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 |
Alright guys, we need to get this blasted neutrality tag off of the article. If we start working on it now, we can have it off sooner than later. If anyone has thoughts about neutrality issues share them on this section. However, don't immediately edit information on the article that you may find POV, non-neutral, et cetera. The main thing about making something neutral is by having something people on separate sides can both agree on, hence making it neurtal.
Just remember to keep it professional and let us have discussions here before we make edits. This may take awhile since things are still developing with the protests so be patient. Create smaller sections on this neutrality section as needed for separate discussions.-- Zfigueroa ( talk) 07:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Below are some issues that can be fixed more easily than some others brought up. Feel free to edit the "partially done" or "not done" to "done" when needed.-- Zfigueroa ( talk) 20:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Done This was already stated in the lead to the article. However, government supporters claim that government economic policy, especially that of under previous president Hugo Chávez (1999-2013), significantly improved the quality of life of Venezuelans.-- Zfigueroa ( talk) 20:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Not done There needs to be a subsection on the "Background" section with several paragraphs which elaborates on this, not a single sentence with a link to a massive article. Without this information, the protests and the positions of the government and opposition cannot be understood. 37.15.231.233 ( talk) 21:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Done I have added more in the first paragraph of the Background section. It is not about all of Chavez's improvements since this would bring the article off topic but I have covered his introduction of price controls which has allegedly led to inflation and shortages.-- Zfigueroa ( talk) 01:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Partly done: There are still some peace talks happening in the near future.-- Zfigueroa ( talk) 20:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Done I think this topic is pretty much taken care of. There is more needed and perhaps a new section but as of now this is done.-- Zfigueroa ( talk) 01:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Not done: This will be somewhat difficult since most sources just state the data about shortages, actions taken combatting shortages (such as rationing) and the long lines that people must wait in.-- Zfigueroa ( talk) 20:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Done As more information comes about barricades, it will be added. But until then, there is enough information provided about barricades in order for the article to be somewhat neutral.-- Zfigueroa ( talk) 20:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Not done There is currently extensive information available and the current section on barricades says almost nothing. 37.15.231.233 ( talk) 21:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Done There has been more added about "guayas" and causes of death. There is enough information about barricades as of now. If more information arises, feel free to add to the existing work.-- Zfigueroa ( talk) 04:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Done I added the government and the opposition opinion towards the barricades, besides including the use of "miguelitos" (caltrops) in the section. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 15:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Partly done: There is obviously reports of dispersing protesters with tear gas and the peace talks that are occurring, but there is not enough evidence of orders or tasks that the government is seeking to curb violence.-- Zfigueroa ( talk) 20:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Not done: It is tough to find information on this. The government says only a few hundred while some sources show thousands. If there are contested numbers, include both in order to show a range of how many might have demonstrated.-- Zfigueroa ( talk) 20:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Done Somebody added statistics. Zozs ( talk) 19:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
We had a consensus on this once before, on this Talk page. Article-level POV tags don't help improve the article very much; they just show that one side or the other on a controversial subject has general feelings or concerns about POV.
Instead, much more helpful are the specific inline tags like {{POV-statement}}
which leaves in the article
neutrality is
disputed or {{lopsided}}
which leaves in the article
unbalanced opinion? can be used. There are others; for a fuller list of inline tags related to Neutrality and factual accuracy, see
here.
But in my view, the previous consensus is sufficient to remove the article-level tag right now, while editors with concerns identify specific instances in the article where concerns or allegations of POV exist.
Also, editors with concerns can, of course, the article, and provide sources, to better balance the article if they believe sources exist for the statements they want to be made in the article.
Then, discussions can be held on the Talk page about specific things, rather than broad generalities. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 20:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
From what I understand, the neutrality tag was added because the editor felt that, on an article-wide level, pro-opposition information is extensively represented, while pro-government - or at least in a sense, anti-opposition - info is underrepresented or just plain omitted. (In other words, it's not an issue that inline citations will really reflect.) This was my impression on first reading the article as well. However, I like to think I've made some headway on this issue and the need for the article-level tag is less necessary. Plus, in my cynical experience, tags are so common that people barely notice them and rarely lead to improvements. Mbinebri talk ← 21:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
We will keep it until more of the issues above are taken care of.-- Zfigueroa ( talk) 23:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Why was deleted anti-government radicals from infobox? This article is total POV, I just tried to little fix it. Ok, lets delete also collectivos. There are no mentions about fact that many opposition parties and groups, expect Voluntad Popular, already started talks with government and stopped support for demonstrations.-- 62.245.80.62 ( talk) 00:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
We really need to separate different parties in the conflict. I'll try to work on it.-- Zfigueroa ( talk) 23:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I changed the info box a little bit. The only thing I'm not sure about with neutrality is with pro-government demonstrators. Some of them are also radical, yet they definitely are not a paramilitary group either since they lack sophisticated weapons and tactics.-- Zfigueroa ( talk) 19:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
So should I remove anti-government radicals?-- Zfigueroa ( talk) 19:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
The opinions of these capitalist advocacy groups do not belong in the economics section anymore than the opinions of the Communist Party does. This is a NPOV violation. The Heritage Foundation is just one of hundreds of groups with a political opinion. The Cato Institute's economic philosophies as it relates to these protests is barely notable, to include them would necessitate that we include the economic opinions of every relevant Venezuelan group, at the very least. In the meantime, we have cherry-picked pro-capitalist sources. I propose we do not include the opinions of US political advocacy groups in the economics section. Masebrock ( talk) 03:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Looks like the protests are pretty much over even though a tiny minority is trying to keep it alive through noisy actions. Since they are decentralized and have no clear leader how can it be determined which date to set as the end of the protests and which events are part of the protests and which not? Zozs ( talk) 23:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
How is the listing of every single 'event', no matter how insignificant (for example: "30 May- In the morning hours, three buses blocked traffic...", etc.) appropriate for an encyclopedia article? Short answer: It is NOT appropriate. ...especially when relying on a contested source such as Lapatilla.com (which has come up many times before) as the sole citation. If Lapatilla.com is the only source for a news item, it is highly likely that the news item in question is NOT sufficiently notable for inclusion in the article. But even in cases where other (actually reliable) sources can be provided, "not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." "Wikipedia is not a newspaper." "It is also not an indiscriminate collection of information or a news service. Wikipedia is not a journal of current news. (Alternatively, Wikinews offers a place where editors can document news events.) I am not arguing that the timeline section should be removed (although it should eventually be integrated into the rest of the article), but it should be noted that such a section is highly unusual for a Wikipedia article (I cannot find another article that uses a timeline for such trivial events as "various universities reschedule academic events"!!). For the last time, please be more judicious when adding to the article. Now would be a good time to start revising and improving what is already there. -- Riothero ( talk) 22:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
I added a new section detailing public support and opinions on the protests. I was considering adding it as its own level-2 heading section, but maybe it's more appropriate under the "Domestic reactions" heading, as public opinion is, after all, a domestic reaction and an important topic, IMO. I moved the polling/survey data there too, as it was oddly structured as part of the "background" of the protests when it is in fact concurrent with the protests and a natural subsection under this new heading. Hopefully what I was going for in the section is clear; if not, I can try to explain it further. Mbinebri talk ← 16:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Somethingdifferentstuff makes a valid point about the article's massive length (and naturally I added to it right away). The sheer size of it makes the page a pain to load after an edit, but I think it shouldn't be too hard to cut down. "International reactions" can be split off into a new article. Who's really going to read that whole thing? The timeline is another candidate for splitting. It probably makes up the bulk of the article's kb size, and with it's level of detail it's likely another major list that the average reader will ignore in favor of more streamlined summary. Mbinebri talk ← 16:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Recent edits in the lede of the article have been removed and will be distributed into the article in appropriate places. Some data, such as one from a CEPR blog ( blogs are not reliable sources), will not be added back however. Just an explanation for my edits.-- Zfigueroa ( talk) 07:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, I pared down the lead—by 10,000 bites!—and I feel that this version is a far better summation of the topic. The previous version was waaaaay too detailed and was getting bogged down with info that that was ultimately less important than it probably seemed when it was first added. That tends to happen with articles covering current events. Now the lead's focus really is the protests themselves. I also feel that both sides of the issue are fairly represented and the length is enough to provide a good overview without getting dense. Arab Spring seems a good comparison in terms of lead length. I'm open to opinions... Mbinebri talk ← 15:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
This is starting to get confusing. First, a single picture was placed for the infobox but then a collage was asked to be made from some of the previous photos in the former "Gallery" section. It is fairly neutral as it is and fits well with the long introduction and table of contents.
Here are some more recent examples of protest/demonstration articles:
When the collage for the infobox was created, it was inspired by such articles and had a goal of being neutral. As for the redundancy, the topic of this article is about the 2014 Venezuelan protests, which in its organized and major settings, mostly involved people marching and congregating to express their disapproval with the situation in Venezuela. This collage captures the protests and major events/places even though it may not be as action-packed as photos of clashes.-- Zfigueroa ( talk) 00:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Recent edits have occurred stating that the protests have ended as of June. However, protests have occurred past this date. During the final days of July, a caravan of protesters traveled to Ramo Verde to denounce the alleged abuses of opposition laser inside of the prison. Sidor workers have also been protesting for weeks in Ciudad Guayana throughout August, yet in an edit I was told that those protests do not qualify to be involved with the article because they are normal protests over pay that occur in every other country. Should the Sidor workers protesting not be included event though they use the same tactics and are technically protesting in 2014? Also, as one of my previous edits of the timeline article, the Ecological Movement of Venezuela also said they would protest against insecurities on a later date. Should this not be included in the timeframe of the article as well even though it is an organized protest over insecurities and such?-- Zfigueroa ( talk) 16:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
why are we using the opposition-linked Venezuelan Penal Forum's numbers as a reliable source (for deaths and arrests)?-- Riothero ( talk) 21:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok, as much as I love providing sources sometimes it can be annoying, but it is ok. Here are some examples of news organizations using Foro Penal's data:
The list could go on. Hope this helps Riothero!-- Zfigueroa ( talk) 17:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Though the protests are definitely not as strong as the early months of 2014, they are continuing into 2015 with Venezuela being in recession, President Maduro's popularity dropping and increases in debt and inflation. Now may be too soon to make the rename the article as it has only been a few days into 2015, but if protests continue and strengthen, we may need to look at the possibility of renaming the article.-- ZiaLater ( talk) 22:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
We all know the truth about what is happening in Venezuela in our own ways and we no longer need to discuss the situation there. So, to bring this discussion back on topic, we can all agree that if protests in 2015 occur on a notable level, they can be covered in an article. The reason I proposed having a possible 2014-15 Venezuelan protests article is because of the 2011–12 Spanish protests article. The Spanish article shows months between certain protests, yet it still has 2011-12 in the title. The protests still occurring in Venezuela may pick up in 2015 months later as they did in Spain and may be due to the same causes. So, I am not advocating a 2014-15 article for the Venezuelan situation, just asking what the best option is in case it happens.
The positive thing for a 2014-15 article would be that there is an existing article for the content, but the negative thing is that the article would be somewhat large. So, if a huge article would result after a possible increase in protests, a new article may need to be created for 2015.-- ZiaLater ( talk) 06:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, if the protests continue, having everything in one place, one name (whatever that might be) is optimal, to avoid repeated text.
But for now, yes, on size, this article is too long (see WP:SIZE and it is now 16,000 words of readable prose), and some of that is due to unnecessary verbosity, but a good deal of it is due to off-topic content-- unrelated to whether this article can or should grow as warranted by reliable sources. As but one example, have a look at the section on "Polls and survey data". A good deal of that is primary data, not covered by secondary sources, and it's not apparent to me that most of it is connected to the topic at all, rather general commentary on Maduro's administration. A lot of that text belongs elsewhere, or nowhere if based on primary sources unexamined by secondary sources (poll data). As another example, International reactions from every possible corner (Suriname, really?) is extreme, and a good deal of "International reactions" could be pruned (Social Democratic Party of Kenya, really?)-- if we need that level of detail on International Reactions, they might better belong in a daughter article; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list or a directory-- Cher, really ? The "Background" section has content that strays from the topic, and an entire unsourced para (beginning with In 2002), that adds nothing. As an example of excess verbosity, the article now has:
On 5 March 2013, Chávez died of cancer and Nicolás Maduro, who was vice president at the time, took Chávez's place.[68] In the 2013 Venezuelan presidential elections, Maduro narrowly defeated Henrique Capriles with a support of 50.6% contrasted to the 55.1% Chávez had received in the previous elections.[69][70] Throughout the year 2013 and into the year 2014, worries about troubled economy, increasing crime and corruption increased, which led to the start of anti-government protests.
which could easily be shortened and focused, sample:
Nicolás Maduro became President in 2013, following the death of Hugo Chavez.
which could be tacked on to the para before it. Most of that text is off-topic, explored in his own article, or uncited. There is more detail there than is needed to understand this article, that some of that content belongs in other articles.
The "Corruption" section could be pruned; most of that belongs in the Corruption article, which this article should briefly summarize-- no need to rewrite the entire Corruption article, except to the extent sources discussing the protests specifically mention those aspects. We have Wikilinks for a reason: use them! The same can be said for just about every section that includes a Main hatnote-- they are not using summary style, they are rewriting entire articles.
The article is also over-cited, example: intimidation of the media, and human rights abuses of its citizens.[56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65] We don't need ten cites for indisputable facts; pick the one best source and use it.
I'm seeing this kind of excess verbosity and duplication of text in several Venezuela articles. Perhaps efforts would be better spent on getting these articles focused, well sourced, and encyclopedic, and the issue of what the article might eventually be named is likely to solve itself as reliable sources tell the story. Meanwhile, who has the attention span to read 16,000 words of prose? Half of that would be optimal. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
So remember that time where I stated that we should be ready for some things to happen? Well, things are getting pretty rowdy again. Shortages and lines are growing in Venezuela, creating displeasure and protests. Now Capriles is calling on Venezuelans to mobilize in the streets and to be "Guarimbas". url=http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/el-mundo/2015/capriles-movilizacion-oposicion-evenezuela-1068715.html [2] This is just a reminder that we might have some editing in the near future to do, nothing else. However, as with most things in Venezuela, the situation is unpredictable and we may not see any protests or maybe even larger ones.-- ZiaLater ( talk) 16:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Update 2: The Defense Intelligence Agency of the United States and others are predicting renewed protests before elections. Just another update as the situation continues.-- ZiaLater ( talk) 04:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
See WP:DATERANGE. Date ranges on Wikipedia use an WP:ENDASH, not a hyphen, and 2014–15 is the preferred format. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Please review WP:MSH. For example, violent protests, and protest violence are the same thing. This series of articles is not being carefully edited, and quite a few of the section headings are unencyclopedic or leading towards POV. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok, so I went through the section and tried to clean it up the best I could. I had a hard time making section names for the "Opposition" subsection since I had to move so much content. The majority of the content was either moved to another part of the article, moved to another article (most went to the 2014 timeline article) and the rest was deleted for either being repeated information or for not being notable. Any other things we can do with this section?-- ZiaLater ( talk) 00:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
According to previous discussions on Wikipedia, discussions elsewhere stating that an "international" organization hadn't even created a website and the Financial Services Authority (FSA) of the United Kingdom placing it on an "unauthorised firm" list for potentially fraudulent organizations, further data by International Consulting Services should be avoided.-- ZiaLater ( talk) 18:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
The entire section on "Polls and survey data" should go. It's off-topic, UNDUE, and coatracky. Perhaps a sub-article on Venezuelan polling could be created, and a one or two-sentence summary of one or two very high quality independent secondary sources (BBC, NYT, etc) about polls could be retained. So much to be said about the situation, and talk page discussion centers on this? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
People familiar with Venezuelan polling know that polls are quite unreliable, typically biased some 20% in favor of the regime. Anybody making reference to them does so rising his credibility. 73.46.81.84 ( talk) 02:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
This sentence reflects a bias present in much of leftist media: "Publications like The New York Times have observed that the protests have exposed a class divide in Venezuela, as the protests have primarily occurred in wealthier urban areas with limited participation from the working-class, despite lower-income areas being hit especially hard by the country's economic struggles." The truth is that the protesters in the wealthier urban areas do not live there, but commute there from the poor areas where they live, because they are unable to protest in their own neighbourhoods due to death threats from the "colectivos". Those are not empty threats, many have been tortured and murdered by the colectivos, in an attempt to make people stop protesting against the dictatorship. 73.46.81.84 ( talk) 02:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I changed image sizes from ###px
to upright=#.##
per
WP:IUP. Recently, I changed my preferences from 300px to 400px. Upright scale changes percentage of image size, depending on user preferences and 220px default scale for unsigned viewers. Lately, the images look very big when I use "400px". However, the size is about the same when "220px" is used (or if you are not signed in). Since we should not change size back to "px" (unless there is a good reason for everybody), I think I need help on changing upright scale for each image. --
George Ho (
talk)
03:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
2014–16 Venezuelan protests. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus is that the protests continued through 2015 and 2016, and limiting to 2014 would not be an accurate reflection of the article content. ( non-admin closure) — Amakuru ( talk) 13:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
2014–16 Venezuelan protests → 2014 Venezuelan protests – I find it a nonsense mix up protests of 2015 or even 2016 as part of "La Salida" movement of 2014. The Venezuelan Observatory of Social Conflict and PROVEA (among others sources) clarify this in their reports of 2014; the peak of social unrest was in early 2014, with a few demonstrations later that year. Yes, we saw everyday protests in 2015 and even in the first quarter of 2016, but they are very small and isolated in comparison of 2014. Oscar_. ( talk) 23:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
{{
split}}
page tag.
Spirit Ethanol (
talk)
14:43, 7 April 2016 (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 |
Alright guys, we need to get this blasted neutrality tag off of the article. If we start working on it now, we can have it off sooner than later. If anyone has thoughts about neutrality issues share them on this section. However, don't immediately edit information on the article that you may find POV, non-neutral, et cetera. The main thing about making something neutral is by having something people on separate sides can both agree on, hence making it neurtal.
Just remember to keep it professional and let us have discussions here before we make edits. This may take awhile since things are still developing with the protests so be patient. Create smaller sections on this neutrality section as needed for separate discussions.-- Zfigueroa ( talk) 07:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Below are some issues that can be fixed more easily than some others brought up. Feel free to edit the "partially done" or "not done" to "done" when needed.-- Zfigueroa ( talk) 20:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Done This was already stated in the lead to the article. However, government supporters claim that government economic policy, especially that of under previous president Hugo Chávez (1999-2013), significantly improved the quality of life of Venezuelans.-- Zfigueroa ( talk) 20:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Not done There needs to be a subsection on the "Background" section with several paragraphs which elaborates on this, not a single sentence with a link to a massive article. Without this information, the protests and the positions of the government and opposition cannot be understood. 37.15.231.233 ( talk) 21:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Done I have added more in the first paragraph of the Background section. It is not about all of Chavez's improvements since this would bring the article off topic but I have covered his introduction of price controls which has allegedly led to inflation and shortages.-- Zfigueroa ( talk) 01:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Partly done: There are still some peace talks happening in the near future.-- Zfigueroa ( talk) 20:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Done I think this topic is pretty much taken care of. There is more needed and perhaps a new section but as of now this is done.-- Zfigueroa ( talk) 01:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Not done: This will be somewhat difficult since most sources just state the data about shortages, actions taken combatting shortages (such as rationing) and the long lines that people must wait in.-- Zfigueroa ( talk) 20:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Done As more information comes about barricades, it will be added. But until then, there is enough information provided about barricades in order for the article to be somewhat neutral.-- Zfigueroa ( talk) 20:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Not done There is currently extensive information available and the current section on barricades says almost nothing. 37.15.231.233 ( talk) 21:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Done There has been more added about "guayas" and causes of death. There is enough information about barricades as of now. If more information arises, feel free to add to the existing work.-- Zfigueroa ( talk) 04:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Done I added the government and the opposition opinion towards the barricades, besides including the use of "miguelitos" (caltrops) in the section. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 15:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Partly done: There is obviously reports of dispersing protesters with tear gas and the peace talks that are occurring, but there is not enough evidence of orders or tasks that the government is seeking to curb violence.-- Zfigueroa ( talk) 20:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Not done: It is tough to find information on this. The government says only a few hundred while some sources show thousands. If there are contested numbers, include both in order to show a range of how many might have demonstrated.-- Zfigueroa ( talk) 20:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Done Somebody added statistics. Zozs ( talk) 19:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
We had a consensus on this once before, on this Talk page. Article-level POV tags don't help improve the article very much; they just show that one side or the other on a controversial subject has general feelings or concerns about POV.
Instead, much more helpful are the specific inline tags like {{POV-statement}}
which leaves in the article
neutrality is
disputed or {{lopsided}}
which leaves in the article
unbalanced opinion? can be used. There are others; for a fuller list of inline tags related to Neutrality and factual accuracy, see
here.
But in my view, the previous consensus is sufficient to remove the article-level tag right now, while editors with concerns identify specific instances in the article where concerns or allegations of POV exist.
Also, editors with concerns can, of course, the article, and provide sources, to better balance the article if they believe sources exist for the statements they want to be made in the article.
Then, discussions can be held on the Talk page about specific things, rather than broad generalities. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 20:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
From what I understand, the neutrality tag was added because the editor felt that, on an article-wide level, pro-opposition information is extensively represented, while pro-government - or at least in a sense, anti-opposition - info is underrepresented or just plain omitted. (In other words, it's not an issue that inline citations will really reflect.) This was my impression on first reading the article as well. However, I like to think I've made some headway on this issue and the need for the article-level tag is less necessary. Plus, in my cynical experience, tags are so common that people barely notice them and rarely lead to improvements. Mbinebri talk ← 21:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
We will keep it until more of the issues above are taken care of.-- Zfigueroa ( talk) 23:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Why was deleted anti-government radicals from infobox? This article is total POV, I just tried to little fix it. Ok, lets delete also collectivos. There are no mentions about fact that many opposition parties and groups, expect Voluntad Popular, already started talks with government and stopped support for demonstrations.-- 62.245.80.62 ( talk) 00:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
We really need to separate different parties in the conflict. I'll try to work on it.-- Zfigueroa ( talk) 23:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I changed the info box a little bit. The only thing I'm not sure about with neutrality is with pro-government demonstrators. Some of them are also radical, yet they definitely are not a paramilitary group either since they lack sophisticated weapons and tactics.-- Zfigueroa ( talk) 19:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
So should I remove anti-government radicals?-- Zfigueroa ( talk) 19:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
The opinions of these capitalist advocacy groups do not belong in the economics section anymore than the opinions of the Communist Party does. This is a NPOV violation. The Heritage Foundation is just one of hundreds of groups with a political opinion. The Cato Institute's economic philosophies as it relates to these protests is barely notable, to include them would necessitate that we include the economic opinions of every relevant Venezuelan group, at the very least. In the meantime, we have cherry-picked pro-capitalist sources. I propose we do not include the opinions of US political advocacy groups in the economics section. Masebrock ( talk) 03:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Looks like the protests are pretty much over even though a tiny minority is trying to keep it alive through noisy actions. Since they are decentralized and have no clear leader how can it be determined which date to set as the end of the protests and which events are part of the protests and which not? Zozs ( talk) 23:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
How is the listing of every single 'event', no matter how insignificant (for example: "30 May- In the morning hours, three buses blocked traffic...", etc.) appropriate for an encyclopedia article? Short answer: It is NOT appropriate. ...especially when relying on a contested source such as Lapatilla.com (which has come up many times before) as the sole citation. If Lapatilla.com is the only source for a news item, it is highly likely that the news item in question is NOT sufficiently notable for inclusion in the article. But even in cases where other (actually reliable) sources can be provided, "not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." "Wikipedia is not a newspaper." "It is also not an indiscriminate collection of information or a news service. Wikipedia is not a journal of current news. (Alternatively, Wikinews offers a place where editors can document news events.) I am not arguing that the timeline section should be removed (although it should eventually be integrated into the rest of the article), but it should be noted that such a section is highly unusual for a Wikipedia article (I cannot find another article that uses a timeline for such trivial events as "various universities reschedule academic events"!!). For the last time, please be more judicious when adding to the article. Now would be a good time to start revising and improving what is already there. -- Riothero ( talk) 22:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
I added a new section detailing public support and opinions on the protests. I was considering adding it as its own level-2 heading section, but maybe it's more appropriate under the "Domestic reactions" heading, as public opinion is, after all, a domestic reaction and an important topic, IMO. I moved the polling/survey data there too, as it was oddly structured as part of the "background" of the protests when it is in fact concurrent with the protests and a natural subsection under this new heading. Hopefully what I was going for in the section is clear; if not, I can try to explain it further. Mbinebri talk ← 16:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Somethingdifferentstuff makes a valid point about the article's massive length (and naturally I added to it right away). The sheer size of it makes the page a pain to load after an edit, but I think it shouldn't be too hard to cut down. "International reactions" can be split off into a new article. Who's really going to read that whole thing? The timeline is another candidate for splitting. It probably makes up the bulk of the article's kb size, and with it's level of detail it's likely another major list that the average reader will ignore in favor of more streamlined summary. Mbinebri talk ← 16:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Recent edits in the lede of the article have been removed and will be distributed into the article in appropriate places. Some data, such as one from a CEPR blog ( blogs are not reliable sources), will not be added back however. Just an explanation for my edits.-- Zfigueroa ( talk) 07:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, I pared down the lead—by 10,000 bites!—and I feel that this version is a far better summation of the topic. The previous version was waaaaay too detailed and was getting bogged down with info that that was ultimately less important than it probably seemed when it was first added. That tends to happen with articles covering current events. Now the lead's focus really is the protests themselves. I also feel that both sides of the issue are fairly represented and the length is enough to provide a good overview without getting dense. Arab Spring seems a good comparison in terms of lead length. I'm open to opinions... Mbinebri talk ← 15:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
This is starting to get confusing. First, a single picture was placed for the infobox but then a collage was asked to be made from some of the previous photos in the former "Gallery" section. It is fairly neutral as it is and fits well with the long introduction and table of contents.
Here are some more recent examples of protest/demonstration articles:
When the collage for the infobox was created, it was inspired by such articles and had a goal of being neutral. As for the redundancy, the topic of this article is about the 2014 Venezuelan protests, which in its organized and major settings, mostly involved people marching and congregating to express their disapproval with the situation in Venezuela. This collage captures the protests and major events/places even though it may not be as action-packed as photos of clashes.-- Zfigueroa ( talk) 00:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Recent edits have occurred stating that the protests have ended as of June. However, protests have occurred past this date. During the final days of July, a caravan of protesters traveled to Ramo Verde to denounce the alleged abuses of opposition laser inside of the prison. Sidor workers have also been protesting for weeks in Ciudad Guayana throughout August, yet in an edit I was told that those protests do not qualify to be involved with the article because they are normal protests over pay that occur in every other country. Should the Sidor workers protesting not be included event though they use the same tactics and are technically protesting in 2014? Also, as one of my previous edits of the timeline article, the Ecological Movement of Venezuela also said they would protest against insecurities on a later date. Should this not be included in the timeframe of the article as well even though it is an organized protest over insecurities and such?-- Zfigueroa ( talk) 16:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
why are we using the opposition-linked Venezuelan Penal Forum's numbers as a reliable source (for deaths and arrests)?-- Riothero ( talk) 21:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok, as much as I love providing sources sometimes it can be annoying, but it is ok. Here are some examples of news organizations using Foro Penal's data:
The list could go on. Hope this helps Riothero!-- Zfigueroa ( talk) 17:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Though the protests are definitely not as strong as the early months of 2014, they are continuing into 2015 with Venezuela being in recession, President Maduro's popularity dropping and increases in debt and inflation. Now may be too soon to make the rename the article as it has only been a few days into 2015, but if protests continue and strengthen, we may need to look at the possibility of renaming the article.-- ZiaLater ( talk) 22:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
We all know the truth about what is happening in Venezuela in our own ways and we no longer need to discuss the situation there. So, to bring this discussion back on topic, we can all agree that if protests in 2015 occur on a notable level, they can be covered in an article. The reason I proposed having a possible 2014-15 Venezuelan protests article is because of the 2011–12 Spanish protests article. The Spanish article shows months between certain protests, yet it still has 2011-12 in the title. The protests still occurring in Venezuela may pick up in 2015 months later as they did in Spain and may be due to the same causes. So, I am not advocating a 2014-15 article for the Venezuelan situation, just asking what the best option is in case it happens.
The positive thing for a 2014-15 article would be that there is an existing article for the content, but the negative thing is that the article would be somewhat large. So, if a huge article would result after a possible increase in protests, a new article may need to be created for 2015.-- ZiaLater ( talk) 06:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, if the protests continue, having everything in one place, one name (whatever that might be) is optimal, to avoid repeated text.
But for now, yes, on size, this article is too long (see WP:SIZE and it is now 16,000 words of readable prose), and some of that is due to unnecessary verbosity, but a good deal of it is due to off-topic content-- unrelated to whether this article can or should grow as warranted by reliable sources. As but one example, have a look at the section on "Polls and survey data". A good deal of that is primary data, not covered by secondary sources, and it's not apparent to me that most of it is connected to the topic at all, rather general commentary on Maduro's administration. A lot of that text belongs elsewhere, or nowhere if based on primary sources unexamined by secondary sources (poll data). As another example, International reactions from every possible corner (Suriname, really?) is extreme, and a good deal of "International reactions" could be pruned (Social Democratic Party of Kenya, really?)-- if we need that level of detail on International Reactions, they might better belong in a daughter article; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list or a directory-- Cher, really ? The "Background" section has content that strays from the topic, and an entire unsourced para (beginning with In 2002), that adds nothing. As an example of excess verbosity, the article now has:
On 5 March 2013, Chávez died of cancer and Nicolás Maduro, who was vice president at the time, took Chávez's place.[68] In the 2013 Venezuelan presidential elections, Maduro narrowly defeated Henrique Capriles with a support of 50.6% contrasted to the 55.1% Chávez had received in the previous elections.[69][70] Throughout the year 2013 and into the year 2014, worries about troubled economy, increasing crime and corruption increased, which led to the start of anti-government protests.
which could easily be shortened and focused, sample:
Nicolás Maduro became President in 2013, following the death of Hugo Chavez.
which could be tacked on to the para before it. Most of that text is off-topic, explored in his own article, or uncited. There is more detail there than is needed to understand this article, that some of that content belongs in other articles.
The "Corruption" section could be pruned; most of that belongs in the Corruption article, which this article should briefly summarize-- no need to rewrite the entire Corruption article, except to the extent sources discussing the protests specifically mention those aspects. We have Wikilinks for a reason: use them! The same can be said for just about every section that includes a Main hatnote-- they are not using summary style, they are rewriting entire articles.
The article is also over-cited, example: intimidation of the media, and human rights abuses of its citizens.[56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65] We don't need ten cites for indisputable facts; pick the one best source and use it.
I'm seeing this kind of excess verbosity and duplication of text in several Venezuela articles. Perhaps efforts would be better spent on getting these articles focused, well sourced, and encyclopedic, and the issue of what the article might eventually be named is likely to solve itself as reliable sources tell the story. Meanwhile, who has the attention span to read 16,000 words of prose? Half of that would be optimal. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
So remember that time where I stated that we should be ready for some things to happen? Well, things are getting pretty rowdy again. Shortages and lines are growing in Venezuela, creating displeasure and protests. Now Capriles is calling on Venezuelans to mobilize in the streets and to be "Guarimbas". url=http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/el-mundo/2015/capriles-movilizacion-oposicion-evenezuela-1068715.html [2] This is just a reminder that we might have some editing in the near future to do, nothing else. However, as with most things in Venezuela, the situation is unpredictable and we may not see any protests or maybe even larger ones.-- ZiaLater ( talk) 16:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Update 2: The Defense Intelligence Agency of the United States and others are predicting renewed protests before elections. Just another update as the situation continues.-- ZiaLater ( talk) 04:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
See WP:DATERANGE. Date ranges on Wikipedia use an WP:ENDASH, not a hyphen, and 2014–15 is the preferred format. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Please review WP:MSH. For example, violent protests, and protest violence are the same thing. This series of articles is not being carefully edited, and quite a few of the section headings are unencyclopedic or leading towards POV. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok, so I went through the section and tried to clean it up the best I could. I had a hard time making section names for the "Opposition" subsection since I had to move so much content. The majority of the content was either moved to another part of the article, moved to another article (most went to the 2014 timeline article) and the rest was deleted for either being repeated information or for not being notable. Any other things we can do with this section?-- ZiaLater ( talk) 00:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
According to previous discussions on Wikipedia, discussions elsewhere stating that an "international" organization hadn't even created a website and the Financial Services Authority (FSA) of the United Kingdom placing it on an "unauthorised firm" list for potentially fraudulent organizations, further data by International Consulting Services should be avoided.-- ZiaLater ( talk) 18:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
The entire section on "Polls and survey data" should go. It's off-topic, UNDUE, and coatracky. Perhaps a sub-article on Venezuelan polling could be created, and a one or two-sentence summary of one or two very high quality independent secondary sources (BBC, NYT, etc) about polls could be retained. So much to be said about the situation, and talk page discussion centers on this? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
People familiar with Venezuelan polling know that polls are quite unreliable, typically biased some 20% in favor of the regime. Anybody making reference to them does so rising his credibility. 73.46.81.84 ( talk) 02:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
This sentence reflects a bias present in much of leftist media: "Publications like The New York Times have observed that the protests have exposed a class divide in Venezuela, as the protests have primarily occurred in wealthier urban areas with limited participation from the working-class, despite lower-income areas being hit especially hard by the country's economic struggles." The truth is that the protesters in the wealthier urban areas do not live there, but commute there from the poor areas where they live, because they are unable to protest in their own neighbourhoods due to death threats from the "colectivos". Those are not empty threats, many have been tortured and murdered by the colectivos, in an attempt to make people stop protesting against the dictatorship. 73.46.81.84 ( talk) 02:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I changed image sizes from ###px
to upright=#.##
per
WP:IUP. Recently, I changed my preferences from 300px to 400px. Upright scale changes percentage of image size, depending on user preferences and 220px default scale for unsigned viewers. Lately, the images look very big when I use "400px". However, the size is about the same when "220px" is used (or if you are not signed in). Since we should not change size back to "px" (unless there is a good reason for everybody), I think I need help on changing upright scale for each image. --
George Ho (
talk)
03:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
2014–16 Venezuelan protests. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus is that the protests continued through 2015 and 2016, and limiting to 2014 would not be an accurate reflection of the article content. ( non-admin closure) — Amakuru ( talk) 13:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
2014–16 Venezuelan protests → 2014 Venezuelan protests – I find it a nonsense mix up protests of 2015 or even 2016 as part of "La Salida" movement of 2014. The Venezuelan Observatory of Social Conflict and PROVEA (among others sources) clarify this in their reports of 2014; the peak of social unrest was in early 2014, with a few demonstrations later that year. Yes, we saw everyday protests in 2015 and even in the first quarter of 2016, but they are very small and isolated in comparison of 2014. Oscar_. ( talk) 23:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
{{
split}}
page tag.
Spirit Ethanol (
talk)
14:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)