Jump to content

Talk:Michelle Bachelet

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

Her first name

[edit]

If her first name is Veronica, why doesn't she uses that name? is it because Michelle it's more of a white European name?, or is it because she feels she would be discriminated by her Spnish name?, I'm a Chilean and for all I know we call ourselves by our first name.190.47.248.51 (talk) 21:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know man, I'm chilean as well and everybody calls me by my second "first name". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.160.68.57 (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, she answered that question in an interview... Michelle was the name preferred by her mother while Veronica was the name preferred by her father. Before she was born, both decided to call her Michelle but when her father went to register her, she put the name "Veronica Michelle" as a kind of joke. But in her family, she was always called just Michelle. And although the first name is the most usual to call someone, there are a lot of people called by their middle name... just like Miguel Juan Sebastián Piñera Echeñique. --B1mbo (talk) 02:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Style

[edit]

Although well-written, this article makes excessive use of EM dashes, giving it a more journalistic appearance. I have replaced 2 or 3 of the least appropriate pairs of EM dashes, where commas or parentheses,( ), would be quite adequate and less dramatic. For the remaining EM dashes, spaces before and after each one might prove more aesthetic (and probably more effective) than the single spaces offered here. Ombudswiki (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

End of presidency

[edit]

The article does not explain why Michelle Bachelet's presidency ended. Her name is not even on the Chilean presidential election, 2009–2010 article other than as the Previous President implying she did not attempt to retain the seat. Was she termed out? If not or did she chose not to run? --Marc Kupper|talk 18:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eduardo Frei Ruiz-Tagle was the Concertacion candidate. A President of Chile may not be re-elected immediately (without a break). Rd232 talk 19:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article now explains why she left office in 2010. Dominic's Fire (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'm not sure why someone immediately reverted the edit explaining why she left office. I restored that though then then removed the sentence about that it is unknown if she'll run again. That sentence seemed unenclyclopediac. It would work if a reliable source can be found where someone asked if she plans to run and then we can source her response. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peacock?

[edit]

An IP user tagged this article as having {{Peacock}} words back in May 2010. Can we find any specific examples and remove/ref them? - Ruodyssey (talk) 11:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I was wondering the same thing. And it looks like it is the same IP that added a poorly written criticism section with no sources.
I suggest we remove the template and let the IP point out here on the talk page, what's wrong with the article.
Likeminas (talk) 16:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquake and Tsunami 27 Feb 2010

[edit]

I am SURPRISED there is nothing in this article about the earthquake that hit a couple of weeks before she was to leave office. More so because her neglect to have sounded the alarm caused hundreds of people to die when a tsunami hit the coastline. There are currently criminal proceedings against her in Chile by these victim's families. It is also controversial because she is said to be receiving special treatment and not questioned formally or according to law by the fiscal (equivalent to the US's term D.A.).

There are other significant controversial events that occurred during her presidency that are not introduced in this article... it tends to dodge and pain an unrealistic picture instead of a unbiast real one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.71.220.91 (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hodge-podge

[edit]

The presidency overview is a hopeless hodge-podge in which the important and lasting contributions of Bachelet's government are drowned in all sorts of insignificant detail, with far too much attention being paid to the vagaries of the highly-politicized Chilean media.77.162.130.139 (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It needs more structure. Will do when I have the time. Pristino (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Tell me what you think. Pristino (talk) 02:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

19 December 2013

[edit]

I made the most recent two edits; didn't realize I had logged myself out. Sorry. Quis separabit? 23:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

cabinet

[edit]

we should use Template:Infobox Chile Cabinet here, rather than Template:Infobox cabinet directly, since the former introduces more uniformity across Chilean president articles. Frietjes (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comments

[edit]

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Michelle Bachelet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Michelle Bachelet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Michelle Bachelet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Michelle Bachelet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Michelle Bachelet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Michelle Bachelet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Michelle Bachelet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Michelle Bachelet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:30, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Language skills

[edit]

Her extraordinary language skills cited in the article are not trustwothy as souces are organizations to which she have links. These organizations (Chilean goverment, UN) have probably recieved her CV and have an interest in protraying her in a possitive light. We need some scrutiny into this. Dentren | Talk 00:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Opening up this conversation again, I completely agree with User:Dentren. I have came up with the conclusion that Bachelet is unable to speak French.
  • [Interview in French] (Bachelet evidently receives a translation of each of the interviewer's questions. Additionally, she does not speak any French throughout the interview. Also, if she can at least recognize French, she would not have paused in between questions to receive the Spanish translation of the interviewer's question).
  • [with the French President] (Bachelet also does not even speak with the President of France despite her alleged language abilities. Other Latin American presidents that have some knowledge of French such as Pedro Pablo Kuczynski have been seen on camera speaking French with the President of France.)
  • [Press Conference] (Again, no French).

Regards, DoctorSpeed ✉️ ✨

Could we lose the "discuss" here? Once you ditch the French (which no longer seems to be mentioned in the page) she would have German skills from living in Germany, and Portuguese skills are relatively easy for a native Spanish speaker. I can read Portuguese fairly easily thanks to my Spanish and French ... although I cannot speak it. Rob Harland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.42.185.13 (talk) 06:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lodges / Masons?

[edit]

Mrs Brachelet is a frequent guest in masonic lodges - is she part of the brotherhood? Sources: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FJVqwV4DIY and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlSigVxPoJQ and https://vimeo.com/214027398 and many more - simply ask google: "bachelet Gran Logia de Chile" - a membership or affinity of a high commissioner of UN is relevant, isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.129.198 (talk) 03:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UGC is not a WP:RS. Zazpot (talk) 04:19, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated Deletions in UN Human Rights High Commissioner Section

[edit]

It seems strange that I need to start a new talk topic over a mundane matter, but here we are. A user is repeatedly deleting well-sourced, reliable, and important material related to Bachelet's time as UN Human Rights High Commissioner. The user has not articulated their rationale clearly, and I invite them to do so here.

The result of the user's deletions is that the article mentions Bachelet's visit to China, then skips right to organizations that condemned the visit, without saying what Bachelet concluded on the visit. This makes no sense.

The user has deleted my quotations from Bachelet's statements following the visit, but would retain the criticism of her visit. This creates problems with WP:POV and is also just plain confusing.

The user has also repeatedly deleted Bachelet's statement urging an investigation into Israel's alleged killing of journalist Shireen Abu Akleh.

I will restore the deleted portions, but please - do not make these categorical deletions again. Please explain your grounds in good faith here instead. JArthur1984 (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)JArthur1984[reply]

- as I’ve explained on multiple occasions the content that you are including is cherry picked and lacks independent sourcing unlike the criticisms of her visit which is why I retained them. The fact that you personally think a certain portion of a statement that she personally made through an office which she personally heads is important is not a reason for including it into the page and doing so would by your own standards violate wp:pov. Per wp:onus which says “the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content”, stop reinstating your edit until a resolution on this dispute has been arrived at. Thundercloss (talk) 23:58, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These statements are Bachelet's own, and not cherry-picked. What do you believe is missing from her statement, that you would like included? Your remedy is not wholesale deletion, you should add what you think is necessary. The source you are quibbling with is the UN's own website. It is a reliable and verifiable source for the proposition that Bachelet said what Bachelet said.
I have more than satisfied WP:ONUS by articulating the reason for inclusion in my prior comment, but you continue to repeat "cherry-picked" without pointing to something specific. It's your burden to respond with specificity.
You have not responded to my observation about how confusing this is following your repeat edits. Right now the article says Bachelet visited China. Then it says some organizations criticized her. There is no context for this.
Your statement about POV doesn't make sense to me. Can you elaborate? The reason I think her statements are important is the rationale described above -- if it was important to mention her China visit in the article, and important to mention she was criticized for it, it is also important to explain what positions she took following the visit, and statements she made following the visit.
It is plainly appropriate to quote Bachelet herself (this is the Bachelet article!) just as she is appropriately quoted elsewhere in the section, for example, regarding Hong Kong. You have not deleted that quote (nor do I think you should) but my approach here is completely in line with the rest of the article, the policies, and common sense. JArthur1984 (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have now revised this discussion in the article anyway. Although quoting Bachelet's statement from the UN's website seems perfectly correct to me, I would like to end the back and forth and therefore have used different sources and revised some of the wording. JArthur1984 (talk) 01:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the revisions following my revision noted above show why the original approach -- directly quoting the UN version of Bachelet's statement -- was actually best. Recent revisions made this section read, in essence, China said Bachelet said X (citing a secondary source). Then The UN said nothing could be construed as X (citing a secondary). Well what did Bachelet actually say? This is part of why I always preferred citing Bachelet's statement from the UN website itself. JArthur1984 (talk) 12:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
any content which draws on primary sources (the UN version of Bachelet’s statement in this case) needs to be accompanied by independent sourcing to establish notability. Otherwise this article and countless others would end up as little more than a propaganda piece for its subject. As wp:onus points out, “not all verifiable information must be included” and the information that you are trying to add would certainly fall under that proscription Thundercloss (talk) 16:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As WP:Tendentious editing points out, "There is no rule on Wikipedia that someone has to get permission from you before they put cited information in an article. Such a rule would clearly contradict Wikipedia:Be bold."
Here, you are repeatedly deleting edits not just by me, but also @Fiwec81618. In contrast, there is no consensus for your deletions.
You take issue with the primary source of Bachelet's UN statement in a Bachelet article (in reference to the China visit). You now say you do not agree Bachelet's UN statement is notable. But your own additions include two citations talking about Bachelet's UN statement. How can you argue that Bachelet's UN statement is not notable when you added two sources that discuss it?
Keep in mind: I attempted to resolve these differing views by going to secondary newspaper sources instead of directly citing the UN statement (I continue to believe that would be preferable). I only added a further reference to the UN statement because of your edits introducing the 'China said/UN said' minor controversy involving her statement. If we're going to talk about that minor controversy, why would we not cite the statement itself, in addition to people arguing about what the statement was?
Also, among your repeat deletions is her statement at the summer session calling for an investigation into Israel's alleged killing of a journalist commenting on the culture of impunity. You have not articulated a rationale for this. The citation there was a secondary newspaper source as well.
Please chill and engage with the substance of the issues. Add accurate and verifiable information if you feel it necessary. But the things you keep deleting are entirely correct and appropriate. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the notability and independent sourcing issues go hand in hand, i never said or implied that they were separate things as you are insinuating. My edits involving Bachelet’s statements draw on independent sources, unlike the primary sources that you are using to cite cherry picked content in order to (ironically) advance a highly tendentious interpretation of what she said. As for her “impunity” quote, it is an anachronism as I pointed out in one of my edits earlier and that is why I removed it. Per wp:onus stop reinstating your edit until a resolution on this dispute has been arrived at.Thundercloss (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But this is what you are not responding to -- you repeat words like "cherry-picked."
(1) As I asked some time ago, "What do you believe is missing from her statement, that you would like included?" You continue not to respond to this point.
(2) I also have to ask again: "[Y[our own additions include two citations talking about Bachelet's UN statement. How can you argue that Bachelet's UN statement is not notable when you added two sources that discuss it?"
(3) Let me also ask again, given your edits adding the China-said/UN-said controversy, "If we're going to talk about that minor controversy, why would we not cite the statement itself, in addition to people arguing about what the statement was?"
(4) Develop your point about "culture of impunity" is an "anachronism." Do you mean some word other than "anachronism?" I have no idea how this would apply.
(5) What is the "highly tendentious interpretation" you believe is being advanced?
(6) What do you mean by "the notability and independent sourcing issues go hand-in-hand"?
I think it is important to remember that this is the Bachelet article. This may be especially important with regard to your view of (5). This is the Bachelet article. What is significant here from an encyclopedic standpoint is Bachelet's actions, Bachelet's positions, and Bachelet's statements. Bachelet's views may reflect one view of many possible subjects, but this is not the article for any particular controversy, it is the Bachelet article.
Onus is more than satisfied here. Your deletions are against the consensus to date. I have laid out the rationale. I have asked you specific questions about your view, which you have not answered. ""There is no rule on Wikipedia that someone has to get permission from you before they put cited information in an article. Such a rule would clearly contradict Wikipedia:Be bold." JArthur1984 (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
this is really, really simple. If you want to use content which draws on primary sources (in this case, anything from the UN because that is who Bachelet works for) then it needs to be accompanied by independent sourcing. if you pretended to pay attention to the edits I’ve made then you would have noticed that I retained the other information you included because you provided independent sourcing for them. You not being able to do so for this particular quote does not then give you the right to start circumventing the rules. Put those sources in or your information stays out.Thundercloss (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are attempting to impose a non-existent requirement ("If you want to use content which draws on primary sources (in this case, anything from the UN because that is who Bachelet works for) then it needs to be accompanied by independent sourcing."). That is not a Wikipedia policy.
Contrary to your view, the policy is that "Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources." WP:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources. This is why you keep seeing me emphasize that this is the Bachelet article. This is an article which, because it is focused on Bachelet's views, means that "the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources" as per the primary source policies. This is also why before your repeat deletions, I just quoted Bachelet's statement as it is published to the world on the UN's website. There can be no doubt that the UN statement is legitimate and verifiable.
Although I have engaged with your views, you have not engaged with mine. And you continue to make the "culture of impunity" deletion even though that was a secondary source and your complaints are about primary sources. You cannot dictate (as you propose to do when you write, "Put those sources in or your information stays out."). This is supposed to be a consensus-based, encyclopedia building project. Your choice not to engage with the substance runs counter to the philosophy of Wikipedia.
Even though I think this approach is unnecessarily cumbersome when we could just be quoting Bachelet's statement directly, I have now replaced the primary source with a citation to a source you have cited for another proposition. So: please let this be.
I still do not understand your argument that "culture of impunity" is an "anachronism" but I have chosen a different quotation anyway to illustrate the point, once again using a secondary source. JArthur1984 (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, primary sources do not always need to be accompanied by independent sourcing. As JArthur1984 has noted,
WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD: Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used.
WP:PRIMARYCARE: However, primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source.
The earlier additions by JArthur1984 sourced from the UN satisfied these criteria. While it's reasonable to disagree on what exactly to include from the primary source in this case, it's not reasonable to say that Wikipedia policy disallows inclusion of material from primary sources just because they are primary sources. In any case, the material has been replaced with material source to NYT, so this discussion seems to be moot.
Also, please respect WP:3RR. Fiwec81618 (talk) 03:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm troubled that after all of this back and forth, Thundercloss again revised to de-emphasize information I added, which suggests to me (along with the failure to answer my specific questions) that the issue was never about the primary or secondary sources at all.
Why don't we revert to the primary source of her statement and then include whatever notable criticisms or responses came from secondary sources, in a separate paragraph?
It is currently much clunkier than my original attempt to update the article with the result of Bachelet's China visit and her resignation. Which was, at 00:41 on 15 June 2022:
"Bachelet's visit to Xinjiang in May 2022 was the first time in 17 years that a UN high commissioner for human rights had travelled to China. Bachelet's statement following the visit praised China's "[p]overty alleviation and the eradication of extreme poverty, 10 years ahead of its target date" as "tremendous achievements," noting also that China's "introduction of universal health care and almost universal unemployment insurance scheme go a long way in ensuring protection of the right to health and broader social and economic rights." Bachelet noted that in Xinjiang she "raised questions and concerns about the application of counter-terrorism and de-radicalisation measures and their broad application – particularly their impact on the rights of Uyghurs and other predominantly Muslim minorities" and that "the Government assured me that the [Vocational and Educational Training Center] system has been dismantled." She also "encouraged the Government to undertake a review of all counter terrorism and deradicalization policies to ensure they fully comply with international human rights standards, and in particular that they are not applied in an arbitrary and discriminatory way." The visit was criticized by human rights organizations such as Amnesty International, the Campaign for Uyghurs, and the World Uyghur Congress. Editorial boards of The Guardian and The Washington Post also criticized the visit.
On June 13, 2022, Bachelet announced that she would not seek a second term as UN High Commissioner on Human Rights following the expiration of her current term on August 31, 2022. Her decision is consistent with most of her predecessors in the politically pressured position, who have typically not sought second terms. In her final brief at the UN's summer session, Bachelet called for investigation into Israel's alleged killing of journalist Shireen Abu Akleeh, observing that "[t]he prevailing climate of impunity is fueling further violence and violations[.]” JArthur1984 (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the main issue was never about the sourcing. It was always about the weight being placed on the material and is an observation which appears to be well rooted in policy (wp:weight). This was my rationale for insisting right at the start that “establishing notability” through independent sourcing was the metric by which publishing authorization for the content you want included from the primary source (the OHCHR statement) should be made. Your latest suggestion of reverting back to your original edit and approach of using cherry picked statements from a primary source which lacks substantiation from independent sources in order to advance a highly tendentious view of things does the exact opposite of that Thundercloss (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After waiting a while for any other perspectives and seeing the Issues Involving Thundercloss on the admin noticeboard, I am extremely comfortable in returning to an inclusion of the primary source material quotes from Bachelet's own statements.
Thundercloss, I have left most of your additions in place, although I have consolidated the China state media/Bloomberg controversy in an effort to make the discussion more straightforward. Although you never did answer my questions about what you think needed to be added to avoid "cherry-picking," why don't you also add any remaining excerpts you think necessary, without deleting. JArthur1984 (talk) 22:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
no you haven’t, you’ve done the complete opposite. You’ve removed all the criticisms against her speech while at the same time quoting-at-length those parts that you like. You framing your synthesis of the material concerning the interview between Bachelet and Xi as “making the discussion more straightforward” is really about trying to minimize criticism of the Chinese state media’s readout of the interview as described by the sources. I will remind you once again of wp:onus which says “the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content” Thundercloss (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're incorrect. I did not remove the criticisms of her statement, they're there: "Bachelet’s visit was criticized by organizations such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Campaign for Uyghurs, and the World Uyghur Congress. Editorial boards of The Guardian and The Washington Post also criticized the visit. The New York Times said Bachelet’s description of the situation in Xinjiang was “couched in the language of the Chinese government” and the executive director of Human Rights Watch Kenneth Roth was critical of Bachelet’s use of Chinese government terminology to describe the detention camps."
Once again, there is consensus for my approach. In fact when ARoseWolf added to the consensus, you made an unpleasant remark to them ("you obviously haven't read the discussions above if that's what you really think."). JArthur1984 (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus that you are referring to is fiction. You don’t have consensus for your improper synthesis of the Bachelet interview, for removing the criticisms of the speech from the related paragraph and for both your choice of cherry picked quotations and your sentence-long verbatim transcription of them into the main article. As a compromise I can let your quotations stay but they will have to be counterbalanced by material from other parts of statement and the prior criticisms of them which you improperly removed (in addition to reverting your improper synthesis of the material concerning the interview between Bachelet and Xi) If you object to these counterbalancing emendations, then your quotations will also have to go per npov Thundercloss (talk) 03:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a series of changes to the section and I think the state that it is in right now is a compromise solution that should work. It meets your initial demand that all your quotations be reincluded while also meeting my demand to include counterbalancing material for your quotations. Of course this compromise solution does not preclude either one of us making any other edits which do not modify the reincluded quotations themselves. But as it pertains strictly to your request to reinclude your selected remarks from her UN statement, it has been fulfilled and I think it would be in the interest of both of us to consider this issue resolved Thundercloss (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JArthur1984, I'm not at all opposed to the re-entry of the edit you wanted to include but can you explain the movement of the New York Times piece from where it was in the article to where it is now? What was the justification for that particular placement? --ARoseWolf 18:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC) Strike that. The diff had me looking at it odd like. I see no issue with what was re-added. --ARoseWolf 18:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you obviously haven’t read the discussions above if that’s what you really think Thundercloss (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michelle_Bachelet&oldid=1252191232"