Jump to content

Talk:Eligio Cedeño

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

Mentioning lawyers defense

[edit]

It seems to me legitimate and not against WP policy to mention in the article any argument the lawyers of Eligio Cedeno may have for his defense. Of course such arguments should be mentioned as such. Mentioning the published argument of a lawyer in an article concerning his client does not infringe on WP:RS#Self-published sources (online and paper), just like mentioning the arguments of the accusation would also be appropriate.Voui (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs should only be used for uncontroversial statements that don't involve third parties, see WP:SELFPUB. If the defense arguments are notable then independent secondary reliable sources must have reported it, same thing applies for the accusation. JRSP (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not mentioning arguments taken from a blog. This is what a lawyer is saying for the defense of his client, and the accusation of his client is the subject of the article.Voui (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are adding a quote that explicitly makes a claim about the other party, a self published or primary source cannot be used for this purpose. Any defense argument that is notable should be easily sourced to a reliable independent source. JRSP (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the claims he is making are part of the defense of Cedeno. The case of the defense must be presented in this article. Voui (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you present the case of the accusation? Voui (talk) 00:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To make it short, in an article about Cedeno and his arrest and subsequent release, we must mention the point of view of Cedeno on his arrest.Voui (talk) 00:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because this must be an encyclopedic article, not a court. We must condense here material reported by secondary WP:reliable sources, we must avoid working with primary material, see WP:PSTS. As I mentioned before, using a blog to make claims about third parties is not allowed per wikipedia's policies, see WP:SELFPUB. If you want to include the defense arguments in the article you must find a secondary reliable source reporting those arguments. JRSP (talk) 00:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree: there cannot be a rule mentioning that the defense argument cannot come from the defense itself.Voui (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You argument seems to me WP:WL. Voui (talk) 00:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that WL means sticking to the technical interpretation of a policy while overriding its spirit. Would you please explain how my interpretation of the policy is overriding its principles? JRSP (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are rules on using reliable sources, which includes not using blogs, etc - JRSP described them succinctly above. If you query the particular interpretation of the rules, go to the reliable sources noticeboard. PS Accusations of wikilawyering imply a violation of WP:AGF on your part. Rd232 talk 13:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I had to delete [1] the copyright violation. I haven't done anything else with the issue because this is a biography of Cedeno and we don't need every detail. Evidence that we should have this detail would be from reliable secondary sources reporting the issue in the context of discussing Cedeno. The basic point, properly sourced, is already included in the Arrest section. Rd232 talk 13:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again you position seems to me indefensible: we have the right to mention the arguments of the defense and the defense itself is an appropriate source, provided it is mentioned that this is the defense argument. Voui (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source; almost always we must work with secondary sources. It is not a question of "we have the right" to mention the arguments of the defense. If those arguments are notable, there should be no problem finding independent secondary sources reporting those arguments. JRSP (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Primary or Secondary sources are also sometimes possible. Pushing your argument, it would mean that, in an article concerning the constitution of a country, for example, we would have no right to mention the constitution itself. Absurd isn't it? Voui (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An article on a country's constitution must rely basically on secondary reliable sources, this applies to all articles. In that case, your main sources should be works about the constitution, not the constitution itself. The constitution, as a primary source, might be used with care, only for very basic and uncontroversial statements, as long as you have a reliable copy of it. But here the problem is double, you are using primary material from a site that is not reliable. Notice that the article report of the accusations against Cedeño is not based on any Venezuelan judiciary site or Venezuelan executive site or a Venezuelan attorney blog but on secondary sources. JRSP (talk) 03:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arrest of judge María Lourdes Afiuni

[edit]

Her arrest is a consequence of the Cedeno release. It should therefore be in this article. As often I must say, Rd232 wishes to suppress paragraphs. On the contrary, I err on the side of providing the maximum amount of documentation on the event. Voui (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a biographical article, an article about the MicroStar case or an article about the Banco Canarias case? JRSP (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. But in addition, the relevance of the arrest could be established by focussing on the corruption allegations: the allegations that Cedeno corruptly bought his freedom by bribing the judge. Per WP:BLP, I do not want to include these allegations; and without them, the judge's arrest is a separate issue - and one which, as Voui well knows, is already covered in Human rights in Venezuela. There is zero need to duplicate it here. Rd232 talk 09:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given that 1) this person is only notable for one event (namely, his trial), 2) the article as it stands is primarily about his arrest/incarceration/flight, and 3) Afiuni is also only notable for being arrested due to her decision, I'm proposing that we rename the article Trial of Eligio Cedeno, and merge Maria Lourdes Afiuni into this article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, BLP1E excludes having articles on Cedeno and Afiuni. So I've moved the article as suggested; it needs rewriting, and the Afiuni article needs merging. Rd232 talk 22:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Rd323 wishes to delete articles! Please keep this article. Voui (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also disagree about renaming the article "Trial of Eligio Cedeno". What sort of name is it? Eligio Cedeno has not even been tried, only detained and released. How can you name this a trial! There has been no judgment and we name that a trial! Voui (talk) 22:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On top of that this is not fair, because this article is not only about his detention. There are plenty of other notable things he did that should be in the article, like helping union leaders that were threatened by the government. Voui (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please calm down. No one is talking about "deleting articles" here. You need to read WP:BLP, especially WP:BLP1E. His notability comes from his arrest & flight; there's not enough information available to write a neutral biography of him. The entire subject is his detention and the detention of the judge who released him. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of Arrest of Maria Lourdes Afiuni

[edit]

moved to Talk:Arrest of Maria Lourdes Afiuni.

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Trial of Eligio Cedeño. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Trial of Eligio Cedeño. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eligio_Cedeño&oldid=1196729156"