Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Pliers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep but cleanup. --Haemo (talk) 03:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Pliers

Operation Pliers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article is supported solely by unreliable or Spanish-language sources. Quick Google search shows only forum and blog hits, no reliable sources. Material is too inflamatory to remain unsourced. Recommend Delete Dchall1 03:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep: There are sources which can be added, but they indicate this is notable. Here's one for example. The article does need some work though. - Rjd0060 04:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep for now. English sources are preferred, but WP:RS is not English only. This is a verifiably real and escalating international incident, but I am not sure that what's verifiable passes WP:NOT#NEWS and can't be fit into United States-Venezuela relations.[1] [2] [3] The article has serious POV problems, but it is not all junk. Here's what is verifiable so far: Venezuela says there is a memo about an alleged CIA operation. The authenticity of the memo is disputed. Venezuela threatens to retaliate if something happens. • Gene93k 05:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete:it is based on gossip from blogs or extremely unreliable sources according to wikipedia policy.(Caracas1830 07:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC))
  • Delete No reliable sources. Twenty Years 13:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: This is not based on gossip from blogs, but on official statements of the Venezuelan government. The full memo in Spanish, as the government released it, is available at [4]. It contains names and bank details of CIA operatives and front organisations. Whether or not the memo ends up being genuine, this is a live international incident, not a question of gossip. It has been reported on by press agencies including Prensa Latina and Agencia Bolivariana de Noticias. Yes, they are Spanish-language sources, but how is that a problem? Countermereology 14:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Aporrea.org is not a neutral source; they are a biased, pro-Chávez organization. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The section you referenced is supported by a single source, and I don't think Counterpunch meets the WP:RS criteria. As for the sources in this article, I haven't seen one yet that shows the actual memo. I'm not arguing that Spanish-language sources are not RS, but they are not verifiable. Perhaps if the article were completely reworded to discuss the controversy, this would be acceptable. But as it is, the article starts from the position that the memo is genuine, and the evidence for that is nearly non-existent. Dchall1 15:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • That article is no better sourced than this one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, again I disagree! As noted here [6] in Wikipedia’s article on Counterpunch. The source cited is considered, in my opinion and Harpers and….. as reliable. Shoessss |  Chat  17:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually there is nothing I'm aware of in wikipedia policies which says foreign language sources should be considered unverifiable and many articles use them. Indeed Wikipedia:Verifiability only says that English language sources are preferred if of equal quality and implies that foreign language sources are acceptable when they are not. Of course, foreign language sources make it more difficult for readers to verify the source as the policy notes, but then so do subscription sources, obscure books etc in a slightly different way. Nil Einne 09:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The issue isn't Spanish/English; it's that the Spanish sources are Chávez sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Please see the actual memo in Spanish here: [7]. You can run it through Babelfish, or read it here [8] where someone has already done that. The government claims it will release the original soon. I have changed the article text to make it clear that the memo is an allegation by the Venezuelan government, not that it is an established fact. I have not included a discussion about the 'controversy' because the only controversy I can find is a few comments on right-wing blogs. Major media outlets (including now Xinhua [9]) have reported the Venezuelan government's accusation of having found the memo, but they have not yet covered any controversy, as (to the best of my knowledge) the US has not responded. Thus it seems to me sufficient to simply reword it as I have done to make clear that these are still just allegations; when a disagreement arises, then a 'Controversy' section can be added. Countermereology 16:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Aporrea.org is an extreme pro-Chávez organization, not a reliable independent secondary source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep – This is a developing news story that has been independently reported upon and has resulted in real governmental actions and reactions. Just because it's not in mainstream US coverage does not warrant its classification as "gossip". The document's existence is real, its authenticity is not confirmed, the Venezuelan government's response is real, as in the US government's. It is important to have an impartial source of information that can be updated. Deronde 23:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is a rather serious accusation by the Venezualan government. Whether or not the memo is genuine somewhat irrelevant since what is clear from reliable sources is that the Venezualan goverment has made this accusation Nil Einne 09:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • A "serious" accusation by an administration which currently is governing the country by mandate and controls the media by law is not independent, secondary, or reliable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - after reading the article, I am satisfied this is a notable news story, but the article could do with better (and more neutral) sources, if they are available. Terraxos 12:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • There are no more neutral sources available, and everything that can be said from neutral sources has been said. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep In addition to being published on Counterpunch, a periodical edited by seasoned journalists, this article on Counterpunch is written by J. Petras, a former US social science professor with decades of research expertise in Latin America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NYCJosh (talk • contribs) 00:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge that portion that is supported by the brief mention in the International Herald Tribune into either United States-Venezuela relations or Venezuelan constitutional referendum, 2007. Delete the rest -- there's not enough stuff that's verifiable by reliable sources to build an article. Most importantly, the whole issue is moot since the "plot" was to take affect after the expected Chavez victory in the referendum (which failed to materialize). I think this story will fade away. --A. B. (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Little more then propaganda and conspiracy theories. Spread through gossip, blogs and other very unreliable sources. Plus, there's already a section about this in Venezuelan constitutional referendum, 2007 - James xeno 05:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Question: What do you mean by "conspiracy theories"? Isn't every CIA operation that includes illegal or violent acts a "conspiracy" -- a secret plan by two or more people to act in an illegal or violent way?--NYCJosh (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, (change to Redirect to Venezuelan constitutional referendum, 2007 since topic should be searchable, and all reliable content is already in that article) and objection to Wikipedia being used to further propaganda for which there is no evidence other than biased sources, non-reliable sources, or sourced to the Chávez government, which is not an unbiased or reliable source for this claim. Almost every source used in the article is biased or not reliable, and everything that can be said reliably about this conspiracy theory is already said and sourced to the New York Times in Venezuelan constitutional referendum, 2007. There's nothing else reliable that can be said, and nothing else to merge. It should be noted that the same tactic was used in the events of April 11, 2002, where one source (Wayne Madsen) furthered the Chávez claim of CIA involvement in his (Chávez) resignation following massive protests. Wikipedia should stop being a tool of propagandist goverment administrations who control their state media and press, and strictly adhere to neutral, independent, secondary reliable sources when determining notability of articles. The sourcing of the article, with the exception of the New York Times, consists of aporrea.org (an extreme pro-Chávez group), VenAnalysis (parroted by Eva Golinger in globalresearch, both non-neutral pro-Chávez biased voices), state-run and controlled media, and far-left biased publications. There's nothing here except propaganda. Further, a number of Spanish-language sources were put up that don't come close to verifying the text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment How are any of these things a problem when the article clearly states that these are allegations made by the Venezuelan government, not facts? All of the sources are simply repeating what the government said, and the Aporrea link is reprinting the article exactly as it was released by the government after it was read out on state TV. As Pmanderson says, there is no reason not to have articles on conspiracy theories, as long as they state clearly that they are theories or allegations, rather than established facts. Countermereology (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • They're not a problem at all as long as that is clearly stated; they just aren't reason for an entire article when the only source is biased and propagandized. Must Wiki provide an article for every fringe conspiracy theory Chávez puts out, even if reliable sources devote no more than a paragraph to debunking it? The only reliable things that can be said are already said in another article, and that's not much, unless Wiki is supposed to be a Chávez mouthpiece. A look at PMA's contribs in relation to his appearance here might be instructive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • There is really no need for personal attacks on other users. Regardless of Pmanderson's contributions, his/her point stands that Wikipedia has many hundreds of articles on random conspiracy theories; see List of conspiracy theories. For example, there is even an article on the so-called vast right-wing conspiracy, which consists of nothing else but a discussion of statements made by Hillary Clinton and some pop culture references. Moreover, while you may be strongly convinced that it has been debunked, that is no more an established fact than the allegations themselves. If and when it becomes an established fact, the article can be updated to show this. In any case, I don't think it is true to say that Chávez has created a significant number of conspiracy theories; but if it were the case then they could all be merged into one article. At the moment I don't see how this 'incident' is any less notable than Hillary Clinton talking about a 'vast right-wing conspiracy'. Countermereology (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The "vast right wing conspiracy" (and many others) are worthy of articles because the topics are well covered by many reliable sources and consist of more than propaganda from one government source. And please take care with allegations of personal attacks; as PMA has now acknowledged, he showed up on (what I believe to be his first) Chávez-related discussion only because he checked my contribs after he disagreed with me elsewhere. You may not know me, but I'm not in the habit of making personal attacks or even unsubstantiated allegations; this was a no-brainer, and PMA is wise to not deny it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The article clearly describes its subject as the allegations of the Venezuelan Government, and I see no argument that the Venezuelan Government does not actually allege this. The allegations themselves may well be as spurious as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but we have an article on them, and no-one has ever proposed deleting it. Merge may be possible, but do not delete; we need the redirect for searchers for the term. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Since Sandy makes a point of it, I did see this in her edit history; but I looked because the title (of the proposed merge target) was interesting and commented here because the point was clear. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep : It is not a question of whether the allegations are true or gossip it is a question of notability. I agree the article is not in good shape but the incident has been notable enough to be mentioned by BBC, NY Times, AFP, Herald Tribune and several Spanish language RS. JRSP (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.