Talk:Gonzalo Lira/Archive 3

Blogging
Morning How long was blogging for, I wonder if the source says so.  scope_creep Talk  11:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC) about Ukraine? a few months maybe. About the same for his economic forecasts, is my impression. They were all pretty whack-a-doodle and all failed to come true. Manosphere stuff might have gone on for a couple of years. I can keep an eye out for dates as I go through again. i just noticed that the Metro source seems to use the word "Nazi" as a synonym for "Ukrainian, could you check me on that? i think Google Translate works on that one -- it's the clippings embedded in the page where it doesn't, like the million dollar man source. Thanks Elinruby (talk) 11:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Which source is that, one of the ones scope creep removed? Anything that uses Nazi to mean Ukrainian definitely should not be cited here.—Ermenrich (talk) 13:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There are four mentions of Nazis in the article, all of which make clear to me that this was what Lira/Putin tried to sell people as versions of Ukrainians, none treat those claims that they are Nazis as fact. JSwift49 14:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It replaced Cyprus Mail. I said it was a better piece of journalism because clearly some research was done, vs the Cyprus Mail piece. It is possible that I missed the nuance JSwift49 is talking about; take a look. Google translate works on the page Elinruby (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think something in favor of the article as well is that it brings in an expert, "Felipe González, director of the Observatory of Politics and Social Networks of the U. Central", who says “It is very difficult to think about the veracity of the data in a conflict. There is a lot of first-hand information, because people record it, but we know that people spread information because it has emotional content; therefore, almost no one verifies the source.” It's not a propaganda piece by any means JSwift49 19:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Possible that I read too fast. I'll come back to this
 * Elinruby (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Removal of reliable sources per WP:CITEKILL
Hi, given the compmlaints from several editors that there were not enough reliable sources on this article, plus the contentious nature of the material, I don't see how removing NYT, Sky News, TF1 sources etc is justified by WP:CITEKILL, two sources per claims is generally fine and I would argue desirable.

(Also the NYT article calls him a 'commentator'). JSwift49 14:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No, thats not the case at all. The article is excessively referenced by all standards. There have various discussions about it and it always comes to same standard which is one per. Its always been like that. If your doing it for everything, which is very easy to fall into, I do it myself, you eventually get pulled up for it. I've been pulled up for it in the past.  One source for being a commentator is WP:NPOV and is undue, although it is good strong sources, generally  multiple people in secondary sources over a very long period of time, sayin he is commentator is fine. They're is a spectrum, when you do GA reviews you see it. He commentated, but he wasn't a commentator. You would need to show more.   scope_creep Talk  14:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand where you're coming from, but having read the WP:CITEKILL article, it says "A good rule of thumb is to cite at least one inline citation for each section of text that may be challenged or is likely to be challenged, or for direct quotations. Two or three may be preferred for more controversial material or as a way of preventing linkrot for online sources, but more than three should generally be avoided"
 * What I understood that to mean is, since this is controversial material, two sources per line are good, and we shouldn't remove reliable sources. If there are three sources, that would work for a line such as "His content was described as disinformation and propaganda" where multiple sources are needed to verify that claim. JSwift49 14:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In that case, you give an example of misinformation or propaganda and do a reference per the sentence. You don't pile on a list of reference. The reader won't look at them, perhaps the first, but if there is an example and its of a particular type with a linked references, then they will. That article needs copyedited. I do post cleanup for Coin. I've been doing for more 10 years now. I know the processes really well. Please do not edit war. If you plan to expand, then please say so, and I'll leave it for a week before the copyedit.   scope_creep Talk  15:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm just trying to understand what basis removing all these sources has in WP:CITEKILL, because I can't see it. And it not better, when you say that his content has been described more generally as propaganda, that you include three different sources saying the same thing, to ensure WP:NPOV? JSwift49 15:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There is excessive references in that article and its currently WP:PUFF and probably WP:PROMO and fails WP:CITEKILL. If you think saving it in the current state then you need do the work, otherwise I'm going to copyedit it down what is considered standards on Wikipedia. I will give you a couple of days to do it. If you become disruptive I'm going to take you to the edit warring noticeboard.  scope_creep Talk  15:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you give me an example of how it is WP:PUFF and WP:PROMO. The reviews/backstory of the novels certainly were, but I removed those. JSwift49 15:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And with the passage I cited from WP:CITEKILL it seems the number of references is perfectly in line with good practices. JSwift49 15:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It not and your not taking it. I'm beyond caring at the moment. I'll be back in Friday or saturday to a copyedit.  scope_creep Talk  15:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Given the fact that editors had concerns earlier with the number of reliable sources, and given that each statement (except one) has no more than two, which is well in line with WP:CITEKILL best practices, you have failed to give a justification for unilaterally mass-removing sources. If you want to discuss and achieve consensus among editors that's fine but I will take you to the edit warring noticeboard if this continues JSwift49 15:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with . 's interpretation of WP:CITEKILL is not backed by policy. Where material is contentious, or where a sentence may draw on material from both sources, there is absolutely nothing wrong with two citations, or even three in certain cases. Jfire (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't do CoI or NPP but I mostly agree with . I liked the TF1 source but I hadn't looked very hard at it and I know he gets around in French pretty well so I trust his judgement of which were the best sources. This is however highly contentious stuff -- look at what I am saying about it -- and none of these sources meet the proposed sourcing standard except maybe for one about disinformation I haven't looked at yet. They do however meet current standards and the Daily Beast and the Bulwark are long-form journalism even if one of them calls him a sleaze and the other a shill.there may be a case for grouping some sources but but given what Scope is saying it is probably better to rewrite to avoid that. I think that first people should decide if he is a novelist or a blogger. Elinruby (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * IMO, having two good sources per statement is a way we can help ensure disinformation is not present in our article. While eliminating sources may sound intuitively appealing, it's also not backed by policy. I would say he is a novelist who later became a blogger :) JSwift49 22:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

PS if there is edit-warring going on my tolerance for that is quite low. I'm willing to help write this up as a disinformation tactic but I'm already considering taking Dream Focus to ANI, and I despise ANI sooo... is this man a novelist or a blogger? Elinruby (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The concern here, especially because of actions and statements in the recent AfD, is the attempt to remove references to make the article look visibly less well referenced. If the sources being removed via CITEKILL are just being repurposed and used elsewhere in the article (such as if they were already being used in more than one place), then that's fine. But if this removal is completely removing such high quality sources from the article entirely, then that isn't okay and gives the visible impression of continuing a more long-term effort to get the article deleted by making it visibly appear worse. Silver  seren C 22:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that's a valid concern, since scope_creep did remove several high quality sources from the article completely, and he was the one who originally put the article up for AfD. JSwift49 22:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * maybe put them in a Further Reading section. I think Scope creep does his wiki job in an honest way, for what it is worth. I know at one point we had about five articles saying he was out of touch for a week and that was way too many. I haven't looked at the new version yet and frankly am pretty tired of this article. If i was in an early AfD I probably argued for deletion. My current opinion is that it's probably too late for that thanks in large part to Wikipedia. (See discussion of circular reference further up the page). I am going to do something else for a while then come to grips with the Spanish-language sources later tonight. Elinruby (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Some of them could go in a further reading section, but the majority need to go that are excessive. For the rest of the argument, that is not a case of that all. I think it is more than borderline notable, although in a years time when the furore has died down, it might be another matter. Even then it would be enough for WP:BIO. The article was puffed up during period it was going through those previous Afd and it needs to depuffed. 50-odd references for a start article is excessive. It fails citekill by a long way and need to be copyedit down. This statement "having two good sources per statement is a way we can help ensure disinformation is not present" is bollocks and completly outside any wikipedia process or consensus. If you state that edit warring noticeboard they will block you.     scope_creep Talk  13:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Removing the article once the “furor has died down” would seem to be a violation of WP:RECENTISM, and also, the statement I cited from WP:CITEKILL supports the idea that for contentious material and to prevent link rot two sources per statement are often desirable. Are these any policies you can point to that contradict this? JSwift49 15:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:RECENTISM is not a policy, just a frequently cited essay.
 * It's obvious that Lira's relative importance or lack of importance will become clearer over time. What's being written about him now is because he's died. If, in a year or two, no one cares about him anymore, it will be clear that this event did not have a significant impact on the world and this will (theoretically) let us know whether or not this entire article and/or the portrayal in sections of it is an example of "recentism". Or would you deny that the section on the death has not been "overburdened with documenting breaking news reports and controversy as it happens"?--Ermenrich (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If you are deleting an article because the subject is not important now, even if it was considered notable in the past, isn't that by definition an imbalanced focus on recent events? Yes, if someone receives one temporary blip of news coverage and turns out to not be notable later, that's a different story, but this is someone who has received sustained coverage throughout years.
 * Regardless, if editors years from now look at this article and reach a consensus to delete, that's OK. My main point is that in no way merits the mass removal of reliable sources now. Nor have any good examples been given of how the article in its current state is WP:PUFF. The death section describes the events and notable perspectives concisely (the Bulwark article might be an exception, but I'm sure we can both agree it's a necessary counterbalance to the Russian perspective). JSwift49 16:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

You will add self mentioned account
Lira mentions his torture by other inmates while imprisoned 2601:603:1780:83B0:389B:7D13:F8DF:2D7F (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * His allegations are already in the article.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * not sure prison justice constitutes "torture". Elinruby (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Article should not be in past tense
Why is this article written in the past tense? We don't even know if he was kidnapped, let alone if he's dead. The man should be presumed to be alive until we know otherwise. "Gonzalo Ángel Quintilio Lira López (born 29 February 1968), also known by the pseudonym Coach Red Pill, was a Chilean-American novelist,..." 76.202.192.102 (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * This sadly seems to be overtaken by events (he's dead now, while in SBU custody) Ryan (talk) 13:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I just realized you posted this back in April 2022. He is dead now. The State Department and his father confirmed it. NesserWiki (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 February 2024
Why there is no mention of abuses, Lira got in ukrainian prison? Or his hand written and signed letter, where he clearly states he has a collapsed lung and is denied medical treatment on purpose, why so much propaganda in this article and all the relevant info is excluded? personal attack removed 188.69.111.98 (talk) 13:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 13:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This is already mentioned in the article in the "Arrest and prosecution" section. BeŻet (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

No article on Spanish Wikipedia?
Wasn't the main argument for keeping this page all of the high quality Chilean sources on this guy? That being the case, why doesn't he have an article at Spanish Wikipedia?--Ermenrich (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 February 2024
"Article 463-2 of Ukraine's criminal code" should be changed to "Article 436-2 of Ukraine's criminal code", in accordance with the sources. Hölder-continuity (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 19:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Why does this article read like it was written by a Russian troll?
This article is filled with false equivalences and weasely language, which is apparently designed to make his look like he was a good person.

For example, why does there need to be a whole paragraph about the Russian government whining about how people care more about Navalny than Lira? 71.114.123.162 (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with the above IP editor's overall assessment of the article, but I do agree with the removal by User:Ermenrich of the sentence about the comparison by the Russian Foreign Ministry with Navalny. That was undue for the article. Jfire (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Also don't agree with the IP generally, just that particular sentence.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't the mention of Lira be notable because it was the Russian government doing so (instead of just some commentator), and they mentioned him in the initial response to Navalny's death? I would have called it an example of whataboutism but didn't find any source explicitly describing it as that. JSwift49 23:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)