Talk:Constantino Mendieta

Controversies

@Dclemens1971 Per WP:CRIT "In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Articles should present the prevailing viewpoints from reliable sources, whether positive or negative. Segregation of text or other content into different subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. There is no requirement to include criticism or controversies in an article."

@Dclemens1971 you seem to have added only negative info and controversies to this articles and when I attempted to remove some of the under sourced material and the header controversies, you reverted my edits. Please explain your justification, before you revert any of my edits again. Please also check WP:EXCEPTIONAL. "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources."

You also removed sourced content I had added, saying it was promotional. To me it appears that you have some kind of COI against this doctor and are only trying to show the negatives sides of him and not adhering to WP:DUE.

Unitedgerm (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

No COI here. I'm a New Page Reviewer which means I work on all kinds of pages across the encyclopedia. I'd never heard of this doctor until this page came up in my New Pages Feed for review. At first I assumed it was a promotional WP:UPE bio and I would need to nominate it for deletion, but when I began doing a WP:BEFORE search I realized that Mendieta is notable based on WP:SIGCOV, primarily for controversies he's been involved with. I added some material on those to balance out the promotional content and make sure that the sources that supported his notability were appropriately included.

Recently, a sockpuppet showed up to wipe out any negative info, which is why this subject is back on my radar screen. I appreciate you bringing it up on the talk page, but I will 100% argue for the section you have once again removed to be returned to the article.

The reason is that you're misinterpreting WP:EXCEPTIONAL, which is not intended to apply to basic factual claims, even about living people. It's designed to address WP:FRINGE theories. (Thus, if I added a statement that "The moon is made of cheese," such a claim could not be based on, say, a single article in Newsweek; since it is outside the mainstream, it would require exceptional sourcing, say several scientific journal articles.) Pinging Drmies (who in reverting the sock described the sourcing on the controversies section as "very strong") for their perspective.

We can discuss whether the controversies section should be merged with the rest of his career. I'd be OK with that. I'm also OK with some of your added material, although I'd argue that being named to "best doctors" lists (as you previously added) is not noteworthy and is basically advertising (these lists are all pay-to-play). Your editing history doesn't throw off any particular signal of COI, but since your account is new I will just add that if you have any conflict of interest with Mendieta you need to disclose it. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Amazing to hear all this coming from a new account. Drmies (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Dclemens1971, thank you for your response and the clarification. Based on WP:CRIT, it seems prudent to avoid having the controversies in a separate section, as this could draw undue attention to negative viewpoints. Integrating this content into the broader context of the subject’s career may provide a more balanced and encyclopedic structure, reflecting the prevailing viewpoints from reliable sources, whether positive or negative.

Since you've indicated openness to merging the controversies section into the career section, it might be beneficial to proceed in that direction, ensuring that all content remains neutral and well-sourced. This approach could help prevent any single aspect of the subject's life from being disproportionately emphasized.

Please share your thoughts on how to best organize this, and I believe collaboration could lead to a more comprehensive revision. 121.99.171.93 (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@121.99.171.93, are you @Unitedgerm picking up this conversation or are you a brand-new participant? I can't say I'm interested in hearing advice from a brand-new IP editor on a page that was created by a now-blocked sockmaster and that has been subject to lots of likely UPE. I'm interested in seeing what established editors who are WP:HERE have to say. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)