Talk:Daphne Caruana Galizia

Other controversies

Emanuel Cini was one of the few known Maltese porn actors, with the stage name of Manu Maltes. His porn career was outed by controversial blogger Daphne Caruana Galizia. Cini participated in limited pornographic videos in the American industry with back then boyfriend Javier Lopez Cazalla, who is known by his stage name as Edu Boxer. During his time living in England in the 1990s he was tested positive to HIV but remained living independently. He returned to Malta in the 2000s to look after his aged parents, where he also suffered a form of paralyses from a disease related to HIV. His life in Malta became difficult with the crisis of the Malta Public Transport which was under the management of Austin Gatt, the transport Minister. Galizia published information about his previous carrier after complaining about the mismanagement of the public transport (protesting by a hunger strike and missing his medicines),on her belief that Cini is a supporter of the Labour Party but Cini categorically denied any political leaning. He kept in contact with back then Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi of whom had promised him a quick address to the crisis, on the condition that Cini takes his medicines. In response to the situation Cini has uploaded a number of videos on youtube, where he expressed his opinion on the transport and political situations.

Neutrality issues

Having come back to this article after a long time away, there are now significant neutrality issues. The phrasing used in several sections is now either unnecessarily inflamatory "Her family lambasted the Maltese authorities", (now removed) "closely connected to the Maltese regime", etc. Along the same line there are some significant SYNTH issues which I've spotted so far where sentences have been edited to say things which do no concur with the source (i.e. my removal of an unsupported claim that Adrian Delia did not attend Caruana Galizia's funeral because he was explicitly disinvited like Coleiro Preca and Muscat were). Hopefully if other editors can take a look as well we can deal with some of these issues. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 16:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Another "neutrality issue" is that the Article seems to studiously avoid using the term "murder" when it was clearly murder.Tym Whittier (talk) 20:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

reversions

Hi

The paragraph had been restored. I have put my edits back, and I am putting the edits here, so you can clearly see NOTHING has changed context, let alone reversed anything. I have removed refs etc for clarity.

Original:

The title of her last blog post before she was killed read, "That crook Schembri was in court today, pleading that he is not a crook", ending with the line "there are crooks everywhere you look now. The situation is desperate."

On 20 November 2019 police arrested Yorgen Fenech, the owner of the Dubai-based company 17 Black, on his yacht. This company had been featured in the journalist's investigative work on the Panama Papers in relation to Keith Schembri and Konrad Mizzi, who—along with cabinet member Chris Cardona—resigned their government posts on 26 November. Schembri was arrested, then released two days later, which brought many people into the streets through the weekend in the capital Valletta. From 20 November, crowds had begun calling on PM Joseph Muscat to resign after he said he might pardon the "middleman" in the murder case.

My edits in bold:

The title of her last blog post before she was killed read, "That crook Schembri was in court today, pleading that he is not a crook", ending with the line "there are crooks everywhere you look now. The situation is desperate." [...] Police arrested Yorgen Fenech, the owner of the Dubai-based company 17 Black, on his yacht on 20 November 2019. The company was featured in the journalist's investigative work on the Panama Papers in relation to Keith Schembri and Konrad Mizzi, who—along with cabinet member Chris Cardona—resigned their government posts on 26 November. Schembri was arrested, then released two days later - which caused many people to take to the streets, protesting through the weekend in the capital Valletta. From 20 November crowds began calling on Muscat to resign, after which he said he might pardon the "middleman" in the murder case.

So what did I actually change?

• I moved the date from the opening words of the first sentence to the end of the sentence.
• I changed "this company" => "the company": Only one company, 17 Black, was mentioned in the opening sentence. "This" implies more than one, or at least a choice between the person and individual
• I changed "which brought many people into the streets through the weekend in the capital Valletta" -> "which caused many people to take to the streets, protesting through the weekend in the capital Valletta"

Here, there was nothing to say WHY they were on the streets, or what they were doing - "brought many people" implies you were already in the streets and they came out to you. THe people were inside, and went out into the streets, "the population/protesters/people took to the streets" being one very common English way of saying that.

• We don't use the first names unless to differentiate between mentions of other Muscats. We already know he is the president, as we have been told it many times in the article and in this section.

If you feel that detail needs to be included again, then we should really use the full title, "Prime Minister Muscat", "Muscat, the prime minister," etc.

• I consolodated them into two paragraphs. They both relate to her death. Short sentences like that are easily combined with other sentences into cohesive paragraphs. As they both relate to her death, and here specifically to the persons and organisations she was announcing "crooks are everywhere [...] the situation is deparate", it seemed fitting that the man charged with her murder is in the same paragraph.

I can't see how those edits changed the context, and find your reversion a little off-hand. Can you please explain how "the copyedit inverted cause and effect" Chaosdruid (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

If you look at the diff of your edit, you will see you made quite a few mistakes above in what you said you changed (sorry to be straightforward about it, but... what you say above was just not true: your revert)

The main problem which introduced an inaccuracy was the "which" that you added in the last sentence (I've added it to your changes above in bold red) . This is what inverted cause and effect.

It is also a mistake to combine a paragraph that starts in 2017 with Galizia living and ends with Fenech being arrested on his yacht in 2019. Since the paragraph needs to be separated it is best to start the paragraph with the date to alert the reader to the jump in time.

There are two Muscats in the story, a murder suspect and the prime minister, so best to keep them straight. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit war

Why would you revert? Please read the source, which reports Muscat said he was considering pardoning the "alleged middleman" (not Fenech, as I understand it based on subsequent developments) the day before Fenech was arrested and the day before protestors were in the streets (announcement Tuesday, people in the streets Wednesday).

More productive suggestion

If you want to do something more useful than introducing errors—is there, really, a whole guild for that? ^⁾^—you could look into the story of the alleged middleman, (Melvin Theuma), I see the Times of Malta has some articles on them today. Here's one on Vincent's Muscat's appeal to the President:

References

🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah - i've got flu - all you had to do was not revert, but just delete the word, let me know it was that specific word, and that would have been it? Chaosdruid (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I removed your username from the edit-summary ([1]) to avoid upsetting you, but given that there were about 7-8 changes to be made, "undo" was the simplest. Hope you feel better soon! 🍜 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:50, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

What? You highlighted one word, in red - that is the word which introduced the error - why on earth would you revert the rest? Chaosdruid (talk) 21:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Can I poll opinion on the number of references? Particularly, I'm talking about the multiple and duplicate references for the various awards in the awards section - some have up to 5 references and I don't necessarily know what they individually add to the article. I propose culling a few of the references, and perhaps arranging the awards in time order. Kilbosh (talk) 08:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• 12 December protest in Brussels DarMalta.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Why is the section called "death" and not "assassination"?

seems like this article has serious neutrality problems 2604:3D09:D78:1000:A945:4379:5104:417C (talk) 06:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)