Talk:Detention of Maria Lourdes Afiuni/Archive 1

Archive 1

Notability?

I agree that the judges notability is mainly with the Eligio Cedeno case. That case is definitely notable, though. Perhaps we could merge this article with the Eligio Cedeno trial? --OpenFuture (talk) 05:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes - this was already proposed at Talk:Trial of Eligio Cedeño, to which end I renamed that article. Merge/rewrite to match change of focus will be the next step - feel free to pitch in. Rd232 ^talk 10:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree this article should be merged into the trial article. JRSP (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Don't agree with the merge. Her story is developing beyond the Cedeño case. I'm sure that someone in Cedeño's article will try to revert details about the condition of her detention and the future coverage of her trial ( "Chaves said she should be put away in prison for 30 years"). --Jmundo (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Previous opposition to inclusion of Afiuni material was on the basis of it being a bio of Cedeno, not an article about the case. With the renaming that's no longer an issue. Rd232 ^talk 16:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
• Don't agree with the merge. Her case is as notable as a case can be, independently of Eligio Cedeno. She is even more important. After all she is a judge, not a banker! Voui (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Her *case* may be notable, but is *she*? I agree her case is notable, but that fits well in the other related article. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure. Here case is very specific and ongoing. We will see but it looks like a case more important than Cedeno, who is only one among many political prisoners. Voui (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The two (Cedeno/Afiuni) clearly go together - this is hard to dispute. A merger now, to avoid unnecessary duplication, doesn't preclude a demerger later on. Nothing's set in stone around here. Rd232 ^talk 01:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

We are not duplicating information. Her story started with the release of Cedeno, but is developing into a human rights case according to a panel of experts from the United Nations, the Interamerican Human Rights Commission 1 and the Episcopal Conference of Venezuela 2. Also note that the last two links are new sources from this month. --Jmundo (talk) 07:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

There *is* a lot of duplication, you can't deny that. And that some sources are new isn't an argument against merging. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Right, well per WP:BLP1E I've renamed the article, and I've added merge tags. Merge discussion should take place at Talk:Trial of Eligio Cedeño#Merger of Arrest of Maria Lourdes Afiuni. Rd232 ^talk 08:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Renaming the article

User Rd232 rename the article without discussion. The article new name is deceiving. The prosecution just filed charges against her, do we need another article for her trial? --Jmundo (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this shows they should be merged. WP:BLP1E says that since she is notable for just one event, the article should be for that event. The event in this case is that she got arrested for releasing somebody else who was falsely imprisoned, who in turn is notable only for his arrest. I don't see why this should be separate articles. The notable event here is clearly the Eligio Cedeño case. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Please take the discussion to Talk:Trial_of_Eligio_Cedeño#Merger_of_Arrest_of_Maria_Lourdes_Afiuni. It needs to be in one place. (If for some reason you object to having the merger discussion there, please move that section here and update the merge tags appropriately.) Rd232 ^talk 16:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Why are we having duplicate discussions about the merger? The discussion about the merger already started here. The discussion should be in one place. I'm updating the merge tag as suggested. --Jmundo (talk) 18:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • "Why are we having duplicate discussions about the merger?" - because you didn't follow the "Discuss" link in the merge tag, and didn't see the existing section at Talk:Trial of Eligio Cedeño. I've fixed the resulting mess by moving the existing section here. Rd232 ^talk 20:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• I think that we should come back to the name of the article "Maria Lourdes Afiuni". I don't see the reason for this new name. You can compare with many other articles. See for example Sergei Magnitsky
  • The reason is WP:BLP1E. By default people not aware of BLP1E will name articles after a person when it should be an article on an event. So there are many examples of this rule being violated; if you see any, feel free to propose renaming. Rd232 ^talk 20:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Merger of Arrest of Maria Lourdes Afiuni into Trial of Eligio Cedeño

It is proposed that Arrest of Maria Lourdes Afiuni be merged into this article. Rd232 ^talk 07:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

At the same time as discussing the merger, it would be an obvious opportunity to discuss the name of the target. "Trial of Eligio Cedeño" was the first and only suggestion, but it's not really appropriate. Venezuela v Eligio Cedeño would be one neutral possibility. Rd232 ^talk 08:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

To recap, "Maria Lourdes Afiuni" falls prey to WP:BLP1E and "Arrest of Maria Lourdes Afiuni" becomes invalid as soon as it's a trial and not just an arrest, but "Trial of Maria Lourdes Afiuni" can't be used yet as there is no trial. I think that shows that the article really doesn't make sense as an article independent from this one, and that they should be merged. The name "Venezuela v Eligio Cedeño" works for me. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I am against the merge. They are 2 different cases and the Afiuni one is in itself very particular, she is a judge after all! Voui (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The two articles are related, and notable for the combined incident. The merge as proposed favors one over the other, which I disagree with. I agree that one new article title might be best, with both individuals merged and redirected to the incident. I disagree with OpenFuture's proposed article name, because Afiuni disappears in that, and there are two separate but related Venezuelan human rights issues here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

|it makes little sense to "merge" the articles concerning Cedeno and the Afiuni article. The arrest of a sitting judge, her incarceration, and the comments by President Chavez before trial that she should get thirty years, make this an important event in Venezuela's history. Cedeno's case is immaterial to any of this, especially when there was never a showing of guilt agaoinsat him.

.................................................................................

I think we are missing the point in this senseless discussion about merging both articles, the relationship between both pieces of information is indisputable and undeniable but merging the articles will be in detriment of the importance and the notability of what each one have independently. In each case the events and circumstances show issues of a very relevant importance which deeply impact the public opinion among Venezuelans as well as among the international community but each one went in different directions when one is about a particular case of an unjustified and illegal prolongation of an individual detention (Businessman/Banker Eligio Cerdeño) and his subsequent conditioned liberation ordered by a Judge (Maria Lourdes Afiuni) following a perfect legal procedure according to Venezuelan Law; the second one is about an arbitrary decision of incarcerate a judge (Maria Lourdes Afiuni) violating all kind of legal procedures and laws and later building a fictional case of corruption just to fulfill a retaliatory order of the Chief of the state itself president Chavez responding to a solely political reasons in a clear violation of the boundaries of powers established on the constitution. So in essence both articles differ on principals; one is a case about an uneasy judicial decision in a very complicated trial and the second one is an open violation of Human rights coming from the highest levels of a government. In my opinion both deserve separate arenas for their proper discussion or analysis but logically making the proper references of each other when ever seems needed.Roshemthaim (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1