Talk:Human Rights Foundation/Archive 1

Proposed deletion

I've proposed that this article be deleted, because it doesn't contain any suggestion that the organization has done anything that has attracted significant coverage, that is to say, the organization appears not to be notable. All but one of the references in the article is to the organization's own web site, and the one third-party source only mentions the organization in passing. A google news search didn't uncover any significant coverage of the organization, either; given that there's no sign in the article that the organization has actually done anything, it's difficult to know where else to look for sources. So, this seems like a pretty uncontroversial candidate for deletion to me. VoluntarySlave (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proliferation of unsourced material

A large amount of unsourced material has recently been added to this page - I recommend deletion if sources cannot be found. Pexise (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This entry must comply with NPOV and other such policies, for some information is reliant on deeply politicized local sources.Proofknow (talk) 12:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the issue at question here - this section is to discuss the addition of material that has NO sources. If sources are not found for these sections, they will be deleted. Pexise (talk) 13:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are being added. Your contention that electoral observation equals support has to be a) referenced according to WP:RS, b) ditto criticism of HRF electoral observation mission.Proofknow (talk) 13:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed "Support" to "Participation in". The criticism is sourced. Pexise (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you have an axe to grind against the Human Rights Foundation and its work. You have failed to comply to WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and WP:RS, not to mention WP:NOT. I will request semi-protection.Proofknow (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-compliance with NPOV

Many of the edits made in the last couple of days appear to be aimed at bolstering the criticism made of HRF by the government of Bolivia after three years of criticism it has received from HRF. I am on HRF's emil list and know them to be honorable. I think Pexise is outrageous in the way he has been editing this article.Verdadseadicha (talk)

"I subscribe to their emil list and know them to be honorable" is not a reason to delete sourced material that is critical of the organisation. You seem to have an in-depth knowledge of the HRF's finances and financial policies - are you sure your only involvement is as a subscriber? Also, copying text from the HRF website is not suitable for Wikipedia content. Pexise (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Am I more than a subscriber? yes! I believe strongly in human rights and I am simulatenously an endorser of HRF, AI, and HRW. Why must you make it your job to tear people and groups down? What have you ever done for human rights or know about the subject that enables you to speak about this organization and its staff without carefully reading the sources? You are clearly out to damage them. Well, even if I have to come early to work i will address some of your complaints as soon as this page is unlocked. You are very unpleasant to work with and clearly not an "editor" you are a person with a poitn of view who seeks to vandalize in an intellectual way.Verdadseadicha (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Not at all - I have been an editor for nearly 2 years and have made 1,200 edits, mostly on pages relating to human rights. I also believe strongly in human rights and endorse Amnesty International, HRW and many other local human rights organisations. I have carefully read all of the sources and follow this case very closely. HRF is a very dubious organisation with no proven record of human rights advocacy, it is extremely one-sided in its focus and has produced extremely dubious research and been linked to illegal activities - you can't level any of these accusations at AI or HRW. Pexise (talk) 08:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe so much in human rights and you endorse Amnesty and HRW, how could you possibly be unaware of the criticism that has been made against those very organizations? Is it not true that accusations of links to Pinochet have been levelled against HRW's director? How can you argue that HRF has a very dubious, one-sided record, when evidence suggest otherwise? In what reputable sources are you basing your opinions? Your bias has been exposed by others already, so I suggest you stick to Wiki policies and stop POV-pushing.Proofknow (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there are accusations against HRW with relaible sources to back them up, of course I support their inclusion on the HRW page.

HRW is accused by the Venezuelan government of being CIA agents..oh, HRF is accused of the same thing by the Cuban government. HRW is accused by none other than the president of Colombia of being accomplices of the FARC. HRF is accused by the Bolivian government o being CIA agents. If you don't think there is an unmistakable analogy here then I submit that you are deliberately biased here...Verdadseadicha (talk)

I suggest we include the following source in the article: [1] Pexise (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ABI is a government mouthpiece. It runs the press releases of the Bolivian government. It is not a news agency.Verdadseadicha (talk)

It's a perfectly valid source. Pexise (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also suggest a new section for criticism of the HRF report on lynchings in Bolivia, using this source: [2] Pexise (talk) 15:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's a blog, not a news article. It doesn't work. Check wiki rules.Verdadseadicha (talk)

AIN is a valid source, however, if it makes you happy, here's an alternative source for the same article. Pexise (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the above, here's HRF's response to Daniel Goldstein's criticism. Letter to Spero News in response to Daniel M. Goldstein

It has been reported in Bolivian press that Marcelo Sosa, the prosecutor in charge of investigating the alleged terrorist cell, has got 8 penal cases against him pending, according to senators Roger Pinto and Walter Guiteras. Fiscal que investiga presunto terrorismo tiene ocho procesos penales Surely this conflict of interests merits mention.Proofknow (talk) 10:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proofknow, you should simply give up. Pexise is only interested in seeing things that are CRITICAL. Any fair use of sources is deemed a violation of his bias policy.Verdadseadicha (talk)

The HRF response letter makes the same fundamental errors of their report: trying to link two completely separate issues, lynch mobs and communcal justice. It also includes outright distortions - it says, for example: "We wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Goldstein that the dramatic increase in mob lynching, since Evo Morales became president, is not a product of the government party's philosophy or activities." - can you point out exactly where Mr Goldstein said that mob lynching has increased since Evo Morales became president? If not, I'll assume you agree that HRF distorts the truth. Pexise (talk) 12:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism by Mr. Goldstein was duly noted and addressed. If Mr. Goldstein's view is to be included, surely HRF's reply must also be included. Please upgrade your command of WP:DUE, WP:NPOV and WP:ASF.

It seems you two are focused on splitting hairs. That is fine by me, as long as EVERY hair is included down to the very last detail. Let the article be 10,000 words if need be. Let the readers get the full story.

I propose inclusion of the fact that the HRF was denied consultative status by the UN Economic and Social Council. This is included in the following source [3]. Let me know if you find any others sources where this is mentioned. Pexise (talk) 14:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a UN source for the denial of consultative status: [4]. Pexise (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a slightly different glean: [5]

Now that's a blog. Pexise (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and another view--from the U.S. government:[6] The decision was voted against by New Zealand, Japan, Netherlands, United Kingdom, Belgium, Israel, Peru, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Korea, and, of course, the United States. Siding with the denial club were Cuba, Sudan, Venezuela, Pakistan, Angola, China, Egypt, and Russia, among other countries whose own records on human rights remain suspect. I agree with Pexise that this fact--with a full roll call of the votes--needs to be included so that readers can appreciate that democracies voted to give the people at HRF consultative status while countries like China, Angola, Sudan, and Cuba voted to deny them.Verdadseadicha (talk)

And that's a government press release. Pexise (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pexise, government sources do seem to meet your criteria when they advance your POV. If you are to quote from ABI and other such sources from Bolivia, I do not see why you should have an issue with US government's press releases. I must agree with Verdadseadicha here. Perhaps the best route is to report your POV-pushing? I am not expecting a straight answer but, what have you got against HRF?Proofknow (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it wasn't a valid source - I was merely pointing out some overt hipocrisy. Pexise (talk) 16:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am in agreement with including information on the rejection by the UN Economic and Social Council of the HRF request to be granted consultative status. Of crucial importance in this is to highlight the fact that it was Cuba, a country ruled by a dictator since 1959, that was kicked out of the Organization of American States many years ago for obvious reasons, which led the lobby against the HRF. Of equal relevance is that "several delegations said there was no precedent for rejecting an application so quickly" in the 62 years of that committee.Explanation of vote by Robert S. Hagen, Deputy U.S. Representative to the Economic and Social Council, on Agenda Item 12: Non-governmental organizations, Draft Decision II in document E/2008/L.9, at the ECOSOC General Segment, July 21, 2008. Tellingly the countries that voted against HRF are, for the most part, systematic violators of human rights.Proofknow (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat: The HRF letter says: "We wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Goldstein that the dramatic increase in mob lynching, since Evo Morales became president, is not a product of the government party's philosophy or activities." - can you point out exactly where Mr Goldstein said that mob lynching has increased since Evo Morales became president? If not, I'll assume you agree that HRF distorts the truth. Pexise (talk) 16:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please revise WP:SYN and WP:AGF. Thanks.Proofknow (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume your refusal to answer this question means you agree that the HRF distorts the truth. Pexise (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have read everything you have written on this and I do not see how they distort the truth. I do, however, see that you are hell bent on wreaking havoc on them. i wonder why. hmmmmVerdadseadicha (talk)

Please be WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and refrain from ad-hominem attacks. Pexise (talk) 08:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit rich for you Pexise to demand from others to refrain from ad-hominen attacks when you have written "I assume your refusal to answer this question means you agree that the HRF distorts the truth" only two lines above. I don't know about the rest, but I don't have to answer any of your questions, rather I shall content myself to provide RS-complying information to this entry. I suggest you do the same and start editing according to Wiki policy.Proofknow (talk) 15:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That, my friend, is not an ad-hominem attack - read the article in the link. And I'm still waiting for an answer to my question - I know the answer is no, and you will have to concede that a) HRF made a serious mistake. b) HRF is lying or c) HRF blatantly manipulates information to promote its political agenda. Pexise (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where can HRF be faulted in this respect. Mind you, it produced a report about how a wrongful interpretation, by some, of community justice has produced an increase in lynchings and other forms of brutal punishments. Then Mr Goldstein argued that HRF had mistaken lynching with community justice, which, according to HRF reply, it never did. Mr Goldstein does say that lynchings "are not a product of the MAS’s rise to power, but have been frequent occurrences in Bolivia since at least 1995, when I began studying them in Cochabamba", hence HRF's statement in agreement with Mr Goldstein, who also admits that the HRF is correct in depicting lynching as "mob rule". The gist of HRF's argument seems to me to be an alert call to Bolivian authorities about the perils of placing in the same constitutional footing community and regular justice, given the creative interpretation that mobs give to the system. But more worrying is the fact that President Evo Morales has declared his support for lashings. Now that, my friend, is in clear violation to the international treaties signed by Bolivia, and President Morales, as the head of that nation, should retract such reprehensible views.Proofknow (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are quite wrong about this - Mr Goldstein precisely says that lynchings "are not a product of the MAS’s rise to power" because this is what is implied by the HRF report. He then says that lynchings "have been frequent occurrences in Bolivia since at least 1995". The HRF response letter says, and I quote: "We wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Goldstein that the dramatic increase in mob lynching, since Evo Morales became president, is not a product of the government party's philosophy or activities." Evo Morales became president in 2006, not 1995.

Regardless, what should be added to the article is details of Mr Goldstein's criticisms, and a mention of the fact that HRF responded. Pexise (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pexise, this is really silly, but indicative of your line of reasoning: if you can't differentiate a government's party, or its philosophy, from that of Evo MOrales, if you can't distinguish between mobs wrongly acting under the umbrella of community justice and more noble purposes of conflict resolution of that system, then this conversation is entirely pointless. We do not know what MAS' position is in all this, but we do know what Evo Morales' is: he supports lashings. The HRF has criticised, and rightly so in my opinion, Evo Morales. The fact that he has personally expressed his support for lashings is enough evidence of his utter disregard for human rights, regardless of your impassionate defences.

BTW please visit WP:DUE, I mean, you should be familiar with that, and other, policies. Mr Goldstein's criticism should be given exactly the same amount of attention than that of HRF's position on the matter: read no more, no less. For the umpteenth time, I suggest you stop POV-pushing. If you have embarked in a personal crusade against HRF, have at least the presence of mind to accept 1) that there are other equally valid views that merit inclusion on same basis; 2) that if criticism is to be included, no particular piece of it should command a leading role over others; 3) that HRF has been subject of fierce criticism, not only by governments on the left side of the political divide but also by those on the right; 4) that the views of subjects of criticism should be appraised under an appropriate light.Proofknow (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YOu are wrong here - Human Rights Foundation has issued completely false statements that do precisely what you say, confusing the promotion of community justice with lynching. This is from the HRF website: "Lashing, crucifixion and other forms of corporal punishment would be legal in a new constitution proposed by the government of Bolivian President Evo Morales." and "Twenty-eight (28) reported cases include instances of women buried alive for adultery and additional episodes of angry mobs raiding town halls and police headquarters to take justice into their own hands. Because the authorities fear confronting those who carry out such barbaric practices, the perpetrators of communal justice are neither prosecuted under ordinary law, nor made accountable for their crimes."

This article on the HRF should not be made up of material from the HRF website or their own material - that is using a primary source in this case (you saw that the section on finances was deleted).

Human Rights Foundation is a highly political organisation, with a right-wing agenda. It has published countless reports about Cuba, Bolivia, Venezuela and Ecuador, and just one about the worse human rights violator in the region: Colombia. It has no credibility whatsoever. And they are accused of financing of mercenary groups in Bolivia. Pexise (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your objectivity display Pexise, I guess what's only left form me to do, in light of your libellous remarks, is to recourse to arbitration.Proofknow (talk) 10:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry about the mistake above - I have now corrected the statement to say they "are accused of financing mercenary groups in Bolivia". Pexise (talk) 12:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* I am still waiting for one of you to answer this question: I repeat: The HRF letter says: "We wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Goldstein that the dramatic increase in mob lynching, since Evo Morales became president, is not a product of the government party's philosophy or activities." - can you point out exactly where Mr Goldstein said that mob lynching has increased since Evo Morales became president? Pexise (talk) 08:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC) I respectfully request that slander and politically motivated "editing" made by "contributors" like the one with the corporate IP would be better watched, that kind of misleading activity is clearly political. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paratrooper73 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section

Important piece of criticism by over 25 established human rights organisations in Bolivia: to be added to the criticism section. Pexise (talk) 09:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a RS-compliant source. Please visit WP:RS and WP:OR.Proofknow (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the Reliable Source Noticeboard. Pexise (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed a reliable source - take it up on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if you want to dispute it. Pexise (talk) 16:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case here's another source carrying the same statement. Pexise (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not found references to criticism of it by right wing Governments who probably arent even aware of it's existance. There is abundant criticism from the Cuban,Venezuelan, and Bolivian Governments.Cathar11 (talk) 18:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finances section

{{editprotected}} Can you remove the web address, and the unsourced passages as indicated below? Pexise (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This section is largely copied and pasted from the HRF website and is completely unsourced. Serious re-write needed: Pexise (talk) 11:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HRF's annual financial reports are available at the website of www.guidestar.org. Web addresses shouldn't be included in wikipedia content. There are no financial reports for HRF on that website. HRF does not publish its donor list. HRF states: "We do not receive funding from any government. Any donation or grant accepted by HRF is done with a categorical understanding that the foundation is free to research and investigate regardless of where such investigations may lead or what conclusions HRF may reach. We encourage funding from anyone who cares about human freedom and we do not discriminate in accepting donations. If an individual or foundation has contributed to HRF’s work, this does not mean HRF necessarily endorses said individual or foundation’s views or opinions. In plain language: We are grateful, privileged, and proud that we receive support; it means our mission and work are being endorsed. This does not, however, mean we endorse the views of those who support us. This is a large passage copied directly from the HRF website

Like most grant-receiving service organizations, we do not publish the names of our donors. However, we would like to be transparent about why this is so: Some funders do not wish to be known due to fear of retaliation, others do not wish to be known because they do not want to be approached by other groups or organizations soliciting for donations, and still others do not wish to be known because they may, ultimately, disagree with the decisions and public statements of HRF. We do, however, offer any donor the possibility of being recognized on our website and in our publications if they choose to be." [7] It appears this is in line with practices of other major Human Rights organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. completely unsourced and false claim, the other orgs mentioned publish annual reports and accounts which are widely available

Done I have removed the entire section as a copyright violation.--Aervanath (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New material to add

I propose a new section on the questions of legality of HRF's operations in Bolivia. As well as the sources above, here is an additional source it looks like an investigation is to follow shortly. Pexise (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good source to add in the legality of operations in Bolivia section, and in the external links section. Pexise (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no questions about the legality of HRF's operations in Bolivia: the government has made an accusation that turned out to be untrue Human Rights desmiente al viceministro Llorenti Proofknow (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No: the HRF denied the accusations and presented a document registering them with the Santa Cruz prefecture. The government replied that in order to operate legally in the country, they need to be registered with the Foreign Ministry (as a foreign organisation). This article is posterior to the one you have presented. Pexise (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The government has argued that HRF Bolivia is a foreign organization and therefore needs to be registered with the Foreign Ministry. Only problem with that argument is that HRF Bolivia is not a foreign organization, but a fully independent Bolivian organization, formed and operated by Bolivians or Bolivian residents, in strict observance to Bolivian law HRF Bolivia website Proofknow (talk) 17:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So we can agree that there is a dispute about the legality of HRF's operations in Bolivia then? Pexise (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for section on autonomy referendum observation

This is the proposed version for this section: Pexise (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not acceptable, doesn't belong here. If you want to criticise the legality of the referendum you should do so in its own entry, not here. Stop POV-pushing.Proofknow (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you suggest improving the section? Pexise (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have already edited the section to reflect the facts. The HRF participated, as observers, in an electoral process. Arguing that observing an election is akin to legitimise a process is preposterous, for it could not reasonably be sustained that the HRF has the capacity to legitimise, through its participation, democratic processes in sovereign countries where it carries its work. Your issue with the legality of the referendum does not belong in this entry.Proofknow (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the whole point is that the process was not democratic because it VIOLATED THE BOLIVIAN CONSITUTION. And it was not sovereign process - the national, sovereign government declared it ILLEGAL, as did the NATIONAL ELECTORAL COURT. Santa Cruz department is not a sovereign entity. HRF's involvement was a pretence to make the referendum appear legitimate. Pexise (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It matters little your use of bold Pexise, criticism of the legality of the referendum belongs in the entry of the referendum, not in HRF's page. End of the story.Proofknow (talk) 09:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you present your alternative version here? Pexise (talk) 20:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My version,which is not new, is here: [[8]].Proofknow (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Participation in autonomy referendum in Bolivia

The Human Rights Foundation was criticized for sending observers to the local referendum on autonomy which took place in Santa Cruz in May 2008. This was perceived as an attempt to legitimise the referendum which had been declared illegal and unconstitutional by the National Electoral Court.^[1]^[2]^[3] The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights stated in its annual human rights report that the referendums: "took place even though the National Electoral Court ruled that the prefectures did not have the authority to call for such a vote and that they were infringing the Constitution." ^[4] A United Nations mission to Bolivia from the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues later declared that the Santa Cruz autonomy statute "promotes, allows, strengthens and reproduces practices of servitude", referring to conditions of debt-servitude and conditions analagous to slavery that are suffered by some indigenous groups in Santa Cruz.^[5] Bartolomé Clavero, a Spanish law professor from the Permanent Forum later stated that: "Anyone who has voted for this statute supports servitude."^[6]

Sugar Babes film

Can anybody confirm HRF's invovement in this. The only source I could find makes no mention of it. It seems to be a personal project of Thor Halversen. It's budget of $150,000 was raised from various sources and it wasn't commissioned by them.Cathar11 (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Review Symposium on Augusto Pinochet

This is another personal Thor Halvorsen project and should be deleted Cathar11 (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy in Bolivia

Please note no additional information is required to an allegation and rebuttal. ASnything else is Soapox and Political Grandstanding.Cathar11 (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Cathar11 hiding relevant info and misleading the readers is of no use for Wikipedia purposes, if u have a side that u support that's fine but don't do that using this tool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paratrooper73 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC) You are pushing a POV that is irrelvant to this entry. I have left your unofficial and entered alleged and included a denial. That is sufficent period. Nothing else is relevant on the HRF page unless they produce a report on it. Please Note NPOV "Impartial tone Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone, otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cathar11 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Cathar11 ur position is unfair and lacks impartiality, u pretend that PROVED information regarding blatant violation of human rights that served as the base for a frame case against HRF Bolivia built by bolivian government is POV but u took this info as granted until I uncover ur actions. This does not complain with the very same principles u try to hid behind.Besides there is a report on this that have already been submitted and u discarded it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paratrooper73 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cathar there is no such thing as a State Prosecutor,in this case, Marcelo Sosa was legally retired from the case which was sent under the legal control of Edwin tapia Pachi judge of Santa Cruz, Sosa has been maintained only by the political decision of the MAS and his superior Fiscal Gutierrez is now under investigation for corruption, Mr acha and all the other persons persecuted by morales have not been even legally notified, by the way u r trying to hide the fact that current evidence has uncovered that this was a murder ordered by Morales himself (Go look the videos r available on the web). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.244.164.194 (talk) 01:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is just POV. All Bolivian National papers eg, La Razon or La Prensa and the parliamentery commission refer to Soza as the prosecutor. Your viewpoint is POV and unsubstantiated.Cathar11 (talk) 01:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

False, legal sentence already passed and recognized Santa Cruz Court of Justice Jurisdiction, Sosa is only reffered by the MAS representative, by the way, there are TWO different reports made by the commision (Which was splitted) why r u refferring only to one sided statements ? that is not only POV but slandering somebody's name is a felony —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.244.164.194 (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that La Razon has been bought by the Venezuelan Government (Check Vacaflor article in El Deber), la Razon and La Prensa r only two of around fifty bolivian newspapers, the next thing u will suggest is taking ABI or Patria Nueva as the only valid sources, come on, I respect fair corrections like the Valladares resignation and the political bias one but in all the others u r bordering the illegal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.244.164.194 (talk) 02:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Venezuelan media group Cisneros ,(which is higly critical of the Venezuelan Govt.), purchased La Razon. Arrest warrants to interview Acha are outstanding. [9]. La Prensa and La Razon are National newspapers as opposed to regional ones. Statement made by politicans about withdrawal of evidence are not factual or reliable as they are third party.

Newspapers report 4 resigned.[10] Anything else is OR. The newspaper says honorary more OR. Acha being in the US or that he is not returning to face the charges I will leave out. There are WP:RS for this. I also didn't put in that he is a former State Department official.[11]

I will restore Granma and attributei the text to them as appropriate for a secondary source. It is their viewpoint.

If you want to make changes please do so using WP:RS and not WP:OR.Cathar11 (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One lie after another. First Cisneros group already denied in an official statement that they purchased La Razon Just to prove it please read El Diario 19 octubre 2009: Ante una versión insistente Grupo empresarial Cisneros niega compra de La Razón (ANF).- La Organización Cisneros, que es un conglomerado de compañías pertenecientes al magnate venezolano Gustavo Cisneros, negó ayer la compra de acciones del diario “La Razón” de Bolivia. The purchase was made by Venezuela's government using an intermediary Please read El Deber 19 noviembre 2009: El ex consultor externo del diario La Razón Humberto Vacaflor reveló anoche, en el programa No Mentirás, que el empresario venezolano Carlos Gil compró el medio paceño por un valor de $us 15 millones. El analista, despedido el lunes luego de que el domingo no se publicara su columna, titulada La Pachamama puede esperar, informó de que se ocupaba de escribir los editoriales de los sábados, domingos y lunes desde 2001. Ayer, La Razón informó en sus páginas editoriales que Comunicaciones El País decidió concluir la relación contractual con Vacaflor por el inciso 4 de su contrato: “Si el consultor externo incurre en cualquier acto o hecho, por acción u omisión, que perjudicare o afectare directamente los servicios objeto del presente contrato”. La nota refiere, además, que nunca se censuró su columna en el tiempo que trabajó en La Razón. Anoche, Vacaflor aseguró que “además de pensar libremente” no sabe qué pudo haber hecho para ofender al diario paceño. Añadió que desde hace dos meses, ‘cuando fue comprado por capitales venezolanos’, estaba incómodo porque trabajaba para un diario boliviano con dueños venezolanos. Relató que el domingo La Razón no publicó su columna y que un día después le anunció su despido. “Primero me censuran y después me despiden”, graficó Vacaflor y añadió que ganaba Bs 6.000 mensuales. “Me halaga que hubieran pagado $us 15 millones sólo para que deje de escribir en La Razón”, matizó. También cuestionó la fuente del dinero de la compra del diario, que antes pertenecía al Grupo Prisa, de España. Aseguró que hay palos blancos bolivianos en la transacción y que Gil está “muy vinculado a Hugo Chávez”. Se refirió también a la compra de la red ATB y dijo que es de otro venezolano, Jordan Silva, que era trabajador de Gil, pero que ahora está peleado con él. Usando como fuente el blog Siglo XXI, aseguró que uno de los socios de los venezolanos es posiblemente Álvaro García Linera. “Hay una potencia económica en manos del Vicepresidente y de su hermano”, concluyó. Second the withdrawal of evidence was not made by any politicians it was made by the former "Witnesses" trough their lawyers. Third. There is no citation nor notification against Mr acha or any of the persons mentioned in the statements that were withdrawn, because the supreme court gave the jurisdiction to Santa Cruz, Tapia pachi is the person in charge, and the only one authorized legally. He has not released any citation or warrant, for the current legal situation please Check El Deber 04 septiembre 2009: La ministra de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, Rosario Canedo, respaldó ayer el fallo de la Sala Penal Primera de la Corte Superior de Distrito de Santa Cruz, que dejó el caso Rózsa en manos del juez octavo de instrucción cautelar, Luis Tapia Pachi. Fourth Mrs gueiler IS the president of HRF Bolivia she has already presided meetings of the organization you are taking as reference an article but attepmting to ignore the official document. In conclusion, if you think that living in Ireland or being a sympathizer of a determined political ideology gives you the right to lie and slander you are wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.244.164.194 (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If HRF Bolivia is an independent foundation it has no relevance to HRF article.Cathar11 (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shame on you, now that u have been proved as a blatant liar u r trying to slip away with this argument, the notion of institutional association rings any bell? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.244.164.194 (talk) 23:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC) Caught redhanded uh? that doesnt look like an impartial editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.244.164.194 (talk) 23:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC) very interestingly u didnt need any "sources" to verify my info in the "independence" subject :) . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.244.164.194 (talk) 23:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop making edits that dont agree with sources. You claim it is seperate but partdoesnt make sense. This was what HRF Boliviaq said: HRF-Bolivia coopera en su accionar con la fundación homónima con sede en Nueva York, Human Rights Foundation, con la que la une un convenio de colaboración, al igual que con una decena de ONGs latinoamericanas nucleadas en la Unión de Organizaciones Democráticas de América (Unoamérica). Sin embargo, no recibe financiamiento de ninguna fuente externa, siendo realizadas todas sus acciones con el exclusivo aporte de sus miembros, en carácter de voluntariado. Should it be put on UnoAmerica too?Cathar11 (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop ur attempts of slander, there is no contradiction, if u dont speak spanish request a proper traslation, the first sentence of ur own post states that both institutions r linked, a copy of the official constitution document of HRF have been publicized but u r trying to keep slandering, I have offered u even a direct contact with one of the persons u falsely acussed of having resigned, for Gods sake is the same as ur blatant attemt of using granma as a cuban government official source which is not, granma is (According with their own statement)ÓRGANO OFICIAL DEL COMITÉ CENTRAL DEL PARTIDO COMUNISTA DE CUBA So there is the only truth. It IS the POV of a political party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.244.164.194 (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC) Moreover u r accesing the blog of the three people that RESIGNED and inthere they clearly state that those r their POVs, HRF Bolivia NEVER was associated with UNOAMERICA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.244.164.194 (talk) 23:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC) You r really doing something illegal, u r trying to smear persons, I think that I should try to contact them because ur actions r well beyond academic debate u r commiting a felony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.244.164.194 (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please learn how wikipedia works, WP:RS means relying on external sources. OR is knowing something. I am not Privy to HRF Bolivia documents. They are OR unless published ny RS. It can be attributed as their view if published elsewhere. The Granmareference is a valid criticism and attributed solely to them.Cathar11 (talk) 00:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cathar11 You are lying again, ABI, the blog of former members without relations to HRF now, La Razon (Which I have shown you evidence of its current situation) are nor reliable sources, I have reffered every single one of my posts to sources, moreover if you bother to check the situation of this case today you will find on any impartial newspaper in Bolivia that a huge amount of evidence have been uncovered that reveal the government responsability in this case, you would find also that there are current research against Morales administration for he same case and that the representatives of morales party rushed their report in a desperate attempt to close the investigation. So if you want the truth first you have to stay away from taking sides. If u noticed I have not rejected your claims about Mr llorenti position or the fact that there was a resignation from a substantial part (3 out of 7) of the members of that organization, that is to remain impartial,you should try to do the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.244.164.194 (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC) regarding your attempt of presenting granma as a valid source is like attempting to present pravda (During the URSS)as a noncommunist one, come on lets be serious, political POV is POV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.244.164.194 (talk) 00:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Granma is a valid source for their view. Yes it is a POV It doesnt pretend to be otherwise. It is a POV criticsm which is valid in the context. I would be worried if the WSJ quoyed it as anything other than that. Your sources were quoted as factual and not a viewpoint whereas when you read the source you see it is a claim expressed by a politican that is not NPOV. Any quotes from La Razon are before their change of ownership. The paper is still critical of the Morales Govt. ON HRF Bolivia an interim stage was a collective four membership leadership who resigned. This might give rise to the confusion. The collective leadership noted that formal meetings etc hadnt occured since the foundation of the body. Not notable for Wikipedia.Cathar11 (talk) 00:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So if I take La estrella del Oriente (Hard right wing newspaper from santa cruz) would be right? NO, POV is POV, regarding the alleged resignation the only source was the letter released by the three people who actually resigned, have you noticed that in their blog there is no ther reference to Mr Cuellar? that is because on a public press conference he stated that he didnt sign any resignation (Check PAT or UNITEL or Cadena A or ATB Archives), the attempt of this three persons propelled by an understandable fear was later diminished when they developed a new agenda, for instance Mrs reck became a candidate (Check the official list at CNE.org.bo, and then having that this resignation could be harmful for her current goals rushed to declare that it was a political persecution (Check any newspaper in Bolivia), regarding granma well is like if I pretended to take any statement made by the cuban exile community source that states that Mr morales is nothing but a clown of hugo chavez, come on Cathar gimme a break, again POV IS POV and u should be the first to comply with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.244.164.194 (talk) 00:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Cathar the removal of the information about Mr sosa that u performed labelling it as "libelous" is not correct chek this info and check official database of the Fiscalia General de Bolivia. http://www.lostiempos.com/diario/actualidad/nacional/20090507/fiscal-que-investiga-presunto-terrorismo-tiene-ocho-procesos-penales-en-su_6311_10601.html And u will find that he IS accused and charged in eigth trials including one for Rape and assault. this is not only not POV but Im giving you the sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.244.164.194 (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Cathar11 is doing thesame thing on Rozsa page and on Dwyer article, personal POV and automatic discredit to any editor labor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paratrooper73 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP POV-push

An editor has used up my 3 reverts... editor is removing sources because they conflict with the editor's personal knowledge, it appears. Warned the editor. Someone else will have to restore the content if it is to be restored.- Sinneed 03:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please check your sources, this is a main source moreover it is the only official reference for the matter, therefore a most reputable source, pretend otheriwse is just supporting Cathar11 slander and it is against Wikipedia principles. Check http://www.tribunalconstitucional.gob.bo/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.244.164.194 (talk) 15:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to be spedcific and cease damaging articles. Removing of cited references and mentioning an OR source is against WP policy. I remind ypu of civility requirement. Let me give you a hint the article says the Bolivian Government said the 2008 referendum was illegal. Find an RS that says the opposite and put it in as a counterbalancing argument. Blind deletion even in Good faith is tantamount to vandalism.2nd Hint a website is not a source. Find the page within it that backs up what you say.Cathar11 (talk) 15:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the POV-push about the President. He said it. If you object to his statement, take it up with him.

Added a CN flag for the unsourced "but was never declared illegal by the only government branch able to do so, the Tribunal constitucional de Bolivia (Judiciary)" - the link to the web site does not help... you need a source that says:

it was the only body that can make the declaration
that it never did.

I won't leave this bit of OR in long. Warning you again. Read and understand wp:V, wp:NPOV.- Sinneed 15:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting to soften the language with "some claim" does not help... it is still wp:OR. That was a good compromise offer, Cathar11, but it wouldn't help, and the anon editor killed it anyway.- Sinneed 22:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting what seems to be censorship.

I plan on reverting this deletion later today unless the sources are shown to fail wp:V or that the content is not there (I quoted it, it is.) or some other problem. Any objections?- Sinneed 16:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The quote, I added the second part, is ironic in some ways as it comes from the head of a interparty government investigation. I have also had a problem with getting references deleted. shrieks of slander etc. When i produce stories from the papers of record in Bolivia about Hugo Acha being sought for questioning. I will reintroduce these. I have always been fair and said his alleged links. It is ridiculous to insert alleged about the armed group of Eduardo Rosza Flores. Irregular is the politist euphemism for what this group were from all the available RS. This person obviously is or was a member of HRF Bolivia. He/She contradicts published sources with OR. eg. Published sources state 4 of the founding memers resigned- insist on 3. An 88 year old ex acting Pres of Bolivia is appointed Honourary President. He/She insists its not honourary despite what the RS says. Theres more but too much time allready wasted on these people and their irrelevant pseudo NGO organisation.Cathar11 (talk) 17:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"This person obviously is or was a member of HRF Bolivia. He/She contradicts published sources with OR. eg. Published sources state 4 of the founding memers resigned- insist on 3. An 88 year old ex acting Pres of Bolivia is appointed Honourary President. He/She insists its not honourary despite what the RS says." - Please remember to wp:assume good faith. I had a good friend in college who was adamant that corporations existed to "keep the little man down", and had sources to prove it. He had no secret agenda and was entirely sincere. He honestly believed that the WSJ, NYT, etc. were under the control of the "establishment" and only the fringe sources were reliable, but of course they did not have the great resources the others did, and any errors were from that or disinformation from the establishment.- Sinneed 17:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I will bear and assume good faith, but please look at [12] and tell me if good faith is being shown to me. I am not a felon nor could any of my edits ever be construed as slander.Cathar11 (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well well, Cathar11 I am not a member of HRF (Bolivia or international), but since you r stating here that u r willing to keep slandering I will do my best to contact them specially Mr Acha , given that without proof, evidence or legal basis you r declaring ur intentions openly, I wonder if u would be so reckless if this was ur name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.244.164.194 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sinneed I have not been engaged in vandalism, and I dont have a personal interest on this matter but the POV and violations not only of WP principles but basic decency were violated with some content that was displayed here, regarding ur request Im more than willing to fulfill it, but it seems u have not read the sources I have provided so far, one is the official page of the TCB and the other the official page of the Asamblea Constituyente, both clearly states the one and only Government branch able to declare any referendum as illegal is the TCB, by the way President Morales has stated today that he never opposed Santa Cruz autonomy, interesting dont u agree? here is the link if u want to check it http://www.eldeber.com.bo/2009/2009-12-02/vernotaahora.php?id=091202190149 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.244.164.194 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few points 1, the el deber article mentioned above doesnt say Morales never opposed Santa Cruz autonomy. 2. The TCB pages do not state what you say. 3. Asamblea Constituyente website is organised as a blog with diferent opinions. It is not as far as I can determine an official site. It resides on a shared server with 90 other domains and is registered to a Puerto Rican company. It as such does not appear to be an RS. It has various articles on it. The one you directed to is an opinion pieces not a news items. This persons oppinion could possibly be attributed to him but not as a statement of fact. Your other source does not back up the statement made. If I find an RS that agrees with you I will insert it.Cathar11 (talk) 02:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few answers, and again if u dont speak spanish plz request a proper translation. 1. Of course morales stated that I was hearing the speech myself u can hear that too on Radionoticias Bolivia if u want, evenmore the El Deber did a little misprint mixing Morales words with those of garcia Linera but that doesnt makes any difference given the fact that both are the executive branch of the government, and I quote Morales said in Santa Cruz "que desde el Gobierno siempre se apoyó la autonomía en la región" El deber yesterday. A few weeks ago "el presidente del Estado Plurinacional, Evo Morales, ponderó la iniciativa de los que apostaron por la autonomía" check bolpress, of course a few months ago he was adamant against the autonomy "Tiquipaya (Cochabamba), 25 de septiembre.- El presidente boliviano Evo Morales alertó este miércoles sobre las intenciones independentistas de algunos prefectos de la oposición con el planteamiento de incluir en la nueva Constitución Política del estado (CPE) la autonomía departamental plena" on a speech given in Cochabamba surprinsingly enough now his representative in the same city now states that autonomy is good and I quote “Es la primera vez que oposición y oficialismo estamos con el mismo discurso por la autonomía departamental”, manifestó el delegado prefectural para las autonomías, Marco Carrillo. /ANF, that doesnt surprise me given the fact that president Morales himself also stated that we should forget all he said because the important thing is what he is actually saying now, politics maybe?.

2. The TCB site clearly states on the first three articles that the TCB is the one and only instance qualified to pronounce any law or proccess as constitutional or legal, it has control over all the other branches and above any citizen action that can be disputed about its legality and lawfulness, the second one is a sentence and u probably dont know that TCB sentences r automatically taken as Law which provides them with a higher hierarchy to any act made by the executive branch that are called decretos. 3. Funny that site was (The constituyente is not working anymore) the discussion official site and that article appeared on the Constituyente Papers published by the Bolivian congress, his author wrote by direct request of Mrs Lazarte the Constituyente president, his name is Bernardo Wayar and he is the president of the Bolivian Lawyers Bar. u r again going way out of balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.244.164.194 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you are aware that Morales is referring to the 2009 constitution and not to the 2008 referendum. You have not produced a RS yet for your original research that says it was legal. It cant be that dificult surely.Cathar11 (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wp:TLDR - A review seems to indicate that the censoring editor agrees that the statement was made, but that its inclusion requires wp:BALANCE. Restoring the content. And yes, its repeated removal because you don't wp:LIKE it not appropriate. Yes, please provide the quotes. Again, if you don't know how, simply provide them here. Ideally, since this is EN WP, the quotes would include translations, but that isn't needful. I can address that.- Sinneed 16:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sinneed plz check my previous post, as I said Im not interested in distorting facts moreover I have not disputed some issues that can clearly be taken as POV but providing a source where my point is not only proven but officially supported by law and having Cathar11 trying to ignore it baselessly is not really a proof of fairness.

Cathar u clearly ignore the basics of bolivian real

ity, Firts Im perfectly aware that Mr morales IS referring to the 2008 referendum, moreover its results were supposed to be inserted on the 2009 Constitution which Morales said was made. by the way, are u aware that this sunday elections in Bolivia r not only for electing president and congress but also for the remaining five states (Departamentos) of bolivia which didnt voted for its autonomy in 2008? so if santa Cruz referendum (As well as Tarija, Beni, Pando) were illegal or have been declared as such why it is that they r recognized in the 2009 constitution? why it is that there is no voting on those four states (Departamentos)? ur request is pointless and ur obvious sympathy for Mr Morales position and senseless defense of his acts makes me wonder if ur true reasons r there and not in HRF content.

Just to provide u plz dont attempt to ignore this, this is the law signed by morales himself that recognizes the legal framework and calls for the referendum only in the remaining five departamentos if u dont want to read it completely just go to the Title Six chapter 1 art. 72 http://www.cne.org.bo/PadronBiometrico/normas/Ley4021_14042009.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.244.164.194 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to look for WP:RS. Use Google. Use advanced options to limit to dates around the referendum or a date where you think n appropriate quote might be. Insert search words in Spanish perhaps? Ive tried in english and spanish but still havent found a ref to back up your statement. I did try. This isnt to say they dont exist.Cathar11 (talk) 17:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did u read the law? did u read that articles? what else do u want? by the way did u check that only the TCB is the only authority who could have pronounced any valid statement about the constitutional and legal value of this as well as some other proccesses being held? u r just trying to justify a position that morales himself has already dropped. Cathar11 if u want to be on a real balanced opinion try this, go to TCB page (U already have it) ther is a search engine so how about U try to get any sentence passed by TCB against the 2008 referendums? u will find none and by the way r u now aware that TCB is the only legal source or u will insist in unsustained criteria —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.244.164.194 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion about the legality, or not, of the Bolivian referendum belongs in the entry Santa_Cruz_autonomy_referendum,_2008, not here. This issue has been dealt with before, in this very page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.230.115 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point! then what is the reason to include a claim about the supposedly "illegal" condition? just mention that HRF participated as observers in the 2008 referendum, and do not ellaborate about something with POV and without legal base.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.244.164.194 (talk • contribs)

Please, please please. Sign your posts. Also please consider creating an account.- Sinneed 04:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing all debate pertaining the legality of referendum. That information does not belong in this page. Read above.--Proofknow (talk) 09:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So now you engage in censorship Ive restored it because it shows HRF willingness to engage in the Internal politics of a country that was to the detriment of Human Rights,Cathar11 (talk) 12:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RCTV and IACHR

The IACHR actually ruled against Venezuela in a case presented by RCTV et al. Please read the sentence. The court did not express concern, the court, as a matter of fact, ruled issued a ruling condemning Venezuela for violations to some articles of the Inter American Charter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.230.115 (talk) 02:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source referenced expressed concern. Read the source or find a RS citation.Cathar11 (talk) 02:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please. The longwinded version is not in written or spoken English. It is in court-babble-speak and does not contain any information. It is in no way encyclopedic. Cathar, perhaps a quote= param showing the content you have paraphrased? Just a thought. I support removing the babble, but perhaps I am wrong in supporting this version?- Sinneed 04:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please post here extract where the "source referenced expressed concern". With the regards to the "longwinded version" it is merely an accurate reflection of a court ruling. A court ruling against a country, is a court ruling against a country. Express it however you like it, but it remains a fact.--Proofknow (talk) 09:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source[13] is a press release entitled: IACHR CONCERNED ABOUT FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IN VENEZUELA "Washington, D.C, May 25, 2007. Over the last few years, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has expressed concern with respect to the progressive deterioration of the exercise of freedom of expression in Venezuela.... At the present time, a substantial part of the debate on freedom of expression in Venezuela has centered on the decision of the executive branch declining to renew the broadcast license of Radio Caracas Television (RCTV)... The Commission recognizes the State’s prerogative to administer the wave bands, to previously establish the duration of concessions and to decide on their renewal at the end of those periods...owever, must be exercised taking into account the State’s international obligations, which include guaranteeing the right to express ideas and thoughts of any nature through diverse media without imposing direct or indirect restrictions on the right of freedom of expression as described in Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights....The Commission calls on the Venezuelan State to protect, within the parameters of international human rights law, both expressions favorable to its political views and objectives as well as those which are critical. Such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance and the spirit of openness, without which a democratic society does not exist" There is no mention of any court case! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cathar11 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guadalupe Llori

The HRF sent a letter to Ecuador's President Rafael Correa, March 18 2008, in which it stated that Guadalupe Llori's case was eminently political, and that the government wanted to keep her in jail long enough, so that she'd lose her position as Governor of Orellana province. Amnesty International's claims, with awfully similar wording, came after HRF's letter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.230.115 (talk) 02:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The HRF letter is dated June when they decided to make her a prisoner of conscience. Again please read the source.Cathar11 (talk) 02:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A very great deal of this dispute might possibly be avoided by simply including a quote= with the quote that is paraphrased in the article.- Sinneed 04:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the comments above it is suggested that editors participating in this discussion have problems understanding the Spanish language. The letter is dated March 18 2008, therefore it predates AI's statements.--Proofknow (talk) 09:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On June the 18th 2008 [14] HRF said"Effective immediately, HRF considers Guadalupe Llori a political prisoner and prisoner of conscience of the Correa government.". Previous letters to the president refer to the charges being inter alia political.

On Match 25th [15] "Amnesty International believes that these charges may be politically motivated, as Guadalupe Llori represents an opposition political party. She may be a prisoner of conscience." The phrase prisoner of conscience is one coined and used by Amnesty International. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cathar11 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eduardo Rozsa Flores

The case of Rozsa Flores, and the purported implication of HRF's former director, Hugo Acha, are mentioned in the Bolivia section. In the interest of Wiki principles, until a court of law determines that such was the case, every statement remain opinions of parties involved. The Bolivia government has refused to allow an independent, international investigation into the events, called for by the governments of Ireland, Hungary and Croatia. I propose therefore deletion, until such time comes, or moving the discussion to Rozsa Flores entry.--Proofknow (talk) 09:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The case of ERF is an important part of the Bolivia section because the founder and former President of HRF Bolivia is wanted for questioning by a state fiscal in connections with his dealings with him. He is now self exiled in the US while denying any wrong doing. 3(4) directors resigned because of the manner that he had administered HRF. Not in an RS so not included but was in their full statement. The people who wrote HRF Bolivia's reports were the ones who resigned.Cathar11 (talk) 11:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cathar11 ur statements r again untrue and u r slandering again, 1, About the people who quit, they claim they did that under pressure from the government and threats against them, Acha was part of the research teams and he the person who wrote and lectured about the HRF research reports check http://upla.net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=523 he also denounced heavy corruption inside MAS administration checkhttp://www.diariocritico.com/bolivia/2009/Abril/opinion/puka-reyesvilla/142039/puka-reyesvilla.html and u should know he was initially mentioned as a target for the supposedly terrorist organization check http://www.laprensa.com.bo/noticias/18-04-09/18_04_09_segu1.php , they only changed that to the alleged "financier" on may first after he left the country (By the way and contrary to the claims made here he left days after the april 16 incident) u should know that he announced he was going to the US on a public conference where he exposed the conclusions of the Killings in Pando. Cathar u r not acting in good faith, u r also participating in another forums and targeting heavily HRF and Mr Acha, u shouldnt do that, not only for the legal implications but because it is not ethicallly or morally right. One final info for u, there are no legal actions or charges pressed, even Mr sosa (Who is now legally out of the case but keep making statements) has not even cited Mr Acha and is illegally retaining the former witnesses oh I almost forgot I double checked and ALL of the former witnesses have formally withdrawn their testimonies (That were obtained under torture and U already know that), so considering ur position clearly stated in other forums Im not very optimistic about ur Balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.244.164.194 (talk) 16:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sinneed I have a request for u, I understand wp principles and I have read ur discussion with the user proofknow, all Im asking here is a) Balance, b) Ethic which are part of the core principles of wp, thnx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.244.164.194 (talk) 16:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox and it is not a battleground.
Do not speculate, debate, or in any other way talk about things unrelated to improving the quality of this article. This includes linking to blogs of a partisan nature, political debate, and other non-content related issues. Editors who continue to engage in such unproductive conversation may face sanctions including temporary blocks and talk page/topic bans.

Focus on the content and proposed changes, not on the opinions of other editors, the public one's self. Instead, consider proposing changes, and the reasons (in terms of WP guidelines and rules) why those changes should be made. And please *SIGN YOUR POSTS*. This is difficult enough without it becoming an unreadable mess. I and SineBot have both refactored the above posts. No content changes, only format and sig.- Sinneed 16:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I also agree that ignoring the evidence presented above would propel some one sided editors to engaged in heavy POV,PUSH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bandundirun (talk • contribs) 16:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please focus on the content. Please remove your focus entirely from the editors, and place it on the article. What change do you propose to be made to the article? And please, please, sign your posts, it only takes a buttonclick. I redacted what I see a a wp:personal attack from the above post.- Sinneed 16:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war of 4 December

Well, I am very sorry that this has decayed so.

Instead of cutting out content, please consider rewording.
Instead of removing sources and content with which one disagrees, please consider adding wp:BALANCE.
If there are sources that seem questionable, please consider using the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to seek community input on whether the source can be used for the given purpose or not.
Please consider wp:dispute resolution.
wp:edit warring the changes into the article will not prove effective, and will result only in article locks and/or editor sanctions that might include topic bans, account blocks.- Sinneed 13:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

During this time when the article is locked, interested editors please continue to discuss proposed changes to the article.- Sinneed 13:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I, for one, could not agree more with what Sinneed proposes. So in order to reach consensus upon the various issues, we need to agree on some basics. Here's what I would like to propose:

Discussion/debate on the legality of the Santa Cruz Referendum belong in the entry of the Santa Cruz Referendum, as has been discussed before, not here.
Discussion/debate about allegations that have not been proven/determined in a court of law do not belong in the entry. See WP:BLP, bearing in mind that it is an internationally accepted principle, that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
Rulings from the Inter American Court of Human Rights should not be deleted. See http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Human_Rights_Foundation&oldid=300586760#cite_note-18
Editors that show incapacity to read/understand/interpret information in Spanish; where most, if not all, the subject of debate has been expressed/stated/published in that language, should refrain from editing the entry.
Editors should be well advised in refraining from POV-pushing, especially when there's enough evidence to prove their adopted arguments incorrect. For example, to argue that an organisation, acting as an observer in elections, is a detriment to human rights.--Proofknow (talk) 14:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Cruz Ref

Santa Cruz Referendum - OK, so if it isn't going to be discussed here, it will be left here unmolested until consensus is reached there, then the results brought here with a proposed edit before any change is made here, right?- Sinneed 16:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be left here; it does not belong here. Whatever happens in that entry, and with that particular issue, has no bearing on the entry about HRF, beyond mentioning that HRF participated as an electoral observer in that referendum. - Sinneed 16:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose removal. I support considering the wp:consensus from the other article, after one is reached.- Sinneed 16:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sineed, I appreciate your welcoming notes. I have visited WP:TPA. Other topics, such as the Santa Cruz Referendum, should be discussed in their own entries. If we can not agree on this, as I have done with a previous editor, we will have to agree to ask for other editors' opinions.--Proofknow (talk) 16:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have 3 established editors here. 2 have included the content when it was deleted. 1 has deleted it. The discussion is open to all, though if we continue to be spammed with unproductive posts by new and anon editors, the talk page may need to be semiprotected. Indeed, I support centralizing the discussion in the other article... once wp:consensus if any is reached... then seek consensus on what probably-small part of the overarching issue should be included here. In the meantime, unless there is a reason it should not be included, it seems it can stay, and I support it staying.- Sinneed 17:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for rearranging the lay out. The fact that in a discussion among three parties two of them, you and Cathar11, are in agreement, does not mean that my position is any less valid. I would agree to keep information here, if there were no entries about the Santa Cruz Referendum. Obviously, that's not the case. See WP:UNDUE Moreover, we are yet to read Cathar11's opinions. For that reason, I suggest we refer to non-involved editors' opinions to reach consensus on this.--Proofknow (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was an uninvolved editor who came here to help. This is part of the help.- Sinneed 17:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please give a read to wp:consensus. 2 support inclusion, reasoning: relevant, sourced. 1 opposes, reasoning: has own article, discussion should be done there. Consensus at the moment is for inclusion. I am interested in hearing your concerns, and you can always pursue wp:dispute resolution, but currently you have not articulated your concerns well, and the only proposal you seem to have made is "leave it out completely".- Sinneed 17:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument appears to be that this does not need to be mentioned in this article, because it has its own article. You might try that in an wp:RfC but I forecast little support.- Sinneed 17:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have offered no WP guideline to support that. Other than removal of the content, and other than waiting for consensus at the other article, what do you propose?- Sinneed 17:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, we have had this discussion before. What I actually wrote, can be seen here: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Human_Rights_Foundation&diff=prev&oldid=288291249--Proofknow (talk) 18:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I saw that removal of content. I don't support the removal. Do you have an alternative proposal? Or some WP guideline that would indicate it does not belong here? As you perceive it as PoV, you might add wp:BALANCE. Or possibly propose a shorter version that still leaves the issue in the article. - Sinneed 18:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As there is no ref to show they actually took part as observers I am inserting one. This ref is complementary in tone to HRF.Cathar11 (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I propose this source, in reference to HRF participation: Indicios de victoria del Sí en Santa Cruz--Proofknow (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BBC is a generally reliable source. Why would you need to propose a source? Are you proposing a content change?- Sinneed 17:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not proposing content change, rather I am just trying to reach consensus to improve the entry, so we don't have to waste time on endless editing wars. See WP:AGF--Proofknow (talk) 17:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please focus on the content... either on changing it... or if opposing a change, then on leaving it the same.- Sinneed 18:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In light of some of the comments here Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#POV_Pushing_in_entry_of_Human_Rights_Foundation, I'd say any debate about this topic is permanently removed from this entry. If editors have an issue with the legality of that referendum, you are welcome to go to that entry and discuss until consensus is reached. See WP:TE--Proofknow (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proofknow please see WP:SPA while youre at it.Cathar11 (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Cruz autonomy referendum, 2008 - subsection for easy editing

Cathar11, if you continue edit warring and POV pushing I shall escalate the issue. If you feel strngly about the illegality of the Santa Cruz autonomy referendum, 2008, go to that page and have your discussion there, for that's the appropriate place to have it, as other editors have already stated here: Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#POV_Pushing_in_entry_of_Human_Rights_Foundation Your continues reverts, in light of opinions contrary to yours, indicates little willingness to reach consensus. See WP:NOT--Proofknow (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Presently, wp:consensus remains that this content can remain in the article. Please read wp:no ownership of articles, wp:edit warring. You have attempted to sway others to your point of view, which is good, but you have then attempted to edit war your changes into the article when that failed, which is bad. Stop now.- Sinneed 16:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acha allegations

...allegations... - If the wp:RS carry the allegations, and they are germane to the subject, the allegations belong. If there is an objection to the press coverage, those objections will go to the press organs, not to WP... and again the content will stay here, with wp:BALANCE as needed. If the sources fail wp:BLP, this would be appropriate for the wp:BLPN. No BLP issues have been sited here, just "not fair" "not true", etc. WP cannot assess truth. It can only assess what is or is not in the wp:RS- Sinneed 16:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, for the reason explained above. There is no dispute that Acha was director of HRF Bolivia, or that he has been accused of involvement with ERS. It remains a fact, however, that, to this day, no court of law has found him guilty. See WP:DUE and WP:BLP - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofknow (talk • contribs)

What change do you propose other than simply removing all mention of the accusation? If the accusation is made in the wp:RS meeting wp:BLP, then it seems it would belong here.- Sinneed 16:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The text I propose is something along the lines of: "HRF Bolivia former director, Hugo Acha, has been accused of alleged involvement with ERS. (RS). Acha denies any wrong doing. (RS). The issue is yet to be ruled in a court of law.--Proofknow (talk) 16:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Current text is "After an alleged irregular group led by Eduardo Rózsa-Flores was broken up by Police Hugo Acha, the then president of HRF Bolivia, was accused of alleged links with it.[32] Acha has denied any involvement." This seems to say what you want. What is your objection? I am going to make some grammar/text changes, but I don't see your concern?- Sinneed 17:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that a court of law is yet to rule seems relevant enough to be included, as is Bolivia's rejection to accept an independent/international investigation, as requested by the governments of Hungary, Ireland and Croatia. As it stands, what we have is accusations and counter-accusations, from all sides, and not much else. But the question is, is the inclusion of it relevant to HRF, considering that a court is yet to determine responsibilities?--Proofknow (talk) 17:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article doesn't even say he has been CHARGED, only accused of links. The fact that he was accused, as president of HRF at the time, it seems relevant. I must tell you that this all begins to look like wp:POINT.- Sinneed 17:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IACHR ruling

What text in the article do you believe is not supported by its source? An interested editor might provide a quote to satisfy your concern? If it is supported by the source, but the source is not generally reliable, what source do you doubt?- Sinneed 16:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information on the IACHR ruling against Venezuela was deleted, without explanation. The fact that HRF sent a letter arguing that Llori had been imprisonned for political reasons, and that she had been kept in jail long enough so that she would lose her position, was argued by HRF before AI. Just compare the wording: "para mantener a la prefecta detenida el tiempo suficiente para despojarla de su cargo" in HRF's March 18th letter to Correa, with AI's 25th March statement: "... an attempt to keep her in prison long enough to remove her from her office." It is almost a literal translation of what HRF stated, and I can only hope you will agree, assuming you're knowledgeable in Spanish.

In light of the above, I would like to, either read Cathar11's opinions, or see some of the changes made reverted.--Proofknow (talk) 16:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IACHR ruling was to do with employees of Globovision on page 2 of the pdf[16] of the judgement it clearly states.:

2. The facts presented by the Commission referred to a series of actions and omissions which occurred between October 2001 and August 2005, consisting of statements made by public officers, acts of harassment and physical and verbal assault, as well as hindrance to broadcast, committed by State agents and private individuals, to the detriment of forty-four (44) people associated with Globovisión television station, among them, reporters, associated technical supporting staff, employees, executives and shareholders, and also to certain investigations and criminal proceedings initiated or conducted at the domestic level in relation to those facts.

It has no connection to RCTV, and Human Rights Foundation are not mentioned anywhere in the 135 page report allthough other legal and human rights bodies are. It shouldnt be included.Cathar11 (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not have connection to RCTV, beyond illustrative/supportive/argumentative purposes. You say it shouldn't be included, with which I tend to agree, yet you refuse to apply your very own logic to my contention that the discussion about Santa Cruz Referendum's legality does not belong in here. Do visit WP:NOT--Proofknow (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"yet you refuse...Santa Cruz Referendum's legality does not belong in here" - This is not a swap meet and it is not a prisoner exchange. Please focus on the subject at hand.- Sinneed 18:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"No, it does not have connection to RCTV, beyond illustrative/supportive/argumentative purposes." - what?- Sinneed 18:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"You say it shouldn't be included, with which I tend to agree" - I take it you are withdrawing your objection to its removal?- Sinneed 18:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok there was another case about RCTV with a similar ruling. Caso Ríos y otros vs. Venezuela. Ive found it here. [17]and sumarised here[18] Effectively it says "The State is liable for breach of its obligation under Article 1.1 of the Convention to ensure the freedom to seek, receive and impart information, recognized in Article 13.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights" It concluded that the Venezuelan government had not violated the right to freedom of expression, equality before the law, or private propert butwas guilty because it should do more to prevent and punish acts of intimidation against journalists by third parties. Agree a wording if relevant- allthough it does not rule against the state in relation to the removal of the RCTV licence. So is it relevant??Cathar11 (talk) 02:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions

...should not be deleted... - except for wp:BLP or other egregious problems, during an edit war, nothing should be deleted without wp:consensus - use wp:BALANCE instead. wp:NOT censored. - Sinneed 15:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are in agreement, see explanation in previous point. WP:AGF--Proofknow (talk) 15:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...refraining from pov-pushing... - indeed - quote= params... wp:BALANCE rather than silencing the other views.- Sinneed 15:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Is inclusion of discussion of legality of Santa Cruz referendum relevant to this entry?

Considering that there exists an entry about Santa Cruz autonomy referendum, 2008, is inclusion of discussion of its legality relevant to this entry? Proofknow (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the organization was criticized for monitoring it because the critics claim it was illegal, it seems related. While we wait for the results, please stop attempting to war your changes into the article.- Sinneed 16:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand there is (though I am not interested in the article, I am trusting Proofknow for this information) discussion of the legality at the listed article. Once wp:consensus is reached there, I propose that an interested editor, if any, bring that consensus here to this talk page and replace the current content in this article with a brief summary as it relates to the monitoring, ctiticism, and mission of the HRF.- Sinneed 16:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying you're not interested in the entry, yet you, and Cathar11, have had an incredibly long, and unfruitful discussion, on the legality of the referendum. Let us all wait until other editors comment. Your POV did not fare very well in Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#POV_Pushing_in_entry_of_Human_Rights_Foundation. So, for the umpteenth time, this is not the place to have that discussion.--Proofknow (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then... why are you discussing it here? Actually, I have no knowledge of the legality of the referendum and have not discussed it. I have discussed your behaviour and the behaviour of cathar11. Do better. (this is here on the talk page as the edit warrior has asked me not to post to his talk page, sorry).- Sinneed 16:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A visit to this entry's history will show that I was not the one that included the issue in the entry, and I am not the one insisting on keeping this irrelevant point on this entry. On the contrary, I am trying, quite frustratingly indeed, to explain to you and Cathar11, that that discussion belongs in its own entry. But you just wouldn't accept that, and would continue reverting my changes, despite an alleged lack of interest on this topic. Hard to assume good faith in this case.--Proofknow (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then... if you are interested, go to the entry and discuss. Once wp:consensus is reached, if you are interested, you might choose to bring a proposed summary here. However, simply censoring this content is not acceptable: wp:five pillars, wp:NOT censored. wp:Edit warring is not acceptable. I will leave it to other interested editors to restore the content you are removing against wp:consensus. If no one chooses to do so, then we will have a new wp:consensus, that it does not belong. It is indeed most frustrating that you are edit warring. Stop now.- Sinneed 17:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What part of the sentence: "discussion of legality of Santa Cruz autonomy referendum, 2008 does not belong in Human Rights Foundation entry" is it that you do not understand Sinneed? For the record: 1) I don't have to go to that entry and discuss it, 2) I don't care whether it was legal or not, 3) I am not interested in debating it, 4) I am not keen on bringing an excerpt to this entry, 5) I am not censoring anything, but merely arguing that there is an entry whereby that discussion can be had, and a link to it placed in this page, 6) your obstinate insistence in including irrelevant information in an unrelated entry speaks volumes about your alleged lack of interest in this topic. Other editors in ER seem to agree with me, rather than with you. So stop your POV pushing, and, more importantly, stop pretending you don't care, when your behaviour and edits demonstrate otherwise. See WP:NOT--Proofknow (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to agree a simple wording that shows the state considered the Santa Cruz referendum illegal and obviously the prefecture didnt. Maybe it would be better to be highlighted as a criticism of HRF. Obviously that a Govt and courts think a referendum observed ny HRF is illegal is relevant.Cathar11 (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would seem to be a good approach, Cathar11.
Again, we have established that 2 active editors working to improve this article agree the content is relevant, sourced, and appropriate for inclusion in the article. A single editor objects that the content has an article of its own. Thus, for the moment, we have wp:consensus that the content can remain, as we look forward to comment from the broader community, or additional explanation from Proofknow as to why it should not be here.- Sinneed 19:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proofknow, I reread the responses thus far at your request for editor help, but I can't see the one you refer to. Perhaps you could quote it here? I have taken no position at that thread, merely reiterating the suggestion that once consensus is reached at the main article, a neutral summary might be proposed here, should any editor have interest in doing so.- Sinneed 19:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#POV_Pushing_in_entry_of_Human_Rights_Foundation:

Well, a notable POV can be a topic all to itself just as much as a political party etc. Looking at the discussion, someone said that qualifying a statement with "some claim[]" doesn't make the point more likely to be included. And, often these disputes go back and forth due to trying to settle an ill posed question when a new option could make a better article. "If you are debating over how to discuss complicated POV's related to this topic, it may make more sense to not discuss the POV's in much detail and just link: you wouldn't launch into complicated explanations of conservatives and liberals on each topic for which they have differing POV's. Further, the OP suggests the disputed info belongs in a different entry- this other entry may in fact itself be or could be a POV (moving mention from abortion to pro-life for example). So, even if you do go to RfC, your carefully worded question could be something about the general suitability of the questionable material for includsion anywhere( is it sourced, does it capture a relevant feature of something notable in context etc)". ~~Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)~~

Therefore it is not true that there is consensus. As a matter of fact, excerpt above shows that an editor that has no interested in this issue agrees with my position, not with yours. If after such lengthy discussion Sinneed you still fail to understand the point, I suggest you refrain from further participation, for it demonstrates, above all else, WP:TE The linking to article of Santa Cruz referendum is indeed relevant. The discussion about the legality of said referendum is not, for the reasons explained above. Stop POV pushing, and please, do read WP:NOT. --Proofknow (talk) 23:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You selectively quoted the same editor susequently said"Well, I'm not taking sides yet but I guess I got an analogy that at least one party finds apropos. So, then what was the issue with not allowing someone to say, " the Idiot Group claims foo[] and the Smart People say doh doh doh[]" ? ~~Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)~~"> I equally suggest that since you only ever edited on one other Topic you are definitely WP:TE and WP:SPA. Youre just attempting to bully your POV in here while accusing others.I am reverting your undo pending agreement of text.Cathar11 (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is evident that this debate is entirely pointless. In light of it, I will keep escalating the issue until someone else makes you understand the futility of bringing other entries' debates onto this one.--Proofknow (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is User_talk:Sinneed#User_Proofknow.E2.80.8E, a "let's gang against newbies" party? A good show of WP:AGF would be for you two to understand, once and for all, that there are plenty of other entries in Wikipedia where you can defend you POVs. No one is stopping you from going and arguing about the legality of the Santa Cruz referendum, so why do you insist in having it here? What's your interest, other than POV pushing?--Proofknow (talk) 00:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

how about innocous wording like considered illegal by the government of Bolivia.Cathar11 (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about accepting that the discussion belongs in that entry? At issue is not whether to link to it or not, but rather to not include information that could only be interpreted as an attempt to cast a negative light on an electoral observation mission. This is POV pushing, and your proposed wording is far from innocuous. An example of innocuous wording is: "The HRF sent an electoral observation mission to Santa Cruz autonomy referendum, 2008.--Proofknow (talk) 00:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC):thatsalso a POV[reply]

it assumes the referendum was normal and legal. How about just using the word controversial?Cathar11 (talk) 00:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Observing how people cast votes can hardly be assumed as controversial, and that's what HRF seems to have done according to press reports. The casting of votes is, in itself, a democratic exercise. I welcome your willingness to find a compromise in this issue, but I honestly fail to understand your, and Sinneed's, insistence in implying that observing an exercise in democracy is a controversial, or questionable, thing to do. If you can demonstrate that only those who were in favour of the referendum, in the region where the referendum took place, were allowed to vote, then, by all means, I will agree completely with President Morales' argument about the illegality of the vote. However that wasn't the case. Every Bolivian citizen that wanted to cast votes did so, not only in Santa Cruz, but in similar referenda held in Pando, Tarija, etc. The referendum is a mechanism that has been used by President Morales in the past, so his opposition to a mechanism that he has used to prop his power rings hollow. However, let me reiterate, yet again, that the discussion about this topic should be had in the appropriate entry, which is Santa Cruz autonomy referendum, 2008, and not in this one.--Proofknow (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a simple question? Was the referendum controvesial or not?Cathar11 (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Observing how people cast votes can hardly be assumed as controversial" - Can't support this statement. Iran clearly disagrees, for example. For very many years the Soviet Union FIRMLY disagreed.- Sinneed 14:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) - Restored the deleted sources, added "controversial". Leaving the warred-out text out of the article.- Sinneed 15:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC) (outdent) - The blocked editor's block has expired, so it seems that discussion can proceed if any are interested. I am not seeing any further discussion from any source. The bulk of the text is out of the article at the moment. Is the current content acceptable to all? I have no proposed edit at this time. Anyone have a proposed change, or are we all reasonably content with the election content as it is today? If acceptable to all, should we mark the RfC closed, or leave it open in hopes of attracting more interested editors? - Sinneed 21:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Agencia Boliviana de Informacion, 3 May 2009

[2] Bolivia Information Forum Bulletin May 2008

[3] Illegal Autonomy Referendum Deepens Division in Bolivia, Andean Information Network, Thursday, 17 April 2008

[4] Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the activities of her office in Bolivia - Addendum

[5] Erbol, 6 May 2009

[6] Erbol, 6 May 2009

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]