Talk:Nelson Antonio Denis

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

Merge[edit]

Dear Russ,

Thank you for your note.

Many people research Mr. Nelson Denis under both names, which is why I created two articles.

I do not know how to re-direct from one name to another, and updating two articles is a great burden...

So I really appreciate your help with this!

If this article will be merged, could we please merge Nelson Denis into Nelson Antonio Denis?

In other words, could we please have Nelson Antonio Denis as the dominant article, and have Nelson Denis re-direct into Nelson Antonio Denis?

Nelson Antonio Denis was, is, and continues to be, the complete and proper name of this individual.

This includes the time period when Nelson Antonio Denis was in the New York State Assembly.

Again, it would be greatly helpful if Nelson Denis could be re-directed to the Nelson Antonio Denis article, so that any researcher (journalist, student, etc.) would not miss the main Wikipedia entry.

Thank you, and I really appreciate your help.

MBernal615 (talk) 04:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the {{db-histmerge}} to Nelson Denis requesting an admin to fix what appears to be a cut a paste move from this article to Nelson Denis.  – ukexpat (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Antonio Denis[edit]

If Nelson Antonio Denis is retained as the dominant name, and Nelson Denis re-directed to it, it would be much appreciated.

Nelson Antonio Denis is the proper name -- the name used before, during, and after his time in the New York State Assembly.

Thank you for your assistance.

MBernal615 (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google Hits (Nelson Antonio Denis)[edit]

Please note this entry from another editor (an Administrator), that supports the use of Nelson Antonio Denis.

  • 22:30, 24 February 2009 R'n'B (Talk | contribs) m (14,825 bytes) (to->from; Google hits suggest that he is generally known by his full name, including middle)

The above-cited entry, appears in the edit history of Nelson Antonio Denis.

Thank you,

MBernal615 (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Antonio Denis[edit]

Dear R'n'B:

I saw your editing recommendations for the Nelson Antonio Denis article.

In-line citations will be placed into the article.

With respect to Peacock Words -- could you please help by listing the peacock words you found, so that they may all be addressed? Otherwise we may miss one, or several, which you feel are important.

Thank you for your assistance, and we'll get to work on it!

Regards, MBernal615 (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Antonio Denis (Peacock Terms)[edit]

Russ,

I provided in-line citations for the Nelson Antonio Denis article.

When you get a chance, could you please inform me of the Peacock Terms that you think should be addressed?

This would help me, so that I don't miss any PT's which you think are significant. I want to make sure I address all of them.

Thank you for your assistance!

Regards,

MBernal615 (talk) 07:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Antonio Denis -- Peacock Term removal[edit]

Russ,

I did not receive feedback from you regarding the Peacock Terms, but I went ahead and identified/removed what could be construed as PT's from the Nelson Antonio Denis article.

Please review, and thank you for your assistance.

Regards,

MBernal615 (talk) 02:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You, Russ[edit]

Russ,

Thank you for your review of Nelson Antonio Denis.

The page is stronger now; the in-line references a big help.

Regards,

MBernal615 (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article review[edit]

MBernal615 requested that I review the Nelson Antonio Denis article and I have done so. Before I post my comments I would like to make it clear that I no particular interest in the article and in Nelson Antonio Denis political career.

1.I removed the COI and POV tags, because after reading and reviewing the article I could not find any evidence of such. However, I would like to point out that the section "Vote For Me!" seems more like a movie review section pushing for readers to see the film and should be toned down to the basics of the film.
2.I cleaned up and merged some of the lone sentences into related paragraphs as it should be.
3. The following sentence: "This use of CRA and HMDA legislation, combined with computer census tract analysis, is now the model for CRA advocacy throughout the United States." needs a citation from a verifiable reliable source.
4. Eliminate any sources which are personel websites.
5. Very important, eliminate and delete the image which shows the cover of the movie "Vote For Me!". This is a copyright violation since the copyright to the cover of the movie belongs to the producers and not to the person who my have taken a photo of the cover.
Take care, Tony the Marine (talk) 20:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for your careful review and editing. It is always greatly appreciated.

MBernal615 (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been edited by the subject or someone very close to him MBernal appears to be the subject or he is at least adding statements to pictures claiming to be the subject, so the templates stay until the investigations have concluded and I have had the time to have a good lok at it. Off2riorob (talk) 08:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nelsondenis248. MBernal615 was blocked as a sock or meatpuppet of User:Nelsondenis248. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Tags[edit]

The Nelson Antonio Denis article contains 31 sources and 54 in-line references to those sources.

These news sources include The New York Times, The New York Daily News, The Boston Globe, Albany Times Union, New York Newsday, and El Diario/La Prensa.

The article has existed for over a year and has received editing and input from numerous editors. The fact that one editor originated the article (a definitional necessity), worked hard on it, and contributed verifiable sources to it (The New York Times, Daily News, Boston Globe, etc.) is not a unique occurrence, and not a violation of Wikipedia policy.

This article is carefully sourced, with authoritative news sources for its content (please see above), and it is not an autobiography. The tags on this article are not constructive, because they do not relate to the merits of the article.

In addition, these tags were removed by the Administrator Tony the Marine. Subsequent to that removal, the tags were replaced by the same editor.

For these reasons, I believe the tags should be removed, and the judgment of an Administrator should not be ignored.

MBernal615 (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Award claims[edit]

These are uncited. so I have removed them from the article

Birthplace[edit]

birthplace, am I missing something here this article says "In the years since he left the Council, Mr. Powell has worked most recently with the Federal Emergency Management Agency as a disaster assistance field worker. Immediately after his Council term ended, he turned to political consulting and real estate development in Puerto Rico, where he was born and raised." and I cahanged the articlet o this position and was reverted, am I missing something? Off2riorob (talk) 01:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited claims[edit]

Here is some detail that imo will be almost impossibe to find supporting citations for so I have moved it from the article, please readd them with citations. Off2riorob (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Community service[edit]

Before and after his political years, Denis continued to advocate for his community.[citation needed]

  • Over a period of twelve years the Denis Legal Clinic provided free legal assistance to indigent New Yorkers. [citation needed]
  • He fought for seniors and working families on Community Board #11, and on the boards of Boriken Neighborhood Health Center and Casabe Housing for the Elderly. [citation needed]

Uncited works[edit]

moved form the article, feel free to cite and replace. Off2riorob (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Denis wrote over 300 editorials for El Diario La Prensa.
  • Wrote eleven feature length screenplays, three plays, and is an award-winning filmmaker.
  • Co-founded the Shaman Repertory Theatre in East Harlem.
  • As a 1984 Fellow at the Walter Kaitz Foundation, he wrote and directed television commercials for the Heritage Cablevision network.
  • In 1987 he received the New York Foundation for the Arts (NYFA) Fellowship in Film, and in 1988 he won the New York State Council on the Arts (NYSCA) Film Production Award.
  • In addition to VOTE FOR ME!, his film HOUND DOG is a film festival favorite.
  • His humor blog PuertoRicanGuy.com chronicles the misadventures of Leo Machuchal, and receives over 100,000 visitors per week.

Article issues[edit]

I just stumbled upon this article, which has multiple issues, chiefly peacock terminology and extravagant, grandiose claims for which there is a lack of verifiable, third party sourcing. There are footnotes pointing to various legislative publications, but I think what's needed is sourcing independent of the New York State legislature. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In looking further at this article and the sourcing, I'm deeply disturbed by the imbalance and omissions in this article. A glance at the Times site indicate that he ran unsuccessfully for public office after leaving the legislature, and received some coverage for that. This is not mentioned in the article at all, and instead this functions as a kind of extended resume for this ex-politician, with extremely dubious claims that make this generally read, at least prior to my recent changes, like a campaign pamphlet. I've tried to address the most egregious prob;ems with this article, but it remains a mess. The principal problem is that this is not a neutral biography. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree, there were previous conflict of interest issues . One user was blocked and socks appeared also. I am from the UK so I am a little in the dark but I agree with your comments exactly. Presently the citations also need thinning out and formatting to see when is actually independent and worth keeping. Off2riorob (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have reinstated the COI and autobiography tags, based on the sockpuppet blocks. I mistakenly stated in an edit summary that the tags were removed by a sockpuppet. That's not true. However, they were removed prior to the blocks of a principal contributor to the article, the basis of which was that the editor was either a sock or meatpuppet of Denis. That determination was based on edits to this article and the article of an adversary of Denis. The article is a total mess currently, and perhaps should be stubbified. Also there is puffery relating to this person in other articles, such as East Harlem. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed paragraphs that concern claims that are unsubstantiated by references provided. All the references show is that Denis spoke at hearings on bank mergers. The article needs to be started from scratch using only verifiable sources. He was head of a community corporation, he ran for office again and failed, etc. etc. When I have a chance I'll try to expand this article with material available in independent third party sources only. Also there is an excessive reliance on the "Vote for Me" website, including links to copies of newspaper articles that raise copyright issues. I've removed. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is time the article was improved. Try to save all the details with the best cites. Off2riorob (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I have a chance I'm going to flesh out the article with verifiable sources. This was a one-term assemblyman, so there is unlikely to be much of any actual sourcing. We also need to be mindful of the fact that this article was majorly written by a sock of a block-evading user, and that all such contributions are subject to reversion. I don't for a moment accept on good faith any claims made regarding the sources that I can't verify, especially given the misrepresentation of the sources I could verify. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No "Consensus" or true Discussion -- Page Restored[edit]

This article was edited down egregiously over a period of two hours, after a "discussion" between only two editors. Two hours is no period of time in which to generate any editorial consensus.

The article was restored by an Administrator, and then reverted within ten minutes by one of those two editors.

I am restoring the page, as initially restored by the Administrator. I also suggest further Administrator and/or editor review of this issue, before the article is savagely edited again.

For a view of the initial page (which I am restoring) you may go to December 12, 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.39.35 (talk) 02:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please address the issues raised above and do not edit war over the requisite changes to this article. This article was created by a sockpuppet of an indefinitely banned editor, and for that reason alone the article needs to be stubbed. Even if there were no other issues, and they are multiple and egregious. See WP:SOCK. ScottyBerg (talk) 02:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edit war is being waged by you, who have reverted an Administrator after a "consensus" between two editors over a period of two hours. You are now engaging in an ad hominem attack on another editor, rather than addressing the fact that you eliminated dozens of newspaper references and fully-annotated material, then claimed this was neutral editing. NPOV was embodied in all those newspaper articles and direct citations, which you eliminated over a period of two hours.

Your own user page cites the Triangle hierachy of good-faith discussion and disagreement. I believe we should try to adhere to it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.39.35 (talk • contribs)

The newspaper articles did not support the cited text, and the article is an unabashed autobiography written by a sock of an editor associated with the subject matter. That was substantiated by WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Nelsondenis248/Archive. Given the bad faith socking and misrepresentation of sources that has plagued this article, unverifiable sourcing can and should not be accepted on good faith. ScottyBerg (talk) 02:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lead and the section concerning the CRA are especially problematic. They contend that this article that this first-term assemblyman:

  • "ended the "Berlin Wall of Bank Lending" to minority communities throughout New York, and created the national model for CRA advocacy."
  • "persuaded banks to double their lending to home owners and small business persons in East Harlem, the Bronx, and other distressed areas throughout New York State."
  • "cemented these gains by invoking the 1975 Federal Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), and conducting a census tract study of CRA compliance in the 68th Assembly District and other underserved communities.[6][25][8] This use of CRA and HMDA legislation, combined with computer census tract analysis, is now the model for CRA advocacy throughout the United States."

The only source in the article that are accessible in the Internet does not support this contention. Unverifiable articles/sources cited by the sock who wrote this article cannot be accepted in good faith. If better sourcing cannot be obtained, these extravagant claims will be removed. ScottyBerg (talk) 02:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The New York Times, The Daily News, El Diario La Prensa, are not unverifiable sources.
  • Official New York State publications are not unverifiable sources.
  • Eliminating dozens of newspaper citations over a period of two hours, after a brief exchange with one other editor, is neither "discussion" nor "consensus." If you can proceed point-by-point, and show which newspaper articles did not support the cited text, then other editors can respond in a full and constructive manner. Please take the time and do this, to enable a strong article and a straightforward, constructive editing process. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.39.35 (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You keep repeating yourself. No verifiable sources support the extravagant claims in this article. The only one available online, the Daily News article, did not support the claims made in this article. Articles not verifiable, such as so-called "New York state publications", cannot be accepted on good faith as substantiating the claims in the article. They are cited in the article as "New York State Assembly Publications, 68th Assembly District" which are an obvious reference to handouts published by Denis himself. What are required are independent secondary sources independent of Denis.
The New York Times endorsement from 1992 [1]says only "Mr. Denis, a former editorial writer for El Diario/La Prensa, offers valid criticism of the Legislature and is well versed in education and economic development." The 2000 article [2]does not even mention him!
  • You missed page 2 of the New York Times endorsement of Mr. Denis in 2000. It states: "Mr. Denis, an articulate speaker, has made an admirable effort trying to get banks to give more loans in his area. Despite going along with Assembly leaders to repeal the city's commuter tax, Mr. Denis has since shown his independence and worked for a more open process in the Legislature. We endorse Mr. Denis in the primary."

The URL for this is: http://www.nytimes.com/2000/08/31/opinion/endorsements-for-the-legislature.html?pagewanted=2 (then scroll to page 2)

Please do not misrepresent sources. If the claims made in this article cannot be substantiated by articles available online, where they can be independently verified, they will be removed. Citations added by socks are not to be accepted in good faith. As I pointed out previously, this entire article is subject to close scrutiny, or perhaps even deletion, since it was created by a sock of a permabanned editor in evasion of his ban. Feel free to take the time to locate those articles, and post links on the talk page. In the interim I've removed obvious puffery, toned down the extravagant language in the article, and updated. However, the article's serious issues remain and the article needs to be stubified. ScottyBerg (talk) 03:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article in the Times from 2000 not previously cited in the article[3] not mention any of those claims, further substantiating my suspicion that they are pure puffery. ScottyBerg (talk) 03:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the updating and removal of puffery I've removed a lengthy list of radio appearances, per WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." ScottyBerg (talk) 04:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You missed page 2 of the New York Times endorsement of Mr. Denis in 2000. It states: "Mr. Denis, an articulate speaker, has made an admirable effort trying to get banks to give more loans in his area. Despite going along with Assembly leaders to repeal the city's commuter tax, Mr. Denis has since shown his independence and worked for a more open process in the Legislature. We endorse Mr. Denis in the primary."

The URL for this is: http://www.nytimes.com/2000/08/31/opinion/endorsements-for-the-legislature.html?pagewanted=2 (then scroll to page 2)

It has been restored to the article in two places. This is the only secondary source that makes any reference to his effort in the assembly to increase loans to the community. I have removed unverifiable primary sources and text not supported by the sourcing provided. Most of the newspaper articles cited re the CRA claims were from 1995, predating his term in office.ScottyBerg (talk) 15:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Improperly sourced text[edit]

I've removed text that is either unsourced, where the sourcing doesn't support the text, or sourced to unverifiable primary sources. If reliable secondary sources are available, please post links on this page so that they can be restored. Claims of "keeping people from being evicted" and "increasing bank lending" are typical political rhetoric and simply cannot be attributed to unverifiable "assembly documents" that were probably cranked out by Denis himself (if in fact they support the claims made in the article, and we have no way of knowing). The articles provided as sources for these claims predated his term in office, and the only one available online (NY Daily News re the Chase merger) was from 1995 and did not even remotely support the text, even with the puffery removed. The only positive reference (apart from negative campaign rhetoric) to Denis' assembly record in any secondary source was the 2000 Times article, which only says he tried, not that he succeeded. I presume the Times endorsement would have made that point if it was factual. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've also considerably expanded the article with text on his political career and previous runs for office. The article previously was nothing more than heaps of unverifiable puffery about his assembly career, with nothing about his well-covered previous and subsequent runs for office. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page review[edit]

This page suffered from extreme page ownership for over one year. Sourced material was deleted, citations were ignored and removed, photographs with OTRS tickets were repeatedly deleted, entire sections of the page were deleted. Most of this was done over a period of just two hours, in a very transparent meatpuppet fashion. The editor responsible for this was blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet. I respectfully ask for this page to be reviewed. Some of the photos that were deleted, plus a new one, are avaliable at [File:Momandme.png], [File:DENIS_PHOTO-2.jpg] and [File:DENIS_PHOTO-3.jpg]. The copyright permissions for these photos were sent to OTRS. Thank you for your consideration of this page. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page was reviewed[edit]

I encountered this page while conducting research into East Harlem history and politics. As a lifelong resident of East Harlem, I found this subject interesting. Yes there were some serious problems here. I restored a bit of the prior text, added cites/pix/media etc. The pix correlated well to the text, helped the page, so I included them. NPOV argued in favor of including and amplifying the Latin Kings material, even though "not favorable" to Denis. The page is more complete now, and certainly more balanced. In the future, meat/sockpuppet/sleeper accounts (or bad faith editing) will be handled accordingly.Xela Zeugirdor (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

I want to thank Xela Zeugirdor and Materialscientist for their assistance with this page. I can tell that you both spent time on it, and the page is truly improved. I greatly appreciate it. Here's to continued good editing.

Nelsondenis248 (talk) 05:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arb Com review[edit]

A review of this article was performed by AGK and additional members of the Arbitration Committee (Arb Com). Please note the following statement from AGK, (which was posted on AGK's talk page) in regard to that review:

  • We've looked at the article in closer detain, and in reality it appears to be fine, so I've unprotected the article. However, I don't think we've written back to the complainant yet. AGK [•] 11:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC) [4]

Accordingly, the opinion of AGK and the Arb Com review, should be respected. In particular, the edits of a banned user (ScottyBerg) should not be re-introduced to this page.

The re-instatement of those edits will be a clear instance of bad faith and disruptive editing. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My Opinion[edit]

It is my opinion that images and content that are within Wikipedia policy should not be removed.

Images which are uploaded in accordance to Wikipedia and which have been granted an OTRS permit should remain in the article unless they are deleted by commons. I know of some cases where an image has been deleted because of some mistake committed by the uploader and that has been re-introduced after the proper corrections have been made. If a user has a problem with an image in an article, he should take up the issue with the person who holds the permit and OTRS who granted the permit. Only if the image is deleted, should any mention of said image be removed.

Content which has the proper citation and sources must not be removed per policy. I have seen all to often that content is removed from the articles of political figures without any proper justification. This is not a political forum and we are not remove nor add content because we like or dislike a person because of his/her political believes. If the content is properly sourced then it should remain in the article unless the editor can proof that the content is false.

Please, let's respect the articles of those who are living and those who are not. Every article has it's own "talk page" where issues can be discussed before we take it upon ourselves to make changes which may not be the proper ones and within policy. That is my opinion. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lending hand[edit]

I've removed sources which could not be verified and checked those which could. I re-added some External links which I believe to be justified. Expansion with verifiable references are more then welcomed. Antonio Martin (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was wondering what to do with those. Though I do have an issue with the change you made to the lede. Denis didn't make the Community Reinvestment Act, it existed long before him. He could have certainly invoked it in regard to the banks, however, that statement in the body of the article is linked to another one of those unverifiable references. I tried a google news search to find some other source to use, but I only found a possibly usable Newsday source, except its payment locked, so I can't see what it says. But, regardless, the lede should be changed. SilverserenC 00:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Self-revert[edit]

I inadvertently made an edit to this page, and reverted it immediately. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 04:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page ownership[edit]

A pattern of page ownership may be developing on this page. Relevant, sourced and cited material (New York Times,Daily News, Boston Post) has been repeatedly removed.

The material was characterized as "promotional," when it is directly relevant to the material under discussion.

The edit summary for this sourced and cited material ("white space and citations") was characterized as "misleading," yet the cited material, citations and cleaner white space were exactly the edit that was performed.

In addition, please note the entry on this Talk Page from February 7, 2012. As you can see, this page was reviewed by AGK and several members of Arb Com -- and it all appeared fine to them, with no complaint about "promotion" in the article. This is virtually the same article that existed three days ago. Now after two years, with no problems or controversy on this page, the article is suddenly deemed "promotional" and the slightest edits are being reverted - edits that are sourced and cited.

The recent reversions were performed by some conscientious, clearly hard-working people (Bbb23 and Drmies). This is clear from their editing history. But fair is fair, so please consider this concern.

108.27.199.113 (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The entry from 2012 is old and the link is no longer valid, so I can't see what happened then or the background. There've been allegations of editing by people affiliated with the subject. Are you? Your post above is a remarkably well-written comment by someone whose only edits have been to this article and who is from NY and yet apparently doesn't have a registered account.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Bbb23 for your prompt response. Nelson Denis visited my school on graduation day in 1998. I have not seen or spoken to him since then, 16 years ago. I don't really know him, but he did some pretty good work in East Harlem.
The entry from February 2012 is available, here it is: [5]. I found it very helpful, and thanks again. 108.27.199.113 (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see the two edits by AGK and the edit summaries, but that doesn't help much I'm afraid to understand what actually happened.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More precise[edit]

A recent edit added added a large amount of material to this article, with no corresponding entry on this talk page. The edit contained a dead Wiki link, some OR (original research) from a personal website (ie, not a legitimate news source), and a bit of POV that was probably not intentional, but nonetheless skewed the neutrality of the article. I addressed these and provided a detailed edit summary: "provided citation; trimmed lead; added Wiki links; provided info requested in a banner; eliminated dead Wiki link, and OR from a website." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.27.87.175 (talk) 03:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • After making a rather minor edit to this article I took the opportunity to read your recent edit and summary, and I have come to the conclusion that they are problematic. To begin with, in your edit summary you state that you removed a dead link that was inserted by editor Ahnoneemoos when in fact this editor made no such addition. The only dead link that you removed was one that you yourself had inserted, and that occurred after you made the comment above. As to the question of violating WP:OR, that’s not exactly the case. While originally sourced to Pedro Aponte Vázquez’s personal blog, the observations by Aponte Vázquez were in fact first published in the newspaper Claridad in an article titled ¿Guerra contra quién? on July 13 of this year. As such, they can be reliably, and acceptably, added as long as they are sourced to Claridad and not Aponte Vázquez’s personal blog. As for your allegation that the edit by Ahnoneemoos was a “bit of POV that was probably not intentional” but “skewed the neutrality of the article”, I do not concur. The edit was (or can be) properly sourced, was not over the top, and provided necessary balance by presenting opposing views on the scholarly merit of the book. If anything, I found your edit to be a deliberate attempt to mitigate the fallout of what might be construed by some as negative commentary. An example of this can be taken from the manner in which you portray the article written by the doctoral student, Miguel A. Santiago Ríos. In his article he openly questions the veracity of chapter 14 dealing with Waller Booth while accusing Denis of committing “unforgiveable errors and omissions.” Your edit would have us believe that Santiago Ríos simply felt that there should have been yet “more references” in a book that is already teeming with them. Lastly, there is no requirement that edits must be accompanied by a “corresponding entry on this talk page” (although I would readily agree that they can be helpful). I hope you’ll forgive me, but I find it more than a touch peculiar that you complain that the registered user Ahnoneemoos “added a large amount of material” with no comment on the talk page, but you seem to find acceptable these two much larger edits[6][7], added to the same section, left by two anonymous editors which also left no comments here. I will say that I am glad you added the reply from Denis to the article. Perhaps the article could benefit from a quote or two from that reply? Hammersbach (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your good-faith observations. However, regarding the edit summary: I disagree that the edit summary is “problematic.” Here is what the edit summary stated: (provided citation; trimmed lead; added Wiki links; provided info requested in a banner; eliminated dead Wiki link, and OR from a website). Let us review those in order:

I did provide a citation. I did trim the lead and added Wiki Links. I did provide the info requested in a banner, along with a live citation for that info. I also eliminated a dead Wiki Link (please note, that a dead WIKI LINK is a link to an article in Wikipedia. When said article does not exist, you get red text like this). Finally, I eliminated OR from a non-qualifying personal website.

The edit summary is thus not “problematic,” since I performed exactly the edits that are itemized in the summary. Regarding the OR from a personal website: the OR language which was added to this article, came from a personal web site of a man named Pedro Aponte Vasquez. Here is the LINK to that web site, as given in the initial edit: [8]. Again, that is a personal web site, not a news source. As you can see, its date of publication is May 31, 2015.

You then stated this was “first published” by an outfit named Claridad on July 13, 2015. This is inaccurate, since May 31 precedes July 13. So the first date of "publication" is this man's personal web site.

But in addition, the Claridad web site shows only this: [9]. On this page, we only see a one-sentence summary of an article. This one-sentence summary contains none of the language that was cited in the Wikipedia edit. We have no way of knowing what this article says, unless we pay a subscription fee to see the contents. Wikipedia editors are volunteers, and they are not forced to pay a subscription fee in order to verify some quoted material. For this reason, this alleged “quote” is OR unless it can be found in a bona fide news source without having to pay a subscription fee…because we have no way of knowing what this article states, without paying the subscription fee.

Regarding the other article by a “doctoral student named Miguel Santiago Rios,” that article is written in Spanish. This poses no problem for me; I am fluent in the language. I read the article and did not see a reference to “unforgiveable errors and omissions.” I did however see a reference to “extraordinary and incredible assertions,” so I added that to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.27.83.118 (talk) 03:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are confusing {{dead link}} with WP:REDLINK. These are two different concepts, please make sure you understand their differences. Red links are more than fine on Wikipedia and actually encouraged as they signal that an article that doesn't exist is needed. Denis' work warrants a stand alone article as it fulfills our WP:GNG guidelines. Removing red links for notable articles is frowned upon on Wikipedia.
Regarding Santiago Ríos, I too do not have a problem with the article's language either. But it seems you missed what the author said. My edit never mentioned "unforgiveable errors and omissions" so I do not know where you are pulling that from. My edit did mention the following which was expressed by Santiago Ríos in his third paragraph, last sentence:

Sus aserciones no están respaldadas por evidencia y en demasiadas ocasiones no hay referencia alguna.

This translates to:

His [Denis'] assertions are unsupported by evidence and too often there is no reference at all.

This is the exact quote used on the edit. Why did you remove it I do not know.
Finally, using Aponte Vázquez's personal website is also fine on Wikipedia. This is what we call a self-published source. Using self-published sources is fine as long as the author is "an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Aponte Vázquez is a renowned journalist that has published six books, one of them about Albizu (source). You can read more about his notability by reading his mini-bio at List of Puerto Rican writers. Having said that, in this particular case we can use his blog as a reliable source because he is talking about Denis' work, not about Denis himself.
By the way, your IP resolves to an address in New York City. You might want to register and post under a username so that we do not know where you are posting from.
HTH,
—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 04:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clear up some confusion, the phrase "unforgivable errors and omissions" comes from a sentence that I pulled from the article by Santiago Ríos that reads:

Les presento una muy breve muestra de dicho análisis de lo que a mi juicio y a partir de la mejor evidencia disponible, son errores y omisiones imperdonables en el capítulo 14, que podrían inducir a error al lector.

My Spanish is not as good as everyone else's here, but I translate that as:

I present a very brief sample of said analysis of what, in my opinion and based on the best available evidence, are unforgivable errors and omissions in Chapter 14 which could mislead the reader.

(emphasis mine) Hammersbach (talk) 23:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unbalanced View of War Against All Puerto Ricans[edit]

The War Against All Puerto Ricans section of this article feels unbalanced. A lot of weight is given to the positive reviews given by media outlets, but way less weight is given to the controversy regarding the factual-ness of the book. The concerns expressed by Luis A. Ferrao and other historians merit more looking into, in order to give the readers of this article a truer understanding of the value of Denis' book. As just two examples of different "facts" proposed by Denis in his book that have proven to be incorrect:

  1. José Maldonado - In his book Denis states that Maldonado was the owner of Salón Boricua (a barbershop) and that he died in it after being injected cancer by Dr. Cornelius P. Rhoads. His death certificate[1], however, states that he died in Toa Baja (presumably his home) and had been a government employee his later years.
  2. Captain Astro - Denis provides no references at all for this "character" (a procurement officer for the 65th Infantry Regiment who sold José Maldonado food and guns for the revolutionary effort) and I haven't been able to find any evidence of his existence. Even in the FBI Files published thanks to the FOIA, there is no mention of Astro when discussing weapons procurement in the Nationalist Party.[2] (Look in pages 158-164).

Given that the reliability of this book as a source of information is and should be in question, the segment should reflect that to a greater extent; greater than just a mention of Luis A. Ferrao and a barrage of praise from media outlets. This book is being cited as a reliable source on other Wikipedia articles and may mislead readers if they take the book at face value.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.58.160 (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Multiour (talk) 20:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Death Certificate of José Maldonado y Román". FamilySearch. Retrieved 27 August 2017.
  2. ^ "Nationalist Party of Puerto Rico (NPPR)". Archive. FBI. Retrieved 28 August 2017.

Overzealous bot[edit]

Unfortunately, your bot removed not only one video link. It removed THE ENTIRE SECTION along with all the FULLY SOURCED MATERIAL.

Please calibrate your bot, so that it removes only the link which your bot "thinks" may be inappropriate...without removing THE ENTIRE SECTION, COMPLETE WITH TEXTS, CITATIONS, AND FULLY SOURCED MATERIAL.

Thank you.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nelson_Antonio_Denis&oldid=1206933990"