Talk:Keith Rowley

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Keith Rowley. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110616111111/http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/97562049.html to http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/97562049.html

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) 21:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

@Grueslayer: Hi. I see that you have reverted the last change, but I don't quite understand the edit summary ("What's that got to do with the lemma person??"). Could you please provide more context? Many thanks beforehand. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi NoonIcarus,

the event described by you was not caused by the lemma person, it was not performed by the lemma person and it had no immediate impact on the lemma person. There is no link to the lemma person. The appropriate article to mention the event is Venezuelan refugee crisis. Oh, it's already mentioned there.

Kind regards, Grueslayer 15:03, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The term "lemma person" might be the source of confusion here. Guettarda (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah! What's the correct English term for the subject the article deals with? Kind regards, Grueslayer 15:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Good question. I'm not sure there's a common term more succinct than "subject of the article". Guettarda (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, @Guettarda:. @Grueslayer: To answer the question, the event related to the Venezuelan migrants occurred during his tenure, and he reacted to it directly. I thought further details could be included, but I tried to keep the addition as brief as possible because of the length of the article. Considering this, and given that Rowley is included in the references added, I ask for the restoration of the content. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I may be mistaken, but to my knowledge, if a politician comments on an event he did not cause or take part in, and if the comment is notable, then we add this reaction to the event to the article on the event, not to the biographical article on the politician. Unless the comment has an impact on e.g. his career. Kind regards, Grueslayer 14:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Are you thinking about a specific policy? In my experience, these kind of events can be included in the article of the affected politician. In the case of this incident, the diplomatic relations of both countries have been affected: Venezuelan condemned the death, activated the protocolar diplomatic mechanisms and asked Trinidad and Tobago for an investigation, something that Rowley responded and obliged to. If you prefer, this information can be included too, to further show the relation with the biography. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I am still convinced you're mixing up events and people taking up positions where the events happen. I am not aware of any rule or example supporting this. Guess we'll need to ask others to comment on this matter. Kind regards, Grueslayer 21:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

It's understandble. @Guettarda: Do you have any thoughts on this? --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@NoonIcarus: I think it creates a balance problem. This article is awfully short, so inclusion of this scandal unbalances the article. After all, Rowley has been a politician for over 30 years and PM for six. There are currently only five sentences on his entire time as PM, so adding two more about this issue makes it seem much more important to Rowley as PM than it seems to be at this time.

We need a much longer article about Rowley, and we need an article on the current Rowley administration. Guettarda (talk) 01:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Guettarda: I agree with this. Perhaps I can help expanding the article in this regard. Happy editing! --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Grueslayer: Please don't remove referenced content from the article. This issue has already been discussed last year. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi NoonIcarus,

it has obviously been discussed, but not exactly in your favour. During his tenure dozens of situations happened on which he commented, which is what politicians usually do. He was not involved, it did not affect his career and not even his government. When a politician comments on an event AND the comment is considered notable then it is added to the event article, not to the politician article. If you think this specific comment needs to be in the Rowley article, please explain it.

Kind regards, Grueslayer 18:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

So far you've been the only one insisting in the change, and so persistenty, but you have not offered improvements in this regard. The article's length should not preclude the relevance of the stated content, for the reasons offered above. This is clearly a notable event, and the improvement should be to further expand the article, not shorten it. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@Alexgt2007: There is no mention of "anti-Venezuelan sentiment" on this article. The coast guard firing on a Venezuelan vessel (is not anti-Venezuelan sentiment to begin with) doesn't mean this dude expresses "Anti-Venezuelan sentiment". Provide a source that he expresses this, because including Category:Anti-Venezuelan sentiment without a source is a violation of WP:BLP. And telling me to google it is not a source. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 01:00, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

@Grueslayer: Original reverter PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 01:07, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

The category definition is "". The article does not support that. Kind regards, Grueslayer 04:48, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

It was an anti-Venezuelan action because the selective use of force against Venezuelans on the move and the official reaction of the P.M. that shielded it demonstrate a pattern of differentiated, hostile, and systematic treatment toward that specific nationality. Alexgt2007 (talk) 01:17, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Read this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_xenophobia_during_the_Venezuelan_refugee_crisis#Trinidad_and_Tobago, by Wikipedia standards, it still makes Rowley count as xenophobic. Alexgt2007 (talk) 01:20, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Then cite it on the page. Also, you can't link me a Wikipedia page as a source. WP:NOTSOURCE. Cite the actual source on Rowley's page. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 01:55, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Ok Alexgt2007 (talk) 02:44, 2 May 2026 (UTC)