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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090117061420/http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20020412-1.html to http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20020412-1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Non-NPOV article.

This article is very bad. It reads like it is from the lips of the american 'state department' than a website that aims towards a neutral point of view. It really seems deep within this article. I would like advice to how to go about fixing this article.

Thanks. x. SP00KYtalk 15:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Some examples, all in Wikipedia's voice:

• Chávez used a strategy of polarization in Venezuela, a them against us situation, in order to single out those who stood in the way of his progress. He would insult and use name calling against original supporters that would question him; the media, business leaders, the Catholic Church and the middle class.
• Chávez fired ... members of the PDVSA board of directors on his Aló Presidente program, mocking each worker by name and used a referee whistle, as if to expel them from a soccer match
• There is no consensus as to who was responsible for the deaths on that day, and this remains a very controversial issue (see MOS:CONTROVERSIAL)
• ... media owners down to reporters feeling threatened with Chávez even calling out individual journalists by name in speeches

A quick improvement would be to attribute all claims in prose: "According to Carroll Rory, Chávez used a strategy ..."

However, I agree that fundamentally more non-American sources need to be used. Whether true or not (I don't know), it is concerning that we are referencing claims like Cabello [stated] the media would be "responsible for the blood that will be shed" to the United States Department of State. Given the U.S. state's lengthy history of invasions, coups and economic and military intervention in Latin America, it is clear that sources from the U.S. Department of State have limitations and issues of provenance.

American media and individual American experts can differ, of course, from the U.S. government's conflicts of interests, but it seems to me that the article represents a limited range of views. I've added a {{Systemic bias}} tag with the aim of drawing more edits to the article. — Bilorv (talk) 12:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I will try to spend some time working on this article, i will go through the citations also to see what is being used and where claims are being sourced from. My worry is that if i put the time in to doing so that they will just get reverted, as these kinds of biases are seemingly systemic within the wikipedia project, so i appreciate another user adding the bias tag and so on and being in support. Cheers. :) SP00KYtalk 15:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I know the feeling. You can never be guaranteed that your edits won't be reverted, but I agree that you've identified a problem with the article. — Bilorv (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Hey. I noticed that 'The Miami Herald' is used in this article a lot. And whilst often what it is saying is in quotes and so on, the paper seems to be a news service that essentially (on the quick research i just did) just an outlet for the most hawkish of american policy in south/central america. Even just to skim their headlines it is funny to see everyone who is not the most grovelling american ally or compradore state leaders in latam being pointedly referred to as 'dictator', and backing every regime change government, (ex: laughably even supporting the Áñez coup in Bolivia) and so on. I personally do not think this is a good newspaper to be used at all, but i realize it may be controversial to delete everything that is 'miami herald' in the article, do you have any suggestions as to how i should approach this. SP00KYtalk 22:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

It is generally a reliable source and is particularly esteemed in its number of Pulitzer Prizes. I think it is fine to use here and there—it's important to cover the views of American policy—but it doesn't seem like due weight for a regional paper, not even the largest in Florida, to be a dominant source in the article. Do they have investigative reporters in Venezuela? — Bilorv (talk) 06:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

What various Venezuelan critical journalists have written is something I am yet to look in to. I am trying to immerse myself in the material a little in english, it is a long time since all this happened it feels like a lifetime ago! Currently I am trying to rely on investigative reporters instead of the kind of news reports this article replies heavily on, which is often not to be rude to them but lazy and/or reciprocatively-journalism. I am currently reading 'The Chávez Code: Cracking US Intervention in Venezuela - by Golinger, Eva' and Gregory Wilpert's 'Changing Venezuela by Taking Power: The History and Policies of the Chavez Government', both are by I believe internationally critically accepted journalists. I am still very suspicious of The Miami Herald having more of a look on how it reports against latam but also i have to admit my own strong general bias against american media here (although, both i linked are amerian, both worked extensively in Venezuela with Eva Golinger being Venezuelan-American), i agree to make their takes less dominant in the article and contextualize them with what other journalists are saying. It would be great if could get some input by others for fresh (to the article) sources, too. Cheers. :) SP00KYtalk 16:07, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I meant "do The Miami Herald have investigative reporters in Venezuela?", not "are there investigative reporters in Venezuela?", but you've answered that question.

Claims from these books will need attribution in prose but are, I think, generally usable. — Bilorv (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I want to point out that Golinger and Wilper are known supporters of Chávez and the Bolivarian Revolution, which affects not only the neutrality of the sources but its reliability as well. Golinger being American and Wilper German, it won't help with the current issue of overrepresatation of English sources. I'd recommend El Acertijo de Abril by Alfredo Meza and Las balas de abril by Francisco Olivares as books to start with, and Margarita López Maya or Inés Quintero as scholars. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Can you expand a bit on how it affects reliability? Neutrality, yes, which is why I recommended attribution in prose. But every source has a provenance. — Bilorv (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayal, I've been meaning to respond. To put as an example, there are many issues with Wilper's work, but focusing on the main topic here, the most important one is that Wilper states as a fact that the coup was planned beforehand, which is something that has been debunked by journalists that covered the events and as been repeated several times by the Chávez government. The latter point brings up also another important issue, which is that Wilper uses government sources several times, and which in turn also brings up the question of independence.

At the same time, omission also affects reliability. Explaining the coup, Wilper ignores many important factors that led up to it, such as the dismissal of the PDVSA board of directors with a referee whistle, on national television, the activation of Plan Ávila, and that Chávez would later admit that he deliberately provoked a crisis. Most of the issues that I have mentioned here also happen with Golinger's work. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I am aware of the positions of the authors. This choice in reading was intentional on my part, as i already have a pretty good idea of what the narrative from the 'other side of the isle' is (as it is over-represented in the sources of this article), and @BilorvBiorv has already made clear as to how anything from said authors should be added. I do not think it is a good reason to not use them, the issue is how sources are used. which i think we all here are mature enough to understand and use responsibly. I will put the other books on my list and I appreciate the recs a lot, Thank You @NoonIcarus. :) SP00KYtalk 22:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right, though. If you're aware that there's a side that has a significant bias, which is common with controversial topics, this should allow you to recognize authors that discuss the issues independently, taking the arguments from both sides. I heartily hope that you enjoy these readings. Kind regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

The article's title is not NPOV

On April 11th, 2002, there was NOT an attempt to do a coup d'état in Venezuela. What transpired was a peaceful march to the presidential palace, which was met with gunfire and as a result, president Chávez resigned. That is NOT a coup d'état. However, when Chávez was reinstated on April 13th by a military action led by general Baduel, THAT is something that can rightly be called a coup d'état. In summary, the article's name should be changed, e.g. to "The events of April 11, 2002, in Venezuela" 104.61.71.9 (talk) 19:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits... with more to go(?)

As stated in my edit summaries, I've made some structural changes to make things clearer and added some content from existing sources. There's probably more to go, both because, 1. the article's content seems lacking on the subject of advanced planning of the coup given that topic's importance, and 2. I pulled some info from the "US alleged role" section to place it earlier in the article, so I'll get to that to avoid redundancy. That whole section should just really be limited to things that after the coup, since it is the "Aftermath" section, after all. For ex., I'm under the impression Chavez sort of tried to weaponize the idea that the U.S. was behind the coup later on for political purposes, so that's the kind of thing that could go there.

I also think the sections on the 11 April march should be moved into the overall "Coup" section given that's when it all got rolling. There's also some redundancy in content regarding the bridge shootings that would be more easily dealt with. Thoughts? Mbinebri (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Your gut feeling is right. Chávez and his early communication system pushed forward as much as possible of the involvement of the media, the United States and opponents in the coup to act against them. Care should be taken to distinguish preexisting tension with the coup itself, which was precipitated with the deaths in the Llaguno Overpass. I have made some initial changes to reflect this. I also support an expansion in the Aftermath section for these reasons. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I disagree a bit. The opposition narrative has always been that the coup was a spontaneous event after the overpass violence, but sources make it pretty clear the coup was being planned in advance—participants openly admit this and the CIA report really hammers it in by calling out in advance exactly what went on to happen. So it's not really just an instance of rising tension, and then a coup just kind of happened. I already think the article pushes this narrative too much via undue weight. I returned the info on who the plotters were and that they were openly plotting to the lead. They're critical points for NPOV balance and I don't think it was correct to remove it based on the source being a primary source (which I don't think documentaries are). Mbinebri (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

It really depends on which events you are focusing on. While there was a willingness to remove Chávez from power (including by peaceful means, as the whole purpose of the 11 April march was to ask for Chávez resignation), many others happened over the course in those days. Chavismo usually argues that the pronunciamiento by the military high command was planned or recorded beforehand, but the journalists present dismiss this version, and the Carmona Decree that dissolved much of the Chávez era institutions was drafted the day after Chávez was removed. While documentaries may not be described as primary sources, but interviews definitely are, so I would like to ask which part is quoted that supports the added statements, specially given that the other two sources cannot be accessed. At any rate, at just a 9 minutes length, I don't think the Aljazeera video can be considered a documentary as much as a video report. --NoonIcarus (talk) 07:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I also forgot to mention the participants: the fact that the military was divided and a part of it planned Chávez removal does not mean that businesses, unions, church leaders or other social actors were part of these plans. --NoonIcarus (talk) 07:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Let's see how brief I can keep this... probably not very!

In your recent edits, you removed info again, claiming failed verification because you couldn't access the two cited articles. I think this was inappropriate, as WP:SOURCEACCESS states that verifiability does not require cited sources to be available online. You also question what "openly plotting" even means, which kind of surprises me, but the Miami Herald—one of these cited articles—perhaps clears that up later in the article: "The rumors of a coup to oust Chávez", noted The Miami Herald, "were being whispered, if not shouted, for months before the revolt." The coup wasn't a secret. As for the Al Jazeera video, I would call it a secondary source. The issue with a straight-up interview being used on Wikipedia is that there's no editorial oversight. People can just blurt whatever they want! In a documentary/report/whatever, the filmmakers have discretion to pick and choose what clips of an interview they conducted to then include in the film, which seems like the equivalent of editorial oversight to me.

That all said, this is probably irrelevant anyway. I wanted to make a good faith effort to address your concerns, so I reworded the content to omit the "openly plotted" language and swapped the three refs for a very-much verifiable book already being used as a citation. I also added some more info from the book to note the country's increasing polarization. Mbinebri (talk) 14:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

@Mbinebri: Thank you kindly for your last changes, I think there are definitely an improvement in reflecting the overall situation, particularly with the mention of the frequent demonstrations that took place before the coup. Please let me know if likewise any of my edits are objectionable. Regarding my question of "openly plotting", I did not mean to ask specifically for its meaning, but rather for more details, and how it was taken place in theory. By saying that these leaders declared that the reportedly had support, it is specific.

I found this document ([3]) that is apparently the conclusions of the National Assembly fact finding comission, that specifically mention Articles 68 and 332 of the constitution has reportedly being violated, although these are more related to the right of assembly and demonstration. I can also see Article 328 quoted, which states that the Armed Forces must be impartial and without a political affiliation.

Would you like me to help with any other aspect? I would love to continue giving a hand in any other way I can. Best regards --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

• Note: In a recent edit, I tried to clarify—while removing some redundancy—in what sense Plan Avila was unconstitutional and all I could find was Nelson's own website explaining it's an issue of a National Guard vs Army kind of thing. I accidentally lost the link but included the content anyway with a "citation needed" since it seems important. I'd search my history for the link again but it's a self-published source anyway and we should try for something secondary. Anyone got one? Mbinebri (talk) 23:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Terrible article

As @W1tchkr4ft 00, Bilorv, and Mbinebri: have pointed out in previous discussions, this article is very biased and heavily based on one source; Nelson. Nelson is the only source listed in the bibliography and is used in Wikivoice about 60 times. Nelson actually received US government funding to write Silence and the Scorpion through the Fulbright Program of the United States Cultural Exchange Programs. He is also not a political or historical professional, he is a creative writer specialized in fiction that was formerly a stockbroker and automotive systems engineer. He does have a bachelor's degree in international relations, but that wasn't his main "focus" (he admits that he could not focus on what he wanted to do with his life at the time). So we have a creative writer of fiction with no former professional history related to the topic funded by the US being sent to Venezuela in 2002 to write about the coup attempt... Nelson is not someone who should be contributing nearly as much information to the article as they are.

We also have dozens of citations from the United States Department of State. While I'm not going to put on tinfoil hat here, it is obvious why they should not be cited for any controversial information. As for anything non-controversial, that information should be provided by a more reliable third party source.

Regarding NoonIcarus, your edits are confusing since you defend your removal of material in some articles, yet you oppose similar edits that involve the deletion of material by other users. For example at Venezuelan opposition, Venezuelan presidential crisis and Operation Gideon (2020), you defended the removal of information that was provided by a single source, justifying the removal as "undue" or something similar. You also removed information from three scholars, saying that it was "opinion." So, why should we be accepting the "opinion" of former engineer and stockbroker Nelson (who is not a subject-matter expert per WP:SELFPUB as he did not have "work in the relevant field [that] has previously been published by reliable, independent publications") while you attempt to erase information from scholars? Your WP:SOFIXIT claims are not valid since according to WP:ONUS "responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content".

Overall, much of this article is POV and heavily sourced from Nelson. We need some more sources and verification to support many of the bold claims. WMrapids (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

All of this is a huge ad-hominem argument, failing to address the substance of the problems with the sentences and arguing points as far-fetched that Nelson was funded by the United States government because he received a public scholarship.

if the problem is using an editorial voice, then use attribution (which at any rate you apparently have done already). If there is any reason why the stated facts should be questioned, say why. Don't say vaguely that we should doubt all of said sourced statements just because it is a specific author.

The difference with the edits you're referring to is that Nelson has been cited in this article for over eight years now, I have not been the editor to include him. The content that you have added, on the other hand, have been cherrypicked references mostly to support opinions or analyses, contrary to facts. Don't repeat these cleanups just blindly to "justify that you're right". --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

This is not an ad hominem, this is analyzing a source who has contributed to the majority of this article. Nelson studied fictional writing and we are supposed to take his word for the majority of this article? You say, "if the problem is using an editorial voice, then use attribution", ignoring that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, especially when it is as undue as having sixty claims made by Nelson that were presented in Wikivoice. We could use more sources to support what Nelson is claiming.

You seem to be justifying the inappropriate use of WP:STABLE again, which I have already told you can lead to a block. Just because the information was present for so long does not mean it is not undue or possibly inaccurate. Burrobert already raised concerns that there were too many citations from the US State Department. You seem to have countered Burrobert's edits with the inappropriate "stable version" argument too. In addition, you inappropriately removed Bart Jones and other sources, citing the essay you mainly crafted, WP:VENRS. WMrapids (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

You're not analyzing the source, you're describing and criticizing the author. You remain to explain why statements should be questioned, including those that seem pretty much matter-of-factly:

• In 2000, the pro-Chávez National Assembly granted President Chávez emergency powers and the ability to rule by decree through an enabling act to tend to the poor state of the economy.
• On 13 November 2001, Chávez passed a package of 49 laws, using the enabling act which was set to expire the following day such as rearranging public ministries while also changing major laws in the government, oil businesses and land usage without approval of the National Assembly.
• National Assembly Deputy Juan Barreto told loyalists through the media covering the situation, "The call is to Miraflores! Everyone to Miraflores to defend your revolution! Don't let them through!"
• By 12:30 pm, thousands of government supporters were gathered around the palace blocking all routes to Miraflores except for the Llaguno Overpass, which was where the Bolivarian Circles had gathered to overlook the route.
• Pro-opposition police and chavistas entered a gun battle and few demonstrators began to follow behind them with pings of gunfire heard on the police armored vehicles, though the marchers fled shortly after as the violence grew.

--NoonIcarus (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Things that may seem "matter of fact" to you (you've been active on English Wikipedia since the 2014 Venezuelan protests), but readers and the project overall need to have additional sources provided for accuracy and verifiability. WMrapids (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

And while simply skimming through the talk page so far and opening the conclusions of the National Assembly's fact finding commission (that I provided above), literally the first section states clearly that Chávez did activate the Plan Ávila, and that Manuel Rosendo opposed this. I have already replaced one of the State Department's sources, but most of the statements are uncontroversial. This is just but one example of why WP:SOFIXIT applies here and this tagging, without any substance analysis, is disruptive. . --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide a better source? The link you shared appears to be from an opposition activist website. Also, we would need a secondary source for such information. WMrapids (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

You're right, the question is though. What do we do about it?

I feel some guilt at doing nothing i said i would for this article but as well as a lot of things happening in my personal life as well as the usual thoughts and feelings around such articles that any changes towards neutrality will be an uphill battle with the so called people who inhabit this space like it is every time NPOV clashes with american foreign policy interests and worldviews, all stresses that make it more often than not simply - to me at least, i am sure to others too though - not worth attempting.

So yes, HOW do we improve this article? How do we account for and work around the kind of disingenuous editing and reverts and arguments that will come along with it? ~~~ SP00KYtalk 17:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)