Talk:José Bustani

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the José Bustani article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Brazil: Government and laws Low‑importance

	Brazil portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Government and Laws of Brazil task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Keep

The man's the ambassador of one of the world's biggest countries to one of the most powerful. Therefore I'm removing the notice. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 01:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

good point. My main reason for deletion was that he was mainly known for a single event, but indeed also for his present role he's notable... Would you agree that that his opcw-part could use some trimming down per WP:Undue weight? L.tak (talk) 11:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced information

There is a lot of it, and it is not about entirely uncontroversial matters. I have reviewed it for NPOV violations, but other people should feel free to tweak the language or remove unnecessary information as well. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 04:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on José Bustani. 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:

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) 03:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources for Douma

I oppose the removal of Brian Whitaker. Per WP:SPS, Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Clearly, the Guardian (where Whitaker was previously Middle East editor) is a reliable, independent publication, and Whitaker has published a number of books relevant to this topic.

I also want to question the inclusion of The Nation as a source here, despite its general reliability. The RS/P page entry is as follows: There is consensus that The Nation is generally reliable. In the "About" section of their website, they identify as progressive. Most editors consider The Nation a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Take care to ensure that content from The Nation constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy. I will remind users that there was an RfC about the use of this piece in the Douma chemical attack article, and no consensus was reached.

Given these are the only two secondary sources, it is hard to justify that this incident is noteworthy, let alone that the weight accorded to it in the current version. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I realise a third secondary source was cited, Democracy Now!, whose RS/P entry is: There is no consensus on the reliability of Democracy Now!. Most editors consider Democracy Now! a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. I have therefore added attribution. So we potentially have three weak sources (one removed as SPS, although I might see it as the most reliable). I still don't think this shows much noteworthiness. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]