Talk:Filipe Nyusi: Difference between revisions

Hi, [[User:Gryllida|Gryllida]]. '''Because your criteria of size of the first section are baseless. I proved that by giving you examples of other Wikipedia biographies that have larger first section: Hitler<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler</ref>, Osama bin Laden<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden</ref>, Trump <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump</ref>: Will you also argue that these also need to be tagged as "neutrality disputed", or need to have their first section summarized because "the before-toc text should fit half an average screen"?''' '''And, if your opinion is that there are only negative things about him in the article, I suggested that you could edit the article to add these positive things about him that you believe were left out, provided that these are supported by valid references.''' So, as you see, given that, your insistence to remove from the article content supported by valid references is baseless, emotional, suspect, questionable, biased, etc. That sounds like what a member of G40<ref>https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/AFR4129472020ENGLISH.pdf</ref><ref>https://www.dw.com/pt-002/mo%C3%A7ambique-intelectuais-pr%C3%B3-nyusi-usam-meios-de-comunica%C3%A7%C3%A3o-p%C3%BAblicos-para-escamotear-a-verdade/a-51664649</ref><ref>https://www.cartamz.com/~cartamzc/index.php/sociedade/item/3945-mocambique-intelectuais-pro-nyusi-usam-meios-de-comunicacao-publicos-para-escamotear-a-verdade</ref> would do. So, let me ask you again: are you a member of G40? That is the only possible explanation for your baseless insistence to remove content from the article just because you believe it is not beautiful. Why don't you add what you consider beautiful content instead? That could help you resolve your baseless, perceived "undue weight", right? Do that then. Could you share that content on this talk page so that we can first verify the validity of its references before you add it to the article directly? In truth, there are more details that need to be added in the subsequent sections of the article to expand more each of the points mentioned in the first section. So, removing content from the first section is not the way to go. Perhaps, because your knowledge of the history of this country is limited and you don't want to make any effort to do some honest research about it (instead your choice is to engage in baseless debate of emotions, not facts), you believe that the article is complete. It is not: more details need to be added in the subsequent sections of the article. So, the first section should provide an honest overview of the article, so distorting or removing facts in/from the first section is not the way to go. Could you try to teach yourself something about the history of this country by for example reading this interview with historian Michel Cahen for the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation Southern Africa / Fredson Guilengue<ref>https://lamenparle.hypotheses.org/493</ref>? Perhaps, you need formal education in this topic: one thing is being a Wikipedian, another different thing is having basic knowledge/skills to engage in a productive debate about a specific topic. As I told you, I spent decades investigating the history of this country, so I advise you to do the same because it is not productive to engage in a debate with someone who seems to be acting emotionally, impulsively. '''So, again, we need to have a content-centered, reason-based, fact-driven discussion. We need to enforce a responsible, transparent, honest editing. So, let's make our discussion specific. Please, indicate specific passages and issues that you think need to be resolved, and how and why these need to be corrected, and provide valid references to support your opinions.''' --[[User:Julian Brandon|Julian Brandon]] ([[User talk:Julian Brandon|talk]]) 21:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)