![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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.
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)
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)
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)
Everything seems to be working good now. I made a new section just like Riothero requested.-- Zfigueroa ( talk) 19:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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'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)
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)
[p] >> Venezuela protests are sign that US wants our oil, says Nicolás Maduro Lihaas ( talk) 16:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
In the Colectivos section, such statements seem to be very biased:
"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.
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".
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.
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)
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)
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)
Examples:
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.
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)
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)
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)
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. [1]
I will look into this soon and keep an eye out for more in the future.-- Zfigueroa ( talk) 00:26, 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)
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)
So, shall we? -- yeah_93 ( talk) 17:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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.
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)
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)
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)
Everything seems to be working good now. I made a new section just like Riothero requested.-- Zfigueroa ( talk) 19:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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'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)
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)
[p] >> Venezuela protests are sign that US wants our oil, says Nicolás Maduro Lihaas ( talk) 16:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
In the Colectivos section, such statements seem to be very biased:
"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.
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".
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.
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)
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)
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)
Examples:
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.
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)
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)
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)
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. [1]
I will look into this soon and keep an eye out for more in the future.-- Zfigueroa ( talk) 00:26, 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)
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)
So, shall we? -- yeah_93 ( talk) 17:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)