger amounts. I have kept praise out, while someone else is adding undue weight criticism. It would be misrepresentation is we said "based on a statement that the Venezuelan..." that is not true, the statement "appeared" to show some kind of ideological bias. Your statement made it appear it was a fact. It should be "based on a statement that appeared to show the venezuelan government. ValenShephard (talk) 15:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems fine. TFD (talk) 15:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

@ Valen:

1. The "however" still needs to be removed-- it implies that the foregoing may be untrue, and confers judgment on the text.
2. It doesn't matter that you have heavily summarized an article that needs better expansion; we don't determine due weight based on undeveloped articles, rather on the preponderance of reliable sources, and every reliable sources mention these issues. Just because the article is undeveloped (and I was cut off as I was trying to beef up new content from new sources, most of it good) does not give you cause to delete reliably sourced criticism, that reflects due weight. If you don't like it, by all means, help your self to reading the lengthy Spanish source that I didn't get to expand, and expand it yourself-- it's a lot of hard work, but you have no policy-based reason for deleting reliably sourced criticism.
3. I made something appear as fact? Well, you just may have to spend hours, weeks and months cleaning up after me then (an effort I will surely appreciate and thank you for), but you don't get to just delete reliably sourced text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not the text agreed on above; ValenShepherd, please step back and stop disrupting the article. For once, we agree on text, and you fail to implement it, and you are introducing errors in every edit. Claim and however are both loaded words. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

But you were fine with "allegations"? Claims is similar, but less of a loaded term, to adhere to NPOV. ValenShephard (talk)

Please don't obfuscate; three of us agreed on text, you did not use that text. Stop edit warring and owing the article, and please add the text we agreed upon, after quotes and "however" are sorted. Patience will save us all a lot of time; please review WP:DISRUPT. Please also read Wikipedia:WTA#Synonyms_for_said; we don't make it up as we go here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I made the changes I mentioned, and I am not doing what you claim. You were talking about removing words such as "however", so I did, and I put claimed instead of allegations because that is a common way of removing loaded, potentially POV representations. I will wait to see what TFD thinks. By the way, I was actually agreeing with TFD's version, not yours, it was not clear in the text but I put it in my edit summary because I got an edit conflict and forgot to alter the text. ValenShephard (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"However" does not imply that the foregoing may be incorrect, but qualifies the preceding statement. In this case the statement about the ILO charge means that the statement "none was linked with politics" may be misleading. TFD (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't oppose including 'however'. What do you think about my representation, TFD? ValenShephard (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

In this case the statement about the ILO charge means that the statement "none was linked with politics" may be misleading. And, we should not be doing that; the "however" gives credence to the ILO statement over the previous statement-- bad editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"However, following claims [of a possible case of discrimination], based on a statement from the Venezuelan Culture Minister, that employment in Villa del Cine could be affected by political ideology, the International Labor Organization of the United Nations asked the Venezuelan government in 2007 to provide information on measures taken to prevent this practice; an answer as of 2009 has not been forthcoming. [Several actors were threatened access to Villa del Cine if they did not adhere to government ideology.]" I put in brackets what I would remove. Since a claim is unproved, the term possible is unneccessary. The second sentence is just repetition and is phrased in a peculiar way. TFD (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldnt oppose that, but maybe we could keep the section, and simply expand the other sources to give this one due weight. It is currently given too much weight. Its basically a paraphrase of the entire section from that report, while other sources are heavily cut down do be summarised. What do you think? ValenShephard (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That "However ..." sentence is a monstrosity. Remember when I said that sentence structure should be varied and that long, convoluted sentences should be avoided? I had to read it three times just to wrap my mind around it. Cut the beast down to size. Reading that sentence turned me off entirely to reading the rest of the article. "Say what you mean, and mean what you say." I suggest you look to William Shakespeare: "Brevity is the soul of wit." (Hamlet).--Schwindtd (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You should learn to understand the differnce between what a writer writes and the words he ascribes to his characters. For example, in All in the family, a television series, it would be wrong to ascribe the comments of Archie Bunker to the writer, Norman Lear. Archie's comments about minorities did not reflect the views of the writer. Similarly, Shakespeare attributed words to his characters that did not represent his views. The quote you provided is from a stupid, calculating man, Polonius, who provided many superficial "words of wisdom", including "never borrower nor lender be" and "be true to thyself". Please do not confuse the platitudes of an idiot written about by Shakespeare with advice from him. You might want to read Hamlet in order to understand the significance of this passage. TFD (talk) 04:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, as long as we're off topic, let's just go waaaaay offtopic! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It is irritating that someone would use the "argument from authority" to discredit another editor, but especially irritating when the argument they provide is from an idiotic character. Please stop quotes from Thrasymachus, Pandarus, Polonius, and Falstaff and pretend that they are words of wisdom from the Bard. That is like quoting Don Quixote and pretending that it is the wisdom of Cervantes! TFD (talk) 05:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps literature lessons unrelated to this article can be held on user talk pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect text

The tax was not the only thing criticized by the MPAA; this change is incorrect. Please read sources correctly, and fix the error. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It's so hard leaving an article, isn't it? --Schwindtd (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I've made the change. ValenShephard (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Writing style

Just wondering. Why are there so many sentences that are joined by a semicolon? The phrasing on some of them becomes quite awkward. Couldn't they just be separate sentences? This article needs a major edit for writing style. --Schwindtd (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It's kind of early for improving the prose, since the article is grossly incomplete, but have at it if you want-- I'm not working on it any more, until collaboration takes hold, and there is still a "huge" Spanish source that I was trying to include before the last edit war started, and boatloads of missing text about the Glover film and stats that need to be added, in addition to the problems with balance. The prose is poor, but it's not harming the encyclopedia much :), so if your time is pressed, it might be better spent elsewhere, with the idea of cleaning this one up if it's ever expanded and neutralized. I saw some incomplete sentences introduced by Valen, and in general, my prose stinks. However, I do use semi-colons to separate thoughts without using loaded terms like "however", "but", or anything that would negate the previous clause, implying that it was wrong. I much prefer sentences joined with semi-colons to short, choppy prose (and so does FAC), but I'm no prose expert. If you want to have at it, it's all yours! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

PS, see User:Tony1's page for some great copyediting exercises-- he got me started on the semi-colon trend :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining the current sitaution here. I am disheartened that you are removing yourself. It is such a shame that conflict stagnates and respulses editors. While I do understand that the poor prose does not deter viewers, I would argue that it does stifle the transmission of information. I don't quite understand how "but" and "however" are loaded terms. They are just for comparison. Is the state of this article so bad that the second most common conjunction in the english language is off limits?--Schwindtd (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, when we say "X says Y< source 1 >; however, A says B < source 2 >", the "however" can make it look like we're discounting the text from source 1 and elevating the text from source 2. I try to avoid leaving such implications for good NPOV writing (although there are times where it can be used without introducing POV), and conjuctions like "however" were "long" included at WP:WTA-- I don't know when they got dropped from there (keeping up with every guideline page is impossible, and they were probably dropped because good neutral prose can use those conjunctions without introducing POV), but I still try to follow it. But fix away-- I won't object-- I put a lot of effort into turning this article from a non-notable uncited stub with factual errors and POV into a decent start class, but I'm uninterested in being drug into another POV nightmare where I expend hours every day just to see the article remain POV. I will continue to watch the article for POV, and if the environment changes, I might again spend the gazillions of hours I spent on cleanup, but my prose will still stink. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm ... I have looked at WP:WTA before just to see the rules. I am shocked that "however" was on there. To be honest, I find such blanket bans or restrictions on words to be counter productive. What could possibly be wrong with writing "noted" instead of "said?" Writing is, in pure form, expression. On an encyclopedia writing is an expression of information. Each word has a unique purpose and drive. Perhaps the poverty of prose on the "Pedia" is due to these recommended restrictions (I have no doubt that if it were up to WTA the phrase "poverty of prose" would have a recommended restriction.) Hmmm ... --Schwindtd (talk) 01:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. you mean "dragged" not "drug" (sorry I couldn't help myself :))--Schwindtd (talk) 01:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Good one-- now you know why I hate adding text, and prefer cleaning up after others have added the prose. Now try to imagine how much effort it takes me-- a non-native Spanish speaker-- to do it from a Spanish source while translating and trying to avoid plagiarism while staying true to the source, only to see all of my work deleted. :) Anyway, apparently a lot of folks agreed with you on Words To Avoid, and they are surely better writers than I ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I always assumed you were spanish - Venezuelan to be specific. Hmmm... that is one of the reasons I am cautious with foreign sources - not everyone can read/ verify them. I know that with time this article will see the collaboration you want. As the spanish say, "Poquito a poquito, hace su nido el pajarito." (Little by little, the bird builds his nest.)--Schwindtd (talk) 01:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Foreign sources can be translated using Google translate. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have never ever seen a correct translation from Google translate, and if any article that uses it appears at WP:FAC it is soundly trounced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am not advocating for the correctness of Google translate. I was just responding to the comment that one is unable to understand foreign language sources. This is no longer correct. Google translate may be bad but it does give you some idea what the foreign source is talking about, thus it helps verify foreign language facts. Too bad that the FAC elitism does not allow for foreign source translation. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It quite often gives you the *wrong* idea, and I'm glad that FAC regulars know that and dismayed to see recent Wiki ventures encouraging such a poor translation source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe so, but my experience has been quite different. I find Google translate rough but better than nothing. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but "better than nothing" works for a stub, start, B- or C-class article (as long as it's not a BLP, where we must get it right), but not for the more rigorous standards expected of a featured or good article. I don't have to use it, 'cuz my Spanish is better than theirs :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. If you are able to understand the foreign source Google translate is not needed. BLP also needs additional care as always. But the Google translate service can serve sometimes as an independent verification source for a foreign citation. I admit it provides some hairy translations but that's a robot talking. With time, who knows, it might even get better. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

On another note, and replying to a comment above about WTA, the conjunction "however" is often used by editors to connect facts in a novel fashion and thus it is the word most commonly associated with WP:SYNTH. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

That's my concern. Strangely, in this article, I refused to use it in an instance where I thought I was protecting the POV that is currently in the article, but others wanted it anyway! So, let it stay :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to look! My reaction is to eliminate it on sight, but I will listen to your advice :) I have actually lost count on how many "however" I have reverted on the basis of SYNTH. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Heck, I was trying to help their POV, but it wasn't understood-- it sure reads like synthesis to me :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I just looked :) After the edit war, there's only one "however" in the entire article, but the sentence is so garbled as to be unintelligible, so the "however" is the least of the problems! I carefully wrote separate paragraphs to avoid synth, and now we have an unintelligble synth-y mess. That was when I Quit! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I sympathise. I understand your predicament. But your comments made me even more scared to look :) Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Fear not; Schwindtd is going to fix it before you see it! (Oh, Schwin, where did you go?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice to know! On the other hand, if I muster some courage, I might look some other time at your diffs and see what SYNTH may be lurking in plain sight :) Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 03:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You'll be too busy trying to decipher the sentence to notice any synth :) And I hope I get non-synth brownie points for writing without a single "however" (well, except that the entire article is a big missing "however" :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear! Garbled text, foreign sources and synth together. Not a nice combination. I just peeked in the last diff you provided; it doesn't look good. I admire your courage to get involved in this mess. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 04:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• User:John/however. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Copy-editing

Hey everybody, just to let you know I will be giving this article a little copyedit. Real quick. Nothin' fancy. If you don't want me to, post a message on my talk and I will stop. Thanks, --Schwindtd (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Do it :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

A few questions:

• Is it Villa del Cine or the Villa del Cine? What is the full accepted name?

• The full correct name is Fundacion Villa del Cine, as I added in the lead. But since that is a Spanish term, it needs to be italicized, and by shortening it to Villa del Cine, as it's referred to in English sources, we can avoid italics throughout the article. So, the lead (which has alternate names of Cinema City and Cinemaville, should also list Villa del Cine as an alternate-- see WP:LEAD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• When it says Amazonia has "acquired" films does this mean the distribution rights or something else?

• No idea, Valen added that, so it must be from an English source, and I've found I have to check all of his text against the source to decipher what he meant-- that was how I started finding plagiarism and misrepresentation of sources-- so you'll have to ferret that out from the source. Copyediting here is more than prose-- you have to check the sources to decipher meaning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh man. That is going to be rough. I'll do that last. --Schwindtd (talk) 01:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Better you than me-- it was taking me days just to check the basics and address the errors (e.g.; the 25,000 square feet and others). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I may have more questions as I go. Thanks, --Schwindtd (talk) 01:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

When it mentions that "some film makers" oppose the project, are there specific examples? Is it only like 4 guys? I would like to be as specific as possible. Thanks, --Schwindtd (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Swchwindtd, this is why I tried to tell you that attempting a copyedit here is premature-- the content is just off, and fixing it requires a major expansion and examination of all of the sources (which I have done). I was in the process of expanding and clarifying that very text (which would have taken me at least a day) when Valen started reverting again. There are very specific and reputable filmmakers mentioned in the sources, and "some filmmakers" is just poor writing. Fixing the prose here can't be separated from fixing the significant content issues. Consider, this director's "credentials", for example. There is another reference to him earlier in the article that adds very little, though, as other sources do a much better job of discussing the numbers, yet Valen added one strange quote about costs from this same filmmaker. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I will end my copyedit, if you wish. --Schwindtd (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I will resume copyedit tomorrow. Thanks, --Schwindtd (talk) 01:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I know that this will probably be controversial, but I think we ought to examine the issue.

Below is the sentence as it appears currently in the article:

However, following claims of a possible case of discrimination, based on a statement from the Venezuelan Culture Minister, that employment in Villa del Cine could be affected by political ideology, the International Labor Organization of the United Nations asked the Venezuelan government in 2007 to provide information on measures taken to prevent this practice; an answer as of 2009 has not been forthcoming.

Below is the rewrite I think we should consider:

In 2007, following a possible case of discrimination at Villa del Cine, the International Labor Organization of the United Nations asked the Venezuelan government to provide information on measures taken to prevent employment discrimination by political ideology. As of 2009 the United Nations has not received an answer from the Venezuelan government.

Let me know if this is a bad/good idea. I don't know. Whatever you guys want. Thanks, --Schwindtd (talk) 23:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that is an improvement for now, but I don't think we should oblige our readers to click on reference links for full context. The possible discrimination was a clear statement from the culture minister, and I think we need to somehow say that, specifically. The text we had consensus on before the edit war was:

following allegations of discrimination based on a statement from the Venezuelan Culture Minister that employment in the Villa del Cine could be restricted by political ideology, the International Labor Organization of the United Nations asked the Venezuelan government in 2007 to provide information on measures taken to prevent this practice", but had received no response by 2009.

Your text is better, but can you add back in the culture minister? You're doing nice work! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the solution lies in breaking the sentence up into two sentences. It just seems an awful lot to cram into one sentence. I'll see what I can do. Thanks, --Schwindtd (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

What about:

In 2007 the International Labor Organization (ILO) of the United Nations asked the Venezuelan government to provide information on measures taken to prevent employment discimination by political ideology. The ILO was acting in response to a statement from the Venezuelan Culture Minister saying that employment at Villa del Cine could be restricted by political ideology. As of 2009 the ILO has received no response from the Venezuelan government.

How does this sound? Good, bad. Let me know. Thanks, --Schwindtd (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks good! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I'll put it in. Oh, I forgot to log back in. Oh well. This is Schwindtd. Thanks, --76.4.158.24 (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I juggled the sentences as the flow seemed better that way; if you don't like it, I can juggle it back. Nice work! The article is ready for expansion and balance now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind at all. Whatever floats your boat. Who am I to get in the way of progress? --Schwindtd (talk) 21:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Villa del Cine. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121028063351/http://www.villadelcine.gob.ve/index.php/quienes-somos/sobre-la-villa?layout=default to http://www.villadelcine.gob.ve/index.php/quienes-somos/sobre-la-villa?layout=default

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)