While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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)
-- THF ( talk) 01:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
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)
This is not usual in WP articles, please consider an external link to relevant information. JRSP ( talk) 16:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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):
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
What's the reason for deleting the info about VIO's response to HRW report? JRSP ( talk) 12:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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)
-- THF ( talk) 01:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
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)
This is not usual in WP articles, please consider an external link to relevant information. JRSP ( talk) 16:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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):
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
What's the reason for deleting the info about VIO's response to HRW report? JRSP ( talk) 12:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)