Talk:Ricardo González Alfonso

Sources

How reliable are sites like Cubanet or HavanaJournal? They seem very biased towards anti-Castro visions, and I don't think we can write a good neutral article if we're going to base our information on what they say (just like we couldn't write a neutral article based on Granma's version of the incidents). --Damiens.rf 13:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

We can't base our decision on whether to use a source or not based on the so-called opinion the source is promoting. Seldom are sources themselves neutral. WP:NPOV is in place to make sure that articles present multiple, significant, reliably sourced viewpoints on a topic ensuring that the reader, not one of us is deciding on what to take away from an article. We get around what may be non verifiable content in a source by citing the source within the content of the article. For example, we could say, "according to an article in the NY TImes dogs with short tails are said to be smarter than long tailed dogs ...." rather than just "short tailed dogs are smarter than...".

Also we as editors need to be careful about bringing in our own opinions on a topic. Cuba as one of two remaining Communist countries in the world has undergone world scrutiny and criticism in the free world .... We have to expect that some of the sources will reflect that position.

Havana Journal is reliable I would think. Cubanet I'm not sure about. However , Cubanet is only being used as supplementary to other reliable sources and is not being used to reference any content except what is already reliably sourced, so its probably fine. (olive (talk) 15:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC))

What makes you believe Havana Journal to be reliable? Also, putting "free world" as the opposite of "communist countries" is already very revealing of your world view. But I'm sure it won't slip in the article. --Damiens.rf 17:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

No Dameins, It has nothing to do with my world view of which nothing is revealed here... It has to do with the majority of sources, and with what is mainstream in terms of reliable sources. My world view is at once much mre complex and much simpler than anything here.(olive (talk) 03:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC))

Wikilinking

Because something can be linked doesn't mean we should delete information. The reader should have complete information within an article on that topic /subject without ever having to look at another article as long as the content is reliably sourced and does not constitute WP:OR. If the material you deleted was not sourced then technically it could be considered OR. It is sourced, however, and as well gives the reader valuable information within the context of the article itself. (olive (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC))

Creating POV

Alfonso founded the newsmagazine De Cuba, that received a special citation from the Maria Moors Cabot prize, an award given by the privately owned Columbia University, "outstanding reporting on Latin America".[2]. The magazine lasted for two issues.

This looks suspiciously like WP: Original Research and is creating a POV which I hope is not deliberate . The bolded content needs to be removed from the article.(olive (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC))

The two issues figure comes from De Cuba. Mentioning an awards without making it clear it's always honoring any attack to non-aligned regimes would be pov anyway (they recently awarded a blogger that complains about her life in Cuba). --Damiens.rf 17:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Why was he arrested

Although this should be added later in the article if there is a reliable source that states why the journalist was arressted, it is probably to much specific information for a lede at least as the article is now. I'll be adding content in the next few days so I'll be happy to include this information in the body of the article.(olive (talk) 15:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC))

The point is that he's only notable (if at all) because he was arrested. He created a magazine to publish his own point of views that last for two issues and have been a small-scale trouble-maker in his home country until some bigger crime got his 20 years arrest. After that, he was picked as a propaganda-boy for anti-Castro organizations and the like, and then his name got stamped on a lot of newspapers. --Damiens.rf 17:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

He's notable for multiple reasons. Our job is to deal with the sources so unless you have reliable sources for what you are saying, we can't say it in the article. I have no opinion on him.(olive (talk) 03:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC))

Tags

Damiens. Why not slow down a little.There are editors obviously trying to work on this article to expand it. Tagging an article that is under construction doesn't help anyone.

There is at this point nothing in this article that slants it one way or the other. And a blog that criticizes anyone can only be construed as the opinions of the bloggers. There are literally millions of bloggers in the world and all with opinions. Our job is to report neutrally on and with the reliable sources we have. If Alfonso won an award we report that and cite the reliable source. Our opinions don't matter, and we can't edit as if they do.(olive (talk) 17:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC))

Tags don't hurt. They will not hinder the evolution of the article, while still guiding the contributions towards the main problems and warn readers about perceived problems.

The article currently just shows the anti-castros's interpretation of the events. All "sources" are articles that see Mr. González as a hero, an never as a criminal.

If you're got in the United States receiving money from an foreign government that more than once plotted to assassinate the U.S. president, you would be pretty much in trouble was well, but Columbia or RWF would not give you any awards in this case. --Damiens.rf 18:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There are no main problems, yet. Generally, the tags indicate unbalance by providing excess content or overly weighted content on a minority view. At the moment, the article lays out a very few details in an overarching view of Alonso 's life; his birth, profession, few awards, and arrest... Weight is not being violated in any one of these areas. They are all being equally mentioned, In a relatively anti- communist world, most mainstream sources are going to give you a anti Castro view. That is, whatever our opinions might be, the majority view point. Tagging an article that not only is not violating weight, but whose weight is evenly distributed, is not Wikipedia compliant . We can't leave just leave tags randomly on articles because of personal opinions or saying they do no harm. Tags must be used with the same kind of discretion and care as any edit. (olive (talk) 21:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC))

The coverage of arrest is unbalanced on the article. The article just mentions he was arrested (for no specific reason) and them he was awarded many prizes and recognition. Unless some coverage of his crimes are added, the article will be painting him as an hero. The coverage of his life is likewise unbalanced because it did not mention this guy was a troublemaker that had been arrested in many occasions before this one

Damiens. Very little has changed since the last time you tried to add a tag. Please add reliably sourced content to the article if you have concerns about NPOV. Right now the article is neutral and the content is reliably sourced so a tag is inappropriate.(olive (talk) 02:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC))

Summarizing, this man is seen as a traitor by his country and as a hero by some international institutions. Only the second point of view is currently covered by the article. Damiens.rf 15:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

In other words, you admit that BLP1E and similar criteria never applied, yet you nominated the article for deletion under a rationale you acknowledge as false. That hardly seems appropriate! Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

If this is the case please add content and the sources. Right now all we have is an opinion on a discussion page (olive (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC))