Talk:Filipe Nyusi

Infobox parameters + format

User:Therequiembellishere reverted my update on the infobox:

• His official name as per the party's manifesto and his official website clearly uses a single letter 's'.
• Unexplained removal of his image that I specifically requested its author to share via the creative commons license. Also note the spelling in the background.
• He has since March '14 been replaced by Mr Modlande as the Defense Minister source 1, source 2 and source 3 (in English)
• I believe the appointment is by the President and NOT the PM. Therefore, stating all the three PMs is a bit of TMI.
• Place of birth: i believe a direct reference to Portuguese Mozambique ought to be made.
• Why are you agaisnt the use of the nationality parameter? We've also had a similar difference of opinion in the Peter Mutharika article.
• Unexplained removal of his spouse, no. of children and profession. Would you care to explain yourself?
• Might I also ask: why did you only leave the death date and place parameters blank? and removed the other blank parameters such as residence, signature.. which can of course be expanded in the near future.
• Website format: direct reference using the {{URL|example.com|optional display text}} template.

Thanks. Ali Fazal (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Religion

What religion he believe?--Kaiyr (talk) 11:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Filipe Nyusi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722234134/http://www.imensis.co.mz/news/anmviewer.asp?a=12036 to http://www.imensis.co.mz/news/anmviewer.asp?a=12036
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140905225652/http://www.frelimo.org.mz/sites/frelimo/files/Nyusi_final%5B1%5D.pdf to http://www.frelimo.org.mz/sites/frelimo/files/Nyusi_final%5B1%5D.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

NPOV, BLP issues

I have tagged the article (NPOV language) because it is full of OR, synthesis and statements which are not fully supported by the sources given. A single purpose account has added a great deal of badly sourced critical material. I don't have time to go through it all in detail right now. The article would benefit from scrutiny from other editors. In the meantime, Julian Brandon, please do not remove the tag or reinstate material that is removed without discussion. // Hippo43 (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I am a "government agent", how can I be of assistance? Teixant (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I untagged the article because your opinions/actions seem biased (you= Hippo43). This page needs to be watched by more editors/administrators because there is a possibility of vandalism by government secret agents (disguised as editors) who remove content "critical material" and add tags without proper debate and/or justification and/or research. It seems you cannot believe that the "critical material" can possibly be true because of your own culture, and because of that you believe it can only be NPOV language. You should instead invite other people who have time/skills to verify the passages you don't like by being "critical material". Also, it seems you have grandeur complex (judging by your statements like this one: "I don't have time to go through it all in detail right now"), and you think you don't need to fully justify your statements/actions, or that the public must be subjected to your own limitations of time/skills to do proper research/verifications. You believe, against Wikipedia policies, that if you have an opinion, then that opinion must be true, and everything must blindly be according to your own opinion. Please, list the specific issues that the page has by annotating in-text. Don't just run to remove a passage and/or label the whole page as NPOV language. For example, if you think a passage is poorly/badly sourced, then annotate in-text. Then someone else will explain/teach you where/how to locate such text from the source and/or rewrite the passage to address your concerns and/or add another source. For example, you identified some specific issues with some references, I solved these issues. Please, continue identifying these issues by annotating in-text as it is done on other pages. Also, court documents are identified as court documents, not as definite facts. Why you removed these? You don't want for people to know that there are court documents claiming something. Why? Your justification to remove court documents is: "allegations, not facts. evidence from one side of a court case is not a reliable source". But then, how can you support a statement that someone has been accused of something without providing court documents as evidence? As you can see, you have important limitations in your assumptions/skills. Please return the passages you removed and annotate in-text indicating your specific concerns. Meanwhile, I untagged the page. If you just remove a passage based on the limitations of your own abilities and/or time, then you are doing a disservice to society, because you are not giving other people opportunity to read, review, and improve the material. For example, some of the materials you removed, just because you are unable to comprehend or locate the text in the sources given (language barrier?), are important for the public to know because the legislation is complex and few people have the time, willingness, skills to do proper research. You should instead have raised the issues in-text and someone else could have explained (e.g., by giving more details, or rewriting the passage). So, you are essentially doing disservice to the public. Why? Is the regime paying you? Please, control your eggo and be reasonable. Wikipedia is by the people, for the people, and it has policies. // Julian Brandon (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2021‎.

• Can somebody please do something here? Like maybe some blocks for edit warring and some page protection? The topic area here is too far afield from my knowledge for me to help, but all you have to do is read the lede to realise the existence of a major problem. 174.254.192.159 (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

I concur with Hippo43 in the previous discussion in that the language is particularly charged with terms such as "death squads", "Despite the fact that", "Moreover," "Despite their [insert ideology] agenda", and other words and phrases that come across as impassioned or designed to incite a certain response from the reader and therefore inappropriate for an Encyclopedia. It's okay to state the fact that people are being assassinated, but for it to be neutral you must refrain from appealing too much to the emotion of the reader and instead focus on the facts. I'm going to flag NPOV again until a consensus is reached. An editor should not remove the tag merely because they feel the article does comply with NPOV: The tag should be removed only when there is a consensus that the disputes have indeed been resolved. Tyrone Madera (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I untagged the article because your opinions/actions seem biased (you= Tyrone Madera). Verify the facts, do not react by emotion. If you have identified specific terms that are not supported by references (e.g.: ""death squads", "Despite the fact that", "Moreover," "Despite their [insert ideology] agenda", and other words and phrases that come across as impassioned or designed to incite a certain response from the reader and therefore inappropriate for an Encyclopedia"), then simply remove these terms and/or annotate in-text if these are badly referenced. As per Wikipedia policies: Arbitrarily labeling the page as not neutral "is discouraged." and "Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. (...).". Please, instead indicate specific and actionable issues so that the community can solve. Don't just run to label the whole page as not neutral without "pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. // Julian Brandon (talk) 06:31, 10 February 2021‎.

Julian Brandon, please stop. Now several editors have disagreed with your view on this. The article is a mess. You are trying to lecture editors on Wikipedia policy, but your contribution here has been to aggressively edit only one article to suit your POV. You obviously don't know what you're doing. Please read WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP etc. // Hippo43 (talk) 03:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Julian Brandon, the tag was not merely to correct a problem with the article, otherwise I would have indeed already corrected it. This tag is to establish that a discussion is going on and that a consensus has not been established yet. Please, don't remove it until a consensus has been reached. I stated my disagreement as part of that discussion. This is by no means meant as criticism or a personal attack. Please, do not remove the tag until the discussion is over or resolved. This is not simply because of a difference of opinion: it is because multiple differing points of view have been stated resulting in a dispute. Tyrone Madera (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Hippo43 and Tyrone Madera, I agree that the events described in the article are aggressive and shocking, but we need to find a better way to address that. The fact that the passages are "aggressive" does not really mean "not neutral". Please, try to verify carefully each passage. I am only trying to share with the public what is usually hidden. I can show you more "painful" (but true) facts if you wish. Should we hide these from Wikipedia just because these are painful facts? Let's collaborate constructively because I think we all have a common goal here at Wikipedia.org. There is no need for dispute. Let's begin by annotating in-text each passage you consider problematic ("non-neutral", "badly referenced", "slanted" , "critical material", etc). That way we can have a constructive, evidence-based, and transparent debate. Let's avoid just labeling the whole page. Let's be more specific. Let me know what you think. (By the way, Hippo43, I would like to do this on many articles on Wikipedia.org, but as you know this requires extensive time (to do things right), so I try to help the most disadvantaged societies first; countries where people have poor access to uncensored, reliable information and Wikipedia.org could help them. Also, Tyrone Madera, I am untagging the article because we need to find a better way to tell the public that there is no consensus on specific passages, indicating the specific passages that are not consensual, not labeling the whole article, which might give the wrong impression that everything on the article is poorly referenced).// Julian Brandon (talk) 03:57, 11 February 2021‎‎.

Julian Brandon, by all means state the facts. My issue is simply with wording. Hippo, as far as I can tell, simply wants reliable citations for those facts. In Wikipedia we try to make our writing Encyclopedic. This means that wording should be as neutral as possible, especially for living people. This is where I was coming from, that the page was written in a fashion that was not neutral. If you agree with me, and we agree with hippo, then there is consensus and we can remove the page tag. By all means, this does not mean that editing shall cease. This is just to notify people of the discussion/dispute. In the meantime, I will edit the wording if you don't mind. Can we agree that the section "Presidency (2015–present)" has very charged language at least? Tyrone Madera (talk) 04:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Tyrone Madera. Good that we agree that the problem is not the whole page, but that the wording needs to be improved in a specific section "Presidency (2015–present)" of the article. But this section is already labelled that it requires copy-editing, and I agree with that. So, I suppose copy-editing includes finding the right words (e.g., "less charged words") to describe some events. But at least we agree that there is no need to label the whole page. Let's then identify the specific passages that have "very charged language" in the section "Presidency (2015–present)" by annotating in-text to "notify people of the discussion/dispute" on specific passages in this specific section of the article, to facilitate action by other people who could help rewriting these specific "non-consensual" or "charged" passages in the section "Presidency (2015–present)" (instead of just labeling the whole page, making it unfeasible for other people to act, and might give the wrong impression that everything on the article is poorly referenced). (That is a relatively small section, so it should be relatively easy to annotate in-text, right?). As you see, after all, there is no need for dispute. A constructive, evidence-based, and transparent debate is what we need. But please indicate the specific "conditions" that need to be "met" to remove this tag from this section, to facilitate action. Otherwise, a more specific tag should instead be used in this section "Presidency (2015–present)", instead of "disputed neutrality" (that is, I will remove (or anyone can remove) this tag if "It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given"; or "In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.", as per Wikipedia policy, because "This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article.") // Julian Brandon (talk) 04:28, 11 February 2021‎‎.

I have tagged the article again. Please do not remove the tag until this has been resolved. In particular, the lead reflects the problems in the presidency section, so the whole article needs to be tagged. Right now the article is very badly written. It reads like it has been written by someone who does not speak English well, and who does not understand Wikipedia well. The tone is overly critical and presents allegations as facts. The use of sources is very poor - it includes primary sources and non reliable sources which are not appropriate, and draws conclusions (WP:SYNTH) which are not presented in sources.

For example, it is not appropriate for Wikipedia articles to say what is illegal, and then to state the conclusion that someone has done something illegal, if that is not explicitly supported by reliable secondary sources.

While some of these allegations may be true, and maybe Nyusi has done some very bad stuff, we need to remember this has to be a useful encyclopedia, and that this is a BLP.

Julian Brandon, if you want to work productively with other editors, please stop reverting changes that are made. Please read WP:OWN. This is not your pet article. When I wrote above that I don't have time to deal with this in detail, part of the problem is that any change I make is immediately reverted by an aggressive single purpose editor. JB, please take a step back and leave the article alone for a few days. If you want to make changes, discuss them here. // Hippo43 (talk) 06:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Hippo43, you need to be more specific, more collaborative, and provide evidence to support your opinions. You seem to believe that your opinions are always true, and should always be enforced without proper, detailed justification. Try to identify specific issues and annotate in-text or correct these specific issues. That is what a productive and transparent editing is, not just arbitrarily labeling the whole page. I am not going to repeat this again (I have explained this extensively above), so as it stands, I believe that I agree with Tyrone Madera that we need to be specific, to make it feasible for other people to contribute, labeling the specific section "Presidency (2015–present)". If you think some words are not appropriate elsewhere, replace these words with more specific words or annotate in-text indicating your concerns about some words that your think are not appropriate or references that you think are poor (and why you think each of such word/reference is not appropriate/poor; provide concrete evidence to support your opinions). That is what being productive is, and will help other people contribute to improve the article. Why you seem to run to just label the whole article? (For your reference, Obama's article also has the word "illegal"). Meanwhile, I will keep what we agreed with Tyrone Madera: only label the section "Presidency (2015–present)". That is, I will revert any tagging of the whole article, unless specific, evidence-based, and transparent issues are raised, annotated in-text. // Julian Brandon (talk) 09:03, 11 February 2021‎

You don't know what you're doing. Your knowledge of Wikipedia amounts to aggressively editing one article. Just stop. // Hippo43 (talk) 08:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Julian Brandon, When I offered to tag "Presidency (2015–present)" it was out of desire to find common ground. I also agree that the whole article should be tagged. I also wanted to hear from Hippo43. As for the reasoning for the justification, I gave mine in the first paragraph. This is not a blanket response. I named out specific examples. The criteria for removing such a tag has been made clear: consensus on our course of action. The details of the justification have been stated, and this is a call for discussion. The whole point of the tag is to get people talking instead of editing back and forth, as seems to be happening.

As for everyone here, I don't really like where this talk page is going, as it feels like it is becoming increasingly hostile. I myself am not very good at conflict resolution over the web, especially when it is text-based, so please bear with me. I know that we are supposed to be bold on Wikipedia, but it shouldn't turn into people accusing each other of bad faith and telling each other that we don't know what we're doing. As editors, we should try to be kind to one another and act under the presumption of good faith whenever possible, because without such grace no one would want to edit on Wikipedia.

So let's start by answering this question: what course of action, if any, should be taken to improve this article? If I understand you right Julian Brandon you wanted to start with annotation. What did you want to do Hippo43? Can we all at least agree that a dispute is happening? Tyrone Madera (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)