Talk:Human Rights Foundation/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Propose to drop lack-of-sources article tag

Editors have added sources, and I think the article is adequately sourced, now, assuming that the unsourced bits I had flagged are either restored with sourcing or stay out. If there are no objections, I will drop the flag on Friday or so.- Sinneed 14:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The only sources I can find are HRF's own website or their press releases or blogs.Cathar11 (talk) 19:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Generally, if something cannot be sourced to published and generally wp:reliable sources, it doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. For example, I struck the characterizations of the funding organizations... and really that all needs a source to stay.- Sinneed 20:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
• HRF can generally be used to provide information about itself on its website under wp:SELFPUB, as long as the information is not disputed and is STRICTLY about HRF itself. Just for example if HRF says "HRF informs governments of possible problems" that would be fine to include. If HRF itself said "HRF has told Senator Joe of Idaho there are possible problems." then that would NOT be ok... Joe of Idaho may never have heard from HRF... HRF can only talk about itself and in limited ways, and be a wp:reliable source. Hope that helps.- Sinneed 20:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
• I also added a find sources template to the bottom of the headers, that may be useful too. Google Scholar will pull a lot of academia that won't show on News or web searches.- Sinneed 20:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
• At the moment I am withdrawing my plan to remove the tag. The pdf stored on the New Jersey Education Association (teacher's union, as I read it) would be a partisan, self-published, political document. I am unsure it would be appropriate even as an EL, and suggest removing it, though I do not feel so strongly that I am moved to cut it myself at this time.- Sinneed 20:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Returning to this page, hello again

After a long while not looking at this page I note that there has been a huge war between some people with a clear partisan agenda (on both sides) and I also notice that one of the editor rewrote this article and removed plenty of sourced information because it doesn't comport with a view of this Human Rights group as being right-wing. Consequently, I will be restoring some of those items. please do not eliminate them without a proper discussion....Verdadseadicha (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I have made several changes, polished it up, it looks pretty decent at this time. I propose removal of tags. Anyone?Verdadseadicha (talk) 00:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Blog based edits or adding OR not in sources are not acceptable.Cathar11 (talk) 00:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

They aren't blog based edits. it is no different than citing this organization's mission. if it makes a pronouncement on something about ITS OWN WORK then obviously it is a good source on ITSELF. You do realize how silly you come across for invoking this. It is as silly as stating that a wikipedia press release cannot be quoted on wikipedia until it is in a newspaper. hello? reason--try it.Verdadseadicha (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC).

HRF Bolivia is only a blog and isnt even under control OF HRF Bolivia anymore. I didnt insert information from this blog about the mismanagement under Hugo Acha or the internal wrangling.Cathar11 (talk) 01:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The article on Pinochet is not a HRF project. The author's description is given as

— Thor Halvorssen, a film producer and human-rights advocate, is president of the New York-based Human Rights Foundation. Not a HRF article put it on his page if you like.Cathar11 (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

"please do not eliminate them without a proper discussion" - Of course they can and if appropriate will be removed without proper discussion. WP uses wp:Be Bold not "mother may I." However, the reason should be explained in the wp:edit summary. Please do so.

I encourage making a larger number of edits: if the edit summary won't fit, it is probably too much change. Some of the large-scale and relatively unexplained editing does not appear on 1st run-through to have been productive, though with better edit summaries it might look OK. - Sinneed 02:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Both Gramma refs are to the same article - so I deleted 1.Cathar11 (talk) 02:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

References were not to the same article (same source though), so there's no need to delete it. Also, I would suggest to Verdadseadicha to discuss changes here, before things descend into another edit war.--Proofknow (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Tags

Do we need the article issues tag? This seems to have drifted to a stop. I am going to drop the "needs sources", and leave the others in. The article seems adequately sourced, though I won't oppose leaving the other tags in, and won't delete the sources tag again if it is restored.- Sinneed 16:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

moved from article

Government witnesses withdrew their testimonies and sought asylum or are illegally imprisoned.

I removed this from the Bolivia section as the links are all either dead (and seemingly not replaceable) or not obviously supporting the strong, unqualified statement made. Rd232 ^talk 00:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The removal is not justified El nuevo dia homepage was down for maintenance (Now its up again), but links to Los Tiempos, La Razon and El Deber are active. the situation of this persons is still going on and worsening by day check http://www.la-razon.com/versiones/20091128_006925/nota_256_916641.htm please dont start with POV pushing again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paratrooper73 (talk • contribs)

It's nice that the homepage is working, but that has no relevance to the verifiability of the article links. Once again, the statement is very general and very strong, and I see nothing in the available sources to justify it. Verifiability is basic policy (as is WP:NPOV). Rd232 ^talk 17:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That link you give is very vague. Yes, things are not going as fast as they would like - but there's nothing concrete enough to put in the article. Rd232 ^talk 17:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Check this just to begin with http://educamposv.lacoctelera.net/post/2009/07/09/testigo-clave-del-gobierno-busca-ayuda-diputados-la —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paratrooper73 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC) There is nothin vague about the facts, they were initially presented as witnesses, they withdrawn their statements and now they are illegally imprisoned, come on, do you want recent and verifiable information?, check this update http://www.ernestojustiniano.org/2009/12/ex-unionistas-en-celdas-en-navidad/

Again, where are the relevant facts? That source says they're unhappy to be in prison over Xmas. No kidding. Rd232 ^talk 18:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way if you are interested in the legal basis (Your profile says that you speak some spanish) I think you should chek the 126 Art of the Bolivian Constitution about the Accion de Libertad and specially its 4th paragraph IV. El fallo judicial será ejecutado inmediatamente. Sin perjuicio de ello, la decisión se elevará en revisión, de oficio, ante el Tribunal Constitucional Plurinacional, en el plazo de las veinticuatro horas siguientes a su emisión. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paratrooper73 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like original research territory, unless this is discussed by a reliable source with reference to this particular case. Rd232 ^talk 18:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like POV:PUSHING to me again Check this just to begin with http://educamposv.lacoctelera.net/post/2009/07/09/testigo-clave-del-gobierno-busca-ayuda-diputados-la

There is nothing vague about the facts, they were initially presented as witnesses, they withdrawn their statements and now they are illegally imprisoned, period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paratrooper73 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

None of that is present, as far as I can see, in the sources given; and in addition the sources given have no obvious relation with Flores and the rest of the paragraph. Provide quotes, and we might get somewhere. Rd232 ^talk 18:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thre is no worst blindness... check the links read them (Or request a proper translation) and then we might get somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paratrooper73 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way I recall that initially the paragraph stated (Correctly) that ALL the government witnesses withdrew their statements, it also stated that ALL were tortured (Something already proven also), but for the sake of equilibrium and balance it was left as "witnesses" only, and with the form you are now trying to hide (And I dont understand why) you REALLY should check your position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paratrooper73 (talk • contribs)

If I need a translation I'll let you know. For now, Spanish quotes, from those sources, supporting those statements will do just fine. Rd232 ^talk 20:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Paratrooper, I can't see it either in those sources and have reverted to Rd232's version. If Rd232 and I are wrong and have missed something, please explain it patiently, and show us the relevant Spanish quotes. --JN466 23:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

OK even if I have seen to many interest being played in this subject I will (Once more) assume good faith on this. So, having said this lets go: First: If you are ready to sustain the part where HRF Bolivia and its then President were accused of being linked with this alleged “irregular organization” leaded by Eduardo Rozsa Flores you should be aware that the entire accusation was based on the statements made by Mr Ignacio Villa Vargas who was presented by the Bolivian authorities as the “Key Witness” (This presentation was made on a public press conference with nationwide tv coverage). Second: This allegations were reinforced by the Bolivian administration when Juan Carlos Gueder and Alcides Mendoza were abducted (They appeared in every single Bolivian national tv station blindfolded and duct taped), nevertheless they were presented as two more witnesses and Mr. Gueder allegedly mentioned HRF Bolivia then president name. Third: The first “witness” (Mr Villa Vargas) withdrew his statements and run away this is clearly stated in the note made by El Nuevo dia Newspaper and I quote: Una grabación de Villa Vargas revela que todo fue armado El testigo clave de la Fiscalía, Ignacio Villa Vargas, conversó con el diputado de Podemos, Wilfredo Áñez, pidiéndole garantías. En la grabación atribuida a ‘El Viejo’ explica que fue torturado y que el fiscal paceño Marcelo Soza llenó su declaración. On a recorded statement Villa Vargas Reveals That Everything Was Staged Government Key Witness talked with representative from Podemos Wilfredo Anez requesting protection. On the record “El Viejo” explains that he was tortured and that the prosecutor Marcelo Sosa forged his statement. http://elnuevodia.com.bo/index.php?cat=150&pla=3&id_articulo=9530 Fourth: The other two not only withdrew their testimonies, Mr. Juan Carlos Gueder was even more explicit he said and I quote: “Yo nunca involucre a nadie”el dijo nunca” vinculó a ningún líder cruceño con el supuesto grupo irregular. “I never accused anyone” he said that he never “accused anyone to be involved with some sort of irregular group” http://www.la-razon.com/versiones/20090509_006723/nota_249_809008.htm

“No existe justicia principalmente para nosotros que estamos aquí 75 días con una acción de libertad ganada.El otro problemas es que acá hemos visto los errores del fiscal Sosa y los errores del Ministerio de Gobierno’.” There is no justice for us, we are here for 75 days now even when we have won our freedom in court.We are doomed because we have seen the misdeeds of Sosa and of the Government minister http://www.ernestojustiniano.org/2009/12/ex-unionistas-en-celdas-en-navidad/ (By the way this phrase is just behind the sentence were one of the detainees expressed his sadness about being illegally arrested on Christmas, which was derisively commented by one of the “editors” yeah “no kidding”) Mr. Clearly Mendoza states that: “Estamos detenidos aquí porque somos el ‘chivo expiatorio’ de las autoridades. Al fiscal Marcelo Soza no le interesa nuestra salud y mucho menos nuestras vidas y gracias a un médico particular, seguimos todavía con vida”. We are here as scapegoats for the authorities, The prosecutor couldn’t care less for our health, much less our lives we are still alive only because of the help of a private physician. http://www.lostiempos.com/diario/actualidad/nacional/20091114/gueder-y-mendoza-llevan-32-dias-en-celda-judicial_45239_78087.html Mendoza aclaró que su único delito fue vender un arma antigua y de colección . Mendoza also clarified that the only thing he did was to have sold an old collectible weapon. (The weapon sold by Mendoza was a Bergman MP18 –Used by Bolivia on the Chaco War 1932-1936- without its magazine you can check about this gun in wiki also) Fifth: Villa Vargas run away to Argentina “Villa Vargas explica que está en la frontera con Argentina”, http://elnuevodia.com.bo/index.php?cat=150&pla=3&id_articulo=9530 The situation of Vargas is according to the last information precarious (Asylum procedures require that the applicant is bonded to the confidentiality principle and that he is not able to make any further statement or declaration until his plea is granted or rejected), meanwhile Gueder and Mendoza (Whose rights has been systematically violated after their statements denouncing that they were tortured, brutalized, choked and blindfolded to produce fake accusations) situation is tragic, they have demonstrated that they were tortured, they have won a Constitutional appeal . Mendoza Y Gueder Ganan Su accion de Libertad. Mendoza and Gueder Won their Freedom Action. http://www.la-razon.com/Versiones/20091015_006881/nota_256_894957.htm Which MUST be put to effect immediately after the judge pronounces the verdict -Check Bolivian Constitution art 125, Pgp. 4,5,6-)but they are still in prison for 105 days now and counting (You should be aware that to this date no charges have been pressed and no real accusation has been made so far which only adds to the violation of this persons rights). http://www.la-razon.com/versiones/20091128_006925/nota_256_916641.htm So it is fair and does it complain with wp:Balance and the basic principle of impartiality to admit the very same sources to make an accusation when Im somehow sympathetic with some position but it is not a reputable source when the same newspapers (From La Paz Bolivia I have edited all from Santa Cruz Bolivia to avoid any bias) show that the facts were " a little bit" different than the initial attempt made by the Bolivian government?. I really think the answer IS obvious. Sixth: Finally to justify your actions JN466, you posted “verification failed; most of the links are dead, and the ones I could access did not back this content” both statements are not true the links were double checked all are active (Assuming good faith I believe that you haven’t noticed before reverting my posting that I have replaced the defective ones with new ones) and as Im showing you they prove every single point. And finally the text present on the article was reached trough consensus, the arbitrary removal made by Rd232 is not right and should (As was required from me) have proposed the deletion and proved his points here before cutting a text that was built by consensus. So, waiting for a fair response and before reinstating the original text. Best regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paratrooper73 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll come back to this in a couple of hours, but frankly, I propose taking out the whole paragraph about the alleged involvement by HRF leader Acha in this alleged terrorist plot, since none of the cited sources, as far as I can see, identify Acha as being an HRF official or otherwise implicate HRF in any way whatsoever. (I tried your links just before my revert; they were dead.) --JN466 00:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I've taken it out for now. [1] To reinsert anything related to this incident, we would need sources that explicitly link this matter to the Human Rights Foundation. --JN466 00:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually the person who attempted the link was Evo Morales himself on a public speech given on may first 2009, from that point the persecution was on and this whole issue became a witch hunt against political opposers. check http://www.ernestojustiniano.org/2009/05/si-trabaja-en-human-rights-los-extranjeros-afuera-de-bolivia-y-los-bolivianos-a-la-carcel/ So again I respectfully suggest that the text reached trough consensus should be maintained and my editing with the links active preserved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paratrooper73 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC) Jayen466 You also should be aware that one of the persons -Cathar11- who ignited the editing war on this article have just added a reference to mr Acha, this person also participates in various forums and his conduct regarding this specific subject is far from impartial, you also should be aware that the article he refers to was later corrected by the newspaper editor -La Razon- himself. So in fairness and equilibrium and because there is evidence of another attempt of distorting facts and present phony evidence we should respect the consensus reached. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paratrooper73 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• I am still concerned that even with the source that links Achá to the HRF, the paragraph seems rather off-topic. Three of the sources cited don't mention the HRF at all, and the new source added mentions the organisation once in passing. What is this information doing in this article? --JN466 03:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Smearing? conspiracy theory? political agenda? who knows. But once again if you are going to allow the information that initiated the persecution and accusation to stay you should allow the development of it to be known dont you agree? I think that once more returning to the consensus built text is the right option here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.251.162 (talk) 03:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC) Im more concerned with the fact that Im again seeing some politically oriented activity here, Jayen466, Im going to insist requesting the reinstatement of the removed paragraph, otherwise even with the best intention from you this is just another case of POV:Pushing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paratrooper73 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Paratrooper73, I have made over 25,000 edits to this project, and not one of them has ever had anything to do with South American politics. It is really not my area of expertise, or interest. However, I can read Spanish, and I do like to help out when editors can't come to agreement. This conflict has gone on on this talk page for months now. Let's try and sort it.

The problem with the sentence you want re-added is that none of the sources (which I have now been able to read) mentions either Achá or the HRF. "La Razón - Mendoza y Gueder ganan una acción de libertad". La-razon.com. Retrieved 2009-11-25."Gueder y Mendoza llevan 32 días en celda judicial". Lostiempos.com. 2009-11-14. Retrieved 2009-11-25. http://www.la-razon.com/versiones/20091128_006925/nota_256_916641.htm http://educamposv.lacoctelera.net/post/2009/07/09/testigo-clave-del-gobierno-busca-ayuda-diputados-la http://elnuevodia.com.bo/index.php?cat=150&pla=3&id_articulo=9530 Do we have sources that demonstrate the relevance of these witnesses to Achá and the HRF? You say the allegations against Achá are based on their testimony. Can you find a source that says so? If we have no source saying they were Achá's accusers, there is no point saying they recanted.

The sources presently cited do not even say that Achá was the president of HRF Bolivia. Please understand that every word in the article has to be verifiable by a citation to a reliable published source. ("I saw the press conference on television" is not enough.) There is an Agence France-Presse report on the matter here: [2], English translation: [3] Spanish translation: [4]

There is also an English write-up here: "Hugo Achá is (or was) the president of HRF in Bolivia. He is another of those accused of financing the cell. He even has his own alias: "Superman." He denies all involvement, but admitted contact with Rózsa, who, in his words, would approach him as a BBC journalist investigating the case of the "Massacre of El Porvenir." According to the district attorney's assertion, Tadic, today a prison mate of Fernández, claimed that he had offered money to Rózsa. Achá is a now a fugitive in the United States." (Note that here Tadic is given as the source of the allegations against Achá.)

Have you thought of creating a separate article on this controversy? There seem to be enough sources, and the article could be linked from here. --JN466 04:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

hat wouldnt be necessary, I understand that you dont have the "in dept" knowledge so lets begin with your questions: First: Government witness were only Ignacio Villa Vargas, and later Mendoza and Gueder, for the sake of balance Im going to provide you with two sources. http://www.periodico26.cu/noticias_mundo/mayo2009/bolivia080509.html The latter is from cuba and http://www.diariocritico.com/bolivia/2009/Mayo/noticias/147385/prensa-bolivia.html in those you will find that those three were the only witnesses the government have and statements like this :En su declaración Ignacio Villa revelo que: “se reunían constantemente en el stand de Cotas entre 8 y 20 personas que en algunos casos asistía Branco Marinkovic, casi siempre Guido Nayar. Los que nunca faltaron a las reuniones fueron Hugo Achá, Alejandro Melgar, Mauricio Rosa, Horacio Darruda, Carlos Guillen y otros” And as I have showed you he later withdrew these statements. Tadic is not a witness he is one of the survivors of the ill fated operation in Las Americas Hotel on april16 he was tortured and an statement -to which you refer to- was attributed to him, he later presented a complain to the Bolivian ombudsman demonstrated that he was tortured, that he was deprived of his right and that he never produced any legal statements against any person. check: http://www.lostiempos.com/diario/actualidad/nacional/20100112/tadic-fue-torturado-y-violaron-sus-derechos_53279_94182.html Regarding Mr acha situation it is kind of funny that every single person in the Bolivian government have tried to present him as a fugitive when no legal notification was sent to him, that initially he was presented as a target of the alleged organization and that only after he left Bolivia on a trip he publicly announced suddenly he appeared as "being part" of the alleged organization. check. http://www.ernestojustiniano.org/2009/04/terrorismo-sube-el-tono-de-los-ataques-polticos/ So, once again im providing you with enough information and proving you that the removal of the statement regarding the withdrawal of ALL the statements made by ALL the persons initially presented as "witnesses" in this case, and also reagrding their conditions and situation is absolutely true. So far you have not requested any evidence from the persons that removed the statement or from the person who has added outdated and already clarified links which mislead the reader. im being polite and patient but fairness seem to be slipping away here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paratrooper73 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

OK I have seen that you added the sources about the original statements made against HRF Then president, so in fairness and with wp:balance in mind Im posting the consensus reached text showing the development of ths situation, thnx for your time —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paratrooper73 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Shortened

I've shortened the paragraph on Achá to what is relevant to the article topic: [5] If editors want to expand this content, please make sure to use sources that mention Achá and/or HRF. If you feel further background should be given, I propose creating a separate article on the affair and linking to it from here. --JN466 05:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Jayen466 you are missing the point here, I have experience in political persecution cases and the last thing I want is to cause a person more distress. You have noticed that I have tried to complain with your requirements and to answer your questions, i have proved my points and supported every aspect so why are you reluctant to repost this? Government witnesses withdrew their testimonies and sought asylum or are illegally imprisoned. I mean if the acusation stands why are you denying the public to know the development of the situation?, this HAVE to do with HRF Bolivia, not with Mr Acha, (Double check Morales speech) you can be assured that if another person would have been the president of HRF Bolivia it would have been his or her name the one under attack, so, once again and apealing to the principles of balance, fairness and impartiality, please reinstate the consensus reached text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paratrooper73 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You should be aware that the source you used for your shortened version is a translation from an argentinian political activist and is full of expression like "The vultures of the ultra right wing" and conspiracy theories the original title is "Conspiración, magnicidio y separatismo en Bolivia" the author is Diego González and Im pretty sure this wouldnt qualify as a reputable source, I haven removed it but I think you should rethink this situation, check the text that was abusively edited by Rd232 and repost it with the active -and now extensively proven-relevant links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paratrooper73 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I've had another go at this. What do you think, Cathar11? The sources now cited do state clearly that (1) Ignacio Villa Vargas and Mario Tadic implicated Achá, (2) that Villa Vargas later claimed he had been tortured and forced to sign a statement prepared for him by the prosecutor, (3) that just a couple of weeks ago, Tadic was found by the defensor del pueblo (I've translated it a parliamentary commissioner; correct me if I am wrong) to have been tortured by police (which would lend credence to Villa Vargas' earlier claim). --JN466 18:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Jayen466 I would like you to consider this two aspects: First: The attempt of labeling this as "terrorism" was dropped and I quote."por orden del fiscal del caso, Marcelo Soza, quien cambió la figura legal en este caso de terrorismo por alzamiento armado". check http://www.la-razon.com/versiones/20091013_006879/nota_256_893716.htm Second: we are erasing the other two persons who initially were "witnesses" who also withdrew their testimonies and who now -Even to this day- are being illegally retained in jail. Third: Regarding your question the proper legal translation for the "Defensor del pueblo" would be State Ombudsman. I still think that the short consensu built version is better, by the way it seems that some "editors" just dont want to discuss but to impose their views here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paratrooper73 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Okay, I accept that the state prosecutor changed the charge, per your source. I'll add that source to the sentence, as otherwise it is unclear why we, unlike the sources cited, avoid the word terrorism.
• I'll be happy to mention the other two witnesses if you can show me sources saying they too made statements about Achá. --JN466 19:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• I've used "armed insurrectionist group" to reflect the revised charge of alzamiento armado, and I've changed parliamentary commissioner to state ombudsman, per your comment. --JN466 20:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Jayen 466, Im happy to obligue: Iniitial statements allegedly made by Gueder were:"de acuerdo a la versión de uno de sus defendidos, es decir, de Juan Carlos Gueder, la persona directa, responsable, uno de los grandes intelectuales -de la constitución del grupo terrorista- sería el doctor -Hugo- Achá Check: http://www.lostiempos.com/diario/actualidad/nacional/20090503/gueder-e-investigador-identifican-al-%E2%80%9Cviejo%E2%80%9D-como-ignacio-villa_5694_9520.html And as I have showed you they -Gueder and Mendoza- later withdrew their statements denounced torture and are illegally imprisoned -Please check the entire previous section-. So once again we arrive to a cold fact: All and every single person used by the Bolivian Government as a "witness" to attempt an accusation against then President of HRF Bolivia have withdraw his statements and is currently illegally in prison or seeking for asylum. Dont you think that the original short consensus built text was really precise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paratrooper73 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for that source. That's excellent. It also adds the info that Achá asked for political asylum in the US, which we should add to the article. Which would you say is the best source to use for Gueder withdrawing his earlier statement and/or alleging torture? --JN466 00:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Jayen466, Just for the sake of precision, Acha never requested for asylum, -neither did his wife who currently is in Bolivia- the Bolivian government wanted to present him as requesting asylum and they tried to get rid of his wife too (Who was an elected representative at the time), I think I can provide you with a source of the only interview he has actually conceded check: http://www.revistalex.com/exclusiva-hugo-acha-entrevistado-por-revista-legal-lex/ Regarding your question, well I think that any of the sources I provide you would do just fine, I dont want to lose wp:balance off sight here. I want also to thank you for your kindness, it has been refreshing after all the partisanship surrounding this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paratrooper73 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. --JN466 19:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Without checking everything myself, that looks like good work - well done for persevering! Do note that Spanish language sources often disappear quite quickly, so WebCite can be an invaluable tool for maintaining access. Just put the details on this page and pop the resulting archive link into the existing footnote. Rd232 ^talk 21:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done all the new cites converted to webcitation. Gueder's testimony and retraction now mentioned along with the others. --JN466 00:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

clean up

I have just joined wikipedia and I do this after I reading how this page has develop and there appears a clear POV problem (or is better called NPOV?) some users are very purposeful to record as much negative information as they can (these are users who are always defending Chavez like is full time job--all day every day-- especially JRSP and . I will hold my nose for editing this. i will clean up and try to inject balance againMarturetCR (talk) 10:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not a new editor, and you are not cleaning up.- Sinneed 13:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Bolivia

Should the HRF Bolivia section merit its own article? I propose either more information be added, or less information be here on this while a new page be created with the Bolivia chapter on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarturetCR (talk • contribs) 10:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

My initial reaction is: "Why?" If it truly needs more coverage it can be added. If it needs less, it can be cut... but I would suggest proposing radical changes here, because of the contentious nature of the article. I don't think I see merit in the "own article" idea. This article is not long, it can handle the addition of relevant, factual, neutral content.- Sinneed 14:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I restored these. Is the article ready to have them out?

I restored these. Is the article ready to have them out? - Sinneed 13:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Leave the tags in until there is wp:consensus to remove them.- Sinneed 13:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

So, how do we get some consensus going here?MarturetCR (talk) 08:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we have it... the tags are fine as they are for them moment.- Sinneed 17:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality issues

I want to address neutrality content and balance this article with other information that doesn't make this organization seem like what some of those, horrified by the criticism the organization sometimes levels at human rights violators, want to portray. Those who don't like the message of the human rights foundation seem to want to kill the messenger as opposed to showing where the group is wrong or incorrect. MarturetCR (talk) 03:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

TRYING AGAIN: NEUTRAILITY ISSUES

I would like someone to help me address the attacks on HRF in this article and the deliberate POV issues by some editors who wish to portray this group as "right-wing." I have found additional sources to show this is not the case, including, today, a reference to a grant they got from the "socialist left/labour party coalition government" of Norway. Once we do this we can remove the neutrality tag. If nobody steps up I am going to BE BOLD and make the changes myself. nobody here seems to do anythign but react, and, at that, it is always a sniping match between editors on the left of the spectrum like Rd and JRSP and so on MarturetCR (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Pinochet position

Tagged offtopic. He's dead. It doesn't matter. I expect to drop the addition again soon, unless there is some reason it belongs here. *maybe* it belongs at Pinochet's article.- Sinneed 13:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It's already in Thor Halvorssen Mendoza. Here, its intended purpose seem to be defending HRF against charges of being "right wing", which is a mighty stretch even if it weren't for the selective quotation. (Halvorssen also said "Allende, a democratically elected thug, had set about dismantling Chilean democracy and civil society. The argument goes that, had Allende become a Chilean Castro, it is probable many more would have died and millions suffered (the death and torture toll from Fidel Castro’s totalitarian dictatorship being far greater than Pinochet’s). Why only two alternatives?") Finally, it's worth noting that Halvorssen's remark about "Chilean congressional vote to remove Salvador Allende from power" is, AFAIK, simply untrue - cf Salvador Allende. Rd232 ^talk 14:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I already removed it once and it was restored. If no one else removes it, it will stay a while.- Sinneed 17:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Rd232, wikipedia is not a source

PINOCHET POSITION IS IMPORTANT

This is hardly off topic. He may be dead but it is clear that several editors with a very distinct point of view and who want to tage HRF as "right wing" do their utmost to keep out any information or examples of criticism of "right wing" governments by HRF. Looking at past edits this includes criticism of Alvaro Uribe's government as well as Pinochet. The position of their head, writing as head of HRF, about the legacy of Pinochet, is absolutely relevant. and Rd232 can say what he wants about there not being a congressional vote to remove Allende but he is the one who is peddling untruths. If necessary let's include the entire piece or let readers make up their own minds. But this IS relevant and should be restored. You two, Sinneed and Rd232 may be very clever with yoru WP rulebook but you are NOT the final authority on this subject or on what constitutes a good article. sorry to burst your bubbleMarturetCR (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No bubble bursting going on for me, as I have no such illusion. I am sorry you have not chosen to take part in the discussion, and I encourage you to do so.

Please don't wp:SHOUT.

As I read the article, it seems clear that the organization is not "right wing", but that its opponents style it so for whatever reason. I do not see how the addition helps refute the right wing claims.- Sinneed 22:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Organisation not right wing? Look at the countries covered in the 2007 Annual Report (the only one online - what's up with that?). Countries covered (in order mentioned in report): Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba (2 pages each); Dominican Republic / Haiti (1 page). That's it. (The "United States" section isn't about human rights in the States, it's about HRF.) Nothing further needs to be said. Rd232 ^talk 23:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see, so if an organization devotes itself to human rights in China (a communist dictatorship) then that means it is right-wing. That is totally silly. It says it, plain as day on their website: "We seek, in particular, to sustain the struggle for liberty in those areas where it is presently under threat." at [6] which also contains an enumeration of the rights they believe in that can only be described as universal. Their frontpage talks about feeding children in Haiti. They set up an anti-slave labor project in the Dominican Republic. And **they were quick to condemn the coup in Honduras and call for their expulsion from the OAS** if this is right-wing activity pray do tell me what the left's position would be on this? And, when sources as disparate on the spectrum as Carlos Fuentes, Hillary Clinton, Mario Vargas Llosa, the American Jewish Congress, Amnesty International, the European Parliament, and so on criticize Venezuela and Bolivia as emerging dictatorships it is a little rich to say that it is "right wing" for a human rights group to monitor that. Again, you are so obviously doing what sinneed suggests: style the organization as "right wing" for "whatever reason." Well, the reason is clear: what they say seems to threaten your worldview of Cuba and Venezuela. That's fine. You are entitled to your opinion. But if you wish to write opinion columns there are outlets for that. this is supposed to be a reliable source encyclopedic vehicle... not your personal platform. Further, if the place is called "right wing" by a minister in Bolivia who they exposed then it is only fair to balance it out with such obviously strong criticism of the last right-wing dictatorship of the Americas. i am putting it back in. MarturetCR (talk) 03:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Focussing on one country would be fine (especially an important one like China); my point was that for an organisation evidently focussing on Latin America, to be so selective in the countries it puts substantive effort into talking about clearly illustrates its non-neutrality; just as seeking to deny or downplay that obvious selectivity illustrates yours. And by the by, condemning a coup against an elected democratic head of state and then saying little or nothing about 6 months+ of substantial human rights violations including murders and disappearances looks like fairly pathetic window-dressing. Rd232 ^talk 11:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The Pinochet reference is far too arcane. Surely, if the question is whether the organisation is right-wing or not, the solution is to add a "Reception" section with sources that describe it as right-wing, or left-wing, or whatever. I'd encourage editors to look for such sources (reliably published sources, not blogs), rather than seeking to include individual statements by its president or staff that a savvy reader might interpret as evidence of either liberal or conservative bias. --JN466 20:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• I've started a reception section, moving the related material down into it. At the moment, this lacks mainstream sources. Right now, it only includes the opinion of the Cuban Communist Party, a Bolivian accused by the organisation of wrongdoing, and the president's comments on Pinochet ... an odd bag. --JN466 21:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

== BEULLER? BEULLER? == MarturetCR (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, you editors amaze me. If I am BOLD I get slapped down and am told things need to be moved to talk and discussed. If I Discuss I post three times over more than two weeks and I don't get a single response.

I intend to make the article less one-sided against the Human Rights Foundation by adding to their Haiti entry and adding non-political stuff they do. This will entail a lot of research. Once the bias against it is removed I am going to remove the Neutrality dispute tag. I don't know where the COI task comes in but I presume that is due to the obvious bias of two of the editors on here. Nonetheless I am going to remove that, too. So, fair warning and forewarning. OK, off we go MarturetCR (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

GOOD START

I added to the reception section, tweaked and tightened, and think the article is a little more balanced by adding some positive and empirical stuff (as opposed to negative opinions). This should address neutrality. There is not much I can do about JRSP's COI or Rd232's COI issues. Does anyone have access to more information that is verifiable and easy to quote from? MarturetCR (talk) 05:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The COI tag ("Conflict of Interest") was added by User:Sinneed on 3 December [7], which (a single edit in June 2009 aside) predates my involvement with the article by over a month. User:JRSP has not edited the article since October 2007. Please drop your unfounded accusations.

You are very touchy whenever someone identifies you in the same breath with JRSP.MarturetCR (talk) 12:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm touchy at being accused at all manner of things I'm not guilty of; accusations often levelled at JRSP in the same breath. I must say I find your obsession with an editor you have never crossed paths with under this account increasingly interesting. Rd232 ^talk 21:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

COI is far more plausibly an issue with you and User:Paratrooper73, who resemble single-purpose accounts. It seems to me highly likely that you are both associated with HRF in some way; just as the IP in the 80. range is User:Alekboyd, who used to work for HRF. If you have such a conflict of interest, you should disclose it (see WP:COI). PS Please do not use ALL CAPS. Especially in section headings. Rd232 ^talk 11:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Give me a break, if you have never seen Ferris Bueller's Day Off then you need to get the pop culture reference. And I have no idea who those users are and I have no relation whatsoever to them. Which begs the question: who are you and why are you so incredibly obsessed with this article, the Halvorssen article, and a bevy of Chavez-type articles.MarturetCR (talk) 12:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Give me a break. Almost all your edits are to HRF/Halvorssen, hence WP:SPA. By contrast I barely edited those before Jan 2010 - having been here since 2004. And I recently analysed my edits and SandyGeorgia's, and found 14% of my edits (based on top-100 articles by number of edits) to be Venezuela-related, while for Sandy it was 21%. Rd232 ^talk 21:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

While we're at it, the nature of your first edit, combined with your focus on HRF/Halvorssen and the fact that JRSP had not edited either article since 2007, makes me feel the need to point out that Wikipedia has a policy against using multiple accounts: see WP:SOCK. Rd232 ^talk 11:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Slowly I am getting better at this, more comfortable with editing, with the rules, and so on. In time you will have to contend with my even-handedness the way you have to deal with Sandy Georgia and a handful of others who see right through you.MarturetCR (talk) 12:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Please stop attacking me - especially in edit summaries, like this one. Rd232 ^talk 21:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I have seen how you mercilessly attack SandyGeorgia and are constantly using curse words and profanity in talk pages. So my assumption is that if you can dish out that sort of attack you can certainly take a comment in an edit summary specifically wrtten to get your attention with the hope that you will stop behaving like you do when editing this in bad faith. What is remarkable is that YOU decided that because something was "unlikely" and probably a "different organization" then this merited no inclusion in an article. Your politics leads you to declare the HRF folks as wingnuts who are not interested in human rights and so anything and everything that indicates that or that indicates their neutrality threatens that conception. So, consequently, when I found the source and you didn't even bother checking it, you removed the edit from another part of the article arrogantly saying that this fact couldn't be possible.

Then, not one peep from you, not ONE admission of defeat. Instead, what you do is try to massage the fact to fit with your reality. I believe you are a case study in what a partisan and political editor does on wikipedia to serve the interests of an ideological position--in your case left-wing partisanship and the defense and protection of all things Chavez-related while attacking all things you see as enemies (I read a blog last week that looked at the edits made to the Gustavo Cisneros article--an enemy and attacked while a Chavez opposer and now defended by your colleague--a remarkable contrast--JRSP). So, the fact that the most left-wing government in Europe, made up of two main parties: the workers party and the Socialist Left party, gives cash to the HRF has to be couched in such a way as to not give the HRF any cover. But, no doubt, if the HRF took money from the Bush (or even Obama) administration you'd practically put it in the first line of the article.

Your behavior on here, your partisanship, your bold-faced manipulation of information, is shameful, shameless, and a perfect indicator of the kind of harm that is suffered by wikipedia's users when provided with manipulated data. I will NOT behave as you have with Sandy and use profanity and curse you. However, I will not sit silently. I began inserting some FACTS into the Rodriguez Chacin article (another one of your protegees) and as I discover more and more I will continue to add. However, consider this my declaration that for the handful of articles I will involve myself with I will endeavour to learn as much as I can, research as much as I can, and prevent you from using wikipedia to manipulate a definition. To paraphrase my favorite monarch: "I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a professional barn-star yeilding wikipedia editor, and a king of England too"MarturetCR (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

First, and for the last time, please cease your attacks on me; Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Apparently you've been reading User:Alekboyd's blog[8]; the misrepresentativeness of which can be shown for example in his claim that JRSP's edit [9] to Gustavo Cisneros was "editing out factual information". None of that contentious information was sourced, and per WP:BLP, contentious information needs to be removed (until it is sourced). More generally, the Oslo funding point was unsourced when you kept adding it; cf verifiability policy. Now that you provide a source, it can be discussed whether it should be included. (I think in it's present form it's OK, though it is funding for an event in which HRF's exact role isn't clear; there are a number of "partners" involved.) PS Speculating about what other editors would do is the lowest form of attack. Focus on content, please. Rd232 ^talk 00:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Having a discussion with you is not an attack unless what you seek is to create a trail wide enough so as to have ME nipped away as an editor. the truth is that it is YOU who use profanity in talk pages, not me, please don't make me go out and find the numerous instances because I will and then anyone reading this will get a sense of what you are like. You are the one making this a battleground. You have no idea what I have been reading or not so please don't speculate. And the fascinating thing about "contentious information" is that you have a history of doing research for it when you like the inclusion of said information and a history of using WP:BLP when you need an excuse not to have it in there. so, Inertia is your favorite friend when you prefer it. With regard to HRF's funding: we barely know what the money is for in any of the other cases but it is clear from the media online (see the Wall Street Journal article) that the Oslo thing is *their* project and it is *they* who got the money. So, look in the mirror if you are looking for he who is carrying out the lowest form of attack. To quote you "focus on content, please."MarturetCR (talk) 05:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This source actually does not say that the funding for the Oslo Freedom Forum came from the Norwegian government. According to the forum's own website, they received support from the Norwegian organisation Civita http://www.civita.no/en/about/civita (which as it happens is run by a conservative politician). There is no reference on the forum website to support from the Norwegian government. If you look at the ReliefWeb site's input screen, people are asked to specify the Donor organization or department, AND/OR Donor Country. The site includes donations by private organisations. Unless there is a source unequivocally stating that the forum received funding from the Norwegian government I think we should remove this passage. --JN466 12:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Well that sounds like a good point. Rd232 ^talk 21:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It only reads like a good point to you because of what you revealed when you removed the information on two separate occasions. Jayen, look closely at relief web. It is a donation from the Norwegian government. Not from Norwegian civil society institutions. The only civil society institutions in Norway that regrants from a private source is Fritt Ord. Reliefweb is clear that the donor government/country is Norway--not an institution inside Norway. And the table included lists the donations by the government to groups both inside and outside of Norway including Human Rights House Foundation, PEN International, Human Rights Foundation, Norway Red Cross, and so on. And with regard to using their site: I can find no indication that they received a grant from Civita. You may be right but I cannot find it. What is very clear is that Civita is not the donor on reliefweb. Look at their page: it is not what they do and It is somewhat doubtful that the Civita group has been funding to the tune of a half billion dollars. Please be more careful and discuss things before you remove them without cause. I gave a source. The onus is on you to disprove its validity not to offer conjecture and a story.MarturetCR (talk) 05:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about that, but I do know that at the bottom of The Forum's partner page it says "The Oslo Freedom Forum was made possible thanks to a generous grant from the John Templeton Foundation..."[10] and does not mention any support from the Norwegian government. Same from the press release [11]. Even if they somehow omitted mentioning funding from their host country government, there are questions of due weight, at least. Rd232 ^talk 06:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This funding point is still disputed, but I've moved it to Oslo Freedom Forum, where at least it isn't WP:UNDUE. My concern is that ReliefWeb may simply be wrong; I cannot see why HRF would not mention the funding in press statements or on their website; it would seem a matter of courtesy at the very least. Rd232 ^talk 10:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. --JN466 18:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

How discourteous of them. Perhaps the answer lies in their own site, quoted in this very wiki article: "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." [12] Given this, it is quite clear that there is an explanation for what you see as the undue influence of the John Templeton Foundation and perhaps the reason why they don't mention the other funders. However, given that the Norway grant is specifically for the Oslo Freedom Forum I am putting it back in there. It provides information that is important and contextualizes why the Norwegian government gave them money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarturetCR (talk • contribs) 19:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Marturet, I am really not convinced. I can't find any corroboration anywhere: [13], nor can I see on the ReliefWeb site any indication that these are specifically public moneys provided by governments, nor does the fact that you or I could contribute entries to the ReliefWeb site fill me with confidence. If you speak Norwegian, perhaps you could do a search for any Norwegian sources mentioning a Norwegian government grant to the Oslo Freedom Forum. Failing other sources, I am in favour of removing the reference. --JN466 19:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) This discussion should move to Oslo Freedom Forum, where at least the mention isn't WP:UNDUE. It is WP:UNDUE to mention the Norwegian funding here, even without the sourcing issue, because the Forum didn't even mention it. And it's prima facie ludicrous to suggest that the Norwegian government is afraid of retaliation, and rather unlikely that the second-most transparent country in the world could or would seek to keep such funding secret. In general, this is why we try to rely on WP:PSTS secondary sources to filter information; the ReliefWeb database entry is certainly a primary source. Rd232 ^talk 20:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Since MarturetCR seems intent on edit warring the reference in (with the edit summary about providing a source completing ignoring the concerns above, and the consensus against inclusion), I've left a note at WP:NPOVN. Rd232 ^talk 19:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Noting that the recent edit introduced a Norwegian source which (via Google Translate) doesn't support the funding claim. It does mention support from the City of Oslo. original translated. Rd232 ^talk 19:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It also says they were hoping to one day receive the same kind of support from the Foreign Ministry (which would be part of the government) – which implies they did not have it. This is entirely consistent with the primary source, which simply gives the country of origin of the funds. --JN466 22:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Moved from article

Los Angeles writer Patrick Goldstein refers to the organization as "respected",[14] and in the Mennonite Weekly Review it is referred to by a supporter as "neither leftist nor rightist"[15].

Writing as president of HRF in the American conservative magazine National Review, Thor Halvorssen participated in NR's symposium on the death of Chilean right-wing dictator Augusto Pinochet, and was noted as the only one of the six commentators to condemn Pinochet unequivocally, writing: "Augusto Pinochet took full control of Chile—by force. He shut down parliament, suffocated political life, banned trade unions, and made Chile his sultanate. His government disappeared 3,000 opponents, arrested 30,000 (torturing thousands of them), and controlled the country until 1990."

1. The inclusion of the Pinochet bit has already been discussed; it is hard to see how it is relevant enough for inclusion; this encyclopedia entry is about HRF, not about Halvorssen's opinions. The phrasing "noted as the only one of" is particularly egregious though - noted by who? 2. The Goldstein adjective is plucked from an LAT blog piece which echoes a poor Advocate piece; cf this letter. I think its inclusion fails WP:UNDUE; as the opinion of a random HRF supporter in an obscure newsletter (Mennonite) certainly does. Rd232 ^talk 11:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It WAS discussed and added into this new section by another editor. It is being put back in. If we are keeping the Cuban Communist Party rag then we are keeping the National Review and the LA Times. MarturetCR (talk) 12:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

To be precise another editor moved it after you added it. Equally, you cannot compare the Granma opinion (official organ of the ruling Cuban Communist Party, as it says in the article) with a single adjective in an LAT blog, whilst Halvorssen's minor contribution to the National Review is irrelevant to the subject at hand: this article is about HRF, not Halvorssen's opinions. Rd232 ^talk 21:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I certainly can compare adjectives published by a French writer in the organ of a communist dictatorship that does not permit freedom of speech and imprisons journalists with adjectives from a newspaper that has received multiple pulitzer-prizes like the Los Angeles Times. The comparison is more than fair. it is goign back in. And as far as the Mennonite newspaper--it contains more "news" about the world than Granma does. Have you ever actually read Granma? It is a propaganda rag. And as for National Review--what occured with the article and what was written about it is absolutely key to making this entry more neutral and more balanced. It is going back in, too. After all, Halvorssen wouldn't have been published other than for the fact that he was representing the organization.MarturetCR (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I kind of agree with Rd232 about the Halvorssen thing. We are trying to make it do something which is not in the original source: prove that the HRF is not a right-wing organisation. It would be better to find sources that comment on the HRF directly. --JN466 12:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Rd232 about the Mennonite Newsletter and LA Times blog not being good sources. I guess the LA Times blog would be just about defensible, if it were clearly identified as such. --JN466 13:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the mennonites and married the Granma and LA Times bit. I think this is a good compromise. I have also added balance to the comment from the Bolivian minister. But I think keeping the National Review bit does not do harm and should remainMarturetCR (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant text is harmful, even if it isn't somewhat misleading. You would do far better to go and look for other sources. Rd232 ^talk 21:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Ahem, cough, cough... Am I reading this right? the article, in PRINT (not a blog alone) of a paid reporter and culture critic of the Los Angeles Times is "irrelevant" text but the rants of a pseudo journalist writing in a country that limits internet use and freely admits that an independent press is illegal--that's relevant? Sorry, both of you, you cannot have it both ways.MarturetCR (talk) 05:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I omitted to correct your misunderstanding: "irrelevant text" (apart from making a general point) referred to the Pinochet text, which I've repeatedly said isn't relevant to this article. Rd232 ^talk 10:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The LAT link is clearly to an LAT blog. And Allard's claim is a substantive one, whereas Goldstein's is merely a single adjective; if Goldstein gave some explanation of why it was "respected", it would be more significant. And it's implied in the article text that the Allard opinion is an official view, which makes it worth reporting. If it's just "some French guy" it's more debatable. Rd232 ^talk 06:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The LAT link may be to the blog but the article appears verbatim in the LA Times. Look on their archive or on Lexis (which is not uploadable). or, if you prefer, go to a library and look it up on a microfiche or whatever it is you do over in BlightyMarturetCR (talk) 09:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

If it's in the paper, it shouldn't be that hard to find a link to a digital version of the printed article. 3 minutes, it took me, searching by author in December 2008 (since blog title is often different): LAT Cached. I guess if it's in the printed paper it can stay; but I do so hate cherry-picking adjectives, especially from sources which are primarily about something else. But I can't be bothered to press the point now, and hopefully something better will eventually turn up. Rd232 ^talk 10:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Very well, I am putting it back in, the LAT piece, I mean. 07:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarturetCR (talk • contribs)

Criticism and controversy

I have just restored the criticism and controversy section after it was arbitrarily deleted. Halvorssen is a public figure and therefore has drawn criticism and controversy. Including this on a WP page is a standard practice. WP pages are not puff pieces or resumes. If the person who deleted the section claims it is "biased" then those claims should be discussed here. Deleting whole sections is not the correct approach. You must show why it is "biased" and irrelevant. In fact, the criticism and controversies cited were both high profile, well-sourced and absolutely relevant to providing a full picture of this organization. This article is full of accolades for HRF. It would simply be biased to exclude criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThorWay (talk • contribs) 06:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

As with the practically identical edits on the pages of Thor Halvorssen and the Oslo Freedom Forum, I am reverting the edits due to the sources not being reliable enough and not numerous enough for such bold and lengthy claims. Your name also clearly implies a bias with these and other edits.Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 06:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you claiming that 18 scholars did not write a letter in Norway's leading newspaper Aftenposten criticizing HRF/Halvorsse/OFF? To suggest that the the letter-- which is linked-- is not notable and nor RS is really incredible. I emphasize: his section is to include notable criticism of Halvorssen. I take no position on whether the criticism is valid. I do take a position that it is notable. Similarly, the criticism by Blumenthal is notable, so much so that one of Norway's leading newspaper, Klassekampen interviewed Halvorssen precisely about this criticisms in its 16-17 May 2013 edition. These criticisms are without a doubt notable, since Halvorssen himself has responded to them. I urge you, instead of attempting to suppress this information -- in a manner that I am afraid shows bad faith and bias -- to work with me on the section to make it, in your view, more balanced. For example you might want to add quotes from Halvorssen's responses to these criticisms. I would welcome that very much. If you delete the section again, that can only be seen as bad faith, since I am trying to offer constructive ways to make this section of notable criticism and controversy more acceptable to all. We cannot do that that if you insist on suppressing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThorWay (talk • contribs) 09:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that it's worth including this criticism, but the current presentation seems to me non-neutral. There's no need for the peacocking in front of Max Blumenthal's name, for example ("award-winning journalist and author"), nor to separate out "criticism and controversy" from the rest of the "public perception", which already covers both praise and criticism of the group. The link to Breivik seems incredibly tenuous--an HRF forum has accepted funding from people who also funded groups that Breivik claimed as his inspiration?--a little like playing Six degrees of Kevin Bacon]. It's also inappropriate to report these findings as if they are factual and beyond dispute in Wikipedia's voice ("demonstrated"); "noted" should also be avoided per WP:WTA. I also doubt that "Islamophobic" is a neutral description of these groups; for example, the New York Times regularly asks FDD fellows to comment in its pages: [16]. It's also notable that you omitted the praise from the Aftenposten piece while keeping the criticism.

I've attempted to rewrite this section in what appears to me a more neutral way. Let me know what you both think. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I agree that there were valid criticisms in there, I just thought the presentation was pretty biased. The new version looks great to me though, I just went through and changed the wording a little bit.Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 19:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Irrelevant section

Hi,

I deleted the "HRF Bolivia" section, since it talks about a completely different organization. I copy the section below in case if someone would want to start a separate article for it:

HRF Bolivia[edit] According to the information available on their website, HRF-Bolivia was established in 2007.[54] HRF and HRF-Bolivia are two different organizations with independent boards, staffs, and programs. HRF-Bolivia has issued several reports and communications denouncing violations of human rights in Bolivia.[55]

In accordance with a questionnaire prepared by HRF for the Inter-American Human Rights Commission regarding the situation of human rights defenders in Bolivia—available on HRF’s website [56]— in 2010, Bolivian authorities formally indicted 39 Bolivian nationals for purportedly having connections with the late Eduardo Rózsa-Flores, a Hungarian-Bolivian citizen who was killed in a raid by the Bolivian police in April 2009. The 39 people indicted—many of whom have since been granted political asylum in different countries, such as Brazil [57]— were charged with the crimes of separatism, and insurgency. The 39 people indicted include Mr. Hugo Achá, a Bolivian lawyer and television commentator who, among other positions he publicly held in the country, was the pro bono chairman of HRF-Bolivia’s board until May 2009.[58] Achá, as many of the other 38 people indicted, denied any involvement, claiming that he had met Mr. Rósza a few times when the latter had approached him in his capacity as a journalist, with a request for human rights-related information. Bolivian media has also reported,[59][60][61] that the alleged key witnesses to the case later retracted their accusations and denounced that they had been tortured and forced by Bolivian authorities, in order to implicate Mr. Achá and others. The Bolivian authorities have dismissed these statements as false.

According to their website, before resigning collectively, HRF-Bolivia’s board of directors publicly made clear that there was no connection between the institution and the personal accusations being made against its board chairman and dozens of other people and organizations of Bolivian civil society.[55]Jumpinthecircle (talk) 22:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Funding by right-wing organizations

As documented at http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Human_Rights_Foundation the "Human Rights Foundation" receives funding from right-wing groups, and so far as I can tell, its "Oslo Freedom Forum" has featured no notable left-wing speakers, and only criticizes left-wing governments in the Americas. Founder is the son of Thor Halvorssen Hellum, former CIA collaborator who helped fund the Nicaraguan contras. Maybe its time this is regarded as a political organization rather than a human rights advocacy group. Wannabe rockstar (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Page name and URL

The Human Rights Foundation Corporation is the full name of this 'organization'. This request is is about changing the page name and URL from Human_Rights_Foundation to The_Human_Rights_Foundation_Corporation or to The_Human_Rights_Foundation and remove all wrong redirects. The full and legal name of the corporation can be funded Certiface of Incorporation. For example, we can't call just Cola the Coca_Cola in WikiPedia.

Since you are an IP and are unable to move this page yourself, please read the procedures at Wikipedia:Requested moves for having a volunteer change the page title for you. As this re-titling may be controversial, I would advise opening a move discussion on this page. Altamel (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Human Rights Foundation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120304081146/http://www.elcomercio.com/Generales/Solo-Texto.aspx?gn3articleID=222799 to http://www.elcomercio.com/Generales/Solo-Texto.aspx?gn3articleID=222799

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 28 March 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not happening, and BOLDly closing per WP:SNOW. I've created a redirect for HRF (USA) to this article. (non-admin closure) ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Drop me a note} 16:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

---

Human Rights Foundation → HRF (USA) – Calling the organization "Human Rights Foundation" is inappropriate according to the organization's official website http://hrf.org (http://hrf.org/about/about-hrf/) and official Twitter account https://twitter.com/hrf (https://twitter.com/HRF/status/712296369483063296). "HRF" is service mark at United States Patent and Trademark Office and the Registration Number is 4866673 . HRF is the correct naming because the organization use it widely everywhere on social media and news. This is the reason why the lawyers at the United States Patent and Trademark Office allowed the federal registration (see "Specimen" at USPTO). I believe that moving this page to HRF (USA) will help for example the Twitter followers and general public to identify the correct Wikipedia article when searching for the organization. "HRF (USA)" identifies the source and the country of origin of the services. Human Rights Expert (talk) 04:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. They appear to be using their full name on their website, as do all the reliable references. The abbreviation appears to be used to make an easier to use URL, twitter handle, and to stay within Twitter character limits. Is this move request related to the promotion of the dubious Swiss "Human Rights Foundation"? -- haminoon (talk) 07:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support. No they don't! HRF is how the organization identify it self, and HRF is how the organization recognized by the public, HRF is the source of services in United States of America and HRF is how the organization is recognized by the government of United States of America. Please take a look to the http://hrf.org and to the last few articles published by the organization.

1. Article, HRF to Laos: Investigate Disappearance of Activist Sombath Somphone
2. Article, HRF in the News: "Flashdrives for Freedom? 20,000 USBs to Be Smuggled into North Korea"
3. Article, HRF Condemns Kazakhstan’s Façade Elections

Remember, I helping Wikipedia to be clear from spammers and when I saw this page and I began editing because many external links pointed to different domain names which showing the same website.

• HRF.org
• theHRF.org
• humanrightsfoundation.org

My request to move the page from "Human Rights Foundation" to "HRF (USA)" according to https://hrf.org/about/about-hrf (official website of HRF), according to the http://twitter.com/hrf (Official Twitter account), according to the http://youtube.com/humanrightsfdn (Official Youtube Channnel named HRF), according to the logo bit.ly/1ogqInU used by the organization on Google+. My edit is correct and the move request is correct according to United States Patent and Trademark Office which is part of the United States government. My last edit was correct on the page because the organization as I said HRF and not "Human Rights Foundation" how it's showing on the whole Wikipedia. I editing and I request NOT to revert the changes. I support now and I will support in the future to move this page to HRF (USA) because it's in a wrong place. And I'm wrong? United States government lawyers are wrong? Because if so, I going to request cancel the trademark registration for false statements made by the organization. https://hrf.org/about/about-hrf and other evidences I attached to my move request (including a Federal trademark registration U.S Registration Number is 4866673) is clearly states that the organization is called HRF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Human Rights Expert (talk • contribs) 12:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose This isn't the first attempt that you've made to mess around with this article in order to try and promote a different, less notable organisation with the same name. It is wholly transparent and unlikely to succeed, sorry. --ℕ ℱ 23:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Stop accusing me! As you can see all of my edits made in good faint and I promoting nothing on this page. Please feel free to provide the relevant Help:Diff to prove your statements regarding my edit. (Feel free to learn how to write the word organization! Your last edit in this talk page contains grammatical error, namely "organisation".) Please note: I revert any changes and made by User:nonsenseferret and User:Haminoon and start a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Human Rights Expert (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to raise any issue you wish at AN/I - you are still not going to be permitted to promote your organisation via wikipedia. FYI organisation is perfectly correct. --ℕ ℱ 00:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. We do not use the acronym of an organisation, especially not when someone who seems to have an agenda other than encyclopædia work and is apparently linguistically ignorant requests it. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 00:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is not KFC or the FFA, where the org is trying to distance itself from its previous name. I have no issues with creating a redirect from HRF (USA) to this article, but I see no reason why it should be moved. As a side note, HRF is already a disambig. Primefac (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: Agree with Jéské Couriano and Primefac. Nothing wrong with having it listed at the HRF disambiguation page, but the organization website clearly has "Human Rights Foundation" emblazoned across the top of their webpage. As such, a non-abbreviated version of the title is appropriate here. The abbreviation seems to just be used in an informal manner for convenience and expediency. Formal titles are appropriate. Chrisw80 (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

DO NOT EDIT MY COMMENTS AND STOP THE ACCUSING ME! SHOW ME EVIDENCES by linking Help:Diff, where I promoted a third party organization on this page. Second, if you talk about other than PAGE MOVE consider open another discussion in this talk page. Last, keep your stupid opinions I think nobody want to listen to somebody who have no EVIDENCE that the changes I made in this page it was made in bad faint or for the purpose of promotion of another organization than HRF! Human Rights Expert (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

What's the old lawyer saying? "If the case is in your favour, pound on the case. If the case is against you, pound on the facts. If the case and facts are against you, pound on the table." You were the one who removed Nonsenseferret's comments, which is a major issue around here, and your behaviour is quite indicative of someone who has a severe, potentially undisclosed paid, conflict of interest. You're doing a LOT of table-pounding. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 01:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

{{Edit fully-protected}} Other editors are continuesly reverting my edits, without justifying the reason and harrashing me, in 5 minute voting 3 person about a page move request. The page must be fully protected!

Your edits are being reverted because you're removing others' legitimate comments. Talk pages are practically never semi-protected, let alone fully-protected. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 01:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment, I'll assume good faith (or, in one of the best unintentional lines I've seen here, "As you can see all of my edits made in good faint", in good faint). Accusing someone of being paid to make an edit doesn't seem to be assuming good faith, but we also have to assume those editors are just trying to protect the project, which is cool. The editor making the name request may have missed the name of the group's website, which is on top of their first main page. It contains the spelled out full name. The initials following on the website are explained by the full name on top, and then their website writers may be trying to make it shorter on the eyes or something by not repeating the full name. And website internet-routing names are very often not the real name of the group, but initials which are easier to type. Anyway, good faint faith all around, taking in all points of view. Randy Kryn 2:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm confused. How is he "promoting a different, less notable organisation with the same name"? hrf.org and humanrightsfoundation.org both resolve to the same IP address, the domains are registered to the same person, and the contents of the two sites appear to be completely identical. This sounds like a misconfiguration on their end. Anyway, I oppose the move, as their about page says "Human Rights Foundation (HRF)" and their logo also says "Human Rights Foundation™". I see no good reason for this move. The fact that they use "HRF" in tweets for brevity is not a valid argument. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7h: perhaps the following discussion will clear up some of your confusion regarding the real reason for this move request discussion on MediaWiki_talk regarding human rights foundation spam --ℕ ℱ 14:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human Rights Foundation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100521093008/http://www.nytid.no:80/perspektiver/artikler/20100311/samler-heltene/ to http://www.nytid.no/perspektiver/artikler/20100311/samler-heltene/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)