Talk:Oslo Freedom Forum

Criticism section

I am removing the criticism section until we can all come to a consensus due to the following issues: The source you are using to cite this information would fall under the WP:SOURCES as a questionable source due to the fact that it ranks relatively low in popularity in Norway and has an admitted political agenda. Also, the way the entry is worded also makes absolute claims about a living individual which are not substantiated on that individuals wiki page or through the given source. Wrathofjames (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Your characterization of the leftist daily newspaper Klassekampen is incorrect in my view. The last thirty years the paper has decidedly moved well into the mainstream of Norwegian news media, and asserting that it should not be considered a reliable source is unconvincing. You may of course ask for an assessment of this at WP:RSN, however, with the second source added that would appear moot. __meco (talk) 08:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not making a characterization--I'm pointing out facts. The paper has a stated agenda as well as low readership according to the linked list. WP:BURDEN is always on the editor trying to make/revert changes--especially if the changes "..might damage the reputation of living people". Also, as this is the English Wikipedia and your sources are not in English--which is okay--except, I'm not sure if the sources you are giving actually support the information published. I'm not doubting that the individual event happened, but I am questioning your wording of the criticism as it does not appear to have a neutral point of view. Please do not revert the changes until there is a consensus here, your sole opinion is not sufficient to do so. Wrathofjames (talk) 01:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me just point out that this is not my edit, but someone else's edit. I simply supplied a second source,[1] from Norway's most reputable and most listened to nationally broadcasted news radio show. As for your characterization—again—of the merits of the newspaper Klassekampen you claim they have a stated agenda. Which would that be in this matter? __meco (talk) 06:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Jumping in here. I see that Meco did not originate the post, but since you're reverting it I will direct the discussion at you. Personally, I cannot get the video to play nor would I be able to understand what is said (I'm assuming). The agenda of the newspaper appears to be noted here: Klassekampen or [2] which would be enough to bring it into question. The inclusion of a whole new section titled "Controversy" and making claims on a BLP without verified source(s) also requires extra scrutiny. In such cases, as responsible editors, we have to be very careful with that--especially when considering the implications of WP:UNDUE. Take care! Joseph Steven (talk) 03:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate and agree with that position. I think we can well afford to await further verification of the second source, and perhaps even a round at WP:RSN with regards to the use of the former, although my estimate, as already stated, is that it should be considered RS. As for the claim that López took part in the attempted coup against Hugo Chávez in 2002, it would probably have to be rephrased as a claim, citing the accusers. The Klassekampen article states that a think-tank called "Manifest Analyse" has published a report in which it details how López actively participated in the coup. In the radio interview this accusation is leveled by Eirik Vold of a long-standing alliance called "Latin-Amerika–gruppene i Norge" (The Latin America Groups in Norway"). Both Vold and the Klassekampen article allege that video footage was made which shows López during the coup attempt. __meco (talk) 09:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Removing the criticism seems a bit drastic, the reasons for removal also seem dubious. Klassekampen has an estimated readership of more than 50,000 on week days and 90,000 on Saturdays acoarding to TNS Gallup, a respectable market analysis firm. This is a decently large mass of readers in a nation of five million. While it's history is not sparkeling, it's been concidered a respectable newspaper for the last 20 years or so. To put it simply klassekampen would not be dismissed out of hand in Norway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.123.129.198 (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I have just restored the criticism and controversy section after it was arbitrarily deleted. OFF has drawn criticism and controversy. Including this on a WP page is a standard practice. WP pages are not puff pieces. 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 person. Deleting a whole section does not, in my view, show good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThorWay (talk • contribs) 06:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I removed the section due to a lack of reliable sources for such bold claims and because your name clearly implies a biased point of view.Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 06:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me but you have not actually checked the sources. Can you provide any evidence the sources are not reliable? I remind you this is a section to report notable criticism of the subject. It does not take a position on the validity of the criticism. But it stretches credulity to claim that 18 Latin America scholars writing in Norway's leading newspaper Aftenposten is not notable criticism. As for Blumenthal's criticisms, the proof that they are notable is that Halvorssen himself responded to them in an extensive interview in Klassekampen as noted in the discussion above. I urge you to constructively work with me to improve this section. Dismissing sources -- without apparently bothering to examine them -- does not show good faith, in my view, nor a commitment to maintaining a well-rounded article. We need to work much harder on this. I am working to add content, and you are simply deleting it. Again, please be constructive and show good faith by improving the section. Let's work together on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThorWay (talk • contribs) 09:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The Klassekampen interview I am referring to, in which Halvorssen responds specifically and extensively to Blumenthal's criticisms was on pages 6-7 of the May 16-17, 2013 print edition which is downloadable in PDF form from the Klassekampen website. I can certainly add some of Halvorssen's response if people feel that would improve the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThorWay (talk • contribs) 09:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Criticism "(in Klassekampen) for inviting his cousin Leopoldo López to the 2010 forum, and introducing Lopez as a "a hero of human rights"—without informing that they are cousins."

Is the first sentence at [3], OK?

The incident is notable, but possibly not a big deal—after Halvorssen's explanation (forthcoming—or possibly of the past) that in Venezuala "everyone" knows that they are related. (The Klassekampen article came after a multiple page interview in Dagens Næringsliv—where Halvorssen also claims that he has applied for becoming a citizen of Norway.) --No parking here (talk) 09:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

If the "incident" is notable, then it would be a big deal. If, as you say, it is not a big deal then it would not deserve its own section. The problems with Klassekampen are already well noted above. You are also adding information on the participants list that does not belong on this page nor does it fit the format of the previous additions. A simple wikilink to them would do--not a writeup here(referring to the 2012 Russian addition). There are also problems with how the entry is worded. Your edit pushes unverified claims as fact about Halvorssen's cousin which would be against WP:SYNTH. I agree with Meco's statement above about a second verifiable source before we come to a consensus due to BLP issues and being careful to remain encyclopedic and neutral. Wrathofjames (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I have again removed most of the information in the controversy section. There was an entire paragraph dedicated to a piece published by Max Blumenthal, who had quite a bit of peacocks attached to him. The Electronic Intifada is not a reliable source, as it is an independent, pro-Palestinian online publication. It certainly isn't reliable enough for that claim. I have kept in the criticism that the Aftenposten article made, however I don't feel that it warrants a complete section. ThorWay, you name implies a definite connection with the subject and a Conflict of Interest, as do your edits on the pages of the Human Rights Foundation, and Thor Halvorssen. If you have notable criticisms that have reliable sources, feel free to include them.Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 17:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

"claims the existence of a video, that shows López as an active participant"

Is the second sentence of this [4] version OK?

On the next day (in the same newspaper) an article claims the existence of a video, that shows López as an active participant in the attempted military coup against Hugo Chávez in 2002.

--No parking here (talk) 08:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Need for independent sources in regards to sponsorhip

The 2011 event had sponsors. The only reference is a non-independent source—the website of the organizers. This text needs a tag about {{Independent source needed}}. --Lowereiker (talk) 10:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

World leaders

The notability of the conferences seems clear on account of its speakers. The article probably should not use the term world leaders, because it is ambiguous. --Lowereiker (talk) 10:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. This page needs a lot of improvement, and its notability is still questionable four years later. Pilaz (talk) 12:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Oslo freedom forum.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)