Talk:Guillermo Vargas

Petition

The petition itself is only signficant if it's cited to a reliable source; links to petitions don't achieve anything more than promoting the petition- they don't actually add reliable information. Please, do not link to the petition. See the external links guidelines. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The petition itself is a reliable fact. You can see the page and see the list of over 1.8 million names and that is significant. The reason that we cannot add the petition is, as you say, to stop promotion of the petition itself, which is fair enough. The fact that a petition with so many signatories exists, regardless of the truthfulness of the subject, is notable and should be mentioned within context. The petition being mentioned in a newspaper changes nothing. The petition exists, but the act it is protesting against is still unproven. The lack of other sources still concerns me, it still only has the status of an urban legend IMHO.--Triwbe (talk) 11:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No one seems to know if this really happened or not; the sources are all about something that is little more than a rumor. I find that rather disturbing. I have no problem with mentioning the existence of the petition, just with linking to it, since it doesn't really contain anything that would be a useful source of information for an encyclopedia article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course someone knows; many people know. It's just a question of finding credible sources for the claims and counter claims. The petition is real enough and shouldn't need a paper-press source to say it is. -- 15:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't dispute that the petition is real. I don't have any problem with discussing it. My only objection is to linking to the petition. That seems to serve no encyclopedic purpose, and in my opinion, isn't in compliance with the external links guidelines. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I know WP does allow links to the petitions web sites as an antispam control. Also it does not condone citations to blogs or personal web sites, which is where most of this info comes from. However, there are over 1 millions signatures which you can verify and none of the usual hoax reporting sites that I have checked have this as a hoax. That, as well as the many and widespread reports on Google and youtube tell me "it may not be provable as fact, but it is notable as a phenomenon even if it is a hoax and should be included in some manor". --Triwbe (talk) 17:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If some reliable source, like a newspaper or magazine, has discussed the petition, then it's important enough to discuss in the article. If they haven't, it probably isn't. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

--- I tried to add two links to petition online with 1.4 and 2.5 mill signatures each. The fact that the petitions now have 4 million signatures is significant and it should be referrable.

Gnurkel (talk) 10:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact that there are 4 million signatures is significant - it shows 4 million people will beleive anything that is sent to them by e-mail regardless of validity. It does not prove anything other than it's own existance. --Triwbe (talk) 10:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Everyone can interpret these signatures, if they mean that 4 million people are concerned about dogs or that 4 million people are stupid - there is no better reference to these 4 million signatures than the lists themselves. The 4 million signatures and the roughly 1 million members of anti-Vargas groups on Facebook are significant in light of modern media, how large masses are turned to rage from seing what they believe is a dog being starved and killed without checking the backdrop, ignoring the message of millions of animals staring and being mistreated.

One should be able to refer to the signatures and the facebook groups themselves, not just a static article talking about the signatures and sites. Why not be able to refer to the source itself?

Gnurkel (talk) 11:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree (I think). 4 millions signatures must be "notable" and is almost worthy of an article in it's own right for what it is, a phenomenon of the Internet age. Thus it can be mentioned in this article to which it relates (which it is). This is a special case, the sites themselves are the noteworthy information and they are not being used to support the notability of another subject. I wonder how we circumvent the controls? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triwbe (talk • contribs)

The only way to circumvent the controls is to work within them; persuade a significant source to write about the importance of these petitions, or write an article about it and try to find a significant source willing to publish that article. I know that you think the mere number 4 million must make it notable, but I disagree. Is four million a lot of signatures on an internet petition? Are those four million individual people, or are they an undetermined smaller number of people who have signed multiple times, or written simple scripts to create many signatures? Internet petitions are notoriously easy to manipulate. That's why the reliable source guidelines exist; to prevent Wikipedia from mistaking manipulated data from useful data. I am personally deeply skeptical that four million separate human beings have signed these petitions. Given that they have turned out to be almost entirely false, and there is no reason to think that four million people actually signed, I don't know what useful or reliable information related to them could be added to the article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

http://www.wspa-usa.org/pages/2341_no_excuses_for_cruelty.cfm?searchterm=guillermo_vargas - this should be proof enough thyat it is not a "hoax" as some like to claim. Also, Guillermo Vargas' groups website has all of the information up: http://www.marcaacme.com/calendario.php And here is their link to their information regarding the exhibition: http://elperritovive.blogspot.com/ It is called "the doggy went this way". Another page from their website regarding the dog exhibit: http://www.marcaacme.com/blogs/analog/index.php/2007/08/22/5_piezas_de_habacuc August 6th 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.52.134 (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Animal abuser?

Does any body have any solid sources about facts for this guy at all? It sounds like the petition is real, but I think an important question is: is the abuse he's accused of real? Any good sources for info on the abuse, or only allegations? If so, this may be a case of urban legend snowballing into something real. Until it's sourced, shouldn't we remove "animal abuser" from the opening line of the lede? Without a source, it comes off as inflammatory and POV. Micahmedia (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree.

I didn't see a citation to a a criminal record, and there is no mention of him being an artist, just a guy who ties dogs up.Rangikusboy (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Art is a subjective matter; what a person defines as art is based on his or her viewpoint.

slurpz (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If you can say anything is art then you can say anything isn't art, too. The Sandinista Anthem playing backwards while some shit burns? lol, not art. (Momus (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

So I notice you are a moron. Good work. Perhaps you should actually check what art is and come back with a definition of why it is NOT art before you spout the same idiocy again. That art is subjective does not dismiss it in any way, shape or form. In fact quite the opposite, its like a Hyrda, if you say "its subjective, so therefore I can say it isnt art", that it IS art pops up immediately. So no, it remains art. Your qualm is whether or not you like it or approve. Im afraid your stupidity has no say in what is and isnt art, especially, and ironicly, that your definition of art would more than likely include this as art by the sheer facts surrounding the case, and not the faux outrage over a dog that didn't starve, wasn't harmed and faced nothing of which people like you insist occured in order to say "its not art". 119.11.24.208 (talk) 11:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Harlequin

I would have to share my perspective on this. If a stray dog is captured, the dog is starving, and the dog "escapes" in the same day.. the question isn't whether this man is an animal abuser.. the question is, why do we allow dogs to roam our streets starving.. and then when they are captured, empounded.. they often get put to sleep because nobody wants them... why is this a reality? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.253.150.194 (talk) May 1, 2008

I think this is a good point, and one that the artist supposedly tried to make in his piece. As soon as there are more clear facts regarding the case, I think that concept should find its way into the article. But still, I'm not sure very many people (if any) know what really happened. X-Kal (talk) 05:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

http://www.wspa-usa.org/pages/2341_no_excuses_for_cruelty.cfm?searchterm=guillermo_vargas - this should be proof enough thyat it is not a "hoax" as some like to claim. Also, Guillermo Vargas' groups website has all of the information up: http://www.marcaacme.com/calendario.php And here is their link to their information regarding the exhibition: http://elperritovive.blogspot.com/ It is called "the doggy went this way". Another page from their website regarding the dog exhibit: http://www.marcaacme.com/blogs/analog/index.php/2007/08/22/5_piezas_de_habacuc August 6th, 2008 3:28PM

Puerto Rican Artist Category

Any reason he's in this category? Louis Waweru  Talk  05:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hoax

References: http://www.hsus.org/contact_us/humane_society_international.html#Q_dog_artist http://www.care2.com/c2c/share/detail/675045 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.252.179.8 (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The humaine society is a resonable source I think (about the only one of the whole article, thank goodness we have something), the Care2 link seems to be based on a blog, not a reliable source. Thanks for the info. --Triwbe (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Very useful; thanks. I added the humane society link to the article; all are welcome to change how I phrased it, but since this is wikipedia, you already knew that. :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a hoax

It is not a hoax, here's an article on the Guardian about the event.[1] Zisimos (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have not found any article stating it as fact. Both the the Guardian and Spanish, English language newspaper Euro Weekly New say "claims". --Triwbe (talk) 11:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a supposed quote from the guy in question- "I knew the dog died on the following day from lack of food. During the inauguration, I knew that the dog was persecuted in the evening between the houses of aluminum and cardboard in a district of Managua. 5 children who helped to capture the dog received 10 bonds of córdobas for their assistance. The name of the dog was Natividad, and I let him die of hunger in the sight of everyone, as if the death of a poor dog was a shameless media show in which nobody does anything but to applaud or to watch disturbed. In the place that the dog was exposed remain a metal cable and a cord. The dog was extremely ill and did not want to eat, so in natural surroundings it would have died anyway; thus they are all poor stray dogs: sooner or later they die or are killed."

  Can anyone find a source on this?  I got this from a prominant group on facebook...  its at 
        http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=26898570848&ref=nf

You need a facebook account to see the page... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.42.75 (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

But even the Humane Society reference does not state for a fact that the dog was not starved and escaped after a day. They site "local animal welfare." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.233.240.188 (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you should all know that the dog did die. It died while still in the show. Guillermo Vargas, himself has admitted to it. He phrased it as "the dog was going to die anyways." You should really put that into the page, maybe earn back some respect for wikipedia. Just a suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleakimr (talk • contribs) Apr 19, 2008

Ah no, perhaps you should read it before replying next time. He says the dog most likely died, but that it would have died regardless. At no point does he say it died at the gallery or in his possession. In fact, that pointless assumption is squashed by the countless times he and his gallery have said it escaped and they do not know what happened to it. That they knew it was near death by starvation when they caught it (even though they took care of it and fed it), shuts that down pretty easily.119.11.24.208 (talk) 11:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Harlequin

If you can cite this comment in a relaible source then you can put it in the article yourself. I do not believe respect for Wikipedia comes from publishing rumours and gossip. WP:PROVEIT OK? --Triwbe (talk) 09:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Needed Citation

I think we need to start from the ground and work our way up - can anyone provide information regarding the "Bienal Centroamericana Honduras 2008" in reference? Specifically, is there a reliable source around that is not specifically tied to the petition - something that could reliably represent a neutral point of view? Finally, I have found an interesting link of interest - I have no idea whether or not it is legit - you decide. http://guillermohabacucvargas.blogspot.com/ X-Kal (talk) 07:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Cancel that, the link isn't what I first thought it to be - somehow, I originally thought it was Guillermo's blog, but re-reading it makes me wonder how I came to that conclusion. X-Kal (talk) 16:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Wildy bias article

This article is so bias it is borderline comical. It was obviously just set up to put the dog abuse section in. His life and other works are put in merely as a place holder. (Dbcraft (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC))

Agreed. Feel free to expand the article. Sorryitwasme (talk) 21:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. I couldn't really find much on him aside from the whole dog thing (in English or Spanish), and I don't know how notable he is aside from this one incident. Maybe there should just be an article about this one piece and then when/if he does anything else of note, he could get his own article? -- Irn (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ref formatting

See WP:REFB for how to format refs properly. Ty 06:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV?

“chained up inches out of reach of a bowl of food in 2007, and with the intention of repeating the performance in Honduras in November, 2008” is all WP:OR (except the date and place). Can you source it? It appears no where else in the article.

How do my edits to Exposición N° 1 amount to a WP:NPOV violation? I included more details about the exhibit (including the correct name). No violation of NPOV there. I even searched for, found, and included the original source for the claim that the dog died. Please explain your revert. Furthermore, changing "states" to "claims" is blatant POV-pushing.

On what grounds did you remove the awards? They are sourced and relevant; need I remind you that this is an artist’s bio? Please justify your actions. -- Irn (talk) 01:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

They are not sourced in a secondary sourced, which is what would be needed to be notable. I'll find the other sources in the morning but the alleged ref from the Guaradian, making him appear Mr Nice Guy in what was an article that portrayed him completely differently is just typical of the way the article tries to portray him very positively. Really we need to move the article so it just talks about the dog scandal, not this highly unnotable artist. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The source is a secondary source. However, not everything in every article has to be notable, just the subject of the article. What alleged ref making him appear Mr. Nice Guy are you talking about? It seems to me you are strongly pushing your POV that Vargas is not a "nice guy". Also, the edits I made that you completely reverted had nothing to do with the Guardian article. Did you even read the revisions I made? You reverted one minute after I finished. Please consider your own POV when editing. (I just re-read the Guardian article, and your claim that it "portrayed him completely differently" from a "Mr. Nice Guy" is patently absurd in that it doesn't portray him positively or negatively, but goes out of its way to remain neutral, as Wikipedia ought to do.)

I also want to add that falling back on what you perceive as "just typical" of the entire article to evade my specific questions regarding your actions is rather duplicitous and speaks volumes to your POV problems. -- Irn (talk) 01:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

“ We should write sympatyhetically ^(sic) about all living people as we are an encyclopedia not an attack site. ” — SqueakBox, Talk:Justin Berry/Archive 5#BLP issues - [2]

The above is SqueakBox's previous statement about how we should write about our biographical subjects. I believed then as now that our approach should be one of neutrality, not one of sympathy. I'm not involved in this discussion, but I felt that this apparent inconsistency is probative to the question being discussed. --SSBohio 18:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Should this talk page be cleaned up / archived?

I know lots of people hate it when you move their posts into new categories, but I feel that the older posts on this talk page are no longer relevant to the current article. Should this talk page be archived to preserve past input while streamlining conversation about further improving the article from where it is today? If no one responds to this post in the next few days / weeks, I plan on archiving some or all of this talk page. (If you agree, feel free to set up the archive yourself.)Garvin ^Talk 01:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• I support this decision, provided that there are placeholders for the more relevant topics at hand. I do believe that a mention not to post the online petition as a reliable source should be included, as well as a clear call to provide as many clear facts regarding the artist and the directly-related art shows. Until we have more facts, it's hard to see this as more than just an urban legend - even Snopes.com calls it undetermined. X-Kal (talk) 06:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Discussion is less than a month old. I don't see that archiving it makes the page significantly easier to follow. I'll add a talk header to encourage new users to look at the bottom of the page for new content. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• I certainly don't see any need to archive the page at this time. It's important for readers to be able to see how this article/controversy has been handled by Wiki the editors who worked on it. Cgingold (talk) 13:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• My point is that parts this page talk about issues that have been resolved. If the older discussion topics are archived, they will still exist and can be referenced in new discussion. I look at it this way: If an archive were created, this section should be moved to the archive because the point of whether or not to create one has become moot, yet the discussion about creating it need not be deleted. A parallel example would be discussion about a spelling error. Once the spelling error is corrected in the article, the discussion of that error is not a mater of active discussion and only confuses people new to the article / talk page. I agree that it would not be desirable to have certain discussion topics resurface, but that is perfect opportunity to reference past discussions in the archive. As far as the discussion being less than a month old: this article has undergone massive remolding and no longer reflects all the discussion topics, even those less than a month old. I don't fully understand what Cgingold means in the above post. From what I do understand, the templates at the top of this talk page seem to do a fair job of showing how the article is being handled and the discussion would be archived, not deleted. I will not archive this unless better agreement is come to. But if activity falls off, (in other words no one responds to this post) I may archive it in the future.Garvin ^Talk 22:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we should wait. We're still seeing a fair amount of edits from people who haven't heard that the story about the dog isn't accurate, and this discussion might help some of them. Let the thing die down a little longer before archiving, imho. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Translation of the Spanish portion...npov?!

Here is what is written in the introduction of the article. Has anyone bothered to read it? Below, I have provided a translation. Just wanted to point out that this is definitely NOT a neutral point of view...

<<Juro por todos los dioces que has de ir al infierno maldito, asi me cueste el alma has de sufrir en el infierno por lo que le hiciste a ese perro. Yo soy artista, y creeme, tu eres solo mierda. "Aquellos que no aprecian la vida no merecen vivir" Tu no aprecias la vida. y si te quejas que nadie hace nada, tu ponte a hacer algo. Y de Hipocritas, tu eres el mas ipocrita que conosco!>>

Translation:

<< I swear on all the gods that you have to go to hell, that's how bad my soul hurts you have to suffer in hell for what you did to that dog. I am an artist and believe me, you are only shit. "Those who don't appreciate life don't deserve to live." You don't appreciate life. And if you complain that no one does anything, you do something yourself. And about hypocrites, you are the biggest hypocrite I know>>

devon1982 Devon1982 (talk) 09:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch. I've reverted to an un-vandalised version. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to write a paper on this guy...

Does anyone have the ACTUAL facts on this guy from REPUTABLE sources? Of course our professors don't let us use Wikipedia for information on anything because it is so unreliable. I am having so much trouble finding anything real on this! Help me! Has anyone contacted Vargas himself? 97.81.16.94 (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)rguest83@gmail.com

While this may be wildly belated, there is no substitute for enterprise- contact him yourself.203.158.44.83 (talk) 14:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Guillermo Vargas. 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/20080415054412/http://www.vueltaenu.co.cr/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1467&Itemid=1 to http://www.vueltaenu.co.cr/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1467&Itemid=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080512004302/http://www.nacion.com/ln_ee/2007/octubre/04/aldea1263590.html to http://www.nacion.com/ln_ee/2007/octubre/04/aldea1263590.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071020045426/http://www.laprensa.com.ni/archivo/2007/octubre/05/noticias/revista/219438.shtml to http://www.laprensa.com.ni/archivo/2007/octubre/05/noticias/revista/219438.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120925050838/http://www.eltiempo.com/archivo/documento/CMS-4125438 to http://www.eltiempo.com/cultura/2008-04-27/ARTICULO-WEB-NOTA_INTERIOR-4125438.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080529170921/http://www.hsus.org/about_us/humane_society_international_hsi/cruelty_issues_around_the_world/starving_dog_as_art_42308.html to http://www.hsus.org/about_us/humane_society_international_hsi/cruelty_issues_around_the_world/starving_dog_as_art_42308.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.wspa-usa.org/pages/2341_no_excuses_for_cruelty.cfm?searchterm=guillermo_vargas

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

Y 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)