![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Editors have added sources, and I think the article is adequately sourced, now, assuming that the unsourced bits I had flagged are either restored with sourcing or stay out. If there are no objections, I will drop the flag on Friday or so.-
Sinneed
14:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
After a long while not looking at this page I note that there has been a huge war between some people with a clear partisan agenda (on both sides) and I also notice that one of the editor rewrote this article and removed plenty of sourced information because it doesn't comport with a view of this Human Rights group as being right-wing. Consequently, I will be restoring some of those items. please do not eliminate them without a proper discussion.... Verdadseadicha ( talk) 23:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I have made several changes, polished it up, it looks pretty decent at this time. I propose removal of tags. Anyone? Verdadseadicha ( talk) 00:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
They aren't blog based edits. it is no different than citing this organization's mission. if it makes a pronouncement on something about ITS OWN WORK then obviously it is a good source on ITSELF. You do realize how silly you come across for invoking this. It is as silly as stating that a wikipedia press release cannot be quoted on wikipedia until it is in a newspaper. hello? reason--try it. Verdadseadicha ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC).
— Thor Halvorssen, a film producer and human-rights advocate, is president of the New York-based Human Rights Foundation. Not a HRF article put it on his page if you like. Cathar11 ( talk) 01:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Do we need the article issues tag? This seems to have drifted to a stop. I am going to drop the "needs sources", and leave the others in. The article seems adequately sourced, though I won't oppose leaving the other tags in, and won't delete the sources tag again if it is restored.- Sinneed 16:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Government witnesses withdrew their testimonies and sought asylum or are illegally imprisoned. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
I removed this from the Bolivia section as the links are all either dead (and seemingly not replaceable) or not obviously supporting the strong, unqualified statement made. Rd232 talk 00:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Check this just to begin with http://educamposv.lacoctelera.net/post/2009/07/09/testigo-clave-del-gobierno-busca-ayuda-diputados-la —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paratrooper73 ( talk • contribs) 18:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC) There is nothin vague about the facts, they were initially presented as witnesses, they withdrawn their statements and now they are illegally imprisoned, come on, do you want recent and verifiable information?, check this update http://www.ernestojustiniano.org/2009/12/ex-unionistas-en-celdas-en-navidad/
By the way if you are interested in the legal basis (Your profile says that you speak some spanish) I think you should chek the 126 Art of the Bolivian Constitution about the Accion de Libertad and specially its 4th paragraph IV. El fallo judicial será ejecutado inmediatamente. Sin perjuicio de ello, la decisión se elevará en revisión, de oficio, ante el Tribunal Constitucional Plurinacional, en el plazo de las veinticuatro horas siguientes a su emisión. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paratrooper73 ( talk • contribs) 18:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing vague about the facts, they were initially presented as witnesses, they withdrawn their statements and now they are illegally imprisoned, period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paratrooper73 ( talk • contribs) 18:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Thre is no worst blindness... check the links read them (Or request a proper translation) and then we might get somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paratrooper73 ( talk • contribs) 18:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
By the way I recall that initially the paragraph stated (Correctly) that ALL the government witnesses withdrew their statements, it also stated that ALL were tortured (Something already proven also), but for the sake of equilibrium and balance it was left as "witnesses" only, and with the form you are now trying to hide (And I dont understand why) you REALLY should check your position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paratrooper73 ( talk • contribs)
OK even if I have seen to many interest being played in this subject I will (Once more) assume good faith on this. So, having said this lets go: First: If you are ready to sustain the part where HRF Bolivia and its then President were accused of being linked with this alleged “irregular organization” leaded by Eduardo Rozsa Flores you should be aware that the entire accusation was based on the statements made by Mr Ignacio Villa Vargas who was presented by the Bolivian authorities as the “Key Witness” (This presentation was made on a public press conference with nationwide tv coverage). Second: This allegations were reinforced by the Bolivian administration when Juan Carlos Gueder and Alcides Mendoza were abducted (They appeared in every single Bolivian national tv station blindfolded and duct taped), nevertheless they were presented as two more witnesses and Mr. Gueder allegedly mentioned HRF Bolivia then president name. Third: The first “witness” (Mr Villa Vargas) withdrew his statements and run away this is clearly stated in the note made by El Nuevo dia Newspaper and I quote: Una grabación de Villa Vargas revela que todo fue armado El testigo clave de la Fiscalía, Ignacio Villa Vargas, conversó con el diputado de Podemos, Wilfredo Áñez, pidiéndole garantías. En la grabación atribuida a ‘El Viejo’ explica que fue torturado y que el fiscal paceño Marcelo Soza llenó su declaración. On a recorded statement Villa Vargas Reveals That Everything Was Staged Government Key Witness talked with representative from Podemos Wilfredo Anez requesting protection. On the record “El Viejo” explains that he was tortured and that the prosecutor Marcelo Sosa forged his statement. http://elnuevodia.com.bo/index.php?cat=150&pla=3&id_articulo=9530 Fourth: The other two not only withdrew their testimonies, Mr. Juan Carlos Gueder was even more explicit he said and I quote: “Yo nunca involucre a nadie”el dijo nunca” vinculó a ningún líder cruceño con el supuesto grupo irregular. “I never accused anyone” he said that he never “accused anyone to be involved with some sort of irregular group” http://www.la-razon.com/versiones/20090509_006723/nota_249_809008.htm
“No existe justicia principalmente para nosotros que estamos aquí 75 días con una acción de libertad ganada.El otro problemas es que acá hemos visto los errores del fiscal Sosa y los errores del Ministerio de Gobierno’.” There is no justice for us, we are here for 75 days now even when we have won our freedom in court.We are doomed because we have seen the misdeeds of Sosa and of the Government minister http://www.ernestojustiniano.org/2009/12/ex-unionistas-en-celdas-en-navidad/ (By the way this phrase is just behind the sentence were one of the detainees expressed his sadness about being illegally arrested on Christmas, which was derisively commented by one of the “editors” yeah “no kidding”) Mr. Clearly Mendoza states that: “Estamos detenidos aquí porque somos el ‘chivo expiatorio’ de las autoridades. Al fiscal Marcelo Soza no le interesa nuestra salud y mucho menos nuestras vidas y gracias a un médico particular, seguimos todavía con vida”. We are here as scapegoats for the authorities, The prosecutor couldn’t care less for our health, much less our lives we are still alive only because of the help of a private physician. http://www.lostiempos.com/diario/actualidad/nacional/20091114/gueder-y-mendoza-llevan-32-dias-en-celda-judicial_45239_78087.html Mendoza aclaró que su único delito fue vender un arma antigua y de colección . Mendoza also clarified that the only thing he did was to have sold an old collectible weapon. (The weapon sold by Mendoza was a Bergman MP18 –Used by Bolivia on the Chaco War 1932-1936- without its magazine you can check about this gun in wiki also) Fifth: Villa Vargas run away to Argentina “Villa Vargas explica que está en la frontera con Argentina”, http://elnuevodia.com.bo/index.php?cat=150&pla=3&id_articulo=9530 The situation of Vargas is according to the last information precarious (Asylum procedures require that the applicant is bonded to the confidentiality principle and that he is not able to make any further statement or declaration until his plea is granted or rejected), meanwhile Gueder and Mendoza (Whose rights has been systematically violated after their statements denouncing that they were tortured, brutalized, choked and blindfolded to produce fake accusations) situation is tragic, they have demonstrated that they were tortured, they have won a Constitutional appeal . Mendoza Y Gueder Ganan Su accion de Libertad. Mendoza and Gueder Won their Freedom Action. http://www.la-razon.com/Versiones/20091015_006881/nota_256_894957.htm Which MUST be put to effect immediately after the judge pronounces the verdict -Check Bolivian Constitution art 125, Pgp. 4,5,6-)but they are still in prison for 105 days now and counting (You should be aware that to this date no charges have been pressed and no real accusation has been made so far which only adds to the violation of this persons rights). http://www.la-razon.com/versiones/20091128_006925/nota_256_916641.htm So it is fair and does it complain with wp:Balance and the basic principle of impartiality to admit the very same sources to make an accusation when Im somehow sympathetic with some position but it is not a reputable source when the same newspapers (From La Paz Bolivia I have edited all from Santa Cruz Bolivia to avoid any bias) show that the facts were " a little bit" different than the initial attempt made by the Bolivian government?. I really think the answer IS obvious. Sixth: Finally to justify your actions JN466, you posted “verification failed; most of the links are dead, and the ones I could access did not back this content” both statements are not true the links were double checked all are active (Assuming good faith I believe that you haven’t noticed before reverting my posting that I have replaced the defective ones with new ones) and as Im showing you they prove every single point. And finally the text present on the article was reached trough consensus, the arbitrary removal made by Rd232 is not right and should (As was required from me) have proposed the deletion and proved his points here before cutting a text that was built by consensus. So, waiting for a fair response and before reinstating the original text. Best regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paratrooper73 ( talk • contribs) 00:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually the person who attempted the link was Evo Morales himself on a public speech given on may first 2009, from that point the persecution was on and this whole issue became a witch hunt against political opposers. check http://www.ernestojustiniano.org/2009/05/si-trabaja-en-human-rights-los-extranjeros-afuera-de-bolivia-y-los-bolivianos-a-la-carcel/ So again I respectfully suggest that the text reached trough consensus should be maintained and my editing with the links active preserved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paratrooper73 ( talk • contribs) 02:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC) Jayen466 You also should be aware that one of the persons -Cathar11- who ignited the editing war on this article have just added a reference to mr Acha, this person also participates in various forums and his conduct regarding this specific subject is far from impartial, you also should be aware that the article he refers to was later corrected by the newspaper editor -La Razon- himself. So in fairness and equilibrium and because there is evidence of another attempt of distorting facts and present phony evidence we should respect the consensus reached. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paratrooper73 ( talk • contribs) 02:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Smearing? conspiracy theory? political agenda? who knows. But once again if you are going to allow the information that initiated the persecution and accusation to stay you should allow the development of it to be known dont you agree? I think that once more returning to the consensus built text is the right option here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.251.162 ( talk) 03:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC) Im more concerned with the fact that Im again seeing some politically oriented activity here, Jayen466, Im going to insist requesting the reinstatement of the removed paragraph, otherwise even with the best intention from you this is just another case of POV:Pushing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paratrooper73 ( talk • contribs) 03:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
hat wouldnt be necessary, I understand that you dont have the "in dept" knowledge so lets begin with your questions: First: Government witness were only Ignacio Villa Vargas, and later Mendoza and Gueder, for the sake of balance Im going to provide you with two sources. http://www.periodico26.cu/noticias_mundo/mayo2009/bolivia080509.html The latter is from cuba and http://www.diariocritico.com/bolivia/2009/Mayo/noticias/147385/prensa-bolivia.html in those you will find that those three were the only witnesses the government have and statements like this :En su declaración Ignacio Villa revelo que: “se reunían constantemente en el stand de Cotas entre 8 y 20 personas que en algunos casos asistía Branco Marinkovic, casi siempre Guido Nayar. Los que nunca faltaron a las reuniones fueron Hugo Achá, Alejandro Melgar, Mauricio Rosa, Horacio Darruda, Carlos Guillen y otros” And as I have showed you he later withdrew these statements. Tadic is not a witness he is one of the survivors of the ill fated operation in Las Americas Hotel on april16 he was tortured and an statement -to which you refer to- was attributed to him, he later presented a complain to the Bolivian ombudsman demonstrated that he was tortured, that he was deprived of his right and that he never produced any legal statements against any person. check: http://www.lostiempos.com/diario/actualidad/nacional/20100112/tadic-fue-torturado-y-violaron-sus-derechos_53279_94182.html Regarding Mr acha situation it is kind of funny that every single person in the Bolivian government have tried to present him as a fugitive when no legal notification was sent to him, that initially he was presented as a target of the alleged organization and that only after he left Bolivia on a trip he publicly announced suddenly he appeared as "being part" of the alleged organization. check. http://www.ernestojustiniano.org/2009/04/terrorismo-sube-el-tono-de-los-ataques-polticos/ So, once again im providing you with enough information and proving you that the removal of the statement regarding the withdrawal of ALL the statements made by ALL the persons initially presented as "witnesses" in this case, and also reagrding their conditions and situation is absolutely true. So far you have not requested any evidence from the persons that removed the statement or from the person who has added outdated and already clarified links which mislead the reader. im being polite and patient but fairness seem to be slipping away here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paratrooper73 ( talk • contribs) 05:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
OK I have seen that you added the sources about the original statements made against HRF Then president, so in fairness and with wp:balance in mind Im posting the consensus reached text showing the development of ths situation, thnx for your time —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paratrooper73 ( talk • contribs) 17:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I've shortened the paragraph on Achá to what is relevant to the article topic: [5] If editors want to expand this content, please make sure to use sources that mention Achá and/or HRF. If you feel further background should be given, I propose creating a separate article on the affair and linking to it from here. -- JN 466 05:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Dear Jayen466 you are missing the point here, I have experience in political persecution cases and the last thing I want is to cause a person more distress. You have noticed that I have tried to complain with your requirements and to answer your questions, i have proved my points and supported every aspect so why are you reluctant to repost this? Government witnesses withdrew their testimonies and sought asylum or are illegally imprisoned. I mean if the acusation stands why are you denying the public to know the development of the situation?, this HAVE to do with HRF Bolivia, not with Mr Acha, (Double check Morales speech) you can be assured that if another person would have been the president of HRF Bolivia it would have been his or her name the one under attack, so, once again and apealing to the principles of balance, fairness and impartiality, please reinstate the consensus reached text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paratrooper73 ( talk • contribs) 05:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
You should be aware that the source you used for your shortened version is a translation from an argentinian political activist and is full of expression like "The vultures of the ultra right wing" and conspiracy theories the original title is "Conspiración, magnicidio y separatismo en Bolivia" the author is Diego González and Im pretty sure this wouldnt qualify as a reputable source, I haven removed it but I think you should rethink this situation, check the text that was abusively edited by Rd232 and repost it with the active -and now extensively proven-relevant links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paratrooper73 ( talk • contribs) 05:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I've had another go at this. What do you think, Cathar11? The sources now cited do state clearly that (1) Ignacio Villa Vargas and Mario Tadic implicated Achá, (2) that Villa Vargas later claimed he had been tortured and forced to sign a statement prepared for him by the prosecutor, (3) that just a couple of weeks ago, Tadic was found by the defensor del pueblo (I've translated it a parliamentary commissioner; correct me if I am wrong) to have been tortured by police (which would lend credence to Villa Vargas' earlier claim). -- JN 466 18:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Dear Jayen466 I would like you to consider this two aspects: First: The attempt of labeling this as "terrorism" was dropped and I quote."por orden del fiscal del caso, Marcelo Soza, quien cambió la figura legal en este caso de terrorismo por alzamiento armado". check http://www.la-razon.com/versiones/20091013_006879/nota_256_893716.htm Second: we are erasing the other two persons who initially were "witnesses" who also withdrew their testimonies and who now -Even to this day- are being illegally retained in jail. Third: Regarding your question the proper legal translation for the "Defensor del pueblo" would be State Ombudsman. I still think that the short consensu built version is better, by the way it seems that some "editors" just dont want to discuss but to impose their views here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paratrooper73 ( talk • contribs) 18:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Dear Jayen 466, Im happy to obligue: Iniitial statements allegedly made by Gueder were:"de acuerdo a la versión de uno de sus defendidos, es decir, de Juan Carlos Gueder, la persona directa, responsable, uno de los grandes intelectuales -de la constitución del grupo terrorista- sería el doctor -Hugo- Achá Check: http://www.lostiempos.com/diario/actualidad/nacional/20090503/gueder-e-investigador-identifican-al-%E2%80%9Cviejo%E2%80%9D-como-ignacio-villa_5694_9520.html And as I have showed you they -Gueder and Mendoza- later withdrew their statements denounced torture and are illegally imprisoned -Please check the entire previous section-. So once again we arrive to a cold fact: All and every single person used by the Bolivian Government as a "witness" to attempt an accusation against then President of HRF Bolivia have withdraw his statements and is currently illegally in prison or seeking for asylum. Dont you think that the original short consensus built text was really precise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paratrooper73 ( talk • contribs) 22:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for that source. That's excellent. It also adds the info that Achá asked for political asylum in the US, which we should add to the article. Which would you say is the best source to use for Gueder withdrawing his earlier statement and/or alleging torture? -- JN 466 00:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Dear Jayen466, Just for the sake of precision, Acha never requested for asylum, -neither did his wife who currently is in Bolivia- the Bolivian government wanted to present him as requesting asylum and they tried to get rid of his wife too (Who was an elected representative at the time), I think I can provide you with a source of the only interview he has actually conceded check: http://www.revistalex.com/exclusiva-hugo-acha-entrevistado-por-revista-legal-lex/ Regarding your question, well I think that any of the sources I provide you would do just fine, I dont want to lose wp:balance off sight here. I want also to thank you for your kindness, it has been refreshing after all the partisanship surrounding this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paratrooper73 ( talk • contribs) 00:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I have just joined wikipedia and I do this after I reading how this page has develop and there appears a clear POV problem (or is better called NPOV?) some users are very purposeful to record as much negative information as they can (these are users who are always defending Chavez like is full time job--all day every day-- especially JRSP and . I will hold my nose for editing this. i will clean up and try to inject balance again MarturetCR ( talk) 10:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Should the HRF Bolivia section merit its own article? I propose either more information be added, or less information be here on this while a new page be created with the Bolivia chapter on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarturetCR ( talk • contribs) 10:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I restored these. Is the article ready to have them out? - Sinneed 13:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I want to address neutrality content and balance this article with other information that doesn't make this organization seem like what some of those, horrified by the criticism the organization sometimes levels at human rights violators, want to portray. Those who don't like the message of the human rights foundation seem to want to kill the messenger as opposed to showing where the group is wrong or incorrect. MarturetCR ( talk) 03:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I would like someone to help me address the attacks on HRF in this article and the deliberate POV issues by some editors who wish to portray this group as "right-wing." I have found additional sources to show this is not the case, including, today, a reference to a grant they got from the "socialist left/labour party coalition government" of Norway. Once we do this we can remove the neutrality tag. If nobody steps up I am going to BE BOLD and make the changes myself. nobody here seems to do anythign but react, and, at that, it is always a sniping match between editors on the left of the spectrum like Rd and JRSP and so on MarturetCR ( talk) 20:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Tagged offtopic. He's dead. It doesn't matter. I expect to drop the addition again soon, unless there is some reason it belongs here. *maybe* it belongs at Pinochet's article.- Sinneed 13:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
This is hardly off topic. He may be dead but it is clear that several editors with a very distinct point of view and who want to tage HRF as "right wing" do their utmost to keep out any information or examples of criticism of "right wing" governments by HRF. Looking at past edits this includes criticism of Alvaro Uribe's government as well as Pinochet. The position of their head, writing as head of HRF, about the legacy of Pinochet, is absolutely relevant. and Rd232 can say what he wants about there not being a congressional vote to remove Allende but he is the one who is peddling untruths. If necessary let's include the entire piece or let readers make up their own minds. But this IS relevant and should be restored. You two, Sinneed and Rd232 may be very clever with yoru WP rulebook but you are NOT the final authority on this subject or on what constitutes a good article. sorry to burst your bubble MarturetCR ( talk) 21:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
The Pinochet reference is far too arcane. Surely, if the question is whether the organisation is right-wing or not, the solution is to add a "Reception" section with sources that describe it as right-wing, or left-wing, or whatever. I'd encourage editors to look for such sources (reliably published sources, not blogs), rather than seeking to include individual statements by its president or staff that a savvy reader might interpret as evidence of either liberal or conservative bias. -- JN 466 20:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
== BEULLER? BEULLER? == MarturetCR ( talk) 00:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Seriously, you editors amaze me. If I am BOLD I get slapped down and am told things need to be moved to talk and discussed. If I Discuss I post three times over more than two weeks and I don't get a single response.
I intend to make the article less one-sided against the Human Rights Foundation by adding to their Haiti entry and adding non-political stuff they do. This will entail a lot of research. Once the bias against it is removed I am going to remove the Neutrality dispute tag. I don't know where the COI task comes in but I presume that is due to the obvious bias of two of the editors on here. Nonetheless I am going to remove that, too. So, fair warning and forewarning. OK, off we go MarturetCR ( talk) 00:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I added to the reception section, tweaked and tightened, and think the article is a little more balanced by adding some positive and empirical stuff (as opposed to negative opinions). This should address neutrality. There is not much I can do about JRSP's COI or Rd232's COI issues. Does anyone have access to more information that is verifiable and easy to quote from? MarturetCR ( talk) 05:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) This discussion should move to Oslo Freedom Forum, where at least the mention isn't WP:UNDUE. It is WP:UNDUE to mention the Norwegian funding here, even without the sourcing issue, because the Forum didn't even mention it. And it's prima facie ludicrous to suggest that the Norwegian government is afraid of retaliation, and rather unlikely that the second-most transparent country in the world could or would seek to keep such funding secret. In general, this is why we try to rely on WP:PSTS secondary sources to filter information; the ReliefWeb database entry is certainly a primary source. Rd232 talk 20:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Since MarturetCR seems intent on edit warring the reference in (with the edit summary about providing a source completing ignoring the concerns above, and the consensus against inclusion), I've left a note at WP:NPOVN. Rd232 talk 19:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Los Angeles writer Patrick Goldstein refers to the organization as "respected", [14] and in the Mennonite Weekly Review it is referred to by a supporter as "neither leftist nor rightist" [15].
Writing as president of HRF in the American conservative magazine National Review, Thor Halvorssen participated in NR's symposium on the death of Chilean right-wing dictator Augusto Pinochet, and was noted as the only one of the six commentators to condemn Pinochet unequivocally, writing: "Augusto Pinochet took full control of Chile—by force. He shut down parliament, suffocated political life, banned trade unions, and made Chile his sultanate. His government disappeared 3,000 opponents, arrested 30,000 (torturing thousands of them), and controlled the country until 1990." [1] [2]
1. The inclusion of the Pinochet bit has already been discussed; it is hard to see how it is relevant enough for inclusion; this encyclopedia entry is about HRF, not about Halvorssen's opinions. The phrasing "noted as the only one of" is particularly egregious though - noted by who? 2. The Goldstein adjective is plucked from an LAT blog piece which echoes a poor Advocate piece; cf this letter. I think its inclusion fails WP:UNDUE; as the opinion of a random HRF supporter in an obscure newsletter (Mennonite) certainly does. Rd232 talk 11:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
It WAS discussed and added into this new section by another editor. It is being put back in. If we are keeping the Cuban Communist Party rag then we are keeping the National Review and the LA Times. MarturetCR ( talk) 12:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Very well, I am putting it back in, the LAT piece, I mean. 07:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarturetCR ( talk • contribs)
I have just restored the criticism and controversy section after it was arbitrarily deleted. Halvorssen is a public figure and therefore has drawn criticism and controversy. Including this on a WP page is a standard practice. WP pages are not puff pieces or resumes. If the person who deleted the section claims it is "biased" then those claims should be discussed here. Deleting whole sections is not the correct approach. You must show why it is "biased" and irrelevant. In fact, the criticism and controversies cited were both high profile, well-sourced and absolutely relevant to providing a full picture of this organization. This article is full of accolades for HRF. It would simply be biased to exclude criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThorWay ( talk • contribs) 06:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
I deleted the "HRF Bolivia" section, since it talks about a completely different organization. I copy the section below in case if someone would want to start a separate article for it:
HRF Bolivia[edit] According to the information available on their website, HRF-Bolivia was established in 2007.[54] HRF and HRF-Bolivia are two different organizations with independent boards, staffs, and programs. HRF-Bolivia has issued several reports and communications denouncing violations of human rights in Bolivia.[55]
In accordance with a questionnaire prepared by HRF for the Inter-American Human Rights Commission regarding the situation of human rights defenders in Bolivia—available on HRF’s website [56]— in 2010, Bolivian authorities formally indicted 39 Bolivian nationals for purportedly having connections with the late Eduardo Rózsa-Flores, a Hungarian-Bolivian citizen who was killed in a raid by the Bolivian police in April 2009. The 39 people indicted—many of whom have since been granted political asylum in different countries, such as Brazil [57]— were charged with the crimes of separatism, and insurgency. The 39 people indicted include Mr. Hugo Achá, a Bolivian lawyer and television commentator who, among other positions he publicly held in the country, was the pro bono chairman of HRF-Bolivia’s board until May 2009.[58] Achá, as many of the other 38 people indicted, denied any involvement, claiming that he had met Mr. Rósza a few times when the latter had approached him in his capacity as a journalist, with a request for human rights-related information. Bolivian media has also reported,[59][60][61] that the alleged key witnesses to the case later retracted their accusations and denounced that they had been tortured and forced by Bolivian authorities, in order to implicate Mr. Achá and others. The Bolivian authorities have dismissed these statements as false.
According to their website, before resigning collectively, HRF-Bolivia’s board of directors publicly made clear that there was no connection between the institution and the personal accusations being made against its board chairman and dozens of other people and organizations of Bolivian civil society.[55] Jumpinthecircle ( talk) 22:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
As documented at http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Human_Rights_Foundation the "Human Rights Foundation" receives funding from right-wing groups, and so far as I can tell, its "Oslo Freedom Forum" has featured no notable left-wing speakers, and only criticizes left-wing governments in the Americas. Founder is the son of Thor Halvorssen Hellum, former CIA collaborator who helped fund the Nicaraguan contras. Maybe its time this is regarded as a political organization rather than a human rights advocacy group. Wannabe rockstar ( talk) 13:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
The Human Rights Foundation Corporation is the full name of this 'organization'. This request is is about changing the page name and URL from Human_Rights_Foundation to The_Human_Rights_Foundation_Corporation or to The_Human_Rights_Foundation and remove all wrong redirects. The full and legal name of the corporation can be funded Certiface of Incorporation. For example, we can't call just Cola the Coca_Cola in WikiPedia.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Human Rights Foundation. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not happening, and BOLDly closing per WP:SNOW. I've created a redirect for HRF (USA) to this article. ( non-admin closure) ~ Matthewrbowker Drop me a note 16:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Human Rights Foundation →
HRF (USA) – Calling the organization "Human Rights Foundation" is inappropriate according to the organization's official website
http://hrf.org (
http://hrf.org/about/about-hrf/) and official Twitter account
https://twitter.com/hrf (
https://twitter.com/HRF/status/712296369483063296). "HRF" is service mark at United States Patent and Trademark Office and the Registration Number is 4866673 . HRF is the correct naming because the organization use it widely everywhere on social media and news. This is the reason why the lawyers at the United States Patent and Trademark Office allowed the federal registration (see "Specimen" at USPTO). I believe that moving this page to HRF (USA) will help for example the Twitter followers and general public to identify the correct Wikipedia article when searching for the organization. "HRF (USA)" identifies the source and the country of origin of the services.
Human Rights Expert (
talk)
04:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Remember, I helping Wikipedia to be clear from spammers and when I saw this page and I began editing because many external links pointed to different domain names which showing the same website.
My request to move the page from "Human Rights Foundation" to "HRF (USA)" according to https://hrf.org/about/about-hrf (official website of HRF), according to the http://twitter.com/hrf (Official Twitter account), according to the http://youtube.com/humanrightsfdn (Official Youtube Channnel named HRF), according to the logo bit.ly/1ogqInU used by the organization on Google+. My edit is correct and the move request is correct according to United States Patent and Trademark Office which is part of the United States government. My last edit was correct on the page because the organization as I said HRF and not "Human Rights Foundation" how it's showing on the whole Wikipedia. I editing and I request NOT to revert the changes. I support now and I will support in the future to move this page to HRF (USA) because it's in a wrong place. And I'm wrong? United States government lawyers are wrong? Because if so, I going to request cancel the trademark registration for false statements made by the organization. https://hrf.org/about/about-hrf and other evidences I attached to my move request (including a Federal trademark registration U.S Registration Number is 4866673) is clearly states that the organization is called HRF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Human Rights Expert ( talk • contribs) 12:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
DO NOT EDIT MY COMMENTS AND STOP THE ACCUSING ME! SHOW ME EVIDENCES by linking Help:Diff, where I promoted a third party organization on this page. Second, if you talk about other than PAGE MOVE consider open another discussion in this talk page. Last, keep your stupid opinions I think nobody want to listen to somebody who have no EVIDENCE that the changes I made in this page it was made in bad faint or for the purpose of promotion of another organization than HRF! Human Rights Expert ( talk) 00:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
{{
Edit fully-protected}}
Other editors are continuesly reverting my edits, without justifying the reason and harrashing me, in 5 minute voting 3 person about a page move request. The page must be fully protected!
I'm confused. How is he "promoting a different, less notable organisation with the same name"? hrf.org and humanrightsfoundation.org both resolve to the same IP address, the domains are registered to the same person, and the contents of the two sites appear to be completely identical. This sounds like a misconfiguration on their end. Anyway, I oppose the move, as their about page says "Human Rights Foundation (HRF)" and their logo also says "Human Rights Foundation™". I see no good reason for this move. The fact that they use "HRF" in tweets for brevity is not a valid argument. nyuszika7h ( talk) 13:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Human Rights Foundation. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Editors have added sources, and I think the article is adequately sourced, now, assuming that the unsourced bits I had flagged are either restored with sourcing or stay out. If there are no objections, I will drop the flag on Friday or so.-
Sinneed
14:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
After a long while not looking at this page I note that there has been a huge war between some people with a clear partisan agenda (on both sides) and I also notice that one of the editor rewrote this article and removed plenty of sourced information because it doesn't comport with a view of this Human Rights group as being right-wing. Consequently, I will be restoring some of those items. please do not eliminate them without a proper discussion.... Verdadseadicha ( talk) 23:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I have made several changes, polished it up, it looks pretty decent at this time. I propose removal of tags. Anyone? Verdadseadicha ( talk) 00:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
They aren't blog based edits. it is no different than citing this organization's mission. if it makes a pronouncement on something about ITS OWN WORK then obviously it is a good source on ITSELF. You do realize how silly you come across for invoking this. It is as silly as stating that a wikipedia press release cannot be quoted on wikipedia until it is in a newspaper. hello? reason--try it. Verdadseadicha ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC).
— Thor Halvorssen, a film producer and human-rights advocate, is president of the New York-based Human Rights Foundation. Not a HRF article put it on his page if you like. Cathar11 ( talk) 01:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Do we need the article issues tag? This seems to have drifted to a stop. I am going to drop the "needs sources", and leave the others in. The article seems adequately sourced, though I won't oppose leaving the other tags in, and won't delete the sources tag again if it is restored.- Sinneed 16:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Government witnesses withdrew their testimonies and sought asylum or are illegally imprisoned. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
I removed this from the Bolivia section as the links are all either dead (and seemingly not replaceable) or not obviously supporting the strong, unqualified statement made. Rd232 talk 00:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Check this just to begin with http://educamposv.lacoctelera.net/post/2009/07/09/testigo-clave-del-gobierno-busca-ayuda-diputados-la —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paratrooper73 ( talk • contribs) 18:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC) There is nothin vague about the facts, they were initially presented as witnesses, they withdrawn their statements and now they are illegally imprisoned, come on, do you want recent and verifiable information?, check this update http://www.ernestojustiniano.org/2009/12/ex-unionistas-en-celdas-en-navidad/
By the way if you are interested in the legal basis (Your profile says that you speak some spanish) I think you should chek the 126 Art of the Bolivian Constitution about the Accion de Libertad and specially its 4th paragraph IV. El fallo judicial será ejecutado inmediatamente. Sin perjuicio de ello, la decisión se elevará en revisión, de oficio, ante el Tribunal Constitucional Plurinacional, en el plazo de las veinticuatro horas siguientes a su emisión. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paratrooper73 ( talk • contribs) 18:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing vague about the facts, they were initially presented as witnesses, they withdrawn their statements and now they are illegally imprisoned, period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paratrooper73 ( talk • contribs) 18:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Thre is no worst blindness... check the links read them (Or request a proper translation) and then we might get somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paratrooper73 ( talk • contribs) 18:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
By the way I recall that initially the paragraph stated (Correctly) that ALL the government witnesses withdrew their statements, it also stated that ALL were tortured (Something already proven also), but for the sake of equilibrium and balance it was left as "witnesses" only, and with the form you are now trying to hide (And I dont understand why) you REALLY should check your position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paratrooper73 ( talk • contribs)
OK even if I have seen to many interest being played in this subject I will (Once more) assume good faith on this. So, having said this lets go: First: If you are ready to sustain the part where HRF Bolivia and its then President were accused of being linked with this alleged “irregular organization” leaded by Eduardo Rozsa Flores you should be aware that the entire accusation was based on the statements made by Mr Ignacio Villa Vargas who was presented by the Bolivian authorities as the “Key Witness” (This presentation was made on a public press conference with nationwide tv coverage). Second: This allegations were reinforced by the Bolivian administration when Juan Carlos Gueder and Alcides Mendoza were abducted (They appeared in every single Bolivian national tv station blindfolded and duct taped), nevertheless they were presented as two more witnesses and Mr. Gueder allegedly mentioned HRF Bolivia then president name. Third: The first “witness” (Mr Villa Vargas) withdrew his statements and run away this is clearly stated in the note made by El Nuevo dia Newspaper and I quote: Una grabación de Villa Vargas revela que todo fue armado El testigo clave de la Fiscalía, Ignacio Villa Vargas, conversó con el diputado de Podemos, Wilfredo Áñez, pidiéndole garantías. En la grabación atribuida a ‘El Viejo’ explica que fue torturado y que el fiscal paceño Marcelo Soza llenó su declaración. On a recorded statement Villa Vargas Reveals That Everything Was Staged Government Key Witness talked with representative from Podemos Wilfredo Anez requesting protection. On the record “El Viejo” explains that he was tortured and that the prosecutor Marcelo Sosa forged his statement. http://elnuevodia.com.bo/index.php?cat=150&pla=3&id_articulo=9530 Fourth: The other two not only withdrew their testimonies, Mr. Juan Carlos Gueder was even more explicit he said and I quote: “Yo nunca involucre a nadie”el dijo nunca” vinculó a ningún líder cruceño con el supuesto grupo irregular. “I never accused anyone” he said that he never “accused anyone to be involved with some sort of irregular group” http://www.la-razon.com/versiones/20090509_006723/nota_249_809008.htm
“No existe justicia principalmente para nosotros que estamos aquí 75 días con una acción de libertad ganada.El otro problemas es que acá hemos visto los errores del fiscal Sosa y los errores del Ministerio de Gobierno’.” There is no justice for us, we are here for 75 days now even when we have won our freedom in court.We are doomed because we have seen the misdeeds of Sosa and of the Government minister http://www.ernestojustiniano.org/2009/12/ex-unionistas-en-celdas-en-navidad/ (By the way this phrase is just behind the sentence were one of the detainees expressed his sadness about being illegally arrested on Christmas, which was derisively commented by one of the “editors” yeah “no kidding”) Mr. Clearly Mendoza states that: “Estamos detenidos aquí porque somos el ‘chivo expiatorio’ de las autoridades. Al fiscal Marcelo Soza no le interesa nuestra salud y mucho menos nuestras vidas y gracias a un médico particular, seguimos todavía con vida”. We are here as scapegoats for the authorities, The prosecutor couldn’t care less for our health, much less our lives we are still alive only because of the help of a private physician. http://www.lostiempos.com/diario/actualidad/nacional/20091114/gueder-y-mendoza-llevan-32-dias-en-celda-judicial_45239_78087.html Mendoza aclaró que su único delito fue vender un arma antigua y de colección . Mendoza also clarified that the only thing he did was to have sold an old collectible weapon. (The weapon sold by Mendoza was a Bergman MP18 –Used by Bolivia on the Chaco War 1932-1936- without its magazine you can check about this gun in wiki also) Fifth: Villa Vargas run away to Argentina “Villa Vargas explica que está en la frontera con Argentina”, http://elnuevodia.com.bo/index.php?cat=150&pla=3&id_articulo=9530 The situation of Vargas is according to the last information precarious (Asylum procedures require that the applicant is bonded to the confidentiality principle and that he is not able to make any further statement or declaration until his plea is granted or rejected), meanwhile Gueder and Mendoza (Whose rights has been systematically violated after their statements denouncing that they were tortured, brutalized, choked and blindfolded to produce fake accusations) situation is tragic, they have demonstrated that they were tortured, they have won a Constitutional appeal . Mendoza Y Gueder Ganan Su accion de Libertad. Mendoza and Gueder Won their Freedom Action. http://www.la-razon.com/Versiones/20091015_006881/nota_256_894957.htm Which MUST be put to effect immediately after the judge pronounces the verdict -Check Bolivian Constitution art 125, Pgp. 4,5,6-)but they are still in prison for 105 days now and counting (You should be aware that to this date no charges have been pressed and no real accusation has been made so far which only adds to the violation of this persons rights). http://www.la-razon.com/versiones/20091128_006925/nota_256_916641.htm So it is fair and does it complain with wp:Balance and the basic principle of impartiality to admit the very same sources to make an accusation when Im somehow sympathetic with some position but it is not a reputable source when the same newspapers (From La Paz Bolivia I have edited all from Santa Cruz Bolivia to avoid any bias) show that the facts were " a little bit" different than the initial attempt made by the Bolivian government?. I really think the answer IS obvious. Sixth: Finally to justify your actions JN466, you posted “verification failed; most of the links are dead, and the ones I could access did not back this content” both statements are not true the links were double checked all are active (Assuming good faith I believe that you haven’t noticed before reverting my posting that I have replaced the defective ones with new ones) and as Im showing you they prove every single point. And finally the text present on the article was reached trough consensus, the arbitrary removal made by Rd232 is not right and should (As was required from me) have proposed the deletion and proved his points here before cutting a text that was built by consensus. So, waiting for a fair response and before reinstating the original text. Best regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paratrooper73 ( talk • contribs) 00:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually the person who attempted the link was Evo Morales himself on a public speech given on may first 2009, from that point the persecution was on and this whole issue became a witch hunt against political opposers. check http://www.ernestojustiniano.org/2009/05/si-trabaja-en-human-rights-los-extranjeros-afuera-de-bolivia-y-los-bolivianos-a-la-carcel/ So again I respectfully suggest that the text reached trough consensus should be maintained and my editing with the links active preserved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paratrooper73 ( talk • contribs) 02:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC) Jayen466 You also should be aware that one of the persons -Cathar11- who ignited the editing war on this article have just added a reference to mr Acha, this person also participates in various forums and his conduct regarding this specific subject is far from impartial, you also should be aware that the article he refers to was later corrected by the newspaper editor -La Razon- himself. So in fairness and equilibrium and because there is evidence of another attempt of distorting facts and present phony evidence we should respect the consensus reached. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paratrooper73 ( talk • contribs) 02:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Smearing? conspiracy theory? political agenda? who knows. But once again if you are going to allow the information that initiated the persecution and accusation to stay you should allow the development of it to be known dont you agree? I think that once more returning to the consensus built text is the right option here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.251.162 ( talk) 03:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC) Im more concerned with the fact that Im again seeing some politically oriented activity here, Jayen466, Im going to insist requesting the reinstatement of the removed paragraph, otherwise even with the best intention from you this is just another case of POV:Pushing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paratrooper73 ( talk • contribs) 03:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
hat wouldnt be necessary, I understand that you dont have the "in dept" knowledge so lets begin with your questions: First: Government witness were only Ignacio Villa Vargas, and later Mendoza and Gueder, for the sake of balance Im going to provide you with two sources. http://www.periodico26.cu/noticias_mundo/mayo2009/bolivia080509.html The latter is from cuba and http://www.diariocritico.com/bolivia/2009/Mayo/noticias/147385/prensa-bolivia.html in those you will find that those three were the only witnesses the government have and statements like this :En su declaración Ignacio Villa revelo que: “se reunían constantemente en el stand de Cotas entre 8 y 20 personas que en algunos casos asistía Branco Marinkovic, casi siempre Guido Nayar. Los que nunca faltaron a las reuniones fueron Hugo Achá, Alejandro Melgar, Mauricio Rosa, Horacio Darruda, Carlos Guillen y otros” And as I have showed you he later withdrew these statements. Tadic is not a witness he is one of the survivors of the ill fated operation in Las Americas Hotel on april16 he was tortured and an statement -to which you refer to- was attributed to him, he later presented a complain to the Bolivian ombudsman demonstrated that he was tortured, that he was deprived of his right and that he never produced any legal statements against any person. check: http://www.lostiempos.com/diario/actualidad/nacional/20100112/tadic-fue-torturado-y-violaron-sus-derechos_53279_94182.html Regarding Mr acha situation it is kind of funny that every single person in the Bolivian government have tried to present him as a fugitive when no legal notification was sent to him, that initially he was presented as a target of the alleged organization and that only after he left Bolivia on a trip he publicly announced suddenly he appeared as "being part" of the alleged organization. check. http://www.ernestojustiniano.org/2009/04/terrorismo-sube-el-tono-de-los-ataques-polticos/ So, once again im providing you with enough information and proving you that the removal of the statement regarding the withdrawal of ALL the statements made by ALL the persons initially presented as "witnesses" in this case, and also reagrding their conditions and situation is absolutely true. So far you have not requested any evidence from the persons that removed the statement or from the person who has added outdated and already clarified links which mislead the reader. im being polite and patient but fairness seem to be slipping away here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paratrooper73 ( talk • contribs) 05:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
OK I have seen that you added the sources about the original statements made against HRF Then president, so in fairness and with wp:balance in mind Im posting the consensus reached text showing the development of ths situation, thnx for your time —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paratrooper73 ( talk • contribs) 17:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I've shortened the paragraph on Achá to what is relevant to the article topic: [5] If editors want to expand this content, please make sure to use sources that mention Achá and/or HRF. If you feel further background should be given, I propose creating a separate article on the affair and linking to it from here. -- JN 466 05:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Dear Jayen466 you are missing the point here, I have experience in political persecution cases and the last thing I want is to cause a person more distress. You have noticed that I have tried to complain with your requirements and to answer your questions, i have proved my points and supported every aspect so why are you reluctant to repost this? Government witnesses withdrew their testimonies and sought asylum or are illegally imprisoned. I mean if the acusation stands why are you denying the public to know the development of the situation?, this HAVE to do with HRF Bolivia, not with Mr Acha, (Double check Morales speech) you can be assured that if another person would have been the president of HRF Bolivia it would have been his or her name the one under attack, so, once again and apealing to the principles of balance, fairness and impartiality, please reinstate the consensus reached text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paratrooper73 ( talk • contribs) 05:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
You should be aware that the source you used for your shortened version is a translation from an argentinian political activist and is full of expression like "The vultures of the ultra right wing" and conspiracy theories the original title is "Conspiración, magnicidio y separatismo en Bolivia" the author is Diego González and Im pretty sure this wouldnt qualify as a reputable source, I haven removed it but I think you should rethink this situation, check the text that was abusively edited by Rd232 and repost it with the active -and now extensively proven-relevant links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paratrooper73 ( talk • contribs) 05:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I've had another go at this. What do you think, Cathar11? The sources now cited do state clearly that (1) Ignacio Villa Vargas and Mario Tadic implicated Achá, (2) that Villa Vargas later claimed he had been tortured and forced to sign a statement prepared for him by the prosecutor, (3) that just a couple of weeks ago, Tadic was found by the defensor del pueblo (I've translated it a parliamentary commissioner; correct me if I am wrong) to have been tortured by police (which would lend credence to Villa Vargas' earlier claim). -- JN 466 18:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Dear Jayen466 I would like you to consider this two aspects: First: The attempt of labeling this as "terrorism" was dropped and I quote."por orden del fiscal del caso, Marcelo Soza, quien cambió la figura legal en este caso de terrorismo por alzamiento armado". check http://www.la-razon.com/versiones/20091013_006879/nota_256_893716.htm Second: we are erasing the other two persons who initially were "witnesses" who also withdrew their testimonies and who now -Even to this day- are being illegally retained in jail. Third: Regarding your question the proper legal translation for the "Defensor del pueblo" would be State Ombudsman. I still think that the short consensu built version is better, by the way it seems that some "editors" just dont want to discuss but to impose their views here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paratrooper73 ( talk • contribs) 18:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Dear Jayen 466, Im happy to obligue: Iniitial statements allegedly made by Gueder were:"de acuerdo a la versión de uno de sus defendidos, es decir, de Juan Carlos Gueder, la persona directa, responsable, uno de los grandes intelectuales -de la constitución del grupo terrorista- sería el doctor -Hugo- Achá Check: http://www.lostiempos.com/diario/actualidad/nacional/20090503/gueder-e-investigador-identifican-al-%E2%80%9Cviejo%E2%80%9D-como-ignacio-villa_5694_9520.html And as I have showed you they -Gueder and Mendoza- later withdrew their statements denounced torture and are illegally imprisoned -Please check the entire previous section-. So once again we arrive to a cold fact: All and every single person used by the Bolivian Government as a "witness" to attempt an accusation against then President of HRF Bolivia have withdraw his statements and is currently illegally in prison or seeking for asylum. Dont you think that the original short consensus built text was really precise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paratrooper73 ( talk • contribs) 22:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for that source. That's excellent. It also adds the info that Achá asked for political asylum in the US, which we should add to the article. Which would you say is the best source to use for Gueder withdrawing his earlier statement and/or alleging torture? -- JN 466 00:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Dear Jayen466, Just for the sake of precision, Acha never requested for asylum, -neither did his wife who currently is in Bolivia- the Bolivian government wanted to present him as requesting asylum and they tried to get rid of his wife too (Who was an elected representative at the time), I think I can provide you with a source of the only interview he has actually conceded check: http://www.revistalex.com/exclusiva-hugo-acha-entrevistado-por-revista-legal-lex/ Regarding your question, well I think that any of the sources I provide you would do just fine, I dont want to lose wp:balance off sight here. I want also to thank you for your kindness, it has been refreshing after all the partisanship surrounding this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paratrooper73 ( talk • contribs) 00:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I have just joined wikipedia and I do this after I reading how this page has develop and there appears a clear POV problem (or is better called NPOV?) some users are very purposeful to record as much negative information as they can (these are users who are always defending Chavez like is full time job--all day every day-- especially JRSP and . I will hold my nose for editing this. i will clean up and try to inject balance again MarturetCR ( talk) 10:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Should the HRF Bolivia section merit its own article? I propose either more information be added, or less information be here on this while a new page be created with the Bolivia chapter on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarturetCR ( talk • contribs) 10:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I restored these. Is the article ready to have them out? - Sinneed 13:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I want to address neutrality content and balance this article with other information that doesn't make this organization seem like what some of those, horrified by the criticism the organization sometimes levels at human rights violators, want to portray. Those who don't like the message of the human rights foundation seem to want to kill the messenger as opposed to showing where the group is wrong or incorrect. MarturetCR ( talk) 03:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I would like someone to help me address the attacks on HRF in this article and the deliberate POV issues by some editors who wish to portray this group as "right-wing." I have found additional sources to show this is not the case, including, today, a reference to a grant they got from the "socialist left/labour party coalition government" of Norway. Once we do this we can remove the neutrality tag. If nobody steps up I am going to BE BOLD and make the changes myself. nobody here seems to do anythign but react, and, at that, it is always a sniping match between editors on the left of the spectrum like Rd and JRSP and so on MarturetCR ( talk) 20:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Tagged offtopic. He's dead. It doesn't matter. I expect to drop the addition again soon, unless there is some reason it belongs here. *maybe* it belongs at Pinochet's article.- Sinneed 13:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
This is hardly off topic. He may be dead but it is clear that several editors with a very distinct point of view and who want to tage HRF as "right wing" do their utmost to keep out any information or examples of criticism of "right wing" governments by HRF. Looking at past edits this includes criticism of Alvaro Uribe's government as well as Pinochet. The position of their head, writing as head of HRF, about the legacy of Pinochet, is absolutely relevant. and Rd232 can say what he wants about there not being a congressional vote to remove Allende but he is the one who is peddling untruths. If necessary let's include the entire piece or let readers make up their own minds. But this IS relevant and should be restored. You two, Sinneed and Rd232 may be very clever with yoru WP rulebook but you are NOT the final authority on this subject or on what constitutes a good article. sorry to burst your bubble MarturetCR ( talk) 21:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
The Pinochet reference is far too arcane. Surely, if the question is whether the organisation is right-wing or not, the solution is to add a "Reception" section with sources that describe it as right-wing, or left-wing, or whatever. I'd encourage editors to look for such sources (reliably published sources, not blogs), rather than seeking to include individual statements by its president or staff that a savvy reader might interpret as evidence of either liberal or conservative bias. -- JN 466 20:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
== BEULLER? BEULLER? == MarturetCR ( talk) 00:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Seriously, you editors amaze me. If I am BOLD I get slapped down and am told things need to be moved to talk and discussed. If I Discuss I post three times over more than two weeks and I don't get a single response.
I intend to make the article less one-sided against the Human Rights Foundation by adding to their Haiti entry and adding non-political stuff they do. This will entail a lot of research. Once the bias against it is removed I am going to remove the Neutrality dispute tag. I don't know where the COI task comes in but I presume that is due to the obvious bias of two of the editors on here. Nonetheless I am going to remove that, too. So, fair warning and forewarning. OK, off we go MarturetCR ( talk) 00:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I added to the reception section, tweaked and tightened, and think the article is a little more balanced by adding some positive and empirical stuff (as opposed to negative opinions). This should address neutrality. There is not much I can do about JRSP's COI or Rd232's COI issues. Does anyone have access to more information that is verifiable and easy to quote from? MarturetCR ( talk) 05:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) This discussion should move to Oslo Freedom Forum, where at least the mention isn't WP:UNDUE. It is WP:UNDUE to mention the Norwegian funding here, even without the sourcing issue, because the Forum didn't even mention it. And it's prima facie ludicrous to suggest that the Norwegian government is afraid of retaliation, and rather unlikely that the second-most transparent country in the world could or would seek to keep such funding secret. In general, this is why we try to rely on WP:PSTS secondary sources to filter information; the ReliefWeb database entry is certainly a primary source. Rd232 talk 20:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Since MarturetCR seems intent on edit warring the reference in (with the edit summary about providing a source completing ignoring the concerns above, and the consensus against inclusion), I've left a note at WP:NPOVN. Rd232 talk 19:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Los Angeles writer Patrick Goldstein refers to the organization as "respected", [14] and in the Mennonite Weekly Review it is referred to by a supporter as "neither leftist nor rightist" [15].
Writing as president of HRF in the American conservative magazine National Review, Thor Halvorssen participated in NR's symposium on the death of Chilean right-wing dictator Augusto Pinochet, and was noted as the only one of the six commentators to condemn Pinochet unequivocally, writing: "Augusto Pinochet took full control of Chile—by force. He shut down parliament, suffocated political life, banned trade unions, and made Chile his sultanate. His government disappeared 3,000 opponents, arrested 30,000 (torturing thousands of them), and controlled the country until 1990." [1] [2]
1. The inclusion of the Pinochet bit has already been discussed; it is hard to see how it is relevant enough for inclusion; this encyclopedia entry is about HRF, not about Halvorssen's opinions. The phrasing "noted as the only one of" is particularly egregious though - noted by who? 2. The Goldstein adjective is plucked from an LAT blog piece which echoes a poor Advocate piece; cf this letter. I think its inclusion fails WP:UNDUE; as the opinion of a random HRF supporter in an obscure newsletter (Mennonite) certainly does. Rd232 talk 11:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
It WAS discussed and added into this new section by another editor. It is being put back in. If we are keeping the Cuban Communist Party rag then we are keeping the National Review and the LA Times. MarturetCR ( talk) 12:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Very well, I am putting it back in, the LAT piece, I mean. 07:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarturetCR ( talk • contribs)
I have just restored the criticism and controversy section after it was arbitrarily deleted. Halvorssen is a public figure and therefore has drawn criticism and controversy. Including this on a WP page is a standard practice. WP pages are not puff pieces or resumes. If the person who deleted the section claims it is "biased" then those claims should be discussed here. Deleting whole sections is not the correct approach. You must show why it is "biased" and irrelevant. In fact, the criticism and controversies cited were both high profile, well-sourced and absolutely relevant to providing a full picture of this organization. This article is full of accolades for HRF. It would simply be biased to exclude criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThorWay ( talk • contribs) 06:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
I deleted the "HRF Bolivia" section, since it talks about a completely different organization. I copy the section below in case if someone would want to start a separate article for it:
HRF Bolivia[edit] According to the information available on their website, HRF-Bolivia was established in 2007.[54] HRF and HRF-Bolivia are two different organizations with independent boards, staffs, and programs. HRF-Bolivia has issued several reports and communications denouncing violations of human rights in Bolivia.[55]
In accordance with a questionnaire prepared by HRF for the Inter-American Human Rights Commission regarding the situation of human rights defenders in Bolivia—available on HRF’s website [56]— in 2010, Bolivian authorities formally indicted 39 Bolivian nationals for purportedly having connections with the late Eduardo Rózsa-Flores, a Hungarian-Bolivian citizen who was killed in a raid by the Bolivian police in April 2009. The 39 people indicted—many of whom have since been granted political asylum in different countries, such as Brazil [57]— were charged with the crimes of separatism, and insurgency. The 39 people indicted include Mr. Hugo Achá, a Bolivian lawyer and television commentator who, among other positions he publicly held in the country, was the pro bono chairman of HRF-Bolivia’s board until May 2009.[58] Achá, as many of the other 38 people indicted, denied any involvement, claiming that he had met Mr. Rósza a few times when the latter had approached him in his capacity as a journalist, with a request for human rights-related information. Bolivian media has also reported,[59][60][61] that the alleged key witnesses to the case later retracted their accusations and denounced that they had been tortured and forced by Bolivian authorities, in order to implicate Mr. Achá and others. The Bolivian authorities have dismissed these statements as false.
According to their website, before resigning collectively, HRF-Bolivia’s board of directors publicly made clear that there was no connection between the institution and the personal accusations being made against its board chairman and dozens of other people and organizations of Bolivian civil society.[55] Jumpinthecircle ( talk) 22:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
As documented at http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Human_Rights_Foundation the "Human Rights Foundation" receives funding from right-wing groups, and so far as I can tell, its "Oslo Freedom Forum" has featured no notable left-wing speakers, and only criticizes left-wing governments in the Americas. Founder is the son of Thor Halvorssen Hellum, former CIA collaborator who helped fund the Nicaraguan contras. Maybe its time this is regarded as a political organization rather than a human rights advocacy group. Wannabe rockstar ( talk) 13:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
The Human Rights Foundation Corporation is the full name of this 'organization'. This request is is about changing the page name and URL from Human_Rights_Foundation to The_Human_Rights_Foundation_Corporation or to The_Human_Rights_Foundation and remove all wrong redirects. The full and legal name of the corporation can be funded Certiface of Incorporation. For example, we can't call just Cola the Coca_Cola in WikiPedia.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Human Rights Foundation. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not happening, and BOLDly closing per WP:SNOW. I've created a redirect for HRF (USA) to this article. ( non-admin closure) ~ Matthewrbowker Drop me a note 16:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Human Rights Foundation →
HRF (USA) – Calling the organization "Human Rights Foundation" is inappropriate according to the organization's official website
http://hrf.org (
http://hrf.org/about/about-hrf/) and official Twitter account
https://twitter.com/hrf (
https://twitter.com/HRF/status/712296369483063296). "HRF" is service mark at United States Patent and Trademark Office and the Registration Number is 4866673 . HRF is the correct naming because the organization use it widely everywhere on social media and news. This is the reason why the lawyers at the United States Patent and Trademark Office allowed the federal registration (see "Specimen" at USPTO). I believe that moving this page to HRF (USA) will help for example the Twitter followers and general public to identify the correct Wikipedia article when searching for the organization. "HRF (USA)" identifies the source and the country of origin of the services.
Human Rights Expert (
talk)
04:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Remember, I helping Wikipedia to be clear from spammers and when I saw this page and I began editing because many external links pointed to different domain names which showing the same website.
My request to move the page from "Human Rights Foundation" to "HRF (USA)" according to https://hrf.org/about/about-hrf (official website of HRF), according to the http://twitter.com/hrf (Official Twitter account), according to the http://youtube.com/humanrightsfdn (Official Youtube Channnel named HRF), according to the logo bit.ly/1ogqInU used by the organization on Google+. My edit is correct and the move request is correct according to United States Patent and Trademark Office which is part of the United States government. My last edit was correct on the page because the organization as I said HRF and not "Human Rights Foundation" how it's showing on the whole Wikipedia. I editing and I request NOT to revert the changes. I support now and I will support in the future to move this page to HRF (USA) because it's in a wrong place. And I'm wrong? United States government lawyers are wrong? Because if so, I going to request cancel the trademark registration for false statements made by the organization. https://hrf.org/about/about-hrf and other evidences I attached to my move request (including a Federal trademark registration U.S Registration Number is 4866673) is clearly states that the organization is called HRF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Human Rights Expert ( talk • contribs) 12:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
DO NOT EDIT MY COMMENTS AND STOP THE ACCUSING ME! SHOW ME EVIDENCES by linking Help:Diff, where I promoted a third party organization on this page. Second, if you talk about other than PAGE MOVE consider open another discussion in this talk page. Last, keep your stupid opinions I think nobody want to listen to somebody who have no EVIDENCE that the changes I made in this page it was made in bad faint or for the purpose of promotion of another organization than HRF! Human Rights Expert ( talk) 00:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
{{
Edit fully-protected}}
Other editors are continuesly reverting my edits, without justifying the reason and harrashing me, in 5 minute voting 3 person about a page move request. The page must be fully protected!
I'm confused. How is he "promoting a different, less notable organisation with the same name"? hrf.org and humanrightsfoundation.org both resolve to the same IP address, the domains are registered to the same person, and the contents of the two sites appear to be completely identical. This sounds like a misconfiguration on their end. Anyway, I oppose the move, as their about page says "Human Rights Foundation (HRF)" and their logo also says "Human Rights Foundation™". I see no good reason for this move. The fact that they use "HRF" in tweets for brevity is not a valid argument. nyuszika7h ( talk) 13:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Human Rights Foundation. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)