This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2002 Venezuelan coup attempt article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
2002 Venezuelan coup attempt was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on April 11, 2006, April 11, 2007, April 11, 2008, April 11, 2009, April 11, 2017, and April 11, 2022. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
This article is very bad. It reads like it is from the lips of the american 'state department' than a website that aims towards a neutral point of view. It really seems deep within this article. I would like advice to how to go about fixing this article.
Thanks. x. SP00KY talk 15:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Chávez used a strategy of polarization in Venezuela, a them against us situation, in order to single out those who stood in the way of his progress. He would insult and use name calling against original supporters that would question him; the media, business leaders, the Catholic Church and the middle class.
Chávez fired ... members of the PDVSA board of directors on his Aló Presidente program, mocking each worker by name and used a referee whistle, as if to expel them from a soccer match
There is no consensus as to who was responsible for the deaths on that day, and this remains a very controversial issue(see MOS:CONTROVERSIAL)
... media owners down to reporters feeling threatened with Chávez even calling out individual journalists by name in speeches
Cabello [stated] the media would be "responsible for the blood that will be shed"to the United States Department of State. Given the U.S. state's lengthy history of invasions, coups and economic and military intervention in Latin America, it is clear that sources from the U.S. Department of State have limitations and issues of provenance.American media and individual American experts can differ, of course, from the U.S. government's conflicts of interests, but it seems to me that the article represents a limited range of views. I've added a {{ Systemic bias}} tag with the aim of drawing more edits to the article. — Bilorv ( talk) 12:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
On April 11th, 2002, there was NOT an attempt to do a coup d'état in Venezuela. What transpired was a peaceful march to the presidential palace, which was met with gunfire and as a result, president Chávez resigned. That is NOT a coup d'état. However, when Chávez was reinstated on April 13th by a military action led by general Baduel, THAT is something that can rightly be called a coup d'état. In summary, the article's name should be changed, e.g. to "The events of April 11, 2002, in Venezuela" 104.61.71.9 ( talk) 19:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
As stated in my edit summaries, I've made some structural changes to make things clearer and added some content from existing sources. There's probably more to go, both because, 1. the article's content seems lacking on the subject of advanced planning of the coup given that topic's importance, and 2. I pulled some info from the "US alleged role" section to place it earlier in the article, so I'll get to that to avoid redundancy. That whole section should just really be limited to things that after the coup, since it is the "Aftermath" section, after all. For ex., I'm under the impression Chavez sort of tried to weaponize the idea that the U.S. was behind the coup later on for political purposes, so that's the kind of thing that could go there.
I also think the sections on the 11 April march should be moved into the overall "Coup" section given that's when it all got rolling. There's also some redundancy in content regarding the bridge shootings that would be more easily dealt with. Thoughts? Mbinebri ( talk) 16:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
As @ W1tchkr4ft 00, Bilorv, and Mbinebri: have pointed out in previous discussions, this article is very biased and heavily based on one source; Nelson. Nelson is the only source listed in the bibliography and is used in Wikivoice about 60 times. Nelson actually received US government funding to write Silence and the Scorpion through the Fulbright Program of the United States Cultural Exchange Programs. He is also not a political or historical professional, he is a creative writer specialized in fiction that was formerly a stockbroker and automotive systems engineer. He does have a bachelor's degree in international relations, but that wasn't his main "focus" (he admits that he could not focus on what he wanted to do with his life at the time). So we have a creative writer of fiction with no former professional history related to the topic funded by the US being sent to Venezuela in 2002 to write about the coup attempt... Nelson is not someone who should be contributing nearly as much information to the article as they are.
We also have dozens of citations from the United States Department of State. While I'm not going to put on tinfoil hat here, it is obvious why they should not be cited for any controversial information. As for anything non-controversial, that information should be provided by a more reliable third party source.
Regarding
NoonIcarus, your edits are confusing since you defend your removal of material in some articles, yet you oppose similar edits that involve the deletion of material by other users. For example at
Venezuelan opposition,
Venezuelan presidential crisis and
Operation Gideon (2020), you defended the removal of information that was provided by a single source, justifying the removal as "undue" or something similar. You also
removed information from three scholars, saying that it was "opinion." So, why should we be accepting the "opinion" of former engineer and stockbroker Nelson (who is not a
subject-matter expert per
WP:SELFPUB as he did not have "work in the relevant field [that] has previously been published by reliable, independent publications"
) while you attempt to erase information from scholars? Your
WP:SOFIXIT claims are not valid since according to
WP:ONUS "responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content"
.
Overall, much of this article is POV and heavily sourced from Nelson. We need some more sources and verification to support many of the bold claims. WMrapids ( talk) 16:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
"if the problem is using an editorial voice, then use attribution", ignoring that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, especially when it is as undue as having sixty claims made by Nelson that were presented in Wikivoice. We could use more sources to support what Nelson is claiming.
In 2000, the pro-Chávez National Assembly granted President Chávez emergency powers and the ability to rule by decree through an enabling act to tend to the poor state of the economy. additional citation(s) needed
On 13 November 2001, Chávez passed a package of 49 laws, using the enabling act which was set to expire the following day such as rearranging public ministries while also changing major laws in the government, oil businesses and land usage without approval of the National Assembly. additional citation(s) needed
National Assembly Deputy Juan Barreto told loyalists through the media covering the situation, "The call is to Miraflores! Everyone to Miraflores to defend your revolution! Don't let them through!" additional citation(s) needed
By 12:30 pm, thousands of government supporters were gathered around the palace blocking all routes to Miraflores except for the Llaguno Overpass, which was where the Bolivarian Circles had gathered to overlook the route. additional citation(s) needed
Pro-opposition police and chavistas entered a gun battle and few demonstrators began to follow behind them with pings of gunfire heard on the police armored vehicles, though the marchers fled shortly after as the violence grew. additional citation(s) needed
It's true the article heavily uses Brian A Nelson, but in this congested talk page I can't really see any issues raised with him apart from that he was a Fulbright Scholar (not normally used as evidence of being a poor source) and that he used to be a stockbroker. He wrote the Britannica article on Chavez, [2] and seems to have some relevant academic publications. [3] [4] [5] His book has a decent number of citations. [6] Are there scholarly or journalistic critiques of his take that you can point us to WMrapids? BobFromBrockley ( talk) 19:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2002 Venezuelan coup attempt article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
2002 Venezuelan coup attempt was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on April 11, 2006, April 11, 2007, April 11, 2008, April 11, 2009, April 11, 2017, and April 11, 2022. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
This article is very bad. It reads like it is from the lips of the american 'state department' than a website that aims towards a neutral point of view. It really seems deep within this article. I would like advice to how to go about fixing this article.
Thanks. x. SP00KY talk 15:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Chávez used a strategy of polarization in Venezuela, a them against us situation, in order to single out those who stood in the way of his progress. He would insult and use name calling against original supporters that would question him; the media, business leaders, the Catholic Church and the middle class.
Chávez fired ... members of the PDVSA board of directors on his Aló Presidente program, mocking each worker by name and used a referee whistle, as if to expel them from a soccer match
There is no consensus as to who was responsible for the deaths on that day, and this remains a very controversial issue(see MOS:CONTROVERSIAL)
... media owners down to reporters feeling threatened with Chávez even calling out individual journalists by name in speeches
Cabello [stated] the media would be "responsible for the blood that will be shed"to the United States Department of State. Given the U.S. state's lengthy history of invasions, coups and economic and military intervention in Latin America, it is clear that sources from the U.S. Department of State have limitations and issues of provenance.American media and individual American experts can differ, of course, from the U.S. government's conflicts of interests, but it seems to me that the article represents a limited range of views. I've added a {{ Systemic bias}} tag with the aim of drawing more edits to the article. — Bilorv ( talk) 12:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
On April 11th, 2002, there was NOT an attempt to do a coup d'état in Venezuela. What transpired was a peaceful march to the presidential palace, which was met with gunfire and as a result, president Chávez resigned. That is NOT a coup d'état. However, when Chávez was reinstated on April 13th by a military action led by general Baduel, THAT is something that can rightly be called a coup d'état. In summary, the article's name should be changed, e.g. to "The events of April 11, 2002, in Venezuela" 104.61.71.9 ( talk) 19:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
As stated in my edit summaries, I've made some structural changes to make things clearer and added some content from existing sources. There's probably more to go, both because, 1. the article's content seems lacking on the subject of advanced planning of the coup given that topic's importance, and 2. I pulled some info from the "US alleged role" section to place it earlier in the article, so I'll get to that to avoid redundancy. That whole section should just really be limited to things that after the coup, since it is the "Aftermath" section, after all. For ex., I'm under the impression Chavez sort of tried to weaponize the idea that the U.S. was behind the coup later on for political purposes, so that's the kind of thing that could go there.
I also think the sections on the 11 April march should be moved into the overall "Coup" section given that's when it all got rolling. There's also some redundancy in content regarding the bridge shootings that would be more easily dealt with. Thoughts? Mbinebri ( talk) 16:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
As @ W1tchkr4ft 00, Bilorv, and Mbinebri: have pointed out in previous discussions, this article is very biased and heavily based on one source; Nelson. Nelson is the only source listed in the bibliography and is used in Wikivoice about 60 times. Nelson actually received US government funding to write Silence and the Scorpion through the Fulbright Program of the United States Cultural Exchange Programs. He is also not a political or historical professional, he is a creative writer specialized in fiction that was formerly a stockbroker and automotive systems engineer. He does have a bachelor's degree in international relations, but that wasn't his main "focus" (he admits that he could not focus on what he wanted to do with his life at the time). So we have a creative writer of fiction with no former professional history related to the topic funded by the US being sent to Venezuela in 2002 to write about the coup attempt... Nelson is not someone who should be contributing nearly as much information to the article as they are.
We also have dozens of citations from the United States Department of State. While I'm not going to put on tinfoil hat here, it is obvious why they should not be cited for any controversial information. As for anything non-controversial, that information should be provided by a more reliable third party source.
Regarding
NoonIcarus, your edits are confusing since you defend your removal of material in some articles, yet you oppose similar edits that involve the deletion of material by other users. For example at
Venezuelan opposition,
Venezuelan presidential crisis and
Operation Gideon (2020), you defended the removal of information that was provided by a single source, justifying the removal as "undue" or something similar. You also
removed information from three scholars, saying that it was "opinion." So, why should we be accepting the "opinion" of former engineer and stockbroker Nelson (who is not a
subject-matter expert per
WP:SELFPUB as he did not have "work in the relevant field [that] has previously been published by reliable, independent publications"
) while you attempt to erase information from scholars? Your
WP:SOFIXIT claims are not valid since according to
WP:ONUS "responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content"
.
Overall, much of this article is POV and heavily sourced from Nelson. We need some more sources and verification to support many of the bold claims. WMrapids ( talk) 16:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
"if the problem is using an editorial voice, then use attribution", ignoring that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, especially when it is as undue as having sixty claims made by Nelson that were presented in Wikivoice. We could use more sources to support what Nelson is claiming.
In 2000, the pro-Chávez National Assembly granted President Chávez emergency powers and the ability to rule by decree through an enabling act to tend to the poor state of the economy. additional citation(s) needed
On 13 November 2001, Chávez passed a package of 49 laws, using the enabling act which was set to expire the following day such as rearranging public ministries while also changing major laws in the government, oil businesses and land usage without approval of the National Assembly. additional citation(s) needed
National Assembly Deputy Juan Barreto told loyalists through the media covering the situation, "The call is to Miraflores! Everyone to Miraflores to defend your revolution! Don't let them through!" additional citation(s) needed
By 12:30 pm, thousands of government supporters were gathered around the palace blocking all routes to Miraflores except for the Llaguno Overpass, which was where the Bolivarian Circles had gathered to overlook the route. additional citation(s) needed
Pro-opposition police and chavistas entered a gun battle and few demonstrators began to follow behind them with pings of gunfire heard on the police armored vehicles, though the marchers fled shortly after as the violence grew. additional citation(s) needed
It's true the article heavily uses Brian A Nelson, but in this congested talk page I can't really see any issues raised with him apart from that he was a Fulbright Scholar (not normally used as evidence of being a poor source) and that he used to be a stockbroker. He wrote the Britannica article on Chavez, [2] and seems to have some relevant academic publications. [3] [4] [5] His book has a decent number of citations. [6] Are there scholarly or journalistic critiques of his take that you can point us to WMrapids? BobFromBrockley ( talk) 19:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)