Talk:Miguel Piñero/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Entries 2 Response 3 NPOV? 4 Complaint against ADMIN ABUSE OF POWER 5 if I could make some suggestions ... 6 Dali 7 Protection of this page 8 Dispute Officially Over

[edit] Entries

I realize this subject was a hero to some people, but entries like this was are unprofessional. Entries do not refer to first names, but last. Rumors and personal hero worship are not the place here.

Miguel's parents immigrated to New York from Puerto Rico in the early 1950s when he was 4 years old. Miguel, like many Puerto Ricans of that era, had to come face to face with the hardships of discrimination. His father abandoned the family in 1954 and his mother was forced to move into a basement and to live off of welfare. He started his life of crime at an early age. When he was 11 years old he started stealing and was arrested. He was sent to the Juvenile Detention Center in the Bronx. Miguel joined a street gang called "The Dragons" when he was 13 and when he was 14 he was hustling in the streets. Before Miguel had reached his 20 birthday, he was a drug addict and a hardened criminal.

The italicized is all POV, melodramatic, and like a ssoap opera. Facts must be stuck to. Iago Dali 12:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response

I originated the article and it is based on facts. I did my research and went to a lot of trouble to write it. I consider it an insult to my intelligence that you even consider this a hero worship inclined article. If that were so then all of my 295 articles are hero worshiping. It is obvious that you do not know anything about the discrimination that Puerto Ricans had to face and still do and how this factor can contribute to what you become in the future. Yes, he was sent to prison for armed robbery. Yes, his novel "Short Eyes" is based on the relationships among prisoners. Yes, in the Nuyorican cafe Puerto Ricans express there experiences in New York and Piñero considered Miguel Alagrin who co-founded the cafe his best friend. Yes, He was a talented writer and drug addict. All of these are facts and not fiction. As a mini-biography it is essencial that the reader understand these facts. There is nothing melodramatic about his life and much less anything to be worshiped. Do not delete the "See also" which links to the List of famous Puerto Ricans. There is "no" such category as "List of Puerto Ricans" If you want to eliminate a word that you consider POV, O.K. If you want to add information or edit, fine. But do "not" delete sections that will lead to the understanding of the personality of the individual. I have been with Wiki for some time now and my featured article is a testamony as to the fact that I do not indulge in POV's. As an Administrator I believe that I have the experience and knowledge of Wiki policies. If you have any disagreements with what I've stated then you may take it up with the arbiration committee. Otherwise, I hope you have a nice day. Tony the Marine 17:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

No matter how long you've been around, and even being an admin, you do not understand NPOV. Iy is an insult to readers of an encyclopedia to read "Miguel, like many Puerto Ricans of that era, had faced the hardships of discrimination." That is clearly NPOV. You have also de-wikified the entry of subsections. And the link to Famous Puerto Ricans is there, just put it in categories. "He started his life of crime at an early age." is a lurid way to say the same thing the very next sentence does. "The "cafe" is a place where performers can go and cite their poetry about the experiences of being a Puerto Rican in New York.' Thi sis also editorializing. "Hardened criminal" is also POV. I find it amazing how many people do not understand that concept. You bring it to arbitration. Yours is clearly poorly written, you have a personal bias , and the article is not NPOV! Iago Dali 18:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this issue needs to go to arbitration just yet! Looking at the two versions there is on the whole very little difference between them. I think a more productive way of handling this rather than trying to establish who is and is not familiar with NPOV is to list the statements that are disputed, and why they are or are not a problem.

One of the examples brought up here: "Miguel, like many Puerto Ricans of that era, had faced the hardships of discrimination." Iago Dali, you claim that this is not neutral. Perhaps more helpful would be to know how Piñero was discriminated against: what rights or privileges was he denied? Telling us what the circumstances were as a presentation of fact would let the reader know the hardships he faced. Perhaps better than "he was a hardened criminal" would be a mention of what crimes he committed and how often. "He started his life of crime at an early age" replaced perhaps by "His first criminal conviction was at the age of whatever, which was the first of however many throughout his life." The language in Tony's original version is colorful and perhaps needs to be toned down but for the most part you aren't disagreeing over very many statements. I don't think the facts are being disputed, just the way they're presented. Tony, I know you know the policy, but this is also a subject close to your heart and there are a couple places where that shows! Iago Dali does have valid criticisms here.

If you could bring all the statements and issues that are in dispute to this talk page so you could settle on compromise versions rather than go back and forth, it would be helpful. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV?

I've had a read through both versions, and frankly, I don't see what User:Iago Dali's problem is with User:Marine 69-71's version of it. Details are encylopedic and are not POV if true. Just because one does not like the information, or necessarily agree with it, does not make it POV.

Saying that he suffered discrimination like many Puerto Ricans raises two issues. The first is, "Were/are Puerto Ricans often discriminated against?" There is little academic dispute that they have suffered a great deal of discrimination over the years, so it is clearly a plain fact. Facts, by definition, are NPOV. The second issue is whether Piñero himself was a victim of such discrimination. Not every editor would agree with me, but I lean heavily towards the view that unless contrary evidence can be produced, we can assume that he was, as he would have to be on another planet to have escaped what most of his countrymen had to face at the time. I agree with User:Mindspillage, however, that to clarify what kind of discrimination he faced would be helpful.

Reading through the comments on both the talk page and in the edit summaries, I would encourage User:Iago Dali to be a little more cooperative. The "I'm right and that's it" mode of thinking does little to endear people to your ideas.

Until the situation is resolved, I support the protection of the page, to User:Marine 69-71's version. David Cannon 00:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Tony asked me to take a look at this dispute, and I do not know much about the subject, but I agree with David Cannon. Clearly discrimination against Puerto Ricans did exist, and there should be no dispute about this. Explaining specifically how this discrimination affected Piñero would be useful, of course, but it's not in my opinion necessary for NPOV. Andre (talk) 02:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with protecting the page and labeling Iago Dali's edits as vandalism. As someone who edits a lot of literary articles, I've been following Iago's work for a while now. He generally does very good edits. Yes, he can be a bit abrupt but he means well and has done a lot of great work. What really bothers me, though, is that Iago Dali e-mailed me and said that User:Marine 69-71 blocked him from Wikipedia for a day b/c of their disagreements on the article. Supposedly this was for violating the 3 revert rule, but as we can see on this article's history, Iago Dali only reverted twice. In addition, there are serious issues raised when an administrator blocks someone b/c of disagreements over the editing of an article that admin works on. There was no vandalism here, just disagreement on edits. Personally, after looking at both version I think that Iago's is prefered b/c it is less POV and more encyclopedic. I hope this issue can be settled here. If not, I will raise it on the dispute resolution page b/c there appears to be abuse of an admin's power. At a minimum, please unblock Iago Dali--Alabamaboy 01:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I have unblocked Iago Dali and left a note for Tony about it. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Mindspillage, you're right, thank you for unblocking him. I thought I was doing it the proper way, believing that he had violated the three revert rule. I now realize my dumb mistake. However, I would like to know if with the changes I made (some that he suggested from the beginning) if the article seems O.K. now and we can reach a compremise. Tony the Marine 03:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm with Tony on this one - and protecting the page seems a fair short term way of letting some steam. Can an agreed wording be come up with that placates both parties? ...en passant! 08:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for unblocking him. I appreciate your responsiveness. I'd definately try to work this out and see if your two can come to some consensus on the wording. BEst, --Alabamaboy 12:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, the article is a bit better now, but still obviously POV. What steams me is that the NPOV was drilled into me when I started at Wiki, and then to find so many examples of it. What's worse is when admins do it. How anyone can say what I underlined above is not POV is beyond me. The issue is not whether discrimination existed. The article is about a man, and his works- why he was famous. Yes, his crimes matter. But simply state what, where when. What makes someone 'hardened'- this is nebulous POV. I see that the use of his first name has also changed. That's good. These POV and personal touches, and the very framing of Marine's arguments show personal bias.

Also his reaction of banning me. I will follow up with my complaint. And for the record, I think it stinks that there is little recourse when banned. I went looking for other admins to contact and could not. When banned, for real or bad (as in this case) reasons, the page that comes up should have pages accessible for the bannee to protest and state their case. It's bad enough Marine banned me for personal reasons, but all of Wikipedia abandoned me. I had to find a few contacts I could to make my case. Perhaps I am a bit abrupt. But, when I see hypocrisy and POV when I was initially told of NPOV's purpose, it burns me. Marine may worship this subject, but it's just another bad entry to me, when I go to edit it. And I don't mean factually. I never disputed Marine's facts, just the poorly written and biased nature of the article. I copy edit professionally and a poorly wrought piece like this is like nails on a chalkboard.

However, I feel Marine not only showed bias, but obviously flaunted not only Wiki rules in editing, wikiquette, and the 3 revert rule, for personal gain, but he should be censured somehow, for his actions. I think he should be stripped of his adminship, amnd never allowed to abuse power again. Make him a peon, like mere editors such as myself. What he did was out and out censorship, and censorship is a form of intellectual rape. I've even gotten a barnstar for the many edits I've done, from an admin named V._Molotov. I am no vandal, and resent the page's being frozen on that reason. If it is frozen it should be for abuse of power by an admin. There are many times when I've argued a case, and even though I know I was correct grammatically or factually, but have let it drop, because it was not worth the fight. And I thank Alabamaboy for assisting me. There were similar issues over a Shakespeare edit I did. I was not vandalizing the page, simply trimming a page that was FAR over the preferred size. There I called for editors to show some respect for their subject matter. While I don't agree with some subsequent edits, the page is still vastly better than the bloated mess it was. But no one banned anyone. That very act shows the personal bias Marine has for this subject, and as such he should not be allowed to edit it any longer.

I still see some POV, and some poorly structured, rambling sentences that need tightening. Again, I'm not challenfing facts, just POV. Why is it so difficult to achieve NPOV here? The external links exist for pro and con further reading. Entries should be crisp, to the point, and factual. As said, I will follow up with some sort of protest against the Marine's abuses, but the sad fact is that Wikipedia is filled with biased articles. It's one thing for Prez Bush to be controversial, but minor writers? And over POV?

The worst part of the Marine's actions is that such selfishness has the effect of driving away good editors from Wiki. I have seen many edit wars played out on talk pages, and the pattern seems to be too much personal bias is driving articles. I do not care one way or the other on Pinero or Shakespeare, but try to balance out pro or con. To call him a hardened criminal is POV, just as a PC bemoaning of "racism" is. Should every female writer's page bemoan "sexism"? This is silly, and again shows bias. I'm sure all black writers face more bias than Hispanics, but unless there is some reason to digress on it, say a book being banned because of it, it is folly to include such. As well as condescending to readers. As I said on the Shakespeare page, imagine a high school kid researching a term paper. Entries should be as concise as possible, and factual. Conspiracy theories, Political Correctness, and personal bias are ever bit as bad as true vandalism, and worse, because it's harder to correct.

Democracy is a bad thing when it comes to the dissemination of knowledge- that's why teachers have to be licensed. Doctors too. Perhaps that's what Wikipedia needs, some sort of basic editing test. More so than facts, they can be gleaned from many sources, but I doubt if 1% of editors on Wiki could cash a paycheck as a real editor. That's not a slam, just a fact. Now, I shall follow up with my protest against Marine. Iago Dali 12:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

CROSSPOSTED at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Administrators

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Administrators#Complaint_against_ADMIN_ABUSE_OF_POWER

[edit] Complaint against ADMIN ABUSE OF POWER

I am filing a complaint against an admin named http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Marine_69-71. He has blatantly abused his power and banned me illegally under the three revert rule, even though the history page- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miguel_Pi%C3%B1ero&action=history- clearly shows I violated no rules. In fact, This admin actually reverted thrice. I cleaned up a poorly written and edited article on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_Pi%C3%B1ero that the admin wrote. He had a manifest bias toward the subject matter, and blatantly violated NPOV. When i sought to uphold Wiki standards he overstepped his bounds, and banned me simply because he has a personal bias toward the subject matter. Here is the exchange: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Miguel_Pi%C3%B1ero#NPOV.3F

Here is the heart of my complaint: "However, I feel Marine not only showed bias, but obviously flaunted not only Wiki rules in editing, wikiquette, and the 3 revert rule, for personal gain, but he should be censured somehow, for his actions. I think he should be stripped of his adminship, amnd never allowed to abuse power again. Make him a peon, like mere editors such as myself. What he did was out and out censorship, and censorship is a form of intellectual rape. I've even gotten a barnstar for the many edits I've done, from an admin named V._Molotov. I am no vandal, and resent the page's being frozen on that reason. If it is frozen it should be for abuse of power by an admin."

Also, when someone is banned, there needs to be some recourse. As I state there: "And for the record, I think it stinks that there is little recourse when banned. I went looking for other admins to contact and could not. When banned, for real or bad (as in this case) reasons, the page that comes up should have pages accessible for the bannee to protest and state their case. It's bad enough Marine banned me for personal reasons, but all of Wikipedia abandoned me. I had to find a few contacts I could to make my case." I believe that stripping Marine of his adminship will send a message to admins who abuse their power for bias and personal gain. Again: "The worst part of the Marine's actions is that such selfishness has the effect of driving away good editors from Wiki. I have seen many edit wars played out on talk pages, and the pattern seems to be too much personal bias is driving articles." If I must repeat myself at least it's verbatim.

I challenge any competent editor to look at Marine's and my versions of the edit and not say mine was the far superior one. But, that's not the issue I protest. Marine has clearly shown bias in the article, and in abusing his powers. Please let me know if there is a more formal way to protest his abuses. Thank you, and I shall crosspost this on the subjects talk page. Iago Dali 12:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

BTW- as I hope the Marine is stripped of his adminship I want to thank Alabamaboy for assistance, and his help in mediation here and on the Shakespeare page. I think he has the professionalism and cool demeanor to be an admin. Even when I disagree with him he shows courtesy and professionalism. I will now look in to nominating him for am admin post. Iago Dali 12:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] if I could make some suggestions ...

It's clichéd, but both sides have good points to make up thataway (*points*). If Tony's version is good, and Iago's version is good, just imagine how awesome it'd be if the two of you tried to work on this together. Hey, it's the wiki way! If I could just make some suggestions ...

If'n you two are willing to work together, some sort of mutual trust is going to be necessary. After all, WP:AGF isn't working: Iago's calling Tony a POV-pusher, and Tony's calling Iago a vandal! The first step is probably to remove adminship from the equation. We're all equal editors here, right? If either of yers does anything block- or protect-worthy, I'm sure you can rely on a neutral admin to act appropriately. Given the passions flying around this talkpage, it's probably best if you confront the issue as just another user, Tony, and not as an admin. Now, Iago is clearly not a vandal. He's a user involved in an edit war, and no different from any other user involved in an edit war. Edit wars are unqualified Bad Things, but they aren't vandalism. Can we get that straight right away? Nobody likes being called a "vandal". It tends to upset them. But, equally, I can see how accusing another of "intellectual rape" (whatever that is) might be just as upsetting. It's probably best not to refer to one's opponents as rapists, Iago, intellectual or otherwise.

Can we agree to that? Admin tools aren't necessary, and nobody involved is a vandal or rapist? I reckon that'd be a nice start. The next step, of course, is to unprotect the page. There's no vandalism going on, just edit warring, and you're both on the talkpage now, which is an essential step in Not Being An Edit Warrior. If a page is protected, this means only admins can edit – not exactly useful for open Wiki editing, is it? --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Look, I am not accusing Tony of being a bad person, merely posting a poorly edited entry. That's all I tried to do, make it better. As I said in a similar vein over Shakespeare, this man is an artist- a minor one, and for Shakespeareans I am not equating the two men's stature. But, he deserves a better entry than that execrable bimbo Paris Hilton. What amazes me is this all got started by me trying to HELP! Over the past few months since I've edited I have been astounded by the poor quality of many entries. Science and history are ok- although their partisans might differ, but especially the bios of artists, famous people, and the like are systematically degraded.

I was not trying to demean Pinero, merely make his entry better. To be called a vandal over that is insulting, and wrong. This is why I've learned to not just do a single huge edit, but do progressive edits, and clarify each one- rmv photo to save space, etc. As mentioned I copy edit, and I can tell you that over 90% of Wiki articles could never pass muster at a major periodical. I've read many articles, including a Wiki co-founder's, that detail the many problems Wiki has. And they're right. I've looked up side-by-side articles of many things from EnCarta, Brittanica and Wiki, and while we have more info, much of it is redundant, poorly written, and usually superfluous, and sometimes flat wrong. I have endeavored to, and will continue to, try to tighten and professionalize the entries. As I said, I want people who read of Shakes, or this writer, or any other, to not have to wade through reams of non-essential material. And also not POV material. Will some disagree? Sure, but I admit my bias- toward concision and clarity. Most biases are for this or that position, or hero worship, or pushing some PC or philosophic agenda. I do not claim to know all the facts of a particular topic--thus I did not challenge any factual material. But, I damn well know how to get the most out of words, and that was my goal.

Again, I think many editors desire to pad info, and they forget that most editing is redacting and snipping away at pieces. Perhaps this is why literature today is in such poor shape, but need an encyclopedia be? I used the term 'intellectual rape' for a reason; because it's a very PC like term, and that is what infests this article. Bigotry exists, but as said, need Emily Dickinson have a rant about sexism? That said, I think that banning as a means of censorship is wrong- whether here or at large. Look at some of the underlined points I made above. Can you honestly say that's not PC and sermonizing? Not POV? I say these things not to attack Marine, but to attack the poor writing. There is a difference. My attack was on the entry, Marine's was a personal insult and action at me, not my edits. That is a key distinction. However, this is just another example of time wasting silliness, and I'm sure something non-Wikipedians see as the HUGE problem with Wiki-anything.

I will not pursue my complaint if I merely get an apology for the banning and labeling as a vandal. I would suggest fuddlemark take the best from both versions, we quorum on it, and I can live with the results. I think that is reasonable. Iago Dali 16:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dali

Dali, I know that you are well intentioned and by looking at your contributions, a hard working editor who is an asset to Wikipedia. When I blocked you, it was because I truly believed that you violated the three revert rule and not for personal reasons. I asked User:Mindspillage to mediate because she is the type of person who will tell you (me) things to your face like it or not. My block was improper and I publicly recognized it as my dumb mistake and thanked Mindspillage for unblocking you. I believed that you constently vandalized the article by deleting certain facts, however I did come to the conclution that you did have a point and made some changes to eliminate anything that may be considered POV. Sure, things got a little heated up and I felt insulted by the term "Hero Worshiping" and of being accused of being a poor writer and you felt the sameway about being called a "Vandel". However, I think with the article as it now looks, we can put this dispute to an end. Therefore, I extend my hand to you in Wilipedian friendship. Tony the Marine 18:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

(P.S. May I suggest that you take a look at this article Anna Vissi?)

Thank you. I reiterate, my concern was not personal, but on the article. I'm glad the Puerto Rican suffering angle is gone, because while Pinero was PR, he was known for his art. This entry exists for that reason, same as the film. Were he a janitor no one would care. It was his art- good or bad, not his ethnicity, that was the crux of his fame.

Several suggestions: 1) In career, paragraphs 2-5, I feel, should be one paragraph, since this is all a recitation of his individual works, goals, etc. But I would put para 4 the last thing in that combined para, for then all the writing- his promary fame, is together, and the acting, which is secondary, is at the end. Also paras 6-7 I would combine, for this concerns his death and aftermath/legacy. Most entries combine these. Were this entry much larger the two might be separate paras, or even entries, like Shakespeare. Singular sentences as paras, esp when related, seem sloppy, and an attempt to make the piece seem longer than it is. Also, aesthetically, I think visually it looks better. 2) I would still merge the SEE ALSO and CATEGORIES. Many times I find entries with the exact same lists replicated. If PR writers are in categories than why not famous PRs? I know as a computer viewer that the contents boxes can sometimes be needlessly complex with subcategories that overwhelm, and I always try to get the categories to as few as poss- a Life, Career, Biblio, and Links. That's not just aesthetics but user-friendliness.

As for this singer, she may be gorgeous, but all those photos? I would keep just the top headshot- not the album but 2nd one, combine SEE ALSO into Categories, break up that Monster paragraph, and then you can start in on redundancies, POV, and the like. Thanks. Iago Dali 19:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Protection of this page

I was quite concerned to see that this page had been protected without any history of vandalism - page protection is absolutely a last resort to deal with persistent vandalism, and I've unprotected it for this reason. I'm especially concerned that the protection was carried out by Tony the Marine, who had written much of the article. There always needs to be a very good reason for a page to be protected, and I can't see any such reason here - frankly, I think Tony has some explaining to do. Enchanter 21:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute Officially Over

I would like to declare this dispute officially over since both parties have come to an understanding and shaked cyber-hands. I would like to thank User: Mindspillage for serving as mediator. Tony the Marine 23:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Drat! I was JUST about to comment... sorry Tony for not replying as soon as you'd like... but still, good going. Linuxbeak