Talk:Eva Golinger/Archive 1

Speedy deletion? I think not....

Eva Golinger is a fixture of government propaganda in Venezuela. She is frequently on state-owned television balsting those she calls "enemies of the revolution" she has written books (financed and published by the Venezuelan government). She merits a very long article. She is also, amazingly, the source for a lot of "information" on wikipedia which should be gone through with a fine tooth comb and then contextualized given her undeniable links to the Venezuelan government. MarturetCR (talk) 23:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a speedy deletion candidate at all ... I'll look around for sources as soon as I have a moment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask, who had the nerve of proposing this article for speedy deletion, was it Rd232? It didn't go well for you re Venezuelanalysis, did it Rd232? Go check out the one in Spanish Wikipedia link, erm, apologies in advance in case you are language impaired, and then come back to this entry and reappraise the situation.--Alekboyd (talk) 14:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't Rd232; it appears to have been a simple matter of an uninvolved editor who wasn't informed and didn't do a thorough google search. Please remember that Google doesn't always return good info in Spanish, and not all actions are malintencionado. Disparaging Rd232, particularly without checking the edit history, will not advance article content; please focus on edits, not editors. By the way, someone needs to add the interwiki here to the Spanish article; I've never learned how that is done, and don't have time. For anyone who is interested in advancing this article, the next step is to go back through all the sources, make sure they verify the text, see if they are reliable or more reliable sources can be substituted to verify the same text, then format the citations correctly. In case it's not clear yet, I do not appreciate having to do all the work on hundreds of Ven/Chavez articles, and I don't have time to do it all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One step done by Rd232; thank you (maybe that will get stored in my busy brain this time :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken Sandy, however I want to stress that after the last discussion re Venezuelanalysis with Rd232, it's simply best if he/she refrains altogether from editing Venezuela pages, at least, until he/she can accept Wikipedia policy. --Alekboyd (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not going to happen, and I only found one minor problematic edit in his last series of edits. A more productive use of everyone's time, instead of disparaging Rd232, would be for Venezuelan editors to learn policy and how to edit effectively, get out from under the mango tree, and start doing the tedious and time-consuming work needed to cleanup hundreds of Ven/Chavez articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Yippeee, here we go again

Editing after Rd232 is so predictable it is becoming boring. I thank him, profusely, for deleting most of my edits (ideally, Rd, you should have come on here and posted talk discussion) and, rather than asking for sources, making me go and get each and every single quotation so that I can ensure that I get even *more* details. No doubt, once I get the details (wait for it, dear reader) he will then say these things aren't relevant for the article. So, here goes. Smoke if you got 'emMarturetCR (talk) 12:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please address the edits, not the editor; when an article is just being developed from a stub, rapid changes are to be expected, and focusing on content will help avoid personalization of differences. I tried to re-organize and cleanup up a wee bit, but haven't yet examined any of the sources. The only problematic edit I found among Rd232's changes was this deletion of the Center for Public Integrity text, not mentioned in edit summary. It may have been an oversight, due to rapid attempts to cleanup and re-organize the article. I will look more later today, but have no more time now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tax fraud and misrepresentation in the USA

Eva Golinger has misrepresented herself in various instances, which is illegal in her country (USA). Golinger falsely claimed that she was a member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association link 1, link 2. Eva Golinger has also claimed, falsely, having been granted by the IRS a 501 (c)(3) status, which was never, in fact, granted link 3. This information should be put in the main entry, shouldn't it?--Alekboyd (talk) 14:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, even though sites like Venezuelanalysis.com are considered reliable for some purposes, Vcrisis is not (strangely). You will need to find reliable sources to back your text. Or stop wasting your time on a blog, and start spending your time getting your information printed by reliable sources :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, we have had this discussion before. As much as my site has been criticised in the past, information published in it re Eva Golinger remains factual, and, more importantly, easy to corroborate. The IRS is a reliable source, so is AILA, the NY, DC and FL Bars, etc. Chavista editors will surely say that that constitutes OR and therefore can't be published in Wikipedia. The facts remain though... link--Alekboyd (talk) 14:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; if sites like VA are considered reliable for some purposes, Vcrisis should be as well. But it's not. You need to propose text that is sourced to reliable sources, or take steps to get your content printed by reliable sources. Otherwise, you're spinning your wheels on developing info on a site that is only read by those who already know the truth. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to a RS: Eva Golinger o cómo pasar del oscurantismo al olimpo revolucionario. Here's another: LOS PECADOS DE EVA GOLINGER EN LA "GRAN MANZANA", "Solicitó fondos bajo un falso status tributario"--Alekboyd (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aleks, I'm out of time; propose here text sourced to reliable sources. I don't have time to read through and write the text, but do have time to come back and examine and cleanup anything you put here. Once again, I appear as the lead editor on this article, although I've done nothing but clean up after others; let's see that change, or I'm going to quit again. (Wish I had a nickel for every time a Venezuelan editor comes to my talk page, asking me to help, and then doesn't help themself ... no les da pena? :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, the text I propose follows, under the same heading as the one starting this section: Eva Golinger has misrepresented herself in various instances. Golinger falsely claimed that she was a member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association link. Golinger has also claimed, falsely, having been granted by the IRS a 501 (c)(3) status, which was never, in fact, granted link.--Alekboyd (talk) 15:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am unfamiliar with analitica.com; what is it, is it reliable? (Answer in terms of info you find at WP:RS). Also, I am slowed down when I have to search text in Spanish, as I don't always know what keywords I'm searching for; can you excerpt the exact cited portions here, and translate it, so it can be added to the article with an exact quote and translation? I could do all of that myself, but I'm more interested is using my time here to "teach you all to fish", rather than feeding you the fish myself :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Analitica.com has been cited 95 times previously in Wikipedia link. Text in Spanish: "Eva Golinger alegó, en reiteradas oportunidades, que tenía una década trabajando en el ámbito legal (inmigración) y que poseía todas las credenciales para tal fin. Sin embargo luego de consultar con la Asociación Americana de Abogados de Inmigración (AILA en lo sucesivo) cuerpo al cual Golinger decía pertenecer como "miembro firme", descubrí que tampoco existían registros de su persona en esa asociación. Esto motivo a Diane Kolbe de AILA a solicitar a Eva Golinger la inmediata remoción de afirmaciones en tal sentido publicadas en su pagina de Internet www.evagolinger.com."

Translation: "Eva Golinger stated, in various occasions, that her legal experience in immigration law was a decade-long, and that she had all necessary credentials. Golinger said that she was a member of American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA). However, upon requesting information to AILA, it was revealed that there were no records of her association with AILA. This prompted a representative from AILA, Diana Kolbe, to demand immediate removal of any and all references that Golinger had published in her website, www.evagolinger.com, to that effect."

El Universal: "Eva Golinger fundó en Nueva York una ONG, el Comité de Solidaridad con Venezuela, que solicitaba donaciones al público a través de su página WEB Venezuela Foia.info. Pero lo cómico del asunto es que ella alegaba públicamente que las donaciones estaban exentas del pago al impuesto sobre la renta porque su ONG había recibido una exoneración tributaria, el 501 C3, que liberaba a los contribuyentes de esa obligación. Yo me puse contacto con las autoridades tributarias norteamericanas y descubrimos que la ONG de Golinger no está registrada para recibir contribuciones y por lo tanto no están exentas del pago del impuesto sobre la renta. Eso también es un delito porque en Estados Unidos no se puede solicitar fondos al público alegando un falso status tributario".

Translation: In New York, Eva Golinger founded an NGO, the Venezuela Solidarity Committee , which solicited public donations through her web page VenezuelaFoia.info. But the funny thing about the whole matter was she publicly alleged that the donations were exempt from income taxes because her NGO had received tax exemption under 501 C3, which exempted tax payers. I contacted U.S. tax authorities and we discovered that Golinger's NGO was not registered to accept contributions and therefore was not exempt from paying income tax on such receipts. That is also a felony, because in the United States one is not allowed to solicit funds from the public while claiming a false tax exempt status."--Alekboyd (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a very busy day ahead, and will come back to this as soon as I can. However, that something has been previously cited on Wiki does not establish reliability (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Do you have a link to something like an "About us" page on analitica.com, or some info about its editorial oversight? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)r[reply]

Analitica.com about us: link--Alekboyd (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A quick glance at that shows some level of editorial oversight; I will wait for others to weigh in. Thanks, Aleks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have so far been unable to find any more info on analitica.com. Is it Venezuelan, or international (I see conflicting info)? Who/where are the owners of Analítica Consulting 1996? What do we know about the journalistic credentials and editorial oversight, other than names on the About Us page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The El Universal link is very strange; who wrote it, and who are they quoting? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, a link somewhere above to an El Universal piece [1] links Boyd with Proveo, an UK NGO whos objective is "contrarrestar la campaña informativa del gobierno chavista en el exterior." Boyd is the founder/director of Proveo. [2]. This looks like a substantial conflict of interest - which would matter less if these claims against Golinger didn't always seem to be linked to Boyd. Analitica.com piece is by Boyd[3]; El Universal is an interview with Boyd, which is in 3 parts as can be seen from the URL (A/B/C) A, B, C. Basically, whether the claims are true or not (no idea), it seems they have not been verified by publication in a reliable source. Rd232 ^talk 11:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning, the links provided to Analitica and El Universal are, indeed, citing me. I refuse to go down the route Rd232 seems to be suggesting: Analitica and El Universal are RS. If these publications saw fit to print my views, then the argument that such sources aren't reliable, because they printed my views, is no longer valid. As it happens, HRW has also cited my writings/views, and so has BBC World Service, The Times, FAZ, Miami Herald, etc. I am willing to lend a hand, provided Rd232 stops preposterous arguments about unreliability of sources, just because they cite me. For then, I could turn round and say: "well Correo del Orinoco, or Aporrea, or Venezuelanalysis, or any propaganda rag of the Chavez regime for that matter, is not reliable because it publishes the views of Wilpert, or Golinger, or Sanchez. Since this is unacceptable for Rd232, so it must the other way round.--Alekboyd (talk) 12:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Aleks, I agree with some of your fundamental points about the sources in general, but I for one am very uncomfortable with how the El Universal article is structured, and I'm not willing to be the one to add this info to a BLP considering how strange that link is, and that all of this info seems to lead back only to you. Do you have other reliable secondary sources for the same info? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Could it be that the alleged tax fraud above has something to do with this bit of US law: [4], also [5], [6]? Apparently, if you have applied for exemption with the IRS, you are allowed to solicit donations while the application is pending. Donations made will retroactively be tax-deductible. A wording to that effect is present on the Venezuelanalysis.com site that Golinger has been involved with: [7]. I suspect however that if and when such an application has been refused such messages should be removed. Apart from that I don't think either of the sources presented here rises to the level where it could be used for sourcing such allegations in this BLP. --JN 466 20:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Interesting. I note though that Boyd is talking about this issue re the Venezuela Solidarity Committee,[8] which Golinger was "head" of. A current search shows they are now registered.[9] Rd232 ^talk 22:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well spotted. --JN 466 10:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"A current search..." Once upon a time, Golinger received payments from the Chavez regime for legal work she did. At that time, she didn't even have graduated from law school. Subsequently she gained her degree, and registered in the NY Bar. Does that make any less untrue, the fact that at the time of receiving payment she did not have legal credentials? Once upon a time, Golinger solicited and accepted donations from the public, claiming that her Venezuela Solidarity Committee had been granted 501 (c)(3) status. Records and correspondence from IRS demonstrated, that at the time the claim was published in her website, Golinger did not have the status she was claiming to have been granted from the IRS, reason for which she deleted all information in relation to it, trying to cover her tracks. Does that make any less untrue, the fact that she accepted donations by fraudulently claiming a status that she did not have? This is why, Sandy, you're on your own here. I have no patience to be dealing with this kind of BS, from people that refuse to accept facts. Como dicen alla en mi pueblo: el sol no se puede tapar con un dedo. After a while, this entry will become like the one in Spanish: a propaganda page for Chavez's Tokyo Rose.--Alekboyd (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aleks, I'm really sorry if you feel anyone has been unfair here, but on a BLP, we simply must scrutinize sources carefully, and make sure content is accurate and well-supported by independent reliable sources. It would really be helpful if your content suggestions focused exclusively on such sources; Vcrisis content is certainly as accurate as Venezuelanalysis.com, but until/unless it can be used as a reliable source on par with VA (which I don't think should be used anywhere, but we must respect consensus), you will be spinning your wheels here, and that slows down work for all of us. At any rate, even without your proposed content, I think Wiki readers can get a good idea of just who Golinger is :) Showing just how one-sided the representation of the FOIA info is will accomplish same, and can be backed by reliable sources, such as the NYT article. Your efforts would be better spent expanding that content from the NYT, as I simply do not have time to get to everything myself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-semitism

Re anti-semitism bit deleted - the grounds for mentioning these alleged anti-semitic articles (I haven't looked) are far too tenuous. None of the articles were by her (I think), and none of the sources complaining mentioned her (I think). And her involvement with the site seems (on the basis of the evidence given) no stronger than as one of many contributors. Content as negative as this needs far better justification, with sources. Rd232 ^talk 15:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I, also, have not had time to examine these sources, so can't comment yet on whether they are sufficiently reliable to back the statements. Please remember that on a WP:BLP, when making statements about a living person, high-quality reliable sources should be used. Others involved here need to address that issue, by examining the sources, and if they aren't high quality and don't support the text fully, more reliable sources should be found. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Translate

I gather that "4F" refers to 4 Febrero; someone should translate this book title.

La Mirada del Imperio sobre el 4F: Los Documentos Desclasificados de Washington sobre la rebelión militar del 4 de febrero de 1992

If it is published in English, a reliable translation would be found on Amazon.com; we should use sourced translations rather than our own if they are available. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aporrea

Rd232, re one of your last edits, and your comment, bear in mind that Wikipedia visitors are not interested in what you think. Aporrea was founded by Martin Sanchez, Chavez's current Consul in SF, and he admitted that it received official funding. Therefore keep your thoughts to yourself. Either participate constructively, while observing policy, or stop editing Venezuela related pages. --Alekboyd (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aleks, some of your commentary focuses on the editor, not the edit, and are unhelpful. Provide your commentary in terms of Wiki policy and guideline, not by disparaging Rd232's motives or beliefs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The comment is based on Rd232's edit: justifying removal of information by stating "I don't think so..." without providing any further evidence to disprove previous information is not Wiki policy, but do correct me if I'm wrong. In light of its contributions to Venezuela related pages, I don't think Rd232 has got anything positive, or Wiki policy observing, to add.--Alekboyd (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't think so" can be viewed merely as an invitation for you to do the work of addressing the issue raised, while removing content in a BLP that may not be reliably sourced (I don't know yet, I haven't examined the sources). Your final sentence disparages Rd232, and does nothing to advance the development of the article. If such continues, you can be sure you won't be able to count on my help in developing this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Everyone here needs to be conscious of WP:3RR; when a new article is rapidly developing, it can be hard to avoid, and easy to fall into. A series of uninterruped edits, for the purposes of 3RR, count as one edit. It can be helpful to allow one editor to complete their edits, without reverting, and then discuss all of those on talk when each editor is finished. Rd232 is working on the article now. Slow and steady wins the race; no need to hurry, no deadlines, avoid edit warring, discuss edits on talk. Give Rd232 time to finish and summarize his edits here on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency in External links

Rd, re this edit, please use edit summaries; it helps busy editors :) On other articles, JRSP removes all External links to reliable sources that could be used to expand the articles. Let's decide what the policy is, and be consistent across Venezuelan articles. Either we include RS in EL for future article expansion, or we don't. He removed them from, I think, Alejandro Plaz, Maria Corina Machado, Sumate and others, to the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be precise, JRSP moved links to talk. I don't see my NYT link here (though it's obviously in the diff provided). I would say that particularly when the article is new or under development, to allow links more loosely in EL that may be turned into refs. Rd232 ^talk 22:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already moved the NYT inline, but do agree that moving high quality links that could be used to expand the article to the talk page isn't in the article's best interest; if we leave them in EL, other editors are more likely to expand and move them inline (as I did here). I haven't wanted to edit war with JRSP on other articles, but when high quality sources are moved to talk, article expansion is less likely (he did it on several articles). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but if links accumulate in EL over a long period, it gets messy. There's a balance between signalling expansion possibilities and keeping the current article neat enough. PS I see now that the NYT source is inline; though I can't help smiling that a source describing Golinger's FOIA work is currently used solely to lift an adjective for her website ("pro-Chavez"). Ah well, it's early days... Rd232 ^talk 23:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Text can be expanded (I don't have unlimited time, and there's a lot to be done here, I'll read through all of these as soon as I can :) I also didn't want to expand that text myself, as it's not very flattering towards Golinger's work, and I didn't want to be accused of something. JRSP moved those links to the talk page right away; I'd like to leave them in the article, in the hopes that some other editors will eventually do some of the work. Ever the optimist :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what you mean about that NYT source being "not very flattering". And about the JRSP link-moving - it's important to be precise, some of the links were moved a few days later; many had been there a long time. Rd232 ^talk 23:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's also important to apply guideline consistently, whether a few days or not, and I'm unclear when or how the EL guideline changed: EL used to be the place where we put links for expansion up to WP:FA status, assuming that FAs should have few external links, as they should be fully developed and comprehensive, and few ELs should be needed in Featured articles. The NYT article shows a distortion of the issue from "the US knew something was afoot but warned the opposition not to tread on democracy" to some version of "the US was part of and encouraged it" (my rough paraphrase from memory, without looking at the article anew). It appears that Golinger played up only one side of that story; we, of course, need to balance it, and my attempts at neutrality so far have resulted in editors complaining that my prose is garbled (which it usually is :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aporrea.org

Could knowledgeable editors please discuss the reliability of http://www.aporrea.org/nosotros.php ? That's too much to read, and I don't know anything about their editorial oversight. Who are the owners, founders, writers, etc? Just because Venezuelanalysis.com is accepted as a limited reliable source on Wiki doesn't mean we should further compromise Wiki's sourcing standards, and I for one am not adding info from these sites until/unless I better understand who they are. In general, we should be looking for higher quality sources whenever possible. That takes work, but generally, one can find the same content in El Universal (Caracas), to avoid possibly partisan websites. I am not highly familiar with any of these sites, since I typically don't use them; instead, I search for the same content in the BBC, BBCMundo, New York Times, or El Universal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Aporrea es producida por un equipo voluntario, cuyo trabajo es un servicio social, no mercantil ni lucrativo, esencialmente para y a través de la información en el ciber-espacio y se declara independiente de cualquier fracción o partido político, intereses privados o instituciones del Estado."[10] Just above a request for donations it notes "Premio Nacional de Periodismo Alternativo en 2006". Rd232 ^talk 23:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alekboyd mentioned above that "Aporrea was founded by Martin Sanchez, Chavez's current Consul in SF, and he admitted that it received official funding"; is it associated with the Chavez administration? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to not get into where this seems to be going... not that the discussion shouldn't happen but I don't want to be part of it!! Why do we care at this point? Like any website, we can take Aporrea as reliable for uncontested statements about itself and people involved with it and their work. Which is all we're doing here, or likely to do, and broader discussion (if necessary) should probably be at WP:RSN. Rd232 ^talk 11:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My problem here is that I simply haven't taken the time yet to look at the info and sources, and wanted more feedback on the site before I invest the time; if all agree that the source is being used appropriately, I'll weigh in and fix those citations as I have time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the horse's mouth: Martin Sanchez...--Alekboyd (talk) 13:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
... sin que los pasajeros se den cuenta. Huh? That's just frightening. Am I misunderstanding or misreading? "A prison built of gold and diamonds is still a prison. The man who lies to you to keep the cell gates obscured is still a guard." (From a wiser person than myself.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're not misreading - but you've been caught by spectacularly bad subediting (which I guess reveals something about the views of the subeditor) in terms of creating that headline. In the body text, the context of that quote is "comenzado a migrar a Software Libre" in the Chicago consulate! Rd232 ^talk 14:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you've figured out that I hadn't read beyond the headline yet ;) I'm having a bad morning; I need my eyeglasses to find my eyeglasses :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take care to rephrase or quote

Rd, the current text ("She grew up in the United States and moved to Venezuela in the mid-1990s to discover her Venezuelan roots; she lived in Merida for nearly five years ... ") is too close to the source ("Eva grew up in the United States and moved to Venezuela in the mid-1990s to discover her Venezuelan roots. She lived nearly five years in the Andean city of Mérida, Venezuela, ... ") Please have a look at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches; we need to take care to rephrase or directly quote. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After waiting a bit, I've commented out the plagiarized sentence for now; when someone rephrases, the HTML comment can be removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, found another source which made a rephrasing possible. Sometimes - when there's limited info to enable combining/recombining ideas - it's very hard to rephrase a half sentence without taking the risk that you're going beyond what the source actually justifies. Rd232 ^talk 11:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rd; I understand the problem, which is why I just commented it out and left it to you. And, because my prose is poor, I tend to overquote rather than rephrase, but didn't want to do that here. By the way, whenever I add HTML inline comments, you can remove them once the issue is corrected. I do that when I don't think a full talk section is necessary for a minor issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, both German and Spanish entries give a birth year of 1973; but I can't find any actual source that says that. Rd232 ^talk 11:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citation style

We have conflicting and non-standard citation styles across several Ven/Chavez articles; shall we switch to citation templates to avoid the need for constant cleanup? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No!! I hate citation templates with a fiery passion. No to that, please. Apart from anything else, what difference does consistency make, given the state of most of these articles? Rd232 ^talk 11:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not particularly fond of them either, but we have problems across Ven articles with citation consistency, lots of new editors who don't know how to format citations, incomplete and incorrect citations across many of these articles (including, importantly, incorrect titles, missing publishers, missing publication dates or authors, and missing accessdates), MOS violations in date use, and more ... perhaps I should raise this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela, and hope for a centralized discussion and broader consensus? I can explain there what difference it makes, for ease of editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need templates to tell people how to cite properly; if anything, citation templates are much harder to use for newbies and put them off doing anything at all. A conscious effort to point to WP:CITEHOW, along with specific examples of problems fixed, is all that's required. Rd232 ^talk 14:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned, the problems with Ven citations are bigger than this one article (also see my talk), and I hope we can resolve them on a wider scale. Learning to use citation templates may be easier for new editors, and help avoid me having to do the "secretarial" cleanup on so many articles (also to help avoid the possible loss of citations in the future, if the links go dead and sufficient info to relocate the info isn't provided). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OVERLINKing

Torch, this edit WP:OVERLINKs Mexico and the US-- everyone knows what those are, and linking them doesn't add or our readers' understanding. I'd remove them, but I may be at 3RR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

Rd, re these edits, I'd like to add back in the "pro-Chavez" bit (it may be clear to "us" that "this point is hardly in doubt", but the NYT is our highest-quality source for that bit). Also, on wording like:

... to shed light on links between US government agencies and Venezuelan organizations ...
... that show that $2.2 million was spent from 2000 to 2003 to train or finance anti-Chávez parties and organizations ...

Those are her allegations; it needs some sort of attribution showing that these are her opinions about what the info shows, and the rest of the text from the NYT, disclaiming her opinions, needs to be added. Also, a bit of "POV" has crept into your wording: "anti-Chavez" could alternately be described as "pro-democracy".

Torch, this info:

... In 2009 Golinger co-authored a book with Jean-Guy Allard (a journalist with Granma, the official newspaper of the Communist Party of Cuba)

deleted by Rd232 really belongs in his article, not here. On the other hand, I think leaving the first part here, and deleting the second (leave the "journalist with Granma", delete the explanation of what that is) is also appropriate here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well, on the NYT "pro-Chavez" thing, this is the same point we're discussing elsewhere: labelling. The sentence immediately before it fully explains "pro-Chavez" - being head of a pro-Chavez solidarity organisation; it makes the point without merely mysteriously labelling. The contextless NYT label adds no information to that. The redundancy might be less objectionable in the body where her website is discussed, but even there, I don't really see it as adding to the reader's understanding. But I don't want to argue about it; use your judgement.

2. no POV has crept in; that's a quote from the NYT. "shed light on links..." unless someone wants to argue that no such links exist at all, it seems clear enough. In general, since everything is based on FOIA sources, the straight data (like funding) should be unproblematic. The issue is how/whether funding translates into influence, or funding/influence conclusions which go beyond the FOIA sources.

3. Allard has his own article, and it currently isn't well-sourced that he's a journalist for them; he's a retired Canadian journalist who writes for them. Maybe he is, but that description isn't fully sourced. Anyway it doesn't seem relevant enough to mention, any more than 30 years in Quebec newspapers is. Rd232 ^talk 15:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. How about if we add the NYT "pro-Chavez" in the body then, so we don't lose that high-quality source?

2. Let's directly quote that part from NYT then, but we also must add the attribution and the other side of the story (from the same source, perhaps others as well) as to whether funding translates to influence, as Golinger's opinions on that are certainly her own, are refuted, and we haven't yet told the full story.

3. I do agree that Torch should expand the Allard article, which won't take much work, so we can minimize his description here (that's the same thing I tried to accomplish when stubbing Francisco Rodriguez from the Weisbrot article). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really clear on what you want to do there, NYT is already quoted and hence not lost as a source. But go ahead with clarifying whatever you think necessary. Rd232 ^talk 16:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found time to get to this yet, but Golinger's claims need to be counterbalanced with more scholarly research on her charges, e.g.; here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarly research by whom? Sumate and you? thats where your 'here' takes us Jalusbrian (talk) 12:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

System cookie error

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122217718/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 came up for me days ago, but now when I try to access it, I get a "system cookie error". Don't know what that's about, but can anyone access it and complete that citation? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I get the same. What was the ref? Rd232 ^talk 18:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember, except that it was a journal article :) But it appeared for many days, now I can't get it. Maybe I'll try another computer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try this http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122217718/abstract Rd232 ^talk 18:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That one comes up, but when I click on it, it returns the same URL as listed above. In over my head ... I don't know what's happening here with cookies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try it on a different computer, or even in a different browser. Rd232 ^talk 18:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stockholm

I can't find any reliable sources for this text, only self sources; unless independent sources can be found to the NED alleged role in this, it should be removed on the same basis as Aleks' tax fraud investigation (no reliable, only self, sources):

In 2005 Golinger was at the request of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) excluded from a worldwide summit in Stockholm, Sweden about "Democracy and its obstacles". [11]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main obstacle to democracy these days is the NED...they have some nerve organisng a summit on 'Democracy and its obstacles'! Its no wonder NED excluded her, as she is one of their main critics, and the NED hates to be exposed as a fraud Jalusbrian (talk) 12:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see no good reason to include it; unless secondary sources have commented on it, it seems WP:UNDUE. Rd232 ^talk

Checkup

As far as I can tell (~~pending formatting the above citation~~), we've checked, finished, and done everything raised above. Have I missed anything? Oh, except we still need book title translations somewhere ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From here to here, in less than three days, hopefully with no frayed tempers :) I hope we've all learned a bit here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parking place for Econ ref

Rd232, I don't disagree with your reasoning for removing this, but based on past experience elsewhere, I'm going to park this diff here, lest someone comes along and claims the NYT isn't enough. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sobrerania article

Found this in the es.wiki article; is there anything we should use from there, and what is that source? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skimming, I don't see anything leap out as interesting. Rd232 ^talk 23:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correo funding

re this edit - the ABN source says the money was to be transferred to the Correo Foundation. This sounds like a grant to a quango to me. What's the distinction? Rd232 ^talk 00:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is, of course, a grant. But we're trying to skew the article and make it seem like it's a state-owned publication that is putting out "pro-Chavez" propaganda. So we have to say "funded by the government" to make sure that people are misled. If we say grant, then it will seem as harmless as the U.S. government giving grants to PBS or NPR. I vote that we lie, and say "funded by the Venezuelan government". -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Sounds like" is original research; I "vote" that we say what the sources say. Perhaps we can search El Universal or somewhere else for a secondary reliable source, since we are now using a government source (biased) anyway. Jr, cool it with the "lie" business-- your agenda is becoming irritating. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please describe what my "agenda" is. The only agenda that I'm aware of is replacing POV political commentary and factually inaccurate/decontextualized information, with accurate, objective, and reliably sourced facts. But your request that I "cool it with the 'lie' business" is valid. That was inappropriate of me, and was nonconstructive. Sorry about that. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the editing on this issue is that the first sentence of a BLP currently contains apparently "dubious" claims that someone received government funding. The impression left is that there may be no connection at all! Also, "funding" is vague, and it's not clear to me how the ABN source is incompatible with either that vague term or the more specific "grant". Either way, can we either sort this or remove it from the first sentence? Rd232 ^talk 14:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the newly established Correo website is at www.correodelorinoco.gob.ve - note the "government" domain extension. I can't find anything resembling an "about us". Rd232 ^talk 15:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eva, her funding and links to Venezuelan and Cuban government: who are we kidding

The comments of late on Eva are hysterically amusing. She is being made to look like Joan of Arc.

Let's get a few things straight. Her books are PUBLISHED by the Venezuelan government. Once published they are CELEBRATED and PROMOTED by the Venezuelan government to the point that head ideologist and erstwhile Vice President, Jose Vicente Rangel, while in office, presented her first book which had JUST been made officially available in Cuba. Cuba does NOT have independent publishers. All books must count with government support and have to be approved of by the government. Chavez code was published by the Cuban government and its preface was written by a Cuban "journalist" (I remind you dear readers, especially those with blinders on about the dictatorship there, that only officially sanctioned journalists are allowed to be "journalists" in Cuba and that the only press there is the government press--there is no existing alternative. I would gladly eat my words if you were to provide me with the name of a single non-government journalist who publishes--unless you mean the 70-something year old "mercenaries" rotting in jail). The other coauthored of the preface is the current Cuban Ambassador in Venezuela.

Despite being an ardent critic of individuals and institutions linked to the U.S. government, Golinger is financed, published, promoted, and protected by the Venezuelan government. For Marx's sake her stays in Venezuela are picked up by the Venezuelan government: [12] Does this not make a single one of the editors who seek to make her look like some independent-minded angel at all suspicious? Regardless, it needs to be mentioned.

And before someone even thinks of having this be some "oh she just got an innocent grant in the same way that NPR gets a grant" when was the last time any author in the United States, France, Germany, the UK, or any other western democracy get the kind of support she gets?

I am restoring the balance to this article and adding, where necessary her links to the government. How it is nobody has done a few googles and found the hundred of examples of this is real indicative of the lack of interest in making this a good article as opposed to an extension of the PR. Sad. Not what wikipedia is supposed to be.

And a reminder: This is NOT some attempt at tarring her with Hugo Chavez. It is about making sure wikipedia readers realize that she is a creation of the Venezuelan government. Without their money she would be invisible. People can draw their own conclusions as to whether work makes her paymasters happy or not. MarturetCR (talk) 10:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eva is not a creation of the venezuelan govt or anybody...but i may ask who created you? AS you seem determined to attack her and the venezuelan peoples ddecision to back Chavez Bolivariann revolution. Im here to remind readers that the editors of WIKI could be anybody, including creations of the venezualan elite or the US govt Jalusbrian (talk) 12:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to take great care on BLP articles. Far too many primary sources here, (diff) being used unconstructively, almost as if to advance a personal agenda. Wikispan (talk) 09:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, based on what I'm finding in LexisNexis, basically all of this is sourcable to independent, secondary reliable sources-- in addition to Ven govt sources-- and there was absolutely no reason to delete content (rather than improve or rewrite it). Please stop the edit warring, and BLP is not an excuse for the removal of this text. Marturet, you may find that your edits will stick if you will word things more neutrally and objectively, and discuss your sources first on text, before dropping text into the article based on primary sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed the edit warring (again, sigh, can you all discuss edits rather than editing via revert?), but haven't had time to look at the new sources. Except, I'd like to know why a VenEconomy analysis of her book and work is being removed; I can see no reason for that. And what is the dispute over her nationality? I will look for independent sources in El Universal as soon as I have time, but why is the fact that she is funded by the Ven Govt even in doubt, when the Ven Govt itself says so? I will get back to this as I find time, but some answers to these queries may simplify matters. On the "grant" of "funding" issue, where is the grant application process? Could the makers of X-Ray of a Lie get the same "grant"? Unless someone has a source to "grant" process (other than the Chavez-controlled National Assembly), the source does not say it was a grant -- it says she was funded. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

" "oh she just got an innocent grant in the same way that NPR gets a grant" " The way NPR gets grants is anything but innocent. NPR is corporately funded to propagate a corporate, far right viewpoint. ---Dagme (talk) 07:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality

Do folks know her nationality? Where was she born? TIA --Tom (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was clearly indicated in the sources, and you removed cited text (leads are not cited, cites are in the body). Please revert your deletion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I missed it. Can you point to a citation regarding her nationality? Thanks, --Tom (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She says it herself, right here; if you all will discuss, rather than edit war, maybe I won't have to play secretary and constantly clean up citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

Marturet, I haven't found time to finish up here, but I added neutral independent sources above (see the sections on "Sources" and "LexisNexis"), yet you are adding text based on Ven govt sources; it would be helpful if you used the independent sources above to write neutral sourced text. Could you please review the sources I added above? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is Eva Golinger really a Venezuelan-American?

I don't want to disparage how people self-identify themselves in their day to day, but I am having a tough time finding any hard evidence that she really is a Venezuelan or has Venezuelan parents. There are articles that allude to her finding her family roots, but it doesn't say anything about her parents, other than her mother's side has Venezuelan and Cuban roots. Did I skip over an article somewhere? 65.128.228.208 (talk) 23:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I just found this from the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/05/world/americas/05venezuela.html?_r=0

“He didn’t like what I was doing, so it was the reason for the split,” Ms. Golinger said. She then settled here in 2005, after obtaining Venezuelan citizenship in 2004 thanks to legislation that she said allowed her to “reclaim” it because of her ancestry.

To me, that means neither of her parents were Venezuelan nationals. Then what is her connection to Venezuela? 65.128.228.208 (talk) 23:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whitewashing

IjonTichyIjonTichy, why are you editwarring to remove a negative book review, whilst keeping all the stuff that looks positive? Your edit summary suggests that you think the source is unreliable, but of course that source is reliable for its own statements. It might be helpful to read WP:RS and WP:NPOV. bobrayner (talk) 02:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, in fact you are edit warring. You have re-added a negative book review from a patently unreliable source IN SPANISH. Veneconomy is a crappy, piece of shit website that produces horseshit. This website utterly and completely fails the WP criteria for RS, and is an ugly, merit-less attack website devoted entirely to attacking the Venezuelan government. You are the one who needs to read WP:RS and WP:NPOV. I reverted your blatant POV pushing, and another editor opened a complaint against you on the Arbitration Requests Noticeboard. You have some audacity to accuse me of WP:NPOV violation. In fact you are the one that should learn to follow WP:NPOV. And please do the community a favor and learn that on WP it is important to try to build WP: Consensus on the talk page before adding content cited from a non-RS source in a foreign language. In fact you are the one whom editors should take the revert button away from -- you have reverted an enormous amount of sourced content in recent days from a large number of articles, as evidenced by your list of so-called 'contributions.' Your behavior is disruptive and out of control. It's going to take the community months or even years to undo the enormous damage you have done recently. Please stop removing content because you just don't like it or adding content that violates RS. Thank you. IjonTichy (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Eva Golinger. 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) 09:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]