This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
This article contains a translation of La Salida (Venezuela) from es.wikipedia. |
NoonIcarus I would remove the tag suggesting this article be translated from the Spanish article, as that article is almost entirely SYNTH. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
@ WMrapids: I sincerely think you should try to use sources such as news outlets and journalists instead of think tanks and academic papers, which should prevent the inclusion of minorty of even fringe points of view, including that the student movement was funded by the United States. At some times, all of this just repeats the unreliable government narrative, even if unknowingly. Regards, NoonIcarus ( talk) 11:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Why are we using the undue press release of the opposition in the intro instead of secondary sources? This article is reading like a blatant propaganda piece now. WMrapids ( talk) 19:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
@ SandyGeorgia: I have added an alternative description in the lead hoping it will be less disputed. What do you think about it? I know for a fact that civil disobedience is a term used by sources, but I have to look in the footnotes exactly which ones. This can be a neutral way to express the peaceful purpose of the campaign, even if it could differ in practice. If this isn't a good option, the original and last stable version should be restored. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 20:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
@ NoonIcarus: Giving a few days for things to cool down, I wanted to let you know about this edit. We have plenty of sources (and López himself) saying that the goal of La Salida was to end the government of Maduro. Doing this ping as a courtesy so we can be transparent.-- WMrapids ( talk) 22:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
"conveyed". Period. So you think it is not neutral to say that the protests were to remove Maduro? WMrapids ( talk) 02:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
"from a resignation to a coup". So you keep redirecting the topic, which is not helpful.
Would it work to add sommething among the lines of "seek Maduro's resignation"? I've seen sources mention this as well. Regards, -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 15:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes they have, almost a month ago now. They have just grown tired of the discussion and asked not to be notified.
I could have sworn that the first time around that I read the discussion you invited me to collaborate together to find a common solution. I think I might have mistaken the talk page, but I think it might be start answering that way:
Let's do that. After you disputed the initial quote in the lead, I replaced it with something less objectable. Now, I have proposed a different wording to ending Maduro's government. Please let me a wording that would be acceptable to you.
I have added a different phrasing based on the article's
first version: in an effort to end to the Bolivarian Revolution prevalent since 1998
. Would you agree to its inclusion?
Responding to the real message at hand, though, I have to remind you that you are the proponent of the change, and it depends on you to find a consensus for it. If not, I'm the one that advices you to let it go. I ask you for the last time to no reinstate the disputed wording. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 20:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
find a peaceful, democratic and constitutional solution to the government of Nicolás Maduro", including bibliographical ones: Moro, Javier (2023). Nos Quieren Muertos (in Spanish). Espasa. ISBN 9788467069778.. Since it doesn't leave room for interpreation or paraphrasing, couldn't it be argued that it is the best wording?
Maduro's ousting" or "
to oust the regime". I think we can agree that this should be avoided to comply with neutrality, a concern I have expressed before.
"Since it doesn't leave room for interpreation or paraphrasing, couldn't it be argued that it is the best wording?"No, since it is based from primary sources. If we gave the same treatment with the Venezuelan government as you do with the opposition, we would be writing articles in Wikivoice from Telesur. Also, López said himself that the goal was to remove Maduro, so...
"Sources don't really disagree on the goal, they just phrase it in different ways. The important things to remember is that 1) multiple phrasings are widely used by different sources and 2) said phrasing must be impartial."Agreed. This is why "Maduro's removal" is neutral; it's not using any loaded language like "attempted coup" or "ousting" and is descriptive enough with explaining the opposition's clear goal.
"I have already proposed at least three alternatives to the current one."And the alternatives began with you describing La Salida through a literal quote from the opposition (i.e. "find a peaceful, democratic and constitutional solution to the government of Nicolás Maduro") to further weasel wording filled with euphemisms that included "an effort to end to the Bolivarian Revolution", which is original research not supported by sources who explicitly state that Maduro's removal was the goal.
"You should be open to work with others to find solutions."Just this comment alone is evidence of your sealioning behavior to portray me as acting irrationally. You have participated in gaming the system, moving the goalposts as more sources are added. You ask for "mainstream" sources and they were provided through generally reliable sources like Al Jazeera English, Reuters, The Guardian and even the United Nations. Yet, you demand for more to justify the removal of information you do not agree with. It is clear that you are engaged in bad faith negotiations and that this dispute will go nowhere without intervention from a group of uninvolved users.
Your tone is really antagonistic and makes this discussion so difficult, but in short:
I'm not sealioning nor moving the goalposts, you might want to check those definitions again. I am not asking you for further sources or evidence, or asking you for more requeriments. Quite the opposite: I have asked about and proposed alternative wordings that can be agreeable to both. You have not liked the proposals, so I have asked you for some on your own, since I don't agree with your wording and I have already stated my reasons why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoonIcarus ( talk • contribs)
WMrapids could you explain here why you are deleting a scholarly review that sources the date of the beginning of the effort? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
This article contains a translation of La Salida (Venezuela) from es.wikipedia. |
NoonIcarus I would remove the tag suggesting this article be translated from the Spanish article, as that article is almost entirely SYNTH. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
@ WMrapids: I sincerely think you should try to use sources such as news outlets and journalists instead of think tanks and academic papers, which should prevent the inclusion of minorty of even fringe points of view, including that the student movement was funded by the United States. At some times, all of this just repeats the unreliable government narrative, even if unknowingly. Regards, NoonIcarus ( talk) 11:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Why are we using the undue press release of the opposition in the intro instead of secondary sources? This article is reading like a blatant propaganda piece now. WMrapids ( talk) 19:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
@ SandyGeorgia: I have added an alternative description in the lead hoping it will be less disputed. What do you think about it? I know for a fact that civil disobedience is a term used by sources, but I have to look in the footnotes exactly which ones. This can be a neutral way to express the peaceful purpose of the campaign, even if it could differ in practice. If this isn't a good option, the original and last stable version should be restored. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 20:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
@ NoonIcarus: Giving a few days for things to cool down, I wanted to let you know about this edit. We have plenty of sources (and López himself) saying that the goal of La Salida was to end the government of Maduro. Doing this ping as a courtesy so we can be transparent.-- WMrapids ( talk) 22:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
"conveyed". Period. So you think it is not neutral to say that the protests were to remove Maduro? WMrapids ( talk) 02:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
"from a resignation to a coup". So you keep redirecting the topic, which is not helpful.
Would it work to add sommething among the lines of "seek Maduro's resignation"? I've seen sources mention this as well. Regards, -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 15:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes they have, almost a month ago now. They have just grown tired of the discussion and asked not to be notified.
I could have sworn that the first time around that I read the discussion you invited me to collaborate together to find a common solution. I think I might have mistaken the talk page, but I think it might be start answering that way:
Let's do that. After you disputed the initial quote in the lead, I replaced it with something less objectable. Now, I have proposed a different wording to ending Maduro's government. Please let me a wording that would be acceptable to you.
I have added a different phrasing based on the article's
first version: in an effort to end to the Bolivarian Revolution prevalent since 1998
. Would you agree to its inclusion?
Responding to the real message at hand, though, I have to remind you that you are the proponent of the change, and it depends on you to find a consensus for it. If not, I'm the one that advices you to let it go. I ask you for the last time to no reinstate the disputed wording. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 20:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
find a peaceful, democratic and constitutional solution to the government of Nicolás Maduro", including bibliographical ones: Moro, Javier (2023). Nos Quieren Muertos (in Spanish). Espasa. ISBN 9788467069778.. Since it doesn't leave room for interpreation or paraphrasing, couldn't it be argued that it is the best wording?
Maduro's ousting" or "
to oust the regime". I think we can agree that this should be avoided to comply with neutrality, a concern I have expressed before.
"Since it doesn't leave room for interpreation or paraphrasing, couldn't it be argued that it is the best wording?"No, since it is based from primary sources. If we gave the same treatment with the Venezuelan government as you do with the opposition, we would be writing articles in Wikivoice from Telesur. Also, López said himself that the goal was to remove Maduro, so...
"Sources don't really disagree on the goal, they just phrase it in different ways. The important things to remember is that 1) multiple phrasings are widely used by different sources and 2) said phrasing must be impartial."Agreed. This is why "Maduro's removal" is neutral; it's not using any loaded language like "attempted coup" or "ousting" and is descriptive enough with explaining the opposition's clear goal.
"I have already proposed at least three alternatives to the current one."And the alternatives began with you describing La Salida through a literal quote from the opposition (i.e. "find a peaceful, democratic and constitutional solution to the government of Nicolás Maduro") to further weasel wording filled with euphemisms that included "an effort to end to the Bolivarian Revolution", which is original research not supported by sources who explicitly state that Maduro's removal was the goal.
"You should be open to work with others to find solutions."Just this comment alone is evidence of your sealioning behavior to portray me as acting irrationally. You have participated in gaming the system, moving the goalposts as more sources are added. You ask for "mainstream" sources and they were provided through generally reliable sources like Al Jazeera English, Reuters, The Guardian and even the United Nations. Yet, you demand for more to justify the removal of information you do not agree with. It is clear that you are engaged in bad faith negotiations and that this dispute will go nowhere without intervention from a group of uninvolved users.
Your tone is really antagonistic and makes this discussion so difficult, but in short:
I'm not sealioning nor moving the goalposts, you might want to check those definitions again. I am not asking you for further sources or evidence, or asking you for more requeriments. Quite the opposite: I have asked about and proposed alternative wordings that can be agreeable to both. You have not liked the proposals, so I have asked you for some on your own, since I don't agree with your wording and I have already stated my reasons why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoonIcarus ( talk • contribs)
WMrapids could you explain here why you are deleting a scholarly review that sources the date of the beginning of the effort? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)