Talk:Veja (magazine)

Right Wing vs Left Wing
The article at the moment states: "It is known in Brazil for its conservative political positions." I am no big fan of Veja, but I do not believe it necessarily exhibits a right-wing bias. If anything, it is centrist. Simply criticising the current administration does not a conservative publication make. I would like to argue that this should be removed. Regarding the Renan Calheiros section, I also believe it should be removed--in the grander scheme of things, it is irrelevant. Either Wikipedia lists every scandal the magazine has exposed or been involved with, or none. Mottad (talk) 01:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you Mottad. Conservative? hhahahahha A Pro-abortion, anti-religious magazine? This make me laugh.

It is a complete joke to say that a magazine which is pro individual liberty and pro free-market is aligned with far right movements. In the USA Veja would be considered maybe even centre-left.

This entry
This entry wouldn't even exist if the magazine didn't publish that article. If I were you, experient wikipedians, I'd make an extensive research on Veja and publish it here to prove them how they're wrong (if such statement is true).

"The magazine stated that Wikipedia's correction mechanism works better in subjects in which many people are interested [...], such as technology. It becomes desastrous in obscure or political themes". - I'm sure many people are now interested in this article on VEJA magazine, after the January 26 publication. Let's see how this turns out.

Now...doesn't everyone agree that VEJA was 100% wrong in spreading misinformation just to prove their point? ---Plugues 21:38, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree they were wrong. That's sneaky vandalism. But I don't think we should use this article to take revenge on them. We should make this one as much NPOV as possible, otherwise we would be strengthening Veja's argument that Wikipedia is not reliable. JoaoRicardo 03:04, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with João Ricardo above. They were wrong, but this article as it is now is a childish. --Pinnecco 13:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we should gather some moderators and jointly write a letter from Wikipedia to VEJA.

Even though I disagree with what they did, they did prove a good point. Sometimes you have to do something unlikable to prove a point.Saopaulo1 22:52, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Misinformation
I wonder if VEJA ever accidentally reports something which turns out to be untrue ? If not they must be a most unusual publication. And it appears that they don't like the fact that a mistake remained in Wikipedia for two days without correction. Again I wonder how long it takes them to correct a mistake, if they discover that they have published something incorrect ?-- Derek Ross | Talk 22:40, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)

Classic Cases
Actually, there have been a LOT of cases when VEJA was wrong and never corrected themselves. The most famous case is the one about BoiMate, an article about a genetically enhanced tomato that tasted like cowmeat.

POV
I had removed some statements in the original article which I found were too personal. An anonymous user inserted them back. So we had better discuss this here and maybe reach a consensus.

I am concerned with three statements in this article who seem POV to me:

To prove their point, Veja started to spread misinformation on Wikipedia's article about Brazilian president Lula.

They didn't "start to spread misinformation". They changed two pieces of information, a) the size of Lula's hometown and b) the importance of Pernambuco within Brazil. This is explained in the article, in more accurate manner, so I don't think it is necessary to state this here.

It must be noted that Veja is a notorious anti-government publication.

This is a weasel term. The magazine itself has not said it is against Lula's government, and in fact I have seen them complimenting his cabinet on some issues. So let's either state who thinks this, or remove it from the article.

In their article, Veja showed no concern whatsoever on anyone who might have used Wikipedia during that period, researching on president Lula.

This does not add to the article, and in fact makes Wikipedia look resentful. We really shouldn't look like we are taking revenge on the magazine here. Maybe we can include the expression "sneaky vandalism" to give the reader an idea of how grave Veja's action is, with a wikilink to an appropriate page. As in "Veja inserted sneaky vandalism into an article about Luis Inácio Lula da Silva. JoaoRicardo 19:10, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Section "Criticism"
To the person who is adding the section entitled "Criticism": please consider these points. If you want to contribute to the article, provide information which is verifiable and neutral. The information you have written is neither. How can one verify that "many people in Brazil complain that Veja is a superficial, trendness and elitist publication"? Please see Avoid weasel words. You should also provide some source or proof for the claim that Veja copies articles from other magazines. If you don't have them, it is better to drop the text from the article. JoaoRicardotalk 01:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I just reverted again to remove this section. If I wanted to read sourceless POV, I wouldn't come to Wikipedia (I would read Veja :P). --Abu Badali 12:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You want resources, JoaoRicardo? http://www.novae.inf.br/pensadores/veja_invencoes_elite.htm
 * If you're a brazilian, and you are, you know that.Everyone, not right-winged, knows.Bad attitude.


 * I, for instance, live in Brasil and, for instance, do not doubt of some of the infos you've put on the article. But my (nor yours) internal beliefes aren't enough. We can't simply throw in such claims on Wikipedia without citing sources. Phrases like "Many people in Brazil complain..." can't be accepted without a opinion poll result (or some other source).


 * What would you say about non-brazilian readers of this article? How are they expected to belive this words without 'living in brazil'?


 * Your source only proves there exists people that disagree with Veja's honesty and/or competence. I belive we can mention this fact in the article. But we can't just throw in the info/opinion as you did. Anyway, thanks for the link.
 * If you think it's necessary, we may as for an intervention so that the comunity process may give us a light on this discussion.


 * Regards, --Abu Badali 16:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thousands of people read Veja every week. Obviously they don't agree with you. So please don't say that "everyone knows". This is an opinion, not a fact. It is fine to include the opinions of notable sources in the article, but please do not word it as a fact. I know there is a lot of criticism towards Veja, and a section on this should definitely be included in the article. But not in such words as you have written. Let's see your text bit by bit.


 * "Many people in Brazil complain that Veja is a superficial, trendness and elitist publication that distort facts about polictical, economy and even though personal bios with defamation pourposes." &mdash; How do you know that "many people" complain about it? How many people is "many people"? One hundred? One thousand? One million? What is the source for this claim? Was there a poll? You cannot point to a single website and say that this is source that "many people" complain about Veja.


 * Try to resay that with inversion or impersonate statements. The problem here is that the sentence implies that whoever wrote it is "impersonating" the "many people", by making a direct statement that "many people do complain" and "do affirm that Veja is...". Is this nick black (talk) 04:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "Another common act is rivalize with media competitor's scoffing their pseudo-errors." &mdash; Source for this? Examples of instances when this ocurred? Also notice that when you claim these are "pseudo-errors", you are judging that Veja is wrong. Don't give judgements in the article. It is better to write "alleged errors".


 * "Veja also is considered an authentic TIME Magazine and Newsweek imitator, making superficial translations of the articles of these when it has lack of subject in the national scene." &mdash; Considered by whom? Please see Avoid weasel words. Could you provide examples of this alleged imitation?


 * Adjectives must be carefully placed. Two problems here: "impersonating" and "generalizing". Even if it's implied that a group or someone considers, the sentence could be missinterpretated as the writer's view, not the group or someone that the sentence refers to. And the qualities given, are they the writer's opinion or the writer's interpretation of the group or someone opinion in that sentece? Is this nick black (talk) 04:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "(THIS IS NOT POV, you can find in lots of serious brazilian sites, dont you dare to remove it)" &mdash; Don't threaten other Wikipedians. This will get you nowhere. JoaoRicardotalk 16:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

"Thousands of people read", how genius.What the links, and I, said?Ellitist publication.You really think right-wing people are gonna corroborate me in the television and other media vehicles?How innocent is that?

Many people=the sites I mentioned and even linked.

Errors?Remember Cassia Ellers death(thats in the article, not hard to know)?

The TIME thing wasnt me(actually, I didnt write anything, I'm just defending that a section of criticism SHOULD be published).

That was no thread.What I'm gonna do:plug a cable in my ass and get in your house through your computer?

And if you are so interested in the article, why dont you translate some parts of the links(has facts, has covers, has what wiki asks)?Or are you just defending the magazine transvestited as brazilian intelectuals? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.165.23.22 (talk • contribs)


 * I don't think one single, non-notable site is proof that "many people" think something. And yes, there are criticisms towards Veja in other media forms, such as books (like the one mentioned in the article you showed to us), other magazines (like Carta Capital and Caros Amigos) and notable websites like Observatório da Imprensa. One just has to look for it. When I spoke of "errors", I wasn't referring to errors committed by Veja, but to these so-called "pseudo-errors" that the text says Veja likes to point in its competitors. I defend the section on criticism too, but it must be written according to our policies: verifiability and NPOV. I must point out again that you are being too agressive in your remarks, which goes against acceptable behaviour in Wikipedia. JoaoRicardotalk 15:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you Joao Ricardo. For my taste, for example, Veja is a kind of left wing magazine. Many people in Brazil do not know what is a right wing party. PFL as a right wing party? That's a joke. They are nothing, believe me...hahahaha. The Conservative Party (here in UK) or the Republican Party are truly right wing representatives. But all this is just a POV, suitable here, not in the article. Regards200.189.94.104 20:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Sources for Criticism section
Well, if Veja-lovers want sources, here they are: ,


 * And this is only quick-Google take. I think Veja-defensors need shower their faces before insinuate hypocrisy here. Isn't news what Veja makes even though for a minimal educated Brazilian.
 * So, rewrite the section avoinding the weasel words. For instance, instead of starting with "many people in Brazil complain that Veja is ...", why not "Critics of Veja state that the magazine is..." (followed by your source citations)?. Try it, I'm sure you can do that. Show the world what all of us already know here, that Wikipedia is of superior quality than Veja. --Abu Badali 12:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I was accused of vandalism on the History page. I must say I disagree with that. It wasn't me re-removing the Criticism Section (although I would agree with the removal, as that section's content was being disscussed here and no consensus had yet emerged).


 * Anyway, the section was re-added again (again), with no consideration for the points discussed here. I editted it to remove the weasel words, and pasted the links cited here as sources. But I still thing it's not enough. The source should be cited (and grouped) side-by-side with the accusations. For now, they are just all together at the begining. By the way, I haven't read them yet. Can't say they really confirm what is said on the paragraph.


 * Please, I ask the editors involved to take part into the discussion, avoid personal attacks and strong feelings, take into account Wikipedia's polices and so we could write a high quality article. Yours truly, --Abu Badali 16:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Another proof of Veja's clear rightist slant to politics is its continuous reference to President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela as a "dictator".

Relevance of the Wikipedia section
Veja has existed for decades; why does a single article, which does not even come near the ones which had a great impact on the Brazilian society, gets more than half of the article? --cesarb 19:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. The Article on Wikipedia section should be removed from the article, and moved to another place. In its current form, the article talks too much about that irrelevant fact. Also, the image is a possible copyvio. Regards, Carioca 22:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree completely that the Wikipedia section is lame. It's incredibly biased that we have this here, as CesarB said about - a single article which really had no impact on anything - should not be in the article... it's only because the article was about Wikipedia that we mention it?  Lame!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree and I am going to remove it. If it has any place in the project it would be as a brief mention and/or another source in the Wikipedia article. The only way this Wikipedia article would have a section on an individual article in the magazine would be if the article in the magazine itself had generated sufficient notice in secondary sources. I do not see any reference to that so am removing. --Justallofthem (talk) 13:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed content
There isn't much encyclopedic content about them in the article yet. I removed the following unencyclopedic and unbalanced content: +sj + 03:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I never really liked the "Article on Wikipedia" section, as it unecessarily too defensive (but I predict this move will (re-)start a great flame war here... ). About the "Criticism" section... what's your problem with it? I don't think it's unencyclopedic. Regards, (and beware the flames), --Abu Badali 14:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

That section shouldn't be removed, once VEJA LAUNCHED IT'S OWN ENCYCLOPEDIA this year.Don't need to say much, do I?
 * I'm affraid you do. Don't take me wrong, I'm just interested in hearing your point. --Abu Badali 22:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Veja talks shit about wiki, for being online and blah blah.One year later, it lanunches its own encyclopedia, in PAPER(yeah, that means: NOT FREE).

If you don't understand, I'm sorry: go seek help in Pestalozzi.

And the section should stay here.Doesnt matter if there are a lot of other facts of the magazine: afeter all, anyone can write 'em too, can't?

Article on Wikipedia
In January 23, 2005, Veja published an unsigned article about Wikipedia entitled "Written by whomever wants to", shedding doubts on the encyclopedia's reliability. According to the article, the freedom entailed by Wikipedia is a cause for its success, but "it is also Wikipedia's greatest flaw, because its articles are subject to ignorants and ill-disposed [individuals]". It goes on to draw a comparison with Encyclopædia Britannica, whose first article on psychoanalysis was, according to Veja, written by Sigmund Freud.

The magazine stated that Wikipedia's correction mechanism "works better in subjects in which many people are interested [...], such as technology. It becomes disastrous in obscure or political themes". Veja made a test to try to prove their point. In the article on Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, the magazine allegedly inserted the information that he was born in "a big city in the industrial state of Pernambuco". This is incorrect because Lula (as he is better known in Brazil) was born in a small village, and Pernambuco cannot be considered an industrial state by Brazilian standards. Veja claimed the fake info stayed online for 2 days, until they removed it themselves.

The history log for that article shows that such a change was made on January 17 2005, by User:200.196.241.1, and was reverted by the same user on January 19.

Among the Wikipedia comunity, this is known as sneaky vandalism. Some Wikipedians expressed their dislike for Veja's attitude. See for instance the talk page for this article.

Criticism
Although Veja is the largest magazine in Brazil in terms of circulation and a recognized opinion leader, critics of Veja       (links in Portuguese) (commonly press watchers and polictical parties) accuse the magazine for being superficial, trendness and elitist. They point that the publication, that would be no more than a TIME Magazine and Newsweek imitator, perpetrates facts distortion and biographies defamation.

The magazine's attitude towards its media competitors is also sometimes frowned upon, as Veja consistently scoffs alleged factual mistakes committed by other periodicals.

What a bunch of self-indulgent crap. This is shameful. If I knew anything about the magazine I would remove and replace that section entirely or almost entirely with encyclopedic information. Ever heard of Avoid self-references? Grand master  ka  09:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I went ahead and removed it. This doesn't belong here, period, although I'm always open to discussion. :-) I'll work on expanding the article later. Grand  master  ka  10:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Someone tried to add this again nine months later. A.Z. 23:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Circulation
I find it difficult to believe that Veja is the fourth-most circulated magazine in the world. There are some magazines in the U.S. alone that have a circulation of more than 22 million (AARP Magazine). Although these are not necessarily paid copies, other magazines have tremendously large paid circulation. These include Reader's Digest, which two years ago was more than 10 million. According to one list there are 76 magazines in the U.S. alone that have greater than 1,200,000 circulation. And, of course, there are many other large-circulation magazines around the world. I doubt that Veja would even come close to making the top 100.

201.50.24.78 16:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)David201.50.24.78 16:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have removed this sentence, as it is impossible to prove that Veja is the 4th largest circulation "weekly news magazine" in the world. What is a news magazine ? Is The Economist a news magazine ? It is a source of economics news. General news ? How general ? Unless someone cames with an official table of circulation, togeteher with a definition of "news magazine", of all "weekly news magazines", in the world, this is pure speculatiion. With over 1 million copies, if Veja was to be a US magazine, it would rank amongst the 100 largest in the US, as per ABC statistics. But there are European magazines, Japanese magazines, Asian magazines, only God knows how many copies sell the Chinese weekly news magazines (General Administration of Press and Publications of China show that the total number of magazine titles in China amounted to a staggering 9,386 in 2006, printing a total of 2.85 billion copies); Canadian French only L'actualité has over one million readears. How can one say "the fourth largest in the world" without saying were this information is supposed to come from ? 201.83.5.178 00:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. It was a misinterpretation of the source. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Logoveja.png
Image:Logoveja.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"You cannot cite the magazine to say that"
Why not? A.Z. 01:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

For having exceeded the "criticisim quota" imposed by the editors...
This important reference has been repeatedly deleted from the article. But it is fundamental to the understanding - agree one with its revelations or not - of Veja's positions vis-à-vis its role in the Brazilian media: ‘Racists Control Veja Magazine’. This link is to a blog which provide a convinient - and as far as I can see, reliable - English translation. For the purists (who can read Portuguese) the original article is published on the Adital site: [http://www.adital.com.br/site/noticia.asp?cod=24338&lang=PT BORGES, Altamiro. Racistas controlam a revista Veja. 11.09.06 - BRASIL]. Major contributions with hard facts to support this thesis have also been extensively analysed by the independent Brazilian journalist Renato Pompeu, in the ""Caros Amigos" magazine (August 2006), on his article Veja e o apartheid (Veja and the apartheid)


 * A criticism quota is absurd. The explanation for removing the reference was "We have enough criticism links, and certainly ones which are less blatantly partisan than that author. I don't think ANY of these sources would meet WP:RS anyway." The sources do seem reliable to me. If someone wishes to dispute that, and suggest that they be removed because of that, fine, but this criticism is different from other criticisms mentioned, and there are just four references to criticism anyway. Partisanship is not a problem. I will add the reference back. Disputes over reliability should happen on this talk page. a.z. 18:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I thank you for your comprehension. It is impossible to hide the fact that Editora Abril is being accused of racism by many. One may agree, or disagree, with those accusations, find them more or less justifiable. But just to conceal them, to hide them as if they never existed, does not seem to me to be in line with any of the Wikipedia's postulates 201.83.50.173 18:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Reliability
The mentioned charges of racism, together with many others, against Editora Abril have been posted, since Sep 4th 2007, in the famous and respected Blog do Noblat, run by the Brazilian journalist Ricardo Noblat at the Globo Online site. The Blog do Noblat, according the the American Internet search engine for searching blogs Technorati, was in 2006 the leading political blog in Brazil: Blog do Noblat lidera ranking de política em 2006 (Blog do Noblat leads the political blog's ranking in 2006). To this date there have been no replies, rebuttals, defenses or comments from Editora Abril in connection with the mentioned charges. If any is to be published, by Editora Abril itself or by its admirors and followers, it will be posted here, as soon as avaliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.83.50.173 (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC) 201.83.50.173 19:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That's more reliability than anyone could ask for. Thank you. a.z. 20:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The rationale for my edits was not to "suppress" criticism. Far from it, I've reverted people who removed the criticism section before. I've thought about this issue further and here's what I've concluded: My issue is when people doing the criticism are not qualified or reputed to impart honest, objective criticism, especially when it comes to what is, in effect, a very personal criticism. These sources aren't saying Veja is a bad magazine or that it's poorly-written, they're criticizing their motivations--that's very different and highly specious. At this stage it becomes an ad hominem attack: you're not questioning the message, but rather the messenger. It's one thing to criticize, for example, CBS for being lax in not fact-checking the Killian documents--it's another to say that they're "liberal communists who wanted to sabotage George W. Bush". What this criticism section is doing is exactly the latter: it's imparting an overall bias to the magazine without describing the actions which have led them to that characterization. Whether I agree or disagree with the criticism isn't really relevant: it's really that the criticism being levied is almost inflammatory. If it came from people who are widely recognized as being respected or objective critics, I would consider the inclusion of ad hominem-like criticism, but at this stage, we have nothing but opinion from either sources of dubious relevance or from the extreme poles of the political spectrum (or did no one notice the "Debate Sindical" byline in the Adital link?). In the current section's lack of "showing" facts and rather just "telling" what someone think the motivations behind the facts are, I consider this whole paragraph synthesis of criticism by unreliable sources and it should be removed. I think there are several events in Veja's history which should be criticized, but in the absence of specific descriptions devoid of any context, I'm removing the criticism section until that context is added.

And by the way, what you've linked to in the Blog do Noblat wasn't Noblat accusing Veja of being racist, it was Renan Calheiros accusing Veja of accusing him without evidence. One would hardly include Nixon's indictment of the Washington Post during the Watergate scandal as an objective source for criticism. Nor can we we impart Noblat's "reliability" to Renan Calheiros when Noblat is simply re-telling, verbatim, what Calheiros said.--Dali-Llama 22:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you think that if Noblat considered the matter as irrelevant as you do he would keep the speech posted, verbatim as you said, on his blog ? There are thousands of parlamentary speaches on record, so why is just this very one posted on Noblat's blog ? 201.83.50.173 00:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Reporting is not the same as endorsing. Any first-year journalism student will tell you that. Noblat isn't endorsing what Calheiros wrote--he's just reporting what he said. The speech isn't irrelevant--the fact that Noblat reported it, as opposed to anyone else reporting it, is. And like I said, one can't say Calheiros is an objective critic of Veja just as one can't say Nixon is an objective critic of The Washington Post.--Dali-Llama 01:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all I oppose deleting whole sections of ANY article on the sole basis of a one alone editor's interpretation of some Wikipedia rules, without discussion. Most likely a few changes in some sentences could have fixed it, without DELETION, which is a form o CENSORSHIP and of impposing one's own views upon the community. If criticisms do exist to the magazine, not reporting them in the article makes the article just a half-truth, which is exactly another way of saying a half-lie. The fact that someone might be corrupt does not invalidate at all his testemony on a particular set of objective facts, on the contrary. (And here I am making a concession to you by accepting that  Calheiros is "corrupt" and that his words are worthless - he is, you may like it or not, the President of Brazilian Congress, and the fourth man in line of sucession to the President. He was accused by Veja, indicted, prossecuted and absolved by his own peers 41 x 35. Now YOU decide he was guilty and his official speeches, on the tribune of the Parliament, are not worth consideration by Wikipedia reader's ?!!!  I personally dislike him a lot, but I cannot legally say he is guilty. Absolved to Veja's charges he was; if you do not agree with that fact one have to begin questioning the whole legal System. Regarding your rationale for testemonies, it is flawed.  In Brazil, for instance, we have the example of Roberto Jefferson, a corrupt deputy who denounced the famous "Mensalão" episode. In spite of being a corrupt  politician himself, or exactly BECAUSE he was corrupt politician, he was able to denounce and unveil one of the largest and most significant political corruption schemes operating in Brazil. Everything he denounced, when further investigated, was finally confirmed. As one of the investigative comittee's members put up, "Roberto Jefferson did not give us any proofs of his accusations. But when we went there to any of  "crime scenes" he described and looked into it, invaribaly we would find "the body", "the gun", and "the fresh blood"... It is exactly because corrupt people live in a world honest people do not know well, and think with a mind honest people do not have, that their testomony is important for unveiling yet undiscovered wrongdoings. This is the whole concept behind the denunciation awards, where CRIMINALS have their sentences reduced for releasing to Justice information that otherwise could never be obtained. Should the Brazilian Parliament had used the criteria which are being defended here, the Brazilian Mensalão would be still running and Roberto Jefferson would still be a member of Parliament. I will not replace the censored section, or else this becomes a editing war. But I do expect you to reconsider your action. By changing, editing, improving it, as you wish, but not by censoring the section CRITICISMS. 201.83.5.178 13:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see why critics would have to be objective in order to be mentioned. Nixon is mentioned in the article on The Washington Post. a.z. 01:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My post below should answer your first point. If there are no standards for criticism to be included, we would just have an endless tirade of insults and name-calling in every article. And Nixon is mentioned in the Washington Post article as a milestone in time (as in "Beginning with Nixon's administration)--In any case, the WP article's criticism section is far better in that it mentions specific events that originate criticism, and not just the opinion stemming from those events. That's my whole problem with the criticism section of this article.--Dali-Llama 01:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Renan Calheiros is someone important and his criticism should be mentioned. I agree that the specific events that originated the criticism should be mentioned as well, but that a rather large part of the story is missing doesn't seem like a good reason to remove the other part from the article. a.z. 01:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What is the problem with mentioning inflammatory attacks from extreme poles of the political spectrum that criticize the magazine's motivations? Do you really think that removing the section is productive? If there's no context, we can just wait until someone adds it.
 * AZ: Being important is not a good metric for including criticism. Per WP:RS, one should be a recognized expert in their field (and look at things objectively). Otherwise, like I said before, we'd have an endless list of people who've criticized George Bush. There needs to be criteria and it generally seems to be along the lines of objectivity and qualifications for critic. So Roger Ebert would be a good choice for criticizing movies or a journalist to criticize political matters. As long as someone is not inflammatory and ad hominem (which I believe these sources are), then they're fit for inclusion. I think you gave a great example of how this pans out: 1)Cite a specific event in the magazine's history, and the resulting criticism, and 2)If you're going to be including a "blanket" or "ad hominem" criticism, make sure it's from an objective source. So for example, we can use the Hugo Chavez example you gave, or say that the magazine ran a story about Renan Calheiros and Renan calheiros accused the magazine of X, Y and Z. Just saying "Some say Veja is racist" is unencyclopedic, POV and outright underhanded.--Dali-Llama 17:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * How can one say that a man who has been elected Senate's President by an absolute multi-party majority (56 x 25), and has been absolved to Veja's accusations (41 x 35) represents an extreme pole of the political spectrum in Brazil. Isn't THIS a very personal interpretation, wouldn't it be the other way around ? 201.83.5.178 14:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You're mixing up issues: My objection to Renan Calheiros is that he is a defendant in a legislative disciplinary proceeding, and that he is neither reliable not objective when issuing criticism of of his accusers, especially when it comes to the magazine as a whole (as opposed to their conduct in his case). The "extreme pole" that I referred to were the other sources, especially the "Debate Sindical" source. They're not really competent to objectively judge a magazine. If you actually read my posts you'll see that I'm arguing for a set of rules for inclusion of criticism, otherwise we could just add whoever criticized Veja, and whatever it is they said. There need to be criteria for inclusion, just like there is for everything else. --Dali-Llama 17:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, what do you think about this story as a source? a.z. 22:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it's unencyclopedic: it does not add anything to understanding facts about the magazine or its history. It only adds "noise". It's like listing the various insults levied at someone, instead of describing controversial facts which led someone to levy those insults. In the former, the inflammatory attack is an end to itself, whereas in the latter the insult is the outcome of an event in that person's history. So, if someone can say "Event X in Veja's history happened. Person Y called the magazine Z as a result of it.", that would be okay. Just calling a person (or magazine) names is not really encyclopedic. Otherwise we'd have an endless article of "People who have called George W. Bush an idiot". And productive or not productive is not my primary concern for removing the content in question: no criticism section is better than a criticism section which violates policy. Let alone the fact that one could call some of those sources borderline libel. Whoever would like to add a criticism section with the proper context is free to do so--my removal isn't doing anything to prevent that. At the most it's removing "editor bait", but anyone checking the talk page will see there's plenty of discussion to warrant a re-write. I would do it myself, but I don't think these criticisms are valid (even though I agree that they have been made, so I do think an actual section on criticism is warranted). And on the story you pointed out, I think that is a good example of that combination of fact and criticism: Veja criticized Hugo Chavez (fact) and his government responded by comparing Veja to Goebbels (criticism). So that would be great for inclusion.--Dali-Llama 23:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, come on ! The fact that 30% o Editora Abril has become propertity of Naspers is not ENCYCLOPEDIC ? Since when ownership of media companies is an irrelevant fact in its description ? Anything holds here, as long as Veja's criticisms are hidden for public eyes... 201.83.5.178 14:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's very encyclopedic. But that's not what the criticism section said, is it? If you want to include that, go ahead. I understand a lot of people immediately question others' motivations, but I think people who've worked with me here, AZ included, know that I try to be radically dispassionate about issues. I really don't care about Veja (I read it maybe once every three months) or its critics--I'm trying to set up criteria for inclusion of criticism in the article. Hiding or including criticism is not my primary objective here.--Dali-Llama 17:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Veja30121992.jpg
Image:Veja30121992.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Political Alignment
The "The magazine is strongly right-wing, heavily opposing even the centrist politics of the PT government, speaking out against organized movements for social equality, and strongly opposing left-wing governments such as that of Hugo Chávez in Venezuela" statement lacks sources, plus qualifies PT government as "centrist" - on what grounds? Suggest to add sources or otherwise to remove the sentence. --Derfabio (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

One more: "It is known in Brazil for its conservative political positions" was added, but without any source???

--Derfabio (talk) 21:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)