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 |
Hi I am new so forgive any break with convention on my part... I think this aricle is quite biased. Especially with ragrds to how it portrays the two sides of the argumet (the coup after is all is made up of disupted versions of events). The authors assertions hint towards anti-Chavez bias, for example citing an anti-Chavez website's diatribe against The Revolution Will Not be Televised to claim general opposition to this documentary. However, this documentary has been widely acclaimed by the BBC, various European broadcasters, the NYT and Amnesty.
I would suggest ammendments which restructure the article to be more balanced. Can I just make these? (I made a slight one already). -- Nights 07:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Woah is the article new? I'm surprised there is no talk page.
Why is there no mention of what the media (private and public) was doing during this time? I understand that this gets into areas which border on POV, but I think it's important to get across (what seems a fact to me) that the coup was something which involved large sections of the venezuelan population on one side or the other. Not only were they many many people out on the streets for each side, but pretty much every element of the venezuelan nation took part to some extent - the unions the media etc. I'd like to see something about the news blackout that occured on the final day of the coup and something about the footage of the coup leaders thanking the private news stations for the help in achieving the coup. I think it's important to get across the difficulty of finding any unbiased information due to the chavez presidency not only politicizing supporters but politicizing the opposition as well.
Anyway, i thought i'd try to open up a bit of discussion before i make any changes to what seems to be (largely) a very well done article on a subject that is very difficult to keep NPOV.
I can't seem to find any stories or sites that show the US actually condemned the coup. --
Lachs 00:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
The statement "(opposition-controlled) media." is not objective, the rejection of the hypothesis of kidnapping was supported by certain individuals and was not an affirmation of the Venezuelan media itself.
Sandy, thanks for the edits, and all your work on these pages. I think you can teach me a lot.
Thanks for letting my minor edits stay, at least for now.
I was thinking that "Supporters of Chávez and the film" could be changed to "Several organizations".
I will let you decide. I trust your judgement, and have not watched these pages at all.
Best wishes. Travb ( talk) 01:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
There was a mediation on the main article over the issue of whether blogs were allowed as external links. Flanker argued vehemently they were not allowed, per WP:EL. I argued they should be allowed, under WP:IGNORE in the special circumstance that there was no other external link in English to provide balance on that particular article. That doesn't apply here: the balance is tipping, so the blog should go. Sandy 02:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
The statement: "It has been widely debated among both supporters and critics of the Venezuelan government," is something that should receive a source. It's obvious why it would controversial for those involved in the coup, but not so clear why Chavez supporters would find fault.
Azymuthca 22:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Citing sources#Say where you got it, "It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source...The credibility of your article rests on the credibility of the web page..." The reference in the article says "New York Times" but points to www.lossless-audio.com and the credibility of this site is doubious. JRSP 00:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
As the article is currently written, Carmona seems to suddenly pop up randomly and neither this article nor his own fully explains it. Does anyone have any referenced sources explaining why he, specifically, was placed as president? Also, any known information on his exile (where he is now, why, what terms, was he sentenced to exile, or did he leave, etc) and what it involves would probably also be helpful to the article. 84.9.83.141 18:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
This article or section does not cite its references or sources. Therefore, it is not a Good Article. -- GoOdCoNtEnT 19:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
This is an excellent article. Was very informative. Just wanted to say thanks to it's authors.
Hi, I put new pics of the protest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.72.233.81 ( talk) 20:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Image:Anselmi rincon tierralta.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 04:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Image:Hugo Chávez under arrest in Turiamo (2002) .jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 23:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Image:Puentellaguno.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 05:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
As I querulated above, the story lacks a sequence of events. The section Events leading up to the coup starts a sequence of events, then stops and delves into a speculation on who killed whome, as if the background events were known to everyone. Events leading up to the coup is therefore a nice starting place to evolve to the sequence of events.
The speculations deserves a subsection or a section Unsolved questions or such. Said: Rursus ( ☻) 07:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Is now available. Fidel Castro, in diplomatic contact with Chavez at the time, offers a wealth of detail to Le Monde Diplomatique editor Ignacio Ramonet. A partial English translation of a forthcoming book is online. -- Carwil 05:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/21/usa.venezuela —Preceding unsigned comment added by AaThinker ( talk • contribs) 20:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Any honest discussion of the 2002 coup needs to include coverage of Plan Avila. The page on wikipedia for the plan itself is rather sparse, and has been subject to repeat removal of any mention of Chavez in the past.
Basically, Plan Avila was a plan for the military to maintain order in Caracas. Issued once before in 1989, it led to possible thousands of deaths. Chavez ordered Avila again in response to the protests, and military commanders refused to carry out, sparking the coup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.192.88 ( talk) 17:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Any proof of this? Considering of course, that the coup leaders themselves give a completely contrary view, in the documentary its self (saying that they had planned it in advance and had called for the protests as part of the plan)- and that this earlier Avila that resulted in these deaths was pre-Chavez by a number of years- is this not just after-the-fact propaganda based on precisely nothing? Also, it wasn't only issued once before. It had been issued by Chavez before on a papal visit, resulting in 0 deaths. 92.27.2.159 ( talk) 20:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Here we have two proves. First a military radio recording between General Rosendo and President Hugo Chavez (aka code name :TIBURON 1 or Shark 1), Chavez activates the Plan Avila, which is to deploy the Ayala platoon commanded by Jorge Luis Garcia Carneiro with armed tanks to avoid civilians from get into Miraflores Palace. Yes, sometimes the plan Avila is activated for activities like the Pope Visit, but April 11 was NOT a normal day. The second proof is a recently public statement on April 11 2010, by the retired General in Chief Jorge Luis Garcia Carneiro, who declared:“Ese 11 de abril en Fuerte Tiuna, más o menos a está hora de la mañana, estábamos sacando los tanques para poner en ejecución el Plan Ávila y decirle al presidente Chávez: aquí está su Fuerza Armada disponible para defender el proceso”, "On April 11 in Fort Tiuna, around this time in the morning, we were taking out the armed cars to activate the Avila Plan and to tell the president Chavez: Here is you armed force available to defend the revolution" http://www.correodelorinoco.gob.ve/politica/jorge-luis-garcia-carneiro-hoy-mas-que-nunca-fuerzas-armadas-estan-comprometidas-pueblo/ BCLH 14:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BCLH ( talk • contribs)
From a neutral point of view, I can readily identify the bias in this article. It adds words that are not neccesary, for example:
"The Venezuelan coup attempt of 2002 was a failed coup d'état on April 11, 2002 that lasted only 47 hours, "
When the statement could perfectly be, "It lasted 47 hours". It goes on by giving opinions and points of views on the events that happened on April 11, 2002... this should be fact based, not "hearsay".
In a section article defends itself with the word "alleged", it further goes on by quoting the word resignation instead of putting it on italics.. as if his resignation was completely false.. that there was no fact of his resignation instead of that the word was and could have been misconstrued.
The article speaks of punishment for involvement, speaks of US invasion into Venezuelan national politics.. it does not however support in any way Hugo Chavez´s rationale in that U.S. was and has been involved in efforts to overturn the power against Chavez´s favor.
The way the United States have expressed themselves resembles loyalty and respect for what we call diplomacy. Chavez does not seem to hold these values.
I live in Nicaragua, the president deems to be socialist, a prominent up and coming leader, but behind the scenes he is becoming the wealthiest man in the nation by corrupt capitalist means.
You decide what you want for your country, check our track record between democracy and "socialism". it speaks for itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iatenorio ( talk • contribs) 23:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The Tribunal Supremo de Justicia in Venezuela ruled that those events were NOT a coup d'état or a failed attempt. I think the name of the article should be 'April 2002 Events in Venezuela' or something similar. Andrewire ( talk 11:13 8 May 2009 (BST) —Preceding undated comment added 10:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC).
JRSP wrote: "Please discuss your proposals at talk."
Before I get into the reasons for my edits, let me state that these are not proposals I make to your acceptance or dismissal, JRSP, but my edits, en par with your edits. No one is the owner of this article.
Now, to my edits reverted by you (I leave out the edits you accepted), the difference can be seen here.
First, the lead:
Contentwise, I reduced the things state in the lead, as a lead need not contain every little detail that can be better explained at length further down (such as the 47 hours duration). But there is also a POV problem:
You say sources say "illegal detention", "congress dissolved", "constitution declared void", so it is WP:NPOV)
Even if the sources contained these words, this wouldn't make it NPOV as
a) sources need not be neutral as is required of our article,
b) quotes can give a wrong impression.
This sounds entirely different. Either we give the full picture in the lead or we leave that to the main body of text and make it short and simple in the intro. (I would be okay with either solution, though obviously I prefer the one indicated by my edits: lead short, main text long.) But a wording that suggests an end to parliament and constitution is neither in line with the source nor NPOV. (That your version edit summary uses the wrong name for parliament - important since to my knowledge there used to be a congress pre-Chavez - and that the supreme court is not mentioned in the source - but clearly was also dissolved alongside of a range of other officials - is a smaller matter. Still it shows that this is not all about "what the sources say"). So, this problem is of the (b) sort.
Stylistically: some wordings are needlessly complicated and create large nominal blocks - therefore I removed "head of state". This should uncontroversial.
So should the unification of two paragraphs in the detention section be. After your edits, the "Chavez was offered to resign and accepted" paragraph has become too small to stand on its own IMHO.
As for the opposing documentation. You claim it is not notable (note: the imdb link was never meant to say anything about notability). But in order to ensure neutrality all sides of a debate must be included. We cannot cover at great length the Irish documentary (which I have seen and which indeed is very one-sided even without doubting the facts given) and then try to write out of existence that there is an opposing viewpoint made into a film (which I have not yet seen). Why is it that two documentaries opposing the "official narrative" of the massacre are included (the second one is not shown to be notable either), while one opposing them is removed. If anything we should err on the side of inclusivity, on the side of covering all sides.
I await your response. Str1977 (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
How about this:
A neutral summary (i.e. one giving retaining this passage's neutral depiction of the entire picture, not highlighting only parts) can then be inserted into the lead.
One note, the whole section thus far is unsourced and contains several things at odds with what I heard, especially in regard to the supposedly occupied TV station. Str1977 (talk) 09:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
It also was a disappointing experience for me. I have now implemented my last suggestion in the relevant section and am open to suggestions of what could be added there. The promises are secondary to the dissolutions but still they may not be separated without creating a POV problem. The academic quotes is a reliable soure for an opinion on Carmona's decreed and I don't oppose his inclusion in the relevant section (not the lead!) as an opinion. Str1977 (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Please stop making so many changes at once - it's really quite unhelpful. You talked about adding to the lead - instead you rewrite substantially, and remove details. At the same time, you talked about adding the Redondo remarks, and go far beyond that (eg dropping "interim" from section heading). And you've removed clear and well-sourced content from the Carmona section which I wrote, without explanation or justification. Slow down, one thing at a time, please. Rd232 talk 17:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) What's wrong with your lead? Well generally your version (intentionally or otherwise) minimises the illegitimacy of the Carmona regime. It removes "illegally" from "illegally detained", it downgrades voiding of the Constitution to reversing "political changes introduced under Chavez" (which could be the orientation of the horse on the flag...). Your body text does similar things, dropping the long-term consensus "interim" from "interim presidency", and dropping various well-sourced details of what the suspension of institutions involved. Please, let's stick to discussing changes one at a time, and no more reverts whilst Wikipedia's so insanely slow it's borderline broken (I assume it's not just me, since other sites are loading fine). Rd232 talk 18:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, so the major points seem to be
In sum, I say stick with mine as the base version, and then agree specific changes based on that. You want the promises more prominent in the body and lead - OK, so do that then, and propose other changes as you think necessary. But, y'know, preferably in small quantities. (For larger-scale changes, if you really want, a userspace draft is helpful.)
Rd232 talk 20:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Str1977: 2. Carmona section: the current version (my version) has more details, which are all well sourced (apart from the last para, which is a bit problematic, not least in its overlap with the previous section where some of the points are sourced). Since your primary concern seems to be the proximity of the promises to the dissolution, and we've now established that these are part of the Decree, we should be able to tweak that without radical surgery. 4. the lead. In general, both leads are too short; you complain of too many details and remove some, but the real solution is add more. I think Sandy has some views on things that need to be added. So I think we should create a new section about revising the lead once her concerns are clarified; in the mean time, I definitely think expansion is the way to go, for this article length. In specific: I note that your lead has the start and end dates, where the old one has start date + time. The 47 hours gives a nice flavour I think, but it seems to be unsourced, so I guess it should go unless someone can come up with one. Rd232 talk 19:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Here's the other thing. JR also removed a passage, uncited for three years:
"General Rosendo says he presented the newly deposed Chávez two options: choose to remain in Venezuela on the condition that he stand trial for the 11 April killings, or be exiled. Chávez reportedly responded that he and his family wished to be exiled to Cuba, on the conditions that Rosendo personally guarantee the safety of Chávez's relatives and that Chávez would depart via Maiquetía's Simón Bolívar International Airport. citation needed"
I agreed with the formal correctness of removing it after such a long time but by chance came across a similar event.
During the "X-ray" documentary, General Rosendo was on the panel and he related that he brought Chavez the generals' proposals, as the President had requested him to do. (His arrival is also shown in "Televised").
Rosendo speaks of two different proposals: one coming from the army spoke of Chavez leaving the country with guarantees for his family's safety (and a later indictment of Chavez), the other from the Defense Ministry and representatives of all the armed forces, calling for his resignation and prosecution inside the country. The Guard's commander agreed with the army proposal. Rosendo took the two proposals to Chavez, first relating the army's proposal, as he thought it more viable. Chavez didn't wait for the second proposal and accepted the first. When asked where he would go, Chavez suggested Cuba and made the condition that he would be going through Maiaquetia. Rosendo said he'd guarantee the family's safety. Rosendo goes on to describe disagreement between the generals who decided against Chavez leaving the country, that he had to resign and would be tried in the country.
This is the account given by Rosendo himself. Therefore I suggest restoring the information (adapted to reflect the fact that though there were two proposals, Chavez only heard and accepted the first and that the generals later changed their mind. Str1977 (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
It's not clear to me why this particular issue of different resignation proposals is that interesting. Cannon (2004:296) (ref in article) has some details on differing accounts of the resignation, in a way which actually matters: the opposition declared the uprising a rebellion under Article 350 of the Constitution, with a "constitutional power vacuum" ensuing due to Chavez' resignation. The government (and Cannon and another source he cites agree) say that Chavez, being held incomunicado and against his will, could not legally resign without endorsement by the National Assembly; and that if he had resigned, power would have passed to the Vice President. In other words, the question of whether Chavez actually agreed to resign, and if so on what terms, is irrelevant. Rd232 talk 16:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
This has alreay been discussed with Sandy on her talk page but I want to comment on this too. The article says Chavez was "illegally detained" in the lead when the source used does in fact say:
"In April, during the short-lived government of Pedro Carmona, military officers held President Chavez for 36 hours against his will. Additionally, security forces conducted raids without warrants and took some Chavez supporters into custody illegally ..."
It does not say that Chavez was illegally detained.
Furthermore, let me add what I wrote on Sandy's talk page:
This not so much about whether a source says "illegally detained" (as it happens, the source doesn't say this) - as "illegal" is a matter of judgement and hence a matter of controversy.
Rd you said that the "that the detention of the head of state during a coup is illegal" - if that is so we do not need to hit home in every sentence that a single act was illegal. We already say it was a coup - and there is no going around it: it was a coup done by the military leadership with at least some popular support but still a coup.
I also do not see a discussion about whether it was "detention" or a "visit" - this is a strawman set up by you. Sure, it was detention as Chavez was supposed to stand trial sometime in the future. I don't see why "coup" and "detention" is not enough, why you have to add "illegal"?
Str1977 (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, JRSP, for supplying the exact quote. " ... es claro que el presidente estaba sometido a coacción e, incluso, privado de libertad personal." This does not say he was illegally detained, so I've removed the statement. Is this typical of how sources are represented throughout the article? Quotes from offline sources are going to be needed to verify. The article is rife with original research, too. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
The source given (Cannon 2004, citing Rey 2002) was perfectly clear: "There was rather, according to Rey, an ‘unconstitutional power vacuum’ because the President had been illegally imprisoned, and the Vice-President was in hiding to avoid the same fate, yet there was no military leader prepared to assume power (Rey, 2002:10)." Rd232 talk 09:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
We're still in the same place; cherry picking of sources, failure to use a preponderance of sources to cite the claim (see WP:UNDUE, and please report what NYT, LA Times, BBC, and a multitide of other mainstream reliable sources say), a translation that doesn't say he was illegally detained, a source that doesn't say that at all, and a source, that while a good one for many other sorts of text (VenEconomy) is *not* at all a reliable source for this sort of claim. (BTW, please provide the quote for VenEconomy, so we can discuss the exact text, even though it is simply NOT a reliable source for such a claim-- it is a reliable source for certain business and economic claims, for example. Please stop with the undue, and cite mainstream, reliable sources, of which there are hundreds that do not support this claim, which is cherrypicking of sources to support a claim that is not supported by mainstream reliable sources. Further, please read and understand WP:LEAD; it is to be summary. Contentious claims ban be explored within the body of the article (and fringe claims don't belong in the body of the article either, but that's a different issue); they are explored with attribution, such as "so-and-so says X by such-and-such says Y". Fringe claims don't belong in the lead, and minority views can be explored in the body of the article. Next, when providing and translating quotes, don't quote part of the sentence or the phrase out of context: include the entire thing. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
A Lexis-Nexis search on "Chavez 'illegally detained' 2002 coup" yields 18 articles total with only *one* article for the last ten years that uses the words "illegally detained" to refer to Chavez (from AllAfrica Global Media. (allafrica.com)-- maybe their reporter lifted his text from Wiki).
The words "illegally detained" do come up in the 17 other articles, but not in relation to Chavez: they are about the JFK incident or other events for example:
That's it. One article in an obscure African paper.
The same search, without the word "illegally" over ten years in Lexis-Nexis returns 515 articles (not all of those pertain to Chavez, some are comments from Chavez on the Honduras coup, and there are too many to review all of them). Within those articles, one finds things like:
Hundreds of articles on the coup that do *not* use the word "illegally". That is a search not just on NYT, but major newspapers and publications worldwide, such as the one African source that does use the word "illegally".
There is *no* due weight in reliable sources supporting the use of the word illegally; the events leading up to Chavez's removal, and the trial and its results after, need to be fully and neutrally discussed in the text, without reliance on one source, omitting part of the story.
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Here is the edit that added the word "illegally" on March 30, 2008, although the source given did not support that statement. More interestingly, the information in that BBC source is exactly the sort of information that is now missing from this article, replaced instead by an over-reliance on Bart Jones. After the "illegally" was added, JRSP's next edits were to tag a source to be checked, and add a source to the lead, and remove unsourced text, but he missed the failed verification on "illegally" in the same lead. The word was first removed on August 8, 2009 (it stood inaccurate and unsourced in this article before challenged for a year and a half. JRSP then added it back, with the faulty source, that endured until Awickert challenged it and it was reverted four times. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 07:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I think this "illegally" thing has taken up far more time than the issue justifies, and I can live with dropping it for now; at some point the legality issue needs addressing in the body, and then at some point it can be summarised in the lead. However, I would like an explanation for the rejection of the following reliable source noted above, in favour of WP:OR by searching Lexis: The source given (Cannon 2004, citing Rey 2002) was perfectly clear: "There was rather, according to Rey, an ‘unconstitutional power vacuum’ because the President had been illegally imprisoned, and the Vice-President was in hiding to avoid the same fate, yet there was no military leader prepared to assume power (Rey, 2002:10)." In any case, for developing the legality issue in the body, Cannon (2004) will be an excellent source. Rd232 talk 10:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
The section "Oliver Stone film rumors" is outdated, I think it refers to South of the Border (2009 film) which, as far as I know, does not deal particularly with the coup so I think the section can be removed. JRSP ( talk) 02:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
As is mentioned in the article: some organizations argued the accuracy of the documentary. A counter documentary has been made: X Ray of a lie and it seems to me that it should be mentioned in this article. You cannot say that google video is not a proper reference. What we reference here is the fact that some organizations argued against the accuracy. And BTW there are already google video on this article.
This video has been made by film producer and BBC-trained engineer Wolfgang Schalk. It is referenced in the German version of wikipedia. See [7]. I it is fact as notable as the film "the revolution will not be televised", and I even wonder if it should not be a full paragraph, just like the other film. I am prepared not to go that far, but the existence of such film should at least be clearly mentioned. Voui ( talk) 20:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
There is far too much weight given in this article to a WP:FRINGE and controversial documentary (Revolution will not be televised); that content needs to be substantially reduced, covered in the documentary article, and this article needs to focus on reliable sources. How many reliable sources discuss that documentary? Why is it even included here, other than a few sentences referencing the film article? More undue, which skews this article to POV and WP:UNDUE weight to the exclusion of reliable sources. At most, this article should have one sentence summarizing the two films: one film (Revolution will not be televised) says X, andother (X-ray of a lie) says Y, refer to those articles, and get the debate out of here, according to due weight accorded in reliable sources. This article focuses on all the wrong things, and that takes too much time. Those controversies belong elsewhere, this article is unbalanced, POV, and focusing on the wrong issues, not even trying to tell the story leading up to Chavez's resignation. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
A lead should summarize the entire article; this lead completely leaves out any mention of the events leading up to Chavez's removal, and jumps straight to Carmona. (Of course, there is also an incomplete accounting of events leading to his removal, but that's another issue ... for now, the lead should summarize the article, not omit half of the story.) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Here is an older, more correct version of the lead:
The older version is more neutral and correct, but still had left out mention of the protests against Chavez and the events leading to his resignation, but it's a stat towards more neutrality than what is there now. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 06:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Sourcing can be improved here (and such sources may be useful elsewhere too). For instance Cannon (2004:297) (full cite in article):
Opposition criticisms of the government’s aggressive behaviour towards them do not take account of the persistent, equally aggressive and almost universal media campaign against the government at both home and abroad (Various authors, 2002; Werz, 2001). Their complaints about Chavez’s attacks on the media and the effects this had on freedom of expression were compromised by their almost total disregard for transmitting the facts during the coup. Indeed, according to one analyst, ‘there was an information blackout planned in solidarity or connivance with the de facto government [of Carmona]’ (Gonzalez Plessmann, 2002: 20).
Gonzalez Plessmann, A. J. (2002) Venezuela: oposicion y estado de derecho. Observatorio Social de America Latina Year III 7: 19–23.
Rd232 talk 14:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Sandy: whats a 'reliable mainstream source'? Where a figure like President Chavez is concerned, the MSM aka the corporate press, is automaticlly 'un-reliable'. Jalusbrian ( talk) 11:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
This article fails to summarize and discuss events leading up to the removal of Chavez, cherrypicks sources, does not give due weight to mainstream reliable sources, gives undue weight to a controversial documentary, uses and heavily relies on non-reliable sources like Chavez administration government sources, Eva Golinger, Venezuelanalysis, one journal paper to the exclusion of a preponderance of reliable sources (Bart Jones) and others, has a WP:LEAD that doesn't summarize the article and gives undue weight to controversy, and fails to include updated and reliable mainstream sources. Worse, it fails to even tell the story of Chavez's removal completely, focusing instead on a controversial "documentary" which gets scant review in reliable sources, and skipping over a full analysis of Chavez's role in his toppling, focusing instead on the failed interim government.
And recent articles like this NYT aren't reflected at all; updates to the article since 2006 have been to make it rely heavily on one journal article (Bart Jones), to the exclusion of a multitude of other sources. Cherrypicking from one source is not how neutral articles are achieved on Wikipedia.
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Newsflash Sandy....Chavez never resigned. The 'protests' against Chavez are by those who formerly ruled and were dismayed by their sudden loss of power to as they say a 'black monkey'. Your whole tenor speaks of someone steeped in 'non-reliability' bias Jalusbrian ( talk) 11:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
And by the way, the lead still warrants some mention that this has never been ruled a coup in Venezuela; you can expand the sentence rather than revert it. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 06:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
For a partial listing of items presented incompletely here, see User:SandyGeorgia/Chavez sources, in particular, User:SandyGeorgia/Chavez sources#.22Coup.22.2C general strike.2C recall referendum.2C Sumate. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Just how 'reliable' is the NYT? Which brought us non-reliable info on Iraq WMDS!? And why are the Chavez administration, Eva Golnger etc non-reliable? What you maen is theyb dont refeclt your very obviously non-reliable POV, Sandy! Mainstream sources(aka the corporate press) have a long history of being 'non-reliable'..witness how they backed the 2002 aborted coup and the Iraq invasion Jalusbrian ( talk) 11:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The last sentence of the introduction states "The United States and Spain quickly acknowledged the de facto pro-US Carmona government, but ended up condemning the coup after it had been defeated."[9] I clicked on the footnote to see the source, which links to a page at the Venezuelan Embassy, but the link is dead. Please fix or remove this sentence. Thanks.
link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Venezuelan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat_attempt#cite_note-embassy-8
Proxy003 (
talk) 04:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
how comes there is no mention of the us' immediate recogntion of the new govt? Lihaas ( talk) 07:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
The coup did consummate for two days. It shouldn't be considered an "attempt". -- Amnesico29 ( talk) 19:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
In the last couple of days I've put a lot of effort into expanding the article, filling in big gaps and clarifying a lot of things. I'm thinking of putting it forward as a Good Article nominee, but before getting to that I really need regulars here to have a close look at the current article and see if there are any issues to be resolved before that can happen. thanks, Rd232 talk 18:19, 18 October 2010 (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 |
Hi I am new so forgive any break with convention on my part... I think this aricle is quite biased. Especially with ragrds to how it portrays the two sides of the argumet (the coup after is all is made up of disupted versions of events). The authors assertions hint towards anti-Chavez bias, for example citing an anti-Chavez website's diatribe against The Revolution Will Not be Televised to claim general opposition to this documentary. However, this documentary has been widely acclaimed by the BBC, various European broadcasters, the NYT and Amnesty.
I would suggest ammendments which restructure the article to be more balanced. Can I just make these? (I made a slight one already). -- Nights 07:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Woah is the article new? I'm surprised there is no talk page.
Why is there no mention of what the media (private and public) was doing during this time? I understand that this gets into areas which border on POV, but I think it's important to get across (what seems a fact to me) that the coup was something which involved large sections of the venezuelan population on one side or the other. Not only were they many many people out on the streets for each side, but pretty much every element of the venezuelan nation took part to some extent - the unions the media etc. I'd like to see something about the news blackout that occured on the final day of the coup and something about the footage of the coup leaders thanking the private news stations for the help in achieving the coup. I think it's important to get across the difficulty of finding any unbiased information due to the chavez presidency not only politicizing supporters but politicizing the opposition as well.
Anyway, i thought i'd try to open up a bit of discussion before i make any changes to what seems to be (largely) a very well done article on a subject that is very difficult to keep NPOV.
I can't seem to find any stories or sites that show the US actually condemned the coup. --
Lachs 00:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
The statement "(opposition-controlled) media." is not objective, the rejection of the hypothesis of kidnapping was supported by certain individuals and was not an affirmation of the Venezuelan media itself.
Sandy, thanks for the edits, and all your work on these pages. I think you can teach me a lot.
Thanks for letting my minor edits stay, at least for now.
I was thinking that "Supporters of Chávez and the film" could be changed to "Several organizations".
I will let you decide. I trust your judgement, and have not watched these pages at all.
Best wishes. Travb ( talk) 01:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
There was a mediation on the main article over the issue of whether blogs were allowed as external links. Flanker argued vehemently they were not allowed, per WP:EL. I argued they should be allowed, under WP:IGNORE in the special circumstance that there was no other external link in English to provide balance on that particular article. That doesn't apply here: the balance is tipping, so the blog should go. Sandy 02:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
The statement: "It has been widely debated among both supporters and critics of the Venezuelan government," is something that should receive a source. It's obvious why it would controversial for those involved in the coup, but not so clear why Chavez supporters would find fault.
Azymuthca 22:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Citing sources#Say where you got it, "It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source...The credibility of your article rests on the credibility of the web page..." The reference in the article says "New York Times" but points to www.lossless-audio.com and the credibility of this site is doubious. JRSP 00:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
As the article is currently written, Carmona seems to suddenly pop up randomly and neither this article nor his own fully explains it. Does anyone have any referenced sources explaining why he, specifically, was placed as president? Also, any known information on his exile (where he is now, why, what terms, was he sentenced to exile, or did he leave, etc) and what it involves would probably also be helpful to the article. 84.9.83.141 18:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
This article or section does not cite its references or sources. Therefore, it is not a Good Article. -- GoOdCoNtEnT 19:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
This is an excellent article. Was very informative. Just wanted to say thanks to it's authors.
Hi, I put new pics of the protest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.72.233.81 ( talk) 20:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Image:Anselmi rincon tierralta.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 04:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Image:Hugo Chávez under arrest in Turiamo (2002) .jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 23:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Image:Puentellaguno.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 05:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
As I querulated above, the story lacks a sequence of events. The section Events leading up to the coup starts a sequence of events, then stops and delves into a speculation on who killed whome, as if the background events were known to everyone. Events leading up to the coup is therefore a nice starting place to evolve to the sequence of events.
The speculations deserves a subsection or a section Unsolved questions or such. Said: Rursus ( ☻) 07:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Is now available. Fidel Castro, in diplomatic contact with Chavez at the time, offers a wealth of detail to Le Monde Diplomatique editor Ignacio Ramonet. A partial English translation of a forthcoming book is online. -- Carwil 05:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/21/usa.venezuela —Preceding unsigned comment added by AaThinker ( talk • contribs) 20:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Any honest discussion of the 2002 coup needs to include coverage of Plan Avila. The page on wikipedia for the plan itself is rather sparse, and has been subject to repeat removal of any mention of Chavez in the past.
Basically, Plan Avila was a plan for the military to maintain order in Caracas. Issued once before in 1989, it led to possible thousands of deaths. Chavez ordered Avila again in response to the protests, and military commanders refused to carry out, sparking the coup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.192.88 ( talk) 17:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Any proof of this? Considering of course, that the coup leaders themselves give a completely contrary view, in the documentary its self (saying that they had planned it in advance and had called for the protests as part of the plan)- and that this earlier Avila that resulted in these deaths was pre-Chavez by a number of years- is this not just after-the-fact propaganda based on precisely nothing? Also, it wasn't only issued once before. It had been issued by Chavez before on a papal visit, resulting in 0 deaths. 92.27.2.159 ( talk) 20:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Here we have two proves. First a military radio recording between General Rosendo and President Hugo Chavez (aka code name :TIBURON 1 or Shark 1), Chavez activates the Plan Avila, which is to deploy the Ayala platoon commanded by Jorge Luis Garcia Carneiro with armed tanks to avoid civilians from get into Miraflores Palace. Yes, sometimes the plan Avila is activated for activities like the Pope Visit, but April 11 was NOT a normal day. The second proof is a recently public statement on April 11 2010, by the retired General in Chief Jorge Luis Garcia Carneiro, who declared:“Ese 11 de abril en Fuerte Tiuna, más o menos a está hora de la mañana, estábamos sacando los tanques para poner en ejecución el Plan Ávila y decirle al presidente Chávez: aquí está su Fuerza Armada disponible para defender el proceso”, "On April 11 in Fort Tiuna, around this time in the morning, we were taking out the armed cars to activate the Avila Plan and to tell the president Chavez: Here is you armed force available to defend the revolution" http://www.correodelorinoco.gob.ve/politica/jorge-luis-garcia-carneiro-hoy-mas-que-nunca-fuerzas-armadas-estan-comprometidas-pueblo/ BCLH 14:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BCLH ( talk • contribs)
From a neutral point of view, I can readily identify the bias in this article. It adds words that are not neccesary, for example:
"The Venezuelan coup attempt of 2002 was a failed coup d'état on April 11, 2002 that lasted only 47 hours, "
When the statement could perfectly be, "It lasted 47 hours". It goes on by giving opinions and points of views on the events that happened on April 11, 2002... this should be fact based, not "hearsay".
In a section article defends itself with the word "alleged", it further goes on by quoting the word resignation instead of putting it on italics.. as if his resignation was completely false.. that there was no fact of his resignation instead of that the word was and could have been misconstrued.
The article speaks of punishment for involvement, speaks of US invasion into Venezuelan national politics.. it does not however support in any way Hugo Chavez´s rationale in that U.S. was and has been involved in efforts to overturn the power against Chavez´s favor.
The way the United States have expressed themselves resembles loyalty and respect for what we call diplomacy. Chavez does not seem to hold these values.
I live in Nicaragua, the president deems to be socialist, a prominent up and coming leader, but behind the scenes he is becoming the wealthiest man in the nation by corrupt capitalist means.
You decide what you want for your country, check our track record between democracy and "socialism". it speaks for itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iatenorio ( talk • contribs) 23:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The Tribunal Supremo de Justicia in Venezuela ruled that those events were NOT a coup d'état or a failed attempt. I think the name of the article should be 'April 2002 Events in Venezuela' or something similar. Andrewire ( talk 11:13 8 May 2009 (BST) —Preceding undated comment added 10:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC).
JRSP wrote: "Please discuss your proposals at talk."
Before I get into the reasons for my edits, let me state that these are not proposals I make to your acceptance or dismissal, JRSP, but my edits, en par with your edits. No one is the owner of this article.
Now, to my edits reverted by you (I leave out the edits you accepted), the difference can be seen here.
First, the lead:
Contentwise, I reduced the things state in the lead, as a lead need not contain every little detail that can be better explained at length further down (such as the 47 hours duration). But there is also a POV problem:
You say sources say "illegal detention", "congress dissolved", "constitution declared void", so it is WP:NPOV)
Even if the sources contained these words, this wouldn't make it NPOV as
a) sources need not be neutral as is required of our article,
b) quotes can give a wrong impression.
This sounds entirely different. Either we give the full picture in the lead or we leave that to the main body of text and make it short and simple in the intro. (I would be okay with either solution, though obviously I prefer the one indicated by my edits: lead short, main text long.) But a wording that suggests an end to parliament and constitution is neither in line with the source nor NPOV. (That your version edit summary uses the wrong name for parliament - important since to my knowledge there used to be a congress pre-Chavez - and that the supreme court is not mentioned in the source - but clearly was also dissolved alongside of a range of other officials - is a smaller matter. Still it shows that this is not all about "what the sources say"). So, this problem is of the (b) sort.
Stylistically: some wordings are needlessly complicated and create large nominal blocks - therefore I removed "head of state". This should uncontroversial.
So should the unification of two paragraphs in the detention section be. After your edits, the "Chavez was offered to resign and accepted" paragraph has become too small to stand on its own IMHO.
As for the opposing documentation. You claim it is not notable (note: the imdb link was never meant to say anything about notability). But in order to ensure neutrality all sides of a debate must be included. We cannot cover at great length the Irish documentary (which I have seen and which indeed is very one-sided even without doubting the facts given) and then try to write out of existence that there is an opposing viewpoint made into a film (which I have not yet seen). Why is it that two documentaries opposing the "official narrative" of the massacre are included (the second one is not shown to be notable either), while one opposing them is removed. If anything we should err on the side of inclusivity, on the side of covering all sides.
I await your response. Str1977 (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
How about this:
A neutral summary (i.e. one giving retaining this passage's neutral depiction of the entire picture, not highlighting only parts) can then be inserted into the lead.
One note, the whole section thus far is unsourced and contains several things at odds with what I heard, especially in regard to the supposedly occupied TV station. Str1977 (talk) 09:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
It also was a disappointing experience for me. I have now implemented my last suggestion in the relevant section and am open to suggestions of what could be added there. The promises are secondary to the dissolutions but still they may not be separated without creating a POV problem. The academic quotes is a reliable soure for an opinion on Carmona's decreed and I don't oppose his inclusion in the relevant section (not the lead!) as an opinion. Str1977 (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Please stop making so many changes at once - it's really quite unhelpful. You talked about adding to the lead - instead you rewrite substantially, and remove details. At the same time, you talked about adding the Redondo remarks, and go far beyond that (eg dropping "interim" from section heading). And you've removed clear and well-sourced content from the Carmona section which I wrote, without explanation or justification. Slow down, one thing at a time, please. Rd232 talk 17:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) What's wrong with your lead? Well generally your version (intentionally or otherwise) minimises the illegitimacy of the Carmona regime. It removes "illegally" from "illegally detained", it downgrades voiding of the Constitution to reversing "political changes introduced under Chavez" (which could be the orientation of the horse on the flag...). Your body text does similar things, dropping the long-term consensus "interim" from "interim presidency", and dropping various well-sourced details of what the suspension of institutions involved. Please, let's stick to discussing changes one at a time, and no more reverts whilst Wikipedia's so insanely slow it's borderline broken (I assume it's not just me, since other sites are loading fine). Rd232 talk 18:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, so the major points seem to be
In sum, I say stick with mine as the base version, and then agree specific changes based on that. You want the promises more prominent in the body and lead - OK, so do that then, and propose other changes as you think necessary. But, y'know, preferably in small quantities. (For larger-scale changes, if you really want, a userspace draft is helpful.)
Rd232 talk 20:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Str1977: 2. Carmona section: the current version (my version) has more details, which are all well sourced (apart from the last para, which is a bit problematic, not least in its overlap with the previous section where some of the points are sourced). Since your primary concern seems to be the proximity of the promises to the dissolution, and we've now established that these are part of the Decree, we should be able to tweak that without radical surgery. 4. the lead. In general, both leads are too short; you complain of too many details and remove some, but the real solution is add more. I think Sandy has some views on things that need to be added. So I think we should create a new section about revising the lead once her concerns are clarified; in the mean time, I definitely think expansion is the way to go, for this article length. In specific: I note that your lead has the start and end dates, where the old one has start date + time. The 47 hours gives a nice flavour I think, but it seems to be unsourced, so I guess it should go unless someone can come up with one. Rd232 talk 19:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Here's the other thing. JR also removed a passage, uncited for three years:
"General Rosendo says he presented the newly deposed Chávez two options: choose to remain in Venezuela on the condition that he stand trial for the 11 April killings, or be exiled. Chávez reportedly responded that he and his family wished to be exiled to Cuba, on the conditions that Rosendo personally guarantee the safety of Chávez's relatives and that Chávez would depart via Maiquetía's Simón Bolívar International Airport. citation needed"
I agreed with the formal correctness of removing it after such a long time but by chance came across a similar event.
During the "X-ray" documentary, General Rosendo was on the panel and he related that he brought Chavez the generals' proposals, as the President had requested him to do. (His arrival is also shown in "Televised").
Rosendo speaks of two different proposals: one coming from the army spoke of Chavez leaving the country with guarantees for his family's safety (and a later indictment of Chavez), the other from the Defense Ministry and representatives of all the armed forces, calling for his resignation and prosecution inside the country. The Guard's commander agreed with the army proposal. Rosendo took the two proposals to Chavez, first relating the army's proposal, as he thought it more viable. Chavez didn't wait for the second proposal and accepted the first. When asked where he would go, Chavez suggested Cuba and made the condition that he would be going through Maiaquetia. Rosendo said he'd guarantee the family's safety. Rosendo goes on to describe disagreement between the generals who decided against Chavez leaving the country, that he had to resign and would be tried in the country.
This is the account given by Rosendo himself. Therefore I suggest restoring the information (adapted to reflect the fact that though there were two proposals, Chavez only heard and accepted the first and that the generals later changed their mind. Str1977 (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
It's not clear to me why this particular issue of different resignation proposals is that interesting. Cannon (2004:296) (ref in article) has some details on differing accounts of the resignation, in a way which actually matters: the opposition declared the uprising a rebellion under Article 350 of the Constitution, with a "constitutional power vacuum" ensuing due to Chavez' resignation. The government (and Cannon and another source he cites agree) say that Chavez, being held incomunicado and against his will, could not legally resign without endorsement by the National Assembly; and that if he had resigned, power would have passed to the Vice President. In other words, the question of whether Chavez actually agreed to resign, and if so on what terms, is irrelevant. Rd232 talk 16:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
This has alreay been discussed with Sandy on her talk page but I want to comment on this too. The article says Chavez was "illegally detained" in the lead when the source used does in fact say:
"In April, during the short-lived government of Pedro Carmona, military officers held President Chavez for 36 hours against his will. Additionally, security forces conducted raids without warrants and took some Chavez supporters into custody illegally ..."
It does not say that Chavez was illegally detained.
Furthermore, let me add what I wrote on Sandy's talk page:
This not so much about whether a source says "illegally detained" (as it happens, the source doesn't say this) - as "illegal" is a matter of judgement and hence a matter of controversy.
Rd you said that the "that the detention of the head of state during a coup is illegal" - if that is so we do not need to hit home in every sentence that a single act was illegal. We already say it was a coup - and there is no going around it: it was a coup done by the military leadership with at least some popular support but still a coup.
I also do not see a discussion about whether it was "detention" or a "visit" - this is a strawman set up by you. Sure, it was detention as Chavez was supposed to stand trial sometime in the future. I don't see why "coup" and "detention" is not enough, why you have to add "illegal"?
Str1977 (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, JRSP, for supplying the exact quote. " ... es claro que el presidente estaba sometido a coacción e, incluso, privado de libertad personal." This does not say he was illegally detained, so I've removed the statement. Is this typical of how sources are represented throughout the article? Quotes from offline sources are going to be needed to verify. The article is rife with original research, too. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
The source given (Cannon 2004, citing Rey 2002) was perfectly clear: "There was rather, according to Rey, an ‘unconstitutional power vacuum’ because the President had been illegally imprisoned, and the Vice-President was in hiding to avoid the same fate, yet there was no military leader prepared to assume power (Rey, 2002:10)." Rd232 talk 09:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
We're still in the same place; cherry picking of sources, failure to use a preponderance of sources to cite the claim (see WP:UNDUE, and please report what NYT, LA Times, BBC, and a multitide of other mainstream reliable sources say), a translation that doesn't say he was illegally detained, a source that doesn't say that at all, and a source, that while a good one for many other sorts of text (VenEconomy) is *not* at all a reliable source for this sort of claim. (BTW, please provide the quote for VenEconomy, so we can discuss the exact text, even though it is simply NOT a reliable source for such a claim-- it is a reliable source for certain business and economic claims, for example. Please stop with the undue, and cite mainstream, reliable sources, of which there are hundreds that do not support this claim, which is cherrypicking of sources to support a claim that is not supported by mainstream reliable sources. Further, please read and understand WP:LEAD; it is to be summary. Contentious claims ban be explored within the body of the article (and fringe claims don't belong in the body of the article either, but that's a different issue); they are explored with attribution, such as "so-and-so says X by such-and-such says Y". Fringe claims don't belong in the lead, and minority views can be explored in the body of the article. Next, when providing and translating quotes, don't quote part of the sentence or the phrase out of context: include the entire thing. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
A Lexis-Nexis search on "Chavez 'illegally detained' 2002 coup" yields 18 articles total with only *one* article for the last ten years that uses the words "illegally detained" to refer to Chavez (from AllAfrica Global Media. (allafrica.com)-- maybe their reporter lifted his text from Wiki).
The words "illegally detained" do come up in the 17 other articles, but not in relation to Chavez: they are about the JFK incident or other events for example:
That's it. One article in an obscure African paper.
The same search, without the word "illegally" over ten years in Lexis-Nexis returns 515 articles (not all of those pertain to Chavez, some are comments from Chavez on the Honduras coup, and there are too many to review all of them). Within those articles, one finds things like:
Hundreds of articles on the coup that do *not* use the word "illegally". That is a search not just on NYT, but major newspapers and publications worldwide, such as the one African source that does use the word "illegally".
There is *no* due weight in reliable sources supporting the use of the word illegally; the events leading up to Chavez's removal, and the trial and its results after, need to be fully and neutrally discussed in the text, without reliance on one source, omitting part of the story.
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Here is the edit that added the word "illegally" on March 30, 2008, although the source given did not support that statement. More interestingly, the information in that BBC source is exactly the sort of information that is now missing from this article, replaced instead by an over-reliance on Bart Jones. After the "illegally" was added, JRSP's next edits were to tag a source to be checked, and add a source to the lead, and remove unsourced text, but he missed the failed verification on "illegally" in the same lead. The word was first removed on August 8, 2009 (it stood inaccurate and unsourced in this article before challenged for a year and a half. JRSP then added it back, with the faulty source, that endured until Awickert challenged it and it was reverted four times. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 07:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I think this "illegally" thing has taken up far more time than the issue justifies, and I can live with dropping it for now; at some point the legality issue needs addressing in the body, and then at some point it can be summarised in the lead. However, I would like an explanation for the rejection of the following reliable source noted above, in favour of WP:OR by searching Lexis: The source given (Cannon 2004, citing Rey 2002) was perfectly clear: "There was rather, according to Rey, an ‘unconstitutional power vacuum’ because the President had been illegally imprisoned, and the Vice-President was in hiding to avoid the same fate, yet there was no military leader prepared to assume power (Rey, 2002:10)." In any case, for developing the legality issue in the body, Cannon (2004) will be an excellent source. Rd232 talk 10:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
The section "Oliver Stone film rumors" is outdated, I think it refers to South of the Border (2009 film) which, as far as I know, does not deal particularly with the coup so I think the section can be removed. JRSP ( talk) 02:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
As is mentioned in the article: some organizations argued the accuracy of the documentary. A counter documentary has been made: X Ray of a lie and it seems to me that it should be mentioned in this article. You cannot say that google video is not a proper reference. What we reference here is the fact that some organizations argued against the accuracy. And BTW there are already google video on this article.
This video has been made by film producer and BBC-trained engineer Wolfgang Schalk. It is referenced in the German version of wikipedia. See [7]. I it is fact as notable as the film "the revolution will not be televised", and I even wonder if it should not be a full paragraph, just like the other film. I am prepared not to go that far, but the existence of such film should at least be clearly mentioned. Voui ( talk) 20:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
There is far too much weight given in this article to a WP:FRINGE and controversial documentary (Revolution will not be televised); that content needs to be substantially reduced, covered in the documentary article, and this article needs to focus on reliable sources. How many reliable sources discuss that documentary? Why is it even included here, other than a few sentences referencing the film article? More undue, which skews this article to POV and WP:UNDUE weight to the exclusion of reliable sources. At most, this article should have one sentence summarizing the two films: one film (Revolution will not be televised) says X, andother (X-ray of a lie) says Y, refer to those articles, and get the debate out of here, according to due weight accorded in reliable sources. This article focuses on all the wrong things, and that takes too much time. Those controversies belong elsewhere, this article is unbalanced, POV, and focusing on the wrong issues, not even trying to tell the story leading up to Chavez's resignation. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
A lead should summarize the entire article; this lead completely leaves out any mention of the events leading up to Chavez's removal, and jumps straight to Carmona. (Of course, there is also an incomplete accounting of events leading to his removal, but that's another issue ... for now, the lead should summarize the article, not omit half of the story.) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Here is an older, more correct version of the lead:
The older version is more neutral and correct, but still had left out mention of the protests against Chavez and the events leading to his resignation, but it's a stat towards more neutrality than what is there now. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 06:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Sourcing can be improved here (and such sources may be useful elsewhere too). For instance Cannon (2004:297) (full cite in article):
Opposition criticisms of the government’s aggressive behaviour towards them do not take account of the persistent, equally aggressive and almost universal media campaign against the government at both home and abroad (Various authors, 2002; Werz, 2001). Their complaints about Chavez’s attacks on the media and the effects this had on freedom of expression were compromised by their almost total disregard for transmitting the facts during the coup. Indeed, according to one analyst, ‘there was an information blackout planned in solidarity or connivance with the de facto government [of Carmona]’ (Gonzalez Plessmann, 2002: 20).
Gonzalez Plessmann, A. J. (2002) Venezuela: oposicion y estado de derecho. Observatorio Social de America Latina Year III 7: 19–23.
Rd232 talk 14:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Sandy: whats a 'reliable mainstream source'? Where a figure like President Chavez is concerned, the MSM aka the corporate press, is automaticlly 'un-reliable'. Jalusbrian ( talk) 11:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
This article fails to summarize and discuss events leading up to the removal of Chavez, cherrypicks sources, does not give due weight to mainstream reliable sources, gives undue weight to a controversial documentary, uses and heavily relies on non-reliable sources like Chavez administration government sources, Eva Golinger, Venezuelanalysis, one journal paper to the exclusion of a preponderance of reliable sources (Bart Jones) and others, has a WP:LEAD that doesn't summarize the article and gives undue weight to controversy, and fails to include updated and reliable mainstream sources. Worse, it fails to even tell the story of Chavez's removal completely, focusing instead on a controversial "documentary" which gets scant review in reliable sources, and skipping over a full analysis of Chavez's role in his toppling, focusing instead on the failed interim government.
And recent articles like this NYT aren't reflected at all; updates to the article since 2006 have been to make it rely heavily on one journal article (Bart Jones), to the exclusion of a multitude of other sources. Cherrypicking from one source is not how neutral articles are achieved on Wikipedia.
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Newsflash Sandy....Chavez never resigned. The 'protests' against Chavez are by those who formerly ruled and were dismayed by their sudden loss of power to as they say a 'black monkey'. Your whole tenor speaks of someone steeped in 'non-reliability' bias Jalusbrian ( talk) 11:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
And by the way, the lead still warrants some mention that this has never been ruled a coup in Venezuela; you can expand the sentence rather than revert it. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 06:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
For a partial listing of items presented incompletely here, see User:SandyGeorgia/Chavez sources, in particular, User:SandyGeorgia/Chavez sources#.22Coup.22.2C general strike.2C recall referendum.2C Sumate. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Just how 'reliable' is the NYT? Which brought us non-reliable info on Iraq WMDS!? And why are the Chavez administration, Eva Golnger etc non-reliable? What you maen is theyb dont refeclt your very obviously non-reliable POV, Sandy! Mainstream sources(aka the corporate press) have a long history of being 'non-reliable'..witness how they backed the 2002 aborted coup and the Iraq invasion Jalusbrian ( talk) 11:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The last sentence of the introduction states "The United States and Spain quickly acknowledged the de facto pro-US Carmona government, but ended up condemning the coup after it had been defeated."[9] I clicked on the footnote to see the source, which links to a page at the Venezuelan Embassy, but the link is dead. Please fix or remove this sentence. Thanks.
link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Venezuelan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat_attempt#cite_note-embassy-8
Proxy003 (
talk) 04:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
how comes there is no mention of the us' immediate recogntion of the new govt? Lihaas ( talk) 07:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
The coup did consummate for two days. It shouldn't be considered an "attempt". -- Amnesico29 ( talk) 19:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
In the last couple of days I've put a lot of effort into expanding the article, filling in big gaps and clarifying a lot of things. I'm thinking of putting it forward as a Good Article nominee, but before getting to that I really need regulars here to have a close look at the current article and see if there are any issues to be resolved before that can happen. thanks, Rd232 talk 18:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)