→Banco del Sur: moved from article |
|||
Line 306: | Line 306: | ||
I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Weisbrot&action=historysubmit&diff=340077086&oldid=340012974 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. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 06:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC) |
I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Weisbrot&action=historysubmit&diff=340077086&oldid=340012974 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. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 09:56, 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. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 09:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC) |
||
==Synthesis== |
|||
''moved from article'' |
|||
<blockquote> |
|||
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> |
|||
</blockquote> |
|||
{{reflist}} |
|||
It seems to me that these sentences clearly constitute original research via [[WP:Synthesis|synthesis]], creating a connection between VIO and Weisbrot which is not supported by the original sources. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 10:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:04, 26 January 2010
Biography Unassessed | |||||||
|
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)
- 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)
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)
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,[2] 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)
- 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)
- They're all there,[2] 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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[3] 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)
- 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[3] 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- "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. RayTalk 17:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notification, Rd232; much appreciated! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 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[dubious ][failed verification] 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.[1] 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][2] He has been one of the most widely cited[failed verification] critics of IMF-supported policies in developing countries.[3][dead link][4][dead link][5]
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.[6] Weisbrot has been a critic of IMF-supported policies in developing countries.[7]
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:
- 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".
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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[8]—"coordinates a media response team" that includes "representatives from the Center for Economic Policy and Research";[9] 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".[10]
- ^ CEPR, July 2001. Scorecard on Globalization 1980-2000: 20 Years of Diminished Progress
- ^ CEPR, September 2005. Scorecard on Development: 25 Years of Diminished Progress
- ^ CEPR, October 2009. Macroeconomic Policies and the World Recession: A Look at Forty-One Borrowing Countries
- ^ [dead link]NPR: Marketplace. Scrutinizing the role of the IMF April 24, 2009
- ^ {[dead link] Inter-Press Service. WORLD: IMF Has Long Way to Go – Even After "Istanbul Decisions" October 29, 2009
- ^ CEPR, July 2001. Scorecard on Globalization 1980-2000: 20 Years of Diminished Progress
- ^ CEPR, October 2009. Macroeconomic Policies and the World Recession: A Look at Forty-One Borrowing Countries
- ^ Forero, Juan (September 30, 2004). "Venezuela's government seeks to show that its oil riches are well spent". The New York Times. Retrieved January 24, 2010.
- ^ 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) - ^ 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.
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)