Talk:Protests against Nicolás Maduro/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Who removed this? Synthesis re-added

I did.[1] With thousands of reliable sources covering the protests, why are we engaging in WP:SYNTH with six- and eight-month-old and more sources? There is an article about Madura and the election, and there are recent sources about the content of this article relative to Maduro; the entire section is SYNTH. Please use current sources, and link to the Maduro election article for discussion of his election. If there is any relevance to this article, it is covered by sources about the topic of this article. There is not a single source in this section that has anything to do with the protests (they couldn't, since they are almost a year old), and yet the original research tag has been removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't WP:SYNTH and the legitimacy of the election is definitely notable in this circumstance. Age of the sources is largely because that issue was settled prior to these events for a good long while.Simonm223 (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

To say that the disputed 2013 election results didn't play a role in the current protests tells me you don't know much about what is going on in Venezuela. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Now now, let's be nice and keep discussions from becoming personalized. Once again, this is classic SYNTH. There are sources dealing with the election of Maduro relative to the protests; please use them. The sources used in that section are all six to eight months old, with no relevance established to the protests. Use sources that do establish context. If I can find the time, between all of the other corrections needed in here, I would do the work for you (it is not hard to find sources among the thousands available, it just takes time), but things work best if we share the workload, and I've done all I can do in the few hours of time I have for this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Maintenance tag removed again without discussion and without correcting the issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

There is some relevance of the election of Maduro here, but I agree with @SandyGeorgia:, we need not cite sources that are more than six months old. If a source makes the connection, we can include, but I expect that it will be no more than a paragraph of inclusion. There is a little bit of coverage in these source: [2], [3], [4], [5]. One of the most commonly mentioned facts is his, what Reuters calls, "off-and-on rivalry with Capriles." Also helpful, a chronology of news coverage of Venezuela. --Precision123 (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Five days, still unaddressed ... there are now boatloads of sources discussing the Madura issue relative to the protests ... the entire section on Maduro is drawn from sources that date to April 2013 and have nothing to do with the protests.[6] If no one can take the time to rewrite it to relevant sources, it can be removed ... as of now, no relevance to this article is established. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Horrible article

The sourcing for this article is terrible. There's an over reliance on media outlets in Venezuela (and America) that have proved biased and unreliable to accurately report what is going on. There's no reason to use these sources and exclude others like Venezuelanalysis.com or Apporea.

Also, this:

"On 22 February, in Chacao, government forces used tear gas, firearms and even robbed some protestors.[82] 25 people were injured there, 14 from buckshot wounds, 9 from bruising, and 2 from dyspnea,[83]"

The sources link to articles that only include tweets. This is not verified or reliable information, especially since the tweets are coming from areas that are in chaos. Sloppy reporting and not worth being cited as a good statistic. I'm removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.177.250 (talk) 03:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Please review WP:RS (bias is apparently in the eyes of the beholder). Neither Venezuelanalysis nor Aporrea are unbiased sources, because of their close association with the Venezuelan govt. I have seen just about no media reporting that doesn't cover the Venezuelan position, but I do agree that we can use much better sources than lapatilla. The problem with the sourcing in this article as of now is that there are boatloads of sources that haven't even been tapped yet, and POV is introduced by all that has been left out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the concern has been the repeated inclusion of Dollartoday and LaPatilla - which are equivalently biased albeit on the opposite side of the issue; and possibly the use of US media to report on this when the united states is not a neutral player. I also am not a huge fan of over-reliance on American media but accede to much of it meeting the Wikipedia definition of reliability. Simonm223 (talk) 15:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not in favor of using either dolartoday or lapatilla.com, they are not high quality sources, and none of the marginal sources being used here present info that can't be found in high quality sources. However, your statement that the "united states is not a neutral player" shows a misunderstanding of WP:V and WP:RS-- please review. Until this article gives due weight to the *thousands* of reliable sources available, most of which cover all sides of the issue, it will reflect cherry picking and POV. Regardless, the more important issue is that editors here need to stop using biased sources like Venezuelanalysis.com to make statements about living persons-- we require the highest quality sources for BLPs, and particularly when we are impugning people with criminal statements. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Please calm down a bit. You'll note I conceded that despite my personal discomfort US sources fit the bill for a WP:RS Simonm223 (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Do I appear uncalm, or are you just being a misogynist, asking the little lady to not be hysterical? Anyway, more to the point, you appear to confuse English-language sources with "united states" sources ... if you believe the US to be biased, there are also hundreds of other English-language sources that don't originate in the US and that are also reporting accurately ... the BBC, Al Jazeera, Australian press, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of your gender so no, I wasn't being mysogynist. And I'd ask for a little bit of good faith here. I have not championed the inclusion of venezuelanaalysis - I was merely pointing out that the ongoing nature of this disagreement lies more with the reinsertion of sources from one side rather than the absence of them from another. Furthermore I was being very specific that my misgivings were with US sources, not all English sources. Heck, the last source I inserted was from The Guardian. That being said I was stating more that I could understand other editors concerns with American sources although I was not supporting their removal. Simonm223 (talk) 17:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Background

Speedfish, please explain this removal of the sourced (and well known) background. [7] I'm hoping you hit a button by mistake. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't recall trying to remove anything, I don't think. - Speedfish

Thanks, perhaps you hit a button unintentionally. In my edit to complete the background (I don't understand why this has been neglected for so long), I re-arranged some text to make it flow better, and added the attempted rape in San Cristobal that set things off after Monica Spear, and well before protests moved to Caracas. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

Lot of sources (such as dollartoday) are outright making-up stuff to present Venezuelan government in negative light. Some of the sources, that are using photos of protests and conflicts from other places and times and present them as related to this protests, are mentioned here, together with the proof (original source of the picture).

Those sources cannot be trusted. --188.252.129.220 (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there has been a problem in this area of fabricated content (although people disagree about who is doing the fabricating, for purposes of creating chaos and perception of incredibility-- the implication by the IP that the fabrications are only in the direction of "making-up stuff to present Venezuelan government in negative light" is one-sided), [8] [9] however, to my knowledge, that has not been an issue on this article, because of Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines. Once, I replaced content from a video with content from a reliable source, because a video claimed that someone was killed and it was later discovered that the victim survived. [10] The kind of fabrication that has been happening has not stood in this article.

There is, however, a language problem on both sides ... some editors relying only on Spanish sources perhaps because that is their native language and what they most easily understand, and other editors not speaking Spanish and not knowing how far behind the story the English-language sources are, since even CNN has had equipment confiscated and journalists threatened.

Keeping up with this story is difficult, and made more so by the limitations on the press in Venezuela, but we can do our best by using only high quality sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Simonm223, your effort to clean that mess up is appreciated,[11] but this is another case where we don't need to use Spanish-language sources, because we have English-language sources (see WP:NONENG-- unless Spanish language sources are superior, we prefer English, and in this case we can use the ones we have (there are many more). [12] [13] Further, the current text is unbalanced, still implying the opposition is the party doing this-- sources say otherwise. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't actually originally include the source. I just saw that the current use of it was grammatically flawed and tried to fix. Not particularly attached to the source - if you think you have one that conveys that there are accusations of photo manipulation being levelled at opposition more in line with WP:NOENG I certainly won't try and block you.Simonm223 (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I saw you were only trying to fix the grammatical mess that was there ... I think the English sources do a better job ... if I have a block of free time later, I will try to rewrite, but no promises that I can find the time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Venezuelan opposition is peacefull, Venezuelan government is brutal tyrranistic regime

Ok, why is venezuelanalysis.com biased, if dolartoday.com is not biased??? Use both or none and I found references from dolartoday.com (which for example used photos of russian police and said it is venezuelan police). All mentions of crimes and brutality from opposition side are marginalized, all mentions of crimes and brutality from government side are exagerrated. Stop pov, please!!!--62.245.80.21 (talk) 04:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree, there is a lot of hypocrisy here... I have removed everything from dolartoday.--Communist-USSR (talk) 09:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

As I see, report about arrest of general Vivas is back in article, but with other sources. If it is dollartoday or other "reliable" sources, its ok. If it is venezuelanalysis.com, it is bad, no matter if they are right.--62.245.80.55 (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

If something is sourced exclusively to dollartoday then I'd suggest deleting it as failing WP:RS but if something was previously sourced to dollartoday and is now included with something that constitutes a WP:RS that's a different story. I think we've established a fair bit of consensus that dollartoday, la patilla and venezuelanalysis are all not reliable for the purposes of this story. Simonm223 (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion via edit summary

Regarding this allegation in edit summary, Somedifferentstuff, please explain your statement in edit summary that I "misrepresented a source". It's hard to misrepresent when you're pretty much directly quoting, and I see you added San Cristobal, and then the Maduro position. Personally, I would have expanded the full story in a different section. YMMV. You may find it more effective to take discussion of "misrepresenting sources" to talk rather than make them via edit summary. Fact is, no one has bothered to write the background on this issue, so criticizing those who get started isn't helpful. I'm wondering if you understand the history of student protests in Táchira with respect to the history of democracy in Venezuela? If not, please read up on same-- it's significant, and it strikes me as unlikely that this article can be updated correctly by those who may not know basic Venezuela history. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Could you also explain how a direct quote from a reliable source (the Associated Press, printed in the CSM) can be "editorializing"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The cited AP article discusses both the student claims for the origin of the protest and then the competing claim from Maduro - it doesn't attempt to establish which claim is true. If we use the source we should likewise include both claims - that it was a violent crackdown of a protest against an attempted rape or that it is part of a coup attempt in a traditional conservative stronghold town with strong ties to Colombia. Because if we rely on that source alone for that information, to include one claim without the other would violate WP:NPOV - at least that's how I see it. This article is changing so quickly I'll be honest and say that as of posting these comments I'm not sure how we're handling the source in the article. Simonm223 (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Understood, but as I was editing, the edit was removed entirely (see section above), at which point, I tend to quit editing and leave it to others. I do attempt to preserve or use some sort of logical flow of text (that is, how did we get from Spear to Táchira to Caracas to Lopez), which we no longer have, but whatever. More significantly, I see Somedifferentstuff has continued to edit, without engaging this talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Sandy, you completely left out the material regarding Maduro so the source wasn't neutrally represented. Regarding the "editorializing" tag, I didn't realize it was part of a quote. Nevertheless, it should still be pulled from the quote and summarized. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I was not done, I would completely rearrange the flow to make it more logical, I would not have used that source for that particular piece, but since my edit was removed (see section above), and then you got uppity in edit summary, I stopped-- no interest in trying to edit under such conditions. I would arrange all of the text differently, and use better sources, if editing here wasn't difficult, so I guess that sort of work can wait until things calm down. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Regime is pov

Please don't use "regime of Chavez" that is very pov... Just say government of Venezuela.--Communist-USSR (talk) 09:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

When - in context - multiple reliable sources call it a regime, then it is reasonable for us to do so too. You should stop using "pov" as a label for any content that doesn't fit your personal politics. It should, instead, be used as a label for anything that skews what sources say. bobrayner (talk) 13:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

There are also multiple reliable sources that call it the government of Venezuela. A regime suggests it is a dictatorship.--Communist-USSR (talk) 13:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

It is frustrating that you follow me to other articles to revert all my attempts to bring them closer in line with what sources say. This revert-stalking is tendentious editing, as is your highly selective whitewashing. Stop that now. These articles need a lot of cleanup, they will be cleaned up, and the only question is whether you stop revert-stalking now, or whether somebody else takes the revert button away from you. bobrayner (talk) 14:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

It's funny to hear from you that I'm stalking you... After I edited "Communist Party of Ukraine" you came to edit the article, which you never did before. The same with the article "Media representation of Hugo Chávez" and "Venezuelan parliamentary election, 2010". If someone is stalking, it's you.. Please just discuss, instead of accusing me of false things.--Communist-USSR (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Its ok, as I see, bobrayner also stalking me. I hope he will get tired soon. :) --62.245.80.55 (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

If you're going to make a claim like that it might be wise to be logged into your actual account - because your IP is showing you as a SPU - that IP has no edit history for anyone TO stalk.Simonm223 (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Bobrayner undo my changes at article about general Ángel Vivas. Thats all folks...--62.245.80.55 (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you should log back in to your account. bobrayner (talk) 03:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:COMMON SENSE indicates we don't blindlu parrot what the media says. This is not a news source either. Wwe have to make it free of the media biases that are inherent. That menas taking all sides;;Lihaas (talk) 00:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• First, sumbuddy needs to look up the word regime. Second, we don't base text on our opinions; we write from reliable sources. Like Time magazine. Gupta, Girish (21 February 2014). "Venezuela's Protests Shake the Regime Chávez Built". Time. There are others-- selective use of language to deny that there is a "system of government" in place in Venezuela is foolish. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Miss Venezuela - Again

Is there a reliable WP:NOENG source that says that Chavistas shot her? Because the last I heard she was shot as part of a roadside robbery. I've very pointedly not removed that claim yet. However I'd really like to see some discussion of the reliability of that information before we leave it in. Simonm223 (talk) 15:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Again it's not a matter of how many sources you have but rather their reliability. Do you have any sources that are reliable and in keeping with WP:NOENGSimonm223 (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

‎Zfigueroa this applies specifically to your edits. Please discuss here on talk. Simonm223 (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I will note after reviewing the four sources you cite two don't specify who attacked her and two others claim she was shot by a chavista on the basis of twitter rumours. These don't constitute WP:RS sources. If you can't find mainstream coverage confirming who shot her (IE: not twitter rumours) the claim should be removed as per WP:NPOV I'm sure I don't need to point out how useless crowd-directed security analisys proved to be in other circumstances such as the Boston Marathon bombing. Just because twitterati / redditors / etc. say this is the one who did the deed doesn't make it so. Simonm223 (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

All of the sources say a Chavista shot her. You can add the source of whoever said it was a robbery and be like:

However, according to ..... Genesis was killed during a robbery.

It's just all of the sources I saw was a Chavista and violent groups attacking opposition protestors.

Most are in Spanish from Peru, Venezuela, and Spain.

--Zfigueroa (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

It was not all of the sources. I know because I read the ones you cited. It was half of the sources. The others just said she was shot during a protest. And you haven't responded to the point regarding those sources that do specify a chavista assailant depending on embedded Twitter primary source material as the basis for the claim. Again, this doesn't constitute a WP:RS notwithstanding WP:NOENGSimonm223 (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

First, for clarity. There are two Misses who have been killed, which may be causing confusion. Monica Spear was killed in a roadside robbery, and that death sparked the first protests. I'm not aware of any reliable source mention of "chavistas" in that murder. Spear was Miss Venezuela; Carmona was not.

During the later student protests, Genesis Carmona was shot (she was not Miss Venezuela, she was Miss Carabobo, and Miss Tourism). This tag is incorrect; several Spanish-language sources do say she was shot by armed chavistas.(One example)

The broader story, available from many sources, is that chavistas called for the violence ( one example here) in which she was killed.

I suggest better use of English-language sources (there are scores), and attribution of the statements specifying which source says what, and that the wording "chavista sympathizers" used by some sources might be utilized. Some of these editing issues could be avoided by using English-language sources.

This article doesn't yet cover the topic of "who has the guns" and how they got them, which also makes the narrative confusing.

Simon, WP:NONENG does not say we can't use Spanish-language sources; it says we prefer them when they are available and of equal quality. We should make use of English sources, but because of the issues occurring with reporters in Venezuela, it is hard to make the argument that the English press can be covering this story with the same quality as those on the ground are. I hope you are not equating reliability with language; in this case, Spanish language sources are well ahead of the English-language press, if only because some of them are there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand that. However I'm trying to encourage more careful selection of sources. The original four articles that cited that included two which provided the opinion that she was shot by a chavista absent fact supported by blurry photos of a person in civilian clothes posted to twitter. The other two didn't specify who did the killing. I've adjusted the claim accordingly - as we should absent any evidence of the identity of the perpetrator(s). Simonm223 (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I added more sources about the alleged Chavista who killed Genesis. Thanks for fixing the wording Simon.

--Zfigueroa (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to both for working together towards fixing these issues-- there is still so much missing, it is hard editing with things moving fast and sources in Spanish, but it would be grand if the broader story could be written. There is still no mention of who called for the violence in which Carmona was killed. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Weird problem with Canadian Broadcasting Corporation source links

See this edit; when I added the cbc.ca source a few days ago, from the url http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/venezuela-protests-opposition-blocks-roads-in-caracas-1.2548864 (Venezuela protests: opposition blocks road in caracas), it linked to an article about Vivas, including the quote used. Now, the same link at cbc.ca redirects to a completely different article titled, "Venezuela opposition refuses to meet with president over protests". And, when searching for the original title on cbc.ca or via google news, all of the cbc links redirect to the newer article. I don't understand CBC (do they just overwrite old sources with newer articles?), but the original article is gone, so I added a different link. If anyone knows what is up with CBC.ca links ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I've seen it happen before. I'm not certain about the underlying policy governing it. Could be a certain amount of recentism - not wanting to build up a backlog of articles on one topic evolving too rapidly. But that's just a guess. Simonm223 (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Well ... I won't use them as a source again! Thanks, out of time now for the day, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Scarcity index

We are using the term "scarcity index" in the article (in the WP:LEAD), and I would like to know more about it. It sounds like a notable term, with its own history, meaning, applications, etc. WP:RED links are beneficial, in that they show where new articles can be created. I have added a link to it again, and it now appears red, but that is intentional. Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 18:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Bios, I suspect it can be handled with a parenthetical definition ... see, for example, Los Angeles Times here-- it seems to be only a Venezuelan term.

Last week, the central bank revised its scarcity index upward to 28%, which represents the proportion of basic foods and household goods that can be considered to be in scarce supply.

And, we need to reflect the newer number. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

sorry about that

Seems like one of my edits caused a little glitch on-page. Looks fixed now. Thanks User:SandyGeorgia Simonm223 (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Sloppy attribution and poor reporting from The Guardian

I thought our text here was quite strange for an Embassy report, and happened across this reading at the gym ...

Two very different things ... resulting from The Guardian failing to attribute where it got this info.[14]

Bloomberg/BusinessWeek

The government of Nicolas Maduro, Chávez’s successor, has accused him of plotting a coup and branded him “the face of fascism”—the sort of thing it says about almost any serious rival. In 2009 a political officer at the U.S. Embassy in Venezuela, Robin Meyer, noted (in a cable revealed by WikiLeaks) that López had been called, by some in the opposition, “divisive … arrogant, vindictive, and power-hungry.” Meyer said her sources also described López’s “enduring popularity, charisma, and talent as an organizer.”

Contrast with The Guardian

The US embassy described López as necessary, but troublesome. Under the heading "The López Problem", diplomats acknowledged that many in the opposition did not trust his motives, even though they need his support to reach out to the public. "He is often described as arrogant, vindictive, and power-hungry – but party officials also concede his popularity, charisma and talent as an organiser," it says.

What a difference attribution makes. These are claims made by other opposition members (rivalry?) and obtained via Wikileaks. I also note that whomever added text calling Lopez arrogant failed to add the Maduro portion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Ongoing BLP issues

Please review WP:BLP; there are numerous statements being introduced into this article that affect living persons, or are not based on the quality of sources required for BLPs (eg partisan sources like Venezuelanalysis.com cannot be used to make negative claims about living persons [15] ). I have removed text[16] making the vague claim that "López played a role protests during the attempted" coup-- that is not what the source says,[17] I replaced it with what the source does say and what is accurate. Lopez participated in peaceful protests, the citizen's arrest of Chacin, and he had no part in the Carmona Decree. Please take greater care here with wording as it relates to living people, and refrain from using partisan sources like Venezuelanalysis.com to make statements about living people. There is no shortage of high-quality sources covering these events. Ditto for sources like lapatilla.com ... we don't need them, and they should never be used to discuss living persons. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Why is Leopoldo Lopez holding a what appears to be a gasmask in this well publicized photo? I honestly do not know. Riothero (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Opinion piece removed

I have removed this classic Mark Weisbrot opinion piece;[18] it is not news reporting, it is opinion, editorial, commentary. If we want to open that door, I can fill in all kinds of missing pieces of this story. (And for anyone who isn't aware of what Weisbrot is referring to with these monies, they might want to become aware before adding such "opinion".) I see it was also removed by another editor before, and reinstated perhaps based on a misunderstanding that it is not news, it is commentary/opinion from someone who had ties to the Chavez administration. And if we're going to start adding editorials, commentary and opinion pieces from UK columnists and leftist bloggers, we'd want to include this one: [19] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

What are Weisbrot's "ties to the Chavez administration"? --Riothero (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Venezuelan Violence Observatory's flawed statistics

The statistics reported by the Venezuelan Violence Observatory have been put into serious question by Dorothy Kronick, a Stanford PhD candidate, in an article published on a prominent opposition website. Kronick exposes the OVV's flawed methodology, and even points to new data from the Ministry of Health, showing violent death rate in Venezuela falling in 2009, 2010, and 2011 (with the last available years currently unavailable). According to Kronick, Robert Briceño León, the chairman of the Venezuelan Violence Observatory admitted to her that "[her] methodological criticisms were valid". Kronick's article was even covered by the Associated Press in its story on the retirement of that opposition website's co-founder and co-editor. To be honest, I don't know how this might be introduced into the current article (or even whether it deserves to be--if this meets the criteria for challenging OVV as a credible source); but I simply wanted to bring this to the attention of those who are editting the article. --Riothero (talk) 02:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

If the AP article specifically challenges the OVV statistics you could say, following the introduction of the OVV statistics something along the lines of: however Dorothy Kronick has challenged these figures, calling the OVV methodology flawed. (followed by a ref to the AP story). Simonm223 (talk) 14:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Article intro

Revamped the intro, because I believe it had too much weight on specific data which either merits more discussion to provide context or is changing everyday, which would not be appropriate to include in that section.I removed this text in particular because it is outdated info that is continually changing, and substituted it for a more generalized this information: "Six people have been killed, 66 injured as of 13 February, and 138 more on 19 February; and approximately 100 arrested as of 16 February, and 89 still detained as of 19 February."

The introduction needs more work and references, but I think it now provides more a concise picture of the events without needing to edit every time the statistics change. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 17:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Violent crime

The section Violent crime needs some corrections. The government says: ″had, according to the government, success: the governments says that in 2013 there were 51% fewer kidnappings and murders 17% less than in 2012″ - I checked a good Wikipedia article List of countries by intentional homicide rate by decade. As expected, it reveals that Venezuela had by Latin American standards a 'moderate' homicide rate (8-13 per year per 100,000 inhabitants) even at the end of 1980s, when the Punto Fijo system was collapsing. In 1998, when Chavez came to power, we have 19 per year per 100,000 inhabitants. Then we see constant rise to 51 (!) in 2012. So the base year as usual is the important thing. This demonstrates that under the Bolivarian government, the homicide rate has risen many times. However, per WP:V, we need a source explicitly saying so. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 13:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and the government of Venezuela has not reported either poverty or homicide accurately for years. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Did you check the article? It seems to be well sourced as far as Venezuela is concerned.Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Media section

As Simonm223 said in a revert, the media section is kind of heavy with one POV. I tried using some more reliable sources and found that article about AnchorFree and decided to add it. Simon's edit helped me realize that the media section needs a little expansion to make it more neutral.

I see that a citation needed tag for the CANTV denying blocking Twitter is still there. In one of the sources (I can't remember), it says CANTV denied it since it didn't have control of servers. --Zfigueroa (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Recent Electoral History

The "elections" section under "background" is still being removed; there may be valid issues for this, given the way it was written (citing problematic sources, emphasizing the legitimacy of past elections, etc.). However I feel strongly that Venezuela's recent electoral history (including at least the municipal elections in December, and the presidential election in April) ought nevertheless to be mentioned as part of the "Background" for the protests. (e.g. It has been argued that recent electoral defeats led to the challenging of the moderate ('passive') stance of opposition leaders.) I am certain sources can be found that are credible enough to cite here. Riothero (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate discussion, see above; there are sources dealing with this issue, please use them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View (NPOV)

Let's take a look again at the article to see how it reads with respect to WP:NPOV. I see bits of it that are unbalanced, and would like to invite input from other editors to look at it as well. In addition, in order to avoid endless Talk page debates on article-level POV or section-level POV, we should probably use inline tags to mark the challenged POV.

Therefore, If there are WP:POV concerns about something specific in the article, please either fix it in the article, or tag it with a specific tag near the specific instance you are identifying, rather than tagging an entire large section, or the article as a whole. Please be sure to leave your rationale on the Talk page (preferably), or in a hidden text comment nearby the tag, like this: <!-- hidden text -->

Specific in-line tags that might be used include: {{POV-statement}} which leaves in the article or {{lopsided}} which leaves in the article . For a fuller list of inline tags related to Neutrality and factual accuracy, see here. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Example 1: lede section, on causes of the protests

The second sentence in the lede is currently (on 2014-03-09 at 01:23:00 UTC) reads: "The protests erupted largely as a result of the high levels of criminal violence and chronic scarcity of basic goods, which the ruling government led by Nicolas Maduro has failed to combat."

This reads that the protests are merely because the government of Venezuela has "failed to combat", among other things, the "chronic scarcity of basic goods." That is incomplete and a bit unbalanced. The government has been widely criticized in numerous reliable sources for implementing the very policies which cause the shortages of basic goods. Moreover, standard economic theory says that a shortage will be the result that emerges any time a legislated price ceiling is put in place that is substantially below the market clearing price. There are numerous reliable sources that show the government has been criticized by the protesters for causing the shortages by the (perhaps well-intentioned but, per the critics, misguided) policies of price controls on scores of goods in the consumer market of Venezuela. Thus, this sentence is POV, and I have tagged it in the article with an inline POV tag. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• That's a good point. I share this concern. Since the following sentence said that the economic problems were caused by government policy, which also meant a certain amount of duplication, I tightened it up a little; is this any better? bobrayner (talk) 02:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Resolved
    —Yes, that is better, and more balanced. Thanks for doing that. N2e (talk) 03:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

That is a good example of how it is much easier to resolve POV issues when they are specific to something that is in the extant article, and specifically identified and discussed on the Talk page! Maybe we can get more light and a bit less heat by doing more of that, below. N2e (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Chase bank closing accounts

It seems Chase has closed accounts on some officials and former officials in some country's including Venezuelan officials. I'm not sure where I should add this on the page or if I should even add it.

Any thoughts? --Zfigueroa (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Is it directly related to the protests? Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I think I will wait and see what develops. They said more banks may do the same. --Zfigueroa (talk) 12:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Prose

The article needs prose, not a list. Blind reverts are more vandalism than constructive. The content in reactions are the actions, the protests, not reactions there of.(Lihaas (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)).

yes, the article needs prose improvements, but sourcing, POV, and more significantly, WP:BLP issues are more important than prose issues at this point in this article's development. Lihaas, please review this discussion of the edit you link; BLP corrections are not "blind reverts". I recognize that some of the BLP vios are likely inadvertent and unintended, as there is no article on Wikipedia that factually and neutrally discusses events that occurred in April 2002, but please take great care when inserting text that associates living persons with a "coup". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I hope my edits on the government and opposition sections gave it more of a prose. --Zfigueroa (talk) 12:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Crime and statistics

On the section "violent crime" it's mentioned that in Venezuela one person is murdered every 21 minutes. So I just made a couple of calculus: considering what is said, that means 25,029 people killed over the course of 1 year. Now, if we considered the population of the country, that is 28,946,101, that would give a rate of 86 homicides per 100,000 people, which is approximately the double of the figure that is given on wikipedia List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.172.243.206 (talk) 12:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The section is POV. The article explains the concerns of the protestors, then coatracks into discussions of all these issues, presumably to defend the protestors, which is not neutral. If people want to read about the conditions in Venezuela, there are other articles. I notice the section does not mention that law enforcement is a state responsibility and that crime rates are highest in states and cities controlled by the opposition. Nor does it mention that crime is driven by the drug trade and the war on drugs, both of which are tied to the U.S., and its allies in the region, such as Columbia, which has a crime rate almost as high as Venezuela. Even the U.S. Virgin Islands has a rate approaching that of Venezuela. And the people most likely to be victims of crime in Venezuela are also the most likely to support the government. TFD (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

If law enforcement is the responsibility of individual states, why are national forces on the streets? Also, I'm entertained by the implication that the US has some responsibility for the violence; got a good source for that? Maybe it's something to do with the "economic war". bobrayner (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

See Chapter III ("State Public Power"), Article 164 of the "Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela": "Is of the States exclusive competence: (6) Organization of the police and determination of the branches of this service to be assigned to municipal jurisdiction, in accordance with applicable national legislation."[20] For a discussion of crime in Venezuela, see "Violence and Politics in Venezuela", International Crisis Group (17 August 2011).[21] The causes of violence are complex, and if we decide to discuss it in this article, then we should explain them rather than present a one-sided view.

It is standard in federal systems that policing is a state responsibility, although federal governments may have security forces to defend themselves, particularly in territories under direct federal control. Chavez set up the Policía Nacional Bolivariana in 2009, which has authority in the Capital District. I assume that is what you are referring to.

TFD (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

You're quoting the constitution? Wow. We have a serious problem with people treating the Venezuelan constitution as if it were a statement of fact. For instance, Censorship in Venezuela was, until recently, dominated by constitutional quotes which say there's no censorship in Venezuela. Which was, of course, blatantly false; and a serious failure of WP:NPOV.

Anyway, not even Venezuela's constitution says that the USA has any responsibility for the violence. Got a good source for that? bobrayner (talk) 03:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I provided a link to a report on violence in Venezuela. If you think that the local police are under central control that you are misinformed. In fact I have not come across any sources on either side that make that claim. What I said about the U.S. was that "crime is driven by the drug trade and the war on drugs, both of which are tied to the U.S., and its allies in the region, such as Columbia." The source I linked to discusses the overflow of drug violence into Venezuela from Columbia and Mexico. OTOH, I may be wrong. It could be that the war on drugs has made the U.S. and South America safer places than they otherwise would have been. TFD (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Infobox issues

For those unaware, infoboxes on Wikipedia are controversial, and were the subject of a past arbitration case: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes.

The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article by site policies or guidelines. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.

Passed 10 to 0 at 00:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

As one long-time editor who dislikes infoboxes, I submit that the infobox on this article is one of the best examples of the worst problems with infoboxes that I've ever seen. Infobox parameters cannot convey nuance even in the best of situations; in a complex, rapidly evolving situation, they can additionally be wildly inaccurate. As this one is. Considering the problems listed below, I request that we eliminate most of the infobox parameters used here.

1. Date: we've already had discussion over when the protests started. It's not a black-and-white issue. First, Monica Spear, then the attempted rape, protests in Táchira, moving and expanding to Caracas-- where does one define the "beginning"? It's nuanced. We also say "Ongoing" -- when and how are we going to define the "end"? I can see an eventual problem with that.
2. Location: Venezuela. Well, that's helpful. It's in the article title. It seems this infobox is more useful for a war situation, but these parameters aren't very helpful for student protests.
3. Causes: Uncited, and a vehicle for POV. The "causes" are evolving (as discussed by sources), and vary according to city and individual protesting. They started as protests against crime, turned into protests against the lack of police response to those crimes (attempted rape and murder), mutated into protests against police treatment of student protestors, and have evolved further into protests against the repression of the protests. Our infobox does not and cannot convey that nuance.
4. Goals: snap election and Maduro's resignation? POV ... lacks nuance, see points above. I have not seen any credible source calling for snap elections, btw.
5. Methods: holy cow, what a STUPID parameter, and chock full of POV now. No mention of government methods used on protestors ... no way this kind of info can be summarized in infobox parameters.
6. Status: Ongoing-- see above under "Date". Redundant with the Date parameter, and who/how are we going to define the "end"?
7. Parties to the conflict-- this is utterly horrible. For starters, how is it that no one editing this article even seems aware of the name of the student leader of the protests? Pretty much all of Venezuela is "party". Throw in a good measure of Cuba and Jimmy Carter while we're at it. Again, no way nuance can be conveyed in an infobox.
8. Fatalities-- all credible reliable sources are reporting anywhere between 13 and 17, the number is hard to pin down, and Maduro comes out with 67 based on who-knows-what, but as explained by sources, he is including at least random crime-related murders in with protest numbers ... we can attribute views and opinions, but we can't pin down one number for an infobox. Maduro's claims, as explained by reliable sources, can be discussed in text, but we shouldn't be using them to override the abundance of reliable sources.

I submit that the infobox here is misleading, unuseful, redundant, and should be eliminated or at least shortened to the most essential and undeniably accurate (which isn't much). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

An additional problem with infoboxes is, how do you tag them as dubious, disputed, unbalanced etc? Simonm223, here I am intending to tag the entire parameter, not one use of it; I have been unable to figure out how to do this. The article has issues, but the infobox has much worse issues-- it's just grossly wrong, and will mislead readers who don't take the time to read the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with all the points above; the infobox serves little useful purpose. It misleads far more than it informs. Riothero (talk) 19:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to fix a few things and do each section separately in case it needs to be reverted. The info box can is helpful, just not in its current state.

--Zfigueroa (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I have done some work on the info box. I don't have time to look at casualties, deaths etc. but they should only be provided by reliable sources. The government and opposition will throw in people for their cause and sympathy so we will let the reporters figure it out. Hopefully I helped a little. Sorry if I didn't!

--Zfigueroa (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with users SandyGeorgia and Riothero in that the infobox is problematic and have removed it. If the consensus changes at some point in the future we can add it back. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 08:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree with SandyGeorgia, Riothero and Somedifferentstuff - this article would probably be better off without the infobox. Simonm223 (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I support keeping the modified infobox. It would keep the article in line with the format of other events like 2012–13 Egyptian protests and 2013 protests in Brazil. The neutrality issues will remain regardless of the infobox. I mean, how can the article be "neutral" with pro-government sources like RT? Or how can we really expect any US-based source to be "neutral"? El Alternativo (talk) 03:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that the problems said so far are correct, but may be fixed by using less precise terms when there is no such precision. For example, if the date when everything began is unclear, then say the month, "February 2014". It still helps the reader to have an idea of when all this happened (and have in mind that, if the protests eventually get a name in the media, we may have to rename this article, as the current name is just a descriptive one). Same for fatalities, if the numbers are disputed then say "between X and Y". And same for causes, there are many ones, and new ones are added as things go on, but it can be summarized in "Discontent with the presidency of Nicolás Maduro" or something like that. As for the end, it's simple: the day the protests cease (either because Maduro resigns, Maduro successfully quells them, or people just give it up) then that will be the day for the "end". It obvious that, either way, Venezuela will not stay protesting indefinitely Cambalachero (talk) 12:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems were going both ways now. We need more people to discuss about this though. SandyGeorgia said that info boxes, "should be eliminated or at least shortened"

I did everything he asked for and deleted what wasn't needed. I won't add the info box back yet though, not until we all reach a decision. --Zfigueroa (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The old infobox was quite bad, but it was then revised by Zfigueroa in a potentially satisfactory way. I would have preferred to see people discuss whether there were still lingering issues with Zfigueroa's revised infobox rather than see it removed completely, that is, without further discussion. However, I do not feel too strongly on this matter. Riothero (talk) 03:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I do not see a single parameter in the infobox template that can be adequately or accurately conveyed in this format, for all of the reasons listed above. (I disagree with Cambalachero that it will be easy to define when the protests end, for example ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC) I agree. I also feel that an issue as nuanced can't have an infobox that conforms to WP:NPOV. Regardless of which side it leans toward it won't be neutral. Simonm223 (talk) 04:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, I am persuaded that eliminating the infobox was for the best. Riothero (talk) 09:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

What if we remove causes and a few other things and just show those involved? We can keep it to a minimum of opposition, students and the government. I think we can make the info box work without causes because that was a mess. Same with the date. No fatalities or injuries because there's too many of those due to protest and the normal situation so it will be hard to know exactly what happened. I saw somewhere that they included priests that were killed in the protest even though they were just robbed and killed inside their church by two young boys.

So, we can have the picture, and who is involved without a long laundry list of people or groups. I'm pretty sure we can all agree about a few groups and some people that are involved in the protests. Every thing else isn't too reliable. --Zfigueroa (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Zfigueroa, thank you for the changes to the infobox. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Personally, I think that infoboxes are inherently problematic for complex social topics because they try to boil down large amounts of nuanced prose into a handful of neat soundbites and categories. The current infobox isn't too bad, but that's due to a combination of effort and luck, and I'd rather we removed the infobox altogether. bobrayner (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I admit that I didn't read the infobox issues at first and I apologize for any inconvenience that it may have caused. I felt like the ongoing status needed a little more information. Of course, I anticipated the problems that the infoboxes may cause mentioned here, and I was actually more focused in the status than in other parameters like causes, goals, methods, etc... Being a Venezuelan I tried to add concrete facts that cannot be denied. Those are, of course, the fact that Leopoldo López was arrested and that several people have died of have been injured, indifferently of the numbers or that those persons were oppositors or oficialists. I personally think that February 12 was the crucial point for the start of the protests because, as you well know, this was the day Leopoldo called for a march and when the first civilian casualties were reported (during the protests). The day afterwards President Maduro blamed Leopoldo for the deaths and ordered his apprehension. That is just my humble opinion though, Monica's Spear death was very important too and I agree that it would be more convenient to publish the information after the protests ends and the numbers are confirmed. Nevertheless, I hope I can contribute as much as I can in this article.--Jamez42 (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

That's OK. This is a controversial subject, and infoboxes bring their own controversy because wikipedians like to argue about little technical details (you should see the holy wars fought over the difference between a hyphen and an en-dash). Disagreement is nothing personal; you're doing a good job. bobrayner (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

We should just keep the info box the way it is for now. We have seen the importance of the info box from multiple users who have been trying to add on to my slimmed down version. The current info box seems to please most so we will keep it as it is. --Zfigueroa (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Should UN statements be included in introduction?

I see that statements by the UN is in the introduction of this article. Should there be any? Should there be more statements by them? I am just asking because I was accused of pushing a POV when I added other statements from the UN to the introduction. I just added them since it seemed appropriate because tree was other UN information.

Should we only keep the UN statements in their section under the Supranational Bodies? Should we include statements in both the introduction and under Supranational Bodies? --Zfigueroa (talk) 23:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The lede is meant to be a summary rather than a complete article in its own right, so we have to resist the temptation to argue every point upfront. (That's a common problem with prominent articles on controversial topics). However, it's certainly worth including something about international reaction. Was this a comment by Ban Ki-moon?

The one I was going to include had to do with the Human Rights Council. I think it's fine the way it is now I was just wondering if it was currently correct though. --Zfigueroa (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Split of Timeline

I think there should be a separated page about the timeline of the protests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helliko (talk • contribs) 01:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

María Corina and the OAS

It seems there is few, if any, information in the article regarding María Corina Machado’s assistance in the OAS meeting that took place the March 21th, the decision to turn the meeting private and its reactions. This could either be arranged in the international reactions section, in the timeline of events or in a new section. --Jamez42 (talk) 02:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Opposition section addition

Somebody added a lot to the opposition section. I had a recent edit taking it off since no sources were added to such a large section. If someone can resubmit it with sources that would be greatly appreciated. --Zfigueroa (talk) 06:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)