Jump to content

Talk:Villa del Cine/Archive 1

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

Contradiction inline[edit]

What is meant by "autonomous" and "state funded"? To whom is that cited? How can a state-funded entity in Venezuela be autonomous, considering the consolidation of power there? Please cite and attribute, and not to the Venezuelan gov't, which is not an independent source for this: the BBC clearly discusses artist discomfort at "working for the state".[1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The state funds it, but decisions are made in house. You know, there can be such a thing which is funded by the state but not controlled by the state. I will provide a source, I found a good one a while ago. ValenShephard (talk) 23:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but you shouldn't remove tags until you've located a source. Have you found one? It's dubious that a state-funded entity in Venezuela can be "autonomous", considering the consolidation of power well-documented by scores of reliable sources. Discussing tags on talk before removing them will help new editors learn Wiki policies and guidelines, and encourage other editors to improve the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, not only the BBC article mentions it as being a "state" entity, this one does as well. The contradiction still needs to be resolved, and if "someone" considers it autonomous, that source of opinion should be attritubed inline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your ignorance of the variety of state owned institutions shouldnt damage this article. To be run in house is not a contradiction by definition of a state owned institution. The article sources the exec director who says that scripts are included based on their quality, and the decision lies with him, an individual and his commitee, not with the government. He is employed by the state but his opinions are his own, he is not a government official. ValenShephard (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a source which says "Finance goes through the National Autonomous Centre of Film (CNAC), a mixed commission consisting of representatives from the private sector and from state institutions". That is more than enough justification for calling it autonomous, when funding comes through civil sources. ValenShephard (talk) 02:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Failed verification[edit]

This website cited has numerous pages; please cite information to the correct page so it can be found, not to the general website. The general website should probably be an External link, but I'm still not clear on that, since the text says "autonomous", yet it's clearly run by the Venezuelan gov't, which calls that into doubt. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is still linking to the general website, not the specific page where a reader can find that information. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The tag on this has been removed several times now, without correcting the issues. ValenShephard, could you please confirm that you have read this section of the talk page, and if you don't know how to correct this issue, please refrain from removing the tag until you do? Thank you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This still hasn't been corrected; Valen, when I expand the article, please note how I link each page of that website individually, so that sources don't fail verification-- I will work on this today. (This is a case of a tag being removed without the issue being resolved.) I will fix this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
under Título del artículo you have to click 1 La Villa. However, this doesn't bring you to a new page, but a popout within the same page. ValenShephard (talk) 19:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still can't find the page that sources the cost of 13 million dollars; Valen, can you please locate it and put the link here? The way to direct yourself to the specific page, so you can cite it correctly, is to right click on the links in the website, and then open the subsequent pages in a new window or new tab-- that will give you the direct URL. I can't source the 13 million from this site, because I can't find it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think this one is sorted now, but Time and Newsweek have much more detail on costs and numbers that I hope to look at tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit and Wiki cleanup[edit]

This sentence is so convoluted that I can't quite figure out how to fix it-- the grammar is incorrect in more ways than one:

Amongst the first projects funded by the new studio are the story of Francisco de Miranda, a soldier who played a key part in Venezuela's declaration of independence from Spain, actor and activist Danny Glover's directorial debut about the Haitian Revolution and its leader Toussaint Louverture and a short film about Simon Bolivar.[2]

It also needs wikilinking, and I believe Miranda was a General. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with that sentence? How can you call something wrong without being able to pinpoint what is wrong? ValenShephard (talk) 02:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Missing wikilinks to quite a few articles/topics, and sentence structure mixes films with people in a way that I can't quickly sort. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this section is done now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expand[edit]

Where is this paper from, what is its stance? I am cincerely curious. ValenShephard (talk) 03:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finished this, the rest of that article merely outlines all of the 2011 projects, which would be too much detail for this article, per WP:NOT, so I think this one is done now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note, the Google translator has improved greatly recently. I found its translation into another language I speak more accurate than the typical online translator. ValenShephard (talk) 23:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't go near it with a ten-foot pole, have never seen it translate anything accurately, but that's good to know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an official policy on it? When dealing with simple facts like numbers, and simple words, it seems to work fine. ValenShephard (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've linked you three or four times now to WP:NONENG-- you do read my posts, right :) :) I'm certain you'll find nothing anywhere to indicate Google translate is reliable, since it's horridly and terribly wrong almost all the time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging[edit]

Can we please explain what is wrong with specific statements instead of just tagging them? Even if something like time is an issue, if a user has enough time to track down issues, then the user surely can write a couple of sentences on what is wrong. Also, when I see a tag without an explanation, how can I know what needs to be done? ValenShephard (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ValenShephard, it remains unclear to me whether you 1) read edit summaries, and 2) read the talk page. I am unable to understand what it is that you are missing, so better communication on your part would be helpful. There are at least four sources used in the article which reliably explore all sides of the issues with this institution, but only one side of the "story" is presented in this article. Further, these issues are well explained on talk, yet you continue to remove tags without resolving them although you've been alerted many times that you can be blocked for such behavior. I don't know of any other way to get you to absorb Wiki policies and guidelines; you can't remove well-explained and justified tags without resolving them. Could you explain what it is that you don't understand in my edit summaries and discussion above? It is entirely possible that you just don't see that the sources have not been fairly represented in this article, and when I am back home, I will have to balance the article myself, but your tag removal became disruptive long ago. This article presented a chance for you to learn more effective editing-- to see how articles grow and develop on Wiki-- and you don't seem to be taking advantage of that opportunity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia you can stop looking for an article that explains your point of view because here is a link to an article in Newsweek by Mac Margolis that does that. According to Margolis, Chavez will abandon the project/use it for propaganda. TFD (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TFD, please refrain from personalizing discussions and tossing around insinuations that aren't even accurate about other editors-- there are four sources already listed in the article which haven't even been represented in the article yet. What did your post above achieve towards article improvement? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. There's much to love about that article (where'd you see the author?), but "Venezuela's students are his sworn enemies..." stands out. (Please don't make me explain why.) Rd232 talk 20:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The copies on the HighBeam Research[2] and the Alliance for Global Justice[3] websites both list him as the author. TFD (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That article is partcularly polemical. Although, according to del Cine's website they are currently active. ValenShephard (talk) 21:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia, although you had never read that article before it represents your point of view. If it does not, could you please explain how it differs. You have a point of view regarding this topic which does not change based on evidence. You have made up your mind and look for reasons later. TFD (talk) 03:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't read it before, and haven't read it yet-- we already have FOUR sources listed in the article, that discuss the topic neutrally yet aren't represented in the article. If you've located another source for expansion-- great, add it-- but I'm more interested in this point at helping ValenShephard learn how to develop an article neutrally and correctly according to Wiki policies, and he's already found sources that haven't even been represented yet (and I'm still waiting for reliability to be established on some of them). Of course, if you've located a reliable source, you might want to take the time to replace the marginal sources with your newer source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a notable opinion and therefore cannot be included, but it represents your point of view. You can add it to your list of WSJ op-eds, Fox News editorials and Economist columns to further your unbiased understanding of Venezuela. TFD (talk) 03:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problems[edit]

Can users please bullet point your issues with the article, and maybe provide sources which we can all work with, in this section.

Archiving[edit]

This page is getting long. Hard to follow everything. Have to scroll down a lot. Archive? --Schwindtd (talk) 00:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldnt oppose it. I think Sandy would have something to say about it though, according to her there are issues which still haven't been resolved. Maybe it would be better to see to this first? I asked in the third to last talk section, "is the article still not neutral?". Maybe we should see to this first. ValenShephard (talk) 00:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Whatever. But the archive box and a time limit can be added, right? The top sections haven't had a response in almost twenty days. Couldn't they be archived? --Schwindtd (talk) 01:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this archiving trend I'm seeing around; the talk page is only 46KB right now, that's not long at all, I plan to work on this article soon (tomorrow or next day, depending on drive to airport), and as far as I remember, most of the sections above aren't resolved yet. A large talk page is 400KB-- been there done that on many articles :) Up to 150KB is reasonable-- this page isn't long! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, I still want you to explain what you intend to change and get some input from other editors here about those changes, not just after they have been done. ValenShephard (talk) 11:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everything that needs to be addressed has already been discussed above (except that I also have to expand per the El Universal article, and correct your link to that article-- Google translate is not a reliable source). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember discussing anything or meeting any agreements with you, so you should clarify that. Google translate may not be realible, but any layman can easily verify what it said. It doesn't matter if the translation is not exact because what I added only deals with numbers of films produced, you cant mistranslate a number. Put in the original if need be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs) 13:29, September 10, 2010
We agree- you haven't yet answered or even responded to most of the talk sections above, even though I clearly outlined all issues and concerns. The El Universal article needs to be correctly linked, because it is a reliable source. When I'm home from the airport, I'll review, add and expand. Once we've addressed all issues raised on talk, and come to consensus, we can archive all of the old business. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I haven't replied anywhre its because I see it as a non issue, or I don't agree with what you are saying. Should I go write that in, so you can see that your proposals are not supported? ValenShephard (talk) 13:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful if you would address each issue raised-- for example, there are oustanding questions about reliability of sources, and talk page collaboration will help you understand good editing practice, and the rest of us understand where differences or misunderstandings occur. But ... just because you may not agree does not mean I can't make policy-based corrections to the article-- reference the arbcase I keep asking y'all to read-- mere numbers are not sufficient to overrule Wiki's core policies, and you will be able to adjust any text I introduce that you disagree with once I'm finished and remove the inuse template. For example, Rd232's prose is better than mine, and he frequently adjusts my wording or notices issues. Wiki is a work in progress-- as long as you are conforming with policy, you need not worry about my edits-- if anything is "off", it will be addressed. But so far, discussion on talk hasn't produced anything here, so it's time for me to do it myself. I *have* to go, or I'll be late to the airport :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You keep talking about numbers of editors, I don't think this issue which you see on some Chavez related pages has anything to do with this article. I don't think you should assume that this is what we are doing, or trying to do, to muscle you out or something. I don't know how to address what is reliable or not, I am still in the process of learning, and it will take a long time to grasp all policy. The sources look reliable to me, they are journals and art reviews dealing with south american cinema, art, culture etc. They are written by what appear to be notable people, professors for example. I had discussions with Schwindtd on his own page (should have been here) about some of the sources and we agreed they should be included based on the credentials of the authors. ValenShephard (talk) 13:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Valen, chill ... we are on the same page. This small and new article presents an excellent opportunity for learning in a less charged atmosphere than the Chavez talk page. When I start working, I will do so in small increments so you can follow and understand my edits and learn to follow an article's diffs, edit summaries and history, and I will show you how to deal with questionable sources. The idea here is to help you learn to edit more effectively. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. That was random. How did the conversation go from archives to ...? Oh whatever.--Schwindtd (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me about it. A small misunderstanding led to this. Thats what you get when two hotheads like me and Sandy meet, haha. ValenShephard (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Valen, how are you doing at following my edit summaries and understanding my edits? It would be good to get that under your belt before I get into the meatier issues :) Do you understand the "failed verification" tag I added? We're using a WP:PEACOCK word "acclaimed" that I can't find in the cited source. So far, none of my edits should be controversial-- are we good ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to report so far. I think the failed verification is odd, because I remember her mentioned somewhere, and I must have linked to the wrong source. I think that the source that mentions here is listed somewhere in this article, haha. About the acclaimed part, me and another editor agreed on this because Varela has won various awards and nominations from notable film festivals. ValenShephard (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:PEACOCK and WP:OR-- you need something other than opinion to back up the "acclaimed" word. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aha. I still think we should mention some credentials he has. Maybe we should mention his nominations? ValenShephard (talk) 21:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not really-- the more correct way to address this issue is to write his article, which is now a redlink. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm, interesting isn't it. Someone archived this talk page after my suggestion was rejected. Weird. --Schwindtd (talk) 23:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I archived threads that were clearly finished, after my concerns raised in those threads were resolved, and because the page grew twice as long in the interim. If that's a problem, I can undo the archiving, but your post indicates some resentment or concern. If so, please specify, thanks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Structure[edit]

I've asked Erik, a film editor, for ideas on how to structure the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ENGVAR[edit]

Resolved

US English is used in Venezuela, but I'm seeing some British spelling in this article; we should use US English per MOS-- which are we using? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably my fault, I personally favour (there you go) British English. I don't mind. Go with the more standard one I guess. I heard that there are no real regulations over this. ValenShephard (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ENGVAR; this is a matter for consensus. That page used to say that we should use the predominant type of English used in the country most closely related to the article-- I have no idea why that was dropped from MOS, but keeping up with MOS is a royal PITA. I won't make changes to ENGVAR until others have weighed in, but have always thought we should use US English, since that is what is most used in Venezuela. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it is mostly used in Vene. then I would support that. ValenShephard (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one has opposed, it appears we agree on US English. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I liked your original reasoning. ValenShephard (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

13 million dollars[edit]

Resolved

The cost is mentioned in the second source (the one after the government source, where the cost is mentione), although I have also seen it elsewhere. The government source, I might have placed it there by mistake, or taken some other information which came previously, from it. I can't remember now. ValenShephard (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, I'll get to these in due time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The info is found here: [4] If you are wondering about the credibility or reliability of this source, you should note that the website is maintained by Earth Charter International and has the official support of the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the European Cultural Foundation. ValenShephard (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That source doesn't say the complex costed 13 million-- it says government investments of 13 million. The more reliable sources explain this much better-- there is investment in infrastructure, as well as backing of productions, so our text may be subtly or blatantly wrong, and I suspect that number has to go. See the numbers in Time and Newsweek, which have better fact checking. Still working on this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The new source I added said the "complex cost" 13 million dollars. The new source looks quite attractive. The website looks reliable, it publishes in many languages, has many contacts, has editors etc. They have a lot of fascinating information for the normal user, like that the film Miranda which we already mentioned in the article, beat Superman Returns at the box office. About its reliability, here is where they show off their credibility, icluding praise from Kofi Annan [5] ValenShephard (talk) 23:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I believe that is fixed now, but I'm still working. If we both work at the same time, we'll end up (inadvertently) reverting each other and hitting 3RR :) But I hope you can see now the problems with some lesser reliable sources-- the article had a statement that the facility was 25,000 sf, when it was actually 2,400 ! (It also had a director name that isn't listed in the Ven. gov website.) We'll get there, but I've still got a lot to get through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that 25,000 thing was a mix up between feet and meters. Becasue the new conversaion of 2,400 meters to feet is very similar to what is originally said, but probably mistakenly in meters. The director may have been changed. I don't think there is anything malicious going on, just mix ups, use of less than perfect sources sometimes etc. ValenShephard (talk) 23:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean at all to say anything malicious was going on, but this is why we stick to reliable sources and avoid marginal ones. There's plenty of info out there on this topic, and sources that don't have a reputation for fact checking or editorial oversight often get things wrong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think it was an issue of poor sources, but a mistake. I probably did it. ValenShephard (talk) 23:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is settled now I think-- will add more numbers tomorrow from Time and Newsweek. Didn't get to them tonight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New VA source[edit]

Unsettled again: Venezuelanalysis.com says it's a $42 million project:
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should go with the venezeula analysis figures because they are a more strongly reliable source than what we are using now. ValenShephard (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Three things:
  1. The full citation is listed above on one line-- all you have to do is edit copy-edit paste it in (you left off the dates). I see you fixed this-- cool beans! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The way you added in text (inside a block quote) is rather inelegant, citing another source inside a block quote. In fact, the entire segment can be written from and cited to Venezuelanalysis.com, which would be more elegant than what you've done, and eliminate a marginal source. While Venezuelanalysis.com is biased and not valid for BLPs, it is a reliable source for this topic, they are closer to the subject than these other marginal sources, and it is an unbiased report, offering criticism (which still needs to be added to this article for NPOV-- there are still so many other problems in this article, including new ce and prose errors, that I just haven't gotten to that yet).
  3. More generally speaking, we now have numerous reliable sources (BBC, Time, Newsweek, VA) that cover everything also mentioned in the marginal or unreliable sources, so it's time to fire up the elbow grease and rewrite the entire article to reliable sources, including all points of view. The VA article gives you an example of how that can be done, as they are a partisan source but have presented criticism of the project. Considering you now have that source, there's no need to use marginal sources here, and the Marquez article isn't really about Villa del Cine, rather about two films.
I hope these suggestions will help make this article much better ! There is still a wealth of info on the Glover film to be mined from the Newsweek source-- production, numbers, history, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other editors have mentioned that venezuela analysis is a perfectly reliable source. I have fixed the cites now, it was my first attempt. I just saw that you saw, so disregard. I don't think it needs a total rewrite, alot of what the other sources mention is backed up by the new more reliable ones. So I don't think it needs total rewriting, just tweaking to fill in the gaps or mistakes they have made, if any, to be in line with the more reliable sources. ValenShephard (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPs require the highest quality sources; VA is partisan, that has to be accounted for when using it, and it is not acceptable for BLPs, but this is not a BLP. It is a reliable source for this article. At any rate, we should never use unreliable sources in articles, but even less so when higher quality sources are available. Now that you have the VA source, there is no reason for marginal and unreliable sources to be used here, so they should be removed. You will end up with a better article if you write from the basis of sitting down first with high quality sources, planning your structure, and writing from scratch which helps avoid plagiarism. You have plenty of sources now to do this right; if you'd like for me to wait for you to finish before NPOVing the article, I'd be glad to do so! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think VA is any more partisan than a western newspaper or any of the Venezuelan opposition media. I don't think the article will need 'NPOVing' after I'm done. ValenShephard (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just don't try using VA to source some outlandish legal charges amounting to political persecution in a WP:BLP, which other more reliable sources disagree with, or you'll find yourself in hot water for a BLP vio :) Also, I've alerted you not to believe everything you read on talk pages-- the same people who claim VA is reliable, claim that other clearly reliable sources are not, so one has to be cautious and make sure your "beliefs" are firmly grounded in policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe this edit is correct; the earlier sources said the facility costed that much, this source says it is a 42 Million dollar project-- we don't know how much of that is initial cost vs. ongoing outlays, so both statements need to be used and merged. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll merge the two sources somehow. Maybe saying it initially cost 13 million and up until that VA source it has cost 42 million. I don't know if thats clear, or a bit of an assumption. About VA as a source, having read all the guidelines for what is a reliable source, it seems like one. VA itself sources where it gets its information from, and its stuff like the BBC and some Venezuelan papers (maybe they are pro Chavez, but that shouldn't matter too much), and of course they have their own editorial comments which is their prerogative as in any news/analysis. ValenShephard (talk) 00:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's the right instinct. Sometimes the exact information we want (build cost or whatever) is not in the sources we have, so we have to quote the most relevant related figures and just be clear what the sources say. Well done, VS.--Chaser (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like VS didn't get to this or the translations last night, so I added them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Named refs[edit]

Please read WP:FN about how to use named refs for repeat use of sources. Sample. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Government source[edit]

Resolved

I think I used that source to verify that the VdC is in Guarenas, or however that city is called. Check it again Sandy, as your Spanish is better than mine. I think its in that "1 La villa" bit I told you about. ValenShephard (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting to things very slowly but surely-- lots to do-- but please be aware that direct translations from Spanish to English are still plagiarism, even though I know your intent was to stick closely to the sources. So I'm having to do more here than I expected. Also, some of the text I'm finding isn't in the sources, and some of it is contradictory-- it's quite possible that some of the lesser reliable sources are wrong, so it may take me more time than expected to sort all of this. Patience :) Our text said 25,000 square feet, when one source clearly said 2,400 square feet-- give me time to sort it all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valen, I don't want to get tangled up in edit conflicts and reversing each other-- could I finish, or should I put the article in use so we don't end up crossways? When you're editing as I'm making major changes, we're bound to get crossed up, but I didn't add the {{inuse}} template in case someone from WP:RSN wants to edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism[edit]

I'm finding way too much plagiarism, which is going to make it hard to finish up here tonight. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches; it is important to paraphrase text, even when translating. I'm finding numerous instances of exact text lifted from sources, and more instances of text that follows the source too closely. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See here, here, and here for examples. I'm going to stop for a while, as this has been more work than I expected-- more tomorrow. Still haven't addressed imbalance and neutrality. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You mean, supposed imbalance and [lack of] neutrality. ValenShephard (talk) 00:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that I'm getting all the little things out of the way before I address the big things, but the little things turned out to be bigger than I expected :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't think there are "big things" to be sorted out. ValenShephard (talk) 00:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyhoo, this is getting most frustrating :) You are still plagiarizing, and still not using named refs for repeat citations (see WP:FN, as I've linked before). Do you see what is happening in the refs?

10. Márquez, Humberto. Petrodollars for local film industry. Inter Press Service. 12 January 2007. Retrieved 10 September 2010.
11. Márquez, Humberto. Petrodollars for local film industry. Inter Press Service. 12 January 2007. Retrieved 10 September 2010.
12. a b Van der Zalm, Jeroen. "Villa de Cine: Venezuelan government as film producer." The Power of Culture. December 2007. Retrieved 20 August 2010.
13. Márquez, Humberto. Petrodollars for local film industry. Inter Press Service. 12 January 2007. Retrieved 10 September 2010.
14. Márquez, Humberto. Petrodollars for local film industry. Inter Press Service. 12 January 2007. Retrieved 10 September 2010.
About this supposed plagerising, what else could I have done? I changed the wording. Check the original. Yes its similar, but its a list, should I start jumbling the order? That seems like a waste of time and a diversion. I am thinking why no other editors point out the same issues as you. Even when I heavily edit articles alongside administrators, such as Marxism and they don't see anything wrong, instead they tell me to keep it up and support me. I act the same everywhere, its me afterall.ValenShephard (talk) 01:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to repeat the full citation; just the named ref (it already has one), then they will be consolidated on one line. See here; if not, more for me to fix tomorrow. Also, I've HTML commented out some of the plagiarism, since I was too tired to fix it myself. Once it's fixed, you can remove the HTML < ! --. This is a ton of work and is taking a lot of my time for an article no one reads; I'm doing this to help you learn, Valen, so please read the things I link you to ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This plagerism you keep mentioning is, I don't think, an issue. Some simple and commonly found phrases are very hard to paraphrase, which I am trying to do. Until I learn how to fix references, while I am more busy with adding content, I am sure someone can help me out. Why dont you simply sum it up instead of typing how I am doing it wrong? ValenShephard (talk) 00:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Plagiarism is a very big deal, and continuing to do it once it's been pointed out to you could get you blocked. You are not repeating common phrases; you are lifting entire blocks of text verbatim, and I could have finished more work on this article if I hadn't found plagiarism and contradictions and incorrect info from sources, which took me about six hours to sort. I left you several edit summary examples of how to use named refs; did you see them? It is less work for you to use the named ref than to repeat the whole thing! Valen, I will lose motivation to help mentor you if you simply won't read things I'm doing to try to help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, are you still making major edits? --Schwindtd (talk) 00:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, done for the night, tired, if you want to go in and do some more ... when I start again tomorrow, I'll add the {{inuse}} template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at it, but it was too complex for me to grasp straight away, and I thought it would be better to spend my time adding content. Do you think I am plagarising knowing the consequences? I copy text out then paraphrase it, most of the time. It would be much slower to paraphrase it while reading it from the source, and I don't like going split screen on my small monitor. If I didn't paraphrase it on some occasions, that was a mistake, or I forgot or whatever. I agree that that shouldn't happen, but someone else can fix it, and you can tell me about it. Is it even an official policy? What you linked me to doesn't look like an enforced set of ideas. ValenShephard (talk) 00:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:Villa_del_Cine#Named_refs, where I left you a very clear sample-- I don't know how much clearer it could be. You just repeat the named ref, adding a slash at the end-- you don't have to type out the whole citation again, it's automatically repeated. I don't think most editors plagiarize on purpose; it's usually a matter of education, but once it's been pointed out to you, it's disruptive for you to continue violating WP:COPYVIO. Please read the Dispatch to understand what it is. I for one hate to add new text since my prose stinks, and I'd plagiarize all day long if I could avoid writing, but we just can't do that. And you shouldn't be chunking in new plagiarized text that others then have to clean up. If you don't want to read pages linked to you, I'm not sure why I'm trying so hard to help you learn. Maybe the cabal has a grand plan to keep me off of Chavez talk :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I stretched to putting in copyrighted material. If anything, I hadn't rephrased half a sentence to a sentence. Which has since been fixed. I find you accusing me of "chunking in" quite offensive, seeing as I dispute that this happened. The only example you gave which showed no paraphrasing, was 5-6 words. Grand cabal? Is that a joke? The problem with your help is that it can seem harsh and not inviting. Your wording doesn't invite me to want to learn, it sometimes puts me off. Your intentions are good, but like I said a while ago in my block, I will respond much better to different methods. ValenShephard (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's a joke-- what else would the two smilies after it mean? Valen, issues continue to occur, and I have a hard time imagining anyone being more patient. In this edit summary, you indicate that you don't know why "context was removed", although I clearly added a link above in this talk section explaining the plagiarism that needed to be corrected. In this edit, you formatted (??), but didn't seem to understand that the plagiarized text is commented out until it's fixed. I'm still unsure if you read edit summaries or the talk page, and the amount of time it takes to get through these issues is frustrating. Perhaps it would be better if you had a mentor and I stopped trying to help, particularly if you're unappreciative. Perhaps you'd prefer I let it be, and simply neutralize the POV. Your call-- this is really a lot of time for little thanks. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was one of the main points of whoever was being quoted there, that other countries had taken the route of state funded cinema. When I read that, I was unaware that Mexico and Brazil had done the same, which was fascinating and educatative to me, so I thought it was worth adding if it educated other readers like it had me. I changed the wording since the original, which was indeed the one time where I clearly had copy pasted and not reworded for whatever reason. I don't want to start a grudge or seem unappreciative. ValenShephard (talk) 01:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The text was definitely worth adding, which is why I didn't remove it, merely commented out the copyvio until someone with a fresher mind or better prose than mine could paraphrase. Alternately, you can direct quote. Perhaps Schwindt will be fresh enough to fix it during his copyedit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, do you guys know what a {{GOCEinuse}} tag is? I got a big edit conflict. Oh well. That's life.--Schwindtd (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting[edit]

Thanks. The article does need its prose cleaned up. Like what you just did, some sentences need seperating to allow to flow better. I have a tendency to make long sentences, its a fault of mine. Makes you look clever sometimes though. : D ValenShephard (talk) 01:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editors love to write a lot. It is not always appropriate. Short sentences should be used to punctuate long sentences. Keep it diverse. Keep it clean. Keep it happy. Readers will get lost in overly long sentences that seem to cover lots of areas and have lots of conjunctions and then the reader freaks out and then the editor will have to come back and redo the whole thing. This is a short illustration. --Schwindtd (talk) 01:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree (and haha). A long disjointed sentence makes your head spin. It loses focus, it loses its 'point' somewhere in the muddle. ValenShephard (talk) 01:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uh ... I think I will wait on the copyedit until some more pressing issues have been taken care of. I will remove the tag and you can be free to edit without disturbing someone. Thanks, --Schwindtd (talk) 01:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with source in lead[edit]

Resolved

Somewhere along the line, probably due to something I did, who knows, some of the sources are not placed where they should be. For example in the lead something is attributed to Candela, when I actually took it from the IPS source. I have kinda fixed that now, by putting the right source there. The candela source, number 4 I think, needs to be removed from the lead because that is not where the information is from. I don't know how to do that without wrecking the formatting. I also didn't realise some editing was going on, I probably caused a conflict. ValenShephard (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what does ref 4 actually cite? --Schwindtd (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thats a problem. It did cite something, and it was important. Lets have a look at the source and see where it should go. ValenShephard (talk) 01:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) There are two problems: 1) you removed a named ref, which left subsequent refs hanging (this is why you should try to understand the WP:FN link above about named refs), and 2) the ISP source does not support the text it is citing (could you please place a direct quote here on talk of why you think it does, in case I'm missing it? I've read the source and am not seeing where it supports that text, so if you will add the quote here, I may see what I'm missing.) I would add a {{request quote}} template to the article, but don't want to edit conflict with Schwindt again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, do what you got to do. I will copyedit later. I have removed the tag. You guys must be free to do your work. --Schwindtd (talk) 01:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not me! I did my work for the day and my mind is no longer fresh to review sources, and with all the changes Valen is making now, I'm not about to run afoul of 3RR 'til he's done :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Luis Girón, the president of the governmental but independent film institute (the Centro Nacional Autónomo de Cinematografía - CNAC)". More detail and a paraphrase of that is offered in the body of the article.ValenShephard (talk) 01:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC):[reply]
About the mystery source, we should defintily not lose it. It has alot of detail and deals with many issues which could add depth here. ValenShephard (talk)
Ok, now I see it ... perhaps Schwindt could expand the text to say, "an independent body, the Centro Nacional Autónomo de Cinematografía ... etc) Progress ! On the "mystery source", we will keep it if it is deemed reliable at WP:RSN, but you deleted the named ref, which left a hanging ref later on. Review your edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ministry of Popular Culture[edit]

The Candela Live source-- which I highly doubt is reliable-- seems to run afoul of the information about the relationship among these entities put out by the Venezuelan gov't itself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you highly doubt it? It has so much information, its very well written. It offers alot of unique insights, and quotes from notable individuals. They couldn't have pulled that information out of nowhere. ValenShephard (talk) 02:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is all fine and good, but not how we judge reliability: see WP:V and WP:RS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't offered anything to say its not reliable. No sign of oversight, how are gauging this? ValenShephard (talk) 02:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who is the editor? Who is the staff? What are their journalistic credentials? Where can you find anything on that website which speaks to the kinds of issues discussed at WP:V and WP:RS about reliability. Valen, we don't use opinion on Wiki or ILIKEIT-- we use policy. To establish the reliability of that source, you have to read the policy and discuss on that basis. That source has a lot of good things to say that are as yet not even touched on in the article, because only one side is presented, but if it's not reliable, it's not, so I don't want to expand text from it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." The source doesnt do any of this. The views they express are shared by other sources, they sometimes repeat priase and some worries some (sometimes the same individual's) worries about something. They quote notable individuals. They aren't advertising, it is not written in the style of a personal opinion by its two editors who rely throughout on quoting and referring to experts on the VdC, and nothing which seems to be a rumour appears. ValenShephard (talk) 02:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You left off part: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; ... " How can you determine that site's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy if that don't even list editor, staff, contact info, credentials, anything? Have you attempted to do that? The query is posed at WP:RSN which is frequented by editors who understand WP:V, and it will be addressed there-- we don't have to decide here. But it is interesting that both sources overlook the statements of the Venezuelan gov't itself, that all of those entities are inter-related in the Ministry of Popular Culture, so ... who's fact-checking? We can't contradict what the entity itself says about itself in terms of the relationships between those orgs, so we will have to expand that text to incorporate the info from the Venezuelan gov't itself-- all of those entities are part of the Ministry of Culture and inter-related. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The entities are linked, noone is hiding this. As is explained in the funding section, the CNAC is described as governmental and independant. So what if it is part of the Minitry for Popular culture or something, which I haven't seen evidence for anyway. They can be given a budget by the government and then decide how to spend it. This is the image that is being formed by people who represent it. That they choose which film recievs funding, not the government (meaning politicians). They are not politicians, they are representatives of state and private apparatus which can't mean anything except representatives from state owned enterprises and entities (which doesnt mean they are from Chavez's party or part of the government, they could just be employed by the state} and representatives of private companies. ValenShephard (talk) 02:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So what if it is part of the Minitry for Popular culture or something, which I haven't seen evidence for anyway. It's in the link I just gave you; I'll add it to the article when I'm fresh enough to dig in again-- it needs to be clear (even to you). Have you read reliable sources about the consolidation of power in Venezuela? At any rate, we need to include the info, and not draw our own conclusions. This is all indepdendent of whether the sources are reliable-- we have the Venezuelan gov'ts own statements that the entities are all part of the same Ministry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't speak Spanish. Seeing the initials of the organisation mentioned doesn't mean anything to me. Anyway, the information is included. Briefly in the lead, and in detail (as far as we know from the IPS source) in the main body. These discussions are very tedious and anti-productive. ValenShephard (talk) 02:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These discussions produce accurate articles, and are how Wiki works. They don't usually have to be so long though. You could attempt to Google translate that article, but the result is likely to be dismal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CNAC founded 1994[edit]

Resolved

I added this info with its sources, but the link doesn't like exactly to the right page, as seems to be an issue with that site. You have to click at the bottom something like "what it comprises" or includes, bottom right of the text box, and you get a little run down of what makes up Villa del Cine. ValenShephard (talk) 03:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll fix and expand it tomorrow, but what does its existence before Chavez have to do with anything? The Supreme Court also existed before Chavez, but he still controls it, according to reliable sources; I'm missing the connection you're making in edit summary, although that didn't affect the text you added. The link is going to the right page now as far as I can tell; I'll format it when I edit again, but it would be helpful if you learned to do that as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just an observation. Sheesh. ValenShephard (talk) 03:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just checking, as the edit summary seemed to suggest you might add original research to that effect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editing[edit]

Can you leave me to edit for a while, Sandy? ValenShephard (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw this-- yes, it's all yours-- a noted an error above about the 13 million. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I just want to add as much interesting and useful info from the source right now, for some reason I have the energy. I was a little tired yesterday. ValenShephard (talk) 22:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I'll catch up later. The number of marginal sources is already reduced, and I think you can replace them now. Also, are we using US English after all? Watch for organization/orgnisation, criticize/critisize, and Centre/Center. When you're done, you can click on the "Printable version" on the left hand side of the screen under the toolbox, and edit copy-edit paste the entire thing into your word processor to check for spelling errors. Later, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good. I think the questionable sources will probably disappear soon. Its a shame the one mentiong what the CNAC is made up of will probably have to go. Thats fascinating and much needed info. I will need the original Spanish name for the CNAC in the funding section later, if you can bring out your Spanish again. ValenShephard (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've still got it in there, but it's Centro Nacional Autónomo de Cinematografía; I may go out for the evening, so ping my talk page when you're done? And don't forget to review my comment above (in the "New VA source" section) about the 13million! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Going out"? Whats that? : D ValenShephard (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It usually involves wine :) I archived the sections that we've clearly resolved, left those we're still working on, but remember that Time and Newsweek still have lots of detail on several of the film projects, numbers, history etc that can be added, and then we'll see where we are on balance of criticism for removing the POV tag. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is the wine over there? About balance in criticism and stuff, I think its fine. From the VA source, to do with the Danny Glover project its roughly split 50/50 between positive and negative, even though the source is mostly very positive. I did this because unfortunately alot of the information dealing with important things like funding comes from the mouths of people who work at Villa del Cine, so I felt like adding the voice of the opposition a bit heavier.ValenShephard (talk) 00:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I caught up with some basic copyediting this morning-- for future reference:

  • We don't use curly quotes on Wiki, rather straight quotes, see Wikipedia:MOS#Quotations
  • See WP:PUNC for logical quotation
  • See WP:MOSNUM for when we use digits vs. spelling out numbers
  • See WP:NBSP for non-breaking spaces
  • See WP:MOS#Ellipses (ellipses have spaces)
  • See WP:MOSDATE#Precise language on using as of dates and avoiding terms like "currently", "recently", "so far", etc.
  • See WP:WTA on "words to avoid" like "claimed"
  • I'll add a tool to the talk page that can be used to check for dab links-- I fixed several links

I also re-added the correct numbers on the 13 million vs. 42 million; the former seems to apply to the cost of the facility, where the second is less clear, and could be total outlays. I'll work on content more later today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I've caught now all of the MOS and copyediting issues, so I'll stop and wait for ValenShephard and others to catch up. Valen, have you learned how to step back through my diffs in the article's history, so you can see why and what I did? I link to the MOS or policy page in most of my edits. Once you've caught up, I'll work on expanding text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

La Clase (film)[edit]

 Done

La Clase is an award-winning, notable film which has been the subject of several articles; it really should have its own article, and this text should be moved there, with a brief summary left here:

One of the most well known projects produced by Villa del Cine has been the film La Clase (The [Social] Class). Directed by José Antonio Varela in 2007, it is a romantic drama which contrasts the way of life between the upper and working classes. It won awards at the Film Festivals of Mérida 2008 and Málaga 2009, and an honorific mention at the Iberian American Film and Video Festival Cinesul 2008. As its title indicates, the film relies on a presentation of class differences. Varela became the President of Villa del Cine in March 2010, three years after the release of La Clase.[1]

That source is more about the films than Villa del Cine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should have its own article, and that the information should be moved. But until then, I think it is giving the reader some information on what kind of projects VdC is active in. ValenShephard (talk) 12:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Vázquez, Mercedes. "Secuestro Express and La clase: politics of realism in contemporary Venezuelan filmmaking." Jump Cut. 52: Summer 2010. Retrieved 22 August 2010.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Villa_del_Cine/Archive_1&oldid=1078758707"