Talk:Nelson Bocaranda

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

Revert[edit]

Regarding this revert: the source literally uses the term "threatened", and the use of "reportedly" casts doubt that is not in the original reference and violates WP:CLAIM. Furthermore, "The Rumors of Nelson" is not mentioned in the other cited reference, and at any rate does not seem relevant for its inclusion. NoonIcarus (talk) 12:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Premio Nacional de Periodismo Monseñor Pellín[edit]

AKA Premio Monseñor Pellín, begin info gathering:

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing information. I'll try to specify more with a further edit. WMrapids (talk) 05:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BLP[edit]

Summary: this 05:12 8 August edit took one brief mention of Bocaranda from one AP article analyzing the aspect of danger as a result of WikiLeaks, combined it with two primary sources and one blog from the Chavez administration then-foreign minister (labeling Moncada instead a "diplomat"), selectively quoted from both the primary sources and the AP, cited Bocaranda's response but failed to include it, and left out key information (like the information in the cables had already been printed in Bocaranda's columns), to build an entire section painting a living person as a US pawn. I have not so far found any other reliable mention of Bocaranda and WikiLeaks, either in Spanish or English, besides the passing mention in the AP.

The content was POV, a BLP vio, and is UNDUE unless other secondary sources cover it. I did find very similar content published at both Venezuelanalysis and Telesur, two unreliable sources known for speading government misinformation. The content appears to have been built from that information, making similar claims, evading the fact that Wikipedia does not view those sources as reliable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BLP 1 and POV[edit]

 Done non-RS removed and has not come back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WMrapids, please take greater care with BLPs, as discussed at the ANI. Time and time and time again, whenever it has come up at the WP:RSN, Venezuelan state media sources are found to be unreliable. You must not add content denigrating living persons cited to Venezuelan gov't sources.[1]. You must ALWAYS use the best quality reliable sources in BLPs and even more so when impugning the character of a living person.

It's hard to see how you get WP:SYNTH out of a separate paragraph, or why you removed reliably sourced content here. This is not neutral editing.

Separately, on a Spanish language article, it benefits our readers if you provide |trans-title = SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Separately, the text was sourced to a blog post from Moncada at a time when he served as Chavez's Foreign Minister; identifying Moncada in that context as a "diplomat" is also misleading. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Part 2[edit]

 Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:31, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And in this series of edits, you are using a Wordpress source allegedly published by the Bolivarian Government to refute four secondary sources (besides that it's not at all clear how you are drawing the conclusions you draw from that document ... please explain where you get honorary mention and where you get the dates, even if that source could be used). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's hard to see how you get WP:SYNTH out of a separate paragraph
    • You placed it in the section about being an "embassy contact" possibly to "imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source". There was no discussion of Bocaranda working for the CIA, so it was inappropriate.
  • Separately, on a Spanish language article, it benefits our readers if you provide
    • Thank you for showing this. I'll try to remember to use it in the future.
  • you are using a Wordpress source published by the Bolivarian Government
    • The National Prize is government-operated, so it is the source to find who won which prize and when. The website is from one of the authors of the publication reviewing the prize's history. On Pages 29 and 31, you can see that Bocaranda is mentioned in the category "Reconocimiento a otros Periodistas" and "Otros Periodistas galardonados", which suggests he is among honorable mentions respectively. Arguing that the government used a publication to rewrite history is quite a reach, but perhaps not too much of a reach. Maybe we can plainly say that he was awarded by the Fundación Premio Nacional de Periodismo? If he is that notable of a journalist, there has to be a source out there that documents the date he won a national award.--WMrapids (talk) 06:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my, I will have to outdent to deal with that stuff above.

On the "embassy contact" section, yes, the sections were quite messed up; I later realized that you added the WikiLeaks information to the "Career" section (why?), and rejigged it all.

A WordPress is not the government source. Since Chavez put his best people to managing internet and telecommunications (and editing Wikipedia), they have known very well how to put up a website. Who are these "authors" of the WordPress blog, attributing their work to the Bolivarian Republic?

Yes, I've read page 29 and 31 (I think you meant 31 and 33), and don't see either the years you conclude, nor anything backing a claim of "honorable mention". I see the years 1985 and 1990 with no mention of "honorable mention" on pages 31 and 33.

Arguing that a WordPress is rewriting history is not "quite a stretch". Re If he is that notable of a journalist, there has to be a source out there that documents the date he won a national award. I'm sorry to be repeating what I said at the ANI, but you don't seem to have read it. Ten years ago, one could go to the archives of El Universal or El Nacional or Venevision or RCTV to find anything. The Bolivarian Government took over those papers and every television station by methods well documented in secondary sources if you will read them. The archives of every news source of record that previously existed in Venzuela are gone. Making it easier to rewrite history; an award goes "poof".

Meanwhile, I just did a search and there are scores of secondary sources, besides the ones we had in the article, mentioning his prize (naturally, published outside of Venezuela, because you can't publish something favorable about certain individuals anywhere in Venezuela).

You can't use a WordPress to refute secondary sources. As an interim measure, since you have caused dubious information to go live on a BLP, you might correct the dubious content you added as you indicated, taking out the dates (which I can't get from that source), and taking out the dubious "honorable mention". But unless you find a real source to refute the secondary sources, I strongly suggest you revert the entire thing, since you are doing original research. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS, it would also help if you would install User:Headbomb/unreliable so you can get a big red visual when you use dubious and unreliable sources; it would save time for other editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if such a notable award was presented, there would be more detailed documentation on it. The reason I say it is a stretch is because you are personally alleging that the government is covering up a jhournalist's award history, which though it may be plausible, it is WP:OR on your part. So given the various sources we do have, Bocaranda was recognized by the Fundación Premio Nacional de Periodismo for something, though details on a "National Prize" a scarce. WMrapids (talk) 06:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, in addition to numerous secondary reliable sources, do you believe that Bocaranda himself is lying? Considering how popular he is, don't you suspect someone other than you would have noticed that in the last decade? We have multiple secondary and reliable sources mentioning he won a national prize; explanatory commentary to you on talk to help you understand why (more) sources don't exist is not OR until/unless that is added to an article. Your actual insertions into the article that he doesn't have the awards, in spite of secondary sources that say he does, is the OR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Taken to RSN noticeboard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved, thanks WMrapids! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:31, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BLP 3 and POV[edit]

And now taking time to look at the text inserted with this edit:

  • In 2011, Bocaranda was identified in a WikiLeaks leaked cable from the Embassy of the United States, Caracas titled "Colombian Guerrillas Reportedly Met with GRBV Officials in Caracas", with Bocaranda later confirming the authenticity.[17][18][19]
    The first part is an appropriate use of a primary source, as it only describes the source (not drawing any conclusions from it not made already by secondary souces). The clause, "confirming the authenticity" misleads the reader. Bocaranda acknowledged that he had been quoted by people he met in the line of normal social interaction for a journalist. The wording used leaves the implication that he confirms the authenticity of the entire report. A more precise interpretation of the cited runrunes report and the AP source is that he "acknowledged" the cable.
  • The embassy's document, which describes Bocaranda as a "strictly protect" individual,
    See the AP cited source on why it is misleading to add the "strictly protect" bit from the primary source, without analysis by a secondary source.
  • details reports from Bocaranda told to Patrick Duddy, the United States Ambassador to Venezuela, about Colombian guerrillas meeting with Venezuelan government officials
    The AP source says "in a document describing how he told the U.S. ambassador in 2009 that according to one of his sources, Colombian rebel leaders had visited Caracas for secret meetings with senior Venezuelan government officials." The "according to his sources" is omitted, leaving a faulty impression. Also, senior government officials is significant.
  • – without specifying the guerilla's organization –
    Why is this relevant? What secondary source covers it?
  • while also sharing that Bocaranda had provided information to the embassy in the past, including the number of pilots the Venezuelan Air Force had to man their F-16 fighter jets.[17][18][19]
    Which secondary source covers this information, apparently extracted from the primary source? No secondary source is given for this content, so we have no secondary analysis of the primary source.
  • According to the Associated Press, Bocaranda responded to the leak of the document stating "I feel betrayed by WikiLeaks ... I think the ones who have been betrayed basically are the American diplomats ... It's going to be more difficult for them because I think no one is going to want to talk for fear of coming out in print with their name."[18]
    An odd quote selection. The (over)quoted material leaves a misimpression by leaving out the middle sentence, ignoring at the same time Bocaranda's own cited response. The AP source says
    "I feel betrayed by WikiLeaks," Bocaranda told the AP on Friday, Sept. 9. But he said that as a journalist it's natural for him to talk with diplomats from various countries. "I think the ones who have been betrayed basically are the American diplomats," he said.
    The part that he routinely talks to diplomats as a journalist is strangely left out, and that changes the entire meaning of the paragraph.

The insertion is not neutral even after the content removed at #BLP 1 (a source that should not have been used in a BLP).

Next, turning to bias that is created by omission.

A primary source document is used to paint an impression on a BLP, while the primary source that is allowable on this page (Bocaranda's own response), is cited and yet completely left out. Here's some of Bocaranda's response, which should have been added for balance: [2]

Demonstrating the accuracy and reliability of my information ... I am pleased to have been quoted in one or several of the cables that are now circulating around the world through Wikileaks leaks ... my job to collect reliable information to share with my readers or listeners in almost half a century of journalism, I have to talk and dialogue with a wide range of equally reliable sources ... It is not surprising that this is how I converse at any social event ... with businessmen, officials, soldiers or ambassadors [including receptions and events at many embassies]. I think that little of what I have spoken in private, unless it is with the confidentiality agreed with the source, has not been published or commented on in my different spaces. ... Those who believe that this will inhibit me from continuing to visit diplomatic sources from the so-called "empire" or from other countries are mistaken. In some statements that I received recently in Jordan and Israel, both the Associated Press agency and Forbes magazine and other local media, I told them that knowing the Venezuelan government, rather many of its officials who can't stand that my sources are credible or that they do not have them from the heights of power, the most likely thing is that they will accuse me of "being part of the CIA or paid by the empire" and that this will not affect me at all. Here below I translate the Wikileaks cable that is self explanatory. The American ambassador was Patrick Duddy with whom I join, as with his wife who is a breast cancer survivor like my wife, a good friendship that was cemented when I announced that President Chávez had agreed to receive him again as ambassador of United States despite having thrown him out of the country with the assurance that the United States would do the same with Ambassador Bernardo Álvarez in Washington. In that case, my source was superior to his or the Obama administration and that is why he always joked with me after his return. Not to mention today my sources from Cuba, which I am proud to also cultivate at the highest level.

The entire bit inserted is non-neutral. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changes installed for neutrality. Nonetheless, we have now an entire section that uses two primary sources, based on one very brief and tangential mention in one secondary source-- the AP, talking about people's reactions to the danger created by the Wikileaks, while barely exploring the Bocaranda incident. I'm not finding other sources; the entire thing is WP:UNDUE, and it appears to be here only to create a negative impression of Bocaranda. Unless there are additional independent sources covering the matter, it should be removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speculation from Bocaranda that the government would accuse him of being involved with the CIA WP:UNDUE and WP:CRYSTAL, which you placed into the article. You are placing a lot of WP:PRIMARY directly from Bocaranda in a way that is not NPOV. Regarding the substance of the cable, there is no interpretation or evaluation, so per WP:PRIMARY the cable's content should be appropriate for inclusion without a secondary source. WMrapids (talk) 04:49, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please answer the more direct points raised. You added information based on exactly one secondary source, and then you used primary and biased sources to fill out that content with information not covered by any secondary source, and added more of same today, and yet you did not add the only primary source that is applicable in this case, which is Bocaranda's response. You can't use primary sources to make claims in a BLP while not balancing by using the subject's response. You placed the primary sources: I balanced by providing his response. The entire section is UNDUE unless you have more secondary sources than one. And since today's edits further chunked up the section with more primary source info, I will unfortunately have to mar the article again with a maintenance tag. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Nelson Bocaranda. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

POV 4[edit]

In this July 18, 2023 edit, the content:

In June 2009, Bocaranda would face controversy after BBVA Provincial said that he was "irresponsible" for spreading "false rumors" that the Venezuelan subsidiary of BBVA would be placed for sale.[3]

was added. Here is what the source says (emphasis added):

The Venezuelan subsidiary of BBVA denies the rumors of sale. The Venezuelan subsidiary of BBVA today denied in a statement the "irresponsible" rumors spread by the journalist Nelson Bocaranda, in his radio program Runrunes, about the alleged negotiations for the sale of BBVA Banco Provincial. "Given the false rumors commented on the Runrunes program by Nelson Bocaranda, which were later copied in writing by Agencia Deinmediato and the online newspaper Descifrado.com, BBVA categorically denies the false rumors that the aforementioned media have published in a totally irresponsible manner, in the sense that BBVA Banco Provincial is in negotiations for its sale," explains the statement, picked up by the official Venezuelan news agency, ABN. In addition, it indicates that "this information has already been denied both in the Runrunes program and by Deinmediato." BBVA "wants to make it clear to its customers, employees and other organizations that there has not been any negotiation with anyone, nor will there be, because the will to remain in Venezuela is absolute," the text continues.

Now, this information is not hard to find, because El Pais provides an English translation on its page. Bocaranda commented on the rumors and denied them. The text added is POV, unbalanced, and misleading. And the "face controversy" is OR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected; I have now spent three full days researching and correcting POV and BLP vios carelessly inserted in only a few edits. Please take greater care when editing articles about living people. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does not specify who denied the information in the programs. WMrapids (talk) 04:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And? So you still thought it OK to leave that out? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

9 August 2023 edits[edit]

In this series of edits:

  1. Where is "primetime" coming from? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    1: It says it directly in the quotation from the source and is less WP:PUFF and MOS:EDITORIAL than "commanding large audiences". WMrapids (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see now; I was parsing the sentence wrong and thinking that final clause applied only to the first clause. Brain fart. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The source says "TV programs with mass audiences"; why is large television audiences removed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    2: See above response. WMrapids (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Commanding large audiences is not PUFF; it directly addresses a different issue that you have wanted to introduce and have mentioned multiple times-- the mistaken notion that he wasn't known or notable before the Chavez cancer revelations, or previous edits that made him out to be little more than a gossip columnist.. That he commanded large prime-time audiences well before the Chavez cancer issue is relevant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How about:
    • By 1996, Bocaranda attracted large audiences on primetime television broadcasts in Caracas.
    ... to establish that he was well known before Chavez's cancer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Where are you getting that Abanhassan and Cañizález are Venezuelan journalists? Cañizález has a doctorate in political science and a master's degree in history, and was a professor. If you feel it necessary to characterize the publication, then including that it is a journal might be more useful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Corrected, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. "resulted with him receiving more notability than at any time in his career" "Notability" is a Wikipedia construct, and the source never mentions anything similar. This is OR; he was already extremely well known in Venezuela, as indicated already in the article, (see point 1 above). All the sources together say he got more social media following after the revelations. (Aside: He's known as the "Father of Venezuelan Twitter" because of this, which coincided with the time when Venezuelans moved massively to Twitter as a result of censorship.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    4: Again, it directly says in the source that it made him more popular than any time in his career and is not WP:OR. WMrapids (talk) 22:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He received more following on Twitter; he was already quite notable before the Chavez cancer revelation. See point 2. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Better? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Why is this obfuscation necessary or helpful? He is clearly a critic and in opposition according to all sources, and he's obviously not interested in hiding that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    5: It is the complete opposite of obfuscation. Per reliable sources and WP:VERIFY, he is described as an "opposition" journalist, which is different than being simple critic. Belonging to the Venezuelan opposition requires more political involvement than simply being a critic, which is clearly 101 material in a course on Venezuelan topics. WMrapids (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He is described as both. He clearly is both. Why do we need the words "is described as"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    From Ideal:
    • "one of the most popular Venezuelan journalists in his country, critical of the Chávez and Maduro governments ... since he was the first to report [that] Hugo Chávez was ill. This caused different spheres of the Venezuelan government to accuse him of working for the CIA, something that could never be proven. He was critical of Chávez and is critical of his successor, Nicolás Maduro.
    SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If he is described as both and it is verifiable, then we could possibly place both. Here is a proposal: Bocaranda supported opposition to the governments of Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro, criticizing both leaders during their tenure. WMrapids (talk) 06:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @WMrapids:, thanks for proposing on talk first. "During their tenure" is awkward because Maduro is still there and probably always will be, and I don't think constraining the time period adds anything helpful. And, as indicated in the source quote above, he criticizes more than the individuals; it's also their governments. Pro-opposition is different than "supported the opposition". I prefer more direct writing: there is no need to hide what someone openly acknowledges.
    How about (sources in parens):

    Pro-opposition journalist (Reuters and Mazotte), Bocaranda has critized both Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro and their governments(Ideal).

    Now, since this might establish a precedent that won't work in other bios (where subjects aren't so openly in opposition), or someone might complain that we aren't attributing (even though we could stick a long string of WP:CITATIONOVERKILL on that), I wouldn't object if we then had to add back the "Described" business with:

    Described as a pro-opposition journalist (Reuters and Mazotte), Bocaranda has critized both Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro and their governments(Ideal).

    I just don't like the idea of skirting around the obvious; there's nothing wrong with stating what is plain and obvious in this particular case. Hopefully this is a merger or both of our points. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The second proposal seems more in line with a WP:BLP article since in "Wikivoice", we are saying that the sources are describing him a certain way, not Wikipedia. Looks good to me. WMrapids (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Where are you getting that Carolina Acosta-Azuru is a Venezuelan journalist? Best I can tell, that is blatantly false. This, combined with #3, make it appear that your edits are intended to imply that only Venezuelan journalists are making these observations, while you don't similarly indicate the credentials in US or Spanish publications. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Corrected, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    6: My bad. It was the result from a Google search, but looking at the next few results it shows she is a professor as well, which seems more applicable in this circumstance. WMrapids (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what kinds of sources you came up with, but "critical and cultural studies, international communication and women’s studies" and a well-published professor is well enough beyond "Venezuelan journalist", that I again ask you to take more care with BLP editing. The clear impression left after 3 and 6 was that only Venezuelan journalists held certain impressions. Also a reminder that this over-categorization of people gets in the way of the more substantive issue of what kind of sources those are (both journals or reputable books). I understand mistakes are made by all of us, but please take greater care. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Could you please employ a search, eg ctrl-f, to avoid often "going into the woulds" instead of being more direct? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Addressed, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that's all, but that's all the time I have for now. WMrapids, I noticed you had problems threading responses somewhere in all these discussions. The way to respond under a numbered bullet point is add "#:" under it; keeping tidy threaded discussions makes it easier for others to follow and respond. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

Clutter in ref names[edit]

 Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WMrapids please note that quote marks around named refs are not required unless the ref name has spaces; since I name refs without space, adding the double quotes only creates unnecessary clutter that one has to edit around. (WP:CITE: "If spaces are used in the text of the name, the text must be placed within double quotes."). Adding these is a timesink, and so will be removing them.

Also please stop removing spaces within citations that I use to help with reading and editng them due to my eyesight.[4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: I think through visual editing it does that automatically on occasion as I would not put any time into that. I'm sorry that you had to take those out and I can try to remember to take a look for the quote marks after visual edits in the future. WMrapids (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but in this case they weren't new sources-- they were sources already in the article. I understand if you don't want to take the time to remove the sloppy remnants that the Visual Editor sticks us with when you're adding a new source, but just request that you not change those I have already fixed. Thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marquez Historieta[edit]

 Done all set here, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NoonIcarus I'm not comfortable with this source; it's a comic strip format, and not the kind of source I would prefer for that kind of statement. Could I convince you to self-revert, leaving then one paragraph about his Twitter following as it related to the cancer secrecy?[5] Also, I think if Bocaranda was the "only" reliable source, Acosta-Alzuru would have stated that; there were others-- she doesn't go in to which were the most reliable (except by example), although she does single out the really bad ones. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @SandyGeorgia: Yes, sure thing, gladly. The book's first edition is a hard cover and it is more of a recap of Venezuelan history, but I totally understand what you mean with the style. I mostly wanted to include a bibliographical source and I'm sure that there are plenty of others that can cover the same information. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly, yeah, the book says the same statement: Bocaranda was the only source of reliable information. I admit that was part of paraphrasing from my part, along the lines "while investigative journalists 'filled the information vacuum'". --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thx, and I appreciate the speedy revert. With a BLP, it's important that we get it right, and things pointed out on talk should be corrected expeditiously. In the sections above, we've got some POV issues that are hanging around longer than is preferable on a BLP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any time! I haven't been following the recent discussion here closely, but please do let me know if you need help regarding sourcing, specially if it is in Spanish. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

 Done all set here, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NoonIcarus while you're here, one other thing. Because there's too much else going on, I haven't reverted it, but I wish you hadn't added an infobox without consensus. They aren't required and some people (like me) hate them as they are misleading and more trouble than they're worth. Had there been a discussion, I would have opposed. I don't enjoy working on messy articles, and that infobox has two pieces of uncited info now ... his birthday and his birthplace. If we must keep the infobox, could you find citations for that information? I haven't seen any that are reliable enough for me to want to use. If we can't cite that info, there is no utiility for the infobox and it would be perhaps better removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's also alright. I have removed it now. I'm personally very used to work with infoboxes since they are very common at the Spanish Wikipedia. Both statements seem to come from his interview with Milagros Socorro [es]: [6], which I think was used sometime in the article. The main problem with it is that it is a primary source, but there are other sources with the same information as well: "Bocaranda%2C+Nelson"&type=Author[7][8]. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources on things like birthplace and birthdate are not only acceptable; they are usually viewed as the best, since who better knows where they were born than the subject :) I will work in this data. Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to get an interlanguage link into a citation template on this one, so will manually format it: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oops; went in to add the biographical data, and it's already there. But confusing. WMrapids I will move the book source to sfn format, but I'm confused about how you wrote the citation. Book sources require page numbers. Your citation template says "pages = 132". Pages is plural; sometimes editors mistakenly list the total pages of the book. For a book source, we need a specific page number for the different information cited; see examples on Acosta-Alzuru. Is 132 the specific page number for both the biographical data and the Journalism prize, or is it the total number of pages in the book ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WMrapids see blanks for page numbers in this edit. If you don't have exact page nos, let me know, and I can switch the format to loc= to use a chapter name or a section name or something else. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All set here, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: Agreed, looks good now. WMrapids (talk) 02:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks (if I ping you like that in edit summary, you can indicate it's OK by just lodging a thanks on the edit, to save time). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UK Embassy report[edit]

Wanted to discuss this here first, but there is an article, again presented by now Permanent Representative of Venezuela to the United Nations Samuel Moncada, charging Bocaranda with working with the United Kingdom to promote their interests following the Falklands War in 1982.

There is a supposed cable included in the article that states: "To end, I would only choose an anecdote to illustrate the problems one can cause for media friends when the chips are down. We managed to persuade Nelson Bocaranda of Channel 2 to show the recent COI film on the history of the Falklands dispute on his breakfast-time show. He did so, with an Argentine in the studio to rebut. Despite that rebuttal, Bocaranda got a lot of flak during and after the show for giving an airing to "British propaganda". He looked distinctly shell-shocked by the end of the programme. When we talked to him shortly afterwards, he showed a strange mixture of elation at having aroused so much "polemic" and worry at having exposed himself too much. Nelson is an ally of ours, but we shall have to go easy with him for quite a while. On that occasion we used up almost all the capital banked with him. To use him so effectively again, we shall need to bank a bit more. If Bocaranda decides to visit Britain to collect some important post-Falklands interviews, I hope you and your staff will support us to the hilt. If you want us to operate at the sharp end, you must give us something in return."

Overall, I'm not sure if this cable was originally published by the government, so this information has been placed here. WMrapids (talk) 00:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am out of time just now, but will look at this as quickly as I can. Thank you VERY MUCH for running it by here first, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS, which basically means my back needs a short break. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Had a look, and pretty much standard run-of-the-mill chavista propoganda, of the type that occurs across all chavismo sources. Moncada has taken (again) what looks like a fairly innocent incident, and tried to turn it into something. Why? Because the people he needs to appeal to swallow it, and it works in popular elections. Many Argentines immigrated to Venezuela about the time of the Falklands War to escape the military dictatorship then, and during the Falklands War, most Argentinians had no access to information due to censorship under the military regime; it's not at all surprising that Argentinians living in Venezuela would have strong reactions to whatever it was that Bocaranda did that upset them. Stretching that to evidence that Bocaranda was a UK stooge is no more than propoganda 101, and we should give this chavista source no mention unless independent reliable sources also cover the incident. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Just wanted to make sure we had this discussion documented for possible future edits by the unfamiliar as well since this information popped up pretty quickly in my research. WMrapids (talk) 02:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again; asking first saves us all a lot of time, and helps avoid BLP issues. Generally, Venezuelan state media sources just can't be used to make statements about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

If we are getting close to a point of agreement, I will propose a lead here on talk. But if we have more material to add, leads are best left 'til last. Thoughts? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Channel 2 used to be RCTV in Venezuela, right? I wanted to make sure he hasn't worked in another television channel. Other than that, I remember that his Twitter account was hacked. Not lead worthy, but still worth adding in the main content. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did more reading last night and still have two points of concern; I'll lay them out below. (Yes, to my knowledge from the 80s, Channel 2 was RCTV, 4 was Venevision. But I'm unclear if we have something messed up in the chronology.) Can you find a source on the Twitter hack? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See below, and Milagros Socorro. But also know that, through about the mid-80s, Venevision and RCTV were all that mattered ... others came along later. (Since television in Venezuela is a complete mess, see Televen and Globovision for timeline relative to Venevision and RCTV.) From the early 80s, I always associated Bocaranda more with RCTV, but my recollection could be faulty. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

N33[edit]

@SandyGeorgia: Of course: [9][10][11] This came into prominence again recently as the person responsible for the hack, Juan Almeida Morgado [es] (closely affiliated with Chavismo) died just a few months ago in police custody. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a lot to unpack, and all from seemingly related (??) sources. Are there any independent reliable sources reporting the hacking only? Was it ever proven that he was Bocaranda's hacker? Why would SEBIN arrest a Tareck el Aissami associate unless there's more to the story? Of the three sources you list above, one is only runrunes reporting that Bocranda was hacked (primary); the other two are reports of the death of Almeida Morgado. This seems UNDUE without independent reports specifically about the hacking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CPJ says that N33 took credit for, for example, Padrón, but is more vague on Bocaranda, so I'm not sure what we can include on this without more and better sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to backtrack a little, because there seem to be more things: Bocaranda himself was the one to denounce Almeida, although about phone accounts and not Twitter ([12][13][14]). Some outlets seem to have mixed the events or were vague about it years afterwards. Almeida was arrest in May 2023 precisely due to his relationship to El Aissami, in what would be called a purge and where Aissami fell out of favor and had to resign from his position. Deinitely interesting, but the arrest was totally unrelated to Bocaranda.
I found more sources regarding the 2016 Twitter hack, where Almeida seems to have been uninvolved:[15][16][17][18][19] This would be the content that I think is worth including, for some reason I had more trouble finding them in the first search. Interestingly enough, back in 2014 Bocaranda's account was also compromised:[20] --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay on this; I had to do some library research. As I've been inactive on Venezuelan topics, I missed the detail on the petro-cybercurrency purge bit.
I don't see that we have much in the way of DUE content here. All we have from the sources provided is that Bocaranda (like every other Venezuelan journalist who criticizes chavismo) was hacked; that's not encyclopedic material when all other sources are basically reporting what Bocaranda reported.
We would have a lot to add if there were sources covering the story from an angle other than Bocaranda's own reports; I'm not seeing that. We would have material if we had an independent source connecting Almeida to Bocaranda; I'm not seeing that. We would have a lot to add if someone reported further on the full story behind Tareck el Aissami's resignation and linked that to the hackers and Bocaranda; I'm not finding that.
Someone doesn't die in police custody in Venezuela for hacking the opposition. Until/unless more of the story behind Almeida's death comes out, I don't see that we have DUE content on that aspect.
I wouldn't object if you want to add
  • Bocaranda's Twitter was hacked in 2016 and the hackers used the account to Tweet that Bocaranda acknowledged being a CIA puppet
using the best source of the lot (Univision) and putting it in the context of the text already in the article about CIA claims, but other than that, all we have here is ho-hum. What else might be added? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added to the Twitter section;[21] while the content may fit better contextually with the CIA allegations, placinig it there could raise concerns of synth. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think that's a good edit. Thank you very much. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikileaks section[edit]

Besides that, I would only like to ask regarding the possibility to merge the Wikileaks section to the Career one, along with its proper weight. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On that piece, I'm still waiting for additional secondary sources. Otherwise, I will lodge a query at the NPOV noticeboard as to whether it should be deleted. I'm leaving it in its own section so that the entire article doesn't have to be tagged. we have essentially no media coverage of the incident as relates to Bocaranda; the AP report was about the fact that the danger was overhyped, and he gets only a passing mention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Nelson Bocaranda. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter followers[edit]

Twitter followers are better understood in context, hence I added this. Then, based on Table 1 on the second page of Puertas-Hidalgo, I was going to add that he had the second-highest following among all Latin American journalists. In the table, the Argentine Jorge Rial has 3.5M followers to Bocaranda's 3.3M. But look at the confusing and contradictory paragraph right below the table; the numbers there don't agree at all with the Table. If you look at all of their numbers today on Twitter, contextually, the numbers in the Table look correct, so what happened in the paragraph below the table? I can't sort that at all; is it just an editorial error, or am I misreading something? At any rate, I can't add the second-highest bit per that confusion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Television chronology[edit]

See Venevision bio and Bocaranda's own accounting at Milagros Socorro interview. I'm not surprised at how brief the Venevision bio is, because the Internet wasn't such a thing in those days. But I'm uncertain we have the chronology right, because Bocaranda himself never mentions Venevision, and the way the Venevision bio is worded is odd. The timeline at Óscar Yanes works though. I think we need to dig around for more sources to make sure we've got this right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who Wrote That? glitching here[edit]

WP:VPT post here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nelson_Bocaranda&oldid=1205461645"