Talk:Jesse Chacón

See also removal
I've just removed a "see also" linking to Corruption in Venezuela. Per Biography of living persons policy, we must be very careful when dealing with biographical info on living persons. In this particular case, we must avoid guilt by association and recentism; corruption is not a main feature in Chacón's notability so I think we must not give undue weight to a recent event that mainly involves his brother and not the individual himself. JRSP (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

See also doesn't mean it's about him. Just that a reader interested in his article might find the other article interesting to know about.

Jesse Chacón resigned (which will always be a big point in his biography) and is in the media now, mainly because he stepped down due to a corruption scandal. Although he wasn't the corrupt person, someone reading his article is very likely to want to know we also have an article on corruption in Venezuela generally. Or at least it's likely to be interesting or worth mentioning. That's all that a link in "See also" means. So I think you might have remove useful information? Saduski J (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the link in unnecessary and potentially dangerous to the subject's reputation, so I think it's better to leave it out. If the subject were "2009 Venezuelan bank crisis" the link would be fine but in a biographical article it would have to be an important feature of the bio (and "important" is not the same than "recent"). Chacon's carreer spans several years, there are notable things to mention about him since his involvement in the 1992 Venezuelan coup d'état attempts so I think you're giving WP:undue weight to the recent corruption scandal. JRSP (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

There's a lot to write about him, it's slow finding good sources but I want to work this up into a good quality biography. So in time the article will be balanced, and not focus on the resignation. But even if I do that, some people will still want that link, it'll be useful to them. See also is for pertinent informative links, and a link to Venezuelan corruption generally is pertinent to someone whose resignation was triggered by one, even if they weren't a party to it? Saduski J (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that a reader of the biography might be particularly interested in a general article about corruption in Venezuela. I agree with you that his resignation must be mentioned in the article, this is a notable event, something that will be worth mentioning in 10 years; however, the "see also" link somewhat implies a long term or very important relation with corruption in Venezuela, not an isolated event. If you linked to a hypothetical "2009 Venezuela bank corruption scandal" article, that would be a different story, the link would be so natural that the "see also" would be unnecessary, we could link directly from the body of the article. JRSP (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. Okay.

What do the colons mean? Saduski J (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)