Talk:Villa del Cine

Notability and NPOV

There is only one independent source-- please expand to meet notability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I found Hugo Chavez, Movie Mogul at Danny Glover; adding it should cover notability and missing balance, to remove the article POV. There is quite a bit of missing info in that source needed to NPOV the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you be specific? ValenShephard (talk) 02:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources are cited, but balanced commentary from those sources isn't included-- this could be considered "cherrypicking". Also, pls review WP:NN; articles generally need more than one independent source (that is now corrected). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Cherrypicking argument again? I wanted to create a small outline of an article here and found that that statement was the most important in the BBC report. That is an opinion yes, but you need to assume good faith. Anyway, it has improved now because I had time to add more from the BBC. I dont have an agenda to cherrypick only the positive, assume good faith. ValenShephard (talk) 00:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, what is not notable about this? Its a major movie studio in a south american power which brings out about a dozen major million dollar films a year. ValenShephard (talk) 00:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction inline

What is meant by "autonomous" and "state funded"? To whom is that cited? How can a state-funded entity in Venezuela be autonomous, considering the consolidation of power there? Please cite and attribute, and not to the Venezuelan gov't, which is not an independent source for this: the BBC clearly discusses artist discomfort at "working for the state".[1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The state funds it, but decisions are made in house. You know, there can be such a thing which is funded by the state but not controlled by the state. I will provide a source, I found a good one a while ago. ValenShephard (talk) 23:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, but you shouldn't remove tags until you've located a source. Have you found one? It's dubious that a state-funded entity in Venezuela can be "autonomous", considering the consolidation of power well-documented by scores of reliable sources. Discussing tags on talk before removing them will help new editors learn Wiki policies and guidelines, and encourage other editors to improve the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, not only the BBC article mentions it as being a "state" entity, this one does as well. The contradiction still needs to be resolved, and if "someone" considers it autonomous, that source of opinion should be attritubed inline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Your ignorance of the variety of state owned institutions shouldnt damage this article. To be run in house is not a contradiction by definition of a state owned institution. The article sources the exec director who says that scripts are included based on their quality, and the decision lies with him, an individual and his commitee, not with the government. He is employed by the state but his opinions are his own, he is not a government official. ValenShephard (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added a source which says "Finance goes through the National Autonomous Centre of Film (CNAC), a mixed commission consisting of representatives from the private sector and from state institutions". That is more than enough justification for calling it autonomous, when funding comes through civil sources. ValenShephard (talk) 02:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Unbalanced

Please read the only source cited, and balance the text with information from the "Skeptics" section; otherwise, the article will need a POV tag. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I found a Time source (see above), and switched the tag to POV, as the article clearly does not present all views. Choosing only "Villa del Cine has been described by the BBC as 'a state-of-the-art production house that is changing the face of Venezuelan cinema'." is rather clearly a one-sided presentation of the BBC article, and the Time content should also be added. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The article is in its infancy, can you please be more positive? Instead of going on a tagging spree, why dont you do what you said, or be more helpful? ValenShephard (talk) 23:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Tagging alerts editors to issues that need to be fixed, and readers that the article has issues; it is a standard part of how Wiki evolves, and encourages other editors to improve the article as well. I recognize the article is in its infancy, but I don't have time to do it all, and WP:NPOV is a pillar of Wiki. In fact, seeing how a new article develops is a very good way to learn about Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Failed verification

This website cited has numerous pages; please cite information to the correct page so it can be found, not to the general website. The general website should probably be an External link, but I'm still not clear on that, since the text says "autonomous", yet it's clearly run by the Venezuelan gov't, which calls that into doubt. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The article is still linking to the general website, not the specific page where a reader can find that information. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The tag on this has been removed several times now, without correcting the issues. ValenShephard, could you please confirm that you have read this section of the talk page, and if you don't know how to correct this issue, please refrain from removing the tag until you do? Thank you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit and Wiki cleanup

This sentence is so convoluted that I can't quite figure out how to fix it-- the grammar is incorrect in more ways than one:

Amongst the first projects funded by the new studio are the story of Francisco de Miranda, a soldier who played a key part in Venezuela's declaration of independence from Spain, actor and activist Danny Glover's directorial debut about the Haitian Revolution and its leader Toussaint Louverture and a short film about Simon Bolivar.[2]

It also needs wikilinking, and I believe Miranda was a General. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

What is wrong with that sentence? How can you call something wrong without being able to pinpoint what is wrong? ValenShephard (talk) 02:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Missing wikilinks to quite a few articles/topics, and sentence structure mixes films with people in a way that I can't quickly sort. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Expand

• This info may be helpful in expanding the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Where is this paper from, what is its stance? I am cincerely curious. ValenShephard (talk) 03:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Reliability of sources

I cannot locate an "About us" or equivalent page at this source to ascertain reliability; perhaps it's there and I just haven't located it. I do see at the bottom of the page that it is a "magazine", but can't tell if it's hardprint or web only, and what the editorial oversight is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time to do same for this source, but reliability needs to be checked, and the citation needs formatting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

We now have at least four sources for which reliability has not been established, including the two above, this one, and the wordpress "bloggish" site. ValenShephard, could you please confirm that you have read these sections of the talk page, and if you don't understand how to resolve these issues, discuss it here-- otherwise, please refrain from removing tags until issues are resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, ValenShephard, could you please point me to where the discussion you reference here occured? I am unable to find any such discussion, and am unable to ascertain who "we" is. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The information in those sources is written by academics. ValenShephard (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you please read the page on WP:RS and WP:V and specifically explain why you believe the four sources listed above are reliable sources, according to Wiki policy, not your own opinions? ON most of them, I can locate no page that speaks to editorial oversight, fact checking, and whether the self-published meet WP:SPS. If you can't establish reliability, then the tags should not be removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Cite Style

Hey everybody. Editors, visitors, meddlers of all shapes and sizes! I would like to inform you that you are now a proud member of the "Schwindt Style" of citations. Give yourselves a pat on the back. Just a heads up. This is what "Schwindt Style" entails. (Please follow the link you will see it under "Citation style I use".)--Schwindtd (talk) 01:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear User:SandyGeorgia: I appreciate your hardwork at citations. That being said I would like to point out WP:CITEHOW. You should follow the established style. Also, WP:ITALICS does NOT mention ANY difference between electronic and print journals (it also says GENERALLY). Your beliefs insofar as what should be cited are NOT a wiki policy. I would like to bring your attention to the citation style that was being used (see User:Schwindtd. I don't really care what cite style is used, actually. But what you just did is in no way different from what I did at Hugo Chavez. You changed the original cite style, believeing it to be incorrect, while it was actually its own cite style as you can see from my page. Do what you want, but ... --Schwindtd (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:ITALICS, "Periodicals (newspapers, journals, and magazines)" are italicized (websites, etc. are not). So, I'm not following your logic, but more sigificantly, please don't eliminate publishers like the Venezuelan Gov't from citations. More generally speaking, if you want to inituate an obscure and non-standard citation style on this article, you could probably achieve consensus to do so, but that will not fly on Hugo Chavez, which formerly had a standardized citation style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:ITALICS does not mention immutable rules. It uses the term GENERALLY. In addition it makes no clear difference between online periodicals or print. The Venezuelan Government is an indirect publisher. The publisher is DIRECTLY the website. That's like saying you have to include the US government as the publisher of the CIA WORLD FACTBOOK. Would you do that? Obviously not. As far as consensus goes there was plenty of time for editors to talk about it. I do recall you saying at Hugo Chavez that I should stop and talk about changing style. I did. Couldn't you have at least humored me? As far as Hugo is concerned there is no "standardized cite style" there. Why do you think we were discussing it at WT:VEN? To be frank, I don't really care about the style. I would have preferred to have a discussion, but "you can't always get what you want." I am removing myself from Venezuela related articles, though. I wish you the best and bid you adieu! --Schwindtd (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Dont be silly boyo, stick around. ValenShephard (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

I do not see the reasons for the tags. Regarding other issues, for which the article has not been tagged: the subject is notable, and no longer relies on a single source. But neither of these issues would justify the tags. Could SandyGeorgia please explain why these tags are still required. At that point we can make the required changes or set up an RfC so that other editors may comment on the issue. TFD (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Remove tags in near future? ValenShephard (talk) 17:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Sandy is on a trip, so I think you'll have to wait a while for a response. --Schwindtd (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Two editors in agreement here against Sandy's tags, so we might just go ahead with removal. ValenShephard (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Having read the article I don't see any POV. The article includes facts and opinions from the government and independent film makers and journalists. I think that it matches NPOV, but I will review why Sandy tagged it. --Schwindtd (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes please do. You'll see that the article hasn't changed much since the tags were added. I just added more info from the sources. Which gives you an idea that it didn't really need tags in the first place. Never seen such a small article with so many 'faults' as Sandy has developed in this talk page. ValenShephard (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we best wait for Sandy. I think it meets NPOV standards, but until Sandy gets here we can't know for sure if this dispute (she may still dispute it) is over.--Schwindtd (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Do we have any obligation to wait? ValenShephard (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, since she is disputing it I would. She might just come back, see that the tag is gone, and then re-add it. I'd prefer to wait and then settle it with her. Trust me, with a little patience, you will get the results you want.--Schwindtd (talk) 18:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I was asking of sincere curiosity, I just wanted to know whether that is useful and 'good manners' or an actual obligation. But I agree with you. ValenShephard (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't know if its an obligation, but it's definitely good manners and probably more useful in the end. I think Sandy would be very impressed with your maturity and reasonableness.--Schwindtd (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for waiting; I am still traveling, and won't be online much until next week, but did a wee bit to remove at least one tag this morning. The article is still quite unbalanced, and I suggest that "writing for the enemy" might be helpful to editors here-- try to reread all of the sources used in this article and note that the presentation of the very info in those sources is one-sided here. If others don't address this before next week, I'll have to find time to get to it myself. Also, I'm unable to determine reliability of some of the sources used (pls see my edit summaries). Re "Two editors in agreement here against Sandy's tags, so we might just go ahead with removal" and with respect to this article and others, I highly recommend that all editors working on Venezuela articles carefully review the proposals at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision, particularly 3.1.4 and 3.1.7. When core Wiki policies are clearly violated, ArbCom is unlikely to look favorably upon blocks of editors using sheer numbers to assert faulty consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Dude, come on. That is a) not very productive b) a threat and c) perhaps you should just chill, relax. Things will get done. You don't need to cite arbcom cases or whatever. We waited for your discussion! Valen even agreed to my suggestion to wait! Please be more sympathetic and friendly. If there is one thing I resent it is having Wiki policies thrown at me and threatening hints about arbcom. The article will improve, despite such unproductive measures. --Schwindtd (talk) 15:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Schwindtd, I didn't mean for it to come across that way at all (pls account for the inadequacies of the written word), and am sorry it appeared that way-- in fact, I do appreciate that y'all waited, and am happy to see Valenshephard's editing improving, but thought it would be helpful for him to understand how Wiki policy is applied in dispute resolution, which that case shows well, and this article is a less heated environment for learning than other broader articles. Best, off til later, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Article still needs work, especially clarifying the funding: CNAC apparently provides funding to filmmakers with decisions autonomous of the state, and state-run Villa del Cine just provides production facilities - does it charge the film-makers, and/or allow anyone to use them? that would make some sense of the "autonomous but state-funded" apparent contradiction. Needs explaining better. Rd232 ^talk 14:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree-- I think this can be sorted with some time and elbow grease, but I'd need a large free block of time to dig in, which I don't have right now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Villa del Cine provides the facilities and expertise. They themselves do not make the decision of who is funded (as a source in the article explains), the CNAC does. Villa del Cine is only a bunch of facilities after all. This seems pretty simple to me, the state funds the cameras, studios, light guys, the people who build sets and the CNAC decides who will get to use them (to be funded by the state, after much deliberation). And SandyGeorgia, please be productive. ValenShephard (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not what the article says. Please try and be more precise, eg are the Cine facilities free to use? Charged at market rates out of CNAC funds? etc Rd232 ^talk 18:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I made a simple presumption, based on what I know of how state funded studios work. They are funded to make films, not to write scripts. And in this occasion, unlike in the USSR for example, it is a non politicised committee which decides on funding. ValenShephard (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:OR which describes why you can't do this. Read the entire page. It's a core policy, and you really need to understand what it says. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I simply meant to say that Villa del Cine recieves funding based on the decisions of what appears to be an independant committee, thats all. ValenShephard (talk) 22:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, can you explain what is unbalanced about the article? ValenShephard (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

ValenShephard, could you please confirm that you have read the sections above of this talk page, and my edit summaries, and could you please refrain from disruptively removing tags until you understand the tags and have resolved them? There are at least four sources now used in this article which present views about this institution neutrally, examining all sides: this article selectively presents only the parts of those very articles that present the most favorable (i.e., pro-Chavez) views of the Villa. When citing sources, you should try to present a balanced representation of those sources-- to fail to do so is often referred to as "Cherrypicking", and you can avoid that by attempting to "write for the enemy", in the sense of making sure you've included even those parts of the sources that don't reflect your own POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You make continued bad faith assumptions against me. The argument that I am omitting parts of articles I disagree with does not hold water. As far as I am concerned, I am giving quite good summaries of the article. Of course, this is an opinion, but we have different ideas about what is balanced and what is cherrypicking. For you to have 'balance' the article must contain much more negativity. There are personal disagreements and subconscious reasons over what from within sources should be included, and this is quite different from a malicious intent to offer a perverted view of the source. ValenShephard (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Tagging

Can we please explain what is wrong with specific statements instead of just tagging them? Even if something like time is an issue, if a user has enough time to track down issues, then the user surely can write a couple of sentences on what is wrong. Also, when I see a tag without an explanation, how can I know what needs to be done? ValenShephard (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

ValenShephard, it remains unclear to me whether you 1) read edit summaries, and 2) read the talk page. I am unable to understand what it is that you are missing, so better communication on your part would be helpful. There are at least four sources used in the article which reliably explore all sides of the issues with this institution, but only one side of the "story" is presented in this article. Further, these issues are well explained on talk, yet you continue to remove tags without resolving them although you've been alerted many times that you can be blocked for such behavior. I don't know of any other way to get you to absorb Wiki policies and guidelines; you can't remove well-explained and justified tags without resolving them. Could you explain what it is that you don't understand in my edit summaries and discussion above? It is entirely possible that you just don't see that the sources have not been fairly represented in this article, and when I am back home, I will have to balance the article myself, but your tag removal became disruptive long ago. This article presented a chance for you to learn more effective editing-- to see how articles grow and develop on Wiki-- and you don't seem to be taking advantage of that opportunity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia you can stop looking for an article that explains your point of view because here is a link to an article in Newsweek by Mac Margolis that does that. According to Margolis, Chavez will abandon the project/use it for propaganda. TFD (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

TFD, please refrain from personalizing discussions and tossing around insinuations that aren't even accurate about other editors-- there are four sources already listed in the article which haven't even been represented in the article yet. What did your post above achieve towards article improvement? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow. There's much to love about that article (where'd you see the author?), but "Venezuela's students are his sworn enemies..." stands out. (Please don't make me explain why.) Rd232 ^talk 20:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The copies on the HighBeam Research[2] and the Alliance for Global Justice[3] websites both list him as the author. TFD (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

That article is partcularly polemical. Although, according to del Cine's website they are currently active. ValenShephard (talk) 21:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, although you had never read that article before it represents your point of view. If it does not, could you please explain how it differs. You have a point of view regarding this topic which does not change based on evidence. You have made up your mind and look for reasons later. TFD (talk) 03:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Haven't read it before, and haven't read it yet-- we already have FOUR sources listed in the article, that discuss the topic neutrally yet aren't represented in the article. If you've located another source for expansion-- great, add it-- but I'm more interested in this point at helping ValenShephard learn how to develop an article neutrally and correctly according to Wiki policies, and he's already found sources that haven't even been represented yet (and I'm still waiting for reliability to be established on some of them). Of course, if you've located a reliable source, you might want to take the time to replace the marginal sources with your newer source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not a notable opinion and therefore cannot be included, but it represents your point of view. You can add it to your list of WSJ op-eds, Fox News editorials and Economist columns to further your unbiased understanding of Venezuela. TFD (talk) 03:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Problems

Can users please bullet point your issues with the article, and maybe provide sources which we can all work with, in this section.