Talk:Venezuelan army on high alert after Chávez cuts diplomatic ties with Colombia

Review of revision 1065530 [Passed]

 * This review is utterly unacceptable. I don't give a rat's ass which language version it is translated from; the source article is single source, so would never have been published here in the first place. In all likelihood, I caught this fast enough to unpublish before GNews caught it. Are you trying to get us sued by a major news organisation? --Brian McNeil / talk 21:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not single source AFAIS, it points out it is a translation from a Spanish Wikinews article, that I don't think is false. Diego Grez return fire 21:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't a single source article, it's a translation of the Spanish one, which is a copy of an article that is licensed so it can be copied outright, plus it has the AFP source. That's two. C628 (talk) 21:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked at the Spanish one; it is single source. That it says, "oh, here's a msm source to back me up" does not overcome that requirement. There are very good reasons why single source, even if CC-licensed, is something that should not be accepted. It goes beyond mere copyright, and into appropriate due-diligence. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I get annoyed because we're going over the same ground again, and again, and again. This article did not use appropriate templates, it did not use appropriate section names, it was copied from an article on another language which is single source as, supposedly, a verbatim copy of something freely licensed. Synthesis is not just about avoiding copyright violation, it is about avoiding a built-in or inherent bias of a source which might freely license for political reasons – like Voice of America. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The Spanish article is not single source. It was "based on" this article, with a backup link provided to AFP. Tempodivalse [talk]  23:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * IMHO, to justify the publication of this article, at least an attribution should be made to that 20 minutes site. Kayau (talk &middot; contribs) 02:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have done so, adding our normal source template to make it clearer. Brian if you have a problem with the practices of the Spanish Wikinews, take it up over there. the wub "?!"  09:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

POV Passage

 * "Colombia released documents showing the active presence of FARC on Venezuelan territory at the Washington headquarters of the OAS, demanding a special inquiry to investigate the matter."

This passage presents Colombia's official position as indisputable fact, with no mention whatsoever of Venezuela's vehement denial or counteraccusations. This is misleading and strikes me as a serious, if subtle breach of NPOV policy. HaroldWilson&#39;sWar (talk) 19:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Good call; although the documents do show the presence, etc., it relies on the assumption Colombia is a trusted source. I added the word allegedly to the sentence, showing we do not assume the documents are factual. -  Amgine | t 19:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Which in journalism, of course, is a ludicrous assumption to make . Imagine if an article presented U.S. Secratary of State Colin Powell's 2003 Iraq WMD accusations at the UN in the same manner. It would be a mark of sloppy journalism at best, and U.S. state department propaganda at worst, especially considering that the documents and photos Powell presented were later confirmed to have been fabricated. Information from neither Colombia nor Venezuela should be treated as factual or "trusted" sources, However both natons' official positions should be represented fairly and accurately. HaroldWilson&#39;sWar (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)