Talk:Danilo Anderson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article seems heavily coloured by views held by the opposition to Hugo Chávez in Venezuela. Can, for instance, the allegations about the non-credibility of the key-witness be trusted? I am, given my experience with the many political myths and counter-myths in play in Venezuela, relunctant to believe this at first glance. Bear in mind that this is an article about a heavily charged event the interpretation of which has a direct bearing on the interpretation of Venezuelan politics. I suggest that somebody with expertise in the field look into the details and make sure that they come together in a neutral manner. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ronnieidnielsen (talk • contribs) 10 June 2006.

This description is not neutral and non-notable. who according to El Nacional described himself as a radical leftist. El nacional newspaper is anti-Chávez and anti-Anderson.--K4zem 19:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The description is published by a reliable source. Please stop deleting content referenced to reliable sources. Sandy 19:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Danilo Anderson was not Politican. it exceeds: "radical leftist" . Danilo no fue un político, el apelativo "izquierda radical" sobra. --K4zem 19:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Bueno, hablate con El Nacional. Well, talk to El Nacional about that. Sandy 19:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

K4zem, in spite of limitations placed by Chavez on press freedom in Venezuela, El Nacional and El Universal are still the two largest and most important newspapers in Venezuela. They are clearly reliable sources, even though they are limited in their ability to criticize Chavez. Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say. If you disagree with the translation "de izquierda radical" to "radical left", then please explain how you would translate it? If you have a problem with the translation, please spell it out in Spanish, and I will figure it out. Sandy 21:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

K4zem, for the third time, you have removed referenced content from this article. Please explain your reasoning. Removing referenced content can be considered vandalism. (K4zem, es la tercera vez que quitas contenido con referencias del artículo: favor de explicar tus razones. Quitar contenido con referencias puede ser considerado vandalismo.) Sandy 13:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I spotted this dispute on the Wikipedia:Requests for investigation page above an investigation I wanted doing on an extreme vandal. That's not the place to put this K4zem, that's for wikipedia investigations of repeated vandals and abusive editors. This is a simple content dispute. I looked at the article and agree with Sandy that there is no doubt about the translation. Though it could be expanded to include the wider context - with more material from that article included in a broader biography area.

Though the source is traditionally anti Chavez, it is hardly a damning piece and seems fairly reasonable. But I don't know the whole story about Danilo Anderson's affiliations, I assumed he was a standard socialist without giving him any more thought - how realisitic is it that he would call himself a "radical leftist"? Is it possible that El Nacional were stirring the pot somewhat and deliberately misrepresenting Anderson? It is a tough call. --Zleitzen 00:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for checking in Zleitzen. (He also posted it at the Village Pump. Since we all speak Spanish, I'm not sure why he doesn't just answer the questions here.) I don't have enough knowledge to expand the article, and don't want to just crib from El Nacional without broader knowledge. The significance of his political persuasion has to do with his affiliation with Chavez, and the controversy surrounding who killed him. I can't do the expanding with enough authority on the topic, but there's no reason to leave out that information. Sandy 00:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we can have it in the intro though Sandy - it's not common practice and does look a bit strange. It really needs to be in a section detailing his biography with the surrounding material from that and other articles.--Zleitzen 00:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll read all the articles and see what I can scare up for another paragraph, albeit brief, so I don't stray too far into unfamiliar territory. For now, I'll park it temporarily somewhere else. Sandy 01:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I find it extraordinary that Sandy's piece on Anderson's assassination should get such a free ride when it is basd almost exclusively on opposition media sources. The allegation that the Venezuelan media is repressed by the Chavez government is fatuous,especially when the article itself points to free criticism of the Attorney General. I wrote a piece for inclusion in Wikipedia on Anderson's murder last year but did not post it because I lacked confidence. Given Sandy's obvious prejudices against Anderson (including the scurrilous accusations against him without comment from contrary sources) I will certainly be vigilant in correcting his pro-opposition biasToni Solo