Talk:Oslo Freedom Forum

Criticism section

I am removing the criticism section until we can all come to a consensus due to the following issues: The source you are using to cite this information would fall under the WP:SOURCES as a questionable source due to the fact that it ranks relatively low in popularity in Norway and has an admitted political agenda. Also, the way the entry is worded also makes absolute claims about a living individual which are not substantiated on that individuals wiki page or through the given source. Wrathofjames (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Your characterization of the leftist daily newspaper Klassekampen is incorrect in my view. The last thirty years the paper has decidedly moved well into the mainstream of Norwegian news media, and asserting that it should not be considered a reliable source is unconvincing. You may of course ask for an assessment of this at WP:RSN, however, with the second source added that would appear moot. __meco (talk) 08:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not making a characterization--I'm pointing out facts. The paper has a stated agenda as well as low readership according to the linked list. WP:BURDEN is always on the editor trying to make/revert changes--especially if the changes "..might damage the reputation of living people". Also, as this is the English Wikipedia and your sources are not in English--which is okay--except, I'm not sure if the sources you are giving actually support the information published. I'm not doubting that the individual event happened, but I am questioning your wording of the criticism as it does not appear to have a neutral point of view. Please do not revert the changes until there is a consensus here, your sole opinion is not sufficient to do so. Wrathofjames (talk) 01:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me just point out that this is not my edit, but someone else's edit. I simply supplied a second source,[1] from Norway's most reputable and most listened to nationally broadcasted news radio show. As for your characterization—again—of the merits of the newspaper Klassekampen you claim they have a stated agenda. Which would that be in this matter? __meco (talk) 06:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Jumping in here. I see that Meco did not originate the post, but since you're reverting it I will direct the discussion at you. Personally, I cannot get the video to play nor would I be able to understand what is said (I'm assuming). The agenda of the newspaper appears to be noted here: Klassekampen or [2] which would be enough to bring it into question. The inclusion of a whole new section titled "Controversy" and making claims on a BLP without verified source(s) also requires extra scrutiny. In such cases, as responsible editors, we have to be very careful with that--especially when considering the implications of WP:UNDUE. Take care! Joseph Steven (talk) 03:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate and agree with that position. I think we can well afford to await further verification of the second source, and perhaps even a round at WP:RSN with regards to the use of the former, although my estimate, as already stated, is that it should be considered RS. As for the claim that López took part in the attempted coup against Hugo Chávez in 2002, it would probably have to be rephrased as a claim, citing the accusers. The Klassekampen article states that a think-tank called "Manifest Analyse" has published a report in which it details how López actively participated in the coup. In the radio interview this accusation is leveled by Eirik Vold of a long-standing alliance called "Latin-Amerika–gruppene i Norge" (The Latin America Groups in Norway"). Both Vold and the Klassekampen article allege that video footage was made which shows López during the coup attempt. __meco (talk) 09:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Removing the criticism seems a bit drastic, the reasons for removal also seem dubious. Klassekampen has an estimated readership of more than 50,000 on week days and 90,000 on Saturdays acoarding to TNS Gallup, a respectable market analysis firm. This is a decently large mass of readers in a nation of five million. While it's history is not sparkeling, it's been concidered a respectable newspaper for the last 20 years or so. To put it simply klassekampen would not be dismissed out of hand in Norway.

Criticism "(in Klassekampen) for inviting his cousin Leopoldo López to the 2010 forum, and introducing Lopez as a "a hero of human rights"—without informing that they are cousins."

Is the first sentence at [3], OK?

The incident is notable, but possibly not a big deal—after Halvorssen's explanation (forthcoming—or possibly of the past) that in Venezuala "everyone" knows that they are related. (The Klassekampen article came after a multiple page interview in Dagens Næringsliv—where Halvorssen also claims that he has applied for becoming a citizen of Norway.) --No parking here (talk) 09:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

If the "incident" is notable, then it would be a big deal. If, as you say, it is not a big deal then it would not deserve its own section. The problems with Klassekampen are already well noted above. You are also adding information on the participants list that does not belong on this page nor does it fit the format of the previous additions. A simple wikilink to them would do--not a writeup here(referring to the 2012 Russian addition). There are also problems with how the entry is worded. Your edit pushes unverified claims as fact about Halvorssen's cousin which would be against WP:SYNTH. I agree with Meco's statement above about a second verifiable source before we come to a consensus due to BLP issues and being careful to remain encyclopedic and neutral. Wrathofjames (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

"claims the existence of a video, that shows López as an active participant"

Is the second sentence of this [4] version OK?

On the next day (in the same newspaper) an article claims the existence of a video, that shows López as an active participant in the attempted military coup against Hugo Chávez in 2002.

--No parking here (talk) 08:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)