Talk:2019 Venezuelan protests/Archive 1

Archive 1

Support

I'm not sure if a list of countries that support of other countries, given that this is a protest movement, save for groups such as the Wagner Group or the ELN, the latter which has been involved in the killing of protesters in San Antonio del Táchira. --Jamez42 (talk) 10:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

POV text removed and re-instated

This edit reinstates POV text after it was once removed, without discussion, (and after three talk page warnings to EduardoJanuary about editwarring). EJ, the text you have introduced is unbalanced POV, as most reliable sources agree that Maduro was not "elected". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

How was he not elected? What sources? 2018 Venezuelan presidential election BeŻet (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

EduardoJanuary is now sockblocked, moot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

But I think it's important to address what you've said which is clearly false. Maduro has been clearly elected, even if some people question the fairness of the elections. BeŻet (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

You may benefit from rereading exactly what I typed (and then discussing that on the appropriate page-- this is a page about the Protests). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

"most reliable sources agree that Maduro was not elected" - what more is there to read? The change you've referenced is about him being elected. What else is there to understand? You're saying he wasn't elected. But he was. BeŻet (talk) 13:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Did you notice that your re-quote above of me is not accurate and that you dropped quote marks around the word "elected"?

You are arguing this at an article where it is irrelevant (and furthering the participation of a prolific sockmaster). You can find an abundance of sources at many other articles where the text is a fit, eg here and here and here and Second inauguration of Nicolás Maduro and 2018 Venezuelan presidential election. Please do not continue a discussion on the wrong talk page in support of a long-term disruptive sockmaster.

Note that you have to yet to justify the POV tag you placed, and if you are not familiar with the most basic basics of the topic, and what numerous reliable sources say on the topic, then I question whether you are in a position to be placing a POV tag at all. Familiarity with the abundance of sources on the topic would be helpful before placing a tag. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I am very familiar with the topic thank you very much, are you familiar though the rules behind the NPOV tag? It can be included by anyone who feels the article is biased, and I have given an example already. Moreover it doesn't matter if this person was a sockpuppet, I am not talking about that person, I am talking about you and your insistence that Maduro wasn't elected. You are clearly saying that this edit is a POV edit, while it is absolutely not, and I would be in favour of reinstating that sentence, hence the discussion. BeŻet (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

"Millions" vs "hundreds"

I've removed the severely biased infobox statement that we have "millions" of protesters opposing "hundreds" of Maduro supporters. I'm quite shocked to be honest, I've been working on Wikipedia across several languages for over a decade now and I've never come across such blatant exaggeration. The first number was supported by a biased article in WSJ that spoke of millions of protesters figuratively. The latter number supported by an article mentioning a single day in a single city. The truth is, there are tens of thousands of protesters on both sides. There's plenty of video reports (1, 2) and other web sources talking about "thousands" of Maduro supporters.
It is extremely important that whilst discussing the ongoing crisis in Venezuela, we are very careful when describing what's going on, as both sides will try to manipulate information. BeŻet (talk) 12:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Last I checked, WSJ is not biased - millions should stand (the predictions even before protests and by the BBC was hundreds of thousands, so millions is in no way exaggeration) - and the web source you link is seemingly pro-Maduro. Other videos show barely tens of Maduro supporters in a few places outside of Caracas. I don't know if you're deliberately pushing bias, but I'm assuming you're just aiming for neutrality and maybe have trouble believing millions of protestors could exist. As said, though, millions shouldn't change, and if you can find a reliable source for saying there were more Maduro protestors (remarkably, anything published by Venezuelan or Russian state media is in no way reliable and is very biased) then it can definitely be added. But don't go changing it without a reliable source, as you insisted you have the right to do on my talk page. Kingsif (talk) 13:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Could you clarify how the WSJ is less biased than RT or TeleSur? Does the WSJ not have a vested interest in the success of American capitalism and the failure of socialism? MortimerMcMire (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC) — MortimerMcMire (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The other solution, to maintain neutrality where good sources and accurate figures may not be available, is to remove the numbers for both sides. Kingsif (talk) 13:39, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should remove the numbers from the infobox as we can provide reports for specific protests in the body of the article to improve accuracy. Thanks! BeŻet (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Talking about millions, on either side, is mere rethoric at best and data manipulation at worst. Caracas has a population of nearly 3 millions in the whole metropolitan area. To say that a million of people attended a demonstration, means that a third part of the city was in it. Which is clearly not possible. Cambalachero (talk) 00:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The millions is in all Venezuela, not just Caracas - though it is obviously entirely possible for a third of the city to all be protesting. It's even possible for a half, or the entire population, actually! (and FYI "a third part" does not mean "one in three" :D) Kingsif (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

There's another RS for "millions" now (The Economist); would anyone be opposed if I add "It has been reported that there were at least a million protestors supporting Guaidó across Venezuela" to the 23rd January section? Kingsif (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that's fair, although the source is an opinion piece by The Economist. Could we attribute this number to The Economist in the sentence? BeŻet (talk) 09:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I oppose with atributing the figure to the Economist and think that other sources could be found. --Jamez42 (talk) 10:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Could we please find other sources for the "millions" claim. @ZiaLater: keeps reverting my inclusion of a tag requesting it. Justify your reverts here please. Seems like some Wikipedians are very selective when it comes to which opinion pieces are valid sources and which aren't. BeŻet (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Removing sources

@BeŻet:, the Economist does not appear to be an opinion piece; why do you think it is? I agree that the WSJ is. [1] Please stop reverting and start discussing (and please stop taking your article commentary to Zia's talk page-- it is irritating to have one's watchlist going off in multiple places-- article issues belong on article talk).

Also, please discuss on talk before engaging in multiple reverts, and do not use edit summaries for discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Strike that; I see that the WSJ is from the editorial board of the WSJ, which makes it more than an individual opinion. The statements should be attributed to the editorial board of the WSJ. (I cannot speak to the Economist because it is behind a paywall). I came across a reliable source yesterday mentioning millions, but am unable to re-locate it at the moment. Please attribute the estimates to their source, but these are reliable sources for this content, if attributed correctly, IMO. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

  Ironically, what makes it hard to re-locate the reliable sources I saw for "millions" is that Venezuela has a "million" percent inflation, and "millions" of people who have left the country-- so Google coughs up too many sources to quickly review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Satellite images and WP:OR

The inclusion of satellite images is quintessential WP:OR. What are they trying to prove? What is the context? Where both protests held at the same time? None of this is addressed and sourced, therefore they have no place here. BeŻet (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

They both clearly state what time they were taken (same time). They are not trying to prove anything, because they make no claims. I support reinstatement of the images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not asking at what time they were taken, but at what time did both protests take place. Again, these images are not referenced in the body of the article, no context is provided and as it stands they are clearly WP:OR. Also, Jamez42 could you please stop adding your changes until a consensus is achieved. BeŻet (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality

Both sides of the political conflict are spreading a lot of fake news. It is of utmost importance to remain neutral. One example is the protests that took place on the 2nd of February. One editor keeps insisting that we should write that Guido's protest filled Las Mercedes Avenue because it's said so in the source, while for some reason not accepting that another source is saying that the pro-Maduro protest filled nearly the entire (larger) Bolivar Avenue. Sources supporting Guido are included without hesitation, while sources stating something favourable about pro-Maduro protests are questioned. We should treat all sources equally and with the same rules that apply to all sources. BeŻet (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Could you provide those sources so they can be discussed? I am curious to see what source claims that Avenida Bolivar was filled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

BeŻet pinging you because you may not have seen my request for a source that claims Avenida Bolivar was filled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry SandyGeorgia, I thought your question was rhetorical as the source is in the article. BeŻet (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks BeŻet-- no, I do try to keep my talk page posts serious :) I see now why you are confused-- photoshopped images abound on social media (and that source gives no indication of how it meets RS, so I have removed it). Yes, there are pro-Maduro protests, participants are forced to attend or lose their job or access to food, and attendance is exaggerated via photo angles or photoshopping. I am unaware of ANY reliable source that reports significant attendance at any of these forced rallies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

You can't just dismiss things you don't like as "forced", "photoshopped" etc.. This is WP:NPOV (on top of being ridiculous). You can't also dismiss sources you don't like as "unreliable". This is very against the spirit of Wikipedia. BeŻet (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Bezet, you are correct, I can't, and I don't. The source itself gives NO reasoning that it meets WP:RS, and the source itself attributes photos to social media (not real journalism). Please understand the policies Wikipedia uses on WP:V and the guidelines for determining reliability (re fact-checking, editorial oversight, etc-- all of which that clearly biased source fail). Also, please have a look at WP:FALSEBALANCE; Wikipedia presents what reliable sources report, giving due weight to each. We cannot present these small pro-Maduro rallies in the same light as the massive anti-Maduro rallies. There is no reliable source that I am aware of that reports significant pro-Maduro demonstrations. If you are aware of any, please provide. And be aware that high quality sources will explain that attendance at pro-Maduro rallies is forced (people will lose their jobs or access to food if they don't get on that bus), and that photoshopping or selective photo angles are used on social media to exaggerate ideas about pro-Maduro attendance. Please stick to reliable sources, and be aware of false balance. If you want a POV tag to stick, you need to show that reliably sourced material has not been included. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

You are right and this is why I had to intervene multiple times when references to Instagram were used as undeniable proof that something was true. You've removed a source by just stating it's unreliable. You can't do that. If you want to have a healthy discussion you need to justify it well. You are also throwing accusations of Photoshop without backing them up. BeŻet (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, I do not think you have provided a sufficient rationale for tagging the article POV; please provide specific reliably sourced views that have not been incorporated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Jamez42, we either state that both protests filled or nearly filled their respective Avenues, or we don't state it for neither. Please stop making one-sided changes. BeŻet (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@BeŻet: The protests were held at the same time, because there was an opposition protest and a government counter protest. I have also provided videos and images regarding the size of both marches, while you have not. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

BeZet, you are mistaken (see my post above). Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say, giving due weight to those sources. Your interpretations appear to be based on sources that do not meet wikipedia standards for reliability, and you want to use them in a way that creates false balance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

This is not explained anywhere in the body of the article, again please read WP:OR. Moreover videos and photos of both marches are in plenty of the referenced sources, so not sure what you mean by you "providing them". BeŻet (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Then there shouldn't be doubt that the Mercedes Avenue was filled, while the Bolívar Avenue was not. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Please do not restore your changes until a resolution is achieved, otherwise I will be forced to get this situation escalated so it can be resolved by an Administrator. I do not think the images should be included without any explanation in the body of the article. BeŻet (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Bezet, administrators do not resolve content disputes-- they address behavioral disputes. This is a content dispute. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

This is bad user behaviour who does not respect general rules of waiting until a compromise is achieved before forcing their version. An Admin should get involved if this behaviour is continued. As an interim solution I've added an NPOV tag. BeŻet (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Now we're making progress. Adding an NPOV tag, without justifying it, is a behavioral issue, that should be addressed by admins. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Please tell me how this situation could be resolved. We have explained our positions and so far you are the only editor that has reverted the changes. Also, the NPOV tag isn't justified because you have added it before I started making changes to the article. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this is just rude. I've justified it plenty of times now. You can't just claim things to be true - "not justified", "not reliable" etc.. This is not good Wikipedian behaviour. Jamez42 I have expressed my concerns and you have simply reintroduced your content without addressing any of my concerns. That's not good. BeŻet (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@BeŻet: I have asked how a solution can be reached, not the previously expressed concerns. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I have explained multiple times already: there needs to be a reason to include the satellite images, they should be, at the minimum, referenced in the body of the article. Secondly, how do we know whether 11:05am was the best moment to record the sizes of the marches for comparison reasons (did they start at the same time, did they peak at different times etc etc)? Finally, I keep referring you to WP:OR; in particular, the sentence: [original research] includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. Using satellite images to prove yourself that one march was bigger that the other is obvious original research. I hope I've explained this adequately now. BeŻet (talk) 13:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

This argument is becoming cyclical. The sattelite images are fine as they show the scale of demonstrations. There is no statement saying that one side is larger. There are only two images taken at the same time showing the demonstrations.----ZiaLater (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

You are not addressing anything I've pointed out. BeŻet (talk) 14:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

What is cyclical is saying "these images are fine" even though I have pointed out multiple issues. BeŻet (talk) 14:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

A source for the exact time, exact day of the images has been supplied. I suggest it is time to remove the OR tag. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it's a lot better now, could we also mention the images in the body to justify their inclusion? BeŻet (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

That's not usually done, and I'm not sure how it would be done. Do you have suggested wording? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Does this satisfy your concern? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thanks @SandyGeorgia:! BeŻet (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Lopsided

I have reinstated the lopsided tag here. There is no mention that people are forced to sign (or lose their job or CLAP box), and that is covered in reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

People are not forced to sign. Random anecdotes don't change that. BeŻet (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

March on 20th February

Certain Wikipedia users insist on censoring information and removing a whole paragraph mentioning the 20th February protest. There are a plethora of videos (one, two, three, four, a dozen more) showing that the protest did happen, and it's absolutely unacceptable for this paragraph to be removed by stating that TeleSUR is a propaganda source and that's that, and it's absolutely ludicrous to suggest that the march did not happen. BeŻet (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
@Jamez42: and @SandyGeorgia:, could you please start behaving in a respectful manner and stop removing content that you don't like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. According to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources TeleSUR is an acceptable source for facts if properly attributed. Please respect decisions and rules. BeŻet (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@BeŻet: Stop personalizing, this is not the first time you have been asked to do so. This is not merely a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I quoted in the current discussion in the reliable sources noticeboard how Telesur falsely reported that there was a protest in the Yaracuy state. Dates and locations of pictures and videos have often been misreported before, not to mention the number of the participants. --Jamez42 (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Saving this personalizing diff. A) Videos cannot tell us how many people were there; b) the regime photoshops and falsifies (you yourself provided the example this week), c) gain consensus before re-adding state propaganda. Perhaps a protest happened; your non-reliable, non-independent, non-third party source makes an outlandish claim about the number participating. ANY source and any text depends on consensus; you don't have it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The opposition has also been caught doctoring photos and making up stories. We are clearly stating that TeleSUR has reported the size of the march, however you both were deleting the whole paragraph, so removing any information mentioning the march - if you have a problem about the size of the march, do something about that bit, not the whole paragraph - otherwise this can be interpreted as malicious censorship. And please don't tell me about consensus when both of you make decisions on your own all the time, and I need to force a discussion about your actions constantly. BeŻet (talk) 12:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Could you provide an example of a problem with a reliable source and alleged opposition doctored photos, and do you know if that made it into a Wikipedia article?

Conforming to WP:RS and WP:DUEWEIGHT is not "malicious censorship"; please avoid personalizing discussions and keep discussion to sources.

Now to some of the problems here. First, the article states:

• stated Cabello, form (sic) the Angostura Bridge on the border with Brazil.

Since the Angostura bridge is decidedly NOT on the border with Brazil, or even anywhere near it, we already have credibility concerns. But worse, how can we seek out any other sources to verify if this story is even true, when the reporters don't know where it supposedly happened? BeŻet, I understand that it may be hard for you to recognize when a story is quacking like a duck if you are not from or have never been to Venezuela.

So next, setting aside the Bolivarian acumen for photoshopping, and assuming this march is correctly placed on the bridge in Ciudad Bolivar, we can try to assess WP:DUE by looking for any other source that mentions this massive protest. I find ZERO; how about you, Bezet? A march that big in Ciudad Bolivar would make news in third-party, indepedendent sources. Can you find any? If not, this story is not only potentially another Telesur fabrication, it is WP:UNDUE in our article, and creates WP:FALSEBALANCE. If you have third-party independent sources verifying this march, please provide them. Photoshopping is a very real thing under Maduro. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Why do you assume the protest would have to be reported by other media? We are clearly saying that TeleSUR is saying the march happened, not unconditionally stating it did happen. Moreover, we have plenty of evidence it did happen, because there are dozens of videos from it, all recorded by different people, and moreover it was live-streamed on Periscope. The fact that the protest is ignored by western media is a different matter. BeŻet (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Beyond the other problems (such as Telesur misreporting where it happened), this aspect is covered at WP:PROPORTION. (Separately, I hope you will understand the extent to which falsification of images and videos goes in Venezuela-- that is why we need to base discussion and content on reliable sources, not internet videos.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Here is a decent source. Do with it as you like.----ZiaLater (talk) 09:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Another article

Why do we need this article again? This one seems too much. --MaoGo (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned references in 2019 Venezuelan protests

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 2019 Venezuelan protests's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "SecondDay":

• From 2019 Venezuelan blackout: "Venezuela blackout, in 2nd day, threatens food supplies and patient lives". New York Times. 8 March 2019. Retrieved 18 March 2019.
• From 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis: "Venezuela blackout, in 2nd day, threatens food supplies and patient lives". New York Times. 8 March 2019. Retrieved 18 March 2019. The Maduro administration has been responsible for grossly mismanaging the economy and plunging the country into a deep humanitarian crisis in which many people lack food and medical care. He has also attempted to crush the opposition by jailing or exiling critics, and using lethal force against antigovernment protesters.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done--MaoGo (talk) 11:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

6 April

• https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-politics/venezuelans-march-to-demand-power-water-and-end-to-maduro-idUSKCN1RI0L1 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Done. --MaoGo (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• I saw an article in Germany newspaper FAZ that claims that the pro-Guaidó protest of 6 April happened in about 300 cities. I am currently looking for a RELIABLE source in English or Spanish.--MaoGo (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

  https://larepublica.pe/mundo/1444311-venezuela-juan-guaido-vivo-marcha-operacion-libertad-caracas-chavistas-oposicion-nicolas-maduro SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

To do

• http://puntodecorte.com/provea-tres-manifestantes-asesinados-protestas/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• https://www.derechos.org.ve/actualidad/51-personas-fallecidas-en-protestas-durante-2019-elevan-a-266-el-total-de-muertes-en-manifestaciones-durante-la-era-maduro Most are men, poor, young, and killed by National Guard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• "6.211 protestas en Venezuela durante el primer trimestre de 2019" [6,211 protests in Venezuela during the first quarter of 2019]. Venezuelan Observatory of Social Conflict. 15 April 2019. Retrieved 17 April 2019. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)