Jump to content

Talk:2002 Venezuelan coup attempt/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Hugo Chávez Propaganda

This article is extremely biased ot the extent that it looks and reads as pure pro-Chávez propaganda. Wikipedia is suposed to be an impartial media not a platform to spread political propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G8086 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately it is. Probably a result of it being mainly sourced to a pro-Chavez book, while overlooking other sources. It needs a POV tag, and certainly the use of a 2007 pro-Chavez book, while overlooking the 2009 Silence of the Scorpion book-- along with a multitude of other reliable sources-- is part of the problem. In addition to POV based on over-reliance on one source, there are crucial parts of the story simply missing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
This subject matter i.e. the Constitutional Crisis in Venezuela 2002 needs to be covered in an article with a different title. It is inherently NPOV to label it a coup in the title itself. Lindorm (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

POV still

See also Talk:2002_Venezuelan_coup_d'état_attempt#POV

For partial reference, see the recent GA review. There are multiple POV issues in this article, but most of them stem from the fact that a large part of the article is cited to pro-Chavez partisan sources, including but not limited to the Jones book and Venezuelanalysis.com, while neglecting any coverage whatsoever from other and more recent sources, like Brian Nelson's Silence of the Scorpion. Correcting the numerous instances of POV will not be a matter of a few edits; it will require a sustained rewrite giving due weight to a variety of sources. Some of the issues (not a comprehensive list) include (and I suggest before a rewrite is undertaken, that at least Silence of the Scorpion as well as multiple reliable media sources be consulted):

  1. Failure to mention controversy over whether Chavez was forced out by military or resigned at their request after he had ordered the activation of Plan Avila. Multiple accounts, including popular press, detail that he resigned.
  2. No neutral discussion of issues surrounding how he got the new "Constitution" passed, or why it was controversial, why the private media opposed him, abuse of cadenas, abuse of the Enabling Act, land grabs, meddling with what was once a stellar state-run oil company, etcetera, all of which led to the opposition from both the business and media sectors. This is completely glossed over here, or presented from a one-sided, pro-Chavez POV, which is apparently intended to convey the idea that the private media and business and labor sectors opposed Chavez only because they didn't want to lose power, not because he had abused of power and was dismantling democratic institutions.
  3. Historic extent and size of the anti-Chavez protests leading up to the events of April 11 is missing. No mention, either of Sumate recall efforts.
  4. No mention or glossing over of Chavez control of media-- impression is left that opposition media dominated, with little mention of the issue of cadenas, etc.
  5. The Revolution film is mentioned, but X-ray of a Lie is not (typical of the biased coverage of complex and controversial issues in the article).

I could keep going, but the list is quite extensive and a good deal of rewriting is needed here. Also note that removal of the POV tag has gone on for years by the same editors, without correction of the issues often raised on talk, or consulting non-partisan sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree, it is seriously biased. I started by removing a reference attributed to a verbal statement by Eva Golinger(!). She is a paid propagandist for Hugo Chavez and she is quoted for an unsubstantiated claim! The article is such blatantly biased propaganda that one could make a good argument that it should be deleted - the fact is that the NPOV flag does not, and I repeat DOES NOT, register with many readers. I have seen a fresh example of that, when a commenter on a newspaper article used this article as "proof" that it was a coup d'etat attempt and not a massacre of a peaceful demonstration. BTW, opposition media in Venezuela has the number of injured as 150 and not 60, while the number of participants is said to be 1.2 million rather than 200 thousand. Lindorm (talk) 02:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
It was a footnote sourced to a book by Golinger, and at the time it was written she was not working for the Venezuelan government. If you have reliable sources for different numbers than given here, provide them. Rd232 talk 09:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
  1. The resignation issue is covered in the section "Chavez's detention". He didn't resign, because the resignation offer was conditional on conditions which were not met, one of which was that he would resign before the National Assembly. Clearly that didn't happen.
  2. The background is covered adequately, with mention of controversies. It doesn't present the opposition view as fact, but nor does it present the Chavista view as fact.
  3. The size of the protests is mentioned. If you have more reliably-sourced details, add them. The recall referendum is mentioned in the aftermath; I'm not sure why Sumate needs to be in there, the article isn't about that.
  4. The film section is crappy, but Revolution is the most significant film by far, and Xray (and Puente Llaguno) are mentioned in the body text elsewhere, so let's not pretend a crappy section is evidence of bias.

Rd232 talk 09:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Eva Golinger is a biased source and should be used sparingly if at all. On the "coup" issue, it is incorrect to say that only Chavez labels it a "coup", since most reliable sources also call it that. On Wikipedia, we have to go for "verifiability" over "truth", and the fact that the international media doesn't get the complexity of the situation and calls it a "coup" is something we're stuck with. (However, what is missing is the fact that it has never been ruled a "coup" in Venezuela, and significant discussion that the resignation happened because the military refused to activate Plan Avila for Chavez and fire on their innocent protesting peaceful countrymen, or many other issues that led to the resignation.) The failure to mention the historical significance of the million marchers (and refer to 200,000) is part of the article POV.
  1. Saying unequivocably that "he didn't resign" is POV-- all reliable sources must be presented, and many if not most acknowledge some form of resignation.
  2. Plenty of background, leading to the public's and the media's disappointment with Chavez that led to the protests, is missing.
  3. The size of the protests is misrepresented, Sumate facilated them, it was a grassroots movement, and the article makes it appear that opposition was only from powerful media and labor unions, rather than widespread, grassroots.
  4. Until/unless Xray gets adequate coverage, the film section is biased in favor of the pro-Chavez viewpoint. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Lots of opinion, no reliable sources given. Rd232 talk 12:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Have you read all of the media sources mentioned long ago in my Sources subpage, or Silence and the Scorpion yet? No need to repeat sources that have never been included here, particularly when the article currently relies on sources heavily biased in one direction only, and not the mainstream most-oft mentioned direction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Pretty sure I've read most of them at one time or another, and you know my opinion of that "creative writing" guy's Silence book ("Nelson succeeds admirably in presenting a gripping narrative, but his low standards in investigative reporting make the book extremely one-sided and unreliable."[2] - oddly enough not one of the reviews he has on his website). But basically you're asking me to do your homework - no dice. Rd232 talk 13:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Reviews did not stop you from writing an article heavily sourced to the one-sided Jones book. Rd, you are capable of writing this article correctly, I've done my homework many times over, but I am not willing to invest time in writing that text that will simply be reverted. If you aren't willing to do it, then I think Lindorm's suggestion that we need to delete a lot of the POV text from this article may be the most expedient for now. We can't continue to present such POV to our readers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
The Jones book is not "one-sided", it is the best available single source. You can provide additional sources for specific things you think omitted, but every time this conversation is repeated it boils down to you waving your hands and declining to actually do this, never mind try editing the article. Rd232 talk 13:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
If some folks show up who are seriously willing to work on writing a neutral article, I'll be ready to pitch in-- it was done on the film article, and can be done if editors are willing. Historically, that has not been the case. Lindorm's edits were also POV,[3] and this entire suite of articles has suffered from editors who are POV in either one direction or the other, and aren't willing or able to collaborate to write a neutral article (in all fairness, both "sides" have been equally at fault, and at least you attempted to write the article). I'll be ready to write if/when the situation ever changes, but anti-Chavez POV editing is no more helpful than pro-Chavez POV editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
"at least you attempted to write the article" - well, yes, and in doing so I did actually put considerable effort into addressing concerns you raised. Rd232 talk 13:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Acknowledged :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Good thing if the two of you can agree, because there is nothing more frustrating than to dedicate a good chunk of weekend to edit a page and then just have some one come and revert it to what it was March 18. Just to take one example. Now, as for bias, SandyGeorgia, if you think my edit you linked to was biased against Chavez, then I don't think you have realized just how biased this article is. The very title is biased. That's where the chavistas start. They frame the issue their way in the title. An NPOV title would have been "The Constitutional Crisis of Venezuela 2002" or something like that, or "The Failed Revolution of Venezuela 2002". Do you get my point? The title reflects Chávez's narrative and his only. The opposition do NOT agree that there was a coup, so the page should be, has to be, renamed eventually, and as soon as the influence of the chavistas on Wikipedia has subsided sufficiently I'm sure it will be. Now, Rd232, as for Golinger the book was written in 2007, but she has worked for Chávez before that (see blog of Alek Boyd who has reserached her). She should not be used for a source of anything regarding Venezuela. Lindorm (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
If you review, you'll find I have long stated that this article is very POV, and in fact, I added the latest POV tag (they are regularly removed), and I argued against the "coup" title five or six years ago when I was a newbie editor, where I was shown wrong. WP:V favors reliability over truth. Your edits disagreed with the preponderance of reliable sources, which call it-- rightly or wrongly-- a "coup", and were in fact quite biased. Labeling editors here as "chavistas" or otherwise will not create an editing environment that willl advance the article; effective editing based on reliable sources will. One of the reasons I don't even try to edit these articles is that "anti-Chavez" editors do just as much POVing as "pro-Chavez" editors do. The title reflects what reliable sources call it, it is not only labeled a coup by Chavez, even if any one who is familiar with the complexities of the event and its history do not consider it a "coup". The media and the democratic world aren't able to handle the complexities. You could locate a reliable source that discusses whether it was actually a coup, a resignation, or whatever, and add a discussion of that matter if you want to advance the article's neutrality. Otherwise, you're not helping. Do you get my point? Alek Boyd may get it right, but if he wants to be quoted on Wikipedia, he should stop writing blogs, which are not reliable sources (and I've told him that several times-- he's wasting his time arguing here.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I have seen that you are trying to do unbiased editing for years. I am a scientist. I don't care what newspapers write because I know that they are full of crap. Propaganda, that is. To base an encyclopedia on newspaper articles is as we say in the lab, "shit in shit out". Get my point? Lindorm (talk) 14:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Yep, but neither can we rely on blogs (nor should we be using Golinger at all). Anyway, yes, this article is terribly and considerably POV, needs urgent attention, but all of my time is consumed at FAC, and I can't help out until/unless the editing environment here improves. As long as I have to confront POV editing from all sides, the editing needed just isn't worth the time it takes, and writing text is not my strong point (my prose stinks). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
An encyclopedia should be based on science, verifiable facts. Newspaper articles are NOT verifiable, they do NOT reference their sources, they are dead ends. Reliable sources are primary sources (remember, I am a scientist) and secondary sources that reference primary sources. I have realized that the rules of Wikipedia are wrong. The whole thing is biased in favor of helping spread this propaganda. But as you know, after having been here for a while, the rules have to change first. The way to go about this is to change the rules so that the chavista propagandists cannot continue to shoot down the truth by making reference to "the rules". I don't know if you are aware of it, but Wikipedia has been used as as vehicle for slander of a political opponent of Chavez who is presently a political prisoner. This is beyond a nuisance, Wikipedia has become a tool for large-scale violation of human rights. You, as an experienced editor, should try to get more authority and engage in trying to change the rules of the game, because if not, the whole project may go under. Others can edit this page, but only experienced editors can undertake the debate of rule changes to become more scientifically correct. Lindorm (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware that plenty of BLPs are bordering on slander of political prisoners, and while I don't know that we can call Golinger a "paid propogandist", we can most certainly say that Wikipedia has become an unpaid propogandist for Chavez. However, our verifiability policies are not the problem, and high-quality newspapers are reliable sources and generally get it right (even if most of the media doesn't grok the subtleties as to whether it was a "coup"-- that can be handled within the article-- that it hasn't been done is not a problem with our Verifiability policy, rather POV editing). I have no interest in trying to change the rules when I've seen over and over that editors coming to these articles do not work to improve them, rather use the talk pages for anti-Chavez rants, while doing little to advance the articles, and add just as much anti-Chavez POV as there is pro-Chavez POV. We need some collaborative, responsible editing. Rd232 is a good-faith and experienced editor, but someone from the "other side" needs to help with reliable sources to help correct the POV, and do it in a collaborative fashion, and I just don't have time. And what discourages me is the POV editing and rants from all "sides", and the absence of responsible and collaborative discussion-- this has gone on for years, and until it changes, I don't have time to write text, and one person can't do it all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
While you replied I studied up on the Wikipedia:RS policy and there is nothing wrong with it, it is how some apply them and interpret them that is wrong. Either out of ignorance or out of malice. The non-biased editors who just want the truth (like me) are typically starting out from a good faith effort but without adequate knowledge of the rules our best efforts are immediately shot down by the "justice", who reads the rules like the devil reads the bible. You are right, it is time to raise hell over this in the media so more non-biased, honest, educated persons join the effort. As for slander, this italian wikipedia article about Alejandro Peña Esclusa is clearly, clearly, well beyond the legal definition of slander, but still it has proven impossible to get it corrected. Cf the Talk page where I have repeatedly made the case (until they blocked me from writing also on the talk page): http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alejandro_Peña_Esclusa Lindorm (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow

I had to say I was stunned reading this article. Very Pro-Chavez. It looks as if it was written by a very Pro-Chavez writer who tried to make it look like a nuetral article.

Unbelievable, and an insult to all of those who marched that day and were killed for protesting for democracy.

I'll be back here to do some work on this and see what the editting environment is like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.128.156 (talk) 03:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

First, please remember to Assume Good Faith. Second, if your view of this is drawn from the Silence and the Scorpion, then know that it was written by a professor of creative writing on the basis of a 3-week trip to Venezuela mostly talking to the Venezuelan opposition. Hardly a surprise that it has been reviewed like this: "Nelson succeeds admirably in presenting a gripping narrative, but his low standards in investigative reporting make the book extremely one-sided and unreliable."[4] See also detailed online review. Third, the article relies quite a lot on Jones (2008) - Bart Jones being a respected reporter for Reuters among others, who spent some years in Venezuela, not some weeks. I'd suggest this is a rather better source than Nelson, and if you're really interested in the coup, one you should certainly get hold of for comparison. Fourth, I've reverted your recent edits [5] because they introduced confusion, unnecessary detail, vague and misleading opinion, and in one case modified a sentence sourced to Jones (2008) in a way that's almost certainly inappropriate (unless you've checked the Jones book sourcing of that sentence, which I doubt). I mean, for example, the introduction of "Luis Fernandez", as if he is some independent voice. In fact he's the producer/reporter (I forget which, maybe it was both) responsible for the Venevision footage is already well covered. He's also a former producer for Napoleon Bravo - yes, that Napoleon Bravo, the one in whose house the coup broadcast was pre-recorded. (A fact Nelson omits, among many others which don't suit his narrative.) Fifth, OK, Silence should probably be mentioned in the article in some way. But it needs to be done very carefully because by any objective assessment by one in possession of the full range of facts it is a highly dubious (partial and partisan) source. Rd232 public talk 08:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
What next: the part of your edits that I think is worth pursuing is "(who were released when forensics test showed they had not recently fired a weapon)". That's a clear factual claim I've not heard before, but it needs more detail. Who was released, when, and by whom? When were the forensic tests carried out? This matters because at the time of the coup the Metropolitan police was controlled by the opposition. Perhaps you could provide quotes from Nelson (assuming you have the book). More generally, I think it'll be easier if you propose here on the talk page the points you want to include (with sourcing obviously) and then we can discuss how (or perhaps whether) to include them. Rd232 public talk 08:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

calling all who want a neutral, accurate page

This article is entirely biased towards the version of events that Chavez and his supporters have put together to paint them in the best light. It makes no mention of the role of Chavez's ordering of Plan Avila (calling out the military to stop//control/crush the demonstrations--a violation of his own constitution)in leading the heads of all the military branches, and the secret police, to abandon him publically and call on his resignation. Instead, they are portrayed here as military leaders in bed with wealthy business interests, according to this article. Funny, considering when Carmona and other businessmen opportunistically grabbed power and showed insufficient respect for democracy the military abandoned them, creating the vacuum that allowed chavez to come back.

It even claims the police and protestors were working together and pushing towards the palace...without the police the protestors would have overrun the totally outnumbered Chavistas. With the police help, and their armored cars and weapons, they would have done so in minutes. Anyone with knowledge of that day would know right away what a dubious claim that is. But this article is aimed at the curious, those who don't know and who might come away with a distorted view of what happened during these 3 days.

I don't know where to start on this article....in the intro they simply mention a military coup without mentioning the mass demonstrations and popular uprising against Chavez that made the situation possible. Shameful. Does anyone have experience with this article? Will diligent and well sourced edits simply be reversed repeatedly to ensure the article doesn't portray Chavez as a hero? Are reasonable discussions repeatedly forced into dead ends and frustration by zealous partisan editors? I don't want to waste my time, as seems to be the case on certain subjects.

One solution, at least for the Miraflores confrontation (which I think might need it's own page), would be for there to be a Chavez version (which is what this article not so subtly favors) and an opposition version, followed by a section of analysis.

Also: Why is Jones's book used as the bible? It certainly can and should be used, but to use it as the end all and be all and to claim he is capable of being neutral is a questionable at best. Brian Nelson's book is not used at all, but venezeulanaalysis.com is....ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.130.226.128 (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Already neutral

I've just finished reading it. This article is already well balanced and referenced. The tag should be removed. The only thing that is wrong for me is the title. I don't see the point of adding the word "attempt" since the coup did take place. --Mapep (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt
Date11-13 April 2002
Location
Venezuela, Caracas
Result Coup failed, Hugo Chavez government restored
Belligerents

Venezuela Chavez government:

Venezuela Anti-Chavez opposition:

United States USA - alleged.
Commanders and leaders
Venezuela Hugo Chavez
Venezuela Diosdado Cabello
Venezuela Raúl Baduel
Venezuela Miguel Enríquez
Venezuela José Vicente Rangel		 Venezuela Pedro Carmona
Venezuela Lucas Rincón Romero
Strength
11 April - 300,000 pro-Chavez protestors
13 April - more then million pro-Chavez protestors		 11 April - 500,000 anti-Chavez protestors
13 April - dozens thousands
Casualties and losses
Unknown At least 8 killed, dozens wounded

I am going to add infobox, because of inspiration in article about Chilean coup of 1973. Just mention for info.--78.102.90.70 (talk) 14:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Why was infobox reverted?!--78.102.90.70 (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Infoboxes are widely criticized (and often not used) on Wikipedia precisely for the problems with the use of one here-- they aren't good for conveying nuanced information, aren't good for summarizing complex situations, and in this case, would just be another POV magnet (in fact, the infobox you added was POV). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
In which way POV? I am a bit surprised.--78.102.90.70 (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, it's difficult to find anything about the infobox that is correct, or without nuance, or where a summary to only a few parameters allowed by an infobox is accurate, but I'll begin a list below:
  1. Location-- only Caracas? Nuanced.
  2. Result-- coup failed? Nuanced. Wikipedia labels it a "coup" because the preponderance of reliable sources use that term, the nuanced situation escapes the press, but sources discuss whether it was a "coup" at all (alternately, it was a resignation), and that complexity can't be summarized in one word-- infobox becomes misleading.
  3. Belligerants? When multiple reliable sources say that Chavez resigned, and can we label peacefully protesting citizens in a democracy as "belligerants"? UNDUE-- USA, alleged-- no evidence whatsoever, except demonstrably false claims by Gollinger. Again, trying to summarize such a nuanced situation in an infobox creates false information and POV.
  4. Pedro Carmona, a leader? Because someone thought appointing him in the interim would be a good idea? And generally, did the peaceful democratic protest against Chavez policies (abuse of cadenas, firing of PDVSA officials, expropriations, abuse of Enabling Act) have a "leader" or was it, as sources say, a grass-roots rising up against same? How can you summarize that nuance into an infobox, and if you could, where is Sumate?
  5. Numbers-- way off, depends on sources, but these just aren't right.

Even in the best of circumstances, infoboxes are rejected by many editors on many articles because they can't accurately summarize nuanced situations. This particular instance is worse than the usual, and an extreme example of where an infobox is more likely to mislead than to summarize. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

  1. Ok, but thats only detail and all primary conflicts were in Caracas.
  2. It was coup. It was orchestrated, provocated, backed by army, led to elimination democratical elected institutions (National Assembly, etc.). It WAS coup. It was not intervention, it was not revolution (too much good organized for spontaneous revolution), it was not war, it have all signs of coup. And do not forget about role of mass medias = all news against Chavez, no news pro-Chavez or about pro-Chavez demonstrations etc.
  3. Chavez did not resign (there are only falsed documents about his resignation). If you want using this in wiki, it means you are ignoring facts and that is POV! Problem is your ignoration of Gollinger can be also POV.
  4. Yes, he was. He was in top-position (chief of commerce chamber) backed by army coup unit, established to presidental position without democratic elections.
  5. And there was also peaceful democratic protest for Chavez policies, but this is on edge on political discussion (including your examples of "bad policy"). I do not know about involve of Sumate in this coup.

Coup from 2002 was brilliant example of many South-American coups (Guatemala, Chile, Argentina...), just with support from mass medias and corrupted trade-union leadership. But OK, if you think infobox is not good for these types of articles, its OK, but do not say it was POV infobox, thanks.--78.102.90.70 (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

i think you should bring the box back. if someone isn't willing to read the article and form bad "un-nuanced" perceptions that is their problem. a brief summary with links to related articles at the top of the page is a good idea. sandy, if you feel "these numbers just aren't right" the burden of linking to some other ones falls on you. and there are plenty of sources for US involvement http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/21/usa.venezuela http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1988213.stm http://www.voanews.com/english/news/a-13-2009-03-11-voa80-68824742.html remember it says alleged, you can still pretend it didnt happenSkybone (talk) 06:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. 68.193.162.13 (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

perhaps mention haiti coup and other IRI activity as context

The IRI has a history of funding coups and destabilization campaigns and this fits into the context of that. Perhaps the mentions of the US involvement should include a mention that this is not the only time the IRI has been accused of fomenting a coup. For instance there is the IRI's creation and funding of opposition groups in Haiti such as the G184 and CD, who played a crucial role in the violent overthrow of elected Haitian president Jean-Bertrand Aristide; also the IRI has funded much of the dissident activity in Cuba. 68.193.162.13 (talk) 23:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Need Suggestion for Paraphrase

I paraphrased a New York Times article but Im kind of having trouble coming up with an acceptable alternative.

I changed this part of the article:

"Mr. Chávez has made himself very unpopular with the Bush administration with his pro-Cuban stance and mouthing of revolutionary slogans -- and, most recently, by threatening the independence of Venezuela's state-owned oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela, the third-largest foreign supplier of American oil."

To this:

"It was reported that Chávez was seen as an enemy by the Bush administration for his revolutionary posture and his moves to gear Venezuela's oil wealth to domestic needs."

The article is not that specific but I know how else to put it. That is what it means in plain English but the terminology is so broad. Any suggestions for a better way to paraphrase that part?--Horhey420 (talk) 07:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


Concerning the Impartiality

As a Venezuelan I do believe this article is not impartial enough, it describes the "private medias" as clearly manipulating the information given in purpose when this has never been proven and can be the result of manipulation, what must also be understood is that Venezuela medias never claim to be impartial, some are clearly pro government other pro opposition and this is a wide known advertised fact. There has been a lot of controversy about the killing that took place at "Puente Llaguno" when allegedly, Chavists took a shot at the opposition. There has been a lot of propaganda and lies on this subject from both sides and some information that was never publicly advertised by mass media such as the fact that the police got in the building where supposedly the snipers where shooting people but nobody know what they found. A video also exists of one of the first deaths where you see a woman shot dead in the head by one bullet. It is impossible to kill someone like that with one clear shot from the bridge. This subject is very vast and there was such media manipulation from both sides (like the fact that the first youtube pages are filled with goverment propaganda) that information is hard to obtain and this should be vastly investigated before posting anything.

On the subject of Chavez handing out his resignation, information is missing such as the fact that the Highest ranked military officer Lucas Rincon, appeared on tv stating HE had asked Chavez to resign and that Chavez had accepted the resignation. Nevertheless, instead of getting a court martial, he was appointed as Minister and then sent as Ambassador to Portugal.

We may never know what happened, the most impartial thing to do is to state facts, numbers, and not go talking about supposed manipulation from this side or that side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.57.249.1 (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the Impartiality

Private media WERE PART OF THE COUP. Just watch the tapes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Revolution_Will_Not_Be_Televised_%28film%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.56.35.251 (talk) 23:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

New one ref and POV tags added to US participation section

A substantial portion (3 longer paragraphs) of text in the US participation section is drawn from a single Guardian article. If is not clear to this reviewing editor, given the nature of prose appearing here, that this source is unbiased. For instance, the Wiki article's stating about one historical participant that "He is a Cuban-American right-winger" from this single source lends the source great authority and the matter great finality, where something like "He has been described as being... by... in the Guardian..." may be the more scholarly approach to reflecting the nature of the content and its source.

Hence, tags were added so that this section will be reexamined. Note, I have no opinion regarding the actual eventual content of this article, only that it be accurate to the history, and acknowledging of uncertainty of events and conclusions when insufficient sourcing prevents firm conclusions being drawn. LeProf, revisiting

The article makes the allegation that the US was behind the coup, but I do not find it supported by the evidence presented. American officials met coup instigators, well, so what, its insufficient to conclude the allegation is true. There is insufficient evidence to define attribution. When the US has been involved in a coup, say in Guatemala or Chile the evidence was considerably more, definitive. There is a higher burden of proof. This is mostly speculation, and implication. Its insufficient to make the broad accusation that is being made. Ottawakismet (talk) 13:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Potential POV and COPYVIO issue

I moved the following content from the article to the talk page:

Links between senior Bush's administration officials and the attempted coup have been established.[1] Previous to the coup Carmona himself had visited Washington several times, where he was received at the White House by Otto Reich who was on the period President George Bush's key policy-maker for Latin America. He is a Cuban-American right-winger that under the Reagan administration used to run the Office for Public Diplomacy. He was supposed to report to the State Department theoretically, but he was shown by congressional investigations to be reporting straight to Reagan's National Security Aide, Colonel Oliver North, who worked in the White House, hence answering straight to the Executive Power's military staff.[1]

Oliver North himself was convicted also under charges of being involved in the Iran-Contra affair in which CIA and the US military intelligence used the profit it obtained from illegal arms sales to UN embargoed Iran to fund Nicaraguan rebels, the "Contras" while all government money transfers to the Contras had been banned by the US congress.[1]

Reich also was linked to Venezuela. He was once made ambassador to Caracas, back in the year of 1986. Although that appointment was contested in the US by Democrat politicians and by Venezuelan political leaders. But Venezuela sought access to the oil market in the US so such objections were overridden. People in the Organization of American States claim Carmona and other leaders of the coup had a number of meetings with Reich over several months. In those meetings they discussed the coup in some detail. Such as its timing, success chances, and they were deemed excellent by Reich. On the coup day Reich called Latin American and Caribbean ambassadors to his office to tell them that the removal of Chávez was not supposed to mean a rupture of democratic rule in Venezuela, as Chávez had (supposedly) resigned himself and thus was responsible for his own fate.[1] He also told them the US government would support the new government (which no other country did).

The content above raises serious copyvio concerns (whoever added the content merely changed the tense of a few words here and there) and was written in a POV, un-encyclopedic manner. Because it's about two BLPs, I removed it pending further discussion. 97.72.243.80 (talk) 15:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for rigorously holding to wikipedia standards in this regard. I would ask a logged in editor—I am registered, but not currently logged—to ensure this edit is not reverted, as vandalism or otherwise, until the matter of proper extraction of information is done, and POV and COPYVIO issues are addressed. Cheers. LeProf
  1. ^ a b c d [1] Venezuela coup linked to Bush team. The Observer. Sunday 21 April 2002

Reverted changes

I've reverted some of the recent changes because they either needlessly changed the infobox, removed large amounts of information without reason, or added obviously biased content, yet were made with no consensus or anything stated on the talk page. Meanwhile I've kept what appeared to be actual improvements.

There was no reason to change the infobox. The United States recognized a government formed by a coup d'etat as a legitimate government and thus they were supporters of the coup. This is the same way it is done on other articles of coup d'etats supported by the United States government. Plus they are listed only as "alleged support", which is quite fair seeing the amount of criticism that government received for supporting this coup. It is already explained in the article how they supported the coup in various ways. Zozs (talk) 00:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Spain's involvement

I see plenty of information about the United States yet there is little information about Spain. Can we expand on this?--Zfigueroa (talk) 22:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Photos

I have found two photos of when Chavez came back to power.

Is there a way to upload these since they are from the Venezuelan government?--Zfigueroa (talk) 23:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Lead re-write

I re-wrote the lead. The order of events was muddled—before, it seemed to suggest the violence that resulted in the 19 deaths happened after the coup, not before—so I think it's clearer now because it's written chronologically. I shoved some things in at the end, because I'm not sure how they could be better integrated, but I still think it reads pretty well. Thoughts?  Mbinebri  talk ← 22:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Clean up

So I added some information and attempted to put it in chronological order. Does anyone have a way to confirm what is said it Jones' book? Also, some NPOV issues which will be looked at later. May bring up some more issues later.--ZiaLater (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Media role section

So the media role section needs a little work when it comes to sources. A lot of the sources come form Le Monde diplomatique the French left-wing anti-capitalist magazine, from Venezuelanalysis.com, the pro-Chavez left-wing website. The Venezuelanalysis article is also written by Eva Golinger, a Chavista "propagandist" who is also cited in the section. Finally, there is information cited by Olivia Goumbri, a head of the Venezuelan government's Venezuela Information Office. I know there are more neutral sources that can explain media role, but I do not think we need such specifics in the section, especially when coming from such biased sources.--ZiaLater (talk) 07:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
If you question statements made by Golinger, please tag them "more citations needed" rather than removing them. Or, if you find these statements disputed by other sources, cite those conflicting sources. Your personal opinion that Eva Golinger is a "propagandist" is POV. --Riothero (talk) 11:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Your questioning of the sources seems to rest on them not having the correct ideology, Zia, which is a questionable reason to challenge them. For example, Le Monde diplomatique thoroughly meets WP:RS; it being left-leaning is irrelevant. I also find it odd that you would question sources based on ideology considering your tendency to cite blatantly right-wing sources like the Heritage Foundation. Your tagging of the two sections for neutrality is also questionable. Both sections are well-written and seem to accurately convey their sources' claims without bias. Considering your stated reason for one tag—repeatedly mentioning the theoretical snipers, which the sources discuss—tagging them seems more WP:IDONTLIKEIT than WP:NEUTRAL. Also, tagging sections for an issue is unnecessary/redundant when the article top already has the same tag.  Mbinebri  talk ← 14:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
It has long been established that Golinger is a Chavista/propagandist so it is not worth the time to state her tinfoil hat theories as a possible fact. As for Le Monde diplomatique, I read through some of it and it wasn't so bad; I was mainly just marking it for "better source" so we could find some more references. Most of the tags were for my own aid anyway so I could find more sources to support statements. I might also put the POV tags back. The tagged sections seem like they can be written in a better way. With so much in this article it took a awhile to put things together, so thanks for you response.--ZiaLater (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I hope you understand that when you reference Golinger having "tinfoil hat theories" you're demonstrating a level of bias a good Wikipedia editor shouldn't have. As for your POV tags, your reason for returning them is thin, at best. Such tags are to highlight serious neutrality issues; thinking sections "can be written in a better way" is nowhere near the same thing. Both sections are well-written and sourced. Based your comment regarding the sniper speculation, your issue doesn't even seem to be neutrality, but balance (an entirely different tag), but even that seems... weak. If there was widespread speculation that snipers were involved, then there is no neutrality issue in including that info, and the section doesn't devote so much to it to be a balance issue.  Mbinebri  talk ← 03:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
The way the "Responsibility of violence" section is portrayed is that Metropolitan Police massacred civilians besides the weak "There is no consensus as to who was responsible for the deaths" introduction and a single sentence about "pro-Chávez" people allegedly shooting. I'm surprised you believe that is fair. That is according to the sources at hand, which Jones' book is described as "a sympathetic presentation of Chavez", Gregory Wilpert the Chavez supporter and the leftist, supposedly anti-Capitalist (saw you changed that :P) Le Monde diplomatique. Despite the sources, this can all be ok if it were written in a better manner, not as Metropolitan Police on killing spree. As for my "level of bias" Mbinebri, I do not have a "bias", I use sources and try to work within Wikipedia's guidelines. I guess was just expressing my dissatisfaction of you and Riothero going tag-team on me for the umpteenth time. But hey, we're only trying to make a good article so it is ok. By the way, thanks for the discussion because I can see that my plan of brining needed attention to this article worked.--ZiaLater (talk) 06:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow. I read through Le Monde diplomatique again (in a more calm state of mind) and can honestly say this is a very slanted source.

I mean describing the violence like this:

"The Bolivarian Circles were blamed for the 15 dead and 350 wounded (157 shot) that day. It was alleged that members of the Circles had shot at a peaceful demonstration. That is not true. Mysterious snipers on the roofs of buildings shot the first victims actually among the Bolivarian Circles. There was total confusion. Near the El Silencio metro station, a squad of the National Guard responded to the stone throwing of “civil society” with tear gas grenades, and shot directly into the crowd. Small groups of the city police of opposition mayor Alfredo Peña shot arbitrarily at anything that moved. Other police behaved well."

Something like this can't be used in such a controversial article. I really tried to respect this article but it has a worse bias than Wilpert's own article (and that's from a "Chavista"). Also, an edit in the article said that according to Le Monde diplomatique, El Nacional said snipers were arrested. This is untrue if you look at the article which plainly states "The president’s guard of honour is said to have arrested three snipers, two of them policemen from Chacao (in the east of the capital) and one from the city police (11). In the heat of the clashes, a dazed young man said that they had found two, in uniform". This is original to this biased source.

This article is truly a mess.--ZiaLater (talk) 09:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The article is not a mess. It's well-written and sourced. It just doesn't favor the opposition's point of view like you prefer Venezuela-related articles to do. Is that cherry-picked quote from LMD even used to back up anything in this article? LMD meets WP:RS and it's been supported on the reliable sources noticeboard many times, for example here, here, and here.  Mbinebri  talk ← 14:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree that it meets WP:RS in most instances, but this particular article would be one of those exceptions; especially with phrases which bluntly state things like, "That is not true" and "shot arbitrarily at anything that moved". This is biased wording that comes from a leftist, anti-capitalist source is very undue compared to the rest of the sources in this article, even that of the "Chavista", Gregory Wilbert.
I mean the first words we read are "Employers, a corrupt trade union, the Church, the middle classes and the media, with the help of dissident generals, all calling themselves ’civil society’, mounted a coup last month against the elected president of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez." Yeah, they committed unconstitutional actions and removed then President Chavez, we understand that, but do they really have to be portrayed as a "corrupt"? Then a few more words into the article's introduction summary we get to read "ordinary people and loyal soldiers turned out to resist the coup. They prevailed. So Chávez stays in power for now." Now the middle class and all of those social groups we heard of previously are no longer "ordinary people". This much bias is somewhat hurtful and even offensive. Then they present Chavez as a president with an "easy manner", who was making people laugh and was blowing kisses. Yeah, they say he goes "overboard" with his long speech but justify it with by saying it was his "way of keeping direct contact" with his people. Then they portray the US as being the boogeyman to Venezuela since they were concerned that Chavez was meeting with Saddam and Gadafy, later using murky wording about the opposition meeting with Otto Reich and US officials with statements like "he might have bumped into Pedro Carmona" and such, just assuming and persuading the reader that the US was only interested in oil and globalization (remember, LMD is anti-globalist). Then we get to hear how Chavez supporters only had "sticks and stones" and the brilliant paragraph that I showed above which blames the police for the violence. Then we read "We know what happened next. To avoid a bloodbath, Chávez surrendered without putting up any resistance", the opposition made a "dictatorship" and was overthrown, later stating that the opposition "learnt no lessons". Biased article done, the use of the word "Then" has ended as well.
This has nothing to do with pro-government or anti-government bias, I have said before, both have there flaws and I do not believe that there is one, purely correct solution for all of Venezuela's problems, so you can get that out of your mind. Though it's normal for an organization to promote a certain bias, this article's bias is just so heavy with promoting Chavez and his movement while alienating other social groups that truly could have been fighting for the democracy that they stated they were allegedly fighting for. So yes, LMD usually is acceptable, but this is a very slanted article. Also, this article isn't much of a mess anymore since we have both rearranged and fixed things, but there are still improvements to be made.--ZiaLater (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Based on a quick search, only two LMD articles are cited and neither contains the material you're quoting. Maybe I missed it? Is the article you're quoting being used here?  Mbinebri  talk ← 17:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Here is the article by their publisher, Maurice Lemoine. In another great article from LMD, the first words we hear from the publisher "Never even in Latin American history has the media been so directly involved in a political coup. Venezuela’s ’hate media’ controls 95% of the airwaves and has a near-monopoly over newsprint, and it played a major part in the failed attempt to overthrow the president, Hugo Chávez, in April." The whole article is filled with murky details as well and reads more like a persuasive essay with the usual method involving; introduction heavily criticizing the opposition, minimally recognizing the oppositions ideas in a few sentences, then continuously criticizing the opposition, concluding that in the end, all Venezuelans wanted Chavez all along, just like the previous article. So can we find better sources for this? Maybe we can look up the sources LMD uses itself and see if they're better.--ZiaLater (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, the linked source used in this article says the media had a significant role in the coup and was largely owned by Chavez's opponents. These aren't radical ideas. They certainly don't disqualify the source. As for the introduction, I'm not seeing what you're seeing. It's a list of events with no analysis. Nothing murky either. In terms of representing the ideas of each side, I actually removed the Chavez supporters' reasons for their support while keeping the opposition's reasons in. Either way, I think it's safe to say that when you attempt to overthrow a democracy and it blows up in your face, there's naturally going to be criticism. As for this quote—"minimally recognizing the oppositions ideas in a few sentences, then continuously criticizing the opposition"—just change opposition to government and it's basically your method of editing the 2014 protests article.  Mbinebri  talk ← 20:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Kozloff

Why is this article extensively citing a poorly reviewed book by a former researcher of a left-leaning organization, and without attributing his views to him as his opinions? Opinions need attribution, and in several instances, Kozloff's views are probably WP:UNDUE as well. And why are the left-leaning sources not balanced by others? Opinions should not be presented as fact: this article does that everywhere. And this article is way too long, going into tedious hearsay. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

This article has numerous sources. Kozloff's (allegedly poorly-reviewed) book being used doesn't make the article unbalanced toward (allegedly) left-leaning sources, and the majority of what it's being used to cite (which isn't that much) isn't opinion from what I see.  Mbinebri  talk ← 16:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Update: I added attribution to Kozloff prior to some quotations and pointed out a cited credential (work at Council on Hemispheric Affairs.  Mbinebri  talk ← 16:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Mbinebri, I attributed to LMD as well.--ZiaLater (talk) 19:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Accidentally cut off my own edit summary

My recent edit summary was supposed to read: Clean-up; how media explained itself in a post-coup dinner (according exclusively to a US gov't doc given too much weight here) is "aftermath" and does not belong at the top of the section. I probably could have worded that better, but the point is that the source/info has to be taken with a grain of salt. The media basically made claims in secret to a not-unbiased government, allowing them to say whatever they wanted. If we're going to cite the declassified document this extensively, the info should be kept together and acknowledged for what it is.  Mbinebri  talk ← 15:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, direct reference to the post-coup meeting does not belong near the top of the section. Aftermath stuff belongs at the bottom—if not the media's aftermath section, considering it is, you know, the aftermath. The rest of the info from the US gov't document I left where it has been moved, although it still makes no sense to me to have the rebuttal before the info being rebutted.  Mbinebri  talk ← 19:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Source descriptions

Some editor apparently inserted distinctively non-neutral descriptions to various sources, such as a French magazine being "left-wing anti-capitalist", or that The Revolution Will Not Be Televised being "allegedly written" by Chavez supporters, as if to discredit their significance. Please kindly refrain.--60.242.159.224 (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree with your edits, but the RFC section is the wrong place to voice your concerns. I created a section for you.  Mbinebri  talk ← 15:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Not surprising, especially since you tried to delete Le Monde diplomatiques political alignment from the article entirely for some reason...--ZiaLater (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
For some reason? The claims were not verified by the sources. You acknowledged this by having to bring in new ones to justify returning the content.  Mbinebri  talk ← 00:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
It was not too hard to find the sources and put a "citation needed" tag. If you need help with that in the future let me know!--ZiaLater (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Should the "Media Role" content be moved to the "Aftermath" section?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
After reading the RFC the majority of responders are against moving the information to the aftermath section. That is where consensus lies. AlbinoFerret 00:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Should the "Media Role" content be moved to the "Aftermath" section? 02:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I would like to move the "Media role" section to the "Aftermath" portion of the article since the section is more of an analysis by sources of how Venezuelan media could have possibly involved with the coup attempt. It is also awkward to read a timeline of the coup attempt and then read a separate timeline involving the media with that timeline being analysis of the media's alleged role. It would also fit well with the "Media changes" section in the aftermath since both sections are analysis during the aftermath of the coup. I would also like more than the usually tag team of Mbinebri and Riothero to comment in this discussion and to not get accused of canvassing if I politely ask for an opinion from someone else. Let's make this constructive!--ZiaLater (talk) 01:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The media played a critical role in the run-up to the coup and during the coup itself, which is what the section explains with a great many sources (example) and is likely why this content was placed in the "Coup" section all those years ago. Little of the "Media role" content relates to the aftermath of the coup, so it makes no sense to me to put it all in the "Aftermath" section, which should obviously be limited to events after the coup. Most of the content is just relaying what the media was doing during the events (again, not after the events) and cannot be construed as "analysis." Given the level of prominence sources give to the media's role in the coup, burying it at the back of the article as proposed would be inappropriate.  Mbinebri  talk ← 02:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

You all are asking and debating the wrong question; the placement of this content cannot easily be discussed until/unless the article's omissions and POV are corrected. As of now, the article gives UNDUE prominence to the media issues (creating POV), at the expense of the MANY issues that led to the events of 11 April, including the abuse of presidential decrees via enabling act, cadenas, meddling with PDVSA, etc. As long as the issue of the abuse of cadenas remains underdeveloped in this article, the media issues is overstated. Where you put it is less relevant than cleaning up the entire article and using better sourcing. This article reads as if people writing it may not have been present or aware during the events of 11 April and in the years afterward. Lots of fixin' is needed here: where to place this underdeveloped, undue content ain't it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Weight issues in "Events leading to..." sections—which do discuss the enabling acts and PDVSA issues—do not impede us from discussing whether the media content belongs under "Coup" or "Aftermath." This is an organizational issue.  Mbinebri  talk ← 15:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Before, I apologize for my poor writing quality and also I would tell thank for the activity you are wearing this article. Although I disagree with some things embodied there should remain neutral point of view. The role of the media was crucial throughout this process that ended with the resignation of President. The media then free had played a role to provide free and timely information. Today some of these media have been closed as RCTV, and other purchased by government friends such as "Globovision" and "El Universal", for the minority who has not broken due to block foreign exchange to buy paper to print as "El Nacional "and others that apply self-censorship. Today has been closed infinities of radio and television because of this same situation, all of them have tried to tell the reality of what is happening and this hurts the government. I was Announcer in Venezuela and I have felt in his own flesh all the hardships that have been through these media that in some cases had 100 years of experience and recognition for its free press. The government has understood the role of the mass media and now has a huge aparataje multi-channel national and international television, as well as hundreds of radio stations officially biased in favor of the government, all with the goal of creating sentimentality, goat atoning and matrices of opinion against the United States. Today the Venezuelan is not able to observe what is happening, mass demonstrations are brutally suppressed while on national television children watch cartoons. Unable to recognize what is really happening, except only a handful of digital media. The state controls not only the media but also the Internet, uses hundreds of robots to post to twitter and imprisons those who publish information against the government by social networks. --The_Photographer (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I also agree that the media had a part whether they intended to or not. However, it is highly debatable and is not driven as hard as fact that Carmona and others did take power. Placing a whole section about the media in the "Coup" section would be UNDUE, especially with the current sources of mainly leftist and/or blatant Chavez supporters. That is why I attributed their stances (which was deleted unsurprisingly) in order to point out what might not catch the attention of the reader otherwise. I do agree with Sandy that the whole article needs to be cleaned up, though it is somewhat better now.--ZiaLater (talk) 23:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
If the media had a part in the coup, as you now acknowledge (along with some obvious exaggeration of the supposed leanings of all the sources used), the section's current placement is appropriate. (Or we can give it its own level-2 heading immediately after the "Coup" section.) I also can't believe you're now questioning whether there was a coup at all. That is just... wow.  Mbinebri  talk ← 00:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Hahaha no no you misunderstand. There was obviously a coup but it is debated if the media was truly as involved as some say. Yes, they did oppose Chavez but this did not make them part of a planned coup necessarily. But there is not definitive proof to say that it happened, as with much else during the 2002 coup. However, I personally believe that they could have been involved. But who really knows. Everything is debatable there. However, I still believe that the "Media role" section should be in the aftermath since most of the section is analysis of the media and people describing why the media could have been potentially involved. It would them flow almost perfectly with the "Media changes" section as readers can see the reasons just above why such changes were made under Chavez and are continued today.--ZiaLater (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
That the media played a key role in the 2002 coup is not something that is debated by credible sources. The media's role is one of the most widely acknowledged aspects of the coup. Sources for this can and should be provided, if they do not appear already. You write that "most of the section is analysis of the media and people describing why the media could have been potentially involved". If that's a true description of the section, it must be rewritten to reflect that fact that the media was involved. Washington Post: "RCTV, like three other major private television stations, encouraged the protests and, once Chávez was ousted, celebrated his removal. But when the interim government that replaced him began to collapse, RCTV and other stations blacked out the news". This is not mere 'analysis' but description of what happened (there is a better argument that much of the information presented under "Background" and "Events leading to the coup" ought to be classified as 'analysis'). Let us not forget that, after the coup appeared to have succeeded, Vice-Admiral Victor Ramírez Pérez, later named Minister of Defense under the Carmona regime, reappeared on Venevisión to explicitly acknowledge the media's role, revealing to all that "Our weapons were the media". I agree with Mbinebri that to bury these facts would be to the detriment of our goal of providing accurate NPOV encyclopedic account of this event.--Riothero (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
How would it be buried when the information is still there and is the same? The sides of the arguments are interesting. One side states that the media conspired for months with the opposition to overthrow the Bolivarian government, spreading propaganda of an uprising against Chavez. Another side says that the media was showing the reality of Venezuela and its disapproval of Chavez, until the shootings during the coup and performed a blackout and TV marathons to keep residents inside (scores were also injured and killed in Chavez supporting neighborhoods while looting following the coup). Both sides make sense, but one side makes a better news story. Despite all of this, I am a slightly interested in a separate section for the media alone that Mbinebri suggested, but I think there is more discussion and possibly more changes until then.--ZiaLater (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the info would still exist, but deemphasized via "prominence of placement"—i.e., buried. Of the two sides you mention, the first is overwhelmingly represented in secondary coverage and backed up by coup participants; the other side is merely a handful of media owners privately trying to spin events in their favor to US politicians and is largely ignored by secondary sources. Per WP:UNDUE's concept of balance based on prominence in secondary coverage, the media owner's claims are way overrepresented.  Mbinebri  talk ← 18:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I think your position is not helping. You want to place a neutral article, however, it seems that your intentions are quite the opposite. You categorizes the media as opposed to simply show the truth of events. Remember, the fact that you disagree does not mean that the article is not neutral. Today, no single printed media, radio or television free in Venezuela, RCTV, NTN24, dolartoday, noticierodigital, severals twitters accounts, lapatilla have been blocked or censored, El Universal, Globovision, Noticias24 have been purchased indirectly by the Government. more than 350 radio stations are no longer in the air and the rest have been censored using legal mechanisms that undermine freedom of expression. This issue is very complex, however, who has been disappearing media using different mechanisms to promote the non-neutrality? and more important, who benefits the non-neutrality ? --The_Photographer (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
So Mbinebri, information from Nelson is not enough secondary coverage? How many sources will it take to be prominent enough to place in the article? I've played this game with you guys before when you saw things you didn't like. Also, how do you know the media is spinning events for the US? Could they be telling the truth of what happened to them (why should I even ask you that...)? And how would the Venezuelan media be "overrepresented" when they are the main topic of this discussion. It's like making up a story about a random person and not letting them explain their real story.
It seems like your reason for opposing this move is that readers won't see how the media conspired against Chavez as soon as possible. The content will be the same but it will just be in a different place. You can be assured that anyone looking for the media being part of the coup as an answer will still find that info here but it will just some paragraphs down the article.--ZiaLater (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alleged media role section

My recent edits of the "Alleged media role section" resulted with the removal of the Foreign Policy opinion piece. The piece basically mirrored the leftist Le Monde Diplomatique (LMD), especially when providing the following statements with a link to LMD's own article: "Never in the history of Latin America had the media played quite so prominent a role in facilitating the overthrow of a democratically elected government". The article then provides a link to a blog, cherrypicking information about the shooting of both demonstrators and government loyalists saying "But private television stations seized on the footage and aired it non-stop as part of their campaign against Chávez. Video evidence that emerged later indicated that the chavistas may have been firing on police in self-defense, but the question of who was responsible for the protesters’ deaths has never been definitively settled" which is interesting since the rest of the blog article they provided a link to stated that "one must regard their official excuse - that it's okay because they were shooting at the opposition-led Metropolitan Police - as borderline nonsensical". Some other notable supporting sources of the opinion piece's claims include Chavista head of the pro-Chávez Venezuelanalysis.com, Gregory Wilpert, clips from The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (film) and the leftist magazine The Nation. The preceding reasons of the slanted work in this opinion piece in such a controversial article is why I decided to remove the content. Just wanted to explain these edits.--ZiaLater (talk) 08:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your rationale for removing this sourced content is weak and clearly political in nature. You call out the FP article for mirroring a point made by an article that FP uses as a source? That's how sourcing yourself works. This in no way negates the FP article and legitimizes its removal. This is Wikipedia, the more sources to back up a view the better. You then accuse the FP article of cherrypicking a source. Did you expect the FP author to copy and paste that entire source's content? But the telling part of your explanation here is your own partisan cherrypicking. You list several left-leaning sources—ugh, the empty "left-leaning means unreliable" thing again?—but leave out that the FP article also cites the New York Times, Reuters, Al Jazeera. The Economist, Wall Street Journal, BBC, etc. This FP article goes to great lengths to source itself, but all you can do is focus on the minority of sources that don't conform to your political views. In other words, your objection is ultimately based in partisanship, which is inappropriate. As for your "slanted" argument, you should brush up on WP:BIASED, which allows for opinionated sources—which you love to use when they're right-wing—and simply calls for attribution if necessary, which has been done in the section. As it is, the content and source's inclusion violates no policies, which is the most important point here.
Also, please stop trying to undermine the section's information by characterizing its content as "alleged" in the heading. It is another loaded word that policy says to avoid. You've already agreed the media had a role ("I also agree that the media had a part whether they intended to or not") and the section is not composed of just allegations.  Mbinebri  talk ← 12:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
An opinion article is not that great of a source, especially in a controversial article like this. If you can find a better source for these statements it would be great. I am only trying to present a more neutral article here. And even if I did recognize that the media had taken part or not, Wikipedia needs to be presented in a NPOV separate from my personal views. So I don't understand why you are trying to criticise me for trying to make this controversial article more neutral. You have changed the section titles for articles (which I agree with such edits, thank you) even though the sources say that there was a rise in popularity. The same goes for the "Alleged media role" section. The 2002 coup was a whirlwind of controversy and confusion. There are many allegations ranging from the Catholic Church, opposition and media wanting to overthrow the government letting the unrest happen so they could enforce a more strict government in the aftermath. Some things we know for certain though; there was unrest and accusations, Chávez was taken out of power temporarily, there was a coup attempt, Carmona was leading, Carmona wasn't leading, Chávez took power and then even more accusations began.--ZiaLater (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
@Zfigueroa: Please do not remove reliable sourced content. Attribution is given where attribution is due. Thanks you.--TMCk (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Your edit summary "Opinion articles using heavily slanted sources are not reliable in controversial articles such as this" is pseudo-policy. There are no alternate reliability standards for "controversial" articles. In this case, Foreign Policy clearly meets WP:RS and the article in question sources its material far beyond the minority of supposedly left-leaning sources you mention, a fact which you conveniently ignore. You also continue to ignore WP:BIASED in favor of empty accusations of being an "opinion article"—much of journalism is opinion-based, especially when it includes analysis. Per WP:ALLEGED, using the word "alleged" implies the content is doubtful. NPOV means avoiding it. It's especially harmful in a section heading because it undermines everything that follows.  Mbinebri  talk ← 19:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
If you read thoroughly through WP:ALLEGED, you would see that "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined". That is why I changed some of the wording in the article using those two words in the article.
Also, if you look at WP:RS, you would see the subsection of WP:QUESTIONABLE, which states that questionable sources "include websites and publications ... which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited." So if I had my own editorial, I could say something like "Mbinebri is the best Wikipedia user ever", quite a bold statement for a Mbinebri article. I could use sources that say this too that may be supporting to you too. But that is an opinion of mine that I have synthesized from a few things I read, with those things especially leaning toward the positive POV of Mbinebri. This is what is happening in the FP opinion article, make bold statements, using sources that have shown support for the Bolivarian Revolution and what is now being used in this article.--ZiaLater (talk) 20:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I have read WP:ALLEGED, and the "asserted but undetermined" is in reference to ongoing criminal investigations. (It also says the sources of the accusations must be noted, which is impossible in a section heading.) On the media's involvement in this topic, the verdict came in a long time ago: the media had a significant role, which even anti-government editors like yourself and The Photographer have already agreed with. As to WP:QUESTIONABLE, Foreign Policy is not a rumor/opinion source—that's what The Daily Mail is. It's a legit political magazine that has featured contributions from many significant contributors.  Mbinebri  talk ← 20:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I definitely don't have a problem with Foreign Policy since I use them myself. It is just that the specific article being used was part of the "Passport" portion of Foreign Policy. I thought I saw that the "Passport" portion was a collection of opinions of the editors. That is why I was seeking a better source. I'm sorry if there was any confusion about this because that was the motive of my recent edits regarding Foreign Policy.
For the title of the section, I believe we should have more sources in order to confirm that heading. This can be done in the section since you obviously can't provide direct sources toward the title. There was also no "verdict" since it would be WP:OR if ten more or even hundreds more Wikipedia users stated that there was a "Media role" without providing substantial sources for such a controversial article. I had even said in the same paragraph that information about the media being involved "is highly debatable and is not driven as hard as fact that Carmona and others did take power". Are we truly sure according to reliable sources that the media had a role? Also, are we sure according to other reliable source that they were not part of the coup? In this instance, we may have some saying, well a leftist publication is saying this while someone else will say an imperialist media organization is saying another thing. However, and I'll say this once more (the 3rd time I think), that evidence of involvement of the media in the 2002 Venezuelan coup is not as concrete as evidence of the involvement of Carmona. Carmona had obviously taken power. He may have been friends with media heads or with someone in the Catholic Church but that is what politicians do, they make connections. If Mbinebri had a friend or acquaintance that murdered someone you wouldn't say that Mbinebri is responsible for the murder. That requires a thorough investigation and supporting facts. We need more of those if we are going to say that the media was part of this coup. And Mbinebri, please don't murder me o_o --ZiaLater (talk) 08:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I think there's some confusion. You seem to be interpreting the idea of the "media role" as a question of whether the media maliciously participated in the coup as a co-conspirator or at the very least encouraged it. This is not the case. Merely in covering the coup and the events leading up to it, the media played a role, maliciously or not. The heading is merely an acknowledgement of that, not the condemnation you interpret it as, which is why it makes no sense to insert the word "alleged." With that in mind, "Are we truly sure according to reliable sources that the media had a role?" Yes, we are. Whether it's maliciously manipulating footage or simply printing celebratory headlines with no harm intended, reliable sources readily agree that the media played a part in what happened.
Also, I started a RSN on Foreign Policy, which leaves little doubt that it's reliable.  Mbinebri  talk ← 12:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Like I said before, I never had a problem with Foreign Policy but with the article since I thought "Passport" was an editorial portion of the publication. I think the media section is a little more neutral now as well since it was previously just stated that the media "supported the coup and anti-government demonstrations" or how it was "widely reported" that Cisneros funded the coup. So it was maliciously worded which had me concerned about the neutrality of the section.--ZiaLater (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Update - Foreign Policy is reliable but the article is from the Passport blog. I wouldn't necessarily call it a source from Foreign Policy but from the author, Fossett. This puts the reliability in question compared to a normal article of the journal, especially since it was written by an intern.--ZiaLater (talk) 00:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:NEWSBLOG.  Mbinebri  talk ← 01:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: an RSN has been started.  Mbinebri  talk ← 01:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Mbinebri, and according to WP:NEWSBLOG, "These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process", with Fossett being an intern, not a professional.--ZiaLater (talk) 01:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Media edits

I moved some of the media analysis information into its own section in the aftermath portion of the article.

I also removed:

  • Information from Venezuelanalysis and Eva Golinger concering a headline.
  • Information about a March 2002 demonstration that doesn't really fit the topic of the April coup.

A lot of other information was placed so before large reversions are made, let's try to reword things a bit if needed.--ZiaLater (talk) 12:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

False flag operations

ZiaLater it was an effort for False flag operations, why did you reverted the edit?--Setareh1990 (talk) 07:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

False flag- "False flag (or black flag) describes covert operations designed to deceive in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by entities, groups, or nations other than those who actually planned and executed them". It is pretty obvious who performed the coup. How was it designed to deceive? The only thing I can think of is with Chavez resigning when he didn't.--ZiaLater (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I think he means the US planned and masterminded the coup, which isn't very far-fetched. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 12:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2002_Venezuelan_coup_attempt/Archive_2&oldid=1243575422"