Talk:Noticiero Digital

This is not encyclopedic
The article corresponding to this page is an awful piece of propaganda, and it looks like an attack page against Chávez written by a staunch opponent of his régime, one of the "Venezuelan opposition" supported heavily by the United States in an effort to thwart the popularly-supported Bolivarian Revolution and destabilize the entire country. It is appalling to know that a person chosen as executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation would write such an attack page, blatantly accusing Chávez of censorship, and supporting the "opposition". The text of the page appears to be a right-wing screed against strong democracy that is scared, and rightfully so some would say, of the consequences of an extreme right-wing movement, supported by the United States (a global superpower), to take power over the Venezuelan people. Latin American history is marked by such disastrous events. The administration of Chávez capitulates to no one except the population, which has aided the poor population in the health care, literacy, education, and media/information areas, largely due to the Bolivarian Missions. The Bolivarian Revolution is not Chávez's project, but a worldwide movement towards social change in Latin America, transcending borders, that happens to be supported by Chávez because it is his duty as a democratically-elected leader to serve the wishes of his people and nothing else. There is no doubt at all that an independent effort exists to destabilize the country and the popular movement led by none but the people of Latin America. Latin Americans have realized for all too long that they have been held under the oppression of racism, poverty, and the paucity of social justice, and have stood up to the holders of old power to bring power to the people and an end to these things.

Sue Gardner's writing of this article is an act of which the Wikimedia Foundation should be ashamed. Claims that the government is repressive of free speech, censoring the "opposition", or is hurtful to "democracy" in Venezuela, are made by those who are, in actuality, opposed to democracy. The Chávez government was elected democratically, and twice, despite attempts by U.S. mainstream media propagandists who knowingly conflate the abolition of term limits with him being "president for life". The people who are confused and targeted by the media are usually making cries of censorship when the country they love most, the United States, would have done much more than 99% of anything characterized as "repression" on the part of Venezuela's government. There are people looking for any excuse to demonize a popular social movement that is supported across Latin America by the majority of the population, for the reason that the Chávez government fulfills the demands of Venezuela's population, rather than those of USA-based companies. Venezuela is rich in oil, and nothing would please Washington more than a return to the predictable, usual cycle of AD and COPEI gaining control of the presidency. Additionally pleasing would be a US puppet who would, in essence, sell the country's natural resources to foreign oil companies that pollute the world (of the type that spilled oil at Lago Agrio in Ecuador), the environmentally-destructive logging industry, and economic globalization, as the country would plummet into destitute conditions. This article only exemplifies the same demonization, and it is of such low quality that it need not be in any kind of encyclopedia. MohammadMosaddeq 03:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:TALK and WP:SOAP, and focus on the content not the contributor: there are plenty of sources from which to write an article that conforms to policy. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are reliable sources; many of these from North American media, however, do not take into account that much of the site's content is quite despicable and would not be condoned by most people. Nor do they account for the fact that the United States government, as well as the pro-US Colombia, is perceived as a threat by the government of Venezuela. There has been no source from Venezuelan media; rather, the New York Times and the publication El Universal are used, the former of which is notably pro-USA, and the latter of which is anti-Chavez and supportive of the "Venezuelan opposition". This article does not cite any article from the perspective of the Venezuelan government, and basically ridicules the statements by Golinger by directly copying some text from the International Press Institute. This is a very reliable source, I admit, but the IPI piece does not cite any footnotes stating where Golinger made such a claim, and that text (it isn't paraphrasing) has no statements by Golinger to back it up. While it wasn't written in May, this article, which was said to be published in Correo del Orinoco (perfectly cite-able, by the way), claims that it was the USAID that has been supplying Venezuelan opposition groups with millions of dollars and funding opposition Web sites in Venezuela to destabilize the country. Is it possible that this is what is meant by "international cooperation agencies"? MohammadMosaddeq 00:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Whitewashing attempt reverted
I partially reverted changes made by a user, specifically an edit that removed the description that views presented on the site were extreme. It seemed to be an attempt at whitewashing the content on the site, much of which is highly reliant on ad hominem attacks against Hugo Chávez and his regime. The edit also removed that the criticism was right-wing, and tried to state that it was just a general forum for saying anything about Venezuela, and most of it criticizes the President. This is not true; much of what is posted crosses the line between constructive criticism and a ranting barrage of insults. Can you read Spanish? It doesn't really take a native speaker to see that this (from user "The HELPER") :

"Chavista en el poder=ignorante+idiota+resentido...traidor a la partria+foca...mata viejita+vioaldor[sic] de gallina+ cura pedofilo+ladron de iglesia+hitler con esquizofrenia"

means:

"A Chavista in power (Chávez)=ignorant, hateful idiot...traitor to the fatherland, gangster, kills loved ones, violator...a pedophile, a church thief, and Hitler with schizophrenia". ... "Exixte un relación sado-masoquista en los Chavistas" is

"A sado-masochistic relation exists among Chavistas", correct?

Someone posts a large picture of what looks like a large piece of human feces in a toilet, equating it with "Chavistas", and saying "nothing more".

"Bipeds with only one neuron"

Someone posts "CHAVIZTAS":


 * CH=ULOS
 * A=NDROIDES
 * V=ENDEPATRIAS
 * I=GNORANTES
 * Z=OOLOGICOS
 * T=TARIFADOS
 * A=NIMALES
 * S=UCIOS


 * Pimps
 * Androids
 * Sellers of the Nation
 * Ignorant
 * Beasts
 * Hired (like an assassin)
 * Animals
 * Trash

If this is the sort of content on the site, then it's a far way from merely criticizing Chávez - it's like most Neo-Nazi boards on steroids.

--MohammadMosaddeq 23:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:SOAP and WP:TALK: the article is now fully cited, so if you would like to add text, please provide a reliable source. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * SandyGeorgia, you removed content on this page that you dismissed as "bias" and proceeded to put some of the initial content of the article that I removed as political demonization. Could you explain why you removed any description of the content on the site that is the subject of the article other than a quote describing it as "a popular site critical of President Hugo Chavez"? Additionally, please elaborate on why you think the description "extreme" is biased, and whether there is a possibly better description for the content demonstrated above, which can be commonly found on the site? MohammadMosaddeq 00:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I cited the article; if you would like to add more text, please cite it to reliable sources, and since everything that is there now is reliably sourced (to multiple sources), I don't see a reason to remove anything. Feel free to expand with reliable sources-- I've incorporated what I found in the sources, only the minimum needed to clean up the mess that was there, although I did notice that all of the original text was reliably sourceable.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not what I asked. Please read the questions again, and answer accordingly. MohammadMosaddeq 19:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Golinger accusations
User:SandyGeorgia: I appreciate your efforts to make this article neutral, with which you have done a good job. But why are you trying to insinuate that Golinger is a liar, and that her accusations have been refuted? Denial is not refutation; so while I am aware that the "opposition" writers from ND denied Golinger's accusations, where has she made them before and where were they refuted? SandyGeorgia claims that Golinger is making accusations that have been "repeatedly disproven" in the past, which implies refutation. Could you provide a source for this?

Also, you added a section that repeated the claim that the ND writers denied the accusation that they were funded by the CIA, and added information of marginal and dubious relevance about a "cultural program" that they are involved in. I had already added that they deny the accusations against them; why was there a need to repeat it? MohammadMosaddeq 19:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:RS, WP:V, WP:SOAP and WP:TALK-- the article is cited, if you have additional reliable sources, please feel free to expand. Otherwise, please stop using the talk page for meaningless rants expressing your personal opinions.  No one has said or insinuated Golinger is a liar; you seem to be overlooking Wiki's WP:V policy in favor of personal opinion and misrepresentation about what the article actually says and how closely it reflects reliable sources.  Wiki reports what reliable sources say, and her claims (oft-repeated in many places) are unsubstantiated, as stated by multiple reliable sources.  If you have an argument with the text, please base it on WP:V and provide reliable sources.  Feel free to read her article if you need more sources.  Yes, there is a need to clarify how ludicrous the claims were: your first statement that it was denied could probably be deleted, since it is explained more completely in the second paragraph. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In the edit summary for this edit, you characterize Ms. Golinger's claims as having been "repeatedly disproven". The edit summary also insinuates that she is a liar. Why is it that the explanation for the "journalists"' denial of the accusations against them includes a sentence about a "cultural program"? Where, may I ask, have Golinger's claims been disproven, and why did you describe the claims as "ludicrous"? As far as I know, Golinger wrote a book with a title something like The Chávez Code: Cracking US Intervention in Venezuela, backed up by extensive research and documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act that show Washington's backing of the 2002 coup against Chávez. This led me to trust Ms. Golinger as a very reliable source on such matters. What source proves that her claims have been refuted? Where have they been actually refuted, rather than denied? MohammadMosaddeq 23:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Noticiero Digital. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121110131437/http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704211704575139783944258388.html to http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704211704575139783944258388.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality tags
Kind regards. I just stumbled upon this and I'm reviewing the content, but given how much time has passed and how many edits there have been, I thought it'd been easier to ask directly. What do you think could be done to solve the current cleanup tags? Best wishes. NoonIcarus (talk) 14:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I can't look at this until after Christmas; I am planning two funerals. Pls ping me if I forget. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)