Talk:Thor Halvorssen (human rights activist)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Family leaves out his CIA uncle[edit]

I think part of this should be clearly stated in the article: "In particular, Lopez's uncle, Thor Halvorssen, was a known CIA informant who worked with Duane Clarridge, one of the top CIA officials indicted during the Iran-Contra affair. According to Mision Verdad, Halvorssen was also deeply involved in the CIA's operations in Latin America, providing weapons or cash to mercenaries in Nicaragua and El Salvador as part of a U.S. multinational operation aimed at destroying progressive governments and parties in the region." [1] --Katzmann83 (talk) 08:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism and controversy section[edit]

I have just restored the criticism and controversy section after it was arbitrarily deleted. Halvorssen is a public figure and therefore has drawn criticism and controversy. Including this on a WP page is a standard practice. WP pages are not puff pieces or resumes. 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThorWay (talk • contribs) 06:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, I agree that these articles are not fluff. That is why, to make such bold and opinionated claims as are made in your criticism section, the sources must be more reliable and there must be more of them. I am re-reverting the edit for those reasons and because your name clearly implies these edits are not from a neutral POV, including those made on the Oslo Freedom Forum page and the Human Rights Foundation page.Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 06:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have again removed 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. The criticism from the AftenPosten article is focused on the Oslo Freedom Forum, and doesn't belong on this page anyway. Not to mention there is only one source and you selected the most inflammatory parts of the article to appear in your additions. 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 the Oslo Freedom Forum. If you have notable criticisms that have reliable sources, feel free to include them but please refrain from further COI edits.

Whatever the quality of the Blumenthal piece, your edits removed another source, distinct from Blumenthal's report, that noted that a series of scholars had in fact criticized Halvorssen.Mahabhusuku (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the sources didn't criticize Halvorssen himself much, it was directed at the Freedom Forum. I understand he is the founder of the Freedom Forum, but the source isn't really directed at Halvorssen, so it doesn't seem to warrant a new section.Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 20:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both sources explicitly criticize Halvorssen, not simply the OFF. The Norwegian article criticizes him for downplaying racial conflict in pre-Chavez Venezuela, and the second for a number of indiscretions. It is entirely appropriate to point out that he is not a figure without controversy. There are now at least two articles, besides Blumenthal's, published on the matter. Mahabhusuku (talk) 00:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, they do criticize Halvorssen, but why are those complaints in particular notable? I wasn't removing the section in an effort to imply that there are no criticisms of Halvorssen, merely because it would be absurd to imply that the Aftenposten or truth out are the authority on the subject. Theses articles used as sources are focused on the Oslo Freedom Forum, Halvorssen is involved in them, he isn't the primary subject.Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 01:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would just like to point out that some unregistered users made some edits that were contrary to what this ta page had decided on. Therefore I had some of them reverted to what they had previously been.DaltonCastle (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed a paragraph linking him with coups and 'ultra right wing' parties because 1. the paragraph was not NPOV, and 2. Was based mostly on hearsay and conjecture.DaltonCastle (talk) 02:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good edit, WP:BLP wouldn't allow us to have it anyway.--Loomspicker (talk) 17:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuela fascist party[edit]

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)[reply]

Romero quote[edit]

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)[reply]

Halvorssen and Romero[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Parents[edit]

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.[2][3][4]

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.[5] Images of the gunmen were captured by a live television a broadcast.[6] They were later apprehended,[7] identified as government supporters [8][9][10] and freed.[11] 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.[12]

JRSP 13:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
References
  1. ^ https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Who-Is-Leopoldo-Lopez-Co-Author-of-Venezuelas-Failed-Coup-20190501-0001.html
  2. ^ Venezuelan Anti-Drug Official Fights His Foes From a Prison Cell: Evidence suggests Thor Halvorssen was framed by Colombian drug lords and their Caracas `friends'; Christian Science Monitor. Boston, Mass.: Dec 20, 1993.
  3. ^ Former Venezuelan Drug Official Freed; Christian Science Monitor. Boston, Mass.: Dec 24, 1993.
  4. ^ Halvorssen, Thor. The Americas: The price of vigilance in Venezuela's banking community. Wall Street Journal. New York, N.Y.: Mar 4, 1994. pg. A9 Available online here.
  5. ^ Briton Shot In Venezuela. (19 August 2004). Retrieved on 14 September 2006.
  6. ^ Fotos de la nueva masacre de Altamira, 2004.08.16 Retrieved on 14 September 2006.
  7. ^ En prisión los detenidos por los sucesos de la plaza de Altamira. El Dia (24 August 2004).
  8. ^ Olivares, Francisco.Otra vez los pistoleros. El Universal (5 September 2004).
  9. ^ Pistoleros de Altamira trabajan para el alcalde José Vicente Rangel Avalos. Notitarde (17 August 2004)
  10. ^ Rodriguez, Gustavo Identifican a pistoleros de Altamira. El Universal (18 August 2004)
  11. ^ Revocan condena a ‘pistoleros de Altamira’. Prensa.com (11 April 2006)
  12. ^ Halvorssen, Thor L. The Price of Dissent in Venezuela. Wall Street Journal (Eastern edition), Aug 19, 2004. p. A.12 Discussed online here.

Mother shot[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
OK, do you have a source for that, and I can adjust the text? Sandy 02:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yes, I used the word overturned above because it corresponds to judicial system in USA. Sandy 03:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"government supporters, including a policeman" sounds concise and clear. JRSP 01:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Three were charged[39] JRSP 02:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Awards and recognition[edit]

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."[1]

JRSP 03:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References
  1. ^ Wilson, John K. The State of American Freedom in America 2002-03. Retrieved 26 August 2006.

Campus Watch[edit]

After reading the source, I think TH is not directly related to Campus Watch, he is only making a comment (as executive director of FIRE) about it. The article says TH "came into opposition from the ACLU" and this is not supported by source. JRSP 15:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From article:

With Campus Watch, he came into opposition from the ACLU, which criticized the organization's "citizen informant" behavior.[1]

JRSP 10:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References
  1. ^ Sorokin, Ellen. 'Biased' professors posted on Web site The Washington Times (October 6,2002)

New editor, new article[edit]

A new editor has created Thor Halvorssen Hellum (Thor Halvorssen Mendoza's father) because movie rights to his story were purchased and he will be in the press.[42] She's also still learning the ropes at Wikipedia, and having account problems.[43] I've made several posts to both of her talk pages to try to help orient her to Wiki, but she doesn't seem to have found article talk pages yet.

Since the similarities in their names may create ongoing problems and confusion, I suggest we rename this article, and create a disambiguation page, so that hits on Thor Halvorssen will lead to a page that sorts out who's who and links to each. Can we agree to rename this page to Thor Halvorssen Mendoza (his full name can be sourced to the Human Rights Watch—I found several Google hits), or is there a better way to do this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Separately, I'm concerned about the text sourced to the Gentleman's Quarterly article at Halvorssen Hellum, and will go to the library this weekend to locate that article.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your proposal. Until now, the son has been more notable in the news than the father but if we have a movie, things might change so I think the dab to H.Hellum and H.Mendoza is a good idea. JRSP 16:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll get that done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added it as a cover note, so that the rest of the article doesn't have to spell out Halvorssen Mendoza on every occurrence. I used the first Ghit that showed his full name, and also cited the fact that they are father son. I'll dab this next. If the note works here, we can repeat this technique at Halvorssen Hellum. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm done; pls have a look. I'll track down that GQ article some time this weekend. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chávez-Wiesenthal Center controversy[edit]

I think this text about the Chávez-Wiesenthal Center controversy is too much detail for the Halvorssen bio. After all, TH only made a reference to this in one of his articles and was not an important party in the controversy.

In the case of Venezuela the charge of anti-Semitism is shared by the chief Rabbi Pynchas Brener. [44] This position is also shared by prominent US Jewish organizations such as the Simon Wiesenthal Foundation [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] and the World Jewish Congress [50] whose Policy Council Chairman, Israel Singer, considered Chavez a "shameless friend of evil" and described those who initially gave Chavez the benefit of the doubt, including himself, as "naive." [51] The most recent report by Tel Aviv University's Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Anti-Semitism [52] states that "antisemitic propaganda and traditional antisemitic motifs" are used by official and semi-official media and that the antisemitism was "adopted at the very top of the political hierarchy" the report compares Venezuela to other countries in the region: "in contrast to other Latin American countries, openly antisemitic statements were made by official representatives and organs, including Chavez himself, the vice-president, several ministers and Congressmen and the pro-Chavez media. Chavez compared Israelis and Jews to Nazis and to Hitler." The Roth Institute added that Chavez's antisemitic statements "were exceptional because they contradicted Venezuelan, as well as Latin American, tradition regarding the political use of antisemitism by leaders, not to mention his own previous admonition to avoid openly antisemitic statements."

The accusations of anti-semitism against Chavez made by Halvorssen, by the Simon Wiesenthal Foundation, by the World Jewish Congress, by Israel Singer, by the Stephen Roth Institute of Tel Aviv University and by Venezuelan Chief Rabbi Pynchas Brener recall for columnist Jim Lobe the remarkably similar accusations by the Reagan administration, neoconservatives, and the Wall Street Journal against Nicaragua's Sandinista government in the 1980s when the US gave clandestine support to the Contra counter-insurgency.[1]

JRSP 12:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Going back over the history of these edits--and to where the whole anti-semitism things comes in-- it is fascinating to see how JRSP steps in. When Halvorssen is accused of unduly using anti-semitism and falsely accusing the Chavez government then JRSP ignores this. Not one peep. This goes on for numerous edits. Then, in what seems like a move dripping with sarcasm and incredulity, another (obviously annoyed) editor adds a boatload of information that indicates that the reporting done by Halvorssen is actually reflected by some of the most unimpeachable writers, sources, and thinkers on the matter (thus offering enormous credence to his accusation and making the Ven Prez look bad) then suddenly, as if a light switch goes on, JRSP jumps in and quickly removes the entire battle--ratcheting back everything and claiming that none of this matters for this piece because, after all, it was only one itty-bitty reference. Wow! Wikipedia manipulation at its finest!
This one "reference" that JRSP speaks about is actually a several thousand word article by Halvorssen that I just read and it exposes human rights violations and the use of criminal violence by the state of Venezuela against the Jews there. This wikipedia incident is mind-blowing. The things that some editors on here get away with--and then they just keep editing away. When someone stands up to their bullying they crumble, cower, and go away and then continue working elsewhere with their tactics. I am not trying to unduly accuse anyone of doing something they haven't done. I am not picking a fight, or pitching a battleground tent. I am merely stating that observing this process fills me with disgust and makes me want to quit my dayjob and go through every edit made by editors who engage in the sort of behavior that characterizes JRSP in incidents like this. Looking at it, I think it could be done rather quickly and would take about a year to overhaul the entire Alice in Wonderland nature of the Venezuela definitions and those of Chavez and his minions. The real truth is that exposing the wikipedia editors for what they are doing is probably much more important. if this can be done to articles then imagine articles on science, big Pharma, lobbyists, the corruption in military-industrial complex....I'm still aghastMarturetCR (talk) 05:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
References
  1. ^ Lobe, Jim. US Neocons Accuse Chavez of Anti-Semitism, Inter Press Service, January 16, 2006

can the Venezuelans please help me?[edit]

I came across a recent NYT profile on Halvorssen and have added a couple of zingers including personal information about his background. Is there a family tree for Venezuela's first president that I can reference?Sweetness 04:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bolívar had no issue. TH Jr is actually a descendant of Cristobal Mendoza. You can check [53]JRSP 11:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLP noticeboard[edit]

Please see WP:BLPN#Thor Halvorssen Mendoza [54]. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please do. Perhaps somebody can persuade Sandy to explain what she's on about. Rd232 talk 20:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Standard[edit]

I note you added some material and yet lifted it directly from the Weekly Standard. It would be a good idea to note than given that you are not supposed to simply cut and paste. I am going to move things around. But you should know betterMarturetCR (talk) 12:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was an inline citation to that source. It's better explicitly attributed, which I've now done. Please do not implicitly accuse me of copyright violation ("lifted it directly from"), and do not delete material without explanation. Finally, talk page headers should not address other editors. If you have a personal message for me, use my user talk page. Rd232 talk 21:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh enough with the hysteria of my "implicitly accusing" you of anything. For someone who uses profanity and attacks another editor with the sort of language you have displayed elsewhere I think you really should grow a thicker skin. Thank you for doing what you should have done in the first place and attributed a quotation. Finally, I try not to use usertalk pages of other people because I have been yelled at for doing that before. I regard it as other people's territory. I will continue to address things to you on here. If there is a specific rule that asks me not to address editors in headers during discussions (both for clarity and to get their attention) please indicate that. If not, I will nevertheless, because I am a merciful and generous editor/monarch, consider your request.MarturetCR (talk) 05:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:TALK#New_topics_and_headings_on_talk_pages. Please stop repeating misleading claims about a heated exchange with another editor. Focus on the content. Rd232 talk 07:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now who is making accusations? If you wish I can excerpt the curse words you used. And Thank you for bringing up the importance of the content. I would like to focus on the content but it seems everywhere you keep making ME the issue. And it seems you make ME the issue when I edit something in a manner you dislike. Enough. Let's BOTH focus on the contentMarturetCR (talk) 09:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
? When I have made you the issue? Rd232 talk 10:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Guys :) Knock if off :) Is this resolved now? Rd, I noted on Eva Golinger that you/we all do need to be more careful to re-phrase content or directly quote it; I haven't checked the article here, has this been resolved? If so, y'all can stop the personal commentary now :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's resolved unless Marturet wants to make an issue of it. (Here, by the by, the quote was given qua quote, with footnote, but not attributed explicitly in text. Different than the recent Golinger bit.) Rd232 talk 15:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong source cited for quote[edit]

The section entitled "Criticism of the United Nations Human Rights Council" is essentially a quotation of material taken from an article written by Halvorssen that appears at the Huffington Post. I clicked on the link provided in the reference section and read the article that is cited as the source for the quotation. However, the material in question appears nowhere in that particular article. I reread the article multiple times to make sure I didn't miss anything. Whatever the reason, the quotation used does not match up with the reference provided. This needs to be fixed.74.138.45.132 (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Updating relationship with Huffington Post and Forbes magazine[edit]

In the lawsuit introduced by Halvorssen against Derwick, it is stated that both Forbes and Huffington Post disallowed further articles by Halvorssen in their publications.Naruto2839 (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This may be true, but the source used for this information was unreliable and used primary source material. Not to mention that the information added on the page was biased and did not present a complete representation of the facts.DaltonCastle (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Thor Halvorssen Mendoza. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Thor Halvorssen Mendoza. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Country of residence[edit]

This article doesn't say where the subject lives, unless I missed it. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 April 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved as follows:

There is a consensus that this form of disambiguation is better, but no consensus for the change to a primary topic.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Original move request:

– If both "Thor Halvorssen" and "Thor Halvorssen Mendoza" were commonly used in English-language sources, we could pick the latter one as per WP:NATURALDIS. However, even the article clearly states that he is usually referred to as "Thor Halvorssen". A quick research shows this is how he is almost uniformly referred to – it clearly constitutes his WP:COMMONNAME.
Same might hold for his father Thor Halvorssen Hellum, though he spend most of his life in Venezuela, where naming conventions regularly include his mother's last name (Hellum). I'm therefore leaving his father's case for a possible followup. While I clearly tend to consider the younger Thor Halvorssen WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, given his large and international media presence, we don't even have to rely on that assumption, unless we'd consider moving the father's article, too. -- PanchoS (talk) 10:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose the father is clearly far more notable. If anything the proposal should be to move the father to Absolute Majority Topic. Anyway, we don't use hispanic maternal names for disambiguation unless they are know by them so cut out the maternal names. Move the son (maternal name Mendoza) to Thor Halvorssen (human rights activist), the father (maternal name Hellum) to Thor Halvorssen (businessman). In ictu oculi (talk) 12:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the primarytopic grab and support iio's alternative suggestion, leaving the disambig page. Dicklyon (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Neutrality and relevance[edit]

Hello, an article in an encyclopedia has best to focus on the facts and then give opinions later (and multiple opinions). This article is unfortunately the opposite of it, it starts right with 2 opinions about the person and on top these seem to be highly selective (seem to be the most positive ones you could find). And it continues in the introduction even with a third opinion (again the most positive there is to be found) about an event. It seems every positive comment of an article you can find on the net has made it as a quote into the biography (see for example the part "Oslo Freedom Forum" that gives again nrly no information on the subject beside positive opinions and mentions names), including the line of a tabloid. Selective opinion quotes instead of informations are advertising and not the aim of an encyclopedia. Relevance of alot here is in question beside neutrality.

Furthermore too many of the informations of this article are based on the homepage of his organisation or articles of Halvorssen while outside sources were just put as refs without using them. Actually it seems reliable outside sources beside for the selected positive quotes have nrly no meaning at all in the article. A small example: "along with Nobel Peace Prize Laureates Shirin Ebadi, Jody Williams, Mairead Maguire, Betty Williams and Arch. Desmond Tutu.", if you look into the given Telegraph source, i see there mention of the Nobel Laureates but no mention of Halvorssen. That is another form PR but also not neutral, putting the own name in a line together with some Nobel Laureates, without that this line is of relevance. Sorry, but the problem is overall so huge in the article that I can hardly think how it can be repaired and will put a template. --Larsenat (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings there! I am working to address your concerns and have edited the lead to trim down some of the puffery. What are your thoughts? There is far less attribution now and I think its an adequate level of coverage. I will continue further down on the page, but I hope you can approve this. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As far as your last point, it does appear that the sources are now dead. I think with some research we can find new ones, but for now we can trim it. DaltonCastle (talk) 00:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Thor Halvorssen (human rights activist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Thor Halvorssen (human rights activist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FusionGPS[edit]

I’m not sure his recent testimony in front of Congress is sufficiently noteworthy to be in the introductory section. I haven’t removed it but I’m curious what others think.

I did remove the reference to the Trump dossier, since it’s completely irrelevant to the subject of the article.

Thanlis (talk) 15:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC) Thanlis (talk) 15:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just stumbling across this. It's definitely right to keep out the Trump bit, but the testimony as a whole seems pretty notable. Enough for the lead? That's a different question. But it's a very notable occurrence for someone who is notable for their human rights activism and is backed by reliable sourcing. Maybe it should go under the Activism section at the top, not under any subsection. For now seems reasonable to include. Uhtregorn (talk) 02:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Thor Halvorssen (human rights activist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 October 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Speedy closed as disruptive from POV-pushing IP anonymous editor. Requested moves are not for "soapbox about how this person is an evil terrorist." If an editor in good standing wishes to re-file, they are free to. SnowFire (talk) 08:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thor Halvorssen (human rights activist) → Thor Halvorssen Mendoza – It is in the public interest to make sure he uses his real name. Thor Halvorssen Mendoza is the cousin of Leopoldo Lopez Mendoza which he intend to cover up by calling himself a "human rights activists". Various investigative journalists from Norway, and the United States specifically complaining that Thor Halvorssen Mendoza tries to hide his connections to his brother Lorenzo Mendoza the richest man of Venezuela who also heading Venezuela's biggest company, and to his cousin Leopoldo Lopez Mendoza who is a convicted terrorist currently running from Venezuelan justice. In the other hand, disclosing that he is a "Mendoza" also helping those who investigating his fake NGO the so called Human Rights Foundation which totally removed all mention of Venezuela recently from the list of countries where they advocate for regime change. His cousin tried to overthrow the Venezuelan government with the help of the U.S. government and Thor Halvorssen Mendoza deeply involved in this. See: 2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt Should be noted that Thor Halvorssen Mendoza known for paying Wikipedia editors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jhanisse_V._Daza.

In the case of his cousin Leopoldo Lopez Mendoza the Inter-American Court of Human Rights calling Lopez as Lopez Mendoza, and Leopoldo Lopez Mendoza always including in his name Mendoza. Technically, this article either should be called as Thor Mendoza or Thor Halvorssen Mendoza. See reference: https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_233_esp1.pdf

170.51.109.52 (talk) 03:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Economist quote - maybe somebody can look it up[edit]

Hi, if somebody has the Economist sub, it would be nice to look into the source "A crowded field". In the article was stated that the Economist wrote it is the "Davos of Human Rights." And elsewhere in the article it was stated the Economist wrote (2010) it's on the way to become the equivalent of the Davos economic forum. I assume the ladder is right (this article had a lot of inaccuracy-problems around puffery though), but I can't confirm which or if any of the two options is true :). Casra (talk) 14:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

As can be seen above in multiple sections (#Criticism and controversy section, #Neutrality and relevance, #Awards and recognition), there is a clearly recognized neutrality issue with this article. At current, I see it mainly in the awards and recognition section what with it being full of praise yet the article not acknowledging any of the controversial aspects of Halvorssen's work as, again, mentioned in multiple sections. This issue has been addressed so many times over the years and yet still persists in the article, though I can see that significant work has been done to fix this, such as here. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see anything wrong with the Awards & recognition section listing his awards & recognition. Those discussions are ten years old and a lot of that has been pared down. I think keeping that quote out of the lead is a good call. Uhtregorn (talk) 05:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify (in case I wasn't clear), what I'm saying is that that section is full of praise, but there's no balance in the article. With a controversial subject matter such as what this man's work involves, it's especially important to reflect a variety of perspectives in order to maintain that balance, or else the heaps of praise are given massive undue weight. Part of my acknowledging the number of past discussions on this is to emphasize how clearly this is an ongoing issue. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This page writes like a press release. It gasses him up as a grand human rights activist but what rights exactly does he support? Access to abortion? Public housing to end homelessness? Does he support the right to universal healthcare? All I see is a media personality whose personal views align perfectly with American foreign policy, being railroaded into every major media outlet across the United States. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thor_Halvorssen_(human_rights_activist)&oldid=1206519558"