Talk:Ycuá Bolaños supermarket fire

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rodriguez[edit]

Regarding JD's removal, I think the point is there were likely hundreds of people who helped out the victims, so what makes Rodriguez notable? (other than he's connected to your 9/11 Truth stuff, which is irrelevant here). --ZimZalaBim (talk) 12:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What makes him less notable? Is there a policy that says we can not have one unless we also have a second and a third? btw, Rodriguez is an international celebrity, if anyone is supposed to be there, he need to be as notable as Rodriguez is. --Striver 12:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about the "international celebrity" status of Mr. Rodriguez, but if you're looking for policy to help determine inclusion of material, here's an important one: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 12:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But please! You can not claim that the aftermath, including organizing for changing in laws and regulations is indiscriminate collection of information. Lets at least be serious. --Striver 15:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that you are, like always, using this serious article to promote your views and I will not allow it anymore. Indeed, this event is notable in Paraguay, that is why it was kept and had I seen the afd in time I would have voted keep, but it wasn't kept because of "William Rodriguez" but rather because it in itself was an important event. I am telling you to stop now, I have this page on my watchlist and I am not going to allow you to insert material to promote this person's "status" on what should be a serious article.--Jersey Devil 16:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Rodriguez contributed to the relief is not an inappropriate fact to list in the article, and if you fear that it slants the article due to being one of the only pieces of information included, the solution is to add content to the article. If you'd spend as much time improving the article as reverting Striver's legitimate factoids, there'd be no problem at all. --Hyperbole 01:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

275 people die and the article becomes 9/11 conspiracy theory advertising????? This is just beyond all belief. Some human decency, pretty please? Weregerbil 19:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just make something clear here. Rodriguez isn't some guy who contributed $20 on PayPal. He quit his job to organize fundraising efforts, and then flew to Paraguay to distribute those funds. There's no conceivable NPOV reason that the relief provided by the Buddhist monks is notable but the relief provided by Rodriguez is not. Excluding someone for their political beliefs is not NPOV.

If this was "London supermarket fire" we wouldn't even be having this problem. But it is pertaining to Paraguay, so "who cares" is the general attitude. The fact is that actual Paraguayans don't know or care who this person is, he is not notable to the event plain and simple. Your additions with the intentions of overstating his role in the events are going to continue to be reverted. If you have a problem with this then take it to mediation.--Jersey Devil 23:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you mean when you say that this problem wouldn't exist if the fire happened in London. You don't think that significant contributers to the relief effort might be named in an article if a supermarket in London caught fire? --Hyperbole 00:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem wouldn't exist because there because dozens of Wikipedians would have such an article on their watchlists so any insertion of this type of promotion would be quickly removed without question. So instead, articles that are less likely to be watched, such as this one, are used to insert promotion (you really don't think Striver created this article because he cares about Paraguay-related issues do you?) but I for one have had enough of it and it is not going to happen here. As I have stated, if you really feel it is necessary to insert that then go to mediation and let us see what the mediators have to say. Otherwise I will continue to have this on my watchlist and will continue to remove it as it does not belong on this article. Good day.--Jersey Devil 01:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of Striver's motivation for inserting Rodriguez in the first place, Rodriguez remains a notable contributor to the relief effort of this fire. It's almost as though you think Striver's contribution makes him less notable; that is not the case. --Hyperbole 02:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This would be the definition of non-notable information. Please don't spam this disaster with conspiracycruft. Thank you. Weregerbil 10:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious what makes you think that the Tzu Chi foundation made a notable contribution to the relief effort of this fire, but Rodriguez did not. --Hyperbole 05:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't familiarized myself with Tzu Chi's contributions. Do you feel their contribution should be removed too? A quick look at the cited reference suggests they are an actual non-trivial organization and not just one guy — but I'm no expert on them. Weregerbil 10:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the contribution of one guy is greater than the contribution of an organization, why would the organization be notable and the individual not? Just because he hasn't incorporated himself? --Hyperbole 06:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that Rodriguez' charitable activities should be on Rodriguez' page, not on the page of the target of his generosity. Otherwise it looks like his supporters are using his contribution to promote his cause. Tom Harrison Talk 12:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's standard for articles on disasters to include information about the relief effort; see, e.g., Hurricane Katrina, where the topic of relief has actually content-forked into separate articles. Rodriguez made a notable contribution to the relief effort of this fire, so his name should appear here. Striver's original motive for including him is not a critereon Wikipedia uses to determine notability. --Hyperbole 20:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an article somewhere listing private individuals who did something for Hurricane Katrina victims? I find Hurricane Katrina disaster relief but it seems to be mostly about largish organizations, countries, a few US presidents and such. Not much mention is made of janitors. Weregerbil 10:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. A tragic event is no place to promote 9/11 conspiracy theory propaganda. Morton devonshire 15:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That seems unfortunately close to an argument that no one, no matter how notable, should be included in an article of any gravity if their personal beliefs are odious to you. Rodriguez is not acting in a capacity as a conspiracy theorist here; he is acting in the capacity of a humanitarian. --Hyperbole 19:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rodriguez is of no consequence. Morton devonshire 05:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He was a major organizer of the relief effort of this disaster. Read the references, if you haven't. In no sense is he non-notable, and your comments make me concerned that you want him excluded because of his personal beliefs rather than because of any Wikipedia policy. --Hyperbole 07:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He was not a "major organizer of the relief effort". Please stop trying to overstate this person's role.--Jersey Devil 04:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think he wasn't a major organizer of the relief effort? That's certainly how the articles read to me. Why exactly are you so set on minimizing his role? --Hyperbole 05:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your own sources don't even show him as a "major organizer of the relief effort", read them. Now, I am being serious, you are doing this to aid your point of view. Everyone watching this talk page knows that this is the only reason you keep on putting this on. I, for one, do not like Latin American-related articles being used to insert points of view. Mr. Rodriguez, according to this article, "aided" in the relief efforts after the Madrid attacks yet that information isn't being put in that article because people actually view that article and have it on their watchlists and would in masse remove those types of attempts. This however is different, this article won't be viewed by many people because of the systematic bias built into Wikipedia that gives less relevance to disasters relating to small Latin American countries. So you believe that you can insert this here and no one will care, but I for one do care. Mr. Rodriguez is not notable in Paraguay for his "relief efforts" just like he is not notable in Spain for his "relief efforts" there, that should be the end of the story, period.--Jersey Devil 05:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources do show him to be a major organizer of the relief effort. Although the specific amount of money he raised isn't disclosed, we know that he organized a campaign for disaster relief in New York, raising funds and organizing rallies, and soliciting donations from food distributors, and then flew to Paraguay to distribute relief and counsel the victims and their families. It was covered by multiple, non-trivial publications. What on earth is non-notable about that? Comments left on this talk page seem to indicate that some editors want to censor his contributions entirely because he happened to survive the 9/11 attacks and form an independent opinion of them; that is truly upsetting. --Hyperbole 05:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to your "sources", I would like everyone to take into account that this one from "Scoop" is a reprinted article from a website called http://www.unansweredquestions.org/ which seems to be an nn blog which posts from a "9/11 truth" point of view. I don't think any rational person would consider that to be a reliable source.--Jersey Devil 05:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, to be accurate, the "Scoop" article was originally published by The Beast (newspaper) and then reprinted at Freezerbox Magazine. It's written by Russ Wellen, an editor at Freezerbox (and apparently, The Beast as well). Apparently at some point it was reprinted on unansweredquestions.org, but that is not the source. I will change the reference to point to Freezerbox rather than Scoop, since it's closer to the original source of the article. --Hyperbole 05:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs[edit]

Does anyone else not see the Paraguay-stub template in this diff? Tom Harrison Talk 12:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. The stub seems to be there all right. Morton devonshire 02:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the problem was that a <ref> tag was left open, thus causing the remainder of the article to be unviewable. --Hyperbole 04:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV Dispute[edit]

The fact is that this is a page that only five editors are looking at, three of whom generally appear to be of the opinion that information about 9/11 Conspiracy Theories should be minimized, one of whom was invited to monitor the page by User:Jersey Devil[1], and me. I could certainly follow Jersey Devil's lead and invite people likely to share my opinion to monitor this page, but I have no desire to intensify this edit war. I think that sticking up an NPOV tag is the best option; it has the possibility of attracing disinterested editors who can independently evaluate the notability of the Uruguayan government, the Tzu Chi Foundation, and William Rodriguez. --Hyperbole 03:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rodriguez[edit]

Notable sources say he played a role. Why should he be excluded? I see no reason to do so, and unless anyone can cite policy based reason to exclude him, I will add him tomorrow. He will stay per policy unless you can demonstrate why his sourced role should not. · XP · 05:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

En Español[edit]

I have just created this article in the Spanish Wiki. It's longer than this whit more information, if you want add something here. Greetings! Rakela 05:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can translate what I can from that article later. Thanks.--Jersey Devil 06:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No hay problema. Rakela 17:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement[edit]

I would really like to see this article improved. So I will be doing some work on it. Anyone who feels like helping feel free to join in. It would be much appreciated if someone could find an image with appropriate copyright! :P --Kuzwa (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ycuá_Bolaños_supermarket_fire&oldid=1205821148"