Talk:Protests against Nicolás Maduro

Neutrality...

Alright guys, we need to get this blasted neutrality tag off of the article. If we start working on it now, we can have it off sooner than later. If anyone has thoughts about neutrality issues share them on this section. However, don't immediately edit information on the article that you may find POV, non-neutral, et cetera. The main thing about making something neutral is by having something people on separate sides can both agree on, hence making it neurtal.

Just remember to keep it professional and let us have discussions here before we make edits. This may take awhile since things are still developing with the protests so be patient. Create smaller sections on this neutrality section as needed for separate discussions.--Zfigueroa (talk) 07:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Background section needs to focus extensively on all improvements made by the Chavez government, it is key for understanding the protests.
• Extensive section with subsections on government, pro-government, opposition and pro-opposition violence, including photographs and perhaps videos, estimates of damage, and reporting on all major instances of damage. For example, Maduro claimed they burned fifteen universities and caused millions of dollars' worth of damage, but this is not ever elaborated, even though it is an important subject. There are available videos of pro-opposition terrorists destroying public property, and property which belongs to the local community.
• The government reported that, for instance, they had found terrorism equipment (e.g. weapons and bomb equipment) in the hands of the opposition several times. Is this true? If so, why is no information about it included? And if not, then it should be explained how it is false.
• Reports on the peace talks.
• Elaboration on "False media" section.
• Even if a government opinion is earlier given that they believe that someone else are to blame for "x", that is not an excuse to later present it as an objective fact that the government is to blame for "x".
• Stop presenting subjective opinions as objective facts, and all opinions must state by exactly which group or individuals they are held.
• Elaboration on how the shortages actually affect people. The article suggests paints the picture they're starving because they can't even get food, a more realistic scenario suggests that it is down simply to certain goods being unavailable sometimes or people have to wait a lot.
• Extreme slimming down or re-structuring in a completely different form of History section. A better form would be simply to describe major events of what happened in a few paragraphs rather than typing in a chronology with the date and explanation of exactly what happened that day.
• Elaboration on how the government believes that the deaths have been accused by the opposition.
• Elaboration on the barricades/guarimbas, including all their negative effects according to government. For example, they claimed barricades ended up killing 50 people. Is this true? If so, how does it happen? What is a barricade exactly and why would it kill anyone? The current information on barricades extends to like one paragraph.
• Do not generalize legal actions on opposition leaders in one sentence. For example, a mayor was jailed for denying direct orders from the government to take down barricades, while Leopoldo Lopez was arrested for completely different reasons. This can't simply be down to "The arrest of opposition leaders by the government": each case must be broken down and explained. Otherwise, you make them all look like political prisoners even though there may be serious reasons for taking actions against them.
• Elaboration on government's effort to stop the violence.
• Presentation of government counterpoints after any pro-opposition point being given.
• It is not acceptable to present the government view one time, and then present the opposition view all the next times.
• Numbers on the demonstrations, if possible, like usually given for other similar events on Wikipedia. How many pro-government and opposition demonstrators?
• Elaboration on the opposition's other options and a fair viewpoint, such as they have a chance to collect signatures of a 20% of people and thus force a recall referendum to be called which would eliminate Maduro as president. Even though such peaceful options are available, the leader Leopoldo Lopez insists on calling protests which may or may not later result on the deaths of 40 people and he is presented as a hero and as a political prisoner. Is this fair?
• Never generalize anything done by the government or a pro-government individual or groups. Break down everything and explain it case-by-case.

Zozs (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Issues

Below are some issues that can be fixed more easily than some others brought up. Feel free to edit the "partially done" or "not done" to "done" when needed.--Zfigueroa (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Background issues

• Background section needs to focus extensively on all improvements made by the Chavez government, it is key for understanding the protests.

 Done This was already stated in the lead to the article. However, government supporters claim that government economic policy, especially that of under previous president Hugo Chávez (1999-2013), significantly improved the quality of life of Venezuelans.--Zfigueroa (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

 Not done There needs to be a subsection on the "Background" section with several paragraphs which elaborates on this, not a single sentence with a link to a massive article. Without this information, the protests and the positions of the government and opposition cannot be understood. 37.15.231.233 (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done I have added more in the first paragraph of the Background section. It is not about all of Chavez's improvements since this would bring the article off topic but I have covered his introduction of price controls which has allegedly led to inflation and shortages.--Zfigueroa (talk) 01:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Peace talks

• Reports on the peace talks.

Partly done: There are still some peace talks happening in the near future.--Zfigueroa (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done I think this topic is pretty much taken care of. There is more needed and perhaps a new section but as of now this is done.--Zfigueroa (talk) 01:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Elaboration on shortages

• Elaboration on how the shortages actually affect people. The article suggests paints the picture they're starving because they can't even get food, a more realistic scenario suggests that it is down simply to certain goods being unavailable sometimes or people have to wait a lot.

Not done: This will be somewhat difficult since most sources just state the data about shortages, actions taken combatting shortages (such as rationing) and the long lines that people must wait in.--Zfigueroa (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Barricades

• Elaboration on the barricades/guarimbas, including all their negative effects according to government. For example, they claimed barricades ended up killing 50 people. Is this true? If so, how does it happen? What is a barricade exactly and why would it kill anyone? The current information on barricades extends to like one paragraph.

 Done As more information comes about barricades, it will be added. But until then, there is enough information provided about barricades in order for the article to be somewhat neutral.--Zfigueroa (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

 Not done There is currently extensive information available and the current section on barricades says almost nothing. 37.15.231.233 (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done There has been more added about "guayas" and causes of death. There is enough information about barricades as of now. If more information arises, feel free to add to the existing work.--Zfigueroa (talk) 04:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done I added the government and the opposition opinion towards the barricades, besides including the use of "miguelitos" (caltrops) in the section. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Government's Anti-Violence efforts

• Elaboration on government's effort to stop the violence.

Partly done: There is obviously reports of dispersing protesters with tear gas and the peace talks that are occurring, but there is not enough evidence of orders or tasks that the government is seeking to curb violence.--Zfigueroa (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Numbers of Demonstrators

• Numbers on the demonstrations, if possible, like usually given for other similar events on Wikipedia. How many pro-government and opposition demonstrators?

Not done: It is tough to find information on this. The government says only a few hundred while some sources show thousands. If there are contested numbers, include both in order to show a range of how many might have demonstrated.--Zfigueroa (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done Somebody added statistics. Zozs (talk) 19:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Article-level POV tags

We had a consensus on this once before, on this Talk page. Article-level POV tags don't help improve the article very much; they just show that one side or the other on a controversial subject has general feelings or concerns about POV.

Instead, much more helpful are the specific inline tags like {{POV-statement}} which leaves in the article or {{lopsided}} which leaves in the article can be used. There are others; for a fuller list of inline tags related to Neutrality and factual accuracy, see here.

But in my view, the previous consensus is sufficient to remove the article-level tag right now, while editors with concerns identify specific instances in the article where concerns or allegations of POV exist.

Also, editors with concerns can, of course, edit the article, and provide sources, to better balance the article if they believe sources exist for the statements they want to be made in the article.

Then, discussions can be held on the Talk page about specific things, rather than broad generalities. Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I just want to make sure this tag goes away. It doesn't look good on the article so I want users to address things that may not seem neutral. Once we have a resolution, it will be marked as "OK" or something like that so we know to work on another topic.--Zfigueroa (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Understood. My point is that article-level POV tags on controversial articles, as this one clearly is, almost never go away as they are entirely too vague to ever solve all alleged problems to everyones satisfaction. Instead, a better approach that yields real improvement is to use specific inline tags on specific issues, with each explained in a hidden comment inline, or in a bullet on the Talk page. After that, it is possible for each specific issue to be addressed, discussed, consensus gained or not, etc.. That is generally not possible on an article-level POV tag given that the article is controversial, and many sides tend to believe their side is underrepresented.

So I believe that that is the consensus to be reached here, or someone can just go with the consensus we previously reached on this Talk page (now in the archives). N2e (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Removing the tag would have the same effect as turning off an alarm that nuclear meltdown is about to occur. There doesn't seem to be a "consensus", rather there are only a very few editors on the article and the majority view in Venezuela is represented as a minority view. A consistent and fair use of these in-line tags would require plastering them in every section and next to just about every other sentence. I wonder why more attention is being paid to tags than neutrality? Cosmetics is irrelevant at this point. Zozs (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

From what I understand, the neutrality tag was added because the editor felt that, on an article-wide level, pro-opposition information is extensively represented, while pro-government - or at least in a sense, anti-opposition - info is underrepresented or just plain omitted. (In other words, it's not an issue that inline citations will really reflect.) This was my impression on first reading the article as well. However, I like to think I've made some headway on this issue and the need for the article-level tag is less necessary. Plus, in my cynical experience, tags are so common that people barely notice them and rarely lead to improvements.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 21:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

We will keep it until more of the issues above are taken care of.--Zfigueroa (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Just a little bit of NPOV

Why was deleted anti-government radicals from infobox? This article is total POV, I just tried to little fix it. Ok, lets delete also collectivos. There are no mentions about fact that many opposition parties and groups, expect Voluntad Popular, already started talks with government and stopped support for demonstrations.--62.245.80.62 (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but why wouldn't we delete that? There are radical protesters everywhere, even in the chavista circles. But that doesn't mean they are "Radicals" and not "Protesters"; so I think it's fundamentally wrong to put that in here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeah 93 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

So why paramilitares Colectivos are not include in pro-government protesters???--62.245.80.62 (talk) 20:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Because the government has recognized colectivos as a separate entity. They claim they do their part to help the country. And as such, they work as a different entity. It's not "delete that or I'll put this", it doesn't work like that. The article has to remain as neutral as possible, without bias; and calling radicals as a group (which you haven't defined by the way) is biased. --yeah_93 (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

We really need to separate different parties in the conflict. I'll try to work on it.--Zfigueroa (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

In what way? What do you mean by that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeah 93 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I changed the info box a little bit. The only thing I'm not sure about with neutrality is with pro-government demonstrators. Some of them are also radical, yet they definitely are not a paramilitary group either since they lack sophisticated weapons and tactics.--Zfigueroa (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Maria Corina Machado is not a member of Voluntad Popular. And why do you insist in placing "Anti-government radicals" over there? Can you define that as another, clearly defined entity that should go over there? Should we also put "Anti-government moderates" too? It seems deeply illogical to me. Just because some unsigned member asked to? --yeah_93 (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

So should I remove anti-government radicals?--Zfigueroa (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I do believe so. --yeah_93 (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Stop supporting POV! Lets save this article from total POV!!! Lets return to wikipedia style and work, not to political rightist or leftist propaganda. Return anti-government radicals or delete pro-government paramilitaries. Or return POV tag and confess you are biased and supporting one of side. Thanks.--62.245.80.62 (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The infobox is good now.--Zfigueroa (talk) 04:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

No, now this article is whole pro-opposition propagation text. Nothing more, nothing less. Absolute failure of Wikipedia.--78.102.53.36 (talk) 13:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, the infobox is not fine. The current article is much better than older versions, particularly the lead is nearly perfect now, but it would be just wrong to pretend this article was not slanted in favor of the opposition. Zozs (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

If we were to add violent protesters we would also have to add violent pro-government demonstrators since they are both mentioned in the same way in sources. We know that there are violent groups on both sides so we would have to present them the same. The infobox would not be much different just more mentions of violence with these additions.--Zfigueroa (talk) 00:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand what you think, but what is Collectivos? Its violent paramilitary loyalists. I think "Antigovernment radicals" or "Antigovernment militants" will be good compromise to balance with Collectivos.--78.102.53.36 (talk) 00:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Sources

What is the justification for removing all references to venezuelanalysis.com, whilst excessively referencing lapatilla.com? lapatilla.com has already been the topic of a previous discussion on this talk page, where many people expressed the view that lapatilla.com is not a reliable source for anything other than the opinion of lapatilla.com ("according to lapatilla.com..."). similarly, in the case of venezuelanalysis, it is obviously a pro-chavez website, but this should not preclude it from being used as a resource to improve the article by sharing much needed (pro-government) viewpoints (and/or uncontentious information not found on other sites). ( "....reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.--Wikipedia:Reliable) Riothero (talk) 01:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Didn't it have something to do with the fact that it is also unreliable? lapatilla is a very, very biased site, but it is decent when it reports news, at the very least it can be used for that (except when they are obviously reporting something false). But I really don't recall the argument of venezuelanalysis. I agree however, that we could use better sources than lapatilla (more accurate and less biased) as is the case with venezuelanalysis. We could also use the (excessively biased) AVN or TeleSur sources, as they are, let's say, more official sources of the government's POV. --yeah_93 (talk) 04:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I mainly use La Patilla for the timeline. That is where the majority of their sources are used. Other than that there isn't too much since I did not want anyone to keep disputing with me. La Patilla is an actual news agency based in Venezuela and uses resources from other agencies acquired in Colombia as well. It is headed by the co-founder of Globovision who founded La Patilla in 2010. I also noticed that El Pais is now getting the same flak as La Patilla too.

VA is not based in Venezuela at all. It is based in New York and is a collection of people from England, Australia, and the US contributing to what the founder calls a "clearly pro-Bolivarian Revolution" perspective. It is pretty much a public relations website of the Venezuelan government since it is funded by the Venezuelan Government.

Using the government sources would be better to use than VA as itr would be directly from their opinions, data, etc.--Zfigueroa (talk) 09:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Removing and/or replacing lapatilla.com references should be a priority for this article.Riothero (talk) 02:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

It is a reliable source. I understand your opinion but their information is vital for the timeline of events.--Zfigueroa (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I can also provide numbers. La Patilla is among the top 1000 visited websites globally. It is also the 11th most visited website in Venezuela, just behind Yahoo and ahead of Wikipedia, El Universal, El Nacional and Globovision. A significant percentage of visits are also from the United States. The high visitation of La Patilla shows how many Venezuelans trust the website. I know I wouldn't visit a website that seems to be bogus.

Meanwhile, Venezuelanalysis is ranked somewhere between the 100,000-200,000 in visited websites globally. Its primary readers are in the United States.--Zfigueroa (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Lapatilla.com is not a reliable source. You are the only one who thinks so. This was the subject of prior discussion. There are many Venezuelan news sources that are reliable. It is a shame that you have not used them. I will begin to remove and/or replace lapatilla.com references with or without your help. The status quo cannot stand.Riothero (talk) 23:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I have had agreements if you look at previous discussion instead of using your own opinion. It is not just mine. You have been attacking my edits for some time now and that needs to stop.--Zfigueroa (talk) 02:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Not really. La Patilla has already been established to be biased. I suggest to stop using it. Zozs (talk) 02:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I have every right to enforce the rules of Wikipedia, and to correct your edits when those rules are violated.--Riothero (talk) 02:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

That said, I would ask you to assume good faith on my part, as I assume good faith on yours. If/when there's a contested issue, I would be happy to discuss it with you in the hope of resolving our dispute. I hope we can acknowledge that there is no consensus regarding lapatilla.com as a RS. If/when the same news items are available from other sources (more likely to be deemed reliable), I would simply recommend using them. It does not seem to me like that is too much to ask.--Riothero (talk) 04:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

If there is no better option, use La Patilla? Once we can find other sources that have a different part of the story we can edit or remove info from La Patilla.--Zfigueroa (talk) 06:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

OK. We can agree to that, in cases where the material is uncontentious.--Riothero (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Examples:

• If, as it appears from the discussion above, La Patilla is a RS. Then we do not need additional refs (CNN, BBC, etc...) Capitalismojo (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• Is there any source critical of the Venezuelan government which isn't automatically disqualified? bobrayner (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC) (Talking about La Patilla)

• It appears that any source which says something critical of the government is automatically labelled partisan. (Or ultraconservative or whatever). That's got to stop. bobrayner (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Since La Patilla is primarily used for the timeline, I have not found any better source. When we can catch up to what happens, we can look for other sources as well.

I'm really sick of you guys going after every single edit I make. From Bolivarian propaganda (which is now up for deletion after it was just agreed to be kept), to Alberto Federico Ravell. Every edit I make is ridiculed by the same three or four people who ride on my contribs page and harass my edits. You can have your other 3 or 4 friends say to delete everything from La Patilla too. The only thing that was previously heavily discussed about La Patilla's reliability was the alleged use of Adamsite. I know now that I was wrong with that addition since I found other sources disproving it. I made a mistake and I will accept that and learn. But if you are going to delete all the work I put into this article only because you want to, then your edits are the one in question. I have given multiple reasons why La Patilla is a reliable source. I have given multiple sources in other articles and you have also reverted them without thought. I want to work with every editor on Wikipedia but you're making this very difficult. Let us wait and make this decision when more users come.--Zfigueroa (talk) 02:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

While I understand that you may not like this you must understand that we are only trying to contribute, the same as you, yet have a differing viewpoint. Nobody is "after you", rather we see stuff which is wrong (in our view) and we try to correct it. And sometimes deletion of something is a contribution because it makes for a better article. La Patilla has been clearly put into question and there are only a 1-2 people standing up for it and their arguments do not seem to have any validity. I seriously doubt that it can be considered a "reliable source". And only a minority of what you add is questioned. You are accusing people of trying to create problems, yet you are the user who seems to always be involved in disputes and being accused of using unreliable sources, being biased, etc. Although there is nothing wrong with that, of course. I think everyone here appreciates your contributions. Zozs (talk) 03:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Well let us wait for more users to have an input.--Zfigueroa (talk) 03:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Guys, please stop arguing. La Patilla being a biased source doesn’t means that it is unreliable; it is a good reference to include events and facts in the timeline, just like it has been said before. I personally have done so, but that’s the reason why I usually include several sources about the same event. While La Patilla may not be the best website to consult, its references shouldn’t be deleted only because its viewpoint and it can be used as a secondary source if there aren’t any other sources to consult. If you want me to, I can suggest local newspaper websites for references, like El Universal or El Nacional. --Jamez42 (talk) 19:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, like for example what was mentioned in a discussion above, La Patilla claiming that "The Venezuelan police is tolerating rapes" in a two-sentence article and basing their WHOLE information on two <40 character Twitter messages from random people, literally. Calling La Patilla "reliable" is a joke. I don't know about El Universal, but I've heard of El Nacional as an biased & unreliable source and spreading false information. Someone who knows more should talk about it. Zozs (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

i would say that the major newspapers (eluniversal.com, el-nacional.com, ultimasnoticias.com.ve) are generally the most reliable sources for news (which isn't to say that they don't display certain ideological tendencies).--Riothero (talk) 10:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

In that particular article La Patilla bases the information off of reports from a Televen correspondent at the scene. The reporting is done off of Twitter since Twitter is EXTREMELY popular in Venezuela. If you guys want me to I can go dig up the tweets by him.--Zfigueroa (talk) 06:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Offtopic ("Bolivarian propaganda" canvassing accusations)

Zozs, I can honestly say you canvassed the heck out of the Bolivarian propaganda article. When you say nobody is after me, that is a complete lie.

I mean look at this:

• 20:23, 27 April 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-1)‎ . . User talk:Mbinebri ‎ (→‎"Bolivarian propaganda" article)
• 20:23, 27 April 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-1)‎ . . User talk:Zfigueroa ‎ (current)
• 20:23, 27 April 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-1)‎ . . User talk:Somedifferentstuff ‎
• 20:21, 27 April 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-1)‎ . . User talk:Riothero ‎ (→‎"Bolivarian propaganda" article)

That's me outnumbered 4 to 1. You guys obviously need to stop. If you appreciated my contributions, maybe you would wait for at least 4 other users to place an input too. And please, PLEASE don't canvas for those 4 other users too--Zfigueroa (talk) 03:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

And @Riothero, it seems like you're in an editing conflict. I'm not the only one who has been in arguments. I know Zozs is the one who stated this, but I'm saying you aren't agreed with also.--Zfigueroa (talk) 03:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see what the problem is there. I don't know what the views of these users are and, to be quite frank, I don't care. I looked in the edit histories at Venezuela articles like "2014 Venezuelan protests" and "Hugo Chavez". I found that there are only 4 active editors on Venezuela articles over the last 2 weeks or so: Mbinebri, Zfigueroa, Somedifferentstuff and Riothero. So I asked all of them to participate in the discussion over whether that article "Bolivarian propaganda" should not be deleted or not, as the article seems to have little traffic and the discussion would probably have few editors. I have not looked at your contributions at all, I simply noticed that a link to that article was placed on the Hugo Chavez article, noticed what a violation the article was, and decided to list it for deletion. Do you see editors or do you see "either communists or neoliberals"? Zozs (talk) 03:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

You didn't tell me that you actually put the article up for deletion like you did to them lol. You made sure they knew you:

• 02:30, 28 April 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+170)‎ . . Talk:2014 Venezuelan protests ‎ (→‎Sources)
• 02:27, 28 April 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+224)‎ . . User talk:Somedifferentstuff ‎ (→‎"Bolivarian propaganda" article) (current)
• 02:27, 28 April 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+224)‎ . . User talk:Mbinebri ‎ (→‎"Bolivarian propaganda" article) (current)
• 02:27, 28 April 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+224)‎ . . User talk:Riothero ‎ (current)
• 02:11, 28 April 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-6)‎ . . Hugo Chávez ‎ (current)

Am I on that list Zozs? Hmmmm... I wonder why I wouldn't be told an article is up for deletion.--Zfigueroa (talk) 03:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

That one's easy. It's simply because when I started to notify them that the article was up for deletion, you had already posted your opinion in the "article for deletion" page, so you already knew that it was up for deletion. Can you please stop to see conspirancies everywhere, formulating some complex "plan against you" when there is a no-brainer answer? Zozs (talk) 03:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

It is not a conspiracy, it is the truth. I never accused you guys of being "either communists or neoliberals". That doesn't matter. What matters is that you are following each of my edits, reverting or deleting them and canvassing. Did you ask any other recent editors such as Yeah93, Jamez24 and others? They have also been very helpful with these articles.--Zfigueroa (talk) 03:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about the others but I hvaven't even looked at your edit history, I just regularly check certain articles. Jamez24 seems to have only 1 recent edit on Venezuela articles, I didn't notice Yeah 93. You are free to invite who you want to the discussion. Zozs (talk) 03:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I already did because I knew this was happen. I just hoped it wouldn't because I thought we were getting better with this.--Zfigueroa (talk) 03:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, whatever. I'm not admitting to your accusations, and please stop imagining problems. Zozs (talk) 03:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Chavez's friend murdered

A user added this to the timeline and just wanted to keep it here in case more develops. As of right now, it is not related to the article. That could change though.

Chavistas leftist long-time activist and politician Eliecer Otaiza was murdered in Caracas.

I will look into this soon and keep an eye out for more in the future.--Zfigueroa (talk) 00:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Right now it looks like Otaiza was just robbed. (El Impulso, El Nacional and El Mundo) However, President Maduro thinks something is suspicious...--Zfigueroa (talk) 07:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it should be put in the article, unless it really has something to do with the protests. Yes, the guy was a councilman, but nothing so far indicates it's related to this. --yeah_93 (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Removal of the Gallery section?

I think the pictures before that section illustrate the point clearly. Yes, there are people protesting, but this isn't some kind of Facebook wall, I believe there really is no need for that section. If anything, make a collage of some of them, and put it as the main image at the infobox. Don't you think so? --yeah_93 (talk) 02:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Zozs (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

So, shall we? --yeah_93 (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Made the collage of main events/places.--Zfigueroa (talk) 09:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Millions of pro-government demonstrators

The claim doesn't look false and is notable enough to be listed. According to TeleSur and a few other sources, 3 million people got called to demonstrate in favor of the government on May 1, and later government sources reported "millions" of demonstrators supported Maduro. Zozs (talk) 02:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Could you post the links to those sources? Also, calling for people doesn't mean they are going to show up. And the "government sources" you said, I only found about Minister Manuel Fernandez saying it. Though I believe it was said as rhetoric. --yeah_93 (talk) 02:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Do we have a better source than Telesur? That source is very well known for its exaggerations (if not lies) in support of the Chavista regime. Cambalachero (talk) 03:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

This is getting tiring. You guys are biased (sometimes even admitting it) and refuse to think even very minimally before talking. The fact is that the Wikipedia article clearly says: "ACCORDING TO THE GOVERNMENT". So yeah, pro-government sources can completely be used to back that up. And yes, calling people doesn't mean that they will show up, but if several sources report that 3,000,000 people got called to a demonstration, and then later, after the demonstration, government sources report "millions" attended, then why take the government source as "it wasn't meant seriously"? It wouldn't be weird that out of 3 million, at least 1 million came. "At least" before "hundreds of thousands" has to be mentioned in the infobox because otherwise it looks like the first sentence is saying that the government source is wrong, which it is not, it is simply numbers from other demonstrations. You can't make the article say what sources aren't saying. THINK before reverting. Zozs (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The article says "Hundreds of thousands of opposition protesters" at one side, and "At least hundreds of thousands of pro-government demonstrators" at the other. A subtle way of implying that, whatever the figures are, the pro-government ones are higher. "At least" in this context reads as "the same quantity or more". --Cambalachero (talk) 20:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, that's a problem, and a way should be found to fix it - perhaps including "at least" at both sides? However, having "hundreds of thousands" without "at least" in the government side would imply that "millions" listed right below it is false. The thing is that there's been claims which can be reliably sourced (yes, a government source is a reliable source for a government claim) about there being more than "hundreds of thousands" at the government side, yet not at the opposition side. Zozs (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

But doesn't that logic mean that we should remove the "hundreds of thousands" removed and go straight to putting "millions". If we are going to take the government's "statement" for granted, why don't we do it completely? --yeah_93 (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Because we aren't taking it for granted. We are listing it as a government claim (even though it's not been questioned) in order to be neutral, alongside listing other claims. Zozs (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

We need information from a reliable source, not a phrase from President Maduro from a government source. Sorry that I did not say this before.--Zfigueroa (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

So President Maduro is not a reliable source for government claims? Actually he is. And it wasn't even Maduro who said that I think. Zozs (talk) 23:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Zozs, have in mind that if it is more than "hundreds of thousands" (which the "at least" implies) then we are talking about millions, the next decimal level, even if not directly. Let's just say 2 millions, the minimum to speak of millions in plural. Venezuela has a population of nearly 28 millions, so that number would be a demonstration composed by the 6% of the whole population of the country. A complete and absolute nonsense, that only a populist rethoric can embrace. No, no serious source says that there were millions of protesters against the government, precisely because they are serious. Besides, remember that we are talking about claims from the man who claims that the late Chávez reincarnated in a little bird and talked to him... The neutral point of view does not require us to take things into the realm of the nonsenses just because one side has taken things there. --Cambalachero (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

"At least" does not mean it is neccessarily more than hundreds of thousands. What is your better solution? Zozs (talk) 23:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Uh, "at least" implies it is more than that. But I will agree that it doesn't necessarily mean "millions". If we don't want to use that then we could use the "more or less" symbol. --yeah_93 (talk) 00:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

My solution is simply to leave it at "Hundreds of thousands", and that's it. The term is already imprecise (as we can't say a precise and exact number for either side), and it already helps in giving a rough idea of the number of people involved. "More or less", "At least", etc; are simply redundant: they just replace an imprecision with an imprecise imprecision. Cambalachero (talk) 01:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Leave it. "Millions" is hard to qualify, and anyways everyone knows both sides have brought out very large amounts of demonstrators, so there's no need to tarry on the numbers if "hundreds of thousands" will do. 71.167.107.243 (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)