Talk:2002 Venezuelan coup attempt

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: hamiltonstone (talk) 01:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC) A lot of work has gone into this article, and its coverage is extensive. This is not an area of international politics with which I am familiar, but I am concerned in general about the neutrality of the article and in particular its referencing. Stability and neutrality also appear to be at issue based on history and talk page discussion. This review does not aim to be comprehensive, but identifies a selection of issues and examples of problems.

• The article appears to rely excessively on one biography of Chavez. I'm not familiar with the bio (or its subject), but the heavy reliance on it, when the event should have extensive coverage in other sources (reliable news agencies, IR journals), appears inappropriate. The title of the biography also made me wonder if it was a bit hagiographic, but reviews in reliable sources appear generally to be behind paywalls. This issue is reinforced for me by the extent to which the biography is being relied upon for details that have little to do with Chavez himself (eg. the role of snipers). I think the Jones material needs to be pared back and some other high-quality sources introduced. Otherwise, the article will struggle to meet WP:WIAGA criterion 4, as well as raising questions under criterion 3.
• There are what appear, to an outsider, to be extraordinary claims that need careful and close citation - at end of sentence, not at end of para - the one that jumped out at me was: "They also told him that the plan to kill a few people with snipers dated back years, as a way to ensure fewer deaths in the event of a coup." Where those claims do not relate to Chavez himself, I would not be looking to a biography to substantiate them, either. I am also unsure that such claims should be in the article at all unless they are both substantiated fairly extensively (at least widely reported), and are critical to the account of the event.
• I support the close citation in the lead - this is a case where that is necessary. I have concerns about the one citation for this sentence: "The United States and Spain quickly acknowledged the de facto pro-US Carmona government, but ended up condemning the coup after it had been defeated" - it looks to me as though it may not be adequate for the claims to which it is cited, but the original page is unavailable, and at present so is the archive, so I can't fully check. I suggest at the very least a second, independent media or scholarly source is needed to support this argument. This looks to me to be a symptom of a potentially broader problem with sources.
• Another example: there is what looks to me a pretty contentious para (both wording and the claims it includes) at the end of the article that begins "In April 2009, after a trial that had begun in March 2006..." This entire para has only one cite, which is to a web news source. That source has been called credible by some but, according to two news outlets cited in the WP article about the source in question, is "pro-Chavez". Without getting into a debate about that, it means that that sole source will simply not cut it for such a paragraph.
• Related to the previous point: it appears to me an extraorinary bit of POV writing to end the "aftermath" section with this: "A lawyer for the victims of the violence described the Caracas Metropolitan Police on 11 April 2002 as "the armed wing of the opposition"". What one lawyer, acting for one side of a conflict, has to say about it should absolutely not be the last word on the subject. That would be so no matter how good the cited source, but given that there is also a question about source neutrality, it is particularly egregious.
• Rely on the scholarly sources as far as possible - Cannon; Parish et al; Cole; Cooper and Legler; Kozloff (i think); possibly Golinger - not sure whether that is a scholarly or independent source; ditto Gott - check the reviews if necessary. Rely on high-quality news outlets for the day-to-day descriptive detail, and books like Gott if they seem sound on the specific points. Basically: a biography is not a good place to start for an account of an event.
• On media issues: PBS Newshour article looks good; the use of an article from Le Monde Diplomatique looks sound to me, for example, though I recognise there may also be issues with its perceived neutrality. If another reliable source differs from LMD on the media stuff, that should be addressed. Otherwise, those are the kinds of sources to be going for of the news / news analysis type.
• Prose issues, eg. the phrase "had not in fact resigned" is used twice in one para.

More minor items:

• The citation format is inconsistent - for example, sometimes Jones, sometimes Bart Jones, sometimes Bart Jones Hugo!.
• An early footnote refers to something being cited in Cannon (2004), but the reference itself is missing (i found it eventually - in footnote 73!).
• Sentence beginning "Bush Administration officials acknowledged meeting with some of the planners..." has an external link at the end, not a reference.
• I suggest that an article like this that is going to need a lot of footnotes (probably even more than currently present) should have a bibliography listing works cited, following the footnotes.
• There are some templates tagging the article - it shouldn't / won't get through GAN with those. The second appears to be tagging some poor POV text that might be able to be removed anyway.

The amount of work involved here indicates to me that this would normally be failed, since I can't imagine it being adressed in several weeks, let alone one, particularly as I am aware there are neutrality debates that will spring from significant revisions to the text. But i will leave this on hold to give an opportunity for discussion prior to closing. Regards. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, the minor issues could be dealt with, and we can discuss those later. Stability is not a problem (the article is not much changed since October) and issues about neutrality appear in the past, and certainly predate the largescale expansion/improvement I did in October, which ought to obviate them.

I didn't feel that the expansion in October obviated neutrality issues. However I have no issue with stability for GA provided the revision process does not itself trigger a new round of instability. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

So let's focus on the main issue that comes up in your review: sourcing. The reason Jones (2008) is heavily relied on is that it is by far the most detailed treatment of the subject (in a large central chapter of the book) by a serious source. I'm not quite sure what your bugbear is with biographies (it's not unusual for them to be the most detailed sources on historical events); this particular one is published by Random House, and Jones is a respected journalist who was active at the time, so it is not greatly surprising that his biography of Chavez deals with this critical episode in great detail (the book is pretty thick and deals with plenty of other stuff in great detail too). Scholarly sources are used in the article as much as possible; the existing ones don't provide any more detail and there just aren't any more, at least at the moment, and there's no reason to expect more. Similarly mainstream media isn't much of an option because it generally doesn't deal with the episode in sufficient detail. With some effort some of the material currently cited to Jones alone could be cited additionally to other good sources, but most of it is detail simply not available elsewhere. The sniper claim, for example, obviously is critical to understanding the event.

I don't dispute most of the facts set out above, but disagree with how they are being used to argue the case for Jones. Jones was a respected journalist - as far as I can tell, yes, that is true in general, however he was also granted repeated one-on-one interviews with Chavez and reported for a long period of time, so there are risks (I am not calling it more than that) as to whether he has remained fully neutral. Jones is also a journalist, not a scholar. Random House is a reliable publisher, but it isn't the International Political Science Review or the Bulletin of Latin American Research. We are not dealing with threshold RS issues here, but quality, neutrality, comprehensiveness, and the reliability of individual facts, within the realm of sources that are reliable.

Beyond that issue, it appears simply untrue that the other sources cannot help with the detail. I am not going to spend huge amounts of time on this. I went to the first Jones footnote, number 14, which supports the sentence "The strike was organised by the country's most powerful business group and largest trade union federation... acting together". Richard Gott also has this, pp 213 onward. Gott was the very first alternative source I tried.

Then I turned to footnote 25, which is the use of Jones to substantiate the events of the strikes from about 5 April. I found this covered (in less detail) on p.218 of Randall et al 2007. Worryingly, however, the Randall article's detail doesn't quite square with the way Jones is quoted in WP (the broader picture is consistent). WP, citing Jones, says on 6 April a strike was called for 9 April; Randall says a general strike was called for 6 April and then, because of its success, prolonged through to the 9th, and then beyond, by the strike's leaders. Which is right? I know Jones was on the ground, but I would normally back a scholarly journal article against a journalist's book. This is why this must be done with a broader foundation in the scholarly sources.

A little later: Jones is again footnoted on aspects of the Miraflores confrontation: WP, citing Jones, says 19 dead. Randall et al say 17, Cannon (probably sensibly) says "up to 20". But all cover this point.

Jones is also the only source cited for the whole para on who was responsible for the Miraflores confrontation. Yet this appears widely regarded as critical to the coup and Jones is not alone in saying it is an ongoing issue in Venezuelan politics (eg. Gott says the same thing). Jones is also relied on in odd ways here. The WP article says at one point "El Nacional reported that the presidential honour guard arrested three snipers, while other reports claim seven arrests at the Hotel Ausonia of men later freed in the chaos of the coup, and empty shells found at the Hotel Edén." We are then given a cite for El Nacional, but the "other reports" turn out to be cited solely to Jones. Should it not read "while Jones claimed..."? Or if there are other reports, can they not be cited?

There are other, related, deficiences. Cannon's analysis of the competing explanation of the coup focusses on the common factor of class, and the importance of class in explaining both social divisions and their denial. Class is mentioned just once in the whole article, and Cannon's explanation gets no coverage. This is part of a broader problem with the article, that I should have identified yesterday: there is essentially nothing in the WP article about analysis of the coup: either the kinds of observations made by Cannon, regarding class, or Randall et al's argument about the broader role of the OAS, just to take two examples. In fact, the tone of the one para mentioning the OAS appears to contradict Randall's argument, and the argument of Cooper and Legler, even though C & L is the cited source! The para shows evidence of POV pushing, and needs fixing on that front too.

That is enough - it took me about an hour to put the above together, suggesting serious issues with the text: over-reliance on Jones; presentation of facts that are not as clear as the article makes them out to be; a lack of reporting of analysis; possible POV text; incorrect interpretation of the sources. To me it is now an open-and-shut case that this article is not at GA - clearer now than yesterday, because I've read some of the source material. I hope this gives editors some leads to work with, and I appreciate Rd232's efforts to improve the article and respond to concerns. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing point: yes, the general facts, including the example you give, are surely sourceable from many other places. (I wouldn't choose Gott, because too many editors would consider him a worse source than Jones.) That can of course be done, though adding additional verification for non-contentious points doesn't seem a priority.

OK, first factual point: it's not hard to confirm that Jones is correct, the strike began on 9 April [1] [2]. Parish et al have simply got muddled (proof: they write "Tuesday 6 April", when 6 April 2002 was a Saturday, and it was 9 April which was Tuesday).

Second factual point: looking through Google News, 19 appears the most accepted figure for deaths (45 hits, v 7 for 17 people and 8 for 18 people). (es.wiki has 19, unsourced.) In the absence of a definitive source, it probably merits a footnote that there remains some disagreement about the exact total.

Third point: the "other reports" is probably just poor phrasing aimed at keeping a balance of "we don't really know" NPOV; those factual claims are from Jones, and not attributed by him to any sources. It could be attributed to him explicitly, or treated as a fact.

Fourth point, about OAS - I don't see any contradiction of the sources; you'll have to explain that. Basically the OAS role during the coup was minimal, because it was over by the time it met on 13 April. The "Aftermath" section covers the OAS' subsequent role; it could perhaps have more detail, and I've expanded it slightly.

Fifth point: Cannon's thesis about class is of course interesting analysis, but my concern has been to focus on the facts. I'm not immediately sure how to incorporate Cannon's thesis, plus doing so would surely require adding other analyses for NPOV. Perhaps you have some suggestions.

In sum, thanks for these comments; it's the sort of detailed critical input which the article needs. If you were willing to keep at it I'm sure we could get to GA, but it's a ton of work and I really shouldn't attempt it at the moment with my RL issues, so I guess we'll call it a day; but if you want to contribute to the article's development, you're more than welcome. Rd232 ^talk 19:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we better call it a day - RL is calling us both. I do think the article needs some analysis of the coup in context - interpretations of its causes etc. It is potentially possible to integrate this into "Background", but it might work as a section near the end. Further suggestions for broadening the literature base:

• Steve Ellner, Daniel Hellinger: Venezuelan politics in the Chávez era: class, polarization, and conflict
• Brian A. Nelson: The silence and the scorpion: the coup against Chávez and the making of modern Venezuela
• (Gnerally for analysis in international context): the works of Brian Loveman.

Kudos to Rd232 for having taken this on. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Much the same applies to Venezuelanalysis.com; there was a heated WP:RSN debate about a year ago, and the arguments in favour of accepting it as a reliable source are vastly stronger than the opposite. It is accepted in academia as a source, for example. Rd232 ^talk 20:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I was not meaning to suggest that Venezuelanalysis does not meet the minimum threshold for RS, but that there are questions about its neutrality that mean it is not a suitable source to stand alone in support of important, remarkable or strong claims in the article. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Mmm. Well I'll just point out that Parish et al [Randall Parish, ....] uses it as a source. Rd232 ^talk 19:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

PS the "documentaries" section was added in late November, some time after the GA nomination, and it clearly needs a bit of work. Since the relevant articles aren't too bad, that shouldn't be a big problem. Rd232 ^talk 21:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought something like that might be the case. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2011 (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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)