Line 100: | Line 100: | ||
::::''" prosecutors claimed that ..."'' so... no charges were filed? This is exactly what SHOULDN'T be included.[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 05:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC) |
::::''" prosecutors claimed that ..."'' so... no charges were filed? This is exactly what SHOULDN'T be included.[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 05:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC) |
||
:::::You keep saying that the fact that she was indicted on neither charge means |
:::::You keep saying that the fact that she was indicted on neither charge means thatthe information should not be included, but I review the wikipedia policies above and argue otherwise. Please engage with that. The Economist and Reuters both remark on the highly unusual level level of coverage in Venezuela - comparing it to the trial and conviction of the president 5 years before - arguing notability. [[User:NPalgan2|NPalgan2]] ([[User talk:NPalgan2|talk]]) 06:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC) |
||
::::*I gotta say - I don't think she is that much of a public figure. She is not anywhere near the notoriety level of Hilary or Trump, or top tier movie stars or TV stars. I think the view expressed above User:Cullen and Marek is somewhat overblown - maybe quite overblown. [[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 05:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC) |
::::*I gotta say - I don't think she is that much of a public figure. She is not anywhere near the notoriety level of Hilary or Trump, or top tier movie stars or TV stars. I think the view expressed above User:Cullen and Marek is somewhat overblown - maybe quite overblown. [[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 05:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC) |
||
Line 109: | Line 109: | ||
:::::* I agree. Thank you Neutrality. You are making excellent points. I already thanked you for your edits to the article but this time I didn't want to overload your thanks notifications by using the thanks button again. :) [[User:Dr.K.|<span style="font-weight:600;font-family: arial;color: steelblue;font-size: 1em;">Dr.</span>]] [[User talk:Dr.K.|<span style="font-weight:600;font-family: arial;color: steelblue; font-size: 1em">K.</span>]] 06:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC) |
:::::* I agree. Thank you Neutrality. You are making excellent points. I already thanked you for your edits to the article but this time I didn't want to overload your thanks notifications by using the thanks button again. :) [[User:Dr.K.|<span style="font-weight:600;font-family: arial;color: steelblue;font-size: 1em;">Dr.</span>]] [[User talk:Dr.K.|<span style="font-weight:600;font-family: arial;color: steelblue; font-size: 1em">K.</span>]] 06:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC) |
||
:::::: For comparison's sake, AP included a detailed paragraph on the scandal when summarising her career when discussing the latest Trump imbroglio: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CAMPAIGN_2016_DEBATE_MISS_UNIVERSE_NYOL- [[User:NPalgan2|NPalgan2]] ([[User talk:NPalgan2|talk]]) 06:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC) |
:::::: For comparison's sake, AP included a detailed paragraph on the scandal when summarising her career when discussing the latest Trump imbroglio: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CAMPAIGN_2016_DEBATE_MISS_UNIVERSE_NYOL- [[User:NPalgan2|NPalgan2]] ([[User talk:NPalgan2|talk]]) 06:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC) |
||
::::* She is a public figure and this is notable. Just because it isn't proven, doesn't mean it can't be included. Bill Clinton's article mentions the women who accused him of sexual harassment, yet he admits nothing. As long as the article makes it clear she's never been convicted, I have no problem with this, there a many reputable sources to back up that the allegations were made. Volunteer Marek, are you anything more than just a liberal tool who wants to portray Macnado as an angel? We also have no proof that Donald Trump actually called her "Miss Piggy" or "miss housekeeping", but you have no problem keeping that in the article.--[[User:Rusf10|Rusf10]] ([[User talk:Rusf10|talk]]) 06:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== WP:BLPGOSSIP == |
== WP:BLPGOSSIP == |
Revision as of 06:32, 28 September 2016
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Untitled
Birth 6 of December of 1976 as Joseph Alicia Machado Fajardo in Maracay, Aragua State, Venezuela.
From 1979 to 1983 she studied classic ballet and soon she danced contemporary dance during eight years.
In 1993 she graduated as bachelor in the mixed grammar school " Calicantina " of Maracay. That same year she began studies of Administrative Sciences at the UNITEC.
In 1994 she made sporadic commercial in Caracas with the agency of models that directs the Hundredth Mariela.
In June of 1995 she became Miss Venezuela. In 1996 she won Miss Universe. In 1998 she carried out the soap opera " Samantha " in Venevisión. In 1999 she traveled to Mexico while carried out the soap opera " Hell in the Paradise ". She has two brothers - 16 years old (Francisco Arturo Machado Fajardo) and 31 years (Arturo Jose Machado). Her papa is called Arturo Jose Machado and her mother Marta.
"In 2004–2005, she can be viewed almost twenty-four hours a day on several cable-television channels in Latin America in a commercial for a dieting product."
This should change to something less cynical like "she has pursued a career as a TV commercial model with particular success in promoting a dieting product" -Franzconde 19:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Clarification
Machado was engaged to baseball player Bobby Abreu. However, it only listed his last name on this site. I have added more detail as to who he was. -Moisanite 16:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Minor Edit
Added the missing "d" at at the end of acknowledge in: "All her hard work was acknowledge when she won the Midia Award" under the Personal Life Section. -Burst3 (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
WP:BLP
Please read it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- According to WP:BLP, an accusation is not a conviction, and that is exactly how we treat it in the article. An accusation in court, and an accusation by a federal judge presiding over that court - reported by Reuters, BBC, Associated Press, across the world, is highly notable and easily fulfills any criteria for notability. In addition, these sources are all accepted as WP:RS project wide. Avaya1 (talk) 02:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- You sure do know a lot about Wikipedia policy for someone who just started editing... what was it, yesterday? Today? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- According to WP:BLP, an accusation is not a conviction, and that is exactly how we treat it in the article. An accusation in court, and an accusation by a federal judge presiding over that court - reported by Reuters, BBC, Associated Press, across the world, is highly notable and easily fulfills any criteria for notability. In addition, these sources are all accepted as WP:RS project wide. Avaya1 (talk) 02:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) In particular this material, added by a brand new account, created yesterday, which appears familiar with Wikipedia lingo (see edit summaries), is a BLP violation. Daily Mail is NOT a reliable source. The AP story by itself is not sufficient to include this info as it's essentially speculation. See all of BLP but especially the part on WP:BLPCRIME: "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For subjects who are not public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured.".
Add to that that it's almost certain that the addition of this info is politically motivated (i.e. it likely violates WP:NPOV) and special care needs to be taken with regard to this biography.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Look, the burden is on those who want to include it. I'm removing it per WP:BLPCRIME. Start an RfC if you want it in, in the meantime don't put it back.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you're claiming I'm a new account, since I've been editing Wikipedia for over 11 years. There is no speculation here. We are reporting exactly what is described in the reliable sources, which fulfills all the criteria accepted on this encyclopedia for notability, BLP, and reliable sources. There's no argument here, since this material (a serious court case that made international headlines) would always be accepted for a BLP, by consensus in thousands of articles, for any public figure on Wikipedia.Avaya1 (talk) 02:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- My apologies on the new account thing. Clicked the wrong account. But the BLP issue still remains. Again:
- "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For subjects who are not public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured."
- And if you've been around that long then you should know that you can't edit war to include potentially BLP violating material in an article without getting consensus. The burden of proof is on you. The unless a conviction is secured is pretty clear, no? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- And funny how this material wasn't notable or important enough to include for the past ten years, but all of sudden, today, a day after the presidential debate, this material about an accusation from years ago all of sudden becomes "oh my god we must include this!". Bullshit. It wasn't notable before, it's not notable now, it violated BLP then, it violates it now, even if someone wants to use it for political purposes. ESPECIALLY if someone wants to use it for political purposes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
But Machado is a public figure. She has starred in telenovelas, films, TV shows, been a Miss Universe. The dispute about her weight gain was featured in many RS at the time (BBC, etc). She is currently involved in a political dispute and using her celebrity to intervene in the US election - see the NYTimes article in May, now there is obviously more extensibve coverage. The accusations against Machado were featured in multiple RS and the article as written clearly states they were accusations. Thus they are proper to mention in the article. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Public_figures
"Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he or she actually did. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." — Preceding unsigned comment added by NPalgan2 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- That's a ridiculously broad definition of "public figure". Basically you're saying "if they're notable enough to have an article they're a public figure". No. And this isn't about an affair. It's about ... wait for it, wait for it, wait for it... a crime! As in BLPCRIME.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- If you want to be legalisatic about it, Machado is clearly a limited purpose public figure "a limited purpose public figure, meaning those who have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved." A "particularized determination" is required to decide whether a person is a limited purpose public figure, which can be variously interpreted:[2]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by NPalgan2 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- First, we're not a court of law. Second, even by that definition, the key is "those who have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved". The issue involved is the boyfriend/judge thing. Has Machado "thrust herself to the forefront of this controversy"? No. Because this isn't a public controversy (though something else is). Is she running around talking about her ex-boyfriend and the judge? No. Her notability and this issue are unrelated. You are just trying to use her notability from one thing, to smear her for another and then claiming that one makes the other ok. It doesn't.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- See here for example: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/27/alicia-machado-miss-universe-weight-shame-trump-speaks-out-clinton NPalgan2 (talk) 03:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- If you want to be legalisatic about it, Machado is clearly a limited purpose public figure "a limited purpose public figure, meaning those who have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved." A "particularized determination" is required to decide whether a person is a limited purpose public figure, which can be variously interpreted:[2]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by NPalgan2 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- That's a ridiculously broad definition of "public figure". Basically you're saying "if they're notable enough to have an article they're a public figure". No. And this isn't about an affair. It's about ... wait for it, wait for it, wait for it... a crime! As in BLPCRIME.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- There is no BLP violation in repeating allegations that have been reported in reliable sources. The Daily Mail is in fact a reliable source, its recent story provided links to the 1998 news reports that Machado had been accused of driving her boyfriend away from the scene of a shooting, allegedly by him, and of threatening to kill a judge. To provide balance we provide her view that she called the judge to thank him, not to threaten him. TFD (talk) 03:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
You shouldn't revert (deleting reliably sourced material), 4 times in a row added by multiple users, anyway. That is just pure edit warring. So I have filled in a 3RR on this. Avaya1 (talk) 03:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Information suspected of violating BLP policies should be removed pending consensus. The section as written before was highly misleading as the wording heavily suggested she was guilty of a crime. Knope7 (talk) 03:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- If there was a version that heavily suggested that she was guilty I missed it. The versions I saw all summarised the RS articles and noted that the charges were dismissed for insufficient evidence. Which version do you mean? Could you suggest a preferred phrasing? NPalgan2 (talk) 03:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- "accused in court" sounds as though she was a criminal defendant. Starting a section with that is, IMO, strongly suggests she was indicted. Knope7 (talk) 03:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- "accused in court" ' oh yeah, I missed that. It was even worse than I thought - "accused in court" as in "someone present inside a courtroom made the accusation" not "accused in court" as in "charges were filed". Yeah.... sketchy as hell.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- It weasn't just some random person in court, she was accused by the prosecutors. In the words of the BBC, "One of the best-known figures in the international beauty business, the Venezuelan Alicia Machado". The judge appeared on national television and accused her of threatening to kill him. These are clearly notable events involving a notable person. NPalgan2 (talk) 03:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oh? So the prosecutors filed charges against her? Got a reliable source for that? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- The Venezuelan legal system belongs to the continental law system, and seems to be quite different from the US one. I'm not sure the how far in the process (by their system's standards) things got before the investigation was abandoned. I have used the phrase "charges" which suggests spurious precvision above and you're right to haul me up on that. NPalgan2 (talk) 04:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure the how far...' <-- that right there is a pretty good reason for you to drop it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- The Venezuelan legal system belongs to the continental law system, and seems to be quite different from the US one. I'm not sure the how far in the process (by their system's standards) things got before the investigation was abandoned. I have used the phrase "charges" which suggests spurious precvision above and you're right to haul me up on that. NPalgan2 (talk) 04:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oh? So the prosecutors filed charges against her? Got a reliable source for that? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- It weasn't just some random person in court, she was accused by the prosecutors. In the words of the BBC, "One of the best-known figures in the international beauty business, the Venezuelan Alicia Machado". The judge appeared on national television and accused her of threatening to kill him. These are clearly notable events involving a notable person. NPalgan2 (talk) 03:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- "accused in court" ' oh yeah, I missed that. It was even worse than I thought - "accused in court" as in "someone present inside a courtroom made the accusation" not "accused in court" as in "charges were filed". Yeah.... sketchy as hell.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- "accused in court" sounds as though she was a criminal defendant. Starting a section with that is, IMO, strongly suggests she was indicted. Knope7 (talk) 03:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- If there was a version that heavily suggested that she was guilty I missed it. The versions I saw all summarised the RS articles and noted that the charges were dismissed for insufficient evidence. Which version do you mean? Could you suggest a preferred phrasing? NPalgan2 (talk) 03:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Kind of off-topic, but I'd like to add that if anyone knows an admin that's currently online they should let them know that this article needs semi protection right now. RFPP is notoriously slow and not the ideal place to request immediate protection. Lizard (talk) 04:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- It is crystal clear that there is significant opposition to adding this content and several editors including me believe that it is a BLP violation. The attempts to add it in the last 24 hours coincide with IP editors trying to add slanderous insults to the article. This is highly politicized. Such controversial, poorly written POV pushing content should stay out. Any NPOV content must gain consensus before being added. Those who propose to add this should rewrite it neutrally and cite it to indisputably reliable sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hey guys, I don't think anything is gained from conflating vandalism and "poorly written POV pushing content" with disputes as to whether RS material falls on one side or the other of slightly ambiguous BLP rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NPalgan2 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- @NPalgan2: When there is a concerted and politicized attack by vandals and POV pushers on a biography of a living person, heightened vigilence and great caution are in order. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hey guys, I don't think anything is gained from conflating vandalism and "poorly written POV pushing content" with disputes as to whether RS material falls on one side or the other of slightly ambiguous BLP rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NPalgan2 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- She is more than a "limited purpose public figure." She had a career as a beauty queen, actress and nude model in Playboy. If she had not done that then there would have been no article about her. Cullen328, the matter is under discussion at BLPN. TFD (talk) 04:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- @The Four Deuces: So you really think that we should include POV pushing, politicized, unsubstantiated allegations about models who appear in Mexican Playboy? That link is dead, by the way. Or beauty queens? Argue that point all you want, but do not add the content to the article without gaining consensus. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with Cullen. We need to discuss the sources first, and then decide what to add to the article, if anything. Also, Trumps's misgivings are not a good reason to malign a living person.Steve Quinn (talk) 05:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- @The Four Deuces: So you really think that we should include POV pushing, politicized, unsubstantiated allegations about models who appear in Mexican Playboy? That link is dead, by the way. Or beauty queens? Argue that point all you want, but do not add the content to the article without gaining consensus. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Article protection
Hi all,
I've temporarily protected this article because the edit-warring is reaching a fever pitch. I have no idea whether the current version is "right" or not - it's just the version extant at the time the protection is applied. Can we all please discuss the proposed major changes to the article here on the talk page and establish a consensus for what to include or remove. In doing so please note the provisions of WP:BLP.
In passing, a disclaimer: I am not an American and don't care who wins the upcoming election. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with User:Euryalus - I think this is a really good idea.Steve Quinn (talk) 05:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- I am just going to summarise the one side of the BLP dispute as it currently stands. WP:WELLKNOWN says that "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find *multiple* reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." The BBC, AP, Reuters all covered the Fuenmayor/Rodriguez incidents, and it is noteworthy and relevant (a well known actress accused of a felony and possibly threatening to use her friendship with the country's president to ruin a judge's career or kill him). However, some say that WP:BLPCRIME shows the material should not be included: "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For subjects who are not public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." But this material implies that if a person *is* a public figure such material should be included. The allegations against Machado were not discredited in any way, the Venezuelan courts simply determined that there were not sufficient evidence to convict her beyond a reasonable doubt. And Machado is a public figure, as a well known actress and someone who is (at the very least) well on the way to becoming a political figure as she campaigns in the current presidential election and leverages her celebrity to do so. NPalgan2 (talk) 04:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Then go ahead and draft verifiable, NPOV content cited to reliable sources, and propose it here. Be sure that your draft summarizes both sides of the story. Then we will see whether your proposal gains consensus. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- In January 1998, prosecutors claimed that multiple witnesses observed Machado driving her then boyfriend from the scene of an attempted murder and kidnapping in Venezuela. Machado denied the allegations, claiming she had returned home after falling sick while shooting a telenovela. She was subpoenaed to appear in court, where she was questioned for three hours. The judge, Maximiliano Fuenmayor, declined to indict her, stating there was insufficient evidence. Her boyfriend, however, was indicted. Fuenmayor subsequently accused Machado of threatening to have him killed: "she [said] she would make sure, using her friendship with the president (Rafael Caldera), that my career as judge is ruined and then she would kill me”, and claimed that he had traced the telephone number back to Machado. Machado admitted she rang, but claimed it was merely to thank him for his unbiased pursuit of justice. Another judge, Narda Herrera, investigated the alleged threat but did not indict her. The case caused a media sensation in Venezuela unseen since the conviction of President Carlos Andres Perez. [1][2][3][4][5][6]
- Then go ahead and draft verifiable, NPOV content cited to reliable sources, and propose it here. Be sure that your draft summarizes both sides of the story. Then we will see whether your proposal gains consensus. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
The sources are BBC, The Economist, AP, Reuters and a Venezuelan newspaper El Tiempo NPalgan2 (talk) 05:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
References
- ^ "BBC News | World | Beauty queen in attempted murder trial". news.bbc.co.uk. 27 January 1998. Retrieved 28 September 2016.
- ^ Gutkin, Steven (February 5, 1998). "Ex-Ms. Universe Accused of Threat". apnewsarchive.com. AP. Retrieved 28 September 2016.
- ^ Ex-Miss Universe stars in real-life Venezuela soap Reuters, via Hurriyet Daily News, 2/7/1998
- ^ "ALICIA MACHADO AMENAZA DE MUERTE A JUEZ - Archivo Digital de Noticias de Colombia y el Mundo desde 1.990 - eltiempo.com". El Tiempo. 6 Feb 1998. Retrieved 28 September 2016.
- ^ "Alicia in the big city". The Economist. 19 Feb 1998. Retrieved 28 September 2016.
- ^ "ALICIA MACHADO ES SAMANTHA: - Archivo Digital de Noticias de Colombia y el Mundo desde 1.990 - eltiempo.com". No. 28 Feb 1998. Retrieved 28 September 2016.
- " prosecutors claimed that ..." so... no charges were filed? This is exactly what SHOULDN'T be included.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- You keep saying that the fact that she was indicted on neither charge means thatthe information should not be included, but I review the wikipedia policies above and argue otherwise. Please engage with that. The Economist and Reuters both remark on the highly unusual level level of coverage in Venezuela - comparing it to the trial and conviction of the president 5 years before - arguing notability. NPalgan2 (talk) 06:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- " prosecutors claimed that ..." so... no charges were filed? This is exactly what SHOULDN'T be included.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- I gotta say - I don't think she is that much of a public figure. She is not anywhere near the notoriety level of Hilary or Trump, or top tier movie stars or TV stars. I think the view expressed above User:Cullen and Marek is somewhat overblown - maybe quite overblown. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- NPalgan2's proposal (eight sentences and 171 words) would give substantially undue weight to this episode on this bio page. Not only did no trial occur, but in fact no formal accusation ever appears to have been made against the article subject. Maybe this could support a sentence or two at the very most. See WP:BALASP/WP:WEIGHT: "discussion of isolated events .... or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." Neutralitytalk 06:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- I agree. Thank you Neutrality. You are making excellent points. I already thanked you for your edits to the article but this time I didn't want to overload your thanks notifications by using the thanks button again. :) Dr. K. 06:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- For comparison's sake, AP included a detailed paragraph on the scandal when summarising her career when discussing the latest Trump imbroglio: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CAMPAIGN_2016_DEBATE_MISS_UNIVERSE_NYOL- NPalgan2 (talk) 06:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- She is a public figure and this is notable. Just because it isn't proven, doesn't mean it can't be included. Bill Clinton's article mentions the women who accused him of sexual harassment, yet he admits nothing. As long as the article makes it clear she's never been convicted, I have no problem with this, there a many reputable sources to back up that the allegations were made. Volunteer Marek, are you anything more than just a liberal tool who wants to portray Macnado as an angel? We also have no proof that Donald Trump actually called her "Miss Piggy" or "miss housekeeping", but you have no problem keeping that in the article.--Rusf10 (talk) 06:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
WP:BLPGOSSIP
I have removed content that plainly implicates WP:BLPGOSSIP and other concerns:
- Wikipedia is not a repository of allegations of celebrity sex tapes.
- People en Español is not an acceptable source for this kind of inflammatory information. This is not to say that the publication is unreliable in every context (WP:CONTEXTMATTERS), but in this context (living person, sex-related material) it is insufficient.
- The remaining source, El Universo, does not appear to support the bald statement, in Wikipedia's own voice, about a tape. My Spanish is lackluster at best, but the article refers only to un supuesto video (i.e., a supposed or alleged video). Completely insufficient to make the much more definitive claim in text.
So I've removed all this content and replaced it with just-the-facts text, stripped of innuendo and unsubstantiated gossip, cited to two reliable, English-language sources (MLB.com and the Orlando Sentinel). Neutralitytalk 05:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Birth of child appears to be incorrect information – should be deleted
If you follow the link, the source turns out to be a prosecutor's report, which itself is repeating a statement by one person, who was subsequently executed. This doesn't strike me as reliable. It seems to me more likely that, as a public figure, Machado has attracted a fair bit of batshit attention from various journalists. Theonemacduff (talk) 05:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- I have gone ahead and removed it. Thanks for pointing this out. Neither of the sources adequately supported the statement, in Wikipedia's own voice, about the child. The sources say only that a anonymous informant within a Mexican drug cartel said something to authorities in a "preliminary investigation" which later leaked to the Mexican media. This kind of unverified, unverifiable gossip, literally from anonymous drug lords, patently violates WP:BLPGOSSIP. Removed. Neutralitytalk 05:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)