Talk:Allegations of three candidates' drug ties resurface in Haitian presidential race

This article was nominated for deletion on January 23, 2006, and the result was to keep the article. The archived version of the deletion debate can be found here.

Article title

This needs to have "Haitian" in the title.

No it doesn't. There are always articles referring to presidents of countries without specifying which country in the title. --MateoP 01:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Titles exist to tell readers what the article is about. If the title does not tell the reader what the article is about, it's broken. If this problem happens in other articles, they too should be fixed. Bill3 04:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Looking at your contributions it's almost entirely consistent of talk pages. Seems like a complainer and not a doer. You hypocritically contribute to Talk:Blair suffers defeat in vote on terror laws and don't change that title. --MateoP 05:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to add U.S. to titles whenever you feel it is missing. Australia is maybe a bit guilty of this too, no? Nyarlathotep 04:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Tell you what, I changed it, not to the incorrect one that someone else did, but to one similar to what I had, only inserting "in Haiti". I will be tracking the contributions of user Bill3 and user Nyarlathotep to see if they practice what they preach. So far they don't, i've seen numerous cases of hypocrisy. I will change all titles related to politics that do not have a country's name in the title and will expect user Bill3 and user Nyarlathotep to do the same. --MateoP 05:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

First, you can't fault people for not fixing what they don't see, or not having the same "bug up their butt" as you. Yes, an article beginning "Senate passes ..." should specify the country, but people may simply not notice if that country is the U.S. The title "Blair ..." does uniquely identify Britian to people who read at least a little news. So no confusion was caused, and nobody cared. Your title didn't identify Haiti by any means at all. BTW, The edit history of this article appears to have been corupted somehow. Nyarlathotep 13:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I guess when people (in this case, you) try to enforce a policy of eurocentrism on a page that is supposed to be for everyone I get angry. And I did name persons in the article Poll shows Préval with clear lead, but ineligible candidate Siméus could have presented a challenge but Bill3 said that this was a problem also. Is it because it's Haiti that the country must be given in each title, or is that not true of all countries? Practice what you preach and maybe you won't come across as such elitist person. --MateoP 15:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The most lenient workable policy is: A nation specific article is acceptable if a google search on some particular proper nourn or acronym in the title uniquely identifies the nation (within the few links); and the nation is clearly identified in the first sentence if the title could be ambiguous. Your original title to this article failed this test, although your Préval/Siméus article clearly passed it, twice. Also, the eurocentric articles your complaining about generally pass it.

Your conflict with Bill3 is not my problem, but I'd suggest that you get him to articulate exactly what he feels is wrong with titles that only identify national origin via the names of politicians. Or how he determins that some politician's names are not generally recognizable while others are. I'm not personally qualified to propose a workable strategy. And any unworkable strategy I'd propose would invole a script computing number of google hits for various politicians.  ;)

What I can say for myself is: I might not even read an article on a poll about two names I'd never heard of before, but I would read an article about a presidential race in Haiti. So it may be to your advantage to identify Haiti while saying "British Prime Minister Tony Blair ..." may just bore people into not reading the article. Nyarlathotep 17:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a link that identifies this is official wikinews policy? Don't you see how eurocentric it is to say that Tony Blair doesn't need his country in the title but Haitian politicians do? Don't assume everyone is coming from your perspective. Be consistent. --MateoP 17:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no official policy, my words were "most lenient workable policy". I understand both your argument & probably Bill3's, but, as I said, I'm not qualified to judge. Anyway, I don't generally even think about titles outside of the readership vs. accuracy debate, and your argument with Bill3 seems well outside of this spectrum now.

Anyway, violating WN:POINT won't help your cause. Instead, you should just build up your arsenal of arguments for the next time you encounter what you feel is eurocentrism. For example, an article about a Haitian singer wouldn't necissarily identify them as either in the title, so why should an article about a Haitian politician? Woudn't have won the debate over the last one, but it'll win a few such arguments. Nyarlathotep 20:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Any responses from the candidates?

Temporairly flagged over NPOV concerns 62.56.63.243 18:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

These allegations are very old. They have responded, and I included that in the article. I have no direct quotes, but they both denied it. --MateoP 01:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Added a line in regards to Philippe saying that there is no evidence of his crimes. POV issue assumed resolved, removing tags and publishing.

Title

I would appreciate it if reverts were not made, and that a title would be agreed upon. MateoP, Wikinews does not "assume" or "suggest". We only report on what others suggest or assume. Therefore, saying some MAY is potentially POV, but saying "accused of" is factually correct. I've since reverted the title back for this reasoning. --MrMiscellanious – Merry Christmas – 04:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

You should have brought this up a long time ago instead of vandalizing a page. There are no allegations made by specific parties. These are long standing allegations made by a wide variety of people for years. Come up with a better title that coforms to this. Your title is false by making it seems that this accusation is recent. It's not. I know the issue. The current title might not be the best, but is better than the other that has been created. Let's come up with a better title here, garner consensus, and then change it. No more vandalism. --MateoP 06:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

A potential title change: "Allegations exist of ties between narcotrafficking and some presidential candidates of Haiti". This would work for me. --MateoP 06:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

A couple suggestions of ways to start the title:

• "Renewed allegations of drug trafficking ties ..."
• "Miami Herald renews allegations of drug trafficking ..."

I think it's important to focus on the recent allegations in the title, because just saying allegations exist doesn't make clear what about the story is "news". --Eloil 14:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm quite concerned on your views of "vandalism", MateoP. A wiki is editable by all; an article is not "yours" or "mine". I like Eloil's second suggestion, however, and feel it would be a good replacement for the current title, which does more or less assume something - instead of acknowledging allegations. --MrMiscellanious – Happy Hanukkah – 17:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

When you repeatedly change a title despite the fact that someone changes it back... that's vandalism by any reasonable definition. If you have a problem with a title you need to bring the issue up on the talk page.... that's what it's for.. for problems with an article. I know the article is not "mine" but the title is the original one and no one else has raised any issue over it (including you). We need to reach consensus first. By the way, from looking at your contribution history I can see that you do a lot of editing and very little writing yourself. You'll probably do better with your editing if you use the talk pages and occassionally write something yourself. --MateoP 19:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Your definition would work both ways of calling either me or you a vandal, since you did very much the same without doing what you suggested I do. However, I want to leave it at that (take a last word if you want) - and suggest that the title is changed to "Allegations resurface of Haitian presidential candidates involved in drug trafficking". --MrMiscellanious – Happy Hanukkah – 04:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd go for user Eloil's first suggestion, but not the second because it makes it seem like the Miami Herald is making an accusation. They are just doing investigative reporting. However I think this is more appropriate, "Allegations resurface of ties between narcotrafficking and some presidential candidates of Haiti". --MateoP 19:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The "Allegations resurface" in MateoP's proposed title is good stuff and I think I might prefer it over the suggestions I made earlier. The "some presidential candidates of Haiti" part I'm not as fond of though, as it seems a little awkwardly worded. I'm all for making it clear that only some of the candidates are allegedly involved, but I think using the word "some" in this way may introduce other ambiguities (how many is "some"?)

Here's a suggestion with a few problems that might be fixed by a bit of tweaking:

• "Allegations of candidates' drug ties resurface in Haitian presidential race"

One positive thing about this title is that it's a bit more concise than the other sugesstions being discussed. On the other hand, it may incorrectly imply that the allegations were reintroduced as part of someone's election campaign. Another possibility:

• "Allegations of candidates' drug ties resurface as Haitian presidential race continues"

Less concise but maybe more accurate. The number of candidates allegedly involved is still unclear though.

--Eloil 00:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The exact number is 3. So we can say "Allegations of three candidates' drug ties resurface in Haitian presidential race" and that would be concise and precise. If you agree, go ahead and change it as I don't think any further discussion is necessary (unless you think this is a bad idea, of course). --MateoP 02:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I changed it to this. If anyone objects speak up. --MateoP 18:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Commented text

I've commented the following text:

Quote

---

About 8 percent of Colombian cocaine on its way to the U.S. goes through Haiti.

Because it should be attributed. "According to CIA World Factbook..." or "Reports suggest that..." are examples of what it should be changed to (see the style guide for more info). --MrMiscellanious – Happy Hanukkah – 04:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to do that, if you wish. A 2 second glance at the sourced article shows that it's from U.S. State Department narcotics reports. --MateoP 05:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

There is a huge letter to the Miami herald stuck in at the bottom of this. I discovered this whilst doing archive protection. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 15:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Allegations of three candidates' drug ties resurface in Haitian presidential race/Guy Philippe letter Nyarlathotep 16:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)