Talk:Veja (magazine)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

Contents 1 Misinformation 2 Classic Cases 3 POV 4 Section "Criticism" 4.1 Sources for Criticism section 5 Relevance of the Wikipedia section 6 Removed content 6.1 Article on Wikipedia 6.2 Criticism

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia: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. JoaoRicardo^talk 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." — 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.

"Another common act is rivalize with media competitor's scoffing their pseudo-errors." — 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." — Considered by whom? Please see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. Could you provide examples of this alleged imitation?

"(THIS IS NOT POV, you can find in lots of serious brazilian sites, dont you dare to remove it)" — Don't threaten other Wikipedians. This will get you nowhere. JoaoRicardo^talk 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? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.165.23.22 (talk • contribs). [1]

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. JoaoRicardo^talk 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)

[edit] Sources for Criticism section

Well, if Veja-lovers want sources, here they are: [2], [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

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".

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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?

[edit] 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.

[edit] Criticism

Although Veja is the largest magazine in Brazil in terms of circulation and a recognized opinion leader, critics of Veja [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] (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.