Talk:Caracazo

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2019 and 6 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Stevenleicht. Peer reviewers: RitaC99, Shahrozzaman.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

describing privatization and austerity as "economic reform" is NOT NPOV

Privatization and austerity are simply one set of policy ideas. They do not automatically represent "reform" because it is not an unchallengeable assertion that state ownership, job security, and well-funded social services represent corruption. Therefore, using the term "economic reform" to describe them is not NPOV, and can in fact be taken as using a Wikipedia page to advocate for those policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.74.53.131 (talk) 04:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Death toll

I'm bothered by the arbitrary inclusion of 3,000 as an estimate of the number dead (and even more, by the spanish page's inclusion of un millon). Who made these estimates? I'd love to include non-governmental estimates, but so far I can only find passing reference to numbers. DanKeshet July 4, 2005 22:52 (UTC)

I am bothered as well. The site used as quotation is a propaganda site for Chavismo, THE propaganda site abroad. I wonder if that should remain there --Periergeia (talk) 11:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree that the death toll number is completely arbitrary. The reference cited is vague and unclear. The death toll according to the current Venezuelan Supreme Court is on 331. http://aporrea.org/ddhh/n153360.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.111.111.39 (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Padrino

Caldera no es padrino de Hugo Sandy 21:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Need citation

Until there's a source, I am removing the following sentence, "The Venezuelan government, by then headed by Chávez, did not contest the findings of the case, and accepted full responsibility for the government's actions". It's a biased statement with no backup. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.191.85.179 (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Changed the infobox

Though many civilians were killed, a more suitable infobox for this article is the civil conflict infobox. The previously used civilian attack template is unsuitable for this article as it is generally used for terrorist attacks or other comparable acts.--ZiaLater (talk) 04:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

What I Plan to Add and Bibliography

I plan to add lots of factual information about Caracazo. This includes: changing the ideas that "privatization and austerity as 'economic reform," changing the amount of deaths, or "death toll" that was resulted from Caracazo, and adding citations to old factual information that needs them. The bibliography for my future additions are below:

Debrek, Red. “1989: Venezuela Caracazo Food Riots.” Libcom.org, 23 May 2019, libcom.org/history/1989-venezuelas-caracazo-food-riots.

Griswold, Deirdre. “Venezuela's 'Caracazo' and Imperialist Hypocrisy.” Workers World, 19 Feb. 2019, www.workers.org/2019/02/41118/.

Kowalski, Philip. “Venezuela's Downfall Isn't About Socialism - It's About Oil.” Www.ozy.com, 22 Apr. 2019, www.ozy.com/flashback/venezuelas-downfall-isnt-about-socialism-its-about-oil/92669/.

Marquina, Cira Pascual. “Thirty Years after Venezuela's 'Caracazo': A Conversation with Livia Vargas.” Venezuelanalysis.com, 14 Oct. 2019, venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/14400.

TeleSUR, None. “La Masacre De El Caracazo.” Alianza Bolivariana Para Los Pueblos De Nuestra America, 2019, www.portalalba.org/index.php/areas/cultura/memoria-historica/8221-la-masacre-de-el-caracazo.

Times Editors, New York. “Price Riots Erupt in Venezuela.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 28 Feb. 1989, www.nytimes.com/1989/02/28/world/price-riots-erupt-in-venezuela.html. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenleicht (talk • contribs) 02:07, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Feedback

I agree that citations are definitely needed, especially whenever statistics are mentioned. I think it would also be interested to briefly mention the process through which Lusinchi managed to suspend constitutional rights. A discussion of how class and gender played into the protests would also be interesting. Finally, I found that the language and formatting used in the article were often sloppy and too casual (it may also be a result of bad translation if the article was translated from another language). I would, therefore, read through it again just to fix some inconsistencies and make it more formal and appropriate for an encyclopedia.

I further agree with the need for more citations across the article as they seem to be severely lacking. I believe you should add more about the relationship between the wider world and Venezuela in the creation of Caracazo.Shahrozzaman (talk) 14:31, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

NoonIcarus's deletions

NoonIcarus Please explain why you deleted sourced material restored by WMrapids. I have restored it back again. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Answered below. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

POV tag

NoonIcarus and WMrapids: You have both added POV tags. [1], [2]. Please explain your concerns and what might be done to make the article WP:NPOV. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

My original edit did not have a POV tag. I placed it back as a courtesy for NoonIcarus since they have raised concerns. If they could explain these concerns here, it would be appreciated. WMrapids (talk) 04:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I finally have some time to answer. The main current issue is the overreliance sources whose expertise is unknown, when plenty of other sources from scholars are available. Alejandro Velasco's source is used 39 times, Iselin Åsedotter's 12 times and its content now make up over half of the article. Issues such as the quality of the journal or source misinterpretation have been expressed for a long time now (example: Talk:Venezuelan opposition#Scholars opinions). For example, Springer Nature has already retracted several papers in the past, suggesting that their peer-review process has problems. Being an experienced editor, you should already know that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. We don't use Breitbart as a source for US politics, or blogs from flat earthers for articles about science. Since you have a renewed interest in Venezuela, David, it would really help if you could keep an eye out for this.

Another issue is the use of loaded language, specifically "massacre". Many extrajudicial killings were committed, but WP:WEIGHT and WP:LABEL need to be considered. Do we call the 1992 Los Angeles riots a massacre? We can all agree on the amount of deaths, but most sources and works simply call the events riots. Furthermore, there is repeated content between the current version of the article and that of Torture in Venezuela at the moment I'm posting this comment ("Carlos Andrés Pérez administration"), effectively having a content fork.

I hope this helps to clarify the issues. Regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

NoonIcarus, we have already had this discussion with Boynamedsue regarding your questionable interpretation of reliable sources (preferring mainstream media instead of academic sources). As Boynamedsue said, your interpretation "is the diametric opposite of our actual policy, the ideal article would contain only scholarly sources and nothing else". Again, this seems like you don't agree with the point of view instead of having an actual argument against the reliability of sources.

Now, directly responding to your concerns, Springer Nature has addressed their concerns publicly, which shows that they do hold themselves accountable for their publications. If there were a source retracted that is in use on the article, please mention that source instead of making baseless allegations of a publisher being unreliabile.

You also use two false equivalencies here; you compare the sources used in this article to Breitbart and the Caracazo to the LA riots. For the former, this is a flawed equivalency as we are discussing academic journals compared to a partisan website. As for the latter false equivalency, dozens were killed during the LA riots (with a metro population of 11 million in 1992) while up to thousands were killed in the Caracazo in a city with a population of about 3 million at the time.

Overall, given your experience on the project, this appears to be more partisan editing on your part, especially given your history of whitewashing Carlos Andres Pérez topics. This along with your recent edits of saying individuals were tortured without providing sources is further evidence that you are either not understanding processes here on the project (which is doubtful since you have been consistently active for ten years) or that you are deliberately not here to build an encyclopedia. WMrapids (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)