Jump to content

Talk:Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Juan Manuel Rodriguez

Though there is no biographical information at this point and there is little content in this page, I suggest it not be deleted, as it is still in construction and is about a noteworthy Ecuadorian author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoolio9690 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 29 November 2009

Requested move

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer) → Man of Ashes controversy — Two contributors to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer) suggested a rename per the WP:BLP1E concerns. The article mainly consists of the controversy section, with the rest of the article being lists of his works and publications. I do not think a BLP should contain mainly a controversy section, so perhaps a rename to Man of Ashes controversy will solve this problem. The sources provided at the AfD are primarily about Rodriguez and the controversy, with none being about his other accomplishments. —Cunard (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

  • If the article can be expanded so that the article is more balanced, I will support keeping it at the current name. However, from the sources provided at the AfD, I was unable to see any that were unrelated to the controversy. Cunard (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Cover the event, not the person. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I think this discussion is premature. The writer's page at Universidad San Francisco de Quito here lists several 'OPINIONES ACERCA DE SU OBRA' (opinions about your work according to Google) that may serve to show notability, but they are in Spanish. As far as I can tell, nobody who understands them has commented on their usefulness towards establishing Rodriguez's notability or otherwise. Does Wikipedia have anywhere where we can request Spanish-speakers help? Mr Stephen (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per BrownHairedGirl. There are no indications from the sources used that this controversy is the only thing about Rodriguez's life. The controversy was written about because it involved two notable people arguing about the authorship of a book, not because it involved an unknown ghostwriter arguing for ownership of the book. He received too much biographical background information in all sources, no matter how limited it is overall, to draw a conclusion that he, himself, is not notable. The supporters of this proposal seem to be arguing he's not notable; but we had an AfD and the sources indicate he is notable enough to write about. Moving him to an article about only the controversy does not expand his article, it merely reduces him to the controversy in its entirety and appears to be a backhanded way to circumvent the AfD. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 20:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The closing admin added to his closing rationale that his close did not prevent a rename. I have notified all the participants of the AfD about this rename discussion. Please do not say that this is "a backhanded way to circumvent the AfD". This is not.

    If the article can be expanded so that it is not solely about the controversy, I will agree with keeping the article at the current title and will withdraw this rename proposal. Cunard (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

  • I have to call it as I see it. Discussion in the AfD was there about renaming it to the book, and the concern about the amount of space the controversy takes in the article. Now it has turned into a redirect of the author to an article about the controversy, alone. This appears to be a backhanded way of deleting the article after an AfD failed (or did not reach consensus). If the article still should be deleted, then it should be taken up at deletion review, not by subsuming the article into the controversy. Changing a BLP to a redirect about a single controversy about the author is a substantial change that effectively deletes the author. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 21:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The article is basically about the controversy, not about the BLP. A more suitable title would be one about the incident. From what I have seen at the AfD, no sources have been provided to indicate there is biographical information apart from the book controversy. Again, the closing admin wrote at the AfD that his close did not preclude a rename; this is not a "backhanded way of deleting the article". The information will be preserved, only at a different title. DRV does not make sense because I do not wish this content to be deleted — I only want a page rename or an expansion of the article to include biographical information that is unrelated to the controversy. Cunard (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  • If the result is to make this BLP a redirect to a controversy about this man, then that's a terrible thing to do to a BLP, and there is no indication that this man should be deleted and reduced to an article that is about a single controversy in his life. Say it as much as you want, it won't change what you are trying to get here: the result becomes: deletion. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 02:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, I want a deletion: I want Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer) deleted after the page is moved to Man of Ashes controversy. Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer) is not a plausible redirect target due to its disambiguation tag. I wish to preserve the content at a different title. This article is not about Juan Manuel Rodriguez — it is about the book controversy that he is involved in. If you — or any other of the other editors opposing this move — can find sources that contain information about the non-controversy aspects of Rodriguez's life and then expand the article so that the controversy no longer has undue weight, then this move discussion will no longer apply. Will you be able to do this? Cunard (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As the closing admin, MuZemike, explains, no content is getting deleted. IP69.226.103.13, repeating the same unfounded accusation multiple times is not appropriate and is considered disruptive editing, see WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Cunard (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

  • How is deleting a redirect signify a deletion of the article? The Articles for deletion debate has no bearing on this rename discussion. This is a content dispute, so I cannot take this debate to DRV; it would be immediately be closed as "This is a content dispute. Renames are a matter for editorial discussion." Once this page is moved to the controversy title, I will take this redirect to WP:RFD, but for now this discussion should be about a rename.

    Are you willing to work on the article so that it will not be solely about the controversy? Cunard (talk) 01:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You're the one who has made clear your intention is deletion of this article. Call it what you will as many times as you will, your intention is to delete this article. The AfD failed, so now you are moving to get the controversy moved to its own article and the mention of this author's name as a redirect, deleted. Shit, if the ultimate end of what you are doing is the article disappears, it's deletion. You really think you're not trying to delete this article? That's not credible, so cut it out. You are trying to delete the article, after its AfD failed, so take it to deletion review. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 02:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleting an implausible redirect after a page move that preserves the content does not mean deleting the article. The reason I started this move discussion is that there is undue weight placed on a controversy. This is unacceptable for an article about a living person.

Since you have missed the question I posed above, I will ask it again: are you willing to work on the article so that it will not be solely about the controversy? Cunard (talk) 02:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Am I willing to be bullied into doing something by someone who is trying to delete an article by 'backhanded means after it failed an AfD? No. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 02:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
This is a BLP. If no one is willing to expend the time and effort to find sources — if there are even any that discuss the other aspects of Rodrgiguez's life — to balance out the controversy section, the article must be moved to represent what the article is about. Leaving it in its current state is not acceptable. Cunard (talk) 02:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
This is a BLP. If there are problems with notability and sourcing, nominate it directly for deletion, rather than pulling a fast one due to a failed AfD. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 02:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support as per the nominator, from the discussion at the AFD the only notable event in his life is this so called controversy which in a biography gives it as it is now, undue weight. Off2riorob (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support if, in 2 weeks from now, the article is not expanded to include enough information from secondary sources about other aspects of his life and career to balance the controversy section. Nobody is saying that he is not notable. Only that, to date, the only secondary sources found indicate that he is notable only for this one event. Saying that there may be other sources to be found, and that they should be included is fine and dandy and possibly true, but unless they are found and incorporated, the article remains a WP:BLP1E concern, and per that policy, hosting the article at the "event name" is recommended. If information can be found, per Mr. Stephen, fantastic! If not, the article should be hosted under the book's name [[Man of Ashes (book)]. An article about Rodriguez himself could always be recreated at such time as secondary sources about other aspects of his life emerge. --Slp1 (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose What he is notable for his is writings. The controversy is not about him; he is rather one figure in a controversy about authorship. DGG ( talk ) 21:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • That's fine, but per WP:AUTHOR, a notable writer needs to have received significant critical attention/be widely cited by his peers etc, not just publish books/articles. It's precisely these reviews etc will also help the article be expanded. Where are they? --Slp1 (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Do you have evidence to support that he is notable for his writings? Cunard (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support change of name to Man of Ashes controversy. That is the only thing that is notable. Incidently, there is a claim that all contributors to the AfD were notified of this discussion: I was not. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC).
  • Oppose I didn’t find ample controversy about him. It may be his writings which I’m afraid to address due to insufficient expertise that I have on them. --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 23:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - right now, we have several sources about the controversy and none about the editor, with the result being an article that's solely about the controversy. An article's name should represent what it actually contains. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 07:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose There should be an article on him as a notable writer. There could also be one on the book, including the controversy. The controversy should not have its own article however. Borock (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support As the individual that started this page, I would like to state that there is insufficient information available for there to be a reliable page on this BLP. Indeed, based upon primary sources which are not allowed on wikipedia, I know some of the allegations on the page to be false. Either rename or delete this page, as it is very LIBELOUS. For example, even though there are three sources that state that he is a former Jesuit priest, I know this to be wrong. Unfortunately, there is little published information to the contrary. I would be much obliged to anyone who were to read the Jesuit sections of the Ozik and Stavans books, and point out to me if they can find any footnotes or sources of information. There aren't any! I would also suggest someone who is able to read Spanish (unfortunately there is no translation) to read the following article: http://www.cubanuestra.nu/web/article.asp?artID=15392 because it elucidates the 'other side' of the controversy and states that Stavans is unreliable. I repeat, please either rename or delete the article. And if it is renamed, seriously think about the details you include. The Jesuit priest section is false! If you find a reliable source that footnotes its material, please let me know. Hoolio9690 (talk)Hoolio9690 —Preceding undated comment added 04:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC).
What you know to be wrong is not a source. The sources list him as a Jesuit. If you find a reliable source that lists otherwise, please feel free to add that information to the article. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 18:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello IP69.226.103.13. So, let's suppose I publish an article about someone's life, and in my sources I don't quote or reference anybody. Now, suppose I say that this person is an alien. By your logic, because I've said that he is an alien and I'm a published source, that must be included in wikipedia, as there is no source that contests it. This is absurd! So long as the two books don't have a bibliography to back them up, can we consider them reliable? Also, if you had seen my previous message, you would have seen that I recommended an article on the matter of some of the libelous remarks that have been thrown around by Stavans. I suggest you read it. And if you can't, because it's in Spanish, I would suggest you get someone to read it to you. All I can say is that I'm starting to get tired with these issues. Sadly, this experience has been really eyeopening for me. Never again will I trust wikipedia. You have harmed a BLP and are continuing to harm him. Thank you very much for contributing to that. Hoolio9690 (talk)Hoolio9690
I would also like to add that the article on Salomon Isacovici also sources Ozik and Stavans and that the links themselves lead readers to lies about Rodriguez. Even if Rodriguez' article is moved or deleted, damage is still being done on that page. Thanks again for robbing him of his dignity and hurting him. That's one th ing you'll never be able to take back. Hoolio9690 (talk)Hoolio9690 —Preceding undated comment added 22:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC).
I don't intend to believe your word that someone is a liar. I don't intend to believe your word that something isn't so. Please stop changing this article without providing sources. Your knowledge is not a reliable reference. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 03:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I've added a specific source from other than the ones you mention that describes him as a former Jesuit. Your word is NOT a wikipedia reliable source. If you want the information changed, then find a reliable source that says it. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 03:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Dearest IP69.226.103.13, I give up. But have it on your conscience that you're not only propagating lies, but that those lies hurt a BLP. Thank you very much for doing your part! Yoht u should be proud of yourself. I migadd that I did provide a source above, which you have kindly ignored. Finally, even if it is sourced by Su Di, Su Di sources the Omaha World Herald. I would appreciate it if (with your stunning and unsurpassed researching skills) you could provide me with the article sourced so that we can trace back the sources to one that is verifiable. Are you telling me that without a formal interview or similar primary source, you're actually going to believe biographical material? Please do show me the primary sources. You know what, it's because of people like you that I just want this page to be renamed/deleted for once and for all so that I can abandon the farce of these wikipedia discussions. Hoolio9690 (talk)Hoolio9690
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Requested move (2nd nomination)

Requested move (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No Consensus again. Given the discussion above that was just closed as no consensus, there is nothing in the opinions expressed here that supports anything but another no consensus close. This should not be nominated again unless discussions somewhere, this talk page or a wikiproject page, reach some form of consensus. Not all discussions lead to a consensus. This is a normal part of the process so one should not enter into a discussion expecting that it must result in some form of consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer) → Man of Ashes — The last discussion ended in no consensus. I propose the discussion continues until one is found.—Hoolio9690 (talk) 01:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)Hoolio9690

I disagree. It is not forum shopping, as I am not asking to 'win'. All I ask is for the consensus to sway in one definite direction or the other. There must be a consensus. To prevent the resolution of the renaming/deletion of this page merely on the basis of 'forum shopping' is unjustified. For instance, in a soccer match, if there is a tie, then the players move on to penalties. You don't just give the prize to one of the teams, as you have just done. Hoolio9690 (talk) 04:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)Hoolio9690
Er, I suppose you don't seriously propose to add the words "(2nd nomination)" after the article title, do you? Ucucha 13:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Re: not forum shopping - the CSD tag you added to this article [2] suggests otherwise. --NeilN talk to me 03:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Re: not forum shopping - the CSD tag was only used because of violations to WP:BLPCAT, WP:GRAPEVINE, WP:NPF and WP:COATRACK. In other words, the current page counts as slander that is "entirely negative in tone". The CSD tag was completely justified, as there is no neutral point of view on the page. Hoolio9690 (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)Hoolio9690
None of the guidelines you listed above are valid criteria for speedy deletions. And any unbiased editor would agree that this page does not meet G10. Please stop wikilawyering. --NeilN talk to me 13:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment: Strengthening my oppose, I've found a couple book reviews and a source saying the subject has written a bestseller (see Book review section below) indicating he meets WP:AUTHOR. --NeilN talk to me 07:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Question We have a BLP notice board where you should raise your complaint that the page is libellous. You don't seem to have done this yet. Go to WP:BLPN. As others have said, we have reliable sources by our definition which say he was a priest, you are saying he isn't but how do we verify your claim? Dougweller (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support rename I'm not at all convinced Hoolio has been lied to in the way Dori describes. In my view, it is more than likely is that somebody (possibly Stavans) made an error which has been repeated by others without any formal checking. I've seen it many times in the media and even in academic texts, despite the supposed editorial oversight involved,(see WP:LAUNDER for information, and Laurie Dann for specific example of how an error by one person can be recycled as fact). This is a particular problem with a BLP article such as this one, where we have no biographical information other than a few tidbits given part of a description of the one event for which Rodriguez is "famous". Since no additional sources about the man have been produced in the last nearly 2 weeks, despite my searches, and requests for help at various noticeboards by Mr. Stephen, I support a rename to "Man of Ashes", per WP:BLP1E. As I said the last time around, a specific article about Rodriguez can always be recreated if sources emerge detailing other aspects of his life, and allowing WP to balance the article. As far as the priest thing is concerned, an email to OTRS by Rodriguez or his delegate clarifying the matter would be very helpful. WP does seek to get articles right, and it should be possible with a purely factual matter such as this. --Slp1 (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - Oh, I'm not at all convinced that Hoolio has been lied to—I was trying to demonstrate to him that, from an outside perspective, he's given WP editors no way to differentiate between one scenario and the other. Which is more likely: one "libelous" (his word) author, two lazy authors, and five lazy publishers OR a single misled person? Also, if you read the sources, there's a comment by Ilan Stavans in Eight Conversations where he said,

    For an assignment in the Forward, I interviewed the related parties and uncovered Rodríguez's complicated sham. I engaged him in an e-mail exchange that began on a positive note but ended in a sour way. He was unhappy with the fact that he was being portrayed as the villain. He denounced me and procured a lawyer in the United States. But then he stopped suddenly… Before my essay was published, lawyers had to make sure that the material was not subject to libel.

    Having read that, it became difficult for me to place any credence in the "lazy publishers" theory. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 08:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying your comment. I understand it better now. Personally, I'm not sure how interested a lawyer would be in rigorous checks whether someone was a priest or not, since libel involves false negative claims, which being priest isn't, surely? And since I've seen two lazy book publishers and three lazy mainstream newspapers and 5 lazy authors make or repeat the same inaccuracies about Laurie Dann, (and worse, only one of them correct the error!) I think anything is possible here too!!--Slp1 (talk) 14:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not really considering the behavioral cruft being bandied about here, although you guys have made it nearly impossible to avoid. Based on the AFD though, and most especially on the article content itself, I Support this move, with the understanding that the article should (first) be re-factored to focus on the book. It seems to me (barring the introduction of more info) that Multi-Xfer's questions regarding the authors notability are relevant, here. Alternatively, it may be wise to split the content about the book into a separate article, making this a "pure" biography (with cross-links between the two articles, of course). I'll leave those decisions up to those of you actively developing the article though, since their pretty far afield of a WP:RM request.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 04:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Please don't encourage the forum-shopping. There's no way this article can be improved, moved, written, or anything with Hoolio around. No matter what is done he will complain, attack, revert, propose, argue, blame. He needs to be gone. Then the article can be written, possibly material moved in or out. But as long as we have someone here screaming, "All the books are liars, only I know the truth," nothing's going to get done. This move was proposed less than 24 hours after the first one was closed. Please don't encourage Hoolio to do anything but what he keeps threatening then failing to do. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 04:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
"You guys"? Don't paint us all with the same brush please. --NeilN talk to me 05:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

New approach -looking at the disputed text

It is clear that Hoolio has difficulty with the text in this BLP. Because of his wholesale reverts it is hard to understand his specific problems but I am going to identify what I consider to be some legitimate problems with the text as currently written. I have made few edits to this article in the past, but I did research and write the text on the Isacovici article, including accessing the off-line newspaper articles that are cited in that article and here.

"published in 1990 as an autobiography". Neither of the sources cited describe the original "Man of Ashes" book as an autobiography. The book itself says that it is a "testimony" and the Stavans material repeatedly describes it as a "memoir", both very different concepts from an autobiography. In fact, the claim that the book is an "autobiography" is a tenet of Isacovici camp, as is clearly indicated here [3][4][5].
Similarly Isacovici is described as the "lead author" (rather than co-author). This is not verifiable from either of the sources given either, and indeed the (off-line) Freed article specifically states that R "is listed as co-author on the Spanish edition. " and I's son as saying "My father gave him credit as co-author."" This first sentence needs to be changed due to verifiability and NPOV issues.
  • The rest of this section is pretty much a copy and paste of the text from the Isacovici article - Hoolio appears to prefer this text based on his reverts, so I am assuming it is not so problematic to him. The main difference appears changes of the terminology from novel/autobiography to fiction/non-fiction. I prefer the terms used in the Isacovici article per verifiability since these are the ones used in the sources.
  • I'm still hoping that communication from the subject via OTRS can clarify the former "priest" claim; until then it should remain in the article.
  • Quick comment about a source. This article uses "Ilan Stavans: Eight Conversations". It is published by a University Press, but this is actually a series of interviews with Stavans, and thus a primary source. The book could probably be used per our policies, but given that this is a BLP and we have other, more independent sources containing the same information, in my view the other sources should be preferred in writing the article.

Based on the first three comments above, I am going to make some changes to the article. Hopefully this will satisfy some of Hoolio's concerns. Hoolio, if there are other sentences/words that you object to, can you specify them here? I'm not sure its possible to do any thing about the priest thing without some clarification from Rodriguez via OTRS, but is there anything else? --Slp1 (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Slp. I have no other real concerns. However, due to WP:BLPCAT the priest remark does not belong, no matter how many references. Unless the author explicitly and publicly self-identifies, it should not be there. If you find a source where the author self-identifies, let me know. Also, this is irrelevant to the notability of the author Hoolio9690 (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)Hoolio9690

WP:BLPCAT does not apply as it is narrowly defined as "regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation". Being a Jesuit priest is a profession and therefore has no need for self-identification. Also, as this is a biography, we include biographical details about the subject. --NeilN talk to me 18:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Hoolio9690, I presume that was you accidentally logged out who just removed the 'priest remark'. Please stop as this is starting to look like edit-warring. You've been to BLPN which didn't support you and you are editing against consensus here. Dougweller (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, actually I was the only one who responded at the BLPN [6] (which was not actually about the "priest" designation issue); I would say I was somewhat supportive of his position too. I'll also say that I see progress as being made: Hoolio now to accept texts and citations that he didn't accept in the past (see above), and his disagreements appear to be narrowing down to the priest/not a priest statement that surely can be figured out. --Slp1 (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thank you very much for your response, Hoolio. A couple of things, Hoolio. BLPCAT refers to religious beliefs and sexual orientation categories at the bottom of the page. Examples would be [[Category:Lesbian politicians]]; [[Category:Jewish poets]] [[Category: Hindu American]] In these cases the politician/poet/person must self-identify as a Lesbian, Jew, Hindu, implying that their sexuality/religion is somehow important to them and to their identity. You are not deleting WP:categories but well-sourced text, and being a Jesuit priest is a "job" rather than a religious belief in the way described here. BLPCAT really isn't applicable here for these two reasons. I am going to restore the information. Please, please use the WP:OTRS channels you have been shown to correct the information if it needs to be. --Slp1 (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, glad to hear he seems to be more receptive, but this particular issue is one he doesn't seem willing to move on, at least in the appropriate fashion. I certainly agree with your comment about BLPCAT, ethnic categories are overused and abused, but this isn't a cat issue. Dougweller (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Very well. This may not be a WP:BLPCAT situation. However, I know this information to be false, despite the allegations in those sources. And even though I understand your position, you must comprehend that I do not want this information here because it is false. I was hoping that writing info-en-q@wikimedia.org with additional information and my sources of knowledge, would finally end this conflict, but I still have no response (I wrote about 4 days ago). In the meantime, this lie continues to be online, where it is libelous to the author. I am still waiting for a response, but until then I'm afraid I can't just sit still and have such lies on the Internet where it harms him.Hoolio9690 (talk) 22:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
You must prove the information is incorrect. You have not done that yet. Please refrain from changing the article against consensus or you may be blocked for edit warring. --NeilN talk to me 22:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Explain to me how keeping the Jesuit info there does not violate WP:NPF and WP:COATRACK. Then I will stop.Hoolio9690 (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Wikilawyering will not persuade people, and neither will continually saying "I know it to be false". It's not that we don't believe you, it's just that we (and by extension the reader) have no way of checking. The simple matter is that Stavans has written in several places that Rodriguez is or was a Jesuit Priest. Others have repeated it. Is there a reason, that you can tell us, why Rodriguez doesn't contact OTRS himself? Mr Stephen (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I have a proposal. Since Hoolio has sought help as we requested, would other editors be agreeable to commenting out the information about the priest thing until Hoolio gets a response from ORTS or until a week is passed, whichever is the shorter? ie keep it in the article but hide it temporarily. It really isn't critical information to the bio, and it would stop the edit warring until he hears from them. --Slp1 (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Yup, fine with me. I would expect OTRS to make an edit/comment here? --NeilN talk to me 22:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I can go with that. BTW, the cat has crept back in. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Okay, thanks, I've commented the text out for now. If others strongly disagree then we can rethink this of course. I haven't got time now, but if somebody could explain to Hoolio why NPF and Coatrack don't really apply, that would be great. Hoolio, the commenting out of the priesthood thing is strictly temporary, as noted above, though we can make it permanent if clarification from Rodriguez is confirmed by ORTS. Please let us know as soon as you hear from them, Hoolio, and when you do, ask them to make a post here. --Slp1 (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is a disaster and should have been deleted at AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC).

Amen, brother/sister. I had a feeling it wouldn't be worth the cost/benefit ratio!! --Slp1 (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Amen too. In complete agreement with Slp1 on this point! I will be sure to notify you as soon as I get a response from ORTS. Thanks.Hoolio9690 (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I would also like to add, Slp1, that I am grateful for your degree of commitment to this page. However, there's nothing more appealing to me than to see this matter settled soon. I am not trying to be unreasonable, you know. Will let you know as soon as I get word from ORTS, though I'm not sure how long they take to respond to emails.Hoolio9690 (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Book review

I may have found a book review of Cinturón de fuego in a literary magazine: [7]. Comments? --NeilN talk to me 05:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

One swallow does not a summer make. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC).
Thanks for your very helpful contribution. --NeilN talk to me 06:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Another review of his work: [8]. --NeilN talk to me 07:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

And this, I believe, indicates Rodriguez's Cinturón de fuego was also a bestseller. --NeilN talk to me 07:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You probably right and I'm missing the context of the article. I've also been looking at the DISTINCIONES section on his home page - seems to me he has enough critical attention (if we can secondary source the awards) to meet WP:AUTHOR. --NeilN talk to me 23:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
It looks to me like the book was a top seller in one bookshop in Quito rather than a best seller per se.[9]. But the other sources look good to me. We just need a Spanish speaker to make the best of them. --Slp1 (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed text

I've removed the text that may be offensive, POV, and/or incorrect for the moment. It is very important that we get it right before it goes live by our policies and guidelines. Critiques of the book, in my opinion, are suitable for the book. Not a biography. Keegan (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The difficulty is that the controversy is the only matter that confers notability on the subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC).
Then it shouldn't exist. Keegan (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
What shouldn't exist? I don't follow your meaning. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC).
The article shouldn't exist was how I understood it. --Slp1 (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure I'd say that the deleted text is offensive or POV or incorrect. It's not actually a critique of the book but a well-sourced description of Rodriguez' actions prior to publication of the English translation, one that does not take sides about the rights and wrongs of the issue, in my view. But I do strongly agree, as I have said all the way along the line, that this article should not exist in its current state, and should be deleted or renamed per BLP1E. But unfortunately, my arguments, and those of others, haven't swayed others or closers during the AFD, requests for renaming etc. Perhaps you will have better luck, Keegan. --Slp1 (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I've undone your edit as the content was not a critique of the book, offensive, or POV. It was a neutrally worded description of a controversy backed by sources. If you want to move it to a new article and wikilink it I'm fine with that. And Xxanthippe, I've provided references above that I believe show the subject meets WP:AUTHOR. --NeilN talk to me 00:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
No problem with undoing the edit, I appreciate the feedback.
To me, if this article exists because this author is controversial based on one book, it is a very severe problem for the stability and credibility of the English Wikipedia. I don't feel the sources meet author when you are basing them on publications of criticism of his book and the methodology behind it. As logic would follow, this is not deserving of a biography. If there is interest in moving the whole of the edit history to a new title of a review of his book, and it would pass inclusion standards there, that may be a feisable compromise.
As it stands, this biography of a living person exists solely to "expose" criticism. That's the plain and simple fact from any random person reading the article. This is absolutely unacceptible in maintaining encyclopedic quality, plus Wikipedia is not for book reviews. I'd be more than happy to review another AfD if it were opened, and opine, with the promise not to close it as an involved administrator.
It is my belief, Neil, in handling such a biography of someone non-notable, we should step back and think "Is the point of this article anything other than to disparage its subject?" Keegan (talk) 04:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
You do not agree that the subject meets WP:AUTHOR after reading the section above this? --NeilN talk to me 04:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I think he may arguably by publications. I don't agree that half of the text of a BLP deals with one book and minutia of the controversy. That's my issue. Want a few sentences, fine, but this article is about his book and the controversy about it, and is long winded and unnecessary. It's just my two (experienced) cents, it's a wiki. If his book and the controversy surrounding it is meritious of its own article, that'd be great. If it's not, this should be a stub. Again, just my opinion. I didn't unilaterally delete it, after all ;) Keegan (talk) 04:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Re unilaterally delete - I know you were being facetious but thank you anyways. It helps to balance the contempt that some admins have shown for the community and discussion this week. I think we both broadly agree - move the Man of Ashes section to its own article and briefly refer to it here. --NeilN talk to me 05:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Wow, someone got my sense of humor. That doesn't happen often.
Yeah, let's see what others think at that being a starting point for clearing this mess up, as it really is a genuine BLP problem. If the book on its own merits such discussion, that seems like a reasonable course of action. Collaboration at its best. Keegan (talk) 05:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm apologize for not giving my two cents to this once again. I agree that the controversy section should be reduced to a sentence or two. Instead of creating a page for Man of Ashes, I would suggest a link to the section in Salomon Isacovici article which contains the details already.
Keegan, I am assuming you came to this via OTRS. I am right? The other major issue here is the question of whether Rodriguez is a former priest, which is well-sourced but which Hoolio argues is incorrect. Editors agreed to hide the disputed text until OTRS could get involved. Do you have any feedback on this? --Slp1 (talk) 22:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

<undent> Yes, I am the responder to the emails. The issue we have is maintaining a NPOV. If criticism is all that can make an article about a person, it shouldn't be an article, specifically if it involves a living person. If the book merits criticism, go for that angle without tangling up the author and focus on the issues. This article, as stands, carries undue weight and is inappropriate, in my opinion, of being hosted on Wikipedia. My suggest would be, and is, to fork the article into something about the book and focusing on the content of the book, not the person who wrote it. Or put it elsewhere. As it stands, the article is more than likely an inappropriate portrayal of the subject, and I think I can say that with confidence considering I know nothing of his dispute. I come away from the article thinking of the subject from an angle; that is a bad thing. Keegan (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I generally agree and have long been singing more or less the same tune: that this article is unbalanced and should be deleted/renamed as being not of NPOV and failing BLP1E. [Though I will point out, for the sake of completeness, that Hoolio's initial creation was also highly POV in its own way, stating as it does that that Man of Ashes was fiction and that Isacovici was only a collaborator (rather than co-author).[10] ]
I'm not sure, however, that I agree that it is the content of the book that is in dispute; the issue rather concerns controversial claims of primary authorship by Rodriguez, and that he claimed the work as a novel/fiction. In the English speaking world at least, it does seem be the reason Rodriguez is best known, and thus requires a mention, though briefly given the lack of other content in the article. Since the content about the controversy is already detailed in the Isacovivi article in almost exactly the same words, I suggest a link there rather the creation of yet another article about a very minor event.
However, the issue of the "former priest" factoid remains to be solved. Do you have any verified assurances from Rodriguez or his agent that he was never a priest which would suggest that we should ignore multiple reliable sources in our effort to "get the article right"? --Slp1 (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
(ec)Keegan: before we go deeper into the article itself, are you satisfied that (1) Hoolio can speak for Rodriguez and (2) that Rodriguez asserts (via Hoolio, I assume) that the description 'Jesuit Priest' is incorrect and/or unwanted?

If Rodriguez is notable in his own right then there should be plenty of steers in the 'opinions' section of his home page at his university—which is in Spanish. The problem is that nobody who speaks Spanish shows any interest in this page. If he is not notable in his own right, then the article belongs in the bin, and the description of the controversy belongs somewhere else (we can discuss where the right place is later).

The controversy surrounding the publication of Man of Ashes (i.e. the English Language version of A7393: Hombre de Cenizas) is verifiable. A university decided to translate the book and employed not just a translator, but also historians to check out the plausibility of the events described. Rodriguez delayed publication of Man of Ashes by legal threats. There are articles describing the event by more than one author out there.

The idea that only some proportion of an article can be negative seems strange to me and not really what NPOV is about (but, I don't do many BLPs). Do we wait for the Spanish-speakers to add a thousand words, and only then include reports of what happened? But until that kilo-word arrives we must keep mum? Lastly, the article uses (or did) what would normally be reliable sources: we are not attaching WP:UNDUE weight to some crackpot writing on some obscure blog whose ideas have been picked up by a credulous journalist somewhere. Mr Stephen (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Hoolio speaks for Rodriguez, and has foundation for knowing the facts of the matter of the subject's life. Keegan (talk 05:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Splendid. Mr Stephen (talk) 08:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
"I come away from the article thinking of the subject from an angle; that is a bad thing". Well, no, it's not. Else we wouldn't have any article about anyone who is primarily known for controversy (or worse things). Articles do not (or should not anyways) tell you what to think; they just "assert [verifiable] facts, including facts about opinions". Regarding this article, are you suggesting a second AFD? What happened to moving the Man of Ashes section to its own article and stubbing this one? --NeilN talk to me 01:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I think moving the subject of the book to its own article and stubbing this is a very workable compromise. Sure, I'd like to just click delete, but I am not Wikipedia :) Keegan (talk) 05:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
That's a whole different issue. If Rodriguez is not notable, this should go. If we reach that point, then, moving on: there is no need for two stubby articles, one on Salomon Isacovici and another on the book of his life at Man of Ashes; when the article Salomon Isacovici clears 100k of prose, we can think about forking out an article about the book. Mr Stephen (talk) 08:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, that would be what I think should happen. Move it to an article on the book, and delete this (no need to leave it as a redirect because of disambiguation search engine issue). Keegan (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

A question for Hoolio

Or for Keegan, if you can speak for Hoolio…

Let's say that this article is renamed and edited down to keep only the relevant sections, and the resulting redirect is deleted and salted. The "new" article (let's call it Man of Ashes (biography) for this example) contains all the content that's been in this one, using Wikipedia's usual criteria for sources.

That is, a Man of Ashes (biography) article would state that

  • the original edition was released as non-fiction
  • that Rodriguez only claimed the book was fiction when an English translation was proposed
  • that Rodriguez held up publication of the English translation
  • that Rodriguez's claims were investigated and no basis was found for them
  • that the English translation was released as a biography

Is that okay? If yes, then I'm fine with the renaming. I'm not sure why renaming should make any difference to Hoolio (the new article would still come up tops in Google when searching for Rodriguez, for instance), but if he's okay with all the content being there, let's do it. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 06:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to let Hoolio speak for himself. The only issue I have as an ordinary editor is Man of Ashes (biography). It shouldn't be labeled as a biography. Keegan (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Could you explain why? We have plenty of sources that say it is a biography, after all. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
It should be renamed or deleted. Dori, the way in which you phrase your points make it sound like Rodriguez usurped the novel, when he in fact was "the sole author of the work" according to unpublished legal documents in the Library of Congress. I have tried to show that there is legitimate information in the Library of congress to prove this, but this goes against wikipedia policy. The Stavans sources are particularly misleading, as he doesn't have referencing for his allegations. If you go back in the history of the article on Salomon Isacovici there's a full description of what actually happened (from my point of view), even though it wasn't accepted because it used 'original research'. Here's the link: [[11]]. Firstly, the original edition was not released as non-fiction. It was a biographical NOVEL about the experiences of a holocaust survivor, using many real elements from the man's life and with his original cooperation. Secondly, Rodriguez claimed the book was fiction when Isacovici attempted to claim that he was the author. Rodriguez' claims were investigated and as I say, it was decided that he was 'the sole author', but he did not to continue legal action with Isacovici. He could have sued him to pieces. The english version is not an autobiography. It is biographical in that the information used is from Isacovici. Rodriguez did all the writing. Now, as you can see, this is a sticky situation. I have quite a lot of primary source documents that will not be accepted by wikipedia, but would be accepted in any other form of debate, as this is a legal matter that was never fully solved. It seems quite unfair that wikipedia contributors wouldn't realize that this is shaky ground in which both sides of the controversy will want their way. I suggest it be deleted because there IS information that contests your sources. But unfortunately, the current rules don't allow me to use them or persuade anyone. The current version of the Man of Ashes section is not as insulting as it used to be, but I definitely disagree with your points. It should be moved and preferably deleted. I am starting to tire. I don't have infinite patience. Hoolio9690 (talk) 02:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, there went that attempt to find common ground. Let me try again...
Hoolio9690, I have no "points." All I have is some small knowledge of how Wikipedia works (and there are plenty who know more than I do, no question about it). What I know from my editing here is that—where the article is concerned—there is no difference between "unpublished legal documents" and the tooth fairy. What either has to say is irrelevant, until, and unless, it is verifiable.
I know that you say that Stavans is lying. But Wikipedia cannot use what you know to be true, until, and unless, it is verifiable.
I know that you say that everyone other than Stavans who has written about the situation based their work on his, and therefore, their work should also not be trusted. But Wikipedia cannot use what you know to be true, until, and unless, it is verifiable.
I know you have access to materials that none of the rest of us do. But Wikipedia cannot use what you know to be true, until, and unless, it is verifiable.
I know you have access to Rodriguez, and have heard this directly from him. But Wikipedia cannot use what you know to be true, until, and unless, it is verifiable.
There is no "both sides of the controversy"—there is only what is verifiable.
If you can take a step back and understand what I'm saying, you'll see you've left the editors here in a pickle. If we're only supposed to include what's verifiable, and you've objected to all the verifiable sources, and you have no verifiable basis for objecting to those sources—what is left? Respectfully, Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 05:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I perfectly understand what you're saying about it not being 'verifiable' according to Wikipedia standards. Those sources that I possess I have tried to upload, but it is not allowed, because it goes against wikipedia regulations. I perfectly understand that from your point of view I could be talking about the tooth fairy. But, I'll reiterate what I said before:

"I have quite a lot of primary source documents that will not be accepted by wikipedia, but would be accepted in any other form of debate, as this is a legal matter that was never fully solved." In other words, this is a controversial subject about a BLP! I recommend you look at the whole page of WP:BLP. I'll quickly quote exactly what I think is relevant to my situation:

"Wikipedia articles about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.

When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. In the best case, it can lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, it can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.

This is of profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."

AND WP:NPF , WP:ONEEVENT , WP:GRAPEVINE , and WP:COATRACK

ThanksHoolio9690 (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Change

Basically what I said above. I still think Rodriguez meets WP:AUTHOR so stub this article to verifiable facts and briefly mention the Man of Ashes controversy. The controversy could have its own article or remain in the Isacovici article. --NeilN talk to me 21:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. At minimum we need to move controversy out of a biography unless it is significant beyond one event, which this does not seem to be. Hoolio, Mr. Stephen, Dori, others? Keegan (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I think that has merit. The "notable" crowd have had a chance. I'm tempted to go down the "not notable–delete without prejudice to recreation" route, but then we would lose this talk page. As I've said before, I don't think there are two articles in Isacovici & Man of Ashes. Stub this to "JMR is an Ecuadorian academic & writer. His best-known work in English is Man of Ashes [then a careful choice of co-written/co-authored, with, whatever] with SI." Avoid any description (novel, biography etc, of MOA). Mr Stephen (talk) 00:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm a little confused by what's above. I see NeilN suggesting that we stub this article down keeping a mention of MoA and the controversy—but a stub like that would then mostly be about MoA. Keegan wrote "Works for me," but then says no BLP1E controversy in a biography—contradicting NeilN's suggestion. Is there a proposal on the table?
I don't see a point in having an article about Rodriguez if it doesn't include his one claim to notability. My own current inclination (subject to change w/o notice) is leaning towards BLP1E and its usual result—rename this page to whatever, with a redirect to the renamed article. Second is to just redirect it to Isacovici. But I'm open to any alternative with a good argument behind it. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Mr Stephen in that a very appropriate solution would be to leave the 'Man of Ashes' section in the Salomon Isacovici article and then delete the JMR article, as it isn't notable and wouldn't be notable without the 'Man of Ashes' section. Since the 'Man of Ashes' section is the only part worth keeping, keep it in the Salomon Isacovici article. We lose nothing that way.Hoolio9690 (talk) 03:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I am suggesting reducing this article to two lines, not deleting it. That way we leave it open for future expansion if and when stuff about JMR's other work becomes available. We also keep the discussion on this page. Deleting the article would need a trip to AfD and leaves the article open to recreation (salting seems extreme) without the benefit of the discussion and (hopefully) consensus here. Mr Stephen (talk) 07:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. But the Man of Ashes section should goHoolio9690 (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
However, I might add that there probably won't be much information on the Internet about him. So, it might be pointless to keep so little information about him. My opinion still stands that the whole page should be deleted. Keeping this discussion forum is also of no importance. About AfD, I thought admins like Keegan could use other methods of deletion. I find deletion a LOT more appealing.Hoolio9690 (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm bound by our deletion policy and obliged to stay within our community practices. I'd prefer to not be desysopped over this :) With that said, I think everyone here agrees about at least relocating the controversy surrounding the book away from this biography. Am I wrong? If not everyone, there is at least a significant majority backed by policy to do something productive here. Keegan (talk) 03:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Desysopped or get a pat on the back from Arbcom. These days, who knows? :-) I think there should be one or two sentences about the controversy. Hoolio9690 do you have any suggested wording? --NeilN talk to me 04:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I like you, NeilN. Keegan (talk) 05:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

For now, I've cut back on the detail that can be read in Isacovici's bio. The question now is should we add a wikilink to the Man of Ashes section. --NeilN talk to me 17:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to see the result, I made a pass at it as well. Feel free to revert to NeilN's version (or the bot's intermediate version) if y'all disapprove. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I think we should mention the book was a critical success. --NeilN talk to me 01:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Got a cite for that? Hoolio rejected all the references previously in the article, which is why it now has an {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Keegan, is that your excuse to delete it? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Good point. I've undone your edit (for now) in case someone thinks there are really no references. Unless Hoolio can provide other references which indicate the references we're using are incorrect, they should stay. --NeilN talk to me 05:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I have real issues with that—I just don't see that we can say a particular work is reliable (when used as a source for positive info) and that the same work is unreliable (when used as a source for negative info). Either it is or it isn't.
Aside: I feel a need to again note that what we have here is one editor's opinion that the University of Wisconsin Press, the University of Nebraska Press, Syracuse University Press, Haworth Information Press, and Routledge are not reliable sources. Is that really worth throwing over the five pillars?
Sigh… If it's reliable, let's use it (example: this version). If it's not, then we shouldn't (example: this version). But one or the other, please. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 06:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
The problem with the first version is that the Man of Ashes section has undue weight with respect to the rest of the article, not that the sources are unreliable. --NeilN talk to me 07:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
If the sources are reliable, then the current version of the article is a biased misrepresentation. And then around we go again… If there's undue weight (and I agree there is), that's a reason to rename the article to match, not a reason to delete relevant content drawn from reliable sources. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 09:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
How is it a biased misrepresentation? Perhaps some tweaks can address your concerns. --NeilN talk to me 18:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
This isn't that hard. The only reference you need is this one: [[12]] and the best version so far is this one: this version Hoolio9690 (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Is anything going to be done?Hoolio9690 (talk) 04:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, the article and sources are fine as is. --NeilN talk to me 04:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

NeilN: the current version is biased in that it uses certain sources, while ignoring the main (and relevant) points of those sources. I don't think we should pick and choose what we want to use, particularly when the issue in question is Hoolio's objection to their overall veracity.

Hoolio: You linked to this page in Man of Ashes. Two pages earlier is the phrase: "Man of Ashes is Isacovici's autobiography, chronicling his youth in Romania…" Are you accepting that part as well? How about the back cover, where the author section mentions just Isacovici and Gerdes, and the only mention of Rodriguez is in Stavans' statement, "The controversy surrounding the collaboration between Isacovici and Rodriguez remains an extraordinary opportunity to reflect on the thorny path of Jewish-Hispanic relations worldwide."? If not, then it's just picking out favorable bits from unreliable sources (again). If yes, well… that's a different question. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 05:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't misrepresent the source's views but we are certainly free to choose what we use out of a source. We do that all the time - a specific fact may be sourced to a 5,000 word article or book without considering the main thesis of the article/book. Here, all I'm looking for is a source for the Fernando Jeno literary prize. --NeilN talk to me 05:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If we're picking preferred versions, here's my first choice and second choice. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 05:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Your second choice won't stand as it has no sources. --NeilN talk to me 05:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
The issues with the English version of the book are yet another complication to this whole situation. I would prefer not to go into it. In the settlement made before further legal action was to be taken, a compromise was made that they would be listed as 'coauthors' and other decisions were made that were not appealing to JMR. I could explain further, but will not. All of this is beside the point. The point is that the article is offensive with those references and it is best just to source this page. I will edit the page with my proposed version and if you disagree, let me know what is not being sourced by the book itself. I am really wishing we could just resolve this.Hoolio9690 (talk) 06:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
We had an edit conflict there, but I think my last change got the important bits. Hoolio, are you okay with this version? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 08:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Very happy! My only question now regards this discussion page. When this issue is agreed upon and completed, could we do this:WP:CBLANK? Or is that not proper?Hoolio9690 (talk) 18:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
That page says blanking is for "rare circumstances, where discussion may cause harm to some person or organisation." I understand that you/Rodriguez are offended by certain sources, but I don't believe the contents of this discussion page cause any harm (especially as nothing's been said here that can't be found in multiple printed sources). Archive, sure, but there's no reason to blank it. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 21:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
It can, however, be archived. Keegan (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
It would be good to have it archived then. Not sure how, though.Hoolio9690 (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Juan_Manuel_Rodriguez_(writer)/Archive_1&oldid=1136857556"