Talk:Telesur

message: There appears to be an edit war going on with this article. Maybe it would be worth discussing the contentious material here. Jonpatterns (talk) 08:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The section describes the political bias of Telesur, and it is referenced with a reliable source. It was first removed by 94.197.120.91, an Ip with hardly any edits at all, and who said that the link was dead. A lie, I have checked it, the link still works fine. Adding more sources would be fine, but a single source is not a reason for removing a complete section, not if the source is reliable. "This has previously been removed" is not a valid reson for removal. Cambalachero (talk) 17:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war Dec 2017 

message: The Facebook page for TeleSUR English was recently shut down. While I have not seen any articles on it just yet, it might be worth meriting once the news hits.-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 07:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Telesur English Facebook 

message: Where is the TeleSur English live stream? Thank you--Tommyboynr1 (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  TeleSur English 

message: Dear Wikipedia
The sources cited for this article are biased and right wing based. An example of this is the newspaper Infobae which h is a officialist media and does not count as an impartial source. Addiontally not all international sources are valid either such as El Pais of Spain which is also Right Wing biased. Please remove content that reference these sources pleese.
Thank you
Francisco  — Preceding unsigned comment added by FranciscoTolley (talk • contribs) 06:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: "Right wing based"? What is that supposed to mean? Cambalachero (talk) 16:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias Sources 

message: To be worked in:     SandyGeorgia (Talk)  15:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism of photo 

message: I mentioned this article here:
* Talk:National_Endowment_for_Democracy#Opposition_of_China_and_VenezuelaOpposition of China and Venezuela.
I spoke about the article here.  In particular, I point out that if--as critics allege--the National Endowment for Democracy is really an instrument of regime change (including Venezuela), doesn't that need to be said, or shouldn't TeleSUR have a critical voice showing what they think of NED?  Without that, it seems to fail being  WP:NPOV.
--David Tornheim (talk) 15:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article mentioned on another article's talk page 

message: Instead of adequately summarising criticism in the controversies section like you should for a wikipedia article, the writers of the part have cherry picked instances of criticism and used excessive quotations with very biased reporting which is not a NPOV and exaggerates the opposition to this news outlet. I have tried to fix some of the problems, but there is a plethora of exaggeratory criticisms in this article so I could not handle them all; do I have permission to try and fix these problems? ButterSlipper (talk) 04:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple NPOV problems. 

message: Hi Mikehawk10. I'm glad you're working to improve the page just like me, but could you explain how my edits did not neutralise the page? The editors of the parts I had carved and changed had excessively quoted biased sources, inheriting the POV views of the source instead of paraphrasing and summarising the information to provide encyclopedic writing. I did not just shift the POV to put Telesur in a more positive light. Look at the 'La Patilla stated that Telesur "insistently pointed out through reports that in Venezuela there is no humanitarian emergency, scarcity or general crisis" and "dismissed the exodus of millions of Venezuelans in search of a better life".[31]' La Patilla is not a super authoritative source, and even if it was, the emotional language in this part hyperbolises what the wrongdoing of the Telesur. My rephrasing "La Patilla stated that Telesur dismissed the crisis in Venezuela.[31]" is not bulked up with emotional, loaded language and swiftly summarises what an individual source says accurately so there is no undue weight. I did this again with second paragraph of political bias because the excessive quotation demonstrated an anti-Telesur bias and did not encoclypediacely summarise useful information. 
In addition to this, you removed some of my wiki-upkeeping edits and my edits for clarity. One of these edits you reverted was my moving of the 'In October 2018, Telesur anchor Daniela Vielman resigned from the network, releasing a statement saying that staff employed by Telesur are "treated as if they were working in a political party" and that Venezuelan employees were paid in low-value Venezuelan bolívars compared to their foreign counterparts who were being paid in US dollars.[32]' just below the Controversies heading because this doesn't seem to be a problem about political bias (as it was put under before) so I moved it. I understand this was a quick renovation and perhaps if we marshalled enough instances like this we could create a new heading for workers' rights under the controversies section but you didn't do that and just reverted the edit; why?
I could not do this with each and every case of this NPOV violation because I did not want to make a big change in one swooping edit and I wanted to explain myself on the talk page a bit, but instead of having discussion with me Mikehawk10 you reverted my edits and accused me of shifting the POV, while adding unnecessary, defamatory language. Please do not unilaterally decide to wipe out my somewhat extensive edits and instead talk about the actual problems with my edits. Thanks. ButterSlipper (talk) 23:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting of my edits by Mikehawk10. 

message: Users Sushantra and Farmonai, the source in the article is not up to Wikipedia standards. I don't deny the claim being made, I just don't approve of the source. The article is a New York Times piece which includes a single line saying that several governments fund Telesur which is a very bold claim. A single line with no evidence whatsoever does not fully support that claim. You can include that sentence as long as you include a valid source which shows numbers and dates. We must use the same standard of quality that other state media articles utilise. As I mentioned, look at the RT page in Wikipedia, it has a very valid source which mentions the specific numbers of funding from the Russian government. When you look at the author of that source (Gabrielle Tetrault-Farber), you can see that she is an expert on the topic and provides evidence for her claims. The source mentioned is written by Frederick Bernas, a cinematographer. It's undeniable that the New York Times source is insufficient, let's try to find a valid source which proves what is being claimed instead of engaging in pointless edit wars.
:NYT source: "In addition to Venezuela, sponsor countries include Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador and Nicaragua."--110.133.193.171 (talk) 03:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  reverting of my edits by Sushantra and Farmonai 

message: This article does not adhere to Wikipedia's POV standards in the slightest.
It seems at points largely edited by antichavist propagandists with no regards for accuracy, neutrality or quality or sources.
83.250.109.113 (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this article a joke? 

message: On April 13, 2022 TeleSur English's YouTube channel uploaded a video titled "Citizens of Mariupol show consequences of sustained fighting against the azov battalion" in which they reference the March 16 theatre bombing with wildly different reporting from Reuters or really any other news outlet or journalist. it's worth looking into including because TeleSur's ungrounded claims run very counter to what has been verified. FifthAcaciaColumn (talk) 11:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misinformation on invasion of Ukraine 

message: So, telesur is a propaganda tool but cnn is not?
I guess the reasoning is like, cnn amplifies and broadcasts the positions of the USA administration, so it's a reliable source of information but telesur doesn't align with the will of the USA administration, so it's a tool of propaganda 79.167.179.167 (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propaganda tool? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion