Talk:Ramón Rivero

Request: LOCK ARTICLE

The Fundación Ramón Rivero, which I preside, would like the article on Ramón Rivero (Diplo) to be locked so no unauthorized persons add information that is irrelevant or worse, defamatory. This has happened in the past and it is a lot of trouble to constantly having to check the article for accuracy.

As it stands, most of the information in the article is straight from the official Ramón Rivero site (www.diplo.org) and we have checked its contents for accuracy.

We would like to thank Tony the Marine in particular for keeping this article in place.

Joseph Orbi President Fundación Ramón Rivero, Inc. --Mcquicker (talk) 21:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

COI

As per the above statement the editor that made it has declared his COI and his edits should go through an edit request I believe. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• I completely agree with User:Domdeparis. No one, be it a member of Wikipedia or or an outside contributor, is allowed to make edits to an article such as this one, unless they can cite and provide reliable verifiable sources per Wikipedia policy. Now, when an organization related to the subject makes an edit that can be considered a COI (conflict of Interest) that addition may be questioned. The best thing that a person or organization related to the subject can do is request the help of an experienced editor. As soon as I have the time, I will look into the additions which have been made and which of those can be sustained by a non-related source. Thank you once again User:Domdeparis for bringing this up. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:28, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Tony for that. I understand the importance of the subject in relation to the culture of Puerta Rico but I came this page because of some edits made by the above editor on other pages. They were not very encyclopedic in tone and lacked the NPOV that is essential. That made me check out this page and when I saw this phrase in the lead "Rivero is considered by Puerto Ricans a national hero and their greatest and most influential comedian." National hero is a strong term and often relates to an offical award given by certain countries (Jamaica Indonesia the Philippines amongst others) so I thought that tagging would be useful so that editors that read Spanish could have a look at the sources. Obviously no one can be unanimously considered by every person in a country as its greatest comedian so this smacked of at least non NPOV editing and in light of the above statement COI editing. So as I said no disrespect is meant to the subject but a bit of cleaning up is needed I feel. Cheers Dom from Paris (talk) 08:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

--Ramon Rivero is a national hero in Puerto Rico and to Puerto Ricans all over the world. On his death in 1956, Puerto Rico observed a 2 week national mourning. It has a 20ft statue, theaters, streets and the national TV and Radio stations named after him. He is considered the most influential and important actor/comedian in the history of the island. Please see www.diplo.org. Ramon Rivero, DIPLO is considered the Chaplin of Puerto Rico and like Chaplin, the greatest comedian in the history of Puerto Rico for his creativity, variety and reach. In our page, www.diplo.org anyone can read homage by other artists, famous puerto rican authors and celebrities to Ramon Rivero. It is difficult to historical importance to Puerto Rico unless you are from Puerto Rican heritage. Yes, we are close to the subject and because of that, we at the Fundacion Ramon Rivero have the facts to prove it. Again, see www.diplo.org and DiploDice on Youtube.

As a stakeholder in the memory of this person you clearly have a conflict of interest (the Wikipedia definition of WP:COI is not a negative one but simply a state of affairs). You and many others may consider him as the greatest comedian but you cannot speak in the name of all Puerto Ricans. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such must adhere to a neutral point of view. As such quite a lot of what has been written needs editing for tone and sources. Tony has offered to go over the article and given his experience and status as an administrator here I am sure he will do a perfect job. Your statement about the 2 weeks national mourning is something that should be added but only if it sourced by independent reliable sources. The diplo website is not independent of the subject so should be used sparingly. Please do not take these remarks as criticism. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2018 (UTC). PS please remember to sign your comments on talk pages by using the buttons or by typing ~~~~.

--- Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia. As a historian, I can give you countless examples of Wikipedia pages full of inaccuracies. Wikipedia's goals are commendable, but it's very premise allows it to be a platform for people to spread disinformation. I have no need or the time to debate issues with people like you, who, with all due respect, know absolutely nothing about Ramon Rivero DIPLO. In the past, Wikipedia has been used to include insulting information about Ramon Rivero DIPLO, and frankly, just the time we spend every day trying to keep facts straight, is a waste of our resources. I am very grateful to Tony for doing his absolutely best to keep the Ramon Rivero DIPLO page online. But, we prefer that the page be taken down.

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcquicker (talk • contribs) 12:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Mcquicker: First of all I would like to remind you that regardless of your personal opinion Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, please read Wikipedia:Five_pillars. It is not perfect as it relies on contributors like you and me but the result is much better than you seem to believe but we rely on editors be they historians or not to ensure that the information is as accurate as possible, and if you have seen inaccuracies elsewhere I would encourage you to make the neccessary changes. Secondly your comment is typical of why we so strongly discourage WP:COI editors to particpate especially when like you as an employee of the foundation they have a financial interest in the subject because it is difficult to have a neutral point of view. Thirdly please read WP:DELETE to familiarise yourself with the deletion policy for articles as your request does not have a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding. Also please read WP:OWN as you seem to be labouring under the misconception that you own this article and can dictate what happens to it. You do not...in the same way that you do not own an article about the subject in any publication other than the books you write. This is not, as you seem to be implying, some kind of memorial to Rivero that is here for his fans. Any information that is correctly sourced regardless of its nature, positive or negative, has its place here (within certain limits). Please feel free to make any edit requests on this talk page if you consider that there are factual errors or you wish to add more information but you are very very strongly advised to not directly edit this article as per WP:FCOI, any such edits might find themselves reverted. You have control over the information that you publish on the foundation's website but I am afraid here any editor is free to edit any article so long as they respect the rules guidelines and policies of Wikipedia. It is a shame that you no longer wish to edit here because it is important to have as many knowledgeable editors as possible on wikipedia. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

--I am a historian. For example, I know more about Leonardo da Vinci than most people after spending 30 doing research on the artist. Yet, I find his page in Wikipedia fraught with errors and hearsay. The historical information I found on Leonardo is easily accessible, yet, Wikipedia spreads the nonsense that Leonardo invented this or that, or that he is considered one of the greatest artists that ever lived, although Leonardo is responsible for about 15 paintings and a mural, a third of them unfinished.

As Dr. Owen Gingerich from Harvard points out, Leonardo never invented anything. Yet, Wikipedia editors seem to pick on easy targets like like Ramon Rivero, instead of Leonardo da Vinci (for example) because that would require real research. Sorry, but I really don't care about an outlet that allows disinformation to spread. I am sure you don't read Spanish, because you have no idea what you're stating when you mention that "it is hard to think/believe..." when pointing out information about Ramon Rivero. Let me be clear. It is much more credible for Ramon Rivero DIPLO to be a national hero, than it is for Leonardo da Vinci to invent the helicopter or the tank. (For your information, not that you care one way or the other, many of da Vinci's "weapons" he plagiarized from a book by Roberto Valturio (1405-1475).

But getting back to Ramon Rivero DIPLO, from what I gather, your point is that because a person is personally associated with a historical figure like Ramon Rivero DIPLO, his/her information is biased? It is people with first hand knowledge of facts and people that offer the best historical reference to those who are no longer alive. Every one else speculates. Why, I for instance, did not rely on much on what has been written about Leonardo but instead, went to the source itself -- Leonardo wrote copious notes about many things, most reflecting the disorganized inaccuracies of a restless mind, inaccuracies that keep disseminating through the wonderful mechanisms of Wikipedia.

---a — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcquicker (talk • contribs) 15:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

You should avoid comments such as "not that you care one way or the other" when communicating with other editors. You have really to read the pages for which I have provided links especially I think to try and understand what WP:COI means here and not take this as something personal. It doesn't mean biased but when you write that he is "considered by Puerto Ricans as ..." this is not unfortunately acceptable because you cannot seriously suggest as a historian that one person can speak in the name of a whole country and its population. This shows that there is a lack of neutral point of view. You can talk about some of the population or if you have sources backing it up talk about a majority of the population but not suggest that all Puerto Ricans have the same opinion. By not using a quantative adjective and sources this amounts to a point of view and this is not acceptable on Wikipedia regardless of what you may believe credible or not. I hope you get what I am trying to say. And please sign your comments this is part of the conventions here as polite exchanges on discussion pages. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• As a person of Puerto Rican descent whose family is Puerto Rican and who has lived in Puerto Rico for 20 years, I have to be honest and express some truths about this issue. Diplo, is an iconic figure in Puerto Rico to Puerto Ricans such as Elvis Presley, Marilyn Monroe and Muhammad Ali are in the United States. There is no doubt about that. He set the standard that other comedians in the island had to follow. Plus, as the person who first came up with the idea of the walk-a-thon he became a hero in the eyes of his people. That is why I wrote about him in the first place because he deserves to be known by the world in general and he serves as an example that not all Puerto Ricans are drug addicts and solely live of welfare as they are generally stereotyped. Now, the fact remains that Wikipedia as a norm requires that any association or person related to the subject refrain from making additions to any article. thereby avoiding "conflict of interests" or personal "points of view". If the issue here is the introduction which states "Rivero is considered by Puerto Ricans a national hero and their greatest and most influential comedian". That can simply be rewritten as "Rivero was an iconic and influential Puerto Rican comedian". which is the obvious. I have re-read the entire article which seems to be backed up by sources and therefore seems fine to me. Maybe by fixing the intro. we can put an end to this discussion. If so, we can also protect the article to keep other users from vandalizing it. Tony the Marine (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I totally agree. It just needs a bit of cleaning up for POV and sourcing for a couple of things such as his nicknames but on the whole there is no real problem at all. I don't know what the vandalism problem is so maybe protection from IP edits or limit it to autoconfirmed is a good thing. As I suggested to Mcquicker he can certainly trust your judgement on this. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Mcquicker has stated that "In the past, Wikipedia has been used to include insulting information about Ramon Rivero DIPLO", therefore I believe that a page protection against non-registered users would be appropriate, do you agree? I also made some minor edits and added a few references which back up some of the written work. So, my friend look it over and make any additional fixes, otherwise let me know when we could eliminate the "tag" and proceed with the proper page "protection" which I can do. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Tag removed, I had a look at some of the vandalism, 2 or 3 times since the page was created I believe and some was done by a registered editor, some sort of childish blanking and editing. I'll keep this page on my watchlist so that will be an extra pair of eyes looking out for it. Just to say this is what's great about Wikipedia you get to learn about subjects that you would never have normally come across. Cheers. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you my friend. I really enjoyed working with you hand-in-hand on this project as two civilized people should always do. Also thank you Mcquicker for bringing up your concerns. Tony the Marine (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

You're very welcome! Just a quick one about the protection level, maybe a lower level of protection would be just as useful for exemple WP:BLUELOCK as the vandalism seems to have been from either IP editors or very new editors with few edits. This level of protection would allow experienced editors to edit the article add sources etc. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• Good point! Will do! Note: I'm trying to change the protection level, but unfortunately my computer for some unknown reason will not let me. Tony the Marine (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I've fixed a couple of typos, not sure why it is so heavily protected, wouldn't pending changes be more appropriate? ϢereSpielChequers 21:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)