Talk:Veja (magazine)

message: 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)
thread_title: Right Wing vs Left Wing

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: This entry

message: 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)
thread_title: POV

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Relevance of the Wikipedia section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Removed content 

message: 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 Wikipedia:Avoid self-references? Grandmasterka 09:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Grandmasterka 10:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone tried to add this again nine months later. A.Z. 23:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Circulation

message: :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 Wikipedia: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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Logoveja.png

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

message: :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 Wikipedia: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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Veja30121992.jpg

message: 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)
thread_title:  Political Alignment 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:CAPA VEJA 0BAMA.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion