Talk:Thor Halvorssen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] Venezuela fascist party

I've added the unreferenced template to the article. I've also removed the following phrase: a prominent leader in the Venezuelan fascist party, which is poised to take power in the event of a coup to depose the current regime. I get zero google hits on a Venezuelan fascist party. If the party has a real name it should be provided. Also speculation on who would take power in the event of a coup qualifies as crystal ballism. --JJay 12:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Romero quote

Hi -- the Romero quote is fine, but we need a source for the quote "his contributions to America through his work are indispendable and he is himself irreplaceable." Someone said it was in a "public letter", but I have been unable to find any reference to this public letter anywhere online, despite the fact that it was supposedly published in 2002 and undoubtably would have been distributed online in some form. Can you provide more context for this? Sdedeo 18:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Halvorssen and Romero

I found this: http://www.gobelle.com/p/articles/mi_m0IUK/is_2002_Spring/ai_86504537/pg_2?pi=gbl and it underlines a working collaboration between Anthony Romero and Thor Halvorssen. From the article: "Another encouraging sign is the new executive director of the ACLU, Anthony Romero, who called Thor, and they're going to work out some kind of collaboration."

Great, why not put that in instead of the quote which we unfortunately can't source/verify at this time. Sdedeo 19:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I have a physical copy of the letter, it was in a bio packet. I guess it can be put in PDF format somewhere. julie411

Actually, great -- if you can get a scan and upload it to wikipedia, we can include that in the article. Sources == awesome. Yours, Sdedeo 19:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Parents

I am not sure of the relevance of this paragraphs, its about the parents, not the subject himself. In any case, I don't see the relation with the section header "... advocacy". Also some POV (Metropolitan Police labeled as "chavista") and possible original research ( were gunners fred? I only read a previous sentence was revoked, perhaps the trial goes on, not sure )

Halvorssen's father served as Venezuela's ambassador for Narcotics Affairs in the administration of Carlos Andrés Pérez. In 1992, he was also appointed special overseas investigator of an Anti-Money-Laundering Commission by the Venezuelan Senate. He was a liaison between law enforcement agencies around the world, working on drug and money-laundering cases. While he was investigating the now defunct Banco Latino, he was arrested and spent 74 days in jail in Caracas "on charges he said were concocted by influential drug traffickers with 'friends' in the Caracas government". He was reportedly beaten and received death threats while he was in prison. International organizations, including Amnesty International, a Nicaraguan cardinal, and a member of the British Parliament, protested Halvorssen's case. He was found innocent of all charges. After his release, the United Nations-affiliated International Society for Human Rights appointed him director of their Pan-American Committee.[1][2][3]

Halvorssen's mother, a British subject, was shot by armed supporters of Hugo Chavez in August of 2004[1] [2]. She was attending a peaceful protest when she and several other women were victims of an attack.[4] Images of the gunmen were captured by a live television a broadcast.[5] They were later apprehended,[6] identified as government supporters [7][8][9] and freed.[10] The gunmen included former members of the security apparatus of the Chavista Metropolitan Police, the Vice-President's son, and para-police squadrons that support the government. One of the vehicles used in the shooting was traced to an active police official.[3][4][5] [6] [7] The shooting of Halvorssen's mother was the subject of a Wall Street Journal article.[11]

JRSP 13:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I see the chavista Metropolitan Police is removed (even though that is factual and could have been referenced): that's fine. It sounds like the content has grown beyond the section heading, which isn't a reason for deleting the content, rather it is a reason to change the heading. The relevance of what happened to his parents in Venezuela, and his father's positions with respect to civil rights, to his (the son's) democracy advocacy should be clear: it provides clear context. It is also important, as Julie points out below, to sort out father from son, as they are easily confused on the internet. Sandy 00:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
The relevance of what happened to his parents in Venezuela, and his father's positions with respect to civil rights, to his (the son's) democracy advocacy should be clear: it provides clear context This sounds as original research, we cannot guess TH Jr motivations. I do not think either that the father's story is necessary distinguish him from son, someone born in 1971 could not possibly have held an important position in the Venezuelan government in the end of the 80s or beginning of the 90s JRSP 01:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, disagree, discussion of parents and issues relevant to his career clearly belongs in any bio. This is a biography. Calling anything in it Original Research is a stretch. Sandy 01:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
No it is not a stretch: discussion of parents to this level of detail is not usual in bios. Considering this issues relevant to his career is speculation or OR. JRSP 01:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mother shot

It is unavoidable, when googling Halvorssen, to not come across his parents somehow and then to confuse him, for instance, with his father. The Lucent episode reveals he was involved in human rights advocacy since he was very young. It is clear these experiences are relevant.Julie411 01:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think "It is clear these experiences are relevant". Not clear to me, I insist it is not relevant to TH Jr bio. There are also some other things in the text like "chavista metropolitana police" that sounds like POV-pushing and guilt by association, not allowed per WP:BLP. The information about the gunmen being freed is not in source, check also [8] JRSP 02:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

JSRP. I have added even more sources. It took 8 seconds to verify and find them. Methinks you should try to spend less time finding fault in the entries that so clearly reveal problems with the Chavez government and instead should seek to add the easily identifiable sources and information. You are quite a piece of work! Julie411 07:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This source says the layers of the defendants will not ask for conditional freedom even though the sentence was revoked[9]. The other sources just say that the sentence was revoked, not that they were freed. Also [10] explicitly says they were not freed. I could not verify in the sources the claim that one of the accused was a "former security detail of the Vice-President's son". I also see you insist in calling the Mayor of Sucre "the son of the Vice President", in the same fashion we could also call TH "the cousin of the Mayor of Chacao". BTW you have not explained why you consider "It is clear these experiences are relevant". The header is "Venezuelan and Latin American advocacy", even the first paragraph seems out of place: nothing about Latin America in general, some US politicians and only an opinion article by TH against HC. JRSP 11:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

JSRP, you speak Spanish. The men caught on camera shooting Maritza Ron are free. This entry is becoming silly in that it has so many references to meet your standards. The many sources contain all of the information that needs to be verified. It may not be immediately following every claim but it is all there. For instance you wrote that Sucre Mayor Jose Vicente Rangel (calling him the Vice President's son is needed inasmuch as they have the same name) info needs to be verified. It's there. see [11] and [12]. Your constant toying with this (which I am happy to respond to given the amount of time I have devoted to this entry) is a form of vandalism. Would that someone applied these standards to you...it would make editing impossible and wikipedia unworkable. Julie411 18:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The men caught on camera shooting Maritza Ron are free. No reliable sources in the article support this claim. Please notice that blogs like sinmordaza.net are not allowed per WP:V and WP:RS. This entry is becoming silly in that it has so many references to meet your standards. Wikipedia standards, not mine. Many references are not necessary it is a question of quality, not quantity. There is not point in using a lot of references if they are not reliable and/or do not support the claim. you wrote that Sucre Mayor Jose Vicente Rangel (calling him the Vice President's son is needed inasmuch as they have the same name) info needs to be verified. I do not contend that the mayor of Sucre is VP's son, the main point is that sources do not support that one of the accused is a "former security detail of the Vice-President's son " the only thing I read is Oscar Pérez's opinion. [13], this cannot be presented as an assersion of fact.Your constant toying with this [...] is a form of vandalism. This is a content dispute, please check WP:Vandalism#What vandalism is not and WP:AGF.
Also, at the top level you have not yet explained why you think "It is clear these experiences are relevant", as I pointed out before I do not think the parents stories are relevant to the bio, what does this have to do with TH's "Venezuelan and Latin American advocacy"? Why "Latin America" in general? JRSP 02:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Moot argument, change the section heading. I'll go look at all the new references added and see if I can make any sense of what is there now. Sandy 00:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea why there is a string of references to back up simple statements, and I have no interest in reading them all. Here's what the article said the last time I looked at it - can we build from this?

Halvorssen's mother, a British subject, was shot by members of the Venezuelan government security apparatus in August of 2004. She was attending a peaceful protest when she and several other women were victims of an attack. [14] Images of the gunmen were captured by a live television broadcast.[15] They were later apprehended,[16] identified as government supporters, [17] [18] [19] and freed. [20] The shooting of Halvorssen's mother was the subject of a Wall Street Journal article.[21]
Is there agreement on that version? Is there disagreement that the sources say "government security apparatus" or something similar, that they were identified as government supporters, and that the subjects were freed, released, let go, whatever? Sandy 00:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Moving on from there:

  1. Julie, what is the source for this statement, deleted by JRSP?
    The gunmen included former members of the the Metropolitan Police, former security detail of the Vice-President's son (Mayor of Sucre Municipality), and para-police squadrons that support the government. Sandy 00:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Where exactly in these sources does it say supporters of "Chavez"? (refs *after* punctuation).
    Halvorssen's mother, a British subject, was shot by armed supporters of Hugo Chavez in August of 2004. [22] [23]
  3. JRSP, you added "not in citation given" to the statement that the shooters were freed: what is your objection to that word? What word do you want to use? Julie, why did you give four more sources to show they were freed? [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] I'm not going to read sixteen articles—I don't have time—so cut to the chase with the exact quote from whichever one I have to read.
  4. Why does the article need five sources to support the following statement? I'm not going to read five sources, and I don't want to have to convert five refs. Which one says they were MP, which one says the vehicle was a police official, and what exactly does it say, and why do we need five?
    The gunmen included former members of the Metropolitan Police. One of the vehicles used in the shooting was traced to an active police official.[29][30][31] [32] [33] Sandy 01:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
JRSP, you added "not in citation given" to the statement that the shooters were freed. Sources say the (guilty) sentence was revoked, they were not declared not guilty or freed as far as I know JRSP 01:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Were they subsequently charged, or were the charges dismissed? Unless they were charged and tried, they were freed. What is the difference between "revoked" and "freed" according to you? Please explain this distinction you are making. When a guilty sentence is "revoked", you are freed. What would you call it? What terminology do you use? This is the kind of absurd wordsmithing that led to the extreme use of exact quotes in the Chavez articles: revoking a guilty sentence = freed. Are they in jail, or are they free? Sandy 01:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Previous sentence was declared null and void. This is not the same than declaring them not guilty. The trial goes on JRSP 01:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, do you have a source for that, and I can adjust the text? Sandy 02:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
No reliable source says they were freed, this one says they were not freed [34]. This one reports defentants' lawyers will not ask for conditional freedom and will wait for "the new trial to begin..." to consider this [35] JRSP 02:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, JRSP. I'll wait for Julie to explain her edits and sources, and then try to adjust the text. For now, it looks like, "As of April, 2006, their guilty sentences were revoked, and they were awaiting a new trial." (Did they *have* guilty sentences before, or some other legal technicality keeping them in prison?) Sandy 02:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I pick up from [36] that they were declared guilty, then the sentence was anulled and a new trial would start. Also they pledged guilty for illicitly carrying guns so they must be in jail for this ( they may ask for conditional freedom after doing one half of the time). There are also charges for intentional homicide (my inference) and the accused lawyers are claiming self-defense but do not ask me too much, I am not a lawyer JRSP 03:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, so it sounds like something like what I put above is accurate; will wait to see what Julie says. It's possible that Julie doesn't know you can be imprisoned in Venezuela even with your verdict overturned. Sandy 03:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Not really overturned but annulled; the judge can keep them in jail for the time corresponding to illicitly carrying guns JRSP 03:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I used the word overturned above because it corresponds to judicial system in USA. Sandy 03:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Since we haven't heard from Julie411, I went ahead and re-worded the "freed" phrase, while also rearranging all of the text to follow chronological order, grouping all of his "rights" work into one section. Please have a look, and let me know if the new "freed" wording is accurate. Sandy (Talk) 14:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The "freed" part seems fine. "members of the Venezuelan government security apparatus" is too general, not all of them were policemen, I think there was one member of the Policía Metropolitana, controlled by the opposition but in any case it was an individual action, you cannot blame the mayor for this. Also this source[37] prose is too biased in my opinion. However, I still think parents stories are not pertinent but at least in the present version they do not overwhelm the section, thanks to the new material you added JRSP 22:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Putting together the various "implicados" from the reliable sources (graciously ignoring the son of Rangel business), we find
"entre los pistoleros se encuentra un ex funcionario de la Policía Municipal de Sucre",
"los vecinos denunciaran la participación de una camioneta Grand Cherokee, propiedad del comisario Leobardo José Navas,"
"los grupos armados del oficialismo",
"al menos dos motocicletas, con dos individuos en cada una, al tiempo que gritaban consignas a favor del gobierno de Chávez,"
"Al parecer, esos mismos individuos en motos, conjuntamente con otros que vestían con símbolos de apoyo al gobierno de Hugo Chávez, a las 2 y 30 pm aproximadamente, dispararon a las personas que se encontraban en la plaza Francia de Altamira protestando. En ese punto resultaron 9 heridos de bala y una persona asesinada. Posteriormente, alrededor de las 5:00 pm, otro grupo que se encontraba en la autopista Francisco Fajardo a la altura del Distribuidor de Altamira fue sorprendido con disparos realizados desde una camioneta Cherokee resultando otro herido,"
"Esto permitíó realizar una identificación plena de los pistoleros conocidos activistas afectos al oficialismo."
"El hombre que presuntamente fue visto disparando desde una camioneta Cherokee placas AAI-59B fue identificado por los vecinos como el comisario Leonardo José Navas, ex tomista de la PM."
So, I reworked it completely to indicate only some were members of "government security apparatus", used "government supporters" wording, and separated what was captured in televised images from who was actually charged. Does this work better? Sandy (Talk) 23:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Source only mentions one member of Policía Metropolitana, this is municipal police not "members of the Venezuelan government security apparatus" JRSP 00:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Is Policia Municipal de Sucre not government? What about this comisario? If not "members of security apparatus", what wording works to cover all of these official government people? Sandy (Talk) 00:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
More probably a mistake from some source, accordingly to this[38] the comisario was from Policía Metropolitana and not PoliSucre. In any case neither the Metropolitana nor PoliSucre are "Venezuelan goverment" the former is alcaldía mayor ( Alfredo Peña ) and the latter is Sucre Municipality (JV Rangel Jr) JRSP 00:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
JRSP, no nos estamos entendiendo: "up here", "government" means national, state, local, municipal, mayor, whatever - part of the government as opposed to part of the private sector. Paid by taxpayer dollars is how we distinguish it here, I guess. "Government security apparatus" doesn't necessarily mean national/federal gov't. Are you saying all three descriptions (Municipal de Sucre possibly a mistake) are the same person, who is Metropolitana? Are you saying that, of all of the descriptions, there's only one "official", who is the PM? If that's the case, shall we say, "government supporters, including a policeman"? I still don't understand, and don't know how to fix it. Sandy (Talk) 00:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
"government supporters, including a policeman" sounds concise and clear. JRSP 01:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

On a separate question, I'm not clear on which shooter is which: is the Policia Metropolitano one of the jailed, or only one of the filmed? Same for the Policia Municipal de Sucre, the comisario, etcetera. Which were filmed, and which are jailed? Sandy (Talk) 00:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I am curious too but sources do not say much. I don't know how many of them were charged or their names or if the comisario is one of them or who is who in the photos. I will leave a message here if I find something JRSP 02:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Three were charged[39] JRSP 02:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
What I'm not clear on is whether those three include, for example, the person with the Cherokee, the PM, etc., or if those people were just filmed, not charged. I'm not clear on who's who. Sandy (Talk) 02:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
OK. I won't be online much over the weekend: I hope you and Julie get along in my absence :-) Sandy (Talk) 02:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Joining some dots...
''los vecinos denunciaran la participación de una camioneta Grand Cherokee, propiedad del comisario Leobardo José Navas,"
Posteriormente, alrededor de las 5:00 pm, otro grupo que se encontraba en la autopista Francisco Fajardo a la altura del Distribuidor de Altamira fue sorprendido con disparos realizados desde una camioneta Cherokee resultando otro herido,"
This is not the same thing: this happened later, not in Plaza Francia but in Distribuidor Altamira in the highway some blocks south. One injured there. Some guessing work of course, but if it is the same Cherokee, the comisario is not necessarily related to the Maritza Ron/Hilda Mendoza incident JRSP 02:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, I think we have it right here now, but we still haven't heard from Julie. Sandy (Talk) 02:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
El comisario is not one of the accused: working in the PM(3 Nov 04) [40] ; swimming in a hommage to Rafael Vidal (12 Feb 2006)[41] JRSP 11:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Awards and recognition

This seems just a personal opinion, not a notable award or recognition:

In 2003, progressive activist John K. Wilson, author of The Myth of Political Correctness named Halvorssen one of the "Top Ten Heroes of Academic Freedom."[12]

JRSP 03:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/o/Talk%7EThor_Halvorssen_bc15.html"