Jump to content

Talk:Protests against Nicolás Maduro/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

As the situation develops, sources can be included here. Once they are added (or discarded) for the article, please remove from this section. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 18:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

In the news

I have nominated this article to appear at the "In the news" of the main page, at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. Either if it is accepted or not, it is likely that more users will check this article and made further edits to it. Cambalachero (talk) 14:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Fake Twitter account

I have deleted this: "Chilean president Michelle Bachelet repudiated alleged repression and suggested Venezuela to call a plebiscite." because the source cited this fake Twitter account. The offical Twitter account is this, as you can see with the icon and make no statement about this protests.--Communist-USSR (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Identity of shooters

This needs to be covered. Furthermore, there are several Spanish-language sources from El Universal in the article, when El Universal has an English-language page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Technical editing issues

Please read WP:ASOF, and add "as of" dates to data on deaths, injuries and arrests, as these numbers are growing daily. Also, Venezuela uses day month year data format, not month day, year, which I have to keep correcting here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

NONENG

Please review WP:NONENG; there are ample English-language sources available, but Spanish language sources saying the same thing are being used. Almost none of this content [1] has been accounted for; most of the same is available in other English-language news sources as well. Wikipedia prefers English language sources when they are available; in this case, they are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Crime Rate and Mónica Spear

The "Crime rate" section should include the public outcry caused by the murder (January 6) of beloved beauty pageant titleholder and telenovela actress Mónica Spear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.24.112.203 (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Precisely (as I mentioned below). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 Done, partially-- I don't have time to fix all the POV in here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for you help SandyGeorgia. Don't be afraid to come back and clean up things, we all know that it's needed. :)

--Zfigueroa (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Financial Times

I do not have access to this source[2] so cannot fix the text. Will editors please take care to use enduring sources? There are thousands available; we don't need to rely on sources that will disappear or that are in Spanish. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Faulty sourcing leading to POV

These events are well covered in the mainstream media, and there is no reason to be using government controlled and other impartial sources. I am seeing at minimum aporrea.org, telesur, venezuelanalysis.com, Merco Press, and the Venezuelan government as sources for dubious statements, which can well be corrected and balanced by the use of the many mainstream sources covering the events. Some of the statements in this article, sourced to the Venezuelan government, require serious attention to the POV, for example (there are quite a few similar):

72% of these murders take place between rival (drug) gangs.[dubious – discuss][unreliable source?][1] And the renewed fight against crime in Venezuela "Plan Patria Segura" bearing fruit: in 2013 there were 51% fewer kidnappings and murders 17% less than in 2012.[dubious – discuss][citation needed]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Then provide a source stating that most of the murders are not between rival (drug) gangs. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
That's not how things work. We don't need alternative sources to say "X is false" to remove things, if we have an "X is true" said by sources which are not reliable, then that's enough to remove it. They way to keep those sentences is to find other sources, independent from Maduro's regime, that say the same thing. Cambalachero (talk) 01:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the entire content and tagged the section. In the meantime you should try to find reliable info to replace it. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I have added it again but with "according to the government".--Communist-USSR (talk) 09:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Adding attribution to claims from one biased source, without balancing text to reflect the multitude of independent sources reporting on the events, does not correct POV. As another example, I see this article claims the protests started 12 February, and claim they were initiated by Lopez and Machado, with narry a mention of the role in the protests accounted for by the murder of Monica Spear in front of her daughter during a typical-for-Caracas robbery-- that is, rampant murder and crime that has nothing to do with drug wars as claimed in this biased account. There are scores of reliable sources covering these events; do not remove POV and maintenance tags until the article is fixed. One sample source:[3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Press freedom limitations

... have not been given due weight according to reliable sources in this article. It is not difficult to review the hundreds of news sources available on google news. Here is one sample: [4] One sentence about NTN24 is inadequate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Snynthesis, original research, POV

And this is an example of WP:SYNTH (original research)-- sources strung together to reach conclusions not made by the sources. Now that a reliable source has been provided,[5] we find no mention of "business sectors aligned with conservative opposition" being responsible for the contraband found on the Colombian border.[6] (As a side note, those familiar with Venezuela will know that contraband on the Colombian border has always been common in Venezuela.)

The correct way to write neutral articles on Wikipedia is to gather reliable sources and write from them. This article has added biased points from biased sources, and has not corrected that. It is helpful to write from the beginning from independent reliable sources, rather than trying to shoehorn in points not supported by reliable sources. There are THOUSANDS of news sources reporting these events; they have not been used in this article, which has led to POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done Now corrected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Sourced information removed

Similarly, this edit removed the fact that a five-year-old was shot, as covered in the source. Why? Note that earlier versions of this article claimed that escalating crime in Venezuela was drug-related, while the students are protesting the violence during "routine" robberies, as in this case, in which even a child was shot. Covered by sources. Perhaps someone can explain why we have scrubbed the article of information about a child being shot, because it is the public reaction to events such as those that led to the protests. Sources: http://www.channel4.com/news/venezuela-most-dangerous-place-earth-murder-monica-spear-colombia-drugs http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-18/what-the-heck-is-going-on-in-venezuela-could-the-maduro-regime-fall SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Your second source mentions nothing about the child and neither should our lead. The focal point of the shooting was Miss Venezuela and the lead should mirror that. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, the second source doesn't mention the child, but the first does, so I don't follow your point on that one. Would you like more sources that mention the child, because they are available, but I find it unhelpful to load up articles with multiple sources when one good source will do. I agree with you that it's not necessary to mention the child in the lead; when you removed the text, you did not add it to the body. I can do that then. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Do you think that type of detail is appropriate? What about the husband? Can you quantify (i.e. weight) how influential the shooting of the child was in comparison to her? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Are you asking on a personal level or based on sources? On a personal level, as you have questioned my familiarity with Venezuela elsewhere on this page, there is no doubt that the shooting of a child is a factor weighing on people's minds (there used to exist some respect in Venezuela, and shooting a child during a robbery was once extraordinary). On a sources level, there may be some, but I'm unware of articles discussing specifically the husband, to the extent there are for the daughter. Spanish samples: [7] [8] [9] [10] English samples: [11] [12] And another in the context of the protests and ongoing violence. [13] That is only a few; there are hundreds more sources. And in direct relation to the protests: [14] Specifically, this is precisely what is going on throughout Venezuela, and has nothing to do with drug wars, and is what has people up in arms:

The slaying of Spear and her ex-husband followed a pattern of late-night assaults carried out by disabling cars with obstacles placed on roadways. [15]

Of course, we can also mention the child's father, which I haven't gotten around to yet, and then there is still untapped the whole matter that this type of crime skyrocketed under Maduro's predecessor and mentor Chavez, and is typically uninvestigated in Venezuela, which this article hasn't even begun to address, nor the source of the arms (as alluded in the Channel 4 report [16]). There is still quite a bit of ground to cover here towards neutrality. It would be helpful, to start with, if the section that should be addressing the factor of Maduro's legitimacy as President were updated to sources that actually are about the protests, rather than old history. If you review sources, you will find that concerns about crime, security, shortages and the treatment of detained protestors (which we also haven't discussed) are more relevant to Venezuelan people at the moment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Whitewashing (Alleged use of Adamsite)

Why is this sourced content repeatedly removed? bobrayner (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Because it doesn't have a reliable source. I also can't find it on CNN, BBC etc.--Communist-USSR (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Really? Do you have a list of acceptable versus unacceptable news outlets? bobrayner (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
No, but it is highly questionable if it is true. I can't find info about dollartoday on for example Wikipedia. If the story about gas is true, it would be reported by CNN etc.--Communist-USSR (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps there has been some misunderstanding. Being the subject of a wikipedia article does not make a source reliable. There are plenty of reliable sources without articles, and vice versa. Just look at all the articles we have about satire sites, internet polemicists, Youtube etc. bobrayner (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
So what makes it reliable? Again if the story was true it would already have been reported by major news outlets.--Communist-USSR (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I have found this article in the BBC about the Dolar Today page. It seems that it is a site run by 12 people, whose goal is "a type of protest against a dictatorial regime bent on silencing and intimidating the media in Venezuela" (their own quoted words). The BBC cites them among many other sources, and not in a negative light; but I can understand why we should try to find better sources if possible. However, that's just one step. The edit mentioned at the start of this thread cites several sources, and Dolar Today was only one. We should continue checking the others. Cambalachero (talk) 00:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I am the one who had proposed what has been removed. I would like to know if it may be used since I have multiple sources for it. La Patilla is also a critical source for my proposal. La Patilla is headed by the former president of Globovisión and is a reliable source. I just want the "ok" from the majority on using this because I do not want to cause anymore controversy. This article is about people seeking peace, we too must find it together. --Zfigueroa (talk) 01:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's another thing. A site run by 12 unknown people is one thing, but a site run by the former president of Globovisión is another. If I understood things correctly, Globovisión used to be a reliable source, it was seized by the government and now is pro-government, and this site is managed by a president of the channel of the time when it was reliable. If that's so, then I would consider that site a reliable source, as I would have considered Globovisión to be before they were seized. Cambalachero (talk) 01:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
It is not seized by the government, it is just bought by someone else.--Communist-USSR (talk) 22:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Cambalachero. I just don't want anymore problems. Any other thoughts? --Zfigueroa (talk) 02:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

So La Patilla is a reliable source Cambalachero If that's so, then I would consider that site a reliable source, as I would have considered Globovisión to be before they were seized. --Zfigueroa (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

La Patilla is a reliable source. It was created by Alberto Federico Ravell, co-creator of Globovision, after he left Globovison. La Patilla was created on June 11, 2010 and on Friday August 5, 2011 it acquired in whole Cable channel Colombian News 2. Colombian News was removed from the from international channels in order of Conatel Venezuela, following direct orders from the Chavez government, however, La Patilla is still working today. --Zfigueroa (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Globovisión is not seized by the government, it is just bought by someone else.--Communist-USSR (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

No, not Globovision, Columbian News 2 was put taken off the air in Venezuela. La Patilla is the only news source left from Alberto Federico Ravell. He went from Globovision, to La Patilla and Colombian News 2, Colombian News 2 was taken down and La Patilla is left. La Patilla is pretty much a left over of all the people who left Globovision with Alberto Federico Ravell and those who were part of Colombian News 2.

If, as it appears from the discussion above, La Patilla is a RS (Reliable Source). Then we do not need additional refs (CNN, BBC, etc...) Capitalismojo (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
^^^^^ Brought this up from La Patilla --Zfigueroa (talk) 04:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry with all the confusion on here. I know a lot of the sources are in spanish and hard to decipher. I really hope we can get things moving together. I even helped edit an addition from a biased source. It's all good. We just need to tell people what's happening and clean it up on the way.

--Zfigueroa (talk) 04:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

p>> Venezuela cracks down on violent protests>> Venezuelan protest leader calls new rally>> Venezuela says US plotting with protesters>> Venezuela sends troops to violence-hit state>> Mass rival protests staged in Venezuela >> Rival protests continue in Venezuela >> Venezuela's media wrangle >> Death toll rises in Venezuela amid roadblocks >> Armed Venezuelans fear 'Syria scenario' >> Venezuela protests continue despite holiday>> US urges Venezuela dialogue>> Venezuela's Chavistas remember late leader >> Panama demands Venezuela pay $1bn debt(Lihaas (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)).

nice pictures! 87.79.118.35 (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Al Jazeera is probably about as good a source as we're likely to get for this issue.Simonm223 (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Please watch the NPOV

It's not the place of this article to attack the Venezuelan government any more than it is to defend it. Please be cognizant of this and watch the NPOV. I have neither the time nor the patience to make a fight of this but I'm operating from the assumption that we all want accuracy, not propaganda for either side. Simonm223 (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

There is already a POV tag on the article; I've removed the second, redundant tag. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
It's not redundant, and since my concern with POV directly involves some of your edits I'd thank you not to remove the tag. Simonm223 (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps you could explain how two tags are helpful? And if you have problems with any of my edits, perhaps you could explain so your concerns can be addressed (with diffs to my edits and sources, please). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Whether intentional or not your edits seem to be inserting an anti-government bias, favoring American and opposition owned Venezuelan media sources over others and changing "publicly owned" to "government controlled" and such. The tag I added is specific to the usage of language by editors; such as that specific change and was inserted to draw attention to the fact that the language being used was biasing specifically toward anti-government. Simonm223 (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Examples are helpful; CANTV (nationalized) speaks for itself,[17] and I removed any qualifiers after someone you re-inserted POV in the other direction.[18] And this edit replaces the word murder although the source on which the edit is based[19] specifically calls it murder. Reasonable people might disagree on language, so it can be adjusted but, again, how does one tag, which is covered already by the other tag, help? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Considering that the government was democratically elected government assets ARE public assets. To try and create a divide between one and the other is POV pushing by attempting to insert the POV that the government isn't legitimate. Considering that the section that talked about the legitimacy of the government was blanked (the abandoned Capriles contest) this seems more like pushing for a specific POV. Simonm223 (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Your opinions are valid, but we have literally thousands of reliable sources on the CANTV issue; the easiest solution seems to be to let the reader decide without any qualifiers. Anyway, could you please address the issue? How does it help to have two tags on the article, when one covers the other? [20] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I think we have a different opinion of what constitutes qualifiers. All I've ever said is that I don't want the language tag removed because the language is of specific relevance to the WP:NPOV problems with the article.Simonm223 (talk) 20:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
The specific question is, we have a tag that says the article is not neutral; the second tag that says the language is not neutral is covered by the first. Why do we need two tags, when one covers the other? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Because a specific warning of problematic language is necessary to ensure readers understand they aren't getting an unbiased and dispassionate account of events. Simonm223 (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
How is that not covered by the global POV tag? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I've answered that. No amount of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is going to change the fact that I gave you an answer. Simonm223 (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
As you wish; I suppose then, considering your stance, there is negligible chance of this article being adequately prepped for ITN on the main page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

"Publicly owned" and "government controlled" are not the same thing, for the same reasons that state is not the same thing than government. Something publicly owned may be independent from the specific government, as it happens in other countries, so when something is both publicly owned and government controlled we should mention the second thing, to clarify their bias. Cambalachero (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Frankly it's disgusting how biased this article is - found a very well referenced piece which paints a very different picture of what's happening in Venezuela to this hack job. [[21]] Simonm223 (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

"For the formerly excluded and dispossessed, for those working towards building 21stcentury socialism, there is no turning back" does not sound exactly as a non-partisan view. Cambalachero (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
But ultraconservative private Venezuelan media is? It's widely known that the owners of private media in Venezuela were instrumental in the coup attempts against Chavez. Simonm223 (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Is it widely known? Chavez certainly said things like that, but that doesn't make it a fact. Considering that independent reviews find severe state restrictions on media in Venezuela, it seems unlikely that reality in Venezuela closely corresponds to the story of honourable politicians undermined by evil media conspirators. Just look at all the economically-illiterate rhetoric about "speculators" being responsible for shortages of staple goods. bobrayner (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes it is there's a double-standard being applied here to reliable sources. Now if you want to argue that any prospectively partisan source is unreliable that's fine. But it means we have to treat opposition controlled media in Venezuela the same way we're treating both government controlled media and, apparently, independent Canadian leftist media sources. Would you be willing to accept that compromise? Simonm223 (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
@Simonm223, really ?? well how curious then that you have not reinstated the POV tags, incorrectly removed by Somethingdifferent,[22] even following on our discussions above. Also, we don't achieve neutrality by compromising standards on reliability of sources. We achieve neutrality by giving due weight according to reliable sources-- by all means, fire up your research skills to determine what weight to give sources-- in the past, other editors have declined to use the source you recommend above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
And you'll note that I'm also not advocating for the expanded use of partisan sources. I'm actually doing the opposite and suggesting that greater care must be taken in what anti-government and overtly conservative sources we allow. Simonm223 (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
It appears that any source which says something critical of the government is automatically labelled partisan. (Or ultraconservative or whatever). That's got to stop. bobrayner (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Video sourcing

Yes, the video is horrible, what happened is horrible, but please do not rely on videos for sourcing. I have updated info here to a reliable print source:[23] The victim did not die (yet), and El Universal reports that he was shot by the National Guard, that it was captured also on local business video cameras nearby (as well as the neighbors who recorded the incident), yes, he was left by the GN to bleed to death on the street according to the videos, he was a 37-year-old law student attempting to mediate according to his family, and he is now fighting for his life (other reports say 34 units of blood are needed). Videos cannot convey accurate information; please do not source text to them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

A video or a photo, just in itself, is a primary source; it is correct that we can't use them directly. We use secondary sources that interpret the content of the primary sources, but that system is not perfect: their interpretation may be mistaken. A reliable source does not need to be infallible, if they had a video of something that seems so much like someone dying and they publish it, and later we find out that the person is gravely injured but not dead yet, then we'll have to correct the previous entry. The problem with incorrect interpretations in the press of the raw material is a common thing in topics like this one, which are going on right now and the speed of publication is a very important factor. Cambalachero (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

La Patilla

For whoever sees La Patilla in an odd format go to the bottom and click know for mobile view. The automatic usage of the mobile format was used by La Patilla so Venezuelans on mobile devices would be able to navigate easier.

Also, La Patilla is a reliable source. It was created by Alberto Federico Ravell, co-creator of Globovision, after he left Globovison. La Patilla was created on June 11, 2010 and on Friday August 5, 2011 it acquired in whole Cable channel Colombian News 2. Cable News was removed from the from international channels in order of Conatel Venezuela, following direct orders from the Chavez government, however, La Patilla is still working today.

--Zfigueroa (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Globovision had an exceptionally fraught relationship with the Venezuelan government. Ravell is a long-standing opponent of the Venezuelan government. His media properties are not reliable sources for this topic. Simonm223 (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

Thanks for the link Communist-USSR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources

--Zfigueroa (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

And yet rabble.ca was deleted for not being neutral in POV. You can't have it both ways. You can't present propaganda from one side as fact and exclude it from the other. That violates WP:NPOV I personally think it's probably less of a headache all around if we agree to try to stick to more neutral sources. Simonm223 (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I did not delete it. We should be able to put sources that we like with opposition POV and government POV. I don't think we should waste our energy bickering at each other and rather put it into finding information about what's going on. It doesn't have to be conservative, it doesn't have to be liberal, socialist, communist; any kind of source as long as it is from editors with expertise should be accepted.

--Zfigueroa (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that the use of that gas as claimed by La Patilla would be a serious crime and only non-reliable anti-maduro media seems to report it, not big names like CNN, BBC, Globovision etc.--Communist-USSR (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
If, as it appears from the discussion above, La Patilla is a RS. Then we do not need additional refs (CNN, BBC, etc...) Capitalismojo (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
If it was true it would have been reported by the BBC etc yet it is not reported. La patilla didn't provide any evidence, only a link to a youtube video. I doubt LP is a RS.--Communist-USSR (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Yet Maduro may be kicking out larger refs like CNN and some pro-government groups are threatening CNN.

--Zfigueroa (talk) 04:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The only thing La Patilla is an RS for is the opinion of La Patilla. It isn't a reliable source for events on the ground for reasons of clear bias demonstrable through a LONG history of conflict with government. Simonm223 (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Is there any source critical of the Venezuelan government which isn't automatically disqualified? bobrayner (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I endorsed Al Jazeera earlier today as an exceptionally reliable source - and they haven't been gushing over the Venezuelan government. Simonm223 (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
A media that has conflicts with a government so largely reputed as a government that undermines the freedom of the press, can not be blamed just for such conflicts. With that logic, if CNN is removed from the country, it is not a reliable source either? Cambalachero (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
And remember as well that it's not up to Wikipedia to find out what is "true" and what is "false". The correct question is not if there was a use of gas: it is if that source is credible so that we may report what they are saying. We are in no position to demand hard evidence from a news site to judge if they are credible, protection of sources is one of the pillars of the freedom of the press. The antecedents of the people working at that web site make it credible; can you say that it is not credible in a way which does not involve the opinions or defamations or the government or the government-controlled media? Cambalachero (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
In the few references to La Patilla I have found in U.S. media, it normally says "according to." I do not think they are prepared to consider them wholly reliable. The approach I recommend is to use Western news sources and if it says "according to La Patilla" or "according to x", that should be what we say.
I question the extensive writing about the causes of the protests. At present it is speculation and we should cite individuals who explain what they think are the causes.
TFD (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Argentina

Why is it relevant to add "The alleged conspiracies and coup attempts are a usual element in the Kirchner's domestic political discourse." after what the Argentinian government said? It makes it seem like their opinions should be ignored, this is a pretty big non-NPOV issue. This would be like adding "The US helped in the 2002 coup" for no reason at all— Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.59.72.205 (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2014

I agree and I have removed it.--Communist-USSR (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
That portion clarifies the motives for Kircher's position, as it is influenced by the domestic politics as well. As for NPOV, fringe theories must be identified as such. By the way, the first comment was made by an IP with a single edit. Is it someone in here who forgot to log in? Cambalachero (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
It certainly looks like a sockpuppet to me. bobrayner (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Is anybody here editing this article from Argentina? Simonm223 (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Again with the double standard

When leftist opposition politicians in Latin America come out in support of the Venezuelan government: nope, not notable, has to go. But Marco Rubio gets to stay? He's an un-influential US Senate minority player who was briefly important to the Republicans until he turned into just another tea party blip on the radar. Please, justify this double standard. Simonm223 (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Whitewashing, again

Communist-USSR, you are systematically stripping out sourced content which doesn't fit the government's side of the story. And, in some cases, deliberately modifying content so that it contradicts what the source says. It's been going on for days, but here are examples from the last few hours:

Stop that now. bobrayner (talk) 14:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe read the summary?


30: See on this talk page "Again with the double standard".
31: "Catastrophic monetary policy" is pov
32: "Price controls have hurt businesses and led to shortages, long queues, and looting - even by the National Guard" is a opinion not a fact.
33: I'm just adding what the source say...
35: That was about the local elections so it doesn't fit there.
36/37: Again, it is not a fact but the opinion of the writer so I added "according to"
38: I just added alleged and removed a few countries because it was too much, Zfigueroa even thanked my for that edit...
39/40: What is the problem? --Communist-USSR (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Just because something is critical of government policy doesn't make it "pov". Multiple reliable sources have criticised the goverment's policies around currency, and directly connected this to shortages; therefore our article should say so. Removing it, and pretending that shortages are just something that falls from the sky like snow, or - even worse - pretending that shortages are caused by an army of speculators and malicious businesses - that would be "pov". Similarly for the price controls; just because something contradicts ministerial proclamations does not make it "opinion not a fact"; our content must reflect what reliable independent sources say. bobrayner (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
But this isn't what's happening Bobrayner plenty of things critical of the government are being left in by everybody. But when WP:SYNTH is going on, or when WP:DUE is not being balanced (such as with the Rubio example) it leads to the WP:NPOV issues that originally drew me to this page - and that remain problematic. Though less so thanks to the work of Somedifferentstuff especially and, yes, of Communist-USSR whose edits haven't been perfect but have helped to balance against the blatant right-wing bias of this article previously. Simonm223 (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I'd love to see any evidence of "blatant right-wing bias". Is that due to the sources that you wrote off as "ultraconservative"? Systematically removing properly sourced content, and deliberately changing content so that it misrepresents sources, in order to push the article in a certain direction - that is part of the problem, not part of the solution. bobrayner (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I've provided examples of items of concern previously. The most recent one being the juxtaposition of the treatment of American conservative politicians with equivalent Latin American leftist politicians in the national response section. That's a glaring example of WP:DUE issues introducing a conservative bias. And frankly I've been restrained with that section - for instance leaving in the uninformed statements of pop singers. However if we treat opposition politicians from one side of the political spectrum one way and treat opposition politicians from the other side of the political spectrum in an entirely different way that's breaking WP:NPOV. Likewise, when a news source owned and operated by somebody who has been openly antagonistic to the state for the last decade is defended as a reliable source while a news source owned and operated by allies of the state is treated as unreliable that is also an WP:NPOV issue. Now that's subsided for the moment, but I half expect some of the more partisan editors to go and try and stick La Patilla back in the first chance they get.
Come on, you know me from other editspaces we're both active in well enough to know that I do have the Wikipedia project mission at heart. I have a political bias here, and I openly admit that. I think it's safe to say that you do too. But I'd like you to extend some good faith here that when I bring problems to talk - which I have been, much more than I've been editing on the main pagespace, it's because I"m making a good faith attempt to come to a resolution that will create an NPOV article. If I had the time to edit more extensively (and I don't) I'd probably suggest pulling out a lot of stuff from dubious sources and replacing it with content from places like the Guardian and Al Jazeera - both impeccably reliable sources and both sources that have been providing balanced coverage of Venezuela, rather than either American media's propaganda or the propaganda of the left alternate press. Simonm223 (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
While it is fine to cite criticism of Venezuelan policy, it is incorrect to state that analysis as fact. Furthermore, a statement by U.S. Senator Marco Rubio picked up by a local TV affiliate is not significant. TFD (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. This is exactly what I've been trying to say.Simonm223 (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Zfigueroa please discuss here before reinserting the opinions of various random Tea Party darlings. Simonm223 (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

It's just because they are possible presidential candidates. Trust me, I think they're crazy just as much as you do... --Zfigueroa (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

And if they become actual presidential candidates their positions on foreign policy might be notable. But for now they're just random senate minority figures from the far right fringe of the Republican party. But the truth is you don't even need them - it's not like there's a great deal of variation in the message coming out of the US from any group of politicians. Including them is giving undue weight to the US political establishment's response. And unless we want to start really exploring the United States' involvement in funding opposition groups in detail (trust me, we don't want to open that kettle of fish) they're just not that relevant to warrant more than two times the space of Argentina, Bolivia and Brazil combined in the international response section. Simonm223 (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Tea Party views are significant for views about the Tea Party, but not for international events. Wikipedia is supposed to be international in scope, and mainstream news sources outside the U.S. would rarely to to a Tea Party politician for commentary about events outside the U.S. The other problem is that quoting someone known for his non-mainstream views diminishes the credibility of the views he is expressing. A quote from the U.S. Secretary of State who probably would say the same thing would give the view more credibility among most readers. TFD (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

High crime rate

Here is a lengthy piece.[35]

From the source,

According to the non-profit website InSight Crime, the crime rate in Venezuela is even higher than Colombia, which is still in the midst of a civil conflict. InSight Crime said that causes of gun crime include high levels of corruption, a lack of investment in the police force and weak gun control – all of which has led to a proliferation of arms and a lack of coherent security policy.

and

It also said that Venezuela has become a principal transit nation for Colombian cocaine. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime said Venezuela does not produce sizeable quantities of cocaine, but it has become a transit country for cocaine from Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia, which is shipped to the United States and Europe. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that source (there are many more, more recent and better, but that one at least served for the Spears mention)-- I added brief mention of the event that sparked these protests (the brutal murder of Monica Spear), but I don't have enough time to continue fixing the rest of the POV in here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Glad you added mention of Spear, I think that's an important piece of this. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Since it was her death that sparked the protests to begin with, I would think so :) Earlier versions of this article had no mention of Spear's death, and claimed that the protests only began in February, "and were organized by María Corina Machado and Leopoldo López". Editors here should be aware of WP:BLP, and when discussing living persons, should be scrupulous about reliability of sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
One small note regarding the organization of the protests and López - there are RSes that say he was involved in organizing them. The Guardian, for example.Simonm223 (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

alleged human rights violations

The sources provided don't say that one reason for this protests is alleged human rights violations, it only talk about some alleged human rights violations. Is there any reliable source which claim that one of the reasons of the protests are alleged human rights violations?--Communist-USSR (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

It is a claim by the opposition since they believe freedom to "peacefully" express their views is in the Venezuelan constitution. It is mainly quoted by opposition and organizations that support them. The violent retaliation from some individuals made them feel like their human rights were "violated". Hope that helped :)

--Zfigueroa (talk) 04:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but the article say one of the reasons of this protests are alleged human rights violations but the sources doesn't say that. They only mention alleged human rights violations.--Communist-USSR (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
We shouldn't use weasel wording when reliable sources are unequivocal about human rights violations. Here's a snippet from Human Rights Watch:

Venezuelan security forces have used excessive and unlawful force against protesters on multiple occasions since February 12, 2014, including beating detainees and shooting at crowds of unarmed people, Human Rights Watch said today. The government has censored the news media, blocking transmission of a TV channel and threatening to prosecute news outlets for their coverage of the violence. President Nicolás Maduro announced on February 20, 2014, that he had begun proceedings to take CNN off the airwaves in Venezuela, and a press workers union reported on February 21 that the government had cancelled the credentials of CNN’s Caracas correspondent. Journalists and human rights defenders have reported being subject to acts of violence and intimidation by government agents or supporters. “The Venezuelan government has openly embraced the classic tactics of an authoritarian regime, jailing its opponents, muzzling the media, and intimidating civil society,” said José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at Human Rights Watch.

Our article should reflect this, rather than putting caveats around everything that doesn't fit the government's position. bobrayner (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Neither of the articles cited in support of the claim--that allegations of human rights violations are one of the reasons for the protests--actually say this. They allege human rights violations in the government's response to the protests. These allegations should be mentioned in the article, but not listed as reasons! Riothero (talk) 01:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
That sounds good to me. bobrayner (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

dolartoday

Please stop using dolartoday as source, it is not reliable.--Communist-USSR (talk) 07:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I am worry this is hopeless...--62.245.80.21 (talk) 04:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Chile

The section on Chile reads as follows

"regretted the deaths in Caracas and expressed its condolences to the people and government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, especially the families of the victims. Chile also encourages an "open and constructive dialogue".[107] Lautaro Carmona, leader of the Communist Party of Chile, said ”Maduro is doing the right thing on appealing to all the institutional force which has been built by the democratic sovereignty of Bolivarian Venezuela. As far as the interests of the working class, and the people in general, there's nothing to be concerned about since the Bolivarian revolution has changed their lives for good“."

One of them is an official message from the government of Chile. The second, and longer, is from the leader of the Communist party of Chile... a minority party, which got 4.11% of the vote for deputies in the Chilean general election, 2013, and 0,14% for the Senate. Yes, it is part of the alliance that took Bachelet to the presidency, but don't get confused: they are just the very minor cousin of the alliance, their role in it ammounts to nothing. It gives them much undue weight to report their opinion in such detail. I would prefer a quotation from Bachelet instead, and if she made none, then use just the one of the government. Cambalachero (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Given that the international reaction section is huge already, the CPCh position adds little value at all. All communist movements essentially say the same thing, so I don't think the opinion of one such party with less than 5% support in the country is notable.Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The so-called economic war

The article mentions that Maduro claims that he's fighting an economic war. Let's clarify such a term: we are not talking about War economy (a national economy focusing on military production during wartime) nor economic warfare (armies selecting targets of economic value during war). His claim is that the ongoing economic crisis in Venezuela is not the fault of the Venezuelan government at all, but an attack of foreign countries that would be subverting the Venezuelan economy from within. Clearly, a mere conspiracy theory to say "it's not my fault". The Guardian talks about this: the so-called economic war is actually the attempt to turn Venezuela into a state like Cuba. Cambalachero (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about??? The "economic war" he is referring to has to do with the allegation that private business interests in Venezuela are purposely disrupting the Venezuelan economy thru under-production and hoarding, i.e. "economic warfare" used to foment popular dissatisfaction. Please do further research before spouting off on the matter. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes. That concept does not even exist. No private business is stronger than the state, they can't force a crisis like the Venezuelan one. For starting, no private business has as much wealth as the national bank. Cambalachero (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
That's a opinion of yours, not a fact. And this isn't a discussion forum.--Communist-USSR (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
If you think that this type of war really exists, feel free to start an article about it, and explain in detail exactly how is it supposed to work, and how does it overcome all the obvious things that would prevent it from working. Detail other cases of such wars, and don't forget to cite the reliable sources that explain those things. Cambalachero (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Cambalachero is right. The claims about businesses deliberately disrupting the economy and deliberately withholding goods and services are ridiculous. It is economically illiterate. It may be a necessary thing for the Venezuelan government to say - the alternative explanations for widespread shortages of staples, currency chaos, and a broken labour market are not very flattering to the people who have made extensive regulations in these markets - but we should frame such claims appropriately rather than taking them as gospel. bobrayner (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Again that is a opinion and I disagree with it, but what is the problem? Maduro called it a economic war and we should include it, as it is now.--Communist-USSR (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the NPOV requires us to identify the fringe theories as such. When national leaders say such blatant nonsenses beyond even elementary school knowledge, like this "economic war", the "cancer gun" fired against Chávez, or that the late Chávez talked to Maduro while reincarnated in a little bird (ejem ejem), we may report those things they say, but clarifying that a nonsense is a nonsense Cambalachero (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Reminds me of the idea of the Allende government (and its apologists to this day) that the crisis of Marxist economic policies is actually the fault of 'bourgeois sabotage'. Simply shows that Venezuela's Marxist experiment is nearing its logical end with price controls, empty shelves and shortage economy.Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 12:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Francisco Ameliach

On his Twitter account I don't see him say that.--Communist-USSR (talk) 09:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

We prefer secondary sources. People can - and do - sanitise tweets if they are caught out and look bad. bobrayner (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but the source provided is not reliable.--Communist-USSR (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
the el mundo article is about not allowing protests in the neighborhoods located south of the city of Valencia - it doesn't even mention Twitter--Communist-USSR (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Is this proof enough to you that he said it? Miguroja (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ [unreliable source?] http://www.vtv.gob.ve/articulos/2013/12/22/gobierno-ha-logrado-reducir-el-secuestro-y-el-homicidio-en-51-7-y-17-5925.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Protests_against_Nicolás_Maduro/Archive_1&oldid=1120515829"