Jump to content

Talk:Venezuelanalysis

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

Quote request

[edit]

Please provide the entire paragraph, so it can be reviewed for context.[1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I requested a quote two days ago, it hasn't been provided, moving text here for clarification. Please provide the full paragraph for context. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fourth request, please provide the full paragraph to check for context and cherrypicking, and refrain from removing tags until resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed cherrypicking. First Vanderbush writes:
"From the beginning then, it was clear that Chávez intended to take “nationalist and independent positions” in international relations, even though there was some evidence that he was willing to “accommodate US interests.” Still, it was evident that he believed that pursuing a nationalist and independent foreign policy for Venezuela meant lessening US control and power throughout Latin America. His strategy for gaining space for the Venezuelan state to operate and checking US hegemony was rooted in the creation of both alliances and institutions that excluded the North Americans. Implicit in those efforts was an ideological challenge to the neoliberal policies that were growing increasingly unpopular in the Americas."
That's the whole paragraph. The footnote at the very end of the paragraph reads:
"Greg Wilpert, Changing Venezuela By Taking Power (New York: Verso Press, 2007), p. 152 lists the five main objectives of the Chávez government’s foreign policy that were laid out in a 2001–2007 National Development Plan: promote multi-polarity; promote Latin American integration; consolidate and diversify Venezuela’s international relations; strengthen Venezuela’s position in the international economy; promote a new regime of hemispheric security. Wilpert’s website (www.venezuelanalysis.com) is a valuable resource for Venezuelan news and analysis."
It's clear from the footnote that the author is giving a personal opinion. The footnote is an aside to the rest of the paper. It does not purport to show academic research.--Lacarids (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VIO letter

[edit]

I'd tend to support the removal of this paragraph, at least in the form in which it was inserted. If we use this material from Bogardus, then we should present Golinger's side as well -- because Bogardus, the cited source, does so too. To wit, in Bogardus: "Golinger, who contacted the Center after this report was published, wrote that VIO's communications were not significant, and that, 'Long before that office came into existence...I was writing articles about Venezuela and engaging in efforts to educate on Venezuelan current affairs.'" (Which is demonstrably true.) In addition, Bogardus' article features a "Read the Response" box in the top right, with a response by Golinger et al. But by the time we give both sides, this would be fully one-third to one-half of the article devoted to the fact that VIO wrote a letter to Golinger asking her for her help. Hence I'd suggest it is not worth doing. The site is identified as "pro-Chavez" in the text. --JN466 22:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As with most of my edits, I intentionally kept it as brief and neutral as possible initially-- the more one adds, the more it can get into SYNTH or OR. I don't think it should be removed, but do agree the text can be improved; trying to write neutrally is constraining, but we're seeing far too much deletion of well sourced text in all of these articles, resulting in what appears to be censorship of reliably sourced info. Doesn't mean text can't be improved, though; for me, just keeping up with the tendentious editing across so many different articles, as one of the few Spanish-speaking editors willing to engage, has precluded any effective article content writing, and my prose stinks anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph has no place here, or anywhere on Wikipedia. It is transparently WP:UNDUE and serves solely to link venezuelanalysis with VIO, and is part of Sandy's campaign to link VIO with anyone she can, however tenuously. (The reason being that VIO is an agent of a foreign government - a government Sandy clearly detests.) The UNDUE argument is so strong that we don't even really need to note the conveniently excluded response letter which notes that "Miriam Kornblith, who is identified as the "Lead Social Scientist" responsible for your "Global Integrity" report on Venezuela is part of the Venezuelan opposition. Miriam Kornblith currently represents the opposition on the National Electoral Council (CNE). She is also listed (see NED Grant No. 2003-548.0, page 5) as an advisor to Súmate, a group that led the signature drive to recall Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez." Rd232 talk 23:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then rewrite it correctly. Another NPA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can't fix an UNDUE smear by rewriting - you fix by getting rid of it. And I'm not making personal attacks; you keep complaining of "tendentiousness" and the like, while I'm merely stating a fact: you are conducting a concerted campaign. I'll back it up with diffs soonish (tomorrow maybe). Rd232 talk 01:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of this site in required reading lists and bibliographies for university courses

[edit]

The site is included in required reading lists and bibliographies for courses at a number of universities. The following list (by no means exhaustive) provides some examples:

I'd suggest this is more relevant than a mention in a travel guide. --JN466 22:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed -- please mention its being on these lists above all of the critical responses. Maybe start it out with "It is on course reading lists at several prominent universities, including Harvard, Cornell, DePaul, ..." etc. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Please note, only two of the links actually work. --Lacarids (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
University syllabi are not stand alone documents. They do not reveal any analysis of problems or issues. We cannot decipher from looking at a syllabus why a professor included certain books or articles on it. --Lacarids (talk) 02:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two Pillar Violations

[edit]

This article contains several two pillar violations, which should be removed from the article. Namely the "Analyzing alternative Venezuelan media, Darrell Moen in a Hitotsubashi University publication calls it "A major source of non-corporate controlled information regarding the process of social transformation that is occurring in Venezuela ... This website offers critical analyses by dissident scholars and grassroots-based accounts by social activists involved in the various social movements in Venezuela as well as links to a number of alternative media sites and access to documentary videos that depict recent events in Venezuela".[8]"

---This is a blog, and not a neutral one at that. This should be removed.

Writing in New Political Science in an article "The Bush Administration Record in Latin America: Sins of Omission and Commission", Walt Vanderbush footnotes a book by Gregory Wilpert, who operates Venezuelanalysis,[3] and says "Wilpert's website ... is a valuable resource for Venezuelan news and analysis."[9]

---This is a non-existent student publication (if it ever was anything in the first place)

Surely we can source actual news organizations or non-student publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StanfordHistory08 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Academic sources are the best, not news. I've fixed the link to [9] (not that a working link is required). New Political Science is not a student publication, I don't know where you get that idea. [8] is the Hitotsubashi Journal of Social Studies, and the web link is to the University of Hitotsubashi website. Again, I don't know where you get the "blog" idea from. Rd232 talk 22:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Neither blogs nor student publications are "academic sources." --Lacarids (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removing SPAM

[edit]

I am deleting a link to "http://venezuelanalysis.com/donate" in the references section. Wikipedia is not a medium for advertising or asking for donations. --Lacarids (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, editing the References List is beyond my abilities. I'm unable to delete the spam; can someone else delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacarids (talk • contribs) 22:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hammersbach (talk) 01:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Lacarids -- In the future, if you want to delete a reference, you have to remove it from the body of the article, rather than trying to delete it by editing the reference section. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove references for relevant facts. The site's budget is a relevant fact, and that page is the source for it. Rd232 talk 12:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am wary to link to the subject matter's "donations" webpage. For now, I have reworded the bibliography (thanks for showing me how Jrtayloriv), so that it says "Venezuela Analysis Budget," instead of "Venezuela Analysis Donations." That shouldn't be a problem, as "budget" is supposedly what the link is directing readers to, right? This is only a temporary solution, however; the the article should reference another source, not the "donations" page of the article's subject. --Lacarids (talk) 14:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't mistitle sources because we want to hide the nature of them. Also, if we find a better source, we should use that, but it's Wikipedia's job to report relevant facts from the best available source, and that's all. Rd232 talk 12:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Rd232, but I disagree. It isn't "mistitling a source." By labeling the reference as "Budget," instead of "Donations," we would be directing readers to the relevant section of the webpage.--Lacarids (talk) 02:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm deleting this spam again. Primarily because the linked page is requesting donations. As such, it has no place on Wikipedia. Furthermore, according to the article and the footnote, the linked page should show us the budget of Venezuelanalysis in 2011. It doesn't. It doesn't show us any budget for any year. It just asks for donations to help keep it online. --Lacarids (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Funded by the Venezuelan Government, Really?

[edit]

It seems rather dubious that the very first sentence of this article, pretty much the first 'fact' included, makes a claim that the site is funded by the Venezuelan government. In support of this claim it offers two references:

- A sequence of emails pasted into a personal, anti-Chavez style blog. The only content in those emails that seems to have any bearing is: "There is a web site that is supported by the Venezuelan government venezuelanalysis.org and you can find plenty of sites supporting the opposition everywhere." Nowhere do these emails say 'funded by'. Even if they did, this is hardly an encyclopedic source. Ref 1 (as of 15/04/2014)

- A second blog post (on a different site) that mainly seems to contain a lot of innuendo re the independence, or lack thereof, of Gregory Wilpert (a major contributor to Venezuelanalysis) and a link back to the reference above in the sentence: "Venezuelanalysis is also funded by the Chavez regime, according to another apologist." Ref 2 (as of 15/04/2014)

I believe neither of these constitute reliable sources under WP guidelines.

Additionally, it should probably be noted that Venezuelanalysis itself specifically states that it does not receive funding from any government. Re: "We depend 100% on reader donations and receive no funding from any governments." Venezuelanalysis.org (About) (as of 15/04/2014).

I make no claim to know what the truth is here. However, the provided references:

- Clearly do not demonstrate - or even provide meaningful evidence for - the truth of the claim.

- They don't even constitute a source making the stated claim (except indirectly, by the implied interpretation read into the emails but the poster and linker of the emails on the blog).

- Neither are encyclopedic sources. (I believe it is correct that blogs are not generally acceptable on WP.)

I propose to remove that portion of the first sentence unless reliable references to Venezuelanalysis's sources of funding can be provided. 86.169.240.88 (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If we're going to claim the site got government funding, we need much better sources than have been offered. As of right now, these claims come across as a smear campaign.  Mbinebri  talk ← 15:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Please read this for background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_55#Venezuelanalysis The NYtimes make a pretty dry statement of fact. Regardless that it's for Oliver Stone's movie, its their fact and their sources and they went with it. It's hardly trivial. The other source has a Venezuelan official speaking on record and could be considered a primary source. 65.128.228.208 (talk) 16:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Wilpert himself says that it received partial funding from Ministry of Culture http://redpepper.blogs.com/venezuela/2007/03/hugo_chavezs_fu.html 16:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.128.228.208 (talk)

The NYT piece is a movie review—it's inheritantly POV. Plus, the review was controversial. The NYT even ran Stone's rebuttal, pointing out numerous flaws and a conflict of interest of the original author's. In other words, it's an inappropriate reference, as are blogs and emails, whoever they're from. The interview with Wilpart is legit though, but his admission of "some funding" reveals defining the site as "government funded" to be misleading. This requires context and is not defining anyway, so it doesn't belong in the lead sentence.  Mbinebri  talk ← 17:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the revenue at least. It has been supported by the Venezuelan Government (since I couldn't find the Ministry of Culture). I also placed others since it relies on public donations.--Zfigueroa (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Revenue is a number. It's essentially profit. "Government of Venezuela" is not revenue. The source we have (the interview) mentions funding, not revenue or an endowment.  Mbinebri  talk ← 19:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a profit, it is money brought in. Profit would be a surplus of money from revenues that a company received. VA is non-profit so it only has revenues from its contributors (Ven. Gov., donations, etc.).--Zfigueroa (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Funding vs Endowment

[edit]

When you have the founder saying that they receive funds from the Venezuelan Government, and you argue that an endowment is not the same, it's getting creepy and semantic and looks like the edit war in the making. Look at the players, look at the donations, look at the sponsorships. It's as plain as the nose on the face what an endowment is. Lets check ourselves here and make sure we're all in service to the truth and not cosmetics. 75.168.176.166 (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's own entry makes it fairly straightforward. A financial endowment is a proper donation of money or property to an institution. Ministry of Culture donated money, and Aporrea.org donated bandwidth, equipment, and technical expertise. (This is donated property and free labor) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_endowment 75.168.176.166 (talk) 19:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The information about the organization should be up-to-date and accurate. The site, on its about page, and its founder, in an interview, stated that VA received funding from the Ministry of Culture, and that Aporrea.org (and its founder, Martin Sánchez) donated bandwidth, web services and technical support, in addition to grassroot donations, but that now "we depend 100% on reader donations and receive no funding from any governments". You have cited no support for any 'endowment'. --Riothero (talk) 20:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wilpert's own words are pertinent, Aporrea's donation of equipment and expertise are pertinent. These are cited, established by Wilpert, and the website. Simply because the website changed its language recently does not trump actions that occured in its recent past. You keep deleting references to funding without any common thread. Funding is a very critical topic when it comes to the nature of a non-profit organization. Before erasing facts pertaining to funding, be prepared to have a thorough argument in favor of it. Stating that the website changed its language is a new fact. It doesn't negate past statements of public record. 75.168.176.166 (talk) 21:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding removing:

"While the website currently claims to rely exclusively on reader donations without connections to any government, Wilpert has stated the site has received "some funding" from the Venezuelan government's Ministry of Culture, in addition to accepting "grassroots donations.""

Gregory Wilpert is a primary source. When a primary source says his own organization received funding from the Ministry of Culture, that is not 'poorly sourced'. Burying it or removing it shows poor faith. 75.168.176.166 (talk) 21:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to remove or bury information about the past sources of Venezuelanalysis.com's funding (except in the lead, which should be limited to the most important facts). I am trying to assign information its due importance. Wilpert's statement that the site received funding from the Venezuelan government does not justify defining it as "government funded" when its 'about page' currently states that they "depend 100% on reader donations and receive no funding from any governments". Riothero (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We only have primary sources that describe (a) the situation in 2007 or earlier and (b) the situation in 2014. Trying to establish a contradiction between these counts as WP:SYNTH unless the contradiction is pointed out in another source. Media channels' funding and allegiances can change over time. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Venezuelanalysis received funding from the Ministry of Culture is a fact of which its importance cannot be understated when you run a News Organization and a non-profit. Regardless of what the website says today, it makes no difference to the IRS when you report income and assets. Support given yesterday is an investment in that organization and as important as today. To simply say it's no longer important is special pleading. 75.168.176.166 (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the article and I guess it should be. But if it's not important to be picked up by reliable, third-party sources, and presented as essential to the website's character, then it should not be in the lead. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please do not delete my comments. 75.168.176.166 (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally copy-pasted over it while resolving our edit conflict. I'm sorry. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. 75.168.176.166 (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What if we place in small text that it was "previous" when they were endowed in the infobox. Of course the private donations is needed in the info box though.--Zfigueroa (talk) 00:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, neither the "Government of Venezuela" nor "private donations" is an "endowment"; an "endowment" is a total value of an institution's investments. This is a misuse of the infobox. Riothero (talk) 01:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This topic has already been covered in talk and the edit history and there is existing consensus to keep the contributions as they are listed. I don't see your very specific interpretation of an endowment reflected in any other literature. Here's at least what Wiki says about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_endowment 75.168.176.166 (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you looked at other articles with similar infoboxes, you will see that a numeral value (an amount of money) always goes into the "endowment" field. This is the case regardless of the source of that endowment. (Louisiana State University, California Polytechnic State University, Georgia State University, Boise State University, Texas State University, Pomona College, Middlebury College, Harvey Mudd College, California Institute of Technology, Trinity College (Connecticut), Cooper Union, Ithaca College, Bates College, Hoover Institution, Brookings Institution, Rockefeller Foundation, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, etc.) And this is besides the fact that endowment refers a very specific type of fund)--an organization does not have an 'endowment' just because it receives funding. I can find no examples of articles using the "endowment" field in the way that is being suggested here.--Riothero (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Funding

[edit]

When speaking about non-profit organization, especially one that is a media arm, the topic of funding isn't ancillary or a footnote. Its important that readers who are unfamiliar with this topic understand where a non-profit news outlet is receiving its support and capital equipment, especially if that support is a government arm. Its also important that the factual basis of these is clearly established. I ask that we at least agree the subject deserves prominent mention and that burying it is to diminish a subject of clear importance. 75.168.176.166 (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that funding of non-profit organisations deserves prominent mention. I dispute that the information about this topic is currently "buried". Are you assuming that people won't read beyond the lead? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. That is exactly what I am assuming. 75.168.176.166 (talk) 22:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, I noticed you deleted the citation, which has already been under an edit war of sorts. There is simply no reason to do so. As a primary source quote from Wilpert (the founder) it's not under factual dispute. You didn't even reorganize it, you just removed it. So far, in the past 24 hours, every single effort to show funding has been removed with varyingly legitimate reasons. I ask that we stop removing this very clear and very relevant fact about a news organization early allegiances made straight from the horses mouth. 75.168.176.166 (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We can agree on the importance of specifying "where a non-profit news outlet is receiving its support" with the most accurate, up-to-date info. Past sources of funding are also relevant in this case, but do not deserve undue prominence. The site/founder says that it received government funds in the past, but that it does no longer. --Riothero (talk) 23:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, "Does no longer" is special pleading. Contributions of equipment and initial capital are lasting, as well as the allegiances they form. There is absolutely no basis to say it's not important. If an organization benefits today from lagresse received in the past, that's noteworthy. Incidentally, it continues to receive free equipment and support from Aporrea.org, a matter I intend to highlight soon enough. 75.168.176.166 (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No one is trying to remove information about the past funding of the site. Both the 2007 interview--in which Wilpert says the site RECEIVED (IN THE PAST) government funding--AND the April 2014 'about page'--which says that the site "receive[s] no funding from any governments"--deserve mention in the article. However, unless you can provide a reliable source showing that the site continues to receives government funding (or even that the organization "benefits today from lagresse received in the past"), there is no justification for the article to state, or even suggest, as much. Riothero (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, you're pitting a primary source quote from the founder of the organization against that organization's webpage that was recently edited a month or two ago. I can make an argument about notability, but instead I want to hear what rule states that current information, no matter how tenuous, trumps past information, no matter how solid, nor how important it remains in establishing the origins of the organization's financial picture, initial investment capital, equipment...all things that need to be recorded in its financial statements not to mention amortized over a 14 year period according to US tax law. To simply wish it away because it was said "in the past" isn't the basis of scholarship. 75.168.176.166 (talk) 23:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
75.168.176.166, you're making accusations against other editors about removing sourced information that I don't recognize in the edit history, so please post the links. The basic information is represented in the article. Your further inferences based on tax law are your own. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, Martin Sanchez was NOT "Consul General" when the site was founded, and it is misleading to identify him here by anything other than his title at the time he was associated with the site (one of the founders of Aporrea.org). Wilpert specifically states that "when Martin became Consul for Venezuela in Chicago a few years after the site's launch, he pretty much stopped writing for VA."
Totally fair.

(source) --Riothero (talk) 23:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the lead as reintroduced by Mbinebri uses the loaded term "claim". I very clearly stated that in my edit summary, so my removing it was not "without merit" as 75.168.176.166 stated. As I pointed out earlier, there's no proof of the contradiction that the lead paragraph is implying, so this is WP:SYNTH and a violation of NPOV policy. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 23:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You tagged me over the issue of using "claim," so I changed it to "says," per policy recommendation.  Mbinebri  talk ← 23:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IRS stuff

[edit]

Somedifferentstuff, regarding this edit, the cited source actually says:

This organization is not registered with the IRS.
This organization is required to file an IRS Form 990-N.

I.e., according to GuideStar, the organization does need to register with the IRS. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 23:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further down it states, "This organization does not appear in the IRS's most recent list of tax-exempt organizations. IRS records do not, however, indicate that the organization’s tax-exempt status has been revoked. Contact the organization for more information." At the end of the day this is not a reliable website and should not be used for anything. If you dispute what I'm saying take it to WP:RSN. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not disputing that. Thanks for the clarification! QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Wilpert

[edit]

I think there should be enough information we can find about Wilpert to make a new article about him. Does anyone want to help me with this task?--Zfigueroa (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have sufficient sources to establish his notability? He has a book with 140 citations on GScholar, which may count as one independent source, maybe some of those will contain comments on his academic work that can serve to establish N. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wilpert is somewhat of a commentator in the media. And the people whom work for VA are occasional sources for other media outlets. Would that be enough and how might somebody establish notability? Links to publications he's mentioned in?

I'm also curious to know if Aporrea.org is worth a page. Arepaface (talk) 11:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can find things about him. He has a Linkdin page too but I'm not sure if that is acceptable here.
I will work on Aporrea.com too with some assistance.--Zfigueroa (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Linkedin (and his only CV) are acceptable as primary sources, but do not attribute to notability. See WP:BIO: you need "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Created Gregory Wilpert article

[edit]

Made the article and it was reviewed. When can we switch Gregory Wilpert's name from VA and apply it to Gregory Wilpert (person)?--Zfigueroa (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to move Gregory Wilpert (person) to Gregory Wilpert over the redirect but I got an error message. You might have to ask an administrator.  Mbinebri  talk ← 19:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The problem was that there was an existing redirect from Gregory Wilpert to Venezuelanalysis.com that had to be deleted. Hammersbach (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's what I was having problems with. Thanks for the move Hammersbach and thank you for the effort Mbinebri.--Zfigueroa (talk) 00:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I want to apply the VA logo to the article.

Here is a page with the logo: https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/437653002/favicon.png

I think it can be used since it does not meet the threshold of originality since it is a circle and a V&A.--Zfigueroa (talk) 00:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Riothero!--Zfigueroa (talk) 23:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded the image you mentioned. Although its source is Venezuelanalysis.com's twitter account, rather than from venezuelanalysis.com itself, I think it could nonetheless be argued that it is the website's logo since a much, much smaller version is used as the favicon to nearly all the articles on the site. Other, similar images can be found throughout the site (one, two) but they are not as nice. I recommend we keep it as is unless anyone objects. Riothero (talk) 01:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We should keep this one as it is much more clear and do not have some of the logo missing from cropping. Thank you.--Zfigueroa (talk) 08:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

[edit]

A problem with having an Infobox? Really?!

I want to get this out of the way right now. There has been a ton of edit activity over the endowment piece, and I finally changed my mind because it is indeed correct that it isn't being used in the right way. I think much of the edit static is about funding. I think this is specifically about where Venezuelanalysis gets its money, and I think certain people have a problem with that because some of the info is embarrassing. Any time there's any attempt to bring visibility to the funding issue, the edits start flying. Just a casual observation.

It doesn't belong in the Infobox, I agree. But the rest of the info there is exactly what you want elucidated on an article about a nonprofit. VZAnalysis is a news site as well, which puts particular onus on how its views developed. For that reason its of special importance to know the whos, whats, and hows. Who makes it up, where it exists, how its funded, and how work gets done.

I ask that we be careful before we nuke large sections of useful material simply because some things in it are inconvenient. If there is a better infobox template, propose it. I looked and I don't see it yet. I'm all eyes (ears whatever) for a better one if it exists. 65.128.228.208 (talk) 05:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think removing an infobox constitutes an effort to "nuke large sections of useful material" (if that is what you are suggesting), especially when, as is the case here, most of the material is already covered in an article quite short in length (and already quite redundant). But if this were all that was at issue, then having or not having the infobox would be merely a question of style and/or preference, and the current infobox you propose would indeed represent a good compromise between the earlier version and its criticism. However, there is still a mismatch between the article itself, which is about "Venezuelanalysis.com" the website, and the infobox, which is about "Venezuela Analysis, Inc.," the non-profit organization based in New York. It would be a mistake to conflate the two, especially when, according to the website's 'about' page, Venezuelanalysis.com is as much "a project" of Venezuela Analysis, Inc., as it is of the "Fundación para la Justicia Económica Global", a foundation that is registered in Caracas, Venezuela. This is my concern. Riothero (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, what we have now is a mismatch. The "website" infobox seems more appropriate since this is, after all, an article on a website.  Mbinebri  talk ← 14:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks much better now.--Zfigueroa (talk) 08:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frank J. Gaffney

[edit]

Rather than endlessly revert ourselves, we might as well talk about this. Zfig asserts that Gaffney's claims are valid content, as they've been published by a third-party publisher. Based on Gaffney's tendency toward inflammatory accusations and right-wing conspiracy theories, I consider him a questionable source. The only content of relevance to this article from Gaffney is the idea that VA.com was funded by this now-defunct Venezuelan lobbying organization. But given that it's an allegation within a highly biased other allegation, and that Wilpert's statement on the issue contradicts Gaffney, I feel the info/source fails WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.  Mbinebri  talk ← 19:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The Gaffney material was reverted to reinstate "critical reception", but that's not what it is: it's an outright allegation to both the Venezuelan government and VA. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I didn't see that there were no citations for his claim. I agree that it was just an allegation.--Zfigueroa (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Location of Writers

[edit]

To touch upon Riothero's concerns, I can't find any evidence any of these writers currently live in Venezuela. In fact, Wilpert lives in NY, as does Golinger. I think Ewan Robinson may be in Venezuela however.

"As of 2008" is bologna though. It doesn't help this article in the least to drudge that up if it stands to reason most of the listed contributors are presently in Europe or the US or elsewhere. Pushing this point only gives off the appearance of bias. 75.161.168.132 (talk) 06:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 'evidence' that Venezuelanalysis.com states that "its writers" currently live in Venezuela is the About page, which I referenced in the article. Note the distinction between 'writers', 'contributors', etc. Several individuals listed on the About page (not all of whom are 'writers', presumably) are noted there as currently living in Venezuela. You cite no sources that contradict this, or that support your claim that "'as of 2008' is bologna".--Riothero (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Current Whereabouts of Writers

[edit]

So I can't find any evidence of any of these writers living in Venezuela with exception to Rachel Boothroyd who is providing up to date coverage within Venezuela for Telesur as a local correspondent. (I am screencap'ing all of this.)

AS OF TODAY (10/1/14)

Tamara Pearson who was sadly menaced at gunpoint in February and no longer provides updates for Venezuelanalysis since April. According to her Facebook page, she now lives in Quito, Ecuardor and works for Telesur https://www.facebook.com/tamara.redbird

Ewan Robinson might still be in Merida, but he hasn't written any updates since July. He last did an interview in London about conditions in Venezuela. I did find this though (but its old) http://aberdeenssp.org/category/general-election-2010/

Ryan Mallett Outtrim now lives in Ecuador. https://tohereknowswhenblog.wordpress.com/author/rpmallettouttrim/

Arleen Eisen lives in California http://independent.academia.edu/ArleneEisen and as best as I can tell, NEVER SET FOOT in Venezuela.

Federico Fuentes lives in Bolivia

Jan Kuhn lives in Berlin.

Gregory Wilpert lives in New York of course. (So is Eva Golinger)

Any person who says that Venezuelanalysis's reporters all live in Venezuela is simply put, being patently dishonest. Props to Rachel Boothroyd at least, for sticking it out and doing actual reportage. As best as I can tell, the rest of these contributors have either dropped out, or are armchairing it in the comfort of another nation. 184.100.115.86 (talk) 23:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although you’ve titled this talk page section “current whereabouts of writers”, only some of the people you list were ever “writers” for the site (Jan Kühn, for example, only ever provided technical maintenance), and many of those who did “write” for the site do so no longer. In fact, except for Ewan Robinson (who has written 3 articles in the past week week alone–contrary to your claim that he “hasn’t written any updates since July”), none of the people that you list as “writers” have written for the site in the past month! A more appropriate title for this section would be “current whereabouts of some people who used to be writers, one person who still is, and one who never was”.
What? These are the very people listed on your About page!! 97.127.74.12 (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Tamara Pearson and Ryan Mallett-Outtrim currently live in Quito, Ecuador, is immaterial, since neither of them write for Venezuelanalysis.com any longer (neither has written since April 2014)! And their last articles both indicate they were written whilst the two still resided in Venezuela (Mérida, to be precise).

97.127.74.12 (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC) And how exactly do you know this? I've cited my evidence so cite yours. If you work for Venezuelanalysis you should know Wikipedia has a Conflict of Interest policy. 97.127.74.12 (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arlene Eisen (who you accuse of never having set foot in Venezuela) wrote her last article for the site on July 11th, 2014, from Caracas (like all of her other articles); that article (and many others) includes photos of persons and events that were taken in Caracas by Eisen herself and that credit her as the photograher.
She's currenly in Pomona, California. That's where she works, and that's where she's updating her social media. Are you going to force me to start uploading the screencaps I made of all this? Also, you seem to have some really inside special knowledge of this. Which is creepy. 97.127.74.12 (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


In the last month, the only people who wrote articles for the site have reportedly done so from inside the country: Cory Fischer-Hoffman (from Caracas and Los Teques, Miranda), Z.C. Dutka (from Santa Elena de Uairén and Ciudad Bolivar, Bolívar State), Sascha Bercovitch (from Caracas) and Ewan Robertson (from Mérida).

97.127.74.12 (talk)

Riothero, you can't possibly know all this unless you work for Venezuelanalysis. In which case, you're violating Wikipedia's no conflict policy. 97.127.74.12 (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you can show that those who write for the site do so from outside the country, I am adding back the quote from VA’s ’about page'.--Riothero (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I posted all relevant links to my evidence. You haven't shown yours. 97.127.74.12 (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My 'evidence' lies in the datelines--the brief piece of text located on the first line of new articles, giving the date and place of writing--and bylines of news articles written for Venezuelanalysis.com over the past month. If you browse these articles, you'll find that Cory Fischer-Hoffman has written from Caracas [2][3][4] and Los Teques [5] [6]; Z.C. Dutka, from Santa Elena de Uairén [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] and Ciudad Bolivar [16]; Ewan Robertson, from Mérida [17][18][19]; and Sascha Bercovitch, from Caracas [20][21]. You'll also find that neither Tamara Pearson, nor Ryan Mallett-Outtrim (or anyone else you list, except for Ewan Robertson) currently write for Venezuelanalysis.com.--Riothero (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So there's several individuals I'd like to go through, but in the interest of brevity, I'm going to choose Cory Fischer-Hoffman, whom you claim is in Venezuela because the article's dateline says so.

Now obviously we know that datelines are extremely weak evidence. A report can be filed anywhere with any dateline. But here's what's even more troubling. Cory Fischer-Hoffman currently hosts a bi-monthly local radio program in New York, and is said to live in Germantown, NY.

http://www.wgxc.org/schedule/68

I've dug up more examples to reinforce this, and I'd be happy to post it all. But i'm trying to be nice about people's privacy so far, even if they're acting in the capacity of being public figures. But lets be real: Datelines are very poor evidence. Especially when people's social media profiles all paint a vastly different (and very current) picture of their whereabouts and activities. Also, it's fall right now in the U.S. Being from Venezuela myself, I know what fall looks like in Caracas (and Merida) and it does not look like the east coast of the United States. I'm.just.saying! 97.127.74.12 (talk) 22:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guidestar

[edit]
See also Talk:Venezuelanalysis.com/Archive_1#IRS_stuff

I intended to only format the bare URL, but I am unsure if this text is actually verified by what may be original research:

  • According to GuideStar, Venezuela Analysis is based in Harrison, NY, and is listed as a 501(c)(3) Public Charity.[2][3]

References

  1. ^ Walt Vanderbush (2009). "The Bush Administration Record in Latin America: Sins of Omission and Commission". New Political Science. 31 (3): 337–359. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference AboutVen was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ http://www.guidestar.org/organizations/27-0988701/venezuela-analysis.aspx

I don't really know how to read Guidestar entries, but it looks like they have no info on this org since 2010 ??? If anyone knows how Guidestar works, we may be able to adjust this text accordingly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tellectualin, I still don't know the answer to your edit summary query here. Guidestar says they have no info on them, and they haven't filed IRS returns. We find they are listed with state of NY. I don't understand what this means relative to overall non-profit status in the US, but the text now in the article is original research and should not be in the article until sorted (it was added back by an IP without discussion here ... which is ... edit warring.) We had About Ven as a non-independent source. I am *not* saying they are not a non-profit; I'm saying we don't have a source that is independent and not original research, and I don't understand the Guidestar entry. It would be considerate of the IP to discuss and clarify before re-adding text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not familiar with Guidestar entries (any more than you are). I'll do some searching. In the meantime, feel free to change it back to whatever you think accords with Wikipedia guidelines. -- Tellectualin (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am familiar with Guidestar, and I have never encountered an entry like the one for Venanalysis. Something is strange, but I don't know what. (For an example of a non-profit whose entry I understand, see here.) And, see the note at the bottom of the page: "Institutional funders should note that an organization’s inclusion on GuideStar.org does not satisfy IRS Rev. Proc. 2011-33 for identifying supporting organizations."

I am not going to remove the text again; the IP is edit warring, I will not. It should just be flagged as original research. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ok.. here is what i found using the IRS's Exempt Organizations Select Check: [22].--Tellectualin (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that you've seen this--or at least I don't yet know your opinion. [23] Have changed text in article to accord with information in that New York State Department of Corporations.--Tellectualin (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Tellectualin; if you review the edit history, you will see that is exactly the cite I added when I changed the wording to domestic. I'm not sure we have advanced anything, and we still have an original research muddle. We have something from 2009 and something from 2012-- both our original research-- with two different names and two different locations. We have New York saying Venezuela Analysis, Inc. to Wilpert in New York city, and Guidestar saying VA without the Inc in Harrison. So, we have only a mess of original research still. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VA endorsements

[edit]

SO for the VA endorsements on their website, how do we determine which is more important to show in the article? Right now we have Chomsky, but we also have endorsements by Oliver Stone and Alex Main, the former Venezuela Information Office worker that's at Center for Economic and Policy Research now.--ZiaLater (talk) 11:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ZiaLater, another one? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsements?

[edit]

People like Noam Chomsky are said to have endorsed the site, but the only sources that are cited come from Venezuelan Anaylsis itself. From my research, no other sources seem to back up this notion. I propose that the endorsement section be edited or removed until better sources can be found.

Chloehoey (talk) 04:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Open to other ideas, but not sure about that. Those folks clearly endorsed VA then (as anyone following for years knows); I am not sure we should remove things that people may now want to cover up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any other sources other than Venezuelan Analysis itself that support the notion that people like Noam Chomsky and Oliver Stone have endorsed the site? I don't know if the actual site itself is a reliable source of information. Chloehoey (talk) 06:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's attributed to VA-- not in Wikipedia voice. I have fixed the link. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Venezuelanalysis&oldid=1253546024"