Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Puerto Rico/Archives/2021/February

Articles nominated for deletion

Once again articles related to Puerto Rican military personnel have been nominated for deletion. They are the following: Pedro Rodríguez (soldier) , Carmen Lozano Dumler and Frances M. Vega. Tony the Marine (talk) 06:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

New Military Articles nominated for deletion

Once again articles related to Puerto Rican military personnel have been nominated for deletion. They are the following: Lizbeth Robles and Frankie Segarra. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Edits at El Imparcial claiming 65,000 circulation, reports of government corruption, the establishment of a "court precedent", and other similar claims

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

At El Imparcial, I just removed the claims above as I had, a day earlier, tagged the cite with the WP:FULL tag but an editor removed my tag. The tag requested, for Verifiability, the page number where the alleged information was located. The missing pages makes it impossible to verify the information and, thus, it fails the WP:V policy. The editor removed the tag with an edit summary here reading "all this info is available in the cited source, feel free to add more to the article if you like (the article is not paywalled)". I was assuming good faith when I placed the tag, (assuming for example, that the editor who entered the information had indeed himself read the page of the cite when the information was located) as opposed to my removing the information altogether. However, I am no longer so sure for, paywalled or not, per WP policy "the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material" not with the rest of Wikipedia community editors. This means it lies with Peteforsyth, not with the Community. I opened up this discussion to give the other editor an opportunity to prove his point and gain consensus in his favor. Best regards, Mercy11 (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry for the confusion with El Imparcial. I was sure I had used the link that went directly to the page (page 66), so my mistaken impression was that you were not even bothering to look at the information that was readily accessible. Compounding the situation, when I click the link, it goes directly to the page (presumably because of browser cacheing) -- so it wasn't until I took a closer look this morning that I realized what was going on.

It seems to me this article is valuable, in that it gets into a certain important period of the newspaper's history in some depth. Maybe you could take a closer look now that I've given you more complete info and see if you agree. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 17:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I figured out where the "page" portion of the URL went: the ProveIt gadget, which I use heavily to format raw URLs, apparently strips out the end of Internet Archive URLs. I've been doing a lot of this lately, so it's super important to be aware of this quirk of how it works…so I appreciate our discussion, it helped me learn something really important to my efforts here, and will help me avoid similar problems in the future. I'll also bring it to the attention of the ProveIt devs. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth: I moved your text above from my talk page to here for 2 reasons, #1 the discussion was already open here, #2 I often delete material from my talk page for clean-up reasons, but here it can live in perpetuity.

IAE, thanks for your observations above. My primary concern was that there was no page number included, and it would have been burdensome for an editor to have to read thru the small print of 72 pages to find the article in question. Now that a page number is identified (page 66, thanks) I too would agree the article is valuable for the landmark Court decision. That said, feel free to restore information into the article (ensuring, please, that it includes the page number this time, of course). Glad we both learned something from this. Best regards, Mercy11 (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.