Talk:Protests against Nicolás Maduro/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Lacking in neutrality

It has come to my attention that this page has some serious WP:POV issues. To name a few: 1. The article includes countless pictures of anti-government marches, including a gallery, but seemingly no identifiable pictures of the numerous pro-government marches that have been taking place. And in fact, there is minimal mention of there being any pro-government marches in the article. 2. There is little to no mention of attacks on the buildings of state-run businesses, such as CANTV and VTV. 3. A few National Guardsmen have been killed during the protest, and yet it seems their deaths are not mentioned in the article. 4. Presidents Maduro's frequent offers of dialogue to the opposition and to the United Sates government and his calls for peace are also given very little attention. There is a quick mention of his call for dialogue at the bottom of the page, but, not surprisingly, presented in a negative light. 5. Local pro-opposition sources (like la Patilla and NTN24) are widely cited while more neutral articles by international and accredited news agencies (like Reuters) are being ignored.

I expanded the timeline of events from the chronology of the protests in Spanish, it has a lot of useful information. I hope the WP:NPOV is more even now and there's more information about the pro-government protests and the National Guardsmen deaths. Most of the sources should be verified and expanded though. Anyways, I have received a lot of pictures through my cellphone and some of them are of the government supporters marches, but I haven't uploaded them since they're not original work. If I happen to solve the copyright issue or produce original work I'd be glad to help improve that aspect. --Jamez42 (talk) 03:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

And to add to that, I would like to know why bobrayner finds the following passage in the section "Government" neutral : "Militant groups known as "colectivos", who are accused of attacking opposition TV staff, sending death threats to journalists, and tear-gassing the Vatican envoy after Hugo Chavez accused him of intervening with his government, helped assist the government.[210] These "colectivos" are able to act violently against the opposition, usually without impediment from Venezuelan government forces.[132]" But to add that a "colectivo" was shot death, and that this lead to the governments arrest of Leopoldo Lopez as reported in the Reuters article which was already cited [1] is apparently making this article less neutral and has to be reverted. To my knowledge Reuters is a reliable news source, please do correct me if I'm wrong. And lastly, I do not see how the subsequent passage regarding the "National Boliviarian Militia", in which Maduro's democratically elected government is designated as "a regime", is neutral. And to help clarify my point, this passage taken from the article regime: "While the word regime originates as a synonym for any form of government, modern usage often gives the term a negative connotation, implying an authoritarian government or dictatorship." I see that the issue of WP:POV has been brought up before, but so far it seems little has been done. Thank you for your time. Coughdrops (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I added a lot of the photos of the protesters and the most I could find are of the opposition. The only one I found of a pro-government was taken down due to copyright concerns. I tried including that into the article too, but there is just much more of opposition protesters. If you could find photos of pro-government demonstrations that would be awesome. With the death of the colectivo member, I will help you incorporate that into the article but the government section may not be the best place for it. --Zfigueroa (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

You can stone me to death, but venezuelanalysis.com have few photos of progovernment marches in Venezuela and they can be free use in non-comercial cases. Now, stone me ;)--62.245.80.50 (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

International Counseling Service (ICS) and government sources

This is the closest thing I could find to the International Counseling Service (ICS) which is a "A Professional Psychological and Mental Health Service for the English speaking community in and around Paris." Also, most of these sources come from government funded or actual government sources including TeleSUR, City of Caracas and the Venezuelan News Agency. I understand that some other news sources are included, but they cite the government sources. They simply do not seem credible since no organization exists and they are biased toward the government/reported by the government. --Zfigueroa (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

First, it is "International Consulting Services", not "International Counseling Services". It was a typing error on my part; sorry for the confusion. Feel free to look for yourself: "International Consulting Services" does indeed exist; it is a private polling firm. It has been cited in numerous Wikipedia articles. The mere fact that these survey results were reported by government-funded, or government news agencies, in addition to private ones, does not make them biased. Second, it is not true that "most of these sources come from government funded or actual government sources including TeleSUR, City of Caracas and the Venezuelan News Agency." You mention only three citations; however, I provided nine citations. The Noticia Al Dia article does reference the Venezuelan News Agency, but only because it was in an interview with the AVN that Lorenzo Martinez, the head of the polling firm, announced the results. The Globovision and Noticias24.com articles, however, report the results of the ICS surveys directly/independently. Riothero (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

BTW, the sources behind those "Datos" polls are at least as questionable. Moreover, this is the first time I have ever heard about this "Datos" group, and I am having an incredibly difficult time finding any information about it. The website given at the bottom of its presentation is offline. Riothero (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok sorry about that. The Datos links work for me. It's just hard to know what to believe since DolarToday is biased toward the opposition and the government is of course going to be biased towards itself. Just trying to find the most reliable information. Thank you for correcting it! --Zfigueroa (talk) 01:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the government-funded/government sources and replaced them with private ones that cite ICS survey results directly. The Datos website is now working--it must have been down only temporarily. I don't really have any concerns about those sources. However, if more opinion polls become available, we might consider creating its own section. Riothero (talk) 02:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

A good approach is to use secondary sources instead of reports from polling companies, which are primary sources. A reliable secondary source establishes the significance, accuracy and interpretation, saving us from re-inventing the wheel. I do not know if ICS is neutral or reliable, but do not think that is something we should determine. TFD (talk) 07:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Everything seems to be working good now. I made a new section just like Riothero requested.--Zfigueroa (talk) 19:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Violent opposition in infobox

We understand that there are some violent opposition individuals/groups, but there are reasons why they should not be involved in the info box.

1. The violent individuals/groups are not part of a party. They are not an organized party such as a colectivo.

2. There is no proof from sources of opposition groups being organized for violence. Opposition leaders have only called for peaceful protests. Meanwhile, sources show that the Venezuelan government has called the colectivos important for protests therefore showing their importance as a pro-government party in the conflict.

3. Just because the government has paramilitary groups that are a party to the conflict doesn't give a valid reason that the opposition have a organized violent party too. It may seem POV but nothing can be purely neutral.

What is said in the majority of sources is that the government has colectivos while a few radical opposition protesters have branched off from peaceful demonstrations and became violent.

--Zfigueroa (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

1. Of course they are a group, just as the "protesters" or "university students" are, which are a mass and decentralized group. 2. There is so much documentation of violence in the 2014 protests from opposition-aligned grooups and individuals. 3. The government has no "paramilitary groups" and the government makes a statement against violence every day. It is POV and it can be neutral.

The colectivos are not even mentioned in the Spanish article's infobox so they cannot be too important to even warrant being there as a "party to the protests". "Paramilitary forces"? Please. They are as much of "paramilitary forces" as the opposition groups are or even less of, considering the extremity of opposition violence in comparison to pro-government "violence" which already got proved in several sources. Calling them "paramilitary forces" is an attempt to take them out of scale in comparison with the opposition violence. Obviously all the lead figures in both the opposition and government are calling against violence and for peace, this changes nothing.

My solution: Mention both. There is nothing wrong with this. There is a lot wrong with mentioning "paramilitary forces" trying to make one side sound like baddies who are trying to turn a protest into a military conflict against "innocent people with no weapons". The pro-government violent groups can even be called "paramilitary groups" if that is wanted, but the anti-government violent groups must be mentioned if the pro-government ones are.

If the opposition is documented to have, for instance, bombing equipment according to sources then why is this terrorism (at least attempts of) not mentioned at all anywhere while sentences are written in a progressively sneakier way to make it look like the government is somehow to blame for the deaths?

I've read somewhere that you and/or your family are personally involved in this issue, but please try to put you in someone else's shoes. Zozs (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Opposition groups don't need to be mentioned if there are paramilitary groups for the government. If there is documentation of an organized group please provide it but until then there is not an organized party. There are organized student movements and organized civilian movements however there is no evidence of organized violent opposition groups.

And yes, if you want to make this personal there is family involved but that doesn't change the story. It bothers me that you've been reading though my discussions. I have no biased opinions only facts. Please provide a few facts yourself.--Zfigueroa (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

There are no "paramilitary groups of the government", although there are pro-government violent groups. There may be organized protester and university students group but that doesn't nullify the fact that mass and decentralized groups are being mentioned in the infobox - and there is no clear group holding sovereignty over such labels as "protesters" or "university students" which are mentioned there, which proves the decentralized and mass nature - which is exactly the same which applies to the opposition violent groups.

Of course there are organized violent opposition groups, but like terrorist groups often are their structure and etc. is kept secret.

I apologize if what I said is intrusive. I only mean to say that you should try to control any bias, as it seems you are personally/emotionally involved in this. I haven't been reading through your discussions. I was browsing Communist-USSR's user page and coincidentally noticed you mentioning that you are personally involved in the Venezuelan issue in his talk page. (In case there is any doubt, I wasn't stalking him either, I was there to give him a barnstar...)

Just because the violent groups have not released any name and are not associated as a "certain group" (even though many details about them and their violence are known and documented) does not mean that they do not exist. Try to think of it this way: would a chavista have a problem with the whole of this article if he saw it? I think so, and it wouldn't be down to small details. Zozs (talk) 01:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I understand. The only thing that I was personal about were the reversions being made on me. I know you might feel the same too. I found out I was wrong and I learned my lesson. I'm not saying you're wrong but if you just assume that there are terrorist opposition organizations, then I could put what the opposition assume that the Castro brothers are running the show (which I doubt since there is a lack of evidence). Theres the Student Movements which involve UCV and other universities and there are civilian movements like the one that occurred in Isabelica. Since the terrorist opposition organizations are secret and not known of, we can't really put them as a party in the conflict because there's no evidence and nothing known about them. The best thing you can do is provide evidence of these things through reliable sources. Just try to avoid government sources or state-run news agencies since they may be biased. If you just look in Google News and use their search tools you can find a lot from sources but not all of them are reliable. If you need any help let me know on my talk page. We really do need more about the government and I'd be glad if you could help.--Zfigueroa (talk) 01:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Pro-government photos

Hi, why is each photo of an opposition protest? Of course there should be a focus on them as this is a protest against the government but there are demonstrations of government supporters too, for example this one from March 2014 (a few days ago) in which government supporters commemorated 20 years since Chavez came out from prison. There are clearly a lot more people here than in any of the opposition demonstrations, is this why? Zozs (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC).

I would add myself but I do not know the coypright details for that particular photo. I think it was produced by the government, does anyone know Venezuela copyright policy for government work? Zozs (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I've been trying to find photos supporting the government as well but haven't found any. As far as licensing goes this may help you. There are a few examples of which licenses are allowed. --Zfigueroa (talk) 20:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I mean to see the Venezuelan copyright law, to see what kind of license a work produced by the government is under. For example, a work produced by the US government is in the public domain and you can thus use it as you want. Zozs (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Try to use photos from venezuelanalysis.com gallery. There are lot of pro-government demonstration photos.--62.245.80.51 (talk) 12:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Venezuelan licenses in Commons are PD-Venezuela (60 years after publication) and PD-VenezuelaGov (texts of laws, decrees, official regulations, public treaties, judicial decisions and other official acts): none of them work for modern photos. We need either some specific Venezuelan website that makes photos and contents with a free license, or some individual user that takes photos and uploads them with such license. Cambalachero (talk) 12:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Links

[p]>> Venezuela protests are sign that US wants our oil, says Nicolás MaduroLihaas (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. It had some interesting info that I added to the article.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 15:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Barricades -- Las guarimbas / los guarimberos

Since las guarimbas (barricades) have become one of the dominant form of protests in Venezuela, it is a shame that more attention has not been given to them in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riothero (talk • contribs) 03:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the methods of protest have been contested by users before on here. It was during the info box discussion where methods of protest can be seen as a vehicle of POV. If something about barricades comes into the news then go ahead and add it into the timeline.--Zfigueroa (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you kidding? The barricades are not going to be 'events' on a timeline, they are an everyday thing. If existing articles do not mention them, I would really question their source (in the case of lapatilla.com, I do). Moreover, if collectivos are mentioned in the infobox, then los guarimberos should be as well. I'll look for the prior discussion but by now it has probably already been archived. Riothero (talk) 04:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Why can't there be an specific wiki article about the Guarimbas? They are an everyday thing and they are surely an uncommon term for many. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rihp94 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Barricades and guarimbas have not the same meaning in spanish. Barricade and the spanish "Barricada" have the same meaning, but guarimba is a word identifying a secure area, sometimes used in children's games ([2]). --Fev 03:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fev (talk • contribs)

I think what is said in the Opposition section about guarimbas or barricades is fine (Thank you Mbinebri ). It is just that in the prior discussion involving the info box, we decided to leave out methods of protest because they could become POV and quickly grow out of hand. If we didn't take out methods and other categories, we would not have had an info box at all. Some users are more visual and rely on information such as that from the info box for a quick glance. The info box right now is not too bad but it is getting close to being looked at again.--Zfigueroa (talk) 07:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Lead

I removed the op-ed from Lopez in the lead. The lead is already getting too long, and so much quoting and detail isn't really appropriate for a lead. Also, I understand the need for balance (the real issue is weight technically), but the lead already has it, as pretty much every paragraph besides the Maduro op-ed info explains the causes of the protests and the criticisms of the government's conduct. Maduro's op-ed is the counterpoint to all that, and as the sole voice of the government and the conflict's central figure, his opinion deserves a large amount of weight. In that sense, that paragraph creates balance. Lopez's op-ed throws that balance off, in my opinion, by giving inappropriate weight to a less significant figure.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 03:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is very correct. The whole article displays exclusively an opposition point of view. The short paragraph on Maduro's article is literally the only display of a government view in the whole article. The thing about neutrality is this... it is very possible that what is displayed in the article is truth (actually, a lot of it is not). But propaganda and bias is not about falsehood - it is about selectively of content and manipulation, which is exactly what this article does from top to bottom. While a lot of the facts may look straight to someone who reads this and he may thus think the article is neutral, the point is not that there are false facts, but that half the facts are being cited, the half which speak for the opposition. The whole article is based on making it appear that the protesters are "unfortunate people who are being exploited by a third-world dictatorial government", while Venezuela is some sort of Soviet Union with Maduro as Stalin. This is helped by the fact that all of the mainstream media, which is considered "reliable sources", is focused on defending capitalist interests and thus only produces biased misinformation which is later cited here, while more independent sources are removed for not being "reliable". I could write an article about Che Guevara which only handles information about his executions, or an article about Obama which only talks about how he's murdering people in Pakistan with drones, and they would be completely true, except they'd only tell half the truth and half the facts, just the half necessary to control the readers' opinions and remove their ability to think. I congratulate the work editors are doing on adding information, it just so happens that all that information comes from one side only. Besides, the very little stuff which supports a government view is presented as the government or government supporters' opinion, while the stuff which supports an opposition view is presented as objective facts. Is this fair? Zozs (talk) 04:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Just add what is not neutral in the section I made above. We can work on this together. I know that currently we are the three that edit this article the most so we can take a look at things together. Also, I shortened the Maduro paragraph in the lead too. I just summarized it so the lead wouldn't be so long since we may need room to add more information in the future.--Zfigueroa (talk) 05:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a real need to preserve the long form of Maduro's opinion, given the terrible neutrality of the article. Your slim-down removed key information which was not explained anywhere else. Any other slim-down would do the same thing: it is currently as slimmed down as possible. It doesn't really matter when there the lead is "bloated" or not when there's a massive neutrality problem. It doesn't feel right to say it this way, but I feel that while I'm trying to make an article which is in the middle of the neutrality scale, others try to drag it to one extreme, unintentionally or not. We all have personal opinions, and that's fine. We all can't help but be a little biased sometimes. But look at this article, and then watch the state television "VTV" for 10 minutes, or read any article from a pro-government view. Does this article even remotely express one quarter of the other half of what is going on? This article does not need a fix, it needs a radical re-structuring. Let's give a quick example. Why are there about forty-five images on the article pro-opposition and trying to make a bad image of the government, while there are exactly zero photographs documenting massive pro-government demonstrations, or even any slight violence by the opposition? This is not a slight bias, this is a complete and systematical manipulation of information. Zozs (talk) 05:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I get what you're saying. As I said above I have been looking for pro-government photos as well. I really have. But its not the government or its supporters who are protesting. This article is about the protests so theres going to be pictures or protesters. If you can find any government or pro-government photos let me help you. We had one on here before from a communist youth protest but it was taken down due to copyright issues. Since then we've had nothing.

Also, if it doesn't matter to you that the lead can be bloated we can involve Lopez's op-ed along with Maduro's giving both sides of the story. It's really interesting since one leads the government while the other led most of the opposition who demonstrated. I wasn't trying to deny information at all and I honestly thought there was more about Maduro's op-ed below. Sorry about the misunderstanding.--Zfigueroa (talk) 05:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem, I'm not saying you intended to censor anything, but rather that it was objectively a removal of information. On the issue of the pictures, why does there even need to be so many? Most Wikipedia articles have from none to three, this one has about fifty. Zozs (talk) 05:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I was inspired by the Caracas article especially with the gallery section where I added extra photos users wanted to place on the page. Some readers are more visual so I figured it would help them. I formatted the photos added to the article to accordingly to events even in chronological order. Almost like a book with pictures accompanying the text on the page. This wasn't an act of propaganda or anything of the sort. Other users have been placing photos as well and we kinda got what we have. There has been multiple users in and out of here without much mention about the photos over the past few months. I've really been waiting to find some government ones though!--Zfigueroa (talk) 06:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to note... I summarized and moved Lopez's op-ed claims in the lead rather than remove them. How he thinks he's being falsely accused and several exact quotations don't belong in the lead. Such details are for the article body itself. Plus, Maduro and Lopez are not equal players in all this, so we have no obligation to give them equal weight in the lead.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 13:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I understand its just there was a lot of weight for a lead into an article. I hope the lead is fine now. I made just a few edits but I did not remove your information. I don't want to be accused of removing information again. You have good stuff. Some of the sources you provided have taken opposition leaders statements out of context though but those are now fixed too.--Zfigueroa (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Restructure proposal

Wow, okay, lots of new content recently. Nice job, everybody. Just to put this out there... I'm wondering if the article would be aided with a restructuring, for two reasons: 1. both "Domestic reactions" sections are quite large and cover multiple topics (although this latter point has been helped with a lot of content being recently moved, and 2. all the "Protest violence" subsections seem like natural subsections for "Domestic reactions." I'm thinking all of the content of the "Domestic reactions" sections can be reorganized into two subsections each and all the content from "Protest violence" can be transferred into sub-subsections. I also would add a few new subsections. For example:

Domestic reactions

Government

Political response

Accusations of foreign interference

Military/police use

Use of firearms by state authorities

Abuse of protestors

Pro-government protestors

Colectivos

Opposition

Political response

Anti-government protestors

Peaceful protests

Violent protests

Barricades

Attacks to public property

Attacks to transport system

The domestic media information might also be added as a subsection of "Domestic reactions" while the foreign media information is added to "International reactions." This is just an idea. Feel free to alter it or to tell me it's just a terrible idea.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 01:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

 Disagree I agree a re-structure (generally, not only for this) is needed, but I think the one proposed by Mbinebri is not that good. Domestic reactions mostly refers to diplomatic official reactions from whoever can be truly said to represent a political sector. Violence is not a reaction and it cannot be said to be endorsed by anyone who represents a major group in the protests. Additionally, violence is something totally different entirely and deserves its own section. However, what I believe needs to really be done is heavy slimming on the section of reactions, history, etc. (but NOT removing information). Anyone think this article would be better if reactions and a timeline had articles of their own? Could be sub-articles, like "2014 Venezuelan protests/Reactions", etc. And their sections here in the main article would include 1-3 paragraphs and link to the sub-articles as "main article for this section". Zozs (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The only thing we should think about making another article for is the timeline. Or we could make a show/hide of each month's timeline? I don't know if that is possible inside of an article but I thought I saw it somewhere--Zfigueroa (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It is pretty good as of right now. We don't want to make too many sections. Maybe we should bring the government and opposition sections up toward the top though. I'm glad that you have proposed this. Reorganization of certain sections due to importance is needed but the sections and their subsections are fairly good as is.--Zfigueroa (talk) 07:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Colectivos

In the Colectivos section, such statements seem to be very biased:

• These "colectivos" are able to act violently against the opposition, usually without impediment from Venezuelan government forces.

"Usually"? Who determines this? And how? For example, there are violent political groups in USA which sometimes get caught and sometimes not, does that mean they are "allowed to act violently" without government intervention? Source is La Patilla, which if I recall is commonly said to be an unreliable source here in Wikipedia.

• According to a correspondent from Televen, armed groups threatened to rape individuals in an apartment complex in Maracaibo without intervention from the National Guard.

Source is La Patilla again and it seems like a quite unfounded accusation based on two Twitter messages. This seems really dubious, accusing a lot with very little proof, that the "National Guard is intentionally tolerating rapes".

• President Maduro publicly thanked colectivos for their help against protesters and said that he would "continue to need their help".

This seems like very misquoted and aiming to frame Maduro. As I understand from reading other sources colectivos are not all violent and have multiple purposes.

• Vice President of Venezuela, Jorge Arreaza, also praised colectivos saying, "If there has been exemplary behavior it has been the behavior of the motorcycle colectivos that are with the Bolivarian revolution."

Again looks like another attempt to frame, as if he was referring to violent behaviour as being "exemplary behaviour".

I suggest to remove all these biased sentences.

Previous discussion on La Patilla source being unreliable: Talk:2014 Venezuelan protests/Archive 1#La Patilla.

Zozs (talk) 01:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The video that María Corina Machado brought to the OAS includes Maduro praising the colectivo's behavior. Besides from that, it cannot be denied that there is a lot of speculation in social networks, and citations that only include this type of sources should be replaced with more reliable ones. --Jamez42 (talk) 02:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

We've had this discussion before. La Patilla is a reliable source but is typically used just to describe daily events happening in the country. It is headed by the one of the founders of Globovision, Alberto Federico Ravell. He compiled a couple various media corporations under La Patilla after he stopped working for Globovision.--Zfigueroa (talk) 03:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't even matter whether the source is "reliable" or not, this is a gross abuse of misquoting and framing people. President Maduro obviously never praised violent behavior, yet dirty tricks are being used in this article to make it appear like he did. Zozs (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. It is this type of factual manipulation that undermines the article's neutrality. Riothero (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

So do we remove this stuff or is there any way to reform it? Zozs (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It isn't that he agrees with what some violent groups do, it's that he thanked them for their support. There is also a sentence saying that he did not approve of armed groups so you can see that President Maduro does not advocate violence.--Zfigueroa (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Just because there's unbiased sentences doesn't make it acceptable to have biased sentences too. Plus it's downplayed and biased, saying he only "claims" to disapprove of violence. Come on, is it Wikipedia's mission to judge whether someone is telling the truth or not when he says to like or dislike something? What's next, listing people's religions as "Claimed religion" like on Conservapedia and listing people who say they are gay as "they claim to be gay"? Zozs (talk) 20:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't see the "claim" part. I'll take a look.--Zfigueroa (talk) 23:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

While I definitely think Maduro lies about that, we can put "stated" instead of claims. That would eliminate the issue. --yeah_93 (talk) 00:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Sources

What is the justification for removing all references to venezuelanalysis.com, whilst excessively referencing lapatilla.com? lapatilla.com has already been the topic of a previous discussion on this talk page, where many people expressed the view that lapatilla.com is not a reliable source for anything other than the opinion of lapatilla.com ("according to lapatilla.com..."). similarly, in the case of venezuelanalysis, it is obviously a pro-chavez website, but this should not preclude it from being used as a resource to improve the article by sharing much needed (pro-government) viewpoints (and/or uncontentious information not found on other sites). ( "....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.--Wikipedia:Reliable) Riothero (talk) 01:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Didn't it have something to do with the fact that it is also unreliable? lapatilla is a very, very biased site, but it is decent when it reports news, at the very least it can be used for that (except when they are obviously reporting something false). But I really don't recall the argument of venezuelanalysis. I agree however, that we could use better sources than lapatilla (more accurate and less biased) as is the case with venezuelanalysis. We could also use the (excessively biased) AVN or TeleSur sources, as they are, let's say, more official sources of the government's POV. --yeah_93 (talk) 04:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I mainly use La Patilla for the timeline. That is where the majority of their sources are used. Other than that there isn't too much since I did not want anyone to keep disputing with me. La Patilla is an actual news agency based in Venezuela and uses resources from other agencies acquired in Colombia as well. It is headed by the co-founder of Globovision who founded La Patilla in 2010. I also noticed that El Pais is now getting the same flak as La Patilla too.

VA is not based in Venezuela at all. It is based in New York and is a collection of people from England, Australia, and the US contributing to what the founder calls a "clearly pro-Bolivarian Revolution" perspective. It is pretty much a public relations website of the Venezuelan government since it is funded by the Venezuelan Government.

Using the government sources would be better to use than VA as itr would be directly from their opinions, data, etc.--Zfigueroa (talk) 09:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Removing and/or replacing lapatilla.com references should be a priority for this article.Riothero (talk) 02:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

It is a reliable source. I understand your opinion but their information is vital for the timeline of events.--Zfigueroa (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I can also provide numbers. La Patilla is among the top 1000 visited websites globally. It is also the 11th most visited website in Venezuela, just behind Yahoo and ahead of Wikipedia, El Universal, El Nacional and Globovision. A significant percentage of visits are also from the United States. The high visitation of La Patilla shows how many Venezuelans trust the website. I know I wouldn't visit a website that seems to be bogus.

Meanwhile, Venezuelanalysis is ranked somewhere between the 100,000-200,000 in visited websites globally. Its primary readers are in the United States.--Zfigueroa (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Lapatilla.com is not a reliable source. You are the only one who thinks so. This was the subject of prior discussion. There are many Venezuelan news sources that are reliable. It is a shame that you have not used them. I will begin to remove and/or replace lapatilla.com references with or without your help. The status quo cannot stand.Riothero (talk) 23:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I have had agreements if you look at previous discussion instead of using your own opinion. It is not just mine. You have been attacking my edits for some time now and that needs to stop.--Zfigueroa (talk) 02:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Not really. La Patilla has already been established to be biased. I suggest to stop using it. Zozs (talk) 02:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I have every right to enforce the rules of Wikipedia, and to correct your edits when those rules are violated.--Riothero (talk) 02:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

That said, I would ask you to assume good faith on my part, as I assume good faith on yours. If/when there's a contested issue, I would be happy to discuss it with you in the hope of resolving our dispute. I hope we can acknowledge that there is no consensus regarding lapatilla.com as a RS. If/when the same news items are available from other sources (more likely to be deemed reliable), I would simply recommend using them. It does not seem to me like that is too much to ask.--Riothero (talk) 04:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

If there is no better option, use La Patilla? Once we can find other sources that have a different part of the story we can edit or remove info from La Patilla.--Zfigueroa (talk) 06:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

OK. We can agree to that, in cases where the material is uncontentious.--Riothero (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Examples:

• 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)

• Is there any source critical of the Venezuelan government which isn't automatically disqualified? bobrayner (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC) (Talking about La Patilla)

• 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)

Also, 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. Since La Patilla is primarily used for the timeline, I have not found any better source. When we can catch up to what happens, we can look for other sources as well.

I'm really sick of you guys going after every single edit I make. From Bolivarian propaganda (which is now up for deletion after it was just agreed to be kept), to Alberto Federico Ravell. Every edit I make is ridiculed by the same three or four people who ride on my contribs page and harass my edits. You can have your other 3 or 4 friends say to delete everything from La Patilla too. The only thing that was previously heavily discussed about La Patilla's reliability was the alleged use of Adamsite. I know now that I was wrong with that addition since I found other sources disproving it. I made a mistake and I will accept that and learn. But if you are going to delete all the work I put into this article only because you want to, then your edits are the one in question. I have given multiple reasons why La Patilla is a reliable source. I have given multiple sources in other articles and you have also reverted them without thought. I want to work with every editor on Wikipedia but you're making this very difficult. Let us wait and make this decision when more users come.--Zfigueroa (talk) 02:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

While I understand that you may not like this you must understand that we are only trying to contribute, the same as you, yet have a differing viewpoint. Nobody is "after you", rather we see stuff which is wrong (in our view) and we try to correct it. And sometimes deletion of something is a contribution because it makes for a better article. La Patilla has been clearly put into question and there are only a 1-2 people standing up for it and their arguments do not seem to have any validity. I seriously doubt that it can be considered a "reliable source". And only a minority of what you add is questioned. You are accusing people of trying to create problems, yet you are the user who seems to always be involved in disputes and being accused of using unreliable sources, being biased, etc. Although there is nothing wrong with that, of course. I think everyone here appreciates your contributions. Zozs (talk) 03:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Well let us wait for more users to have an input.--Zfigueroa (talk) 03:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Guys, please stop arguing. La Patilla being a biased source doesn’t means that it is unreliable; it is a good reference to include events and facts in the timeline, just like it has been said before. I personally have done so, but that’s the reason why I usually include several sources about the same event. While La Patilla may not be the best website to consult, its references shouldn’t be deleted only because its viewpoint and it can be used as a secondary source if there aren’t any other sources to consult. If you want me to, I can suggest local newspaper websites for references, like El Universal or El Nacional. --Jamez42 (talk) 19:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, like for example what was mentioned in a discussion above, La Patilla claiming that "The Venezuelan police is tolerating rapes" in a two-sentence article and basing their WHOLE information on two <40 character Twitter messages from random people, literally. Calling La Patilla "reliable" is a joke. I don't know about El Universal, but I've heard of El Nacional as an biased & unreliable source and spreading false information. Someone who knows more should talk about it. Zozs (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

i would say that the major newspapers (eluniversal.com, el-nacional.com, ultimasnoticias.com.ve) are generally the most reliable sources for news (which isn't to say that they don't display certain ideological tendencies).--Riothero (talk) 10:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

In that particular article La Patilla bases the information off of reports from a Televen correspondent at the scene. The reporting is done off of Twitter since Twitter is EXTREMELY popular in Venezuela. If you guys want me to I can go dig up the tweets by him.--Zfigueroa (talk) 06:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Offtopic ("Bolivarian propaganda" canvassing accusations)

Zozs, I can honestly say you canvassed the heck out of the Bolivarian propaganda article. When you say nobody is after me, that is a complete lie.

I mean look at this:

• 20:23, 27 April 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-1)‎ . . User talk:Mbinebri ‎ (→‎"Bolivarian propaganda" article)
• 20:23, 27 April 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-1)‎ . . User talk:Zfigueroa ‎ (current)
• 20:23, 27 April 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-1)‎ . . User talk:Somedifferentstuff ‎
• 20:21, 27 April 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-1)‎ . . User talk:Riothero ‎ (→‎"Bolivarian propaganda" article)

That's me outnumbered 4 to 1. You guys obviously need to stop. If you appreciated my contributions, maybe you would wait for at least 4 other users to place an input too. And please, PLEASE don't canvas for those 4 other users too--Zfigueroa (talk) 03:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

And @Riothero, it seems like you're in an editing conflict. I'm not the only one who has been in arguments. I know Zozs is the one who stated this, but I'm saying you aren't agreed with also.--Zfigueroa (talk) 03:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see what the problem is there. I don't know what the views of these users are and, to be quite frank, I don't care. I looked in the edit histories at Venezuela articles like "2014 Venezuelan protests" and "Hugo Chavez". I found that there are only 4 active editors on Venezuela articles over the last 2 weeks or so: Mbinebri, Zfigueroa, Somedifferentstuff and Riothero. So I asked all of them to participate in the discussion over whether that article "Bolivarian propaganda" should not be deleted or not, as the article seems to have little traffic and the discussion would probably have few editors. I have not looked at your contributions at all, I simply noticed that a link to that article was placed on the Hugo Chavez article, noticed what a violation the article was, and decided to list it for deletion. Do you see editors or do you see "either communists or neoliberals"? Zozs (talk) 03:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

You didn't tell me that you actually put the article up for deletion like you did to them lol. You made sure they knew you:

• 02:30, 28 April 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+170)‎ . . Talk:2014 Venezuelan protests ‎ (→‎Sources)
• 02:27, 28 April 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+224)‎ . . User talk:Somedifferentstuff ‎ (→‎"Bolivarian propaganda" article) (current)
• 02:27, 28 April 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+224)‎ . . User talk:Mbinebri ‎ (→‎"Bolivarian propaganda" article) (current)
• 02:27, 28 April 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+224)‎ . . User talk:Riothero ‎ (current)
• 02:11, 28 April 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-6)‎ . . Hugo Chávez ‎ (current)

Am I on that list Zozs? Hmmmm... I wonder why I wouldn't be told an article is up for deletion.--Zfigueroa (talk) 03:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

That one's easy. It's simply because when I started to notify them that the article was up for deletion, you had already posted your opinion in the "article for deletion" page, so you already knew that it was up for deletion. Can you please stop to see conspirancies everywhere, formulating some complex "plan against you" when there is a no-brainer answer? Zozs (talk) 03:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

It is not a conspiracy, it is the truth. I never accused you guys of being "either communists or neoliberals". That doesn't matter. What matters is that you are following each of my edits, reverting or deleting them and canvassing. Did you ask any other recent editors such as Yeah93, Jamez24 and others? They have also been very helpful with these articles.--Zfigueroa (talk) 03:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about the others but I hvaven't even looked at your edit history, I just regularly check certain articles. Jamez24 seems to have only 1 recent edit on Venezuela articles, I didn't notice Yeah 93. You are free to invite who you want to the discussion. Zozs (talk) 03:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I already did because I knew this was happen. I just hoped it wouldn't because I thought we were getting better with this.--Zfigueroa (talk) 03:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, whatever. I'm not admitting to your accusations, and please stop imagining problems. Zozs (talk) 03:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Chavez's friend murdered

A user added this to the timeline and just wanted to keep it here in case more develops. As of right now, it is not related to the article. That could change though.

Chavistas leftist long-time activist and politician Eliecer Otaiza was murdered in Caracas.

I will look into this soon and keep an eye out for more in the future.--Zfigueroa (talk) 00:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Right now it looks like Otaiza was just robbed. (El Impulso, El Nacional and El Mundo) However, President Maduro thinks something is suspicious...--Zfigueroa (talk) 07:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it should be put in the article, unless it really has something to do with the protests. Yes, the guy was a councilman, but nothing so far indicates it's related to this. --yeah_93 (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Removal of the Gallery section?

I think the pictures before that section illustrate the point clearly. Yes, there are people protesting, but this isn't some kind of Facebook wall, I believe there really is no need for that section. If anything, make a collage of some of them, and put it as the main image at the infobox. Don't you think so? --yeah_93 (talk) 02:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Zozs (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

So, shall we? --yeah_93 (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Made the collage of main events/places.--Zfigueroa (talk) 09:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Millions of pro-government demonstrators

The claim doesn't look false and is notable enough to be listed. According to TeleSur and a few other sources, 3 million people got called to demonstrate in favor of the government on May 1, and later government sources reported "millions" of demonstrators supported Maduro. Zozs (talk) 02:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Could you post the links to those sources? Also, calling for people doesn't mean they are going to show up. And the "government sources" you said, I only found about Minister Manuel Fernandez saying it. Though I believe it was said as rhetoric. --yeah_93 (talk) 02:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Do we have a better source than Telesur? That source is very well known for its exaggerations (if not lies) in support of the Chavista regime. Cambalachero (talk) 03:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

This is getting tiring. You guys are biased (sometimes even admitting it) and refuse to think even very minimally before talking. The fact is that the Wikipedia article clearly says: "ACCORDING TO THE GOVERNMENT". So yeah, pro-government sources can completely be used to back that up. And yes, calling people doesn't mean that they will show up, but if several sources report that 3,000,000 people got called to a demonstration, and then later, after the demonstration, government sources report "millions" attended, then why take the government source as "it wasn't meant seriously"? It wouldn't be weird that out of 3 million, at least 1 million came. "At least" before "hundreds of thousands" has to be mentioned in the infobox because otherwise it looks like the first sentence is saying that the government source is wrong, which it is not, it is simply numbers from other demonstrations. You can't make the article say what sources aren't saying. THINK before reverting. Zozs (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The article says "Hundreds of thousands of opposition protesters" at one side, and "At least hundreds of thousands of pro-government demonstrators" at the other. A subtle way of implying that, whatever the figures are, the pro-government ones are higher. "At least" in this context reads as "the same quantity or more". --Cambalachero (talk) 20:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, that's a problem, and a way should be found to fix it - perhaps including "at least" at both sides? However, having "hundreds of thousands" without "at least" in the government side would imply that "millions" listed right below it is false. The thing is that there's been claims which can be reliably sourced (yes, a government source is a reliable source for a government claim) about there being more than "hundreds of thousands" at the government side, yet not at the opposition side. Zozs (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

But doesn't that logic mean that we should remove the "hundreds of thousands" removed and go straight to putting "millions". If we are going to take the government's "statement" for granted, why don't we do it completely? --yeah_93 (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Because we aren't taking it for granted. We are listing it as a government claim (even though it's not been questioned) in order to be neutral, alongside listing other claims. Zozs (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

We need information from a reliable source, not a phrase from President Maduro from a government source. Sorry that I did not say this before.--Zfigueroa (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

So President Maduro is not a reliable source for government claims? Actually he is. And it wasn't even Maduro who said that I think. Zozs (talk) 23:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Zozs, have in mind that if it is more than "hundreds of thousands" (which the "at least" implies) then we are talking about millions, the next decimal level, even if not directly. Let's just say 2 millions, the minimum to speak of millions in plural. Venezuela has a population of nearly 28 millions, so that number would be a demonstration composed by the 6% of the whole population of the country. A complete and absolute nonsense, that only a populist rethoric can embrace. No, no serious source says that there were millions of protesters against the government, precisely because they are serious. Besides, remember that we are talking about claims from the man who claims that the late Chávez reincarnated in a little bird and talked to him... The neutral point of view does not require us to take things into the realm of the nonsenses just because one side has taken things there. --Cambalachero (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

"At least" does not mean it is neccessarily more than hundreds of thousands. What is your better solution? Zozs (talk) 23:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Uh, "at least" implies it is more than that. But I will agree that it doesn't necessarily mean "millions". If we don't want to use that then we could use the "more or less" symbol. --yeah_93 (talk) 00:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

My solution is simply to leave it at "Hundreds of thousands", and that's it. The term is already imprecise (as we can't say a precise and exact number for either side), and it already helps in giving a rough idea of the number of people involved. "More or less", "At least", etc; are simply redundant: they just replace an imprecision with an imprecise imprecision. Cambalachero (talk) 01:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Leave it. "Millions" is hard to qualify, and anyways everyone knows both sides have brought out very large amounts of demonstrators, so there's no need to tarry on the numbers if "hundreds of thousands" will do. 71.167.107.243 (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)