Jump to content

Talk:Venezuela Information Office

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

older entries

[edit]

Do not delete this page as information contained therein has to do with Hugo Chavez's foreign policy.--Alekboyd (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some RS for editors to improve the article

[edit]

-- THF (talk) 01:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism from Center for Public Integrity

[edit]

The article uses the Center for Public Integrity as a reference to criticism against the VIO. First of all, I'm not sure how notable this quarrel can be. Is this argument between CPI and VIO reported by secondary sources? If positive, the reply[1] of several of the individual mentioned should be included for balance. But first of all we should check if this disagreement is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in WP. JRSP (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Center for Public Integrity has been included as a source to the claim that Hugo Chavez has spent million in lobbying and propaganda activities in the USA through the VIO. Its information, as my research, is supported by docs and logs of activities filed by VIO employees to the FARA unit of the US Department of Justice, as stated in VIO's website. I totally agree that the reply of individuals mentioned in article should be included.--Alekboyd (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"More information is available from..."

[edit]

This is not usual in WP articles, please consider an external link to relevant information. JRSP (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

[edit]

Editor JRSP keeps changing versions and disputing reliability of sources. The issue about JRSP's bias in articles dealing with Hugo Chavez and Venezuelan matters has already been brought up here [[2]], however no one seems to be willing to settle this.--Alekboyd (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This doesn't seem like it'd be a trivial matter to address. The article as it stands now needs a complete overhaul to be something like neutral point of view. It's not an either/or issue. WilyD 23:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed WilyD, I am happy to provide, according to Wiki policies, links, docs, evidence, etc., about the other side of the story, if and when current editors accept that there is a story to be told beyond official propaganda.--Alekboyd (talk) 20:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Err, what's best is not to take either side really, but look for sources which have no dog in this fight. I sourced the information I added to the Boston Globe and the New York Times - while both no doubt have some editorial bias, (in fact, both are possibly seen as centre-left aligned), they're widely circulated, respectable type newspapers. This is a lot better than advocacy groups of any side. Realistically, some "What the VIO says about itself" should be included, as it would in any case, but most information sources would ideally be "disinterested" not "one side or the other". WilyD 20:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources that have no dog in this fight... Couldn't agree more. However what VIO says about itself, that is so painful to accept for some, is important, and more crucial their admission that the government of Venezuela funds them. LA Times is also a widely circulated, respectable paper and this is what they had to say about Shellenberger But a public relations firm working for the government said a poll it had commissioned showed Chavez defeating the recall with 55% of the vote. The Caracas firm of Varianza Opinion based its projection on more than 53,000 interviews, said Michael Shellenberger, president of El Cerrito-based Lumina Strategies. It doesn't get clearer than that does it?--Alekboyd (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the Wikipedia policy on synthesis. In the Michael Shellenberger article, I showed you how one could make a Wikipedia-policy-compliant edit on this material. For one thing, you need to be factually accurate. Shellenberger was not an employee of VIO. THF (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alek, the source you are quoting doesn't say that M.S. was a VIO employee. And you are not justifying why you are reinserting information about other living persons that is unsourced or based on primary sources. Please read the WP:BLP policy, particularly what WP:WELLKNOWN and WP:NPF say about using primary sources. JRSP (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I have already stated there's a difference between employee and contractor. Since that point about Schellenberger bothers you so much, edit it, BUT, reflecting the fact that the PR company founded by him (Lumina Strategies) got contracted for $60,000 for a six month period. In any case, it remains factual that he got paid for advocating for Chavez. And again, information is not unsourced (LA Times and FARA files from the US DoJ). JRSP if you have such a problem about use of primary sources, such as United States Department of Justice I suggest you take your concerns to the wider community, and, in the meanwhile, please eliminate all primary Venezuelan sources from Venezuela/Hugo Chavez pages. --Alekboyd (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have added some secondary sources and made some changes. I welcome that change of attitude but the problems still remain. The LA times article does not say that MS was an "employee" of VIO, same thing applies to EW and the BBC source. The $60K information is based on your personal interpretation of a primary source. Other information still relies on primary sources. Please note that the only issue here is not whether the information is verifiable or not, but also whether it is notable or not; that's why using reliable secondary sources is important. As the paragraph stands now, I won't edit it as the relevance on this information is not clear, I think the best I can do is delete the whole paragraph, if you want to add it again, please do it according to WP policies, especially WP:BLP. JRSP (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is not valid. Shellenberger and his partner have recently been presented in TIME magazine as "heroes of the environment", therefore it is pertinent to showcase that he advocated for the head of a petrostate. This is what LA Times says But a public relations firm working for the government said a poll it had commissioned showed Chavez defeating the recall with 55% of the vote. The Caracas firm of Varianza Opinion based its projection on more than 53,000 interviews, said Michael Shellenberger, president of El Cerrito-based [[3]]. James, Naiman and Wingerter are all in the public record as spokespeople of the Venezuelan, for which they got paid. The $60K information was filed by Shellenberger himself, ergo HIS interpretation, not mine. You're disregarding Wiki policies, notably WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:NOT.--Alekboyd (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continued edit warring is likely to result in the article being protected or blocks being issued ... please discuss your differences. (Not by me, in all likelihood though, since I am possibly involved) WilyD 22:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In light of JRSP's edit warring and unwillingness to collaborate I did request a temporary blocking yesterday. It was denied.--Alekboyd (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alek, in case you haven't noticed, this isn't just JSRP. You reverted my edits, too. I find it frustrating that you're not even listening to the people who are trying to help you. I've asked for help at WP:BLP/N. THF (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You say you find it frustrating. Imagine how I feel, having to argue about reliability of information provided by the very individuals cited in the entry!! I sincerely hope many people get involved in this, in fact the more the more difficult it will be for these entries to survive as they are at present.--Alekboyd (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. Please read the rules that are being cited to you, because your comment does not exhibit that you understand what the complaint about your edits is about. THF (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am indeed missing the point. Please explain where have I erred.--Alekboyd (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alek, in any case this "an enviromentalist should not work for a petrostate" would belong in Shellenberger's article *and* only if notable enough to have been reported by reliable secondary sources. Regarding other persons,I really don't understand why the article needs information like "John Doe was a VIO employee and is now in this other organization"; this in the best of cases is irrelevant, and in the worst one, messing with their privacy. And the FARA document says the budget was $60k, you are making your own interpretation of what this can mean. WP:BLP also warns us not to use information about living people from public records unless that information has already been disclosed by a secondary RS. Please understand that WP is not a publisher of original thought or a soapbox. JRSP (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
JRSP, that information is already in Shellenberger's article, as per THF's contribution. The article does need information about the individuals for one crucial reason: more often than not those individuals present themselves as "independent," in letters to editor and such, when in fact their advocacy for Chavez is anything but. As privacy, FARA forms just reiterates what some secondary sources exhibit. As per the $60K, I don't know what you're talking about.--Alekboyd (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alek, this argument is not NPOV; WP editors cannot push an agenda of presenting relatively unknown people as not independent or whatever. Unless this kind of information is reported by secondary RS, it simply does not belong in Wikipedia. Relating the $60K, the FARA form says "The budget for this work would be $60,000, not including out of pocket expenses", in the article you concluded that "MS's services were contracted for that quantity. JRSP (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I beg to differ JRSP. As per WP editors cannot push an agenda try and exercise some of that yourself, while I invite readers to give a cursory glance at your contributions page and see for themselves who's pushing agendas in Wikipedia.--Alekboyd (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For Chrissake, Alek, this is disruptive and counterproductive to anything you hope to achieve. Instead of playing Argument Clinic, just fix the edit so it's Wikipedia-compliant, and then no one will complain. Do you see JSRP reverting my edit to the Shellenberger page? THF (talk) 13:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lumina Strategies / Michael Shellenberger

[edit]

I have included THF's addition on Shellenberger's Lumina Strategies. What about Robert Naiman, Eric Wingerter, Deborah James?--Alekboyd (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Find reliable secondary sources that discuss their affiliation with VIO, and then characterize those sources correctly without exaggerating their claims. Please be careful with wikilinks when you cut and paste from other articles. THF (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A Venezuelan government spokesman, Eric Wingerter BBC--Alekboyd (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind WP:TRIVIA, as we discussed. THF (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Wingerter

[edit]

The name "Eric Wingerter" is meaningless. He does not appear anywhere else in the encyclopedia. The cited source--an article by Wingerter in Counterpunch, which normally isn't RS--only says he "works for" VIO, which could mean anything from head of the organization to a research intern. And if the latter, it's not notable and doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. As best I can tell from google, he's a freelance left-wing writer who was briefly employed by VIO, and isn't independently notable. Another guideline here is WP:TRIVIA: Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous facts. Find a secondary source that says Wingerter has a role of some importance with VIO, and you can cite to that. THF (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Wingerter, as rest of names mentioned, is a former employee of VIO. The BBC quotes Wingerter as "A Venezuelan government spokesman." Venezuelanalysis, which according to editors sympathetic to Chavez is a reliable source despite the fact that it is officially funded, founded by chavista official and edited by husband of chavista official, quotes Wingerter as Public Education Director for the Venezuela Information Office. In my opinion, it's pointless to argue which of the two sources is reliable, although I agree with you re lack of notability of Wingerter.--Alekboyd (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article needs to be more focused on VIO activities and not on the activities of relatively unknown individuals that have been related to it. Also, the Center for Public Integrity should not be used as a source for VIO campaigns; if the differences between these organizations have been reported by secondary RS they could be included in a criticism section; in this case the article should use a prose closer to the (hopefully more balanced) prose of the secondary source instead of quoting directly from CfPI. JRSP (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Center for Public Integrity is a reliable secondary source commenting on the primary activities of the VIO. THF (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the CPI. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear on one thing: even though Wingerter does not work for VIO any longer, he continues pushing in his blog a line re Venezuela that's awfully similar to VIO, read Chavez god, opposition evil. Coincidence?--Alekboyd (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely possible. VIO very likely hired Wingerter because he supported Chavez rather than the other way around. It's much cheaper to hire a true believer than to mold someone neutral. But WP:NOT#CHAT. Your original research isn't relevant. THF (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's much cheaper to hire a true believer than to mold someone neutral. I couldn't agree more THF, I just couldn't.--Alekboyd (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Public Integrity

[edit]

I still think that the CPI is not a good source for reporting on VIO activities, see for instance Center_for_Public_Integrity#Criticism. In any case, they could be in a criticism section but the article needs more neutral sources for reporting about VIO activities. BTW, Lapsed Pacifist, when you say you agree about the CPI, it is not clear who you agree with, please clarify. JRSP (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More sources are needed, to be sure, but there's nothing wrong with noting CPI's work on VIO, so long as it's credited to CPI. Readers can follow the wikilinks and decide how much credibility to give CPI. THF (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, THF; there are even some inconsistencies; the source says that VIO contacted Global Exchange in Sept 2003 but the lead says VIO was started in 2004. JRSP (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No inconsistency there at all; CPI says there were two different VIOs, one started in 2003, one in 2004: The VIO abruptly ended operations at the end of January 2004, only to reconstitute itself a month later with a reshuffled staff and a budget of $660,000. The article should be better written to reflect that. THF (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the article is self-contradicting right now. Is there any other report about this pre-2004 VIO? JRSP (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VIO employees discussion

[edit]

I apologize for coming late to this, trying to quickly catch up: starting over here as I may have missed the issue. As I understand it, the disputed text is:

Past employees of VIO include Michael Shellenberger,

I cannot decipher where these sources place Shellenberger as an employee of VIO (rather Lumina, contracted for other issues). Alek, if you want to use these sources, they do not represent Shellenberger as an employee of VOI; you will need a source that establishes that, or you will need to rephrase as appropriate, explaining how this information relates to the VOI article. Have I overlooked wording in the sources that establishes him as working for VOI?

Deborah James, former director of Global Exchange,

SFGATE establishes her as working for VIO; this one seems OK, yet doesn't use the source which establishes the fact (SF Chron). Cleaning up the sourcing here should suffice.

and Eric Wingerter

Alek, this source establishes Wingerter as "A Venezuelan government spokesman"; do you have a source that specifically places him with the VIO? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The primary source of Wingerter's piece for Counterpunch establishes that Wingerter worked for VIO at one point, though not what his position was; the issue there is relevance of that fact (see talk section above). I'll defer to your judgment on whether that should be included.
Shellenberger was never a VIO employee. His firm, Lumina, did work for VIO; see the clean version resulting from this similar debate at Michael Shellenberger. THF (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for my delayed reply. First I thank you all for your patience in showing me the way to effective editing. Second Wingerter is identified as a spokesman at the Venezuela Information Office in Washington, D.C, by The Christian Science Monitor; and Public Education Director, Venezuela Information Office by WaPo.--Alekboyd (talk) 14:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so it seems that we don't have a source for Shellenberger, we do have Wingerter and Deborah James. Apparently I missed Robert Naiman the first time through, but that connection appears established. I will amend the text and sources as follows (and it doesn't seem at all unreasonable to establish that these people worked for VIO):

Past employees of VIO include Deborah James, former director of Global Exchange,[1] now with Center for Economic and Policy Research,[2] Robert Naiman,[3] of Just Foreign Policy, and Eric Wingerter.[4][5]
  1. ^ Collier, Robert (2004-08-21). "Venezuelan politics suit Bay Area activists' talents". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2009-02-09.
  2. ^ "Deborah James, Director of International Programs". Center for Economic and Policy Research. Retrieved 2009-02-07.
  3. ^ Naiman, Robert (26 July 2004). "Chavez Gets Strong Support From Brazil" (PDF). Venezuela Information Office. Retrieved 2009-02-07.
  4. ^ Harman, Danna (25 August 2005). "Chávez seeks influence with oil diplomacy: In just one month, Venezuela has cut deals with five countries". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 2009-02-16.
  5. ^ Wingerter, Eric (10 November 2005). "Progress in Venezuela". The Washington Post. p. A28. Retrieved 2009-02-16.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think the source is reliable (will leave that open to discussion) but end of p. 7 on Shellenberger states It’s been an honor to work for him (Chavez) and an embarrassment that our government and our media have mistreated him so. He’s obviously no threat to us; he depends on us to buy his oil. Excerpts of interview quoted also here.
SFGate has this In the middle of the fray has been Michael Shellenberger, president of Lumina Strategies, an El Cerrito public relations firm that was hired by Chavez in June to help repair his poor public image in the United States. link
What about current employees? The BBC has OLIVIA GOUMBRI, GOVERNMENT-FUNDED VENEZUELA INFORMATION OFFICE, which coincides with the Washington Times OLIVIA GOUMBRI, Executive director, Venezuela Information Office, and Chicago Tribune's more recent Olivia Goumbri, executive director, Venezuela Information Office, Washington.--Alekboyd (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
   January 26, 2009

Why should the article contain information about past or present employees? Other articles in category:Lobbying organizations don't contain this information; a few mention notable members but not a list of relatively unknown people. This article, on the other side, puts this information on the first section before VIO's campaigns and activities. Do you think this information is notable enough for inclusion in the article? JRSP (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information is pertinent in the sense that individuals mentioned have repeatedly failed to disclose their connection to VIO in an attempt to present their views as independent. Further, it looks as if they have a problem with revealing their relationship to the government of Venezuela. Ergo information should stay.--Alekboyd (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about VIO, not about the individuals that are or have been connected to it. So the article must condense notable verifiable information *about VIO*. If those individuals "fail to disclose their connection", this is not Wikipedia business unless this fact has been reported by secondary RS. Unless the information in this section is proven to be relevant to the subject of the article, the whole section should be deleted; the problem is not if these people are independent or not. If you find secondary reliable sources reporting that "J Doe presented him/herself as independent although he/she was connected to VIO" that would be fine but, as WP editors, we cannot create stories ourselves. JRSP (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The section seems to fall foul of WP:Synthesis. Past employees are also of zero significance for this article (yes you heard me) unless the article reports their activities for VIO (assuming those activities are important enough for inclusion), or reliable sources consider the mere fact that these people worked with VIO to be significant. To me (even without knowing the way some people have used people's associations with VIO as a stick to beat them with) the desire to include this is motivated by an attempt to discredit these people by linking them with the Venezuelan govt. That falls foul of WP:NPOV even if the association is true (but not in itself important), and this is particularly sensitive since these are living people so that WP:BLP applies. The section should be removed. Rd232 talk 01:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Including the information is relevant for the reasons explained. It is not WP:NPOV, and it can be verified, as it has been correctly sourced according to WP:RS guidelines. Individuals cited, as sources show, are all on the public record advocating for the Chavez administration, therefore not a breach to WP:BLP.--Alekboyd (talk) 13:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue here is not verifiability but notability of the information. Just because something can be verified it doesn't mean that it belongs in wikipedia, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This applies to all information but it is specially important when adding information about living persons, see WP:WELLKNOWN and WP:NPF. JRSP (talk) 13:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See previous comment. As per WP:NPF information has not been included in personal entries/pages.--Alekboyd (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP refers to biographical information, the policy applies to *all* wikipedia pages, including non-biographical articles, talk pages and user pages. JRSP (talk) 16:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also Alek, please explain why you consider this information is relevant. I hope you have already understood that "failing to disclose their connection" is no reason for inclusion. JRSP (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested outside input at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Rd232 talk 23:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...and at WP:3O. 15:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
WP:3O is only for disputes between *two* editors. I think a Request for comments is more appropriate. JRSP (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, seem to have forgotten that. OK, do you want to go ahead with an RFC? Rd232 talk 16:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This issue kicked off again with Sandy's 9 Feb 2010 reinsertion of the same content discussed here and at BLPN back in March.[4] A new BLPN discussion Wikipedia:BLPN#Listing_employees_of_an_organisation reaches the same conclusion: we do not generally list employees, only key officers and employees specifically shown to be notable. So I've deleted all but the Executive Director. Rd232 talk 00:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to HRW report

[edit]

What's the reason for deleting the info about VIO's response to HRW report? JRSP (talk) 12:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the source cited reliable? Looks like a leftist blog to me. Arguments put forth by the Venezuelan government regarding the report were dismissed by HRW as baseless allegations, that is after the regime having thrown out of Venezuela HRW directors Vivanco and Wilkinson.--Alekboyd (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable in terms of demonstrating VIO's views and their promotion, yes, which is all the ref is doing. No claim is made in the article, eg, that VIO "successfully refuted" HRW allegations, or some such side-taking remark. (The whole debate about the HRW report doesn't belong here; maybe in HRW or some Venezuela article, I can't think which immediately. Incidentally Criticism of Human Rights Watch has nothing and the main HRW article only 1 sentence, so I might add some detail at some point, as even being aware of Wikipedia:Recentism, it does seem one of the more notable HRW debates.) Rd232 talk 20:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just added another source. Please keep in mind that in the article we are describing VIO activities, per WP:NPOV we cannot take a stance on who is right or who is wrong. JRSP (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, if the article is to mention the criticism that VIO published about HRW report, a link to the criticized report should be placed as well, so that readers can form their own opinions on who's right and who's wrong.--Alekboyd (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is out of the scope of the article. The response to the HRW report is presented here only as an example of VIO's activities. The HRH report itself and the controversy surrounding it does not belong in here. JRSP (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. Just imagine how much (duplicated) material we'd end up with if followed alekboyd's approach as a WP-wide-policy... not viable, not necessary. They way to handle this is with a wikilink to wherever the more detailed discussion is. Rd232 talk 23:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just put a reference to the HRW report and the best wikilink I could find (nothing much on it here, as Rd232 notes); hope this works for everybody. Awickert (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, a citation to the HRW report doesn't make any sense, nobody is challenging that this report exists, and in any case, it is mentioned in the other refs. Also, the wikilink on "report" to the Criticism of HC article points to a general section on Human Rights, I think that the readers understand what a HRW report is. See Wikipedia:Cite#When_to_cite_sources and WP:OVERLINK. --JRSP (talk) 12:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was waffling on whether or not to link when I realized there wasn't anything specifically for it. But as to the reference, I can't see any reason for you wanting to remove it: I don't think it disrupts the flow, and I think it provides more information to the article. No, it's not required; yes, I think it is always helpful to have more references than fewer. Awickert (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the wikilink was my main concern. The ref is not necessary but I agree it provides some context to readers. JRSP (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to add a ref to a website with the response to the HRW report as well, for further context, hope you don't mind. Awickert (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Disputed" documentary

[edit]

Adding the adjective "disputed" is WP:SYN as this position is not advanced in the original source. Additionally, two of the sources provided just mention the opinion of an engineer from a Venezuelan TV channel, the other a professor in a medical school. These are not prominent adherents so this appears to be a fringe view in any case. JRSP (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that in the main article on the documentary, references 9-13 talk about dispute about the documentary. Awickert (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 10 seems to be pointing to the wrong place; the others are the TV producer repeated four times. JRSP (talk) 23:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to complicate the issue. There is no need to describe the nature of the documentary, since its content isn't described here - in both cases that's what the wikilink is for. End of story, really, except that adding "disputed" risks breaching WP:NPOV if it conveys the impression (and it sort of does) that VIO deliberately distributed a documentary it knew was problematic, a claim for which there is no source. Rd232 talk 00:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "documentary", was most certainly controversial, as indicated by many reliable sources; rhetoric like "fringe" to describe a hotly contested documentary is misleading. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hotly contested? Many sources? I only know about some problem at an AI festival and an angry lady at a cinema in Boston. Was this usual anytime the film was projected around the world? JRSP (talk) 02:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why describing the film as "controversial" or "the subject of a bitter dispute" and not as "awarded", for instance? JRSP (talk) 02:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see no problem with adding additional info. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just describe the plain fact (as the main source) and forget about adjectives? This connecting of sources sounds as WP:SYN. JRSP (talk) 02:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is so obviously ridiculous a discussion it takes my breath away. Are we going to start summarising the whole of the Venezuela article here too, for instance? In fact, why not give up on wikilinks and paste the whole of Wikipedia into the article, just in case it's relevant. Sheesh. You're not newbies, get a grip. Rd232 talk 04:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

[edit]

While this edit is interesting, it's original research, and should be removed. We don't know that they haven't issued any press releases, or just haven't updated their website, and for "us" to make this claim without an independent source mentioning it is original research. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not OR - it's based on a primary source. If you want to be really finickety, you could say that they haven't issued any press releases via their website. Rd232 talk 21:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ding. Of course - the claim of OR is insinuating that I know something not published. Rd232 talk 21:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Defunct

[edit]

Both the VIO website and the LatAmInfo website are offline. As far as I can tell, these organisations became defunct about six months before this article was created in Feb 2009, and then at some point later their websites died (probably when webhosting contracts expired). I don't see any sources to put in the article, but from archive.org and whois, that's what it looks like. Rd232 talk 11:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We should look for sources about when they possibly closed. Some say they turned into the Latin America Information Office and others show FARA filings showing a closing sometime in late-2009. I saw them before but I'll have to look for them again.--ZiaLater (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

[edit]

With a new El Universal source, we hear that VIO, according to El Universal, promoted the Bolivarian Revolution, was at least founded in 2003 since they contacted Global Exchange for help in 2003 and defended the Venezuelan government against alleged "lies". Recent edits also dispute on whether it should be "Critical reception" or "Reception". The latter seems more appropriate and NPOV and we can even leave Mbinebri's tag of undue there to promote other users (and remind me) to look for more reception about VIO some time.--ZiaLater (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

aren't "reception" sections mostly limited to wikipedia articles for films, tv shows and the like? i am not opposed to mentioning the fact that VIO has been criticized by some for supposedly spreading "propaganda", but nothing justifies giving such criticism undue weight. the version of the 'reception' section that you keep reverting too is not only an example of undue weight, much of it is redundant and not even substantial. my version concisely expresses the opinion of critics of VIO. also, many organizations enter into relationships and associations with others. the notability of the detail about Global Exchange is infinitesimal, as are details regarding former personnel--your version gives these things undue prominence. --Tellectualin (talk) 17:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I think I erased much of your edit in an edit conflict. Forgive me, I'm trying to find a middle ground here.  Mbinebri  talk ← 17:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon now, Zia! You're always seeking to call out the supposed biases of left-leaning/pro-government media when they're cited. You can't just stick a pro-opposition source like El Universal in and treat its accusations as fact. It needs to be properly attributed and placed in proper sections.  Mbinebri  talk ← 17:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When was El Universal pro-opposition? I know they aren't now but was it after they sold when things changed or slightly before?--ZiaLater (talk) 04:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I can answer my own question after reviewing a few things. I guess I am just used to using recent sources from El Universal as they are no longer opposition-aligned. Thanks for the clarifications Mbinebri.--ZiaLater (talk) 05:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Zfigueroa: Considering those quite recent edits you made to the "El Universal" article, I'd say you're caught with a straight out lie in your above post. Ain't that so?--TMCk (talk) 06:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That settles your POV without doubt.--TMCk (talk) 06:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't paying attention with the year of the publication for the VIO source and like I said before, I'm used to using a lot of El Universal lately which isn't an opposition source now. So it wasn't in my extinct to attribute El Universal to an opposition source (though it may be easier for some of you). If you want to make accusations, I'll just add them to the pile of other ones I don't care about.--ZiaLater (talk) 15:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Venezuela Information Office. 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.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Venezuela Information Office. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Venezuela_Information_Office&oldid=1253425731"