Talk:Mark Weisbrot/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Blogs are not reliable sources

Using information from blogs to make claims about third parties is against the wikipedia verifiability policy, please check WP:SPS. This is particularily important when making claims about living persons. Recent additions are using nooilforpacifists and vcrisis as sources. -- JRSP (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Wholesale deletion of pertinent reference material is inappropriate

We are definitely going to need some mediation here. This guy deletes major sections of artiles citing them as 'terrible... irrelevant sources'. I did a search on wiki and there is no page on terrible...irrelevant sources. The sources deleted in fact are publications the subject has done in legitimate fora. Speeches given, articles given... book reviews (not amateur, professional). These are facts not in dispute and continued deletion of them is in error.

I'm calling for mediation here.--Altoids Man (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, first off, I'm replacing your pasting of your version here on the talk page with a link to that version: your version. You can get these links to old versions by clicking on the History tab (from the article, not from the talk page), and clicking on the time/date of the old version, and then copying the URL. Second, I'm not sure what you mean by "mediation" or whether you expect something to happen merely by saying something on this talk page. You can check out dispute resolution for a summary, but you should really look at some key policies you seem to be unfamiliar with first. Those would be reliable sources and undue weight, as well as editing policy and WP:CONSENSUS. Also, it may help to lower the temperature a bit by reminding yourself that there is no deadline. cheers, Rd232 ^talk 16:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, and WP:BLP, which emphasises discussing controversial things before putting them in (and especially before putting them back when someone else contests them). Rd232 ^talk 16:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, one specific issue in your version not covered by the policies above (it's more of a verifiability issue) is your "heterodox economics" sentence supported by a Weisbrot article which says nothing about Weisbrot being heterodox. The source doesn't support the statement, in other words. Rd232 ^talk 16:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok here is the deal -- the referenced material is the AUTHORS OWN WORK AND THE SOURCE WHERE HE PUBLISHED IT. It is completely relevant to the situation. I'm calling for mediation since you are a biased clown deleting things willy-nilly just because you don't like it. The material goes in. It is the subjects own work.--Altoids Man (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I am putting the references back in to the socialist places where is work is published, in addition to the main-stream media locations -- it is relevant, verifiable, it meets all the tests of wikipedia.--Altoids Man (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

One at a time:

1. The book review is published by AMAZON so it is verifiable, it is relevant because they employ professionals to review those kinds of books. This is not a self-published review. It stays.

2. The SCRIBD piece "taggs" his work with heterodox and socialist -- it stays. I'm finding many more like it so there will be more coming.

3. The interview he gave to a socialist organziation stays -- it is verifiable, and relevant. It is also representative of his work -- as there is no evidence he gives interviews to the capitalist organizations. If he did, we could put that in there as well.

4. The article he wrote for ALTERNET stays, it is representative, relevant, verifiable

5. The discussion about the speech he gave to the Left Forum, 2007, where the topic was "Forging a Radical Political Future ". where he represented "movements and tendencies on the Left" is verifiable, relevant, representative of his radical views.

You may not like it, but you can't keep it out by calling it what it is not... your story keeps changing about why you want to review things.

For a good representation of what is allowed to be posted in a biographical article -- go check out Ann Coulter then come back here and discuss. Practically the whole thing is a vicious attack, a list of attacks people make on her, tiny snippets of conversations she has with people.

All I am trying to do here is provide the information that people come here to see. YOU and HE are probably the same person, trying to pass off as a centrist, giving interviews, when in fact the views taken are radical. The subjects OWN WORK and words are relevant. They stay and we are going to get this dispute resolved. The material isn't controversial, he did those things, he said those things to those people and gave those interviews. The best argument you have is that it is not representative of his work but that is laughable given what passes for "representative" on some of these bios. Undo one more time it will be dispute resolution time, I'm sure you are aware of the three-reversions rule.--Altoids Man (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your edits, I made small separate edits to explain my concerns in the edit summaries: 1) If being "liberal" is a prominent feature of the subject (so that it deserves mention in the opening sentence) there should be lots of better sources than just an amazon review. 2) Why picking those particular interviews and not one to the BBC, for example? 3) heterodoxnews, monthlyreview and Scribd don't support your claims. JRSP (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Weak weak weak -- You are trying to keep out relevant information -- your bias is showing, It shows in the other edits you make. You keep changing your story. You have now reverted my edits three times without reason -- other than your strong desire to keep out important and relevant information. Just because you sympathize (or identify with) the subject. Your reversion are undone. --Altoids Man (talk) 00:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Your personal opinion about what whether an interview is 'good enough' or 'special enough' is irrelevant. The facts speak for themselves. If it is appropriate to mention this or that place where he writes, it is certainly appropriate to mention the various places where he works -- your personal view on which of his works are 'special' is not something I find in POV or RS or any other wiki page -- your unethical and irresponsible continued reversion of these edits make me question the 'admin' tag that you claim to have. Dispute resolution is forthcoming... go ahead and undo these edits a fourth time clown. I'm not going away. I'll be back here every day. --Altoids Man (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I mean that the subject has been interviewed by lots of media, so why picking up these ones instead of others? I also think that if "liberal" is important enough to appear in the opening sentence then it should be easy to source on multiple reliable sources, not just a book review. And the sources you've provided don't support the "heterodox economics" claim, a tag from SCRIBD is not enough. Finally, I really don't understand why you keep reinserting dead links in the "external links" section [1] --JRSP (talk) 01:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted reference to all interviews granted and all articles written. They were unreferenced non sourced unsupported cherry picked assertion. Now we can start to put references to his work BACK IN that are representative and documented if you like. Also deleted category of 'american foriegn policy writers' he does not 'write foriegn policy' nor is he in the category of Washington and Jefferson --- what a snort! --Altoids Man (talk) 04:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe Category:American foreign policy writers is for people who write about US foreign policy, not people who create said policy. I've restored it to the page. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, a word of advice for you, Altoids Man. People who see your request and come here are less likely to be sympathetic when they see you calling other editors "clowns" and "unethical". Disagreeing with each other is fine, and when it leads to debate and compromise can help improve articles - but it's usually easiest to do so if we assume our opponents are mistaken but not malicious. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Where is "Category:American foreign policy writers" defined? The plain reading of it, (along with a casual review of the other 98 policy writers in the group) show that it isn't for people who write about foreign policy -- Theodore_Roosevelt has a whole paragraph about how he wrote about foreign policy and he isn't listed in the category. --Altoids Man (talk) 15:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Check what the category is a subcategory of. "American political writers" is hardly likely to be people creating American politics in prose form, so I guess that clarifies what the aim of the category is. It's normal for WP categories to both contain people they shouldn't and omit people shouldn't, partly because most of the time categories are outstandingly uninteresting things. PS to reference other WP articles, paste the article title and wrap in [[ ]] square brackets. Rd232 ^talk 15:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I will echo Olaf above. Altoids Man, you must present content instead of attacks. I believe that I have the opposite view on many things Venezuela than do Rd232 and JRSP. However, I find them to be very strict about the rules and rather reasonable to work with. But rule number 1 on Wiki is that you destroy your argument if you can't be civil. So work with them.

I will be around from time to time, though not much over the next 2 weeks, to check in on what is happening here. For now I suggest that JRSP's suggestion of finding a more major source than a book review for the liberal assertation would be good. It may seem obvious, but much craziness can ensue if Wiki doesn't hold to an anal-retentive standard of verificability. Awickert (talk) 17:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all thanks for coming I appreciate it. I have not found these two rd232 or JRSP to be reasonable, but if you say they they are or can be I'm willing to try, at least - now for first time they didn't just 'undo' my work without offering a compromise. We now have some references to some of the publications Mr. Weisbrot is credited with, apart from MSM. I'm going to edit that section some more now since it places a huge emphasis on major newspapers, which actually is a very minor part of Mr. Weisbrots' publications. That will be started in a new section on this talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Altoids Man (talk • contribs) 01:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not necessary to characterize Weisbrot ideologically. As of this version, I've tried to complete the work that was never addressed before, by simply stating for whom he writes (I'm sure more can be added still). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Weisbrot is a liberal

That Weisbrot is a liberal economist is not in question. In the introductory paragraph, his "major work" is a book on the so-called social security system. The book "Social Security: The Phony Crisis" is listed for sale at Amazon. Amazon's book reviewer http://www.amazon.com/Social-Security-Crisis-Dean-Baker/dp/0226035468 -John J. Miller says " The authors are both liberal economists," The position they take in the book is radical, opposite of conservative. According to the tag team of JRSP and his sidekick rd232, that isn't good enough for them. Now they say ": 1) If being "liberal" is a prominent feature of the subject (so that it deserves mention in the opening sentence) there should be lots of better sources than just an amazon review." now critcizing both where the word is and questioning it.

There is no question he is a liberal, or a progressive, or a left-leaning economist.

1. He is described so in book reviews. http://www.amazon.com/Social-Security-Crisis-Dean-Baker/dp/0226035468 The very book so prominently displayed in this article.

2. He writes articles for socialist magazines, like alternet and many others documented in the 'disputed' text.

3. His Progressive CEPR is ranked as only one of three left or progressive think tanks out of the top 25. There are seven conservative but only three progressive. http://www.cepr.net/documents/costeffective_2008_05.pdf

4. His articles are published by many progressive, left, green pacifist, social justice, economic justice, and similar organizations it would take an entire article just to describe them all.

So he is a progressive/leftist/liberal economist, one of only a few, in fact. There is no question about it, and, because there are so few, and he is so far to the left, it should figure prominently.

We have established the man is a liberal/progressive/leftist or radical economist. I didn't even have to show his relationship to the socialist Chavez to do it. But that is a whole other chapter.

--Altoids Man (talk) 05:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is one extra source. The CEPR info seems to be good, possibly should be put here, likely would be important on the CEPR page. I personally find such labels ('liberal', 'conservative') to be very uninformative. I would suggest that rather his stances on various issues were presented; sourcing for this is much easier, and it isn't a floaty term like "liberal". Awickert (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, my source says that CEPR is a liberal organization as opposed to Weisbrot being liberal, so perhaps that page is the better one for what you want to say. I mean, unless you want to email Weisbrot and ask if he considers himself a liberal, in which case you'll probably get no straight answer sine his viewpoints are not the mainstream USA liberal ones. Awickert (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with your assessment here Awickert. I believe the 'liberal' tag is 'floaty' as you put it. Weisbrots work speaks for itself... I'm going to focus on getting the facts right in the article and if necessary will come back to the 'liberal' tag. Thanks. --Altoids Man (talk) 03:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

This is (I think) the way to go. Things like "he writes columns for X Y and Z in support of W". Stuff like that will be able to stick, since it is prominent (in major newspapers) and consists of simple facts. Awickert (talk) 03:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Since this work was never completed, I've tried to address some of this in this version, agreeing with Awickert that we only need to state for whom he writes, without characterizing that. The reader can decide for themselves what his ideology is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Wesibrot publications and appearances paragraph proposal for a new para...

From the source [1] cited by the editor, http://www.cepr.net/index.php/mark-weisbrots-op-eds/ here are the counts for 65 different publications claimed by the Subject: (Where is the monospace font?)

Source Frequency AlterNet 24 The Guardian Unlimited 24 Common Dreams 15 Truthout 14 Janesville Gazette (WI) 13 Kansas City Star (MO) 11 Fresno Bee (CA) 10 Modesto Bee (CA) 10 Duluth News Tribune (MN) 10 Bellingham Herald (WA) 9 Sacramento Bee (CA) 9 Rock Hill Herald (SC) 8 Belleville News-Democrat (IL) 7 International Business Times 7 Bluffton Island Packet (SC) 6 Kennewick Tri-City Herald (WA) 6 Lake Wylie Pilot (SC) 6 News and Observer (NC) 6 Anchorage Daily News (AK) 5 Asheville Citizen-Times (NC) 4 Augusta Chronicle (GA) 4 Charlotte Observer (NC) 4 Columbus Dispatch (OH) 4 Eureka Reporter (CA) 4 Kokomo Sunday Tribune (IN) 4 Rochester Post-Bulletin (MN) 4 Tri-City Herald (WA) 4 Bloomington Pantagraph (IL) 3 Cleveland Plain Dealer (OH) 3 Columbia State (SC) 3 Great Falls Tribune (MT) 3 Newport News Daily Press (VA) 3 Página/12 (Argentina) 3 Tacoma Tribune (WA) 3 Wapakoneta Daily News (OH) 3 Wisconsin State Journal 3

All the rest have 2 or less articles published.

Of note, "major" Newspapers Cleveland Sunday Plain Dealer (OH) 2 Los Angeles Times 2 Miami Herald (FL) 2 WashingtonPost.com 1 New York Times 0 Washington Post 0 Boston Globe 0

This is the period Jan 1, 2008 through 31 July 2009. Clearly the primary publications of this individual are not "Major" newspapers, (however that is defined). Thus the source does not support the current prose. I would propose the following text, giving the most frequent publications the most prominence. The top four publications, arguably, are liberal, progressive, left of center or just plain left wing. See The Guardian, alternet, Common Dreams and truthout.

His opinion pieces have been most frequently published on progressive and alternative websites such as The Guardian, alternet and Common Dreams, both as original work and as republication of syndicated columns. Weisbrot also writes a column on economic and policy issues that is distributed nationwide by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services. His opinion pieces have appeared in the Los Angeles Times, and more frequently in other U.S. newspapers.

That takes care of the first source. The second source is used to source his appearances. Let us see now about those. The current text says:

He appears regularly on national and local television and radio programs; appearances have included CNN, the BBC, National Public Radio and the Fox Business Network.

According to the reference, he appeared on CNN twice, the BBC six times, and was on NPR five times, and Fox Business network twice. This is since March of 2006. I think regularly is being used here as a weasel word... it is -- at best -- exaggerating the truth. It would be just as accurate to say "He appeared infrequently" on that media. It almost appears as shameless self-promotion, a big WIKIPEDIA NO-NO.

His most frequent appearances:

KPFA 10 PRI 7 BBC 6 CNBC 5 NPR 5

He has thirty or forty appearances on the radio/tv media, so that is about once or twice a month. I'd say that is occasionally, not frequently. He has also appeared on Al-Jazeera twice. So I would propose to re-write this sentence as follows.

He appears occaisionally on national and local news television and radio programs, appearances have included PRI, the BBC, NPR, CNBC and local radio programs on KPFA. He has also appeared on the Fox Business Network and Al-Jazeera.

So the whole thing would read:

His opinion pieces have been most frequently published on progressive and alternative websites such as The Guardian, alternet and Common Dreams, both as original work and as republication of syndicated columns. Weisbrot also writes a column on economic and policy issues that is distributed nationwide by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services. His opinion pieces have appeared in the Los Angeles Times, and more frequently in other U.S. newspapers. He appears occaisionally on national and local news television and radio programs, appearances have included PRI, the BBC, NPR, CNBC and local radio programs on KPFA. He has also appeared on the Fox Business Network and Al-Jazeera.

If anyone insists on cherry-picking the Fox Business Network, then Al-Jazeera has to figure at least as prominently. So there you have thorough research on the source cited by the editor. I have not even included other sources, and I know they are out there. and include sever self-identified socialsist publications. Lets see if we can come to agreement on the above text or a version of it, that is supported by the source. --Altoids Man (talk) 03:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

This sounds better, be aware however that this frequency analysis may be original research. And The Guardian is a major newspaper, BTW. JRSP (talk) 04:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

That comma after 'radio programs' should probably be a semi-colon. JRSP, are you remarking on The Guardian's stature because of its inclusion in "progressive and alternative websites"? If so then I agree that there's a slight ambiguity as to whether that means "websites which are both" or "websites which are either". I can't off-hand think of a better wording though.

Also, I'm glad to see the argument has shifted to constructive consensus-building. It makes a much more pleasant talk page environment. Olaf Davis (talk) 08:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, first off, I'm pretty sure that the above frequency analysis is WP:OR. Second, it's flawed in a number of ways. It only looks at 2008/9 publications (the publication list on the website goes back to 2001). It entirely ignores the distinction between primary publication and re-publication - for example there are in fact only 10 primary Alternet publications, the other 14 are re-publications; on the other hand all but one of the 24 Guardian publications are primary. And it ignores the fact that publication in major papers is more notable than publication on websites. Similarly, that someone progressive like Weisbrot appeared on Fox Business is a lot more significant than him appearing on Al Jazeera. That's not "cherry-picking", it's significance. Basically the para as it stands may be tweaked, which I've just done, but your proposed re-write is unwarranted and supported by WP:OR. Rd232 ^talk 09:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)3

First -- don't go "tweaking" the thing while we are discussing it here and tell me that you are done. That is a foul -- I came here to discuss it but if you are going to go off and start changing the text before we have come to any compromise it is not constructive. You are also not the only editor here -- So, I have noted your proposed "tweak" which, while it is an improvement, it is not enough. I have also UNDONE and kindly refrain from editing the page until we have some agreement here thank you.

Second: I am not proposing to publish OR. I'm not proposing to publish the frequency counts. The data was gathered to see if the existing prose is supported by the reference (it isn't), and if it is being cherry picked (it is), and if the author's works are primarily published as described in the article(they are not). The question we are discussing is "where is the man's work published" so let us have that discussion. You yourself perform an analysis of the alternet publications some are re-publications (whatever those are) and some are primary to justify your points. So kindly quit throwing the OR flag. Otherwise there is no point in even having a Talk page.

Third: -- On the question of "Major Newspapers" Where is that term defined? What is a "Major" as opposed to "minor" newspaper? It sounds like a weasel word. I went through the other years of his publications you reference (2002 - 2007) and I cannot find but one single reference to the boston globe, only three to the LA Times, and none to the washington post, only Washingtonpost.com. On the other hand, most of the data on the referenced pages points to "minor" dailies and alternative publishing cites. What are the "other major newspapers?" It is weasel wording... let us be accurate. Say which papers he has "also been published in"

Fourth -- You say "someone progressive like Weisbrot appeared on Fox Business is a lot more significant than him appearing on Al Jazeera" I don't agree -- they both merit a mention, or neither does. First of all, if you are willing to call the man a "progressive" then we should put that in the article. Second, it is astounding to me he would willingly go on a network so radical and controversial as al-jazeera, where in some parts of the western world many leading people have an unfavourable view of Al Jazeera. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera#Controversy However, you cannot cherry pick Fox Business Network over Al Jazzera any more than you can cherry pick the one Boston Globe publication or the three LA Times appearances over the 30 or 40 atlternet, the 30 or 40 Guardian, the many many minor daily newspaper publications. So the existing text is completely unsatisfactory.

fifth -- I'm willing to give the so-called "major" newspapers you want to cherry pick an "also has appeared in" but that is it. A half-dozen or so "major" US newspaper appearances, do not merit the lead. If even once a month he appeared in the LA Times as a regular communist then he would merit a mention as a 'regular columnist in the LA Times or Boston Globe, whatever, but that is simply not the case. It does not merit the opening sentence of his publications. The Guardian may or may not be a "major" newspaper (circulation ~350,000) but it is certainly not a US newspaper like the others you want to cite, it also has a The Guardian "reputation as a platform for liberal and left-wing opinions " so it is not in the same class as the Los Angeles Times (circulation 739,000) or the Washignton Post (which you have not shown the page he appeared in, circulation 673,000).

sixth, you fail to address the issue of "regular appearances" on the networks cited and the current reference does not support the existing text, you have no other alternative proposal then it stands.

seventh -- I take your point about paper publications weighing being in a different category than websites. I don't agree they have any more weight, no more than Radio has over TV or TV has over Newspapers for example, but I have changed the text to emphasize print over websites as you desire.

So the text would now read:

Weisbrot writes an opinion column on economic and policy issues that is distributed nationwide by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services. His opinion pieces are also frequently published in The Guardian and in progressive and alternative publications such as alternet and Common Dreams, both as original work and as republication of syndicated columns, His opinion pieces have also appeared in the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe and and more frequently in other U.S. newspapers. He appears occaisionally on national and local news television and radio programs, appearances have included PRI, the BBC, NPR, CNBC and local radio programs on KPFA. He has also appeared on the Fox Business Network and Al-Jazeera.

Kindly make your proposed edits here prior so other editors might see them as well. Thank you. --Altoids Man (talk) 15:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

First - tweaking it in the direction your comments suggest and I agree is entirely unfoul. Further changes can still be discussed. Also, blocking tweaks is not exactly developing a spirit of cooperation.

Second. OK, you're right. Basing text on uncited WP:OR is much better than citing it. The distinction between OR and looking at sources is basically what's obvious. A skim of the source publication list shows what I said. And a re-publication is, erm (isn't this obvious?), something that was written either for a syndication service or for another publication.

Third, OK if Washington Post is online only, that needs correcting (for that matter, the Guardian needs correcting to Guardian Unlimited). I'm not sure what other major papers are meant.

Fourth, well I disagree but OK, maybe can mention Al Jazeera English, but not for the reason for you make out. Sir David Frost is also on it you know.

Fifth, well with minor corrections as mentioned, and some spelling and formatting, I guess your text above is OK. Anyone else? Rd232 ^talk 15:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Allright then I'm thrilled we are close to consensus on this paragraph. Do you want to make the minor corrections or do you want me to do so?--Altoids Man (talk) 00:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, progress :) I don't mind either way - but it's kind of your baby. Rd232 ^talk 08:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I see that this work, and that of several sections above this one, was never completed. I don't think all of this original research on his appearances and opinions is needed. I hope my cleanup to this version addresses the issues raised here and in the sections above (the article was clearly poorly sourced, POV and incomplete before this cleanup). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Reverted two edits

I've reverted two recent edits. Most of the material they added was unsourced negative POV which, per WP:BLP, has no place. The bit about the 'squabble' with Rodriguez was just sourced to Rodriguez's criticism of him, which for this context is a primary source. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

And which could have been included with proper attribution to Rodriguez as the primary source; the Financial Times might have also been included, and there are thousands of google hits on this issue. I've added just a few of those to External links for future expansion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation on CEPR articles

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scalabrineformvp. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

This should probably be removed - false accusations of sockpuppetry (different people sharing the same IP address, not one person using multiple accounts.) I have been unblocked - I don't know why the others have not been yet.Kriswarner (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Kriswarner, I have altered the section heading to reflect your concern, however, you don't seem to understand the nature of sock and meatpuppetry investigations on Wiki, and the investigation did document meatpuppetry, which for the purposes here, considers the editors as "one entity". A read of WP:MEAT may help clear up your confusion, specifically: "Meatpuppetry is the recruitment of editors as proxies to sway consensus. ... For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee has decided that when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one entity." I hope this helps, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Corrections

Off2RioRob, when editing a well-sourced article that conforms to MOS guidelines and other Wiki policies, if you're unsure how to apply those guidelines and policies, it might be better to first propose your edits on talk. First, please take care with marking edits as minor if they're not (for example, removing a POV tag). Second, please be sure that the title of a webpage used in a citation agrees with the title of that page. Third, please don't leave refs hanging when you remove text, so that the refs are left attached to text they aren't citing. Fourth, please understand the difference between "opinion" and text well cited to, for example, The New York Times and USA today. And finally, when removing text entirely, please don't use an edit summary stating you removed it from the "lede" because you claimed it was opinion, although it wasn't. I've corrected your citations, reattached the citations to the text they were citing, and restored the cited text to the body of the article.[2] You should be aware that Wiki is not censored, and removing text cited to The New York Times, USA Today and backed by numerous other sources is not neutral editing. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Just moved another citation tag that was attached to new material that it didn't support. Off2riobob, I appreciate your desire to try to fix things, but if you say that you have issues with the citations, then you have the personal responsibility to not create more referencing issues in whatever fixes you apply. Awickert (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• You can do what you like, the content did not belong in the lede and I have correctly removed it, you can replace it anywhere you like but please be aware I am starting at the top and working my way down the article. Off2riorob (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

media representation of Hugo Chávez

I was wondering that this article media representation of Hugo Chávez is linked and it is in this article as though Weisbrot has spoken about it extensively or authoritatively about it and yet in the article Weisbrot is not mentioned at all? Is his association with this issue being given undue weight here? Off2riorob (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't checked the article history, but that (very POV) article was largely created by Rd232, is very biased, and I'm not sure why it's linked here or in what context. Rd232 strongly believed the international media was biased against Chavez, and wrote entire articles around such beliefs and sourced to Venezuelanalysis.com and Center for Economic and Policy Research. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I just looked at that, agree it doesn't belong here, was probably added by Rd232, as he largely introduced the POV into the Media article, and may have linked it here. I don't know why it's included, and it should go. Tackling that article will take me weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

ec..I am only able to be interested in one article at a time and I am not really interested in all those issues, as I said, I am here to investigate the OTRS complaint only. I don't see that Weisbrot has talked at length about the issue of the media representation of chavez or that the is authoritative on the issue or that he is bothered about it at all. Agreed we can remove it. Off2riorob (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I just saw some sources in Lexis/Nexis that suggest that Weisbrot does support the notion, but I agree that it's not central to this article, and we can deal with it if/after that article is cleaned up. For now, I agree it should go. I'm not sure what text can be left with respect to media representation, since a lot of what is in those sections isn't supported by sources, and I haven't had time to check all those sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I am mired in edit conflicts here, in case y'all can slow down on changes until you examine the sources.  :) If you look at the Weisbrot testimony linked (the PDF), it does specifically include an extensive discussion of Media representation of Venezuela; the problem is that we then link to a very biased, POV article. But Weisbrot has addressed that topic, and did address that topic in the linked paper; perhaps some wording can go back in, even though our link is not a good one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

My position is not what have we got that is not strong but what have we got that is clear and strong and cited to major publications and attributed correctly. 23:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

COI

Pleaso don't re-add untill you obtain consensus. Thank you 187.47.23.230 (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is not needed for that tag on an article talk page; the COI and multiple socks are evident, and the tag is to alert other participants on this page that an editor using the name Mark Weisbrot has been socking for a long time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It is if its chanlenged which is what Im doing. That that is not for sockpuppets. Please read the relevant policies. 187.47.23.230 (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Removing COI templates is not an appropriate way to address issues in an article or the talk page. Discuss them on the talk page until a compromise can be reached. If discussion proves unresolvable, consider dispute resolution. --Moni3 (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

We are familiar with the policies. As Moni3 says, the better way to handle this is to discuss what the potential conflict of interest is. A number of Wikipedia editors do have articles on them, and their responsible editing has resulted in their improvement. (Apologies for accidentally removing part of this discussion by editing an old version; thanks to Sandy for restoring.) Awickert (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Having issues parsing a sentence here...

... can anyone help? The sentence is:

In a reference to freedom of speech and the press, and human rights in Venezuela when journalists denounced alleged government aggression, according to Venezuela's El Universal, Weisbrot said that Venezuela was one of the least repressive countries in the Western hemisphere.

This sentence is all over the place. Should it read:

According to Venezuela's El Universal, when journalists denounced alleged government aggression Weisbrot stated that Venezuela is one of the least repressive countries in the Western hemisphere as Venezuelans' have the right to freedom of speech and the country has a free press.

You would not believe how long it took me to get my mind around this statement! Even now I'm not sure that I've rewritten it correctly... can any one clarify what is being said here? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Basically it appears to be a complicated attempt to say... Weisbrot said Venezuala is one of the least repressive countries in the western hemisphere.. as it is such a vague statement, it looks like the attachments have been added in an attempt to give the comment some meaningful clarification. Your rewrite TBbsy is much clearer. Off2riorob (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a confused but admirable attempt at being neutral :-) Is everyone OK if I replace that text with what I wrote above? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Tbsdy, that sentence as you recast it looks fine. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Publications

This book referenced, "Weisbrot, Mark; Baker, Dean (2005). What the Experts Got Wrong about the Global Economy. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0195170184" does not exist. Though it may be found on Amazon.com, you will see that no copies are available. It had been a proposal - but never got beyond that stage. --Kriswarner (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

A full list of Mark Weisbrot's op-eds can be found here: http://www.cepr.net/index.php/mark-weisbrots-op-eds/ --Kriswarner (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

A full list of Mark Weisbrot's other publications can be found here: http://www.cepr.net/index.php/mark-weisbrots-publications/ --Kriswarner (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Well on Amazon it says "out of print"[link redacted due to triggering spam filter...]. But it's not on the CEPR Weisbrot publication list. Um, since Kriswarner is (as far as we know) from CEPR, I guess what he says is true; but it's hard to verify. I guess though if it comes down to choosing between amazon and CEPR (website) on this issue, we should prefer CEPR, which has no reason I can think of to pretend a published book actually wasn't, whereas Amazon does gobble pre-publication books. Rd232 ^talk 23:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, moved from article pending any further discussion (if anyone wants).

• Weisbrot, Mark (2005). What the Experts Got Wrong about the Global Economy. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0195170184. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Rd232 ^talk 11:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. I was wondering about why there was no availability. --JN466 18:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Journalist?

"As a journalist, he contributes to publications such as the New York Times and The Guardian." Perhaps that should say "commentator"? --Kriswarner (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I imagine that's an uncontroversial correction. Rd232 ^talk 23:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay. --JN466 18:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

COI tag

Now that the COI tag is in the article, it's a good time to point out that the tag - like other article issue tags - isn't meant to be a health warning like on a packet of fags. It's meant to be an injunction to investigate exactly what issues, if any, there are; such that they can be fixed, such that the tag can one day be removed. Anyone can go through the history and check for issues relating to the only identified COI account that has edited it so far (User:Scalabrineformvp), plus any others they have concerns about. But in reaching an agreement to give the article a clean bill of COI health we probably need a neutral third party to check and confirm. Perhaps we could make a request at WP:COIN for someone to do that. Rd232 ^talk 23:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Rd, to aid in the process of checking for COI, could you clarify: Is it your opinion that the COI tag should not be used in this way in this article, or is it your opinion that Wiki guidelines do not allow for the tag to be used in this way? I ask because these tags are most certainly used as a cue to readers in other articles—a cue that something may be amiss and the issue is under discussion. As I've mentioned before, it's enormously beneficial to the dispute resolution process if you attempt to rhetorically separate your opinion from what you believe consensus supports. --Andy Walsh (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. I thought I was pretty clear in saying that the COI tag serves a purpose: to flag necessary cleanup. Hence my proposal on how to go about that cleanup in a way that might satisfy everyone. Rd232 ^talk 23:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

None of the COI editors has contributed to the current article version. --JN466 19:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Any objections to removing the COI tag? It is not an accurate reflection of article status. --JN466 13:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The article has had enough non-COI editors editing it since the last COI edit that there is no reason for the COI tag at this point. THF (talk) 13:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

If no-one disagrees with that conclusion, someone should be bold and remove the tag. Rd232 ^talk 23:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I have removed it, there is no benefit to the article in having it there, the coi editors are long gone and the article has been well editing since then. Off2riorob (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I was just about to do so. --JN466 00:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Chávez supporter?

Is that a defining feature of the subject to be put in the opening sentence? I also see a lot of oversourcing. Per WP:NOR we cannot generalize from individual examples; in order to prove that this claim is verifiable and notable, secondary reliable sources *explicitly supporting the claim* are necessary. Discoverthenetworks and infoshop don't appear to be WP:RS, all the articles are opinion pieces that cannot be used to source an statement of fact. JRSP (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I know it's not convenient information, but there it is: fact. Take your pick of sources (more can be found); there's plenty to choose from, but since he's published all over the place about Chavez, clearly it belongs in the lead so readers will understand the connection. In the future, it would be collaborative of you all to request a citation on info known to be sourcable, rather than simply reverting it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Please quote a secondary reliable source explicitly supporting your claim in a report (not an editorial or opinion piece). JRSP (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

They're all there,[3] yours to dispute (characterizing all of them as "opinion pieces" isn't going to work; all you have to do in that case is attribute those that are opinion and are backed by sources). Let's start off on the right foot by not denying the obvious, and reverting it, rather writing it correctly; edit warring is not the way to write articles, and I'm not going to waste time on articles where that is happening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

If we need to attribute it as an opinion then we cannot present it as a fact, even less as claim of subject's notability in the opening sentence of the article. JRSP (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Since he writes heavily about Chavez and Venezuela, what is your argument that it doesn't belong in the lead? "Mark Weisbrot" Venezuela gets 45,000 ghits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have secondary reliable sources explicitly stating as a fact that MW is a "Chávez supporter"? Do RSs usually present MW as a "Chávez supporter" so that we can consider this feature so notable that it must be in the opening sentence of the article? I also got a lot of ghits with the query "Mark Weisbrot George Bush". JRSP (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Considering that Weisbrot is in Washington, George Bush is considerably more written about than Chavez, and there are two George Bush's, it's interesting that Chavez Weisbrot gets three times as many hits as Bush Weisbrot. I guess that makes the case. But let's not have another diversion and edit war; exactly why are we trying to hide info about Weisbrot and Chavez from Wikipedia's readers? I'm going to be reading FAC for the next 24 hours; perhaps we can cut through this quicker without edit wars (or removing a clearly justified POV tag from the coup article, which manages to overlook all events leading to Chavez's removal in the lead, going straight to the Carmona debacle)? Has anyone bothered to write a complete lead there yet, or is it just easier to remove a tag and wait for others to do work that is clearly needed with a tag that is clearly justified? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources explicitly supporting your statement of fact or not? I'm still waiting for that reliable secondary source quote... JRSP (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The article now lists ten sources documenting Weisbrot's position on and connection to Chavez (and the Stone film). Could you please explain why we want to conceal this information from Wiki's readers? It's such a small point, I'm having a hard time following the urgency on such a clear issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not a question of quantity but quality. 10 sources, 100 sources, that means nothing if none of them support your claim. Please show a quote from any of those sources stating your claim as a fact. JRSP (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

As you can see, there are plenty of independent reliable secondary sources there and already cited; I'll spend my time attributing those that you consider as opinion once you specify them and I know the edits won't just be reverted. Working on Venezuelan articles can be so time consuming, since edits which are clearly factual are so often reverted :), so I'll do the cleanup once I know the facts will stick. Which "opinion" would you like attributed, and which sources do you consider unreliable and why? More specifically, perhaps you can place your answer in the context of why *Weisbrot's opinions* are used to cite nine Wiki Chavez articles, please. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I never asked for any opinion to be attributed; you are making a statement of fact about a living person so it is your duty to properly support that statement. What I am asking is that you show a quote from any of your sources that supports your statement of fact. JRSP (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The statement is supported; which of the sources have you not read or do you not agree with? The statement was supported when it was reverted earlier. Now there are merely more sources for same; you may classify some of them as opinion, whose opinion among the known writers cited there do you dispute as reliable? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not disputing anybody's opinion; I am saying that opinions are not facts. You are making a statement of fact in the article so please show me a quote supporting your statement of fact. JRSP (talk) 03:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I realize some editors may find talk page debating and reverting is faster/easier than actually collaborating and building Wiki articles correctly, so how about get to the point and propose the text as you would like it written? There are many supportive statements in all of the sources; reverting what you don't like isn't the way to write articles when the text is supported by statements. Please feel free to propose text and explain which you consider "opinion" so it can be attributed; Weisbrot's opinion has never troubled you in any article that I've seen, so I have a hard time understanding the issue here. Is The New York Times also "opinion"? Why was it reverted ? While I've been waiting for you to clarify the issue, I've cleaned up the rest of this article and the film article, but I've got other work to do, so can we get to the point, please, on Weisbrot's support of Chavez, so that text can be written? Once you specify your concerns, I'll continue cleanup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The point is that the WP:BURDEN of proof is in the editor(s) that want to add the information so you have to be able to quote any of your "many supportive statements". Please show a quote supporting your statement of fact. JRSP (talk) 04:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

All right, perhaps if we take them one by one, you will talk about text. What is the problem you have with the original NYT source added? What do you want changed with that one? Do you want Simon Romero attributed? Doing all of the work on Venezuelan articles, in constant edit wars and with talk page obfuscation, gets tiring. WHAT do you want attributed? Simon Romero? Oppenheimer? Petroleum World? The New Standard? How do you want the text written? Simply objecting and reverting isn't the way to collaborate on Wiki, without specifying what the issue is, as you see it, particularly when you never seem to object to Weisbrot's opinions, and accept them as fact. I'm not excited about taking the time to write text just so it can be reverted without discussion, so please explain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, how many times do I need to repeat the same thing? You are making a statement of fact in a biography of a living person, the statement is very poorly sourced, as I said before it is not a question of quantity, none of the sources support that the statement is a fact. To make things worse, the statement is made in the opening sentence implying that this is a very important feature of subject's notability. This is a WP:BLP, things must be well done from the start, you cannot present opinions as facts and later try to fix it by asking "WHAT do you want attributed?". If it were a fact, attribution would be unnecessary. JRSP (talk) 04:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

In other words, you'll have no problem going back to the original statement that Awickert sourced to The New York Times, and was reverted, and adding on attributions from the many other sources which are opinions? The issue here is, whom do you consider opinion? New York Times apparently yes, Weisbrot apparently no, since you accept his opinion in other articles. The article had a statement supported by the NYT; many other supporting sources were added because that was reverted. Please clarify what is wrong with the NYT, or if you want their statement attributed. I'm not going to take time to rewrite until I know what you want, since reverting is a highly common method of editing on Venezuelan articles. I've done all I can do here for now; nothing written by CEPR was attributed in this article (I've done it now), and some of it is dubious, so please clarify your standards for attribution. I'll be glad to write it another day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, the quotes are supplied, and the article is cleaned up the best I can. In the future, instead of just edit warring and reverting correct changes while adding faulty sources that haven't been checked, please take more care with reverts and don't leave eight hours of cleanup work to other editors. Please clean up the rest of this article; I'll wait a few days before removing the unsourced peacockery. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Before cleanup, the article was POV, included statements unsupported by the citations, lack of attribution, copyvios, and multiple and valid issues which had been raised on talk or could be cited had been summarily reverted, apparently with little collaboration to actually improve the article. As of this version, the paragraph on CEPR is still unsourced and contains WP:PEACOCKery; see next talk section. I'll clean up in a few days unless someone finds sources. Collaborating to write articles correctly, rather than just reverting anything unwanted that can easily be sourced, would be desirable in the future. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that you have rewritten the sentence to present it as an opinion and not as a fact. As it is not a main feature of subject's notability, I'll move your sentence from lead to a paragraph in the article dealing with Venezuela. JRSP (talk) 15:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a main feature, and there is no reason to move it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Please explain why you consider this a main feature. JRSP (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not engaging in a word game again, JRSP. If your problem with the previous sentence was the way it was worded, it would have been much faster for all if you had just said so. I spent ten hours cleaning up this article, deferred promoting FAC, and today I need to promote FAC. When Chavez/Venezuela is such a big part of his work and this article and Weisbrot's publications, how about if you instead make your case for why you think it's not? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not a "game of words" but a couple of simple questions: 1) Is the claim a fact or an opinion? (According to your recent edits[4] I understand we have consensus that it is an opinion) 2) Is it significant enough to subject's notability to be in the opening paragraph? I think that reaching consensus on the answer of these questions is necessary to take editorial decisions on whether we include this or not, and in the first case, how and where in the article we should put it. JRSP (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I repeatedly asked (above) how you wanted the text written, and got no answer. In the future, please collaborate by suggesting alternate wording. No, we don't have "consensus that it is an opinion" when it is sourced to the New York Times-- what we do have is neutral and succint writing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, back to the begining; if it were a fact, why writing "has been described". Sandy, I won't disrupt wikipedia to make a point but what would you think if someone edited Thor Halvorssen Hellum and put in lead that he "has been described as a terrorist" or, even worse, stating it as a fact. JRSP (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Straw man. Let's talk about sourced text, not hyperbole. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Valid point! However, the same applies to arguments like "check all the sources" (you should have been able to produce a quote), "I worked all night" ( commendable but irrelevant to this discussion), etc, etc. The points in discussion are if the statement must be presented as a fact or as an opinion and (if presented) where in the article it should appear. Although you said above that we don't have consensus that it is an opinion, the article says "has been described" and not "is" as before, so I won't insist in this point. However, there is no reason to believe that "he has been described" by some sources as a "supporter" is notable enough to appear in lead. JRSP (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

"Has been described as" is much more succinct than a long sentence with all the various attributions, and is perfectly fine considering those sources include multiple reliable sources such as NYT. It doesn't mean it's "only" "opinion"; sources show it's not. And it's certainly more expedient than haggling for days over wording and attribution. "Worked all night"-- this is the sort of work y'all should be doing when you just revert, which creates extra work for other editors. I realize that takes time, but that's why we're here, right? To *write* articles correctly? *Write* articles rather than *reverting* valid additions. Of course it's notable enough to include in the lead; read WP:LEAD and check his writing and ghits (as you already pointed above), and read the third opinions. And then expand the article if you don't like what's currently there; I've already done most of the work here; I wouldn't even have noticed this if a valid addition, sourced to The New York Times had not been summarily reverted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

"Of course it's notable enough" is not an argument. *Why* is it notable enough? "Check his writings" is original research. Number of ghits is not a valid reason either, I got 3 million hits for "Britney Spear porn", that doesn't mean that fake porn is a notable feature of her notability. JRSP (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

BLPN

• 3rd opinion (coming here from WP:BLPN) I read through the section in question, and the sources, and I think SandyGeorgia has done an admirable job of researching and neutrally summarizing a large mass of material. JRSP, I don't think you have a leg to stand on here. Weisbrot is clearly one of Chavez's more significant American proponents. Ray^Talk 17:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, Rd232; much appreciated! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I've never seen any particular need to notify people about posting at BLPN / RSN etc. It's a request for external input, not an attempt to move debate elsewhere. Rd232 ^talk 23:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see any justification that those opinions are a significant feature of Weisbrot's notability so I think this should not be in lead. JRSP (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

CEPR section cleanup

The paragraph has several instances of peacockery and dubious claims that aren't sourced, and the prose is garbled. I had earlier added attribution to CEPR, but since not even the CEPR sources verify these statements, I've removed the attribution and added tags.

Weisbrot was one of the first economists to document and call attention to the long-term economic growth failure in the vast majority of developing countries since 1980, as well as the consequent decline in progress on such social indicators as life expectancy and infant and child mortality.<ref>CEPR, July 2001. [http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/the-scorecard-on-globalization-1980-2000-20-years-of-diminished-progress/|title=The Scorecard on Globalization 1980-2000: 20 Years of Diminished Progress]</ref> This challenged the conventional wisdom that neoliberal reforms since 1980 had at least contributed to increasing economic growth, even if other problems (e.g. inequality) had remained or in some cases worsened.{{failed verification}}<ref>CEPR, September 2005. [http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/scorecard-on-development-25-years-of-diminished-progress/|title=The Scorecard on Development: 25 Years of Diminished Progress]</ref> He has been one of the most widely cited{{failed verification}} critics of [[International Monetary Fund|IMF]]-supported policies in developing countries.<ref>CEPR, October 2009. [http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/imf-supported-macroeconomic-policies-and-the-world-recession/|title=IMF-Supported Macroeconomic Policies and the World Recession: A Look at Forty-One Borrowing Countries]</ref>{{dl}}<ref>{{dl}}NPR: Marketplace. [http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/04/24/am_imf/|title=The Scrutinizing the role of the IMF] April 24, 2009</ref>{{dl}}<ref>{{{dl}} Inter-Press Service. [http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=49052|title=a WORLD: IMF Has Long Way to Go – Even After "Istanbul Decisions"] October 29, 2009 </ref>

As far as I can tell, unless someone can find sources, the only salvageable sentences from this paragraph would be something like:

According to CEPR, long-term economic growth has failed in developing countries since 1980, and progress on such social indicators as life expectancy and infant and child mortality have declined.<ref>CEPR, July 2001. [http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/the-scorecard-on-globalization-1980-2000-20-years-of-diminished-progress/|title=The Scorecard on Globalization 1980-2000: 20 Years of Diminished Progress]</ref> Weisbrot has been a critic of [[International Monetary Fund|IMF]]-supported policies in developing countries.<ref>CEPR, October 2009. [http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/imf-supported-macroeconomic-policies-and-the-world-recession/|title=IMF-Supported Macroeconomic Policies and the World Recession: A Look at Forty-One Borrowing Countries]</ref>

But the first sentence, even if rewritten to something like this, doesn't belong here; it belongs in the CEPR article, so it looks like all gets deleted except that he's an IMF critic, unless someone can source and rewrite to match sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Further, the article has been a copyvio of his CEPR and other bios basically since its inception; I removed some of the text to address the copyvio. Someone else can rewrite it. I hope there are no more copyvios here, but since most of what I haven't rewritten is unsourced, it should be removed soon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Can someone else please check the work I did in this section; I rewrote that section to conform to the sources listed, but had no idea why those specific issues were mentioned or what the context was. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Banco del Sur

Re this edit, I'm unclear why these changes were made and have the following questions:

1. Why was "artifice" changed to "architect"? They are two different words, and all of the sources specifically say "artifice". Is there some Spanish subtly that I'm missing? No sources call him the "architect".
2. That Banco del Sur was proposed in 1998 is a level of detail that belongs at Banco del Sur; why was it included here? Adding it here required the addition of a new source, when the previous sentence was fully cited to mainstream sources. Splitting the sourcing could give the appearance of synthesis, when the sentence as originally written was fully cited to mainstream sources, without the need to introduce another source.

I suggest a return to the original sourcing via revert; the 1998 can be discussed at Banco del Sur; what is the reason for adding that level of detail here?

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

artifice -> architect as a matter of English. Artifice is not a noun for describing a person. On the other issue, the text already said "first proposed by Chavez" so adding a date for that is merely relevant context, linking with the date of establishment. It's particularly relevant because the nature of Weisbrot's involvement with the Bank of the South is extremely unclear; frankly I'd leave the claim out altogether. I've seen no good sources that actually explain his supposed role, and many sources about the Bank don't mention him. I fear it may be one of those all-too-frequent urban legends, perhaps based on him once saying it was a good idea (as no doubt he did, though we don't actually have source even for that)! Rd232 ^talk 23:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

So, still and again, why is the "1998" detail needed here? Is it somehow relevant? Artifice, noun; that's what the sources called him, it's not our choice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I just explained why 1998 is relevant. And how does pointing to an English dictionary help? The source is in Spanish. Really, if we can't even agree on not using a bizarre description, I'd be inclined to drop the whole thing. Sourcing remains weak (eg the MSNBC article makes no such claim despite quoting Weisbrot on the Bank). Rd232 ^talk 00:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I see no relevance here to the date; pls clarify. And we use reliable sources, not our own conclusions of what is "bizarre". Do you have an alternate definition or source that uses the word "architect" (arcitecto intelectual)? Artifice, Spanish and English. Sourcing is not weak; there are multiple sources calling him the "artifice intelectual", including one linked on his own page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

According to DRAE,[5] artífice means autor (‖ persona que es causa de algo). so I think that "architect" or other synonym of "creator" is a valid translation. JRSP (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, good enough! Now, the 1998 issue ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I corrected the citation and added a more reliable source (BBC) that also mentions Weisbrot. Since the relevance of 1998 to this article isn't established, and the sources disagree (BBC says 2006), I removed "in 1998"; that level of detail can be sorted at Banco del Sur. It remains unclear why we are expanding Banco del Sur content in this article, beyond saying that Weisbrot is considered the "artifice intelectual", as mentioned in several sources. The date discrepancy and other nuances of the launch of Banco del Sur should be sorted in that article, unless the context here is to establish that Weisbrot has at least a 12-year relationship with Chavez. It that is the context, it should be explored and stated explicitly, based on reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The sources don't disagree, they're talking about different things. Bank of the South#History makes it quite clear that the concept was first mentioned by Chavez in 1998, while actual concrete public attempts to get it off the ground began in 2006. The date the idea was first publicly discussed is obviously relevant when discussing Weisbrot as "intellectual architect"! Of course, as I said, the meaning of that remains unclear, and I suggest again dropping the whole thing unless a better source on Weisbrot's contribution is found. Rd232 ^talk 09:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis

moved from article

According to a 2004 National Review article, the Venezuela Information Office (VIO)—a lobbying agency whose goal is to improve the perception of Venezuela in the US<ref>{{cite news | url = http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F00EFDD1538F933A0575AC0A9629C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2 | title = Venezuela's government seeks to show that its oil riches are well spent | last = Forero | first = Juan | work = [[The New York Times]] | date = September 30, 2004| accessdate = January 24, 2010}}</ref>—"coordinates a media response team" that includes "representatives from the Center for Economic Policy and Research";<ref>{{cite web|url=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_24_56/ai_n27801637/pg_2/?tag=content;col1|title=Friends of Hugo: Venezuela's Castroite boss has all the usual U.S. supporters|work= National Review|publisher-findarticles.com| date= December 27, 2004 |author= Miller, John J |accessdate= January 24, 2010}}</ref> Weisbrot was a signer on a letter to the editor of the [[Center for Public Integrity]], saying that their statements about the VIO were "highly misleading".<ref>{{cite web|author= Bogardus, Kevin |url= http://projects.publicintegrity.org/oil//report.aspx?aid=383 |title= Venezuela Head Polishes Image With Oil Dollars |publisher= [[Center for Public Integrity]] | date= September 22, 2004 |accessdate= January 24, 2010}} [http://projects.publicintegrity.org/oil//report.aspx?aid=422 Letter to the editor in response.]</ref>

It seems to me that these sentences clearly constitute original research via synthesis, creating a connection between VIO and Weisbrot which is not supported by the original sources. Rd232 ^talk 10:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• He signed the letter in support of the VIO. Pretty straightforward. Please stop edit-warrring to remove sourced information. UnitAnode 22:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not an answer to the WP:SYNTH issue. And it's not edit warring to remove contentious BLP material pending discussion. Rd232 ^talk 00:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Without the response letter cosigned by Weisbrot, this would be a crystal clear case of OR & Synth. What does an NR article on Chavez which mentions CEPR in passing have to do with the subject of this article? So in any case the first sentence should go, by WP:OR, and the next is hard to understand without it. Why should this one letter with several signers be so singled out in Weisbrot's biography? Again, a too tenuous connection to him, and trivial in relation to him. Undue emphasis and coatracking. This material might belong somewhere on wikipedia, but not here; that's what internal links are for. Surely there are better sources for Weisbrot's relationship with Venezuela, ones that directly and significantly mention him in particular.John Z (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• (e/c) I do see what Rd232 is getting at. In theory, if each sentence is perfectly sourced, it could still be synthesis if you are using that information to get the reader to come to a conclusion that isn't supported by the references. However, in this case, I don't see it as synthesis, so much as two examples of the same basic idea. Sentence one establishes that the CEPR is associated with the VIO. Sentence two establishes that Weisbrot is sympathetic to the VIO. Do I understand correctly that your synthesis concern is that a reader might come to the unsupported-by-references conclusion that Weisbrot is sympathetic to the VIO because of the VIO's ties to the CEPR? But Weisbrot is so strongly linked to the CEPR that I don't see this as a synthesis at all. If, say, the NR article had said only that the VIO had a team of "economists" in their media response team, and these sentences were put next to each other, I would agree with Rd232 that an unsupported implication was being made. But here, I don't think this rises to the level of WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Well that's pretty much the issue, but I disagree with your conclusion. You must understand that VIO (Venezuela Information Office) is a registered agent of the Venezuelan government, and that associating Weisbrot with them directly serves to discredit him. The source doesn't permit any actual conclusion to be drawn on the nature of the relationship between VIO and CEPR - it could easily be merely information exchange; or it could be a financial relationship. The reader is left to read between the lines, and when Weisbrot's signing of a single letter is thrown in (WP:UNDUE much? as John Z notes), it's either intending to insinuate or unintentionally leaving dangerous ambiguity that Weisbrot is a paid agent, indirectly, of the Venezuelan government. Rd232 ^talk 01:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Those are interesting conclusions; from what planet did they come? There's nothing like that in the very neutral text. I have a hard time imagining how you came up with that scenario. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Further, if that's where your mind goes with the text, it is easily solved by splitting the sentence, and separately discussing the two sourced events. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
        • That would produce the problems John Z described above. Rd232 ^talk 01:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
          • Well, if that is what correctly sourced information leads people like you to conclude, how is that against Wiki policy? The info is there, the sources are reliable, how do you propose to write it, or do you just want to keep reliable sources out of the article entirely? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
            • I could answer that, but if you're going to come up with stuff like "do you just want to keep reliable sources out of the article entirely?", I'm going to go to bed instead. See you tomorrow. Rd232 ^talk 01:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
              • I've re-read John Z's comment above, and it fully explains the issue. Neither the letter nor the CEPR/VIO link are worth mentioning in isolation here. Rd232 ^talk 10:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

collapse distraction - article talk is for content discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is unacceptable. Rd asks for outside opinions. He receives them. He still edit wars to keep out well-sourced information. It's a bit ludicrous that he's allowed to get away with this and remain unblocked for edit-warring. UnitAnode 01:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Neither you nor Sandy addressed my WP:SYNTH question. If there's any edit warring, it's in the repeated re-introduction of contentious BLP material without sufficient discussion. WP:DEADLINE springs to mind. (Also WP:NOTAVOTE for claims of consensus when it was 2:1 without a proper discussion.) Rd232 talk 01:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Where did you get the 2:1 (since we're not counting votes)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC) you + unitanode : me, earlier today. Rd232 talk 01:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC) So, you left off the feedback from BLPN, where JohnZ earlier mentioned no problem, but has now changed, and Ray, who also had no problem? If we *are* going to count votes, let's count correctly. Then add on all the other readers of BLPN who saw no problem, an apparently resolved issue, and moved on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Er, no. The point on synthesis seems to have got lost in the initial BLPN post; nobody addressed it specifically. Only some time after I moved that bit from the article to talk did UnitAnode revert, and I posted a new subsection at BLPN only a couple of hours ago, in response to his cursory reply. Eventually there is more input and some substantive discussion. PS boy you are keen on historiography. You writing a book on Wikipedia or something?? Rd232 talk 01:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Sure, want a chapter of your own? Now, can you please explain why you want to keep reliable sources out of the article, lest someone read into it all that you did, and propose a way to write the text that will satisfy you? You can't just keep something that is reliably sourced out because you draw conclusions from it. Rewrite it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a question. Is that letter so important really? Do other sources mention that letter? Does just being mentioned by CEPR make this letter a notable issue? JRSP (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The letter is a primary source. We need reliable secondary sources to demonstrate that a single letter is worth mentioning in a bio of one of the signers - prima facie certainly WP:UNDUE. Rd232 ^talk 11:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sourcing

Sandy, if you wanted to bring attention to the current discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Venezuelanalysis, why not just post on the talk page? This edit, incidentally, casts an interesting light on the WP:SYNTH issue above with regard to the intent of the disputed text. Rd232 ^talk 13:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You still haven't justified the need to introduce a biased source only so you can give a date, whose relevance hasn't been established. As to whatever else you're implying, we still prefer reliable sources on Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

What I'm implying is that you clearly believe that any association with VIO is poison to someone's credibility. (The links you gave in the edit summary don't even show that - see RSN discussion - but you seem to think they do.) Rd232 ^talk 13:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from reading my mind and words I didn't type. Second AGF reminder in one hours ... and that discussion is at WP:RSN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to assume that all of that is done in good faith. But if you think a relationship with VIO is unimportant, explain your citation of those links as evidence that VA is unreliable? Rd232 ^talk 14:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion of VA's reliability is at RSN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I want to know here why you cite those links here in your edit summary here - because you're not answering that question at RSN. Rd232 ^talk 14:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You don't always get what you want (particulary when that means splitting discussions that you started :). But in case you haven't read those links, they clearly discuss Global Exchange and its (non)reliability for Wiki purposes. Once again, that discussion is at RSN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

And it's that sort of ludicrous evasiveness and misdirection which is really unhelpful. I have read them, and that's why I asked both here and at RSN, and you haven't answered anywhere. And BTW, we're discussing Venezuelanalysis not Global Exchange. Rd232 ^talk 14:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh crap, the tag is attached to a Global Exchange source. I just copied it from Bank of the South and hadn't noticed. Cross purposes; move to strike, y'honour. Sorry. Rd232 ^talk 14:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem, now I see why we were talking past each other, apology accepted and appreciated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This is what happens when you read diffs in a hurry - I only saw my error when I looked at the article. That, and that I really ought not to rush because of pressure to get down to RL work, are lessons to be drawn here... Rd232 ^talk 14:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm also out of time, but later one of us should find my comment that you're becoming agitated, and clarify that there was a simple confusion about a cn tag, so we were talking about two different things without knowing it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Adviser?

Explaining my edit:

1. the "described as an adviser" claim was based on two sources, one calling him the "intellectual architect" of the Bank of the South, whatever that means; the other is a source which can hardly be called reliable.
2. no evidence it belongs in the lead
3. attempt to show wider support for Chavez' policies than just economic ones by over-referencing doesn't work. Passing mention of "policies" when the context is economics doesn't work, however many sources do it (and many were op-eds too).

Rd232 ^talk 17:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Aside note, Rd232's statement above is completely incorrect; I'm coming to the conclusion that perhaps Rd232 doesn't read Spanish, or doesn't read sources. The Bank of the South info above is completely wrong, a red herring; no such source was used. This source describes him as an advisor and the second source, hosted on Weisbrot's own website, says Chavez frequently consults him. Neither has anything to do with Banco del Sur, and Rd232 has now completely removed the source that describes him as an advisor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I've explained that, twice now. And re-added text on that "adviser" issue which reflects the Spanish original. Rd232 ^talk 19:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• I've reverted. You've built nothing resembling consensus here for your edits. That's not how we do things here. UnitAnode 18:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Absolute nonsense: you've been here long enough to have know that simply isn't true. In any case, allow me to remind you of WP:BRD. I brought it to the talk page for discussion (the D part) - this requires engagement on the part of those disagreeing. So do you have anything to say? Rd232 ^talk 18:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Also I remind you that per WP:BLP we act carefully in relation to contentious material. Describing someone as an adviser to a foreign government is clearly contentious, so this should be settled on talk *before* re-adding. Rd232 ^talk 18:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Um, I think you've got a tough row to hoe claiming it's a BLP violation, when the "advisor" statement is hosted on Weisbrot's own website (CEPR.net). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Link? The statement is contentious until properly sourced. Then it's fine. Rd232 ^talk 18:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Responding to #2, I did a database search of Weisbrot's academic publications, and while he certainly does more than just Venezuela, there is a strong focus on Venezuela in particular and related issues in Latin America in general. I can provide the results if desired. I think that a problem with this debate in general is that a compilation of sources is inductive rather than deductive; if lots of sources are found for something relating to someone, it goes in the lede; there is nothing that ever really says "this is what is important and what is unimportant about person X".

To #3, you might have missed this source in the large number of recent edits; it says that Weisbrot has supported Chávez' policies. Awickert (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes well the database search is problematic - that's clearly WP:OR. If it was clear enough from looking at his CEPR publication page it might be OK but I don't think it is. On point 3, no I didn't miss that - it's another reference clearly in the context of economic policy. Quote: "'Obviously, Chavez has been affected by these food shortages,' said Weisbrot, who has supported Chavez's policies." Rd232 ^talk 18:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

And I previously supplied sources where he was talking about much more than economic policies (I'm pretty sure that was the Financial Times debate). You're doing original research, and all the article says is he supports policies, which includes economic policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you felt the need to supply half a dozen sources suggests a certain weakness in your position. One good source which clearly indicates Weisbrot addressing non-economic policy would probably do it. Rd232 ^talk 18:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Uh, no. Half a dozen sources were supplied because you edit warred the text away, even when The New York Times was the first source given. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be the NYT source which says "broadly supportive of Mr. Chávez’s economic policies" and is currently still in the article. Rd232 ^talk 19:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, looking at publication histories is a standard way of figuring out what is important in other areas of Wikipedia in which I'm involved. Otherwise this becomes a "No, you can't see what he's done, but this is clearly unimportant". I'll look for a publication list on his website though.

And if we play by the most conservative rules possible, as we seem to be doing, it is OR to infer from a previous clause. And if we are more liberal in our usage of the source, in the previous paragraph, Weisbrot is "skeptical" about the polls for both political (popularity) and economic (oil) reasons. So I don't think we can infer that is economic. Awickert (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to. Which source/paragraph? Rd232 ^talk 19:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph right before the one that we were quoting in the USA Today piece, sorry for being unclear.

Here are his publications (both academic and CEPR). They reflect IMF criticism and support of the LatAm socialist left (or whatever you'd call it) with Vzla. represented much more than anywhere else. These seem to be his major things. So the lede should also reflect the IMF issues and should retain LatAm with a focus on Vzla. Awickert (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Right. But "Mark Weisbrot, co-director of the Washington-based Center for Economic and Policy Research, was skeptical of the polls' results, citing Chavez's longstanding popularity and the growth of the country's oil-rich economy." does not support the claim that he is generally supportive of all of Chavez' policies, which is what the dispute is about. "supporter of his policies" was the previous article text - pretty strong and unqualified, and needing better sourcing. Rd232 ^talk 19:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Precisely, keeping the wording based on that phrase is just as untenable as changing the wording to reflect another phrase. So I think that we should just quote the article as-is, with him supporting Chávez. But we are in opposition on this, so we'd better just get another opinion because I can't see either of us changing our minds. Awickert (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

We have a multitude of sources calling him a supporter, period. Wiki reports what reliable sources say, and none of them restrict it to economic policies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Meaning doesn't work that way: it's carried by context. (Example: "cancer". What do I mean here? Star sign or disease?) I object that you once again re-add the disputed text with a stack of sources (op-eds et al) which don't clearly support your view, when this is still under discussion, as is the due prominence to be given to the Chavez advice and support. Rd232 ^talk 21:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Link as requested; the info is hosted by CEPR.net, where Weisbrot is co-director. There is no BLP argument and there is no support or claim for your consensus; please stop using BLP as an excuse to edit war. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said at BLPN (how about keeping discussion in one place?): the article turned an activity - "Chavez himself consults Weisbrot with a certain frequency" into a position: "adviser". I saw that issue before but overlooked it this time, I was distracted by the quote in the footnote referring to the Bank of the South. So yes, the claim the source actually makes, vague as it is, can be included. Not something significantly different. PS How about cutting some WP:AGF slack?? Rd232 ^talk 18:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

If you would read sources before you revert, it would help; your method of editing via the revert button and splitting discussions takes a lot of time that could be better used away from other editors. When you edit war, claiming a BLP violation, you should have read the sources. Again, do you speak Spanish, or shall I translate in the future ... that will take less time than all of this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I do read Spanish. Rd232 ^talk 19:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know; that (and if you will please read sources more carefully before you hit the revert button) should save us some time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Rd232, you have also completely watered down the text from what is supported by multiple sources, which you deleted. "Weisbrot is supportive of Chavez' economic policies ... " is not what the reliable sources say; it is your original research. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Would you calm down please? It's reduced to the clearly supportable, for now. Discussion about sources justifying a wider claim is ongoing. There's really no need to constantly act as if there's a deadline and the current version of the article is about to go to print. WP:DEADLINE. Rd232 ^talk 19:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite calm, but thanks for the concern. What there is no need for is you to revert and remove text that has already been reviewed at multiple forums of disute resolution, has consensus, and which you are the only editor objecting to. Discuss before reverting more than once in the future, thank you. We now have a wording change that you should be happy with, but it would have been much more expedient for all if you had not reverted, not misread the sources, and simply proposed your revised wording. That woulda been easy; instead we have multiple long discussions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Parts of it have consensus. Others are disputed. Rd232 ^talk 21:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Citations

And by the way, Rd232, must you replace fully and correctly formatted citations with incomplete and incorrectly formatted citations? The correct citations are in previous versions; would you mind restoring them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, don't know what you mean. The very recent edits didn't add any sources. Rd232 ^talk 19:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Before the edit warring started, the article was clean (at great effort from me :) All sources were fully formatted and complete. Now we have "CEPR, Mark Weisbrot" as a citation ... somewhere along the way, you lost the complete citation. And you dropped the citation to advisor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

er, do you mean this source? Lane, Walker (April 10, 2006). "An Anarchist At the World Social Forum". Fifth Estate. infoshop.news. I didn't peg you for calling that a reliable source. Rd232 ^talk 19:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It has a person directly saying Weisbrot told him that, but delete if you wish. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

In fact, as you've rewritten the text it was associated with, it's probably no longer needed; let me know if you want me to delete it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I deleted before as a not very good source. Rd232 ^talk 11:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Rd232, will you please add the exact quote in a footnote for this? It took me a long time to restore the consensus version and incorporate your changes, and my computer hung when trying to find the text. It should be added to the footnote, per WP:V on non-English sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

? the original quote isn't required by WP:V. It's the first page of the Clave source, it's not hard to find. The full quote is a paragraph, which is unnecessary in the article, and the PDF is a scan so I can't copy and paste here. Look it up. (I can provide it if you really need me to....) Rd232 ^talk 20:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Correct, they can be added on talk or elsewhere, but you wouldn't get a BLP through FAC without it :) At any rate, because it's a BLP (and now a contentious one), it's good practice to add the quotes and translations where all future editors can find them, as they may get lost in talk page archives. Also, so differences can be resolved. I added the quote and translation, and disagree (only subtly) with your translation, so we need to look at this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Text in the article now:

... rejects the claim, saying it was not his idea, though he was involved in the discussions and provided specific consultancy to the governments involved.

My translation:

Yo no soy el padre, porque no tiene nada de original tampoco, es simplemente establecer prestamos con filosofias diferentes. Yo estoy muy involucrado en las discusiones y de asesoria especifica a los Gobiernos cuando me solicitan.

I am not the 'father', because (the idea) is nothing original, it's simply establishing loans with different philosophies. I'm very involved in the discussions and specific advisement to the Governments when they ask.

He did not necessarily reject the claim with such a polite disclaimer, he said there was nothing about the idea that was original ... the difference is subtle, but we should sort that text. In a case like this, sticking as closely as possible to his exact words (since it's a translation) would be better. Also, the quote is present tense (ongoing), while the text in the article now is past tense (implying no longer involved). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Minor difference - applying the precise words to the clear context of the conversation. Past tense because the interview is from Sep 2007, when the Bank of the South creation was underway, and that's what's being talked about in both the article and the interview, so any extension of activities into the present would be presumptuous. Rd232 ^talk 11:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Re this edit, you're edit warring agin :) Saying that the idea is not original is not the same as saying the idea was not his. You've reverted to an invalid translation. Why can't we use his own words; is there a reason to disassociate Mark Weisbrot from Banco del Sur? Is it not going well? In a translation and BLP, we're better to stick with his words, not one editor's interpretation of them, and we do have his exact words, since it's an interview. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

If anyone's edit-warring, it's you: this conversation was ongoing, and you made the text reflect your view without responding to my comment. If you want to be literalist about the translation, fine - put "'I am not the father', said Weisbrot, when La Clave asked him if he was the father of the Bank. 'There is nothing original, it is just establishing loans with different philosophies'." Rd232 ^talk 11:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Reboot

Parts of this have been resolved, others have not.

1. Due prominence of the "advice to Chavez".
2. Phrasing of the "policy support".
3. Due prominence of 2.

On 1.; this can stay in the lede as well as in the body text where it's relevant, but the lede should be expanded. It floats a bit contextlessly at the moment. On 2. I think "support of Chavez' policies" is too broad; he's an economist, and the best source available (the NYT one) talks about economic policy. The other sources are op eds or clearly mentioning "support" in the context of economic policy, or both. The statement is too general, and no amount of throwing the same quality of sources at it is going to change that. One good source that clarifies broader support than the NYT specifies is enough. On 3. I see no reason to mention his "support" in the lede unless there's some sourcing that clarifies that it's important enough to mention there. PS collaborative editing in a BLP would generally suggest that resolving one issue is not a licence to revert prior to resolving other issues. Rd232 ^talk 21:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

With the amount of feedback and independent review this article has gotten from multiple noticeboards, I'm unclear why you feel anything is unresolved. (Except the pending translation issue, and the unnecessary use of Global Exchange as a source.) I'm also a little confused about your statements about how we establish what goes in the lead, since at 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt, you insisted on leaving a word in the lead that is supported by only one source, against a multitude of reliable sources. Since Weisbrot is quite prominently involved in Venezuela, and the article discusses that, it belongs in the lead. Leads are written in proportion to reliable sources and text in the article. This lead is correct; why one UNDUE word remains at the "coup" article is a mystery, and your arguments seem inconsistent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It's really quite sad that you feel the need to stonewall and distract by bringing in other issues - invariably misrepresenting them - and generally consistently employ tactics clearly designed to shut down debate, both here and at noticeboards. (By the by the discussion about that other article is at that other article's talk page, and anybody who goes there can clarify that your claim that the word is "against a multitude of reliable sources." is complete and utter nonsense: not a single source has been provided to argue the opposite case.) Rd232 ^talk 10:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, I did misrepresent. Now that the actual text at the coup article has been supplied, there are no sources which support the one word in the lead. Your source doesn't say what it's sourcing. So, let's have consistent standards across articles, and follow policy and guideline: see WP:LEAD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Your persistence in misrepresenting easily verifiable things is perplexing. If anyone cares, see Talk:2002_Venezuelan_coup_d'état_attempt#Illegaly_detained. Rd232 ^talk 13:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, I encourage others to ignore Sandy's distraction and stonewalling tactics. Some issues have been resolved, and others not - hence the Reboot section to clearly distinguish. Rd232 ^talk 10:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Important OTRS ticket related to this article

OTRS volunteers, please read https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=4467232. NW (Talk) 17:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Having read the email, I believe that given the BLP issues and the issues with credibility of the sources that are creating the negative perceptions and association with a world leader unpopular in the United States, this article certainly merits broader eyes. Bastique ^demandez 18:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It has been looked at, [6] the sources are reliable (and certainly more reliable than Venezuelanalysis), but I can understand why some may find it inconvenient for this reliably sourced info to come forward:

Weisbrot is Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) and founded Just Foreign Policy.

According to sources:

• Collier, Robert (2004-08-21). "Venezuelan politics suit Bay Area activists' talents". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2009-02-09.
• "Deborah James, Director of International Programs". Center for Economic and Policy Research. Retrieved 2009-02-07.
• Naiman, Robert (26 July 2004). "Chavez Gets Strong Support From Brazil" (PDF). Venezuela Information Office. Retrieved 2009-02-07.
• Bogardus, Kevin (September 22, 2004). "Venezuela Head Polishes Image With Oil Dollars". Center for Public Integrity. Retrieved January 24, 2010. Letter to the editor in response.
• Miller, John J (December 27, 2004). "Friends of Hugo: Venezuela's Castroite boss has all the usual U.S. supporters". National Review. Retrieved January 24, 2010. {{cite web}}: Text "publisher-findarticles.com" ignored (help)

Deborah James, who used to work for Global Exchange, then Venezuela Information Office, now works for CEPR.

Robert Naiman, of Just Foreign Policy, also used to work for Venezuela Information Office.

Eva Golinger, of Venezuelanalysis.com, was asked to be on Venezuela Information Office "rapid response team". Venezuelanalysis is a pro-Chavez website that often cites CEPR literature.

Wikipedia is not censored.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Significantly, the "advisor" statement is hosted on cepr.net, Weisbrot's own site, so any claim that it violates BLP is a stretch. Why is it hosted at Center for Economic and Policy Research if it's a problem? National Review, San Francisco Chronicle, and Center for Public Integrity are additional info; how can those not be reliable sources, when the Chavez backed and funded Venezuelanalysis.com is spread throughout the Venezuelan articles, and used to source BLPs? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is that sources five and six are not legitimate (Sorry, five and six on the page, not the discussion). Weisbrot says that six is fictional and he was never interviewed by anyone named Lane Walker. And reference number five is all anonymous sources. How could that be considered credible information? Also, when Weisbrot himself is saying that he isn't a critic of globalization, and a claim on his Wikipedia page (with no attribution, by the way) says he does, who are we supposed to believe? I think many of you on here have a political axe to grind. User:Scalabrineformvp (Talk) 09:22, 12 February 2010

Which "five and six" are you speaking of (there's a list at the bottom of this page which is unrelated)? Could you specify a publisher, since refs on dynamic pages change? Also, our concern is not to judge the "truth", but to report what reliable sources say, neutrally, without violating WP:BLP. If Weisbrot himself hosts information on his website, how is it a BLP violation for Wiki to re-report that same info? If Weisbrot says he isn't a critic of globalization, then you can expand the text from a reliable source to say that. But please stop putting claims into the article that he is the "first to do so-and-so" unless the sources support such claims. You can expand text from reliable sources, if those are available, to reflect missing content (when I expanded the content here, it was entirely unclear to me why certain aspects of his work were highlighted, so I merely expanded the sources that were already there). If you want to expand text further, you can propose additions here on talk, while the article is protected, and others can edit in those additions, if they are supported by reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Here they are: (Spanish) Pino, Soledad (September 2007). "Mark Weisbrot entrevista: El modelo americano no es mejor que el europeo" and Lane, Walker (April 10, 2006). "An Anarchist At the World Social Forum". Fifth Estate. Neither of these are reliable or credible sources (and neither are housed on CEPR's site). User:Scalabrineformvp (Talk) 13:25, 12 February 2010

Pino is hosted at CEPR.net, see:

• http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/MW_LaClave_elmodeloamericano.pdf

and if CEPR.net hosts it, that can't say Wiki is posting defamatory info. Lane is merely a backup. I do hope you also understand the issue about your other edits-- that you continue to install text that says "Weisbrot was the first at so-and-so", which is the sort of claim that needs verification to an independent (not connected with Weisbrot) reliable source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Otrs ticket discussion

So, what is the position here, I have had a quick look and the citations are a big mess, they should be tidied up so that we can see where they are cited to and there appears to be some excessive tagging on of Chavez and suchlike a bit unnecessarily imo, I like the trimmed down version which clearly has no BLP violations at all and suggest we revert to it and err on the side of caution especially in the face of a ticketed complaint. Off2riorob (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The shortened version was written by someone with a likely conflict of interest, so I'm not sure if it's the better one. It also eliminates nearly every single cited source. As always, the current version could be improved, but I'm skeptical of the linked version. Awickert (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Well the long list of citations that is there now look a big mess of poor quality links imo, who is the coi ? Off2riorob (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to have to waste my time cleaning up this article, lets just roll it back to the trimmed down simple version and we can add to it from there with quality sources, this first citation in the lede is clearly not WP:RS is it. Off2riorob (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

What are the poor-quality sources? I see a couple that might not be up to par, but not enough issues to delete all but 5 of them. The COI is here. Awickert (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

That link in the lede is brand new, and the person who added it mentioned that they wouldn't mind if it were removed. Awickert (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Start with this, do you think that this first citation is a WP:RS ? A big mess of citations is not a fantastic thing, in a BLP is is better to have a few strong citations supporting less content than a clutch of weak ones. I will look at the coi. Off2riorob (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

See above and look at page history; sorry for the confusing double-post, accidentally pressed "save". Awickert (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes I see the coi now, personally I listen to the issues that the subject has with his article and they usually have good strong points, they know themselves best, well, if you think it is worth working on and the content as it is now is worth saving them if you want to help you could do a bit of formating of the sources so that we can see where there are from and take the weaker op ed ones either out or the the rs noticeboard for checking, I will do some as well, what a waste of time, can you not see how messy it is and that it would be easier to simply revert to the simple version and then be srtonger as to the content that is inserted? Off2riorob (talk) 21:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

That user is not Mr. Weisbrot, in case you didn't notice, and has been reverted by multiple other editors. I'm heading out of town in 36 hours and have to prep for that, so not much time, but will clean a little. I don't see the giant mess that you do, and I believe that instead of doing what is easy, we should do what is reliably sourced. There's quite a history with this page recently at RSN &c.; are you familiar with it? Awickert (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I looked through and don't see the issues; the only opinion pieces I found were part of "has been described as supporting Chávez' policies". We could change this to "has been described by X, Y, and Z as supporting". The questionable sources I saw were used with respect to Weisbrot being associated with them as a commentator. Awickert (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I am a bit familiar with it, its basically fall out from the two opposing chavez sides, awful and it appears to have dumped some of its whatsit on this article, I am a neutral interested in BLP protection are you involved on one side or the other? Off2riorob (talk) 21:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Not really involved in that debate at all - a couple posts here is it, and the overwhelming majority of my Wikipedia editing is in geology. But I unfortunately may have lit it off as I'd seen stuff in the news about him 'supporting Chávez', and put it back in when it was removed. So this page is more the start than the fallout. But I'm boring so we should get back on-track: could you find any issues in the article's sourcing? Awickert (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

OK - I'm heading out and probably won't check on this in over a week. So if this debate continues, it will have to be with other editors. Awickert (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

First, Off2riorob, where are the "messy sources" and citations you are describing? This version (with the exception of a recently added source to "progressive", now removed) is completely and well cited, with clean citations. Second, the trimmed down version contains uncited claims. You're speaking in ill-defined generalities; can you please specify the issues you see ? I honestly can't see what you're up to here; you are proposing to revert a fully and well-cited version, to this sort of completely uncited text:

• Weisbrot was one of the first economists to document and call attention to the long-term economic growth failure in the vast majority of developing countries since 1980, as well as the consequent decline in progress on such social indicators as life expectancy and infant and child mortality. This challenged the conventional wisdom that neoliberal reforms since 1980 has at least contributed to increasing economic growth, even if other problems (e.g. inequality) had remained or in some cases worsened. He has also been one of the most widely cited critics of IMF-supported policies in developing countries.

Those sorts of claims cannot be cited to Weisbrot or CEPR (they require independent sources), and the sources that were there before don't source these claims. You've made some unsupported statements about the current state of the page, and considering your recent removal of a well-supported POV tag from Hugo Chavez, I'm concerned about your edits here; they don't appear to improve neutrality, and have nothing to do with BLP that I can see. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I realise you have a very strong POV on this issue Sandy, there has been a complaint about this article and I see weak citations to opinionated locations and I will be investigating the total content here.Off2riorob (talk) 23:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you answer the direct questions please? Why did you remove a well-substantiated POV tag from Hugo Chavez (are you neutral on these articles); where are the messy citations you refer to; what are the BLP vios you are alleging in this text; and why are you proposing a reversion to wholly uncited text? The current version is well and correctly cited; please specify your objections. And, please refresh yourself on WP:NPOV and what it says, Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Turns out I'm back - got some work done and checked Wikipedia. Now Off2riobob, please tell us your specific issues with the article; as it stands, you've done nothing but tell both Sandy and I that you're suspicious of our motives. Let's move on and get some work done. Awickert (talk) 05:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

To be honest Sandy, your comments about chavez are nothing to do with this complaint and you should address that issue at some other location, there has been a complaint about this article and I will not be bullied or chased off, I am going to look at all the citations and contents of this article, anyone else's position will not affect my doing that and I will do it at my own good time. Off2riorob (talk) 07:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you please answer the questions, Rob? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments

1. The plethora of sources and quotes indicating that Weisbrot is known as a Chávez supporter strikes me as over the top; this BLP seems a little like the tail wagging the dog. Basically, if there is a big controversy about Weisbrot being a Chávez supporter, then we should be able to find sources framing it as such. If there is no major controversy about Weisbrot supporting Chávez, then we should not be manufacturing one in this article by collating a large stack of sources saying, "Weisbrot supports Chávez", as though that were the most important thing about Weisbrot. Does that make sense?

The plethora of sources is because POV and COI editors denied the very reliable sources given. We just edit conflicted as I was adding more (below). There are major sources framing it as such: The Associated Press, USA Today, New York Times, and many others that I just saw on Lexis Nexis and didn't pull (we edit conflicted as I was generating that data). Yes, Weisbrot's support of Chavez is key and that's without mentioning the numerous employees in his orgs from Chavez's Venezuela Information Office and the connections with the pro-Chavez Venezuelanalysis.com. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If there is a notable controversy or criticism surrounding Weisbrot's support for Chávez, then let's use articles that focus on this controversy or criticism to document that it exists. --JN466 22:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Previous editors didn't think The New York Times, USA Today, and others were sufficient (??), so more were added; now we have pro-Weisbrot editors seeking to suppress that info. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The New York Times or USA Today will do fine. Have you got an article to hand that describes the controversy there is? --JN466 22:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, missed this query in edit conflicts. As far as I know, there is no controversy; he is widely acknowledged as a Chavez supporter, and only the various CEPR sock/meatpuppets seem to deny that. Perhaps they have a source where he disclaims such that could be added ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That is not quite what I meant. I meant, is there a notable controversy because (not whether) he is a Chavez supporter? Has the New York Times, say, or USA Today, criticised him for supporting Chavez? Such criticism in reliable sources would be a bona-fide element of a Reception section. --JN466 23:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I stopped examining the sources in LexisNexis after only a few dozen; the problem so far has been the rejection of even the NYT, AP sources, and the claim here from Weisbrot followers that he only supports economic policies, although the sources are much broader. I was only looking for enough to back that, and haven't had time to determine if there is separately other controversy. A better answer to your question may be to examine the wording in these two sources:

• ... Grupo Capital SA. http://www.lineacapital.com.ar/?noticia=24826. Retrieved January 24, 2010. "... Mark Weisbrot, un conocidísimo defensor -o apologista, según sus críticos-, del presidente Hugo Chávez." (His critics call him a Chavez apologist.)
• FrontPageMagazine.com. http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=610. Retrieved January 24, 2010. "Predictably, Chavez still has his defenders. In the United States, the task of condoning every new attempt to consolidate power as an affirmation of people’s democracy in action has been taken up most prominently by the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Economic and Policy Research. The center’s co-director, Mark Weisbrot, has reliably praised Chavez’s Venezuela as a 'democratic' country and hailed the alleged success of the government's economic policies."

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but with respect, FrontPage Magazine is not the New York Times, and neither is Línea Capital. Weisbrot is actually a columnist and op-ed contributor for the New York Times. --JN466 23:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, re quality of those sources-- it was just an indication that there is some controversy, and I haven't examined the several hundred sources in LexisNexis. (That Weisbrot describes both Bush and Obama as "hostile" to Venezuela tells us something about his "support" in his own words :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I would say that is a simple reflection of the general situation, bush was anti Chavez and Obama is holding a similar position, that is not a reflection of his support but simply a comment on the general reality.Off2riorob (talk) 00:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

2. "Weisbrot has been described as the 'intellectual artifice'" -- I think this needs rephrasing. "Intellectual architect"? --JN466 22:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

All sources specifically say "artifice" and they are two different words. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Architect is the correct translation of artífice. (Thanks, John Z.) "Artifice" has a different meaning in English; they're false friends. --JN466 22:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Subject to interpretation and open to discussion; when in doubt on translations, we should stick closely to the original sources, and artifice and architect are two different words, both in English and Spanish. I suggest consulting a neutral Spanish speaking editor like Yomangani (pro-Chavez editors would have us believe that architect and artifice are not two different words). A Wiki definition not only is not reliable, but won't help resolve the translation issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

See [7] or [8]. An artifice, in English, is an abstract noun; it cannot be a person. JN466 22:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If you can get an opinion from a neutral editor who speaks excellent Spanish, I'll buy it. User:Yomangani speaks Spanish and has no interest in Chavez articles. I argue that we stick as closely as we can to sources on translations, unless we have good reason not to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I am a neutral editor who speaks a little Spanish and has very big dictionaries. :) Trust me on this one. --JN466 22:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

And I speak much more than "a little Spanish", words in Spanish are sometimes very precise, and I'd prefer that we have a true and neutral Spanish speaker like Yomangani opine. "Artifice" was the word used by the sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

All of these edit conflicts aren't helping, in case y'all can slow down. This is a good compromise, since it specifically identifies the original wording. Satisfied. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Architect is a good translation in this case, and probably what I would have gone for. "Artífice" covers creator, inventor, craftsman/woman, artisan etc., but those sound a little awkward with "intellectual". Architect might be a little higher level than the sense of the original, but you are always comprising with translations. Yomangani^talk 23:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Additional sources

Past talk page discussions on this article have 1) claimed that sources say Weisbrot supports only Chavez's economic policies and have 2) questioned the reliable sources listed (New York Times, USA Today and others) describing Weisbrot as a supporter of Chavez's policies. Here are multiple other sources that show Chavez defending more than economic policy in Venezuela. They don't necessarily need to be incorporated into the article, but they give additional support to the well sourced statements now in the article.

1. CTV Television, Inc.; December 3, 2007 Monday; SHOW: CANADA AM 7:18:40 ET; Venezuela's President Chavez loses bid to extend power. (No economic discussion whatsoever, discussion of elections and "democracy")
2. St. Petersburg Times (Florida); January 10, 2007 Wednesday; Communism's new champion; DAVID ADAMS; NATIONAL; Pg. 6A. (Supporting socialist platform)
3. The Washington Times; March 13, 2007 Tuesday; Chavez a step behind Bush's Latin tour; By Kelly Hearn; PAGE ONE; A01. (Discussing Chavez' public relations in relation to Bush)
4. Associated Press Online; December 3, 2005 Saturday; Chavez Calls Watchdog Group a Top Enemy; IAN JAMES; Associated Press Writer; SECTION: INTERNATIONAL NEWS. (Weisbrot arguing against Sumate, in favor of Chavez "democracy, no economic argument).
5. IPS - Inter Press Service; September 3, 2008 Wednesday; POLITICS-US: CANDIDATES STAY THE COURSE ON LATIN AMERICA; BYLINE: Charles Davis; DATELINE: WASHINGTON, Sep 3 2008. (Weisbrot arguing Obama policy on Venezuela, not economic).
6. St. Petersburg Times (Florida); December 1, 2007 Saturday; CHAVEZ'S POWER GRAB PUT TO VOTE; BYLINE: DAVID ADAMS; PHIL GUNSON, Times Correspondents; SECTION: NATIONAL; Pg. 1A. (Weisbrot arguing pro-Venezuela democracy, not economic)
7. Deutsche Presse-Agentur; October 26, 2007 Friday 2:05 AM EST; ANALYSIS: Colombian hostage-swap allows Chavez to polish image; BYLINE: Veronica Sardon, dpa; SECTION: POLITICS. (Weisbrot arguing pro-Chavez on Colombian hostage swap, no economics).
8. The Globe and Mail (Canada); May 2, 2005 Monday; National Edition; U.S. alters tactics on Venezuela; Rice drops hostility, adopts diplomacy in continued effort to rein in Chavez; BYLINE: SAUL HUDSON, Reuters News Agency; SECTION: INTERNATIONAL NEWS; Pg. A9. (Weisbrot on diplomacy, no economic)

Also:

1. UPI Energy; July 25, 2007 Wednesday 12:23 PM EST; Analysis: Venezuela may face shortcomings; CARMEN J. GENTILE; MIAMI, July 25. (Weisbrot arguing, wrongly, in 2007 that Venezuela's economic expansion would continue)

LexisNexis lists hundreds of articles on Weisbrot/Chavez; I stopped after a few dozen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Just looking at google news, there are 2080 mentions of Mark Weisbrot in google news. Of these,

• 517 also mention Venezuela. To put this in perspective,
• 629 mention the United States,
• 407 mention Brazil,
• 371 mention Argentina,
• 271 articles mention China,
• 241 mention Bolivia,
• 143 mention Russia,
• 198 mention Mexico,
• 108 mention Nicaragua,
• 88 mention Peru,
• 88 mention Uruguay,
• 85 mention Germany,
• 62 mention Costa Rica.
• 187 mention both the United States and Venezuela.

So what does this tell us? In reliable sources found in google news, Venezuela is more often linked to Weisbrot's name than any other country except the United States, his home country. Almost a quarter of all articles that mention Mark Weisbrot in google news also mention Venezuela. This may partly be because Venezuela and Chávez are getting a lot of press, but it is probably also fair to say that it is a major part of his work (though by no means representing the majority of his work). I hope this may guide us in establishing due weight here. It's clearly appropriate to say something about Weisbrot's views on Venezuela, but it has to be proportionate and shouldn't dominate the article; so if we say something about his views on Venezuela, we should also say something about his views on the US, Brazil, Argentina, etc. --JN466 23:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this analysis is spot on, since Bolivia, Nicaragua, Argentina, Brazil, Russia and others are likely to be related to Chavez/Venezuela. It would be hard to draw conclusions without extensive analysis, bordering on original research. More significantly, in all of the pro-Chavez literature (related to Venezuelanalysis.com and others), Weisbrot figures very heavily. If you look at some of our very POV articles, you'll frequently find CEPR.net. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but looking at his presence in the New York Times, he is quoted by the New York Times – and quite respectfully so, as far as I have been able to tell – as a bona fide expert on a whole range of countries and issues. These are all articles from the first page of nytimes search hits: [9][10][11][12][13][14] --JN466 00:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

One of these articles describes him as a "liberal", but that is still a mainstream niche. --JN466 00:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that shows, except perhaps that, for some reason, he doesn't want to be seen as non-neutral on Chavez, hence is asking us to ignore reliable sources in our article, which is censorship?? Well, actually, since I'm not an OTRS volunteer, I don't know what he's asking, but that seems to be the crux of this examination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

External link section

I was having a look at the external links all PDF files and all seemingly about the one issue, is this normal to add such detailed PDF files regarding a single issue? It seems a bit much to me, is such linking supported by policy? At first look it appears to be giving undue weight to one specific issue in the subjects life. Off2riorob (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The Rodriguez/Weisbrot debates are a huge issue surrounding Weisbrot's support of Chavez, and that text needs to be written; those are the sources. I haven't had time to do it all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

So for now they need to come out of the external link section. Off2riorob (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

(my 12th edit conflict) I'm unclear on that; our External links guideline page has been changing, and External links used to be where we parked info for future expansion (on the idea that we shouldn't need External links when an article is equivalent to the comprehensiveness expected in a featured article, but that links could be parked in External links for future expansion). I'm unclear now, with constantly changing guidelines, where we park info that warrants expansion. Also, the google video is separate and justified even under current EL guidelines. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• "10 Years with President Hugo Chavez: Diego Arria and Mark Weisbrot Debating the Progress of the Bolivarian Revolution at American University". American University, Washington DC. February 24, 2009. Retrieved January 23, 2010.
• DePaul University had a political economy course that focused on a series of debates between Weisbrot and Francisco Rodríguez, Assistant Professor of Economics and Latin American Studies at Wesleyan University, and Chief Economist of the Venezuelan National Assembly from 2000 to 2004 in the Chavez administration.
  • Ask the expert: Chávez and Venezuela. Financial Times, January 30, 2007 dialogue between Weisbrot and Francisco Rodríguez, former chief economist of the Venezuelan National Assembly during the Chavez administration and assistant professor of economics and Latin American studies at Wesleyan University.
  • Rodriguez's March/April 2008 Foreign Policy article; Weisbrot's March 2008 rebuttal; Rodriguez March 2008 response to rebuttal.
  • An October 2006, Rodriguez paper "Freed from Illiteracy? A Closer Look at Venezuela's Robinson Literacy Campaign, (also here) and Weisbrot May 2008 response.

The American University google video should stay; the Rodriguez/Weisbrot debates are a separate issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Replaced. Off2riorob (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The link to Mark Weisbrot's Z Space page should be removed, as Mark has not written anything original for Z - these are merely reprints. Mark cannot control who reprints his writings. As a consequence, there is considerable overlap with Mark's op-eds on the CEPR website, his Guardian page, and his Alternet page. The Z Space page is redundant. --Kriswarner (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I had a look, don't see anything original; so it is redundant, and I've removed it accordingly. Rd232 ^talk 12:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Citation 22

This citation is a collection of links and is a citation farm on its own, it appears to have been put together to support the comment ..Weisbrot .. who is described as supporting Chávez's policies...

• http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-03-18-chavez-venezuela_N.htm quote= Weisbrot, who has supported Chavez's policies.[15] quote = Mark Weisbrot, un conocidísimo defensor -o apologista, según sus críticos-, del presidente Hugo Chávez.http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/2710 quote= Weisbrot is a staunch supporter of the Chavez administration. http://www.miamiherald.com/news/columnists/andres-oppenheimer/story/1424144.html quote= Mark Weisbrot, an economist with the left-of-center Washington, D.C.-based Center for Economic and Policy Research who generally supports Chávez's policies, told me that...http://blog.washingtonpost.com/worldopinionroundup/2005/09/thinking_about_chavez.html quote = Marc Weisbrot, a Washington economist and supporter of Chavez http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupprofile.asp?grpid=7226 quote = A longtime supporter of Chavez, Weisbrot, in a December 2002 article titled 'U.S. Intervening Against Democracy in Venezuela,' impugned the U.S. for sponsoring democratic opposition groups in Venezuela, organizations he dismissed as 'mostly managers and executives' who 'are trying to cripple the economy … in order to overthrow the government.'

http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=610 quote = Predictably, Chavez still has his defenders. In the United States, the task of condoning every new attempt to consolidate power as an affirmation of people’s democracy in action has been taken up most prominently by the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Economic and Policy Research. The center’s co-director, Mark Weisbrot, has reliably praised Chavez’s Venezuela as a 'democratic' country and hailed the alleged success of the government's economic policies.

• IMO the need to use this multiple assertion of unattributed opinions from here and there to support this simple issue leads me to doubt is correctness. Is there a citation from the subject that says himself declaring .."I am a supporter of Hugo Chavez policies? Off2riorob (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm unclear why that is the question, when we have multiple reliable sources describing him as such. (I do agree that it shouldn't be necessary to provide so many sources to something that is already well sourced by high quality sources, but Weisbrot supporters didn't accept high quality, unquestionable reliable sources.) What is apparent now is that, for some reason, CEPR/Weisbrot supporters want to distant him from this sourced info, and we should remember that Wiki is not censored. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• There is no issue as regards censorship, simply the NPOV representation of the reliable sources. My thought here is that we should not attempt through the accumulation of multiple unattributed citations to portray Weisrbot in a certain way, when individually the citations do not support it. Off2riorob (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Sandy here. Apparently, one high-quality reliable source wasn't enough, so more were added. Now, apparently, the multitude of sources are being used to claim OR or SYNTH or something. I'm sorry, but no. This smacks of little more than a whitewash attempt of a part of his history his supporters don't like to acknowledge. Scottaka UnitAnode 00:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Individually, the New York Times, USA Today and various AP sources (LexisNexis) already support it. The rest are just gravy. Is anyone wondering why this has become such an issue? What is the problem with text sourced to multiple reliable sources ? Why is Weisbrot so concerned about being described as supporting Chavez? And why should we censor what reliable sources say because he wrote to OTRS? I must be missing a big piece here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• So lets remove the gravy from this list, so that we can see the wood for the trees and attribute it correctly. Off2riorob (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Works with reasonable editors (until the POV pushers come back and reject high quality mainstream reliable sources as "biased" or "corporate" controlled, which is why some others got tacked on :) Setting aside New York Times and USA Today (many other sources carried that same text, but USA Today is online), what do you consider "gravy"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Which are the strongest two that support the comment ? USA today and nyt ? Looking through them I don't think we should say more than.. Weisbrot, who has been a supporter of some of Chavez's economic policies. This is an NPOV statement IMO, not too excessive and more in line with the comments that Weisbrot has made himself, we should not add the assertion that Weisbrot agrees with all of Chavez's policies and also should point out that it is that he is agreement with the economic policies and not a general agreement or support for everything Chavez does, for this comment it will be more than enough to support it with the NTY and the USA today. Off2riorob (talk) 00:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• NYT and USA Today are good, unless the tendentious editors scream. But why are you limiting it to economic and some; that's not what USA Today says, and that text is borne out by the LexisNexis work I did. We aren't adding any assertions; we're quoting reliable sources (although my own "original" research supports those reliable sources). And we aren't saying "all", when we describe Weisbrot as supporting Chavez policies. (I'm going slower on my responses here, since the edit conflicts are a killer.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob, why are you adding "economic" without consensus? That is not in agreement with reliable sources; USA Today text was carried by numerous other reliable sources (see NexisLexis) and is not confined to "economic". We should also keep in mind that Weisbrot has been accused of manipulating data relating to elections as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Off2RioRob, still waiting for an answer. You removed a whole lot of sources that cite Weisbrot as supporting Chavez's policies, as agreed, leaving two, one of which supports the text without the addition of the word "economic", yet you added that word without consensus. What gives? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

In the lede it says he is an Americam economist, so if he agrees with or talks about policy it is pretty much all about economics, so I added it to focus the claim, as it was it was as if Weisbrot was a total supporter of Chavez in everything he does and the citations don't support that position. Off2riorob (talk) 02:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The sources explicitly do not say "economic", your conclusion about him as an "economist" is OR, most of the sources weren't confined to economic, by adding economic you are going against the sources, and by leaving it off we are not implying that he is a "total" supporter of "all" policies (although my LexisNexis research does show that he is of most, but that's besides the point). We need to report what sources say, not draw our own conclusions. The sources say he supports Chavez. If you're going to implement part of our agreement, selectively, then we need to put back more sources. Right back where we started, as you're drawing a conclusion not supported by the sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

He is an economist, do you simply assert that he is a supporter of chavez, without definition? Off2riorob (talk) 02:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

We don't do original research, remember; we report what mainstream reliable sources say, and they say he supports Chavez (my LexisNexis original research happens to back what those sources say, but that's neither here nor there ... his commentary on Chavez has by no means been confined to discussion of economic policy, see above list). At any rate, whatever may have been in that OTRS ticket that is causing such equivocation and departure from WP:V, Wiki is not censored, and your contention about "economics" is original research, departing from what sources say, and even more sources indicate. We don't depart from a Wiki policy because someone writes a letter to OTRS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

ec.When he talks about Chavez it is in general about the economic policy, I don't think he has talked about his support for abortion policy or religious policy or immigration policy, no it clearly is support for economic policy and he is credited with assisting in the creation of BancoSUL also more economics. Off2riorob (talk) 02:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It is easy to quote him openly declaring in multiple speeches his support and agreement with chavez's economic policies. Off2riorob (talk) 02:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you're not intentionally ignoring the points I've raised; please address them. We report what sources say, we don't draw our own conclusions, and his being an economist has not stopped him from commenting on and supporting numerous other areas of Chavez policy-- as sources say. Where you get the conclusion that his comments are "in general about economic policy" is a mystery, but at any rate, we don't do OR. The sources citing the statement (and more) are *not* confined to economic policy. I'm really beginning to wonder what we're trying to hide here, with such a molehill turning into a mountain. Wiki is not censored (oh, I'm repeating myself, aren't I?) If you'd like to quote him supporting economic policies, start picking through the LexisNexis sources listed above-- and there are many more-- where he is supporting multiple other policies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Further, you agreed above to reduce the citations and keep the text, since the mainstream sources supported the text, yet you've removed reliable sources and changed the text. The tendentious trend here continues, and you've done this without consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear to me and unworthy of much more attention, he does support the economic policy of chavez, but if you feel he supports other facets of chavez's policies then we can look at the comments, Weisbrot is an economist and this is the connection, and as I said easily quotable, tomorrow I will look some more. Off2riorob (talk) 03:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to start with Weisbrot's Senate testimony, which had nothing to do with economic policy. Is that why you removed media representation, although half of his testimony was about that? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The sources explicitly do not say "economic": Sandy, one of the sources quoted, in fact the best one of the bunch, does explicitly say "economic policies": Mark Weisbrot, a Washington-based economist who is broadly supportive of Mr. Chávez’s economic policies. Looking at the other sources, first, we have USA Today quoting Weisbrot: "'Obviously, Chavez has been affected by these food shortages," said Weisbrot, who has supported Chavez's policies.'. From then on, however, it's rapidly downhill: We are citing Línea Capital, The New Standard, discoverthenetworks.org, and Front Page Magazine. These are not mainstream sources. --JN466 12:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Can any one of you please explain why you ignore USA Today, and all of the other sources that carried same? Selective application of sources here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I quoted the USA Today article in my previous post. How about saying that Weisbrot is broadly sympathetic to Chavez in his coverage of Venezuela (cited to NYT and USA Today while we have nothing better)? And adding that he was involved in an advisory capacity in drawing up the proposals for the Bank of the South (cited to Pino and El Universal)? I don't think we need to say any more than that on this topic. --JN466 15:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Good luck trying to get any compromise wording out of the pro-Chavez editors here ... in theory, that would work, but it's getting pretty far away from what was text that was clearly sourced to high quality sources and stated exactly what the sources said, and conveniently ignored by those who want to delete it, so I don't know if you will be able to achieve any consensus in the face of such contradictory, tendentious editing. We also have *Weisbrot himself* touting the article that shows him in an advisory capacity to Chavez, hosted on his own website, so deleting that info is clearly tendentious, and it's really unclear to me why hiding this info has become so important to so many people. Is there a law being broken or something that is going over my head here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, sweet, innocent Sandy suddenly has no idea why anyone would seek to connect a US person who has written about Venezuela (amongst other Latin American countries) to the Venezuelan government, and in particular to Chavez, a person she considers a dictator and who is a self-professed socialist - a very dirty word in the US. No idea at all. Rd232 ^talk 15:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I respect Jayen466 as an editor, and would extremely surprised if whatever he's proposing isn't reasonable. (I don't have time to look, must dash now.) Rd232 ^talk 15:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Rd232, if you're trying to make a point about content it is going to be lost in the sarcasm you're using. I would not be surprised to see Chavez/Venezuela articles under Arbitration as there seems to be a battle ranging about information on all fronts, one of which is Wikipedia. Make it easier on everyone and address only what can be addressed. The affectations in your communication make it more difficult to figure out what you're supporting or opposing other than SandyGeorgia. If you are unable to comment on the article content, take a break. --Moni3 (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's all make an effort not to personalise discussions. Arbitration sucks as a venue for dispute resolution: we'll all be much better off (and have much more time for useful things) if we don't have to go there. In that regard I would also consider it helpful if we all refrained from referring to editors as "pro-Chavez" or "anti-Chavez", at least on the article talk pages. --JN466 16:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

In some respects it's a bit late not to personalise things - despite repeated and quite clear attempts to persuade Sandy not to stamp me as "pro-Chavez", she persists in doing so, and in producing related insinuations of conflict of interest. I don't believe I've ever called her "anti-Chavez" because I do not frame the debate in these simplistic terms, as Sandy insists on doing. PS Arbitration does indeed suck; I wouldn't even have attempted an RFC/U on Sandy's behaviour if the shenanigans around Weisbrot/CEPR hadn't culminated in an OTRS ticket which was going unaddressed substantially due to her. Even now at ANI she goes on about some mythical sock army (one undeclared COI editor with a grand total of 30 mainspace edits does not a sock problem make) "aided by pro-Chavez admins in censoring the articles". Rd232 ^talk 16:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd also say it isn't a good idea to cite primary sources such as Weisbrot's speeches, unless there is secondary source coverage to justify going into the primary source. Clearly Weisbrot has an opinion on Venezuela and Chavez and the way they are seen by the US media. I have no problem presenting that. But please, we should be looking for mainstream secondary sources describing and assessing his stance. The NYT and USA Today are fine. And let's please remember, we should not have a BLP for Weisbrot that is 50% about his views on Venezuela and Chavez. It's undue weight, because it is not reflective of the coverage Weisbrot has attracted out there in the world. --JN466 12:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Then the reference to his Senate testimony should also be removed, under the same criteria, unless secondary sources mention it. Double standards here; I used it because it was already used in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I am happy to remove it until and unless a secondary source is found. --JN466 15:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Some relevant content points are made in this ANI post: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#SandyGeorgia:_enough_is_enough. I can duplicate them here if required, or people can pick them out from there to discuss here. Rd232 ^talk 12:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't edit the article but this edit [16] needs to be reverted. For starters, in the first part, she uses a primary source which is already a no-no, but even worse, the quoted text dosn't actually support the claims that she makes. Notice that she says the testimonial covered "media and democracy in venezuela" but it doesn't talk about venezuelan media at all. The very small reference to the media at the end refers to US not venezuelan media so the claim is false.

Further down, she again re-inserts the "supports Chavez policies bit" when its quite clear that Weisbrot suports his economic policies only. Sandy claims to be inserting "consensus" text, which I guess she interprets to be whatever she thinks. 189.65.44.182 (talk) 13:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Moved from the article:

According to some sources, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez himself has consulted Weisbrot,<ref name=Clave/> who is described as supporting Chávez's policies.<ref>{{cite news|author=Romero, Simon|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/world/americas/18venez.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print|title=Chávez Seizes Greater Economic Power|work=[[New York Times]]|date=May 18, 2008|accessdate=January 23, 2010|quote=Mark Weisbrot, a Washington-based economist who is broadly supportive of Mr. Chávez’s economic policies, ...}}</ref><ref name=WeisbrotTestimony/><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-03-18-chavez-venezuela_N.htm |work=USA Today|title=Polls: Support for Chavez government falling |date= March 18, 2008 | accessdate = January 26, 2010|quote= ... Weisbrot, who has supported Chavez's policies.}}</ref><ref>{{es icon}} {{cite web| url= http://www.lineacapital.com.ar/?noticia=24826 |title= Critican que Miceli exponga en una reunión contra el FMI|publisher= Grupo Capital SA | accessdate= January 24, 2010|quote = ... Mark Weisbrot, un conocidísimo defensor -o apologista, según sus críticos-, del presidente Hugo Chávez (Weisbrot, a well known defender- or apologist, according to his critics- of Chavez).}}<br />* {{cite web|url=http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/2710 |title= Chicago Turns Down Discounted Venezuelan Oil| author= Pupovac, Jessica | date= December 28, 2005 | publisher = The New Standard | accessdate= January 24, 2010|quote= Weisbrot is a staunch supporter of the Chavez administration.}} <br />* {{cite web | url=http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupprofile.asp?grpid=7226 |title= Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) |publisher = DiscovertheNetwork.org | accessdate = January 24, 2010 |quote = A longtime supporter of Chavez, Weisbrot, in a December 2002 article titled 'U.S. Intervening Against Democracy in Venezuela,' impugned the U.S. for sponsoring democratic opposition groups in Venezuela, organizations he dismissed as 'mostly managers and executives' who 'are trying to cripple the economy ... in order to overthrow the government.' }}<br />* {{cite web| url= http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=610 |title= 'Socialism or Death' in Venezuela | author = Laksin, Jacob |publisher = FrontPageMagazine.com |date = January 16, 2007 |accessdate = January 24, 2010 |quote = Predictably, Chavez still has his defenders. In the United States, the task of condoning every new attempt to consolidate power as an affirmation of people’s democracy in action has been taken up most prominently by the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Economic and Policy Research. The center’s co-director, Mark Weisbrot, has reliably praised Chavez’s Venezuela as a 'democratic' country and hailed the alleged success of the government's economic policies. }}</ref>

This material is contentious and relies substantively on poor sources to make extraordinary claims. Sandy has said several times recently that "extraordinary claims require strong citation" (from Talk:Dean Baker) - so let's see the same standard applied here. The weakness of most of these sources has already been demonstrated. Is what remains sufficient to make this strong claim of supporting the policies of someone (Chavez) who is a professed socialist and supposed dictator? Rd232 ^talk 13:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Rd232 ^talk 13:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I totally support this, to make such statements we should be looking for extraordinary citations, not asserting that we have these vague claims so we should add vague claims. Off2riorob (talk) 14:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

More selective application of and misunderstanding of policy; the cite being used at Dean Baker is an obscure source for an extremely grandiose claim; the cites being used here are The New York Times, USA Today, and a source hosted on Weisbrot's own website. Have you two overlooked the facts here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

"Broadly sympathetic"

I would just like to point out the following for the record, concerning selective sourcing in regards to Chavez and Venezuela: The phrase “He has been broadly sympathetic to Hugo Chávez' policies” is stated as fact. It is actually an opinion – in this case, citations are provided for 2 reporters who have stated a similar opinion in referring to him this way. There are many more examples from major media sources in which – even in articles about Venezuela – Mark is not labeled this way, and some cases in which the reporter has used a label, but one that does not suggest any support by Mark for the Venezuelan government. See The Houston Chronicle, November 7, 2006. Mark is described this way: “Mark Weisbrot, a Latin America expert at the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington.” [17]. Or The Washington Times, March 13, 2007: “But Mark Weisbrot, a Latin America specialist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, argued that Mr. Bush had lost ground to Mr. Chavez on the public relations front.” [18] Two other examples not only do not describe Mark as “supportive” of Chavez, they cite him criticizing Venezuelan government policies – see the Christian Science Monitor, September 28, 2005: “But Mark Weisbrot, an analyst with the left-leaning Center for Economic Policy Research in Washington, said he expects oil prices to stay high or even rise, enabling Venezuela to keep financing the gas and other subsidies. ‘It's a big waste and it's environmentally destructive,’ he said of the gas subsidy.” [19] (Emphasis added.) And here’s the St. Petersburg Times, December 1, 2007: “‘These are new classes of people being given a voice. It's a rare event, so I am all for it,’ said Mark Weisbrot of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington. While he is turned off by Chavez's style, he sees it as part of a political transition away from minority, elite rule.” [20] (Emphasis added.)

So, the “broadly supportive” label is a minority opinion shared by two reporters, who, when informed that their description was not accurate, never repeated it (one was from AP, not USA Today – the article was merely posted there). I could provide numerous other examples where Mark is cited in media reports on Venezuela and/or Latin America and not labeled this way. As noted previously, some journalists and others who have strong feelings against Chavez may see others who do not share these feelings as “Commie sympathizers.” This is part of the general McCarthyist atmosphere with regard to certain “enemies of the United States.” These opinions about Weisbrot are a reflection of such views; the Wikipedia biography, however, should be neutral, and not try to taint the subject by trying to link his views to the views of one of the most demonized figures in the United States. -- Kriswarner (talk) 16:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I, too, am uncomfortable with how that sentence ended up after our discussions here, but recognize that it was JN's good faith effort to summarize everything. I don't believe your sources above negate the statement, but would be happier to see the sentence go back to the separate sentences, where they were before all of the discussion, in earlier versions. Sources indicate Weisbrot is a "supporter" of Chavez, and I don't think that can be denied, nor do the sources you've given show that he is not, but our current sentence runs too many unrelated topics together and is too broad. I thought the earlier verion:

According to some sources, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez himself has consulted Weisbrot, who is described as supporting Chávez's policies.

was much better. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"JN's good faith effort" - just to be clear, I wasn't trying to imply otherwise. Sorry if it came across that way. -- Kriswarner (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it didn't come across that way at all: no problem :) I merely mentioned it because I'm waiting for him to weigh in here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks Sandy. I think the earlier wording was more one-sided than what we have now. Some of the sources seemed poor for a BLP. They are listed below:

1. The first one (Pino, LaClave -- is that a TV program?) seems a bit hear-sayish. The sources are not named. WP:BLP says, "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases and attributions to anonymous sources. Look out for these. If the source doesn't believe its own story, why should we?"
2. The NYT is fine.
3. Weisbrot's testimony is a primary source. Not a preferred source. (With primary sources, there is always a risk of cherry-picking.)
4. AP/USA Today is fine.
5. Línea Capital seems an odd outfit. Lists a single person as being the webdesigner. [21] Says they have a radio channel (?) No entry in English or Spanish Wikipedia. I would like to see some evidence of reliability.
   1. The New Standard seems similarly odd: [22]. It's a defunct news website.
   2. discoverthenetworks.org: Unashamedly partisan source.
   3. FrontPage Magazine: Ditto.

I am sorry, but this strikes me as an odd collection of sources. It seems indicative of an approach where the sources found (and cited) are driven by what the editor was googling for, rather than an approach where an editor simply looks at the highest-quality, most reputable sources and reports what they say. Of course, as far as the second sentence is concerned, we wouldn't need these inferior sources to source a sentence that Weisbrot has been described as supportive of Chavez. The NYT and USA Today are enough to do that.

What do you think of the wording per se, Kris, leaving aside the question of source quality for the moment? --JN466 19:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, JN; I didn't intend to pull forward all of the old citations-- I just grabbed the earlier version and copy-pasted it. I'm sorry my sloppiness caused you so much extra work :) It was the wording I was aiming for, and I'd like to see the current sentence split, so we don't run together unrelated topics (the film, and his support of Chavez). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Silly me. :) --JN466 19:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Silly *me* ! Always in a hurry :) It was posted right above, so I just grabbed it. I don't know what La Clave is, but perhaps KrisWarner can shed some light on why CEPR hosts that on their website, if they have a problem with the claim that Chavez consults Weisbrot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I've split the sentence. Better? :) --JN466 19:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

That solves one problem-- waiting to hear from KrisWarner on other. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

In the past, we hosted articles that mentioned us. (We still keep track of this [23], though no longer actually host the articles.) That doesn't mean we endorse everything that's said about us. -- Kriswarner (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry - what's the wording you're asking me about? -- Kriswarner (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Latin America section and WP:UNDUE

Out of about 300 op-eds, 27 mention Venezuela or Chavez in the headline.[24] Out of 60+ publications, [25], 12 have venezuela in the headline. Some proportionality should operate here. Just because some editors are more interested in Venezuela than other countries does not mean it should be given WP:UNDUE weight. Rd232 ^talk 14:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

So, write some more text about other Latin American countries; the amount of space given to Venezuela is not undue, just because no one has written anything else. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Article revised

In line with comments above, I have removed material from the article that was only supported by primary sources. I have instead concentrated on secondary-source coverage of Weisbrot. I have given a brief summary of Weisbrot's views on the US Social Security system, as well as a brief summary of his views on globalization, the IMF and his involvement with the Bank of the South, as described by third parties. Please review and let me know what you think. --JN466 18:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The removal of well sourced text (NYT, USA Today, and others), against consensus, is unacceptable; pls explain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

What consensus? The write is a lot better, and I congratulate Jayen and thank him for his article improving edits. Off2riorob (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No uninvolved editor supports your view; all uninvolved editors see the text as well supported by mainstream reliable sources. But it shouldn't be necessary to point that out :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

And who might those be? Exactly? and where are their opinions? For the record I also support Jayen's iniciative 187.47.124.216 (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

User SandyGeorgia, I don't know who you are talking about as an involved editor, as was pointed out to you at the ANI thread, actually it is you that is the most involved editor. Off2riorob (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

IP and Rio/Rob, please try to stay on topic; the question is addressed to JN. The text in question has been reviewed by numerous impartial editors, none of whom support its removal. Wiki is not censored, New York Times, USA Today and others are high quality reliable sources. Jayen, please explain the removal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Sandy, please note that the New York Times and USA Today, and the information cited to them, are still there. They are ref numbers 10 and 11. What I have taken out is the primary sources, per our discussions above. [26][27] --JN466 18:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• My sincere apologies, JN: I see that some text did survive, and the reason I missed it is that it was rolled into the Bank of the South and South of the Border text, which is not where I would expect to find it, considering the sources were unrelated to the either of those. This now looks very SYNTH-y compared to what was there before; Weisbrot as a supporter of Chavez sources are not about Bank of the South, and extend beyond that issue, so I don't know why you added it there, and that's why I missed it:
  • Weisbrot has been broadly sympathetic to Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez, who spearheaded the idea,[9][10][11] and acted as an advisor to Oliver Stone on South of the Border, a 2009 film about Chávez.[12]
• This looks like synthesis. The sources supporting Weisbrot as a Chavez supporter should stand alone, and are unrelated to either Bank of the South or South of the Border. At any rate, my apologies for missing it, and I would apologize to the broader audience at ANI, except that thread is closed. We still have a lot more text that has gone missing, and some misrepresentations of the issues about the leftist sources for whom he writes; I will catch up as I'm able (stuck in the airport due to snowstorm, not sure when my flight will leave). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Apology accepted. :) Safe journey; I am off to bed myself now. --JN466 01:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I've separated the two statements. --JN466 11:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah.. here comes the derailing, didnt talke long. We are ontopic. You said "numerous impartial editors" supported your opinion, but I see no evidence of that. Again, simply because you beleieve something doestn mean its true. 187.47.124.216 (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You just get nicer and nicer, don't you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Separately, why have we lost the text about Chavez consulting him, when that is touted on CEPR's own website? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

We say that he acted as an consultant for the governments concerned, which includes the government of Chavez, who we say spearheaded the initiative. I am not comfortable with giving more weight to this at this point. --JN466 11:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

All right, but I'm still concerned that we've run together the statements about him being broadly supportive of Chavez with the info about the Oliver Stone film, since those sources were unrelated to the film. I don't know how to avoid having that look synth-y, since the sentence is well constructed, but separate sentences or something might separate those issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)