Talk:2002 Venezuelan coup attempt/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Comments on article

Hi I am new so forgive any break with convention on my part... I think this aricle is quite biased. Especially with ragrds to how it portrays the two sides of the argumet (the coup after is all is made up of disupted versions of events). The authors assertions hint towards anti-Chavez bias, for example citing an anti-Chavez website's diatribe against The Revolution Will Not be Televised to claim general opposition to this documentary. However, this documentary has been widely acclaimed by the BBC, various European broadcasters, the NYT and Amnesty.

I would suggest ammendments which restructure the article to be more balanced. Can I just make these? (I made a slight one already). --Nights 07:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, The level of factual inaccuracy in the article is frankly shocking. Take the picture with this heading "A still from footage showing pro-Chávez shooters on Puente Llaguno. It is still disputed at who or what they were shooting." That is an outright lie. There is video of the level below them, they are on a bridge shooting at snipers. The private television stations which were backing the coup lied and did not show the rest of the video concerning the shooting. You will see in the video that there is no one on the lower level of the bridge. This is all not contested, so how can the article be so wrong? And that's not the only error. 70.162.42.37 23:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You have some brassy ones, mate. You have not done any research, and they were not shooting at snipers. Chavez knew this and even made a national public address, in which he claimed that the picture was a photographic montage (search youtube for "puente llaguno", there's the public address). If according to you, they were shooting at snipers, why would Chavez claim it was a montage? Maybe you should getting you own POV's facts straight before even attempting an annonymous edit at such a controvertial article.--Nis pero 17:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Woah is the article new? I'm surprised there is no talk page.

Why is there no mention of what the media (private and public) was doing during this time? I understand that this gets into areas which border on POV, but I think it's important to get across (what seems a fact to me) that the coup was something which involved large sections of the venezuelan population on one side or the other. Not only were they many many people out on the streets for each side, but pretty much every element of the venezuelan nation took part to some extent - the unions the media etc. I'd like to see something about the news blackout that occured on the final day of the coup and something about the footage of the coup leaders thanking the private news stations for the help in achieving the coup. I think it's important to get across the difficulty of finding any unbiased information due to the chavez presidency not only politicizing supporters but politicizing the opposition as well.

Anyway, i thought i'd try to open up a bit of discussion before i make any changes to what seems to be (largely) a very well done article on a subject that is very difficult to keep NPOV.

I believe that most of the work for this article was originally done at Hugo Chavez, then split out, hence the well-developed article without a talk page. If you can improve the page, go for it. If you're worried about POV issues, just be sure to include referenced facts rather than your own analysis. DanKeshet 19:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I can't seem to find any stories or sites that show the US actually condemned the coup. --Lachs 00:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Chávez's forced resignation

The statement "(opposition-controlled) media." is not objective, the rejection of the hypothesis of kidnapping was supported by certain individuals and was not an affirmation of the Venezuelan media itself.

The entire article is highly POV, so bad that it is hard to know where to even begin to improve it, or any of the articles on Venezuela in Wikipedia. The example above is but one of many. Where have other Wiki editors been on this? Consider, as but one small example, the passage highlighted above. Coup Chávez's forced resignation - "La cual aceptó" (which he accepted) were the words of General-in-Chief Lucas Rincón Romero when saying that president Hugo Chávez accepted the resignation. In the early hours of April 12, General-in-Chief Lucas Rincón Romero announced that Chávez had been asked for his resignation, and had accepted. Since Rincón remains close to Chávez and later, in fact, became the Minister of the Interior and Justice, some Venezuelans argue that the resignation was real and that there was no coup. On the other hand, most of the rest of the government representatives were trying to inform the country that the president had been kidnapped, a version of events that was rejected by the (opposition-controlled) media.

"Opposition-controlled", when Chavez "owns" the government-controlled media, spends hours in cadena, and has severely limited freedom of the press in Venezuela? This is but one small example of the POV that dominates all of the Venezuela/Chavez articles. The fact that the title of the article contains the word "coup" (and that featured articles link to this and contain this wording) , and that it is called a "coup" throughout the Venezuela/Chavez articles, when the article addresses the fact that it was a popular uprising (VERY popular uprising) against Chavez, that the very notion that is was a "coup" is disputed, and that he resigned according to most sources, speaks very poorly of Wikipedia. Where to start to improve the Venezuela/Chavez articles ??? ... a daunting task. Full-time job. Sheesh. How about, for starters, a link to the investigation sparked by Sen. Dodd (CT), which showed no US involvement in the alleged "coup" to balance the highly biased articles published by (non-biased LOL !!!) sources like The Guardian? Or how about an expose on the reliable (LOL !!!) source of Wayne Madsen ? Sandy 12:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with what you are all saying, so...should we submit a vote to eliminate the phrase between parentheses c'est a dire "(Opposition-controlled)"? --Espazolano 21:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Very little about the article is NPOV, but I do agree that removing "opposition-controlled" would be a small start towards the large amount of work that needs to be done to make this a neutral article. Sandy 01:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Sandy, I disagree with you. Feel free to hear the truth at: http://t*nyurl.com/rcucp or http://www.torrentspy.com/torrent/379566/ --Anonymous 18:25, 23 May 2006

Changed the phrase "(Opposition-controled)media" for: "some members of the Opposition via media"--Espazolano 07:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI, The above tiny link by anonyous is blocked by spam filters. 01:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Supporters of Chávez and the film

Sandy, thanks for the edits, and all your work on these pages. I think you can teach me a lot.

Thanks for letting my minor edits stay, at least for now.

I was thinking that "Supporters of Chávez and the film" could be changed to "Several organizations".

I will let you decide. I trust your judgement, and have not watched these pages at all.

Best wishes. Travb (talk) 01:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Several organizations is good: it should be obvious to anyone clicking on the "NGO" links that they are Chávez supporters. We can let the reader decide. I'll go change it. Sandy 01:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I want to delve into this issue sometime in the future, this woman I mentioned on my talk page gave me a lot of anti-chavez articles to read, I almost wrote a ten page paper on this topic, but the professor allowed me to do my paper on Colombia, which is much less work because I did so much on Colombia last semester (and remodeled many of the Colombia wikipedia pages, with the help of my good friend JuanCarlos2006).Travb (talk) 01:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't be hard: my son wrote a 15-page paper on Chávez when he was in 8th grade, and he's got dysgraphia. Teacher loved it, and learned a lot :-) Especially liked the personal interviews my son was able to include. Sandy 02:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

External links

There was a mediation on the main article over the issue of whether blogs were allowed as external links. Flanker argued vehemently they were not allowed, per WP:EL. I argued they should be allowed, under WP:IGNORE in the special circumstance that there was no other external link in English to provide balance on that particular article. That doesn't apply here: the balance is tipping, so the blog should go. Sandy 02:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Documentary

The statement: "It has been widely debated among both supporters and critics of the Venezuelan government," is something that should receive a source. It's obvious why it would controversial for those involved in the coup, but not so clear why Chavez supporters would find fault.

Azymuthca 22:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Citing sources

According to Wikipedia:Citing sources#Say where you got it, "It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source...The credibility of your article rests on the credibility of the web page..." The reference in the article says "New York Times" but points to www.lossless-audio.com and the credibility of this site is doubious. JRSP 00:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Why Carmona?

As the article is currently written, Carmona seems to suddenly pop up randomly and neither this article nor his own fully explains it. Does anyone have any referenced sources explaining why he, specifically, was placed as president? Also, any known information on his exile (where he is now, why, what terms, was he sentenced to exile, or did he leave, etc) and what it involves would probably also be helpful to the article. 84.9.83.141 18:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Good Article

This article or section does not cite its references or sources. Therefore, it is not a Good Article. --GoOdCoNtEnT 19:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This is an excellent article. Was very informative. Just wanted to say thanks to it's authors.

1. It's certainly excellent if you know something about what happened, but I knowing nothing, is a little confused since the main sequence of events is just hinted in the intro, and then not referred onto in the rest of the text,

2. Good Article is a quality assessment according to certain criteria, approximately: "have everything necessary", which it still doesn't. It lacks a main sequence of events. Said: Rursus (☻) 06:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

(continues below in Events in the coup)

New Pics

Hi, I put new pics of the protest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.72.233.81 (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Anselmi rincon tierralta.jpg

Image:Anselmi rincon tierralta.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hugo Chávez under arrest in Turiamo (2002) .jpg

Image:Hugo Chávez under arrest in Turiamo (2002) .jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Puentellaguno.jpg

Image:Puentellaguno.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Events in the coup

As I querulated above, the story lacks a sequence of events. The section Events leading up to the coup starts a sequence of events, then stops and delves into a speculation on who killed whome, as if the background events were known to everyone. Events leading up to the coup is therefore a nice starting place to evolve to the sequence of events.

The speculations deserves a subsection or a section Unsolved questions or such. Said: Rursus (☻) 07:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I misread! The events are there, but they're buried so deeply into the text, that they can be seen only if reading the entire article from start to end. So the sequence of events are there, only they're interspersed with elaborations and discourses on unresolved responsibilities, that it is hard to read for me. That's just about writing and reading style, and actually a matter of taste. Said: Rursus (☻) 07:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Another major primary source

Is now available. Fidel Castro, in diplomatic contact with Chavez at the time, offers a wealth of detail to Le Monde Diplomatique editor Ignacio Ramonet. A partial English translation of a forthcoming book is online. --Carwil 05:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and Cinderella has a "wealth" of information, too! --AVM (talk) 11:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

guardian.co.uk - Venezuela coup linked to Bush team

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/21/usa.venezuela —Preceding unsigned comment added by AaThinker (talk • contribs) 20:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Plan Avila

Any honest discussion of the 2002 coup needs to include coverage of Plan Avila. The page on wikipedia for the plan itself is rather sparse, and has been subject to repeat removal of any mention of Chavez in the past.

Basically, Plan Avila was a plan for the military to maintain order in Caracas. Issued once before in 1989, it led to possible thousands of deaths. Chavez ordered Avila again in response to the protests, and military commanders refused to carry out, sparking the coup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.192.88 (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Any proof of this? Considering of course, that the coup leaders themselves give a completely contrary view, in the documentary its self (saying that they had planned it in advance and had called for the protests as part of the plan)- and that this earlier Avila that resulted in these deaths was pre-Chavez by a number of years- is this not just after-the-fact propaganda based on precisely nothing? Also, it wasn't only issued once before. It had been issued by Chavez before on a papal visit, resulting in 0 deaths.92.27.2.159 (talk) 20:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Here we have two proves. First a military radio recording between General Rosendo and President Hugo Chavez (aka code name :TIBURON 1 or Shark 1), Chavez activates the Plan Avila, which is to deploy the Ayala platoon commanded by Jorge Luis Garcia Carneiro with armed tanks to avoid civilians from get into Miraflores Palace. Yes, sometimes the plan Avila is activated for activities like the Pope Visit, but April 11 was NOT a normal day. The second proof is a recently public statement on April 11 2010, by the retired General in Chief Jorge Luis Garcia Carneiro, who declared:“Ese 11 de abril en Fuerte Tiuna, más o menos a está hora de la mañana, estábamos sacando los tanques para poner en ejecución el Plan Ávila y decirle al presidente Chávez: aquí está su Fuerza Armada disponible para defender el proceso”, "On April 11 in Fort Tiuna, around this time in the morning, we were taking out the armed cars to activate the Avila Plan and to tell the president Chavez: Here is you armed force available to defend the revolution" http://www.correodelorinoco.gob.ve/politica/jorge-luis-garcia-carneiro-hoy-mas-que-nunca-fuerzas-armadas-estan-comprometidas-pueblo/ BCLH 14:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BCLH (talk • contribs)

It is also covered well in Brian Nelson's book; this material should definitely be included. If online reliable sources aren't available, I can supply quotes from the book. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Too politically biased in favor of the up and coming "socialist" movement.

From a neutral point of view, I can readily identify the bias in this article. It adds words that are not neccesary, for example:

"The Venezuelan coup attempt of 2002 was a failed coup d'état on April 11, 2002 that lasted only 47 hours, "

When the statement could perfectly be, "It lasted 47 hours". It goes on by giving opinions and points of views on the events that happened on April 11, 2002... this should be fact based, not "hearsay".

In a section article defends itself with the word "alleged", it further goes on by quoting the word resignation instead of putting it on italics.. as if his resignation was completely false.. that there was no fact of his resignation instead of that the word was and could have been misconstrued.

The article speaks of punishment for involvement, speaks of US invasion into Venezuelan national politics.. it does not however support in any way Hugo Chavez´s rationale in that U.S. was and has been involved in efforts to overturn the power against Chavez´s favor.

The way the United States have expressed themselves resembles loyalty and respect for what we call diplomacy. Chavez does not seem to hold these values.

I live in Nicaragua, the president deems to be socialist, a prominent up and coming leader, but behind the scenes he is becoming the wealthiest man in the nation by corrupt capitalist means.

You decide what you want for your country, check our track record between democracy and "socialism". it speaks for itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iatenorio (talk • contribs) 23:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the comments made in regard to the article and have adressed these POV issues in my recent edits, aiming for neutral wordings favouring neither side. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA yeah it says "The way the United States have expressed themselves resembles loyalty and respect for what we call diplomacy. Chavez does not seem to hold these values." really fucking neutral pov... moron

Name of the article

The Tribunal Supremo de Justicia in Venezuela ruled that those events were NOT a coup d'état or a failed attempt. I think the name of the article should be 'April 2002 Events in Venezuela' or something similar. Andrewire (talk 11:13 8 May 2009 (BST) —Preceding undated comment added 10:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC).

Reliable sources almost always call it a coup. Also, there was a counter rule from the the Tribunal Supremo de Justicia declaring the rule you mention null and void, see for instance http://terranoticias.terra.es/articulo/html/av2193882.htm --JRSP (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Venezuelan courts (or any institution, including any reliable or unreliable source) do not determine reality. To call an article "events" is not a feasible alternative. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone above proposed "2002 Popular Uprising in Venezuela" instead. This seems to more accurately and more neutrally define the subject. --72.47.85.102 (talk) 02:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

JRSP reverts

JRSP wrote: "Please discuss your proposals at talk."

Before I get into the reasons for my edits, let me state that these are not proposals I make to your acceptance or dismissal, JRSP, but my edits, en par with your edits. No one is the owner of this article.

Now, to my edits reverted by you (I leave out the edits you accepted), the difference can be seen here.

First, the lead:

Contentwise, I reduced the things state in the lead, as a lead need not contain every little detail that can be better explained at length further down (such as the 47 hours duration). But there is also a POV problem:

You say sources say "illegal detention", "congress dissolved", "constitution declared void", so it is WP:NPOV)

Even if the sources contained these words, this wouldn't make it NPOV as

a) sources need not be neutral as is required of our article,

b) quotes can give a wrong impression.

• "illegally detained" is indeed included in the first source (State) but not in the second (BBC), which relates the same events. Legality, legitimacy etc. however are matters of contention in this issue and I don't see that we need to bring such a message home in the very first lines. (Note that this goes both ways: the same way I would prefer to avoid "illegal" I oppose avoiding the word "coup" as it clearly was a coup.) In short: the problem here is that described under (a). Note that a previous version even spoke of "kidnapping" without any justification in source or fact.

• "congress dissolved", "constitution declared void" is supposedly included in the second source given (BBC) - well, the wors are there but the actual text reads (the important but omitted bits put in bold by me):

In his first hours in power, Mr Carmona:

* Dissolved the National Assembly, promising elections by December

* Pledged presidential elections - in which he will not stand - within one year

* Declared void a 1999 constitution introduced under Mr Chavez

* Promised a return to the pre-1999 bicameral parliamentary system

* Repealed 48 laws that gave the government greater control of the economy

* Reinstated retired General Guaicaipuro Lameda as president of state oil company Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA).

This sounds entirely different. Either we give the full picture in the lead or we leave that to the main body of text and make it short and simple in the intro. (I would be okay with either solution, though obviously I prefer the one indicated by my edits: lead short, main text long.) But a wording that suggests an end to parliament and constitution is neither in line with the source nor NPOV. (That your version edit summary uses the wrong name for parliament - important since to my knowledge there used to be a congress pre-Chavez - and that the supreme court is not mentioned in the source - but clearly was also dissolved alongside of a range of other officials - is a smaller matter. Still it shows that this is not all about "what the sources say"). So, this problem is of the (b) sort.

Stylistically: some wordings are needlessly complicated and create large nominal blocks - therefore I removed "head of state". This should uncontroversial.

So should the unification of two paragraphs in the detention section be. After your edits, the "Chavez was offered to resign and accepted" paragraph has become too small to stand on its own IMHO.

As for the opposing documentation. You claim it is not notable (note: the imdb link was never meant to say anything about notability). But in order to ensure neutrality all sides of a debate must be included. We cannot cover at great length the Irish documentary (which I have seen and which indeed is very one-sided even without doubting the facts given) and then try to write out of existence that there is an opposing viewpoint made into a film (which I have not yet seen). Why is it that two documentaries opposing the "official narrative" of the massacre are included (the second one is not shown to be notable either), while one opposing them is removed. If anything we should err on the side of inclusivity, on the side of covering all sides.

I await your response. Str1977 ^(talk) 00:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with you're argument that "illegal" is not NPOV just because the BBC article does not say so. We have one source (which hardly can be considered pro-Chávez) qualifying the detention as illegal so you would need to show a source stating that it was legal or, at least, that there is some reported controversy regarding the legal status of Chávez detention.
It is not difficult to find sources mentioning the dissolusion of Congress and Supreme Court[1] but the same does not happen with Carmona's promises; in fact, the dissolusion of Congress and Supreme Court is reported as a key factor in the failure of the coup[2] so I think it must be in lead. Carmona's promises could be mentioned in the article body but I don't think they are notable enough to go in lead.
Regarding the documentaries, neutrality and balance don't mean equal weight but proportional weight; there are a number of independent sources reporting on the Irish documentary, how many can you find reporting on the other one? JRSP (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your position: you say we must say illegal because one source we have says so but we need not give the whole picture of the dissolition of Chavez-institutions because "It is not difficult to find sources mentioning the dissolusion of Congress and Supreme Court ... but the same does not happen with Carmona's promises". Well, we have a source for the latter. Furthermore, it is not primarily about the promises. Your version just simply misleads the reader when it talks about "constitution voided" in a general way. (That the moves were a central mistakes of Carmona I don't dispute. The article mentions that. As as I said, either the whole picture must be in the lead or none of such details. I leave the choice to you but won't wait forever.

Neutrality and balance do not mean equal weight but that is hardly what my edits did. Sure, the Irish documentary is better known and it gets more space in the article. I am simply demanding that you stop censoring the opposing viewpoint.

I am still entertaining the hope you have the best interests of the article, of WP policies in mind and will not simply stonewall everything. So I am awaiting a better response.

Str1977 ^(talk) 09:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

First, your comment about JRSP undoing your proposals to discuss on talk: this is standard and does not imply JRSP is trying to "own" the article. When there is an existing stable consensus version, a substantive disputed change is normally reverted for further discussion. It does not mean that the proposer needs to persuade the reverter per se (though on low traffic articles, it can sometimes seem like that, you can always use appropriate dispute resolution).

Second, I generally agree with JRSP's edits. The exception would be perhaps on the relevance of Carmona's promises for the lead. If it can be sufficiently well-sourced that Carmona's dissolution of the 1999 institutions was linked to a declared intention to return to the prior institutional structure, that seems relevant. However I don't currently see anything like that even in the body.

Third, on the "opposing" documentaries, it's not "censorship" to exclude poorly sourced items whose notability has not been demonstrated by publication in reliable sources (IMDB is not) which are also secondary sources and independent of the subject. I haven't seen any sources like that on this issue. That doesn't mean they don't exist, but it means we don't include for now. Rd232 ^talk 09:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

First about my initial comments. I gave reasons for my edits in edit summaries and and also pointed to existing comments (by others) here on talk but still JR reverted me and talked about "proposals". There is no rentention of the status quo policy in the English Wikipedia. However, there is a statement about contributions being "edited, used, and redistributed at will" (it used to say "mercilessly"). If no superiority is claimed by JR, than that's okay. But it doesn't feel like it since in his response he has chosen to dismiss my arguments.

Well, the full picture of the dissolutions is already well-sourced. There is no justification to include only half of what the source says. The point is again not so much the promises as such but that JR's version suggest that Carmon simply did away with all the institutions, leaving him and his friends in control, when the institutions he dissolved were those created by Chavez in the first place.

What exactly is unsource regarding the Schalck documentary? It's mere existence cannot be disputed. (And no, I wouldn't use IMDb as a source for content). The documentary has an article in other Wikipedias and used to have one here too (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=X-ray_of_a_Lie&oldid=300887858) until it was turned into a redirect to "Televised" (without merging the actual information) on flimsy grounds. So, I don't see how your talk about "secondary sources" is relevant - they are only need in as much as we deduce anything from the film by ourselves (nobody is doing that here!), not that we have to ignore the film.

That it is a anti-pro-Chavez film that keeps getting removed (while two pro-Chavez films are retained) might of course be coincidence. But maybe not.

Str1977 ^(talk) 09:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

PS. Is the Federation of Venezuelan Movie Directors a notable body?

Is this book not a secondary source? (That it's not neutral is a given - hardly any source is.)

Str1977 ^(talk) 10:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)First, there is a "retention of the status quo policy" - it's WP:Consensus. Second, which sources are you referring to? It's not helpful to be definite without backing it up. Third, the "mere existence" is not disputed - but its notability is. Showing that, as I said, requires reliable secondary sources. If you think the ones already given are sufficient - well JRSP and I disagree. WP:Dispute resolution is that way (WP:RSN might the place to start). Fourth, in a way it's not a coincidence: the reason The Revolution is significant and well-known is because it was a documentary filmed during the coup, within the Presidential palace. No doubt an obviously anti-Chavez film crew would not have had that access, so could not have been fortunate enough to be there during those events. Of course the subsequent films are merely using archival footage, and inevitably are of lesser interest because of that; but perhaps more significantly, they are in Spanish, from Venezuelan sources, and Revolution in English from a European one. All of which adds up to a clear expectation that there would be a large difference in prominence. The later films may still be notable enough, but it needs to be shown. Just as it needed to be shown for Revolution. Rd232 ^talk 10:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how WP:Dispute resolution supports rather your than my view.

The sources in question are the one already present in the article, partly quoted above. The BBC article does state a lot of things that are currently selectively quoted.

What actually is the basis for disputing the documentary's notability. Shouldn't we rather err on the side of inclusivity when it comes to contentious issues? I also found a link (unfortunately dead by, as it lead to same website that was once used here to reference opposition to the "Televised" film - the one I commented out and which JR removed) that gave the "Televised" filmmaker reaction to "X-Ray", proving that they acknowledged their opposition (what they said, of course, I cannot tell since the link is dead).

I am not talking about the chances of a pro- or anti-Chavez team getting access to the palace but about the coincidence of pro-Chavez films being included here while anti-Chavez films are being removed from even having their existence acknowledged.

Notwithstanding that a subtitled English version exists, that other films are in Spanish is of no consequence as this is the English-lanugage WP supposedly providing "access to the sum of all human knowledge", not to "to the sum of all human knowledge published in English". There are many articles using non-English sources, some even in languages I cannot even read the letters of.

"Archival footage"? Well, one half of "Televised" consists of archival footage as well. And despite lacking the inside scoop nature of "Televised" (which is not the only element of it, as it has dubbed commentary all the way), "X-ray" has original footage too.

I actually don't disagree with you on "a clear expectation that there would be a large difference in prominence." Sure, "Televised" is much more prominent than the response to it (that's the nature of the response - one doesn't respond to something minute) - but that doesn't mean that the one should covered in great length while the other is simply ignored. There's two sides to a debate.

In short, I disagree with your presumption of non-notablity.Str1977 ^(talk) 11:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

First, the reference to the page Dispute Resolution is not intended to support my view. It is intended to signpost an option you have. Second, my point about English v non-English isn't about inclusion per se (we can and do include things only covered in non-English sources), but rather about the relative accessibility of English v non-English (reliable, secondary, independent) sources, leaving aside the language barrier. (Plus, the different abilities of First World and Third World film producers to distribute/publicise their films.) Third, the presumption of non-notability is where we always start. Notability needs to be demonstrated. Fourth, you're still being vague about the Carmona issue. I suggest you just draft a paragraph below, with appropriate sources - showing is often better than telling. Rd232 ^talk 11:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

1. All right, thanks for the head up then.

2. I agree with you about accessibility and therefore do prefer English sources wherever they are avaiable. However, we cannot disregard information because it is not in English. In the case of the film, however, this isn't really an issue, as a subtitled version exists.

3. I quite simply disagree that we presume the non notabiltiy of a film that is avaiable on the net, quoted by books and to which the "Televised" film maker have chosen to reply to.

4. How am I to draft a Carmona paragraph? My suggestion is to keep it simple in the lead and to explain it all further down. (I can draft the latter paragraph.) As long as there is no agreement in principle at least on that point I don't think that I invest energy into it only to be refused again is really fair. And how am I vague about the issue?

I have another thing but will leave that to another section, to avoid confusion. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

3. We start by presuming the non-notability of any given film. We then collect evidence that it is notable after all. Secondary sources are the most important thing. If you want to continue pursuing this, then summarise what sources there are (maybe in a new section), and find new ones if you can.

4. You're being vague about the exact information and sources for it, talking in generalities instead of specifics. Anyway, forget the lead for a minute - there's nothing on this in the body, as far as I can see. Sort that out first (with appropriate sourcing, obviously), and then come back to the lead. As long as it's properly sourced, I see no reason for it not to be in the body, at least. Rd232 ^talk 15:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

3. Repitition doesn't equate arguments. I am disputing your presumption of non-notability. Furthermore, I have already given a "secondary" source referring to the film.

4. I am not vague at all. I have quoted the relevant passage and the link is given in the article. But if I must spoon-feed it to you here it is again:

The link is http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1927322.stm, which says:

Business leader Pedro Carmona has been sworn in as Venezuela's caretaker president at the request of the armed forces after Hugo Chavez was ousted from office.

The interim government has promised to hold presidential elections within a year but Latin American leaders have refused to recognise the new regime.

Mr Carmona has repealed dozens of controversial economic laws and dissolved the Supreme Court and the National Assembly.

Venezuela's Attorney General, Isaias Rodriguez, a Chavez ally, said Mr Chavez had not resigned but been ousted by a coup prompted by outrage at the deaths of at least 13 anti-government protesters in violence on Thursday night.

Mr Chavez is being held at the Fuerte Tiuna military base in the capital, Caracas.

The army has rejected his plea to be allowed to go into exile in Cuba, a country which has been a staunch supporter of his left-wing policies.

Army General Roman Fuemayor said: "He has to be held accountable to his country."

Interior Minister Ramon Rodriguez Chacin was saved from a lynching by police who arrested him in connection with the deaths at Thursday's demonstration.

Domestic changes

Mr Carmona, 60, is a respected economist who leads Venezuela's main business chamber, Fedecameras, which joined with trade unions to call the general strike against Mr Chavez and in particular his replacement of the state oil company's board.

At his swearing in, he said: "We are going to bring this ship to a safe port.

"We can achieve the governability required to improve Venezuela's image.

"The strongman era has ended."

In his first hours in power, Mr Carmona:

• Dissolved the National Assembly, promising elections by December

'*Pledged presidential elections - in which he will not stand - within one year

• Declared void a 1999 constitution introduced under Mr Chavez
• Promised a return to the pre-1999 bicameral parliamentary system
• Repealed 48 laws that gave the government greater control of the economy
• Reinstated retired General Guaicaipuro Lameda as president of state oil company Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA).

Oil production and distribution was beginning to return to normal for the world's fourth-largest oil producer after workers abandoned their action, and the stock market rose 7.7%.

But PDVSA has suspended oil exports to Cuba in protest at that country's support for Mr Chavez who agreed cheap rates with President Fidel Castro.

...

The emphasis is by me, highlighting in bold what the article - the one that has been used as a source all the time (but only selectively!!) - has to say about Carmona's first measures as President.

As for your statement that there is nothing further down in the text, I suggest you look again as the article says:

"While briefly in power, Carmona announced a decree dissolving the National Assembly, the Supreme Court and other institutions."

Sure, this has the same problems as the lead and will need rewording. I will think about it.

I would also like to ask to think along while you are responding. There never was a problem with sourcing this as the source has already been there before I even arrived. So don't admonish me about proper sourcing.

Str1977 ^(talk) 09:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You're getting a bit tetchy here - see WP:MASTODON. I wasn't admonishing you, just repeating the key point. And what you call "spoonfeeding" I call the sort of clarity needed to make progress. Rd232 ^talk 10:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

How about this:

After being sworn in as transitional president, Carmona isssued a decree dismantling several political changes introduced under Chavez, dissolving the National Assembly and other high-ranking institutions, revoking the Bolivarian constitution introduced in 1999 in favour of the previous bicameral parliamentary system, and pledged elections within one year. Carmona also repealed several measures regarding government control of the economy, including the state oil company PDVSA.

< ref > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1927322.stm < / ref >

These sweeping measures were widely criticized, including by the military leadership that pressured Chávez out of power. Losing the military's support eventually forced Carmona to go back on his decree and resign in favour of vice-president Diosdado Cabello.

A neutral summary (i.e. one giving retaining this passage's neutral depiction of the entire picture, not highlighting only parts) can then be inserted into the lead.

One note, the whole section thus far is unsourced and contains several things at odds with what I heard, especially in regard to the supposedly occupied TV station. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That draft is slightly misleading about the fact that whilst the dissolution was immediate, the return to the pre-1999 constitution was merely promised. The BBC source is quite clear (other sources would be good, to avoid relying on just one). See also Carmona Decree, which is linked from that section and has sources; it may be that the section was at one time a summary of that article (WP:SUMMARY-style), and that it lacks sources because of that. PS I'm pretty sure the military did control the media; I've seen sources for that which I can find if need be. Rd232 ^talk 10:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That was not my intention. Please make a suggestion how to make this "promised within one year" character clearer.

(How about "... and promised to restore the previous bicameral parliamentary system, with parliamentary and presidential elections within one year.")

Note that I simplified a bit when I include "within one year" as Carmona promised presidential elections within one year, but parliamentary elections by December. In any case, I take it that you agree with my overall point that we cannot simply leave out the promises.

From what I heard the military occupied channel 8 after it was deserted by the crews. They did not however control other media (the vilified private media that broadcast both programmes welcoming and criticizing the coup). Str1977 ^(talk) 12:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

"That was not my intention." - I didn't think it was. And, sure, it was probably only the state and community media the military went after, not the private media which supported the coup anyway... Rd232 ^talk 12:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

How's this? Rd232 ^talk 14:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Unaccepteble. First you separate the measures from the pledge, secondly you introduce hyperbolic statements as if they were facts. The "rule of law" does not rest with the existence of the instituions dissolved but with administration, police, law courts acting according to the law. I am not saying that Carmona's government was not in essence dictatorial but it was not (at least not yet) abolishing the rule of law. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC) PS. A lone voice of opinion certainly does not belong into the lead - and why are you editing the lead when you first told me to first take care of the section text? Str1977 ^(talk) 16:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Well that's a disappointingly negative response after the effort I put in. But anyway, the measures are introduced first, because they are concrete. The promises are clearly secondary (I'm not even clear if they were in the decree itself). Your opinion on what the "rule of law" means is interesting, but is not a reliable source - unlike the academic quoted. PS I haven't edited the lead. Rd232 ^talk 16:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It also was a disappointing experience for me. I have now implemented my last suggestion in the relevant section and am open to suggestions of what could be added there. The promises are secondary to the dissolutions but still they may not be separated without creating a POV problem. The academic quotes is a reliable soure for an opinion on Carmona's decreed and I don't oppose his inclusion in the relevant section (not the lead!) as an opinion. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

PS. I checked again and must apologise. Indeed you did not edit the lead but the section, which sure reduces my disappointment. I will try to insert some of your information now. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Now I have integrated all your information (with the exception that I did not explicitely name all the insitutions) into the section. Again, I am sorry about the misunderstanding.

However, I must take exception to your statement that I "replaced [something] with largely unsourced material. Didn't you see the references (BBC and the stuff I moved down from the lead). IMDb doesn't reference anything here, it merely links to the film's entry there. The source is the General's statement in the film. Sure, more and printed sources would be nice but the events are still undisputedly sourced. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop making so many changes at once - it's really quite unhelpful. You talked about adding to the lead - instead you rewrite substantially, and remove details. At the same time, you talked about adding the Redondo remarks, and go far beyond that (eg dropping "interim" from section heading). And you've removed clear and well-sourced content from the Carmona section which I wrote, without explanation or justification. Slow down, one thing at a time, please. Rd232 ^talk 17:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I know it looks a bit confusing but may I remind you that you started to move the proposals from the talk page into the article again. Am I supposed to comment here while you edit the article.

I did not talk abotu "adding to the lead". I never wanted to "add" to the lead. I proposed having the full picture in the section with a summary in the lead.

I added the general's account but that made further changes necessary to grammatically link it to the rest.

I dropped "Interim" because it didn't feel necessary - how many times do we have to state that Carmano was interim (actually "transitional")? I even contemplated changing the title to "Carmona's rule". That move was hardly the gist of my edits.

What "clear and well-sourced content" did I remove that I did not restore later? (And indeed I restored all but the enumeration of Supreme Court, Attourney General, Comptroller General and governors - and if that please you more, I would have no objection to restoring the list again to the Carmono section).

Sure, I am slowing down now. Take all the time to see for yourself that (in the end) I did not remove the content you added.

Str1977 ^(talk) 18:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What's wrong with your lead? Well generally your version (intentionally or otherwise) minimises the illegitimacy of the Carmona regime. It removes "illegally" from "illegally detained", it downgrades voiding of the Constitution to reversing "political changes introduced under Chavez" (which could be the orientation of the horse on the flag...). Your body text does similar things, dropping the long-term consensus "interim" from "interim presidency", and dropping various well-sourced details of what the suspension of institutions involved. Please, let's stick to discussing changes one at a time, and no more reverts whilst Wikipedia's so insanely slow it's borderline broken (I assume it's not just me, since other sites are loading fine). Rd232 ^talk 18:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

"undo - I said what's wrong, and how to proceed, on talk. one thing at a time"

How is that an argument for reverting (again!) back to the clumsy version. You say "slow down, one thing at a time" but prefer the fast track for yourself. I find that quite annoying!

How does my version reduce the "illegitimacy" (actually, you illegality). It clearly states that it was a coup by the military. It avoid "illegal" because that clashes with the account that Chavez gave himself up into detention. My version even states who put Chavez in custody.

It summarises the decree correctly (all the facts are given in the section below) and does not single out the constituion, thereby creating the false impression that a rule without constitution was indeed. (Anyway, I think it quite intriguing how that consitution is supposed to be inviolable when Chavez had it tailor-made, only to try to change it again and again.)

The lead is not meant to list all the tiny details of events. Furthermore, it is not meant to push a POV!

"Please, let's stick to discussing changes one at a time, and no more reverts"

Now you must be joking. Haven't you just done nothing else than revert, and revert, and revert?

First you say we should discuss here, then you go and change the article, and then it's back to discussing here again. I can't take that seriously!

Str1977 ^(talk) 18:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "you prefer the fast track for yourself". I found one excellent source, and some overlooked, sourced material from carmona decree, and brought it into that section, taking into account the previously discussed concerns. That doesn't seem particularly fast track to me. Whatever issues you had with that would have been better sorted before going into other issues, especially substantive changes to the lead; but I particularly objected to your major revision of what I'd written in that section, which seemed to involve going back to the earlier version and then tweaking it. Which is OK in principle as a way of clarifying things, but combined with changing lots of other stuff, not helpful. Also, in general, it's fine to be bold and make lots of changes, but then you should accept that there is a substantial risk of being reverted and having to discuss the changes in detail, which is what's happening here. Rd232 ^talk 20:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Re the first item: "the fast track for yourself" refers to your actions. You asked me to propose a wording and I complied, posting it here on talk as requested. As you weren't satisfied, I asked you for proposals too and you did not post it here (only via a link) but rather changed the article. Then, when I wasn't satisfied with that and also changed the article, you then switched back to "discuss first on talk" gear and reverted to your version. I don't think that's a fair approach on your part.

As for changes to the lead, this happens to be the most prominent part of the article and the one where this discussion started. I don't see why this has to wait (in an unashamedly pro-Chavez version that is) until the section below has been sorted out. Futhermore, it was my editing the lead that actually brought various badly needed sources to that section that previously had been used in the lead (that's sloppy editing of the past, isn't it.)

I also did not change everything all at once but took one edit for the Carmona section, another edit for the Rosendo account, another for the lead (with only small overlap). You however reverted everything in one go, without regard to anything.

Yes, I based my edit of Carmona on the previous section and since it "OK in principle", I guess there's nothing wrong about it. If neutrality and fair play prevailed, of course. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, so the major points seem to be

1. Chavez detention section. This is being discussed in the section below, so let's leave that there.
2. Carmona section: my version has better sourcing and detail. The bone of contention seems to be the prominence of the promises to return to the 1961 constitution. I'd argue that the relative prominence is appropriate given what we know; but we don't know that much. More details on the nature of those promises (especially, whether they were actually in the decree) would help.
3. "interim" in section title: dropping it is misleading. Maybe it doesn't need to be said every time in the body text, but in the section heading it certainly does.
4. your lead revision removes substantial details such as the length of the coup, precision on the details of the Carmona Decree, the illegality of the detention of Chavez, and noting that the police attempted to suppress the uprising. Yes, it adds the mention of the promises, as we discussed, but that doesn't depend on those changes, does it? Your lead also phrases it as a coup "against Chavez", which is poor phrasing considering everything the coup sought to do (were they desperately seeking the Vice President in order to give him the reins of office? I don't think so.).

In sum, I say stick with mine as the base version, and then agree specific changes based on that. You want the promises more prominent in the body and lead - OK, so do that then, and propose other changes as you think necessary. But, y'know, preferably in small quantities. (For larger-scale changes, if you really want, a userspace draft is helpful.)

Rd232 ^talk 20:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me have a look:

1. "Chavez detention section. This is being discussed in the section below, so let's leave that there." But let's discuss it there!

2. "Carmona section" - no your version has not better sourcing because my version included everything (except four terms I am willing to include) your version had. The dissolutions and the promises must be noted together, as they are by our source to avoid the POV problem. If you are interested in ensuring NPOV.

3. No problem with restoring it, though "transitional", the term I have heard used more often, would be better.

4. My lead revision reduces the lead to general facts, leaving details to the sections below. Is it really that important how many hours the coup lasted (and actually, how is that calculated: what's the starting and end points) - and you forget or ignore that I included the actual dates of the events, something your great lead version has never seen noteworthy. Details of the Carmona decree do not belong into the lead but a proper summary (dissolutions and promises, but ONLY in GENERAL). The illegality of Chavez detention is not sourced (see section below) and is not in need of being noted everytime. It was a coup after all. The movements of the police are also a detail not relevant to the lead, especially since they did not succeed. That the coup was against Chavez happens to be a matter of fact (which necessarily included getting his followers out of the executive) - this is actually what the military stated in the beginning: remove Chavez because of his involvement in the killings of that day and his ordering Plan Avila. And must I say it again: it was a COUP! Coups don't play by rules of succession!

In sum, you summary doesn't seem to indicate any willingness to make the lead neutral. Any concern for cleaning up stylistic messes! How now? Str1977 ^(talk) 19:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding point 2 of your list, the decree does not contain any reference to the '61 constitution and in fact it mentions the '99 constitution several times to justify itself. In article 3 (the one that disolves the National Assembly) , the decree calls for the election in December of a new "Nacional Legislative Power" with constituent authority for a "general reform" of the '99 Constitution. JRSP (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the BBC never says that Carmona was returning to the '61 constitution, it only says "Promised a return to the pre-1999 bicameral parliamentary system", but source never implies a return to the '61 constitution as a whole. JRSP (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

That's hardly a good faith comment, JR. Am I to insist that President Hugo Chavez is to be called "President" when the source uses that term and "Chavez" when the source uses that term. "Pre-1999 ... system" clearly refers to the system in place before Chavez doing away with the 1961 consitution. But if it maks you happy, I have no objection with quoting the exact term used in the article, since it means one and the same thing. If there would be an article on the 1961 consitution (unfortunately, there isn't - for reasons I will not speculate about right now) I would however insist on wiki-linking "pre 1999 ... system" to that article. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Returning to a bicameral system like the one in the pre-1999 constitution is not the same than returning to the pre-1999 constitution so the phrase "revoking the Bolivarian constitution introduced in 1999 in favour of the previous bicameral parliamentary system" is misleading. It is joining two different items from source to imply something that is not in the BBC report. JRSP (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right about that. I've found the original text [3] and added it to Carmona Decree. Rd232 ^talk 18:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Str1977: 2. Carmona section: the current version (my version) has more details, which are all well sourced (apart from the last para, which is a bit problematic, not least in its overlap with the previous section where some of the points are sourced). Since your primary concern seems to be the proximity of the promises to the dissolution, and we've now established that these are part of the Decree, we should be able to tweak that without radical surgery. 4. the lead. In general, both leads are too short; you complain of too many details and remove some, but the real solution is add more. I think Sandy has some views on things that need to be added. So I think we should create a new section about revising the lead once her concerns are clarified; in the mean time, I definitely think expansion is the way to go, for this article length. In specific: I note that your lead has the start and end dates, where the old one has start date + time. The 47 hours gives a nice flavour I think, but it seems to be unsourced, so I guess it should go unless someone can come up with one. Rd232 ^talk 19:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Chavez options

Here's the other thing. JR also removed a passage, uncited for three years:

"General Rosendo says he presented the newly deposed Chávez two options: choose to remain in Venezuela on the condition that he stand trial for the 11 April killings, or be exiled. Chávez reportedly responded that he and his family wished to be exiled to Cuba, on the conditions that Rosendo personally guarantee the safety of Chávez's relatives and that Chávez would depart via Maiquetía's Simón Bolívar International Airport."

I agreed with the formal correctness of removing it after such a long time but by chance came across a similar event.

During the "X-ray" documentary, General Rosendo was on the panel and he related that he brought Chavez the generals' proposals, as the President had requested him to do. (His arrival is also shown in "Televised").

Rosendo speaks of two different proposals: one coming from the army spoke of Chavez leaving the country with guarantees for his family's safety (and a later indictment of Chavez), the other from the Defense Ministry and representatives of all the armed forces, calling for his resignation and prosecution inside the country. The Guard's commander agreed with the army proposal. Rosendo took the two proposals to Chavez, first relating the army's proposal, as he thought it more viable. Chavez didn't wait for the second proposal and accepted the first. When asked where he would go, Chavez suggested Cuba and made the condition that he would be going through Maiaquetia. Rosendo said he'd guarantee the family's safety. Rosendo goes on to describe disagreement between the generals who decided against Chavez leaving the country, that he had to resign and would be tried in the country.

This is the account given by Rosendo himself. Therefore I suggest restoring the information (adapted to reflect the fact that though there were two proposals, Chavez only heard and accepted the first and that the generals later changed their mind. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be working with primary material whose notability has not been proved. JRSP (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's an obstacle per se; it's more of an issue of reliable sourcing. I'm very uncomfortable using video sources in general (even assuming Str1977 can provide a link). Perhaps it could be raised at WP:RSN. Rd232 ^talk 16:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that working with primary material should be avoided. After 8 years, I think we can work with better sources; there are several works published about the coup, perhaps some of them reported Rosendo's words. JRSP (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

True, you would think this must have been adequately covered in books etc by now to avoid having to deal with the video. Rd232 ^talk 16:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

JR, with your comments you are stretching my good faith to the breaking point. You are trying to keep substantiated information (the only caveat is that it is the General saying it but we can take of that by adding "according to general Rosendo ..."), the notabality issue being a fallacy anyway.

That a general who was involved in the events gave such a statement during a public discussion in Venezuela makes it notable, regardless of in which documentary it is included.

And please stop the "primary source" nonsense as there is no policy against using "primary sources" as long as one merely reports what they are saying, without theorising on it.

Rd, providing a link is not a problem. Go to this link, wathch minutes 55-60 and see for yourself.

Str1977 ^(talk) 08:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that my reservations about using the video are "nonsense". Lots of other videos have been shown in the Venezuelan TV with witnesses accounts, we cannot just dump all their testimonies in the article. JRSP (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

My point, JR, is that you seem far too eager to remove and keep removed information that is certainly not unsourced given the man himself said that he did this and that (hardly just some random witness account but one of the leading participants of the event, visibly appearing in the "Televised" film too). Even if you don't like the source. And I haven't yet began to search for printed sources on the net yet. Have you actually tried to substantiate this before you removed it for having no source? Str1977 ^(talk) 11:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as I remember, the text had been unsourced since March 2007 when I removed it[4], the possibility of sourcing it with the documentary is something you brought about later. When I mentioned above that there are several documentaries with witnesses accounts, I'm talking about high profile witnesses; there are also other primary sources as congressional hearings, court procedures, etc. with lots of statements from important actors. As I said before, we cannot just dump all their testimonies in the article. JRSP (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I know that it was unsourced since 2007. However, fact tags are placed in order for sources to be provided, not as an excuse to remove the information if only enough time has passed. Have you ever even tried to verify the information?

No one is talking about "lots of statements" and "all their testimonies" but about a central figure in the whole events. And I see no reason to keep this information removed! Str1977 ^(talk) 15:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear to me why this particular issue of different resignation proposals is that interesting. Cannon (2004:296) (ref in article) has some details on differing accounts of the resignation, in a way which actually matters: the opposition declared the uprising a rebellion under Article 350 of the Constitution, with a "constitutional power vacuum" ensuing due to Chavez' resignation. The government (and Cannon and another source he cites agree) say that Chavez, being held incomunicado and against his will, could not legally resign without endorsement by the National Assembly; and that if he had resigned, power would have passed to the Vice President. In other words, the question of whether Chavez actually agreed to resign, and if so on what terms, is irrelevant. Rd232 ^talk 16:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Because all the events are relevant to this article! It helps to understand the different avenues taken by the military leaders, placing the contrafactual announcement of Chavez' resignation in context.

If Cannon disagrees I would like to see what he has to say and how this differs. We already have differing accounts, that of Rosendo and that of Chavez.

The legal requirements of a resignation (that are stated in the article) certainly have nothing to do with covering all events. Legally, there would have been a coup and this page would be empty. But we don't cover the law as such but the events.

Str1977 ^(talk) 17:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

PS. Cannon 2004 was previously used only to source some small sentence ("it was the poor"), rather a matter of judgement, and even that wasn't done properly as nobody has a clue what Cannon 2004 is supposed to be. A title was not given. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Cannon 2004 is fully referenced in another footnote. Rd232 ^talk 17:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it's the same Cannon article. I thought the there were two from different years. I misread!

Yes, please send me the article (send you my adress).

My sentence meant that JR's your claim "any agreement by Chavez to resign is irrelevant because he couldn't legally without the Assembly" is based on a principle that would lead us to blank the page or reduce it to a one liner. Such an agreement was indeed not "legal" but neither was the coup. 18:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

My claim? JRSP (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops! It was Jd. Sorry! Str1977 ^(talk) 18:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not clear where your remark about "blanking the page" comes from, but I doubt it matters. Let me know what you think about the Cannon article. Rd232 ^talk 20:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh my, let me try to explain it again: above the argument was made that all that Rosendo (sic!) said was irrelevant here since Chavez could not legally resign without the Assembly anyway. My reply was that according to the same logic the whole coup would not be relevant since the military cannot legally depose a president. However, if we remove the coup (as was suggested we remove the Rosendo account), the page would be blank, wouldn't it?

I have received but not yet read the Cannon article (due to technical problems right now). I will comment once I have done so.

Str1977 ^(talk) 19:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Illegaly detained

This has alreay been discussed with Sandy on her talk page but I want to comment on this too. The article says Chavez was "illegally detained" in the lead when the source used does in fact say:

"In April, during the short-lived government of Pedro Carmona, military officers held President Chavez for 36 hours against his will. Additionally, security forces conducted raids without warrants and took some Chavez supporters into custody illegally ..."

It does not say that Chavez was illegally detained.

Furthermore, let me add what I wrote on Sandy's talk page:

This not so much about whether a source says "illegally detained" (as it happens, the source doesn't say this) - as "illegal" is a matter of judgement and hence a matter of controversy.

Rd you said that the "that the detention of the head of state during a coup is illegal" - if that is so we do not need to hit home in every sentence that a single act was illegal. We already say it was a coup - and there is no going around it: it was a coup done by the military leadership with at least some popular support but still a coup.

I also do not see a discussion about whether it was "detention" or a "visit" - this is a strawman set up by you. Sure, it was detention as Chavez was supposed to stand trial sometime in the future. I don't see why "coup" and "detention" is not enough, why you have to add "illegal"?

Str1977 ^(talk) 19:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

At the time you wrote that, the illegality had been sourced to Rey 2002 as cited in Cannon 2004 for some hours. You may have overlooked that, and you have a point that perhaps stating it's illegal is unnecessary, being obvious and generally understood - except that Sandy's response suggests it isn't. Since then I've added another source. On the one hand, I'm keen to avoid another bone of contention requiring more work and discussion to resolve; on the other hand, it suggests more fundamental issues, which without obsessing about a single word in the lead, it may be a useful window onto. Or not. Rd232 ^talk 18:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, JRSP, for supplying the exact quote. " ... es claro que el presidente estaba sometido a coacción e, incluso, privado de libertad personal." This does not say he was illegally detained, so I've removed the statement. Is this typical of how sources are represented throughout the article? Quotes from offline sources are going to be needed to verify. The article is rife with original research, too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This source[5] says in page 4 "Comenzó el primer juicio militar sobre los hechos del 11 de abril, por insubordinación y privación ilegítima de libertad del Presidente de la República ..." JRSP (talk) 05:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Still not there :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

What is still not there? Somebody went to trial for "insubordinación y privación ilegítima de libertad del Presidente de la República", what else do you need? JRSP (talk) 05:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The source given (Cannon 2004, citing Rey 2002) was perfectly clear: "There was rather, according to Rey, an ‘unconstitutional power vacuum’ because the President had been illegally imprisoned, and the Vice-President was in hiding to avoid the same fate, yet there was no military leader prepared to assume power (Rey, 2002:10)." Rd232 ^talk 09:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

So, any problem with re-adding "illegally detained"? JRSP (talk) 13:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I re-added "illegally". BTW, I think the DoS ref can be removed now as the other sources support the claim. JRSP (talk) 01:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it needed to support something else? Maybe it's in the wrong place. Rd232 ^talk 02:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Quote from Veneconomía as requested: "Comenzó el primer juicio militar sobre los hechos del 11 de abril, por insubordinación y privación ilegítima de libertad del Presidente de la República, en la persona del capitán Otto Gebauer Morales,..." JRSP (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

We're still in the same place; cherry picking of sources, failure to use a preponderance of sources to cite the claim (see WP:UNDUE, and please report what NYT, LA Times, BBC, and a multitide of other mainstream reliable sources say), a translation that doesn't say he was illegally detained, a source that doesn't say that at all, and a source, that while a good one for many other sorts of text (VenEconomy) is *not* at all a reliable source for this sort of claim. (BTW, please provide the quote for VenEconomy, so we can discuss the exact text, even though it is simply NOT a reliable source for such a claim-- it is a reliable source for certain business and economic claims, for example. Please stop with the undue, and cite mainstream, reliable sources, of which there are hundreds that do not support this claim, which is cherrypicking of sources to support a claim that is not supported by mainstream reliable sources. Further, please read and understand WP:LEAD; it is to be summary. Contentious claims ban be explored within the body of the article (and fringe claims don't belong in the body of the article either, but that's a different issue); they are explored with attribution, such as "so-and-so says X by such-and-such says Y". Fringe claims don't belong in the lead, and minority views can be explored in the body of the article. Next, when providing and translating quotes, don't quote part of the sentence or the phrase out of context: include the entire thing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, is this a joke or what? We have a trial for "privación ilegítima de libertad" What "cherrypicking" are you refering to? JRSP (talk) 02:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Notice the words "trial for" :) My point exactly. Explore that neutrally and accurately in the text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

What do you want? Another source with the outcome of the trial?[6] JRSP (talk) 02:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I want fringe text removed from the lead, and the full story told in the body of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

A Lexis-Nexis search on "Chavez 'illegally detained' 2002 coup" yields 18 articles total with only *one* article for the last ten years that uses the words "illegally detained" to refer to Chavez (from AllAfrica Global Media. (allafrica.com)-- maybe their reporter lifted his text from Wiki).

The words "illegally detained" do come up in the 17 other articles, but not in relation to Chavez: they are about the JFK incident or other events for example:

1. The government insists city police fired indiscriminately at civilian Chavez supporters and illegally detained cabinet ministers.
2. Venezuela's top diplomat says airport authorities illegally detained him in New York and were abusive ...
3. Nicolas Maduro says he was illegally detained at Kennedy Airport ...

That's it. One article in an obscure African paper.

The same search, without the word "illegally" over ten years in Lexis-Nexis returns 515 articles (not all of those pertain to Chavez, some are comments from Chavez on the Honduras coup, and there are too many to review all of them). Within those articles, one finds things like:

1. NYT, April 2005, ... following a 2002 coup that briefly toppled Mr. Chavez
2. NYT, December 2006, ... after the coup that briefly removed Mr. Chavez from the presidency in 2002.
3. NYT, Feb 2009, ... a coup that briefly ousted Mr. Chavez in 2002 ...

Hundreds of articles on the coup that do *not* use the word "illegally". That is a search not just on NYT, but major newspapers and publications worldwide, such as the one African source that does use the word "illegally".

There is *no* due weight in reliable sources supporting the use of the word illegally; the events leading up to Chavez's removal, and the trial and its results after, need to be fully and neutrally discussed in the text, without reliance on one source, omitting part of the story.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I added another source :"El Universal". JRSP (talk) 03:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Which again does not say he was illegally detained; being "tried" or "prosecuted" for something in Venezuela isn't the same. And please add quotes for non-English sources in the citation, per WP:V, so others can more easily verify that the source doesn't verify the text. I've already shown that Lexis-Nexis does not support this claim, no matter how many people the Chavez regime can accuse or prosecute. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is the edit that added the word "illegally" on March 30, 2008, although the source given did not support that statement. More interestingly, the information in that BBC source is exactly the sort of information that is now missing from this article, replaced instead by an over-reliance on Bart Jones. After the "illegally" was added, JRSP's next edits were to tag a source to be checked, and add a source to the lead, and remove unsourced text, but he missed the failed verification on "illegally" in the same lead. The word was first removed on August 8, 2009 (it stood inaccurate and unsourced in this article before challenged for a year and a half. JRSP then added it back, with the faulty source, that endured until Awickert challenged it and it was reverted four times. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Being tried for something in Venezuela does not mean that something is illegal? JRSP (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Now JRSP, you know every bit as well as I do that anyone can be charged with anything in Venezuela, and even thrown in jail and kept there without a trial. Now, I've already done the search on Lexis-Nexis, and there are no reliable sources (one Africa article) saying that Chavez was illegally detained, so let's get on with cleaning up the massive problems across other articles, and stop dilly-dallying over one word that has never been sourced in this article, which has major problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Please explain anyone can be charged with anything in Venezuela. Are you telling me that Venezuelan tribunals cannot say what is legal and what is not in a case that happened in Venezuela involving Venezuelans. Under that conditions, we could say that there is nothing illegal in Venezuela. JRSP (talk) 10:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this "illegally" thing has taken up far more time than the issue justifies, and I can live with dropping it for now; at some point the legality issue needs addressing in the body, and then at some point it can be summarised in the lead. However, I would like an explanation for the rejection of the following reliable source noted above, in favour of WP:OR by searching Lexis: The source given (Cannon 2004, citing Rey 2002) was perfectly clear: "There was rather, according to Rey, an ‘unconstitutional power vacuum’ because the President had been illegally imprisoned, and the Vice-President was in hiding to avoid the same fate, yet there was no military leader prepared to assume power (Rey, 2002:10)." In any case, for developing the legality issue in the body, Cannon (2004) will be an excellent source. Rd232 ^talk 10:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be too contentious to include in the introduction...yet there it is again--in the lead. I think we should remove it from the introduction--again. --72.47.85.102 (talk) 03:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Remove "Oliver Stone film rumors" section?

The section "Oliver Stone film rumors" is outdated, I think it refers to South of the Border (2009 film) which, as far as I know, does not deal particularly with the coup so I think the section can be removed. JRSP (talk) 02:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It was never a particularly encyclopedic section anyway. Rd232 ^talk 09:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Irish Documentary

As is mentioned in the article: some organizations argued the accuracy of the documentary. A counter documentary has been made: X Ray of a lie and it seems to me that it should be mentioned in this article. You cannot say that google video is not a proper reference. What we reference here is the fact that some organizations argued against the accuracy. And BTW there are already google video on this article.

This video has been made by film producer and BBC-trained engineer Wolfgang Schalk. It is referenced in the German version of wikipedia. See [7]. I it is fact as notable as the film "the revolution will not be televised", and I even wonder if it should not be a full paragraph, just like the other film. I am prepared not to go that far, but the existence of such film should at least be clearly mentioned. Voui (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If it has coverage in reliable, secondary sources, it should be mentioned with reference to those sources. Otherwise, not. As usual, please use dispute resolution rather than edit warring, if you can't find better sources. WP:RSN perhaps. Rd232 ^talk 21:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, several documentaries have been made; most of them are seldom mentioned by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not for promoting obscure films. JRSP (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

There is far too much weight given in this article to a WP:FRINGE and controversial documentary (Revolution will not be televised); that content needs to be substantially reduced, covered in the documentary article, and this article needs to focus on reliable sources. How many reliable sources discuss that documentary? Why is it even included here, other than a few sentences referencing the film article? More undue, which skews this article to POV and WP:UNDUE weight to the exclusion of reliable sources. At most, this article should have one sentence summarizing the two films: one film (Revolution will not be televised) says X, andother (X-ray of a lie) says Y, refer to those articles, and get the debate out of here, according to due weight accorded in reliable sources. This article focuses on all the wrong things, and that takes too much time. Those controversies belong elsewhere, this article is unbalanced, POV, and focusing on the wrong issues, not even trying to tell the story leading up to Chavez's resignation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No, we have a notable documentary about the coup so it's worth mentioning, that doesn't mean that the article endorses the documentary view; the article only says that the film is notable, not that it is a reliable source. Non-notable films should not be mentioned at all. JRSP (talk) 02:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The article has an entire paragraph giving credence to the dubious and controversial "documentary", which is undue weight vis-a-vis a preponderance of reliable sources, who don't much care about that documentary when telling the story of Chavez's removal from power. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No, the article does not gives "credence" to the documentary. It just says there is a notable documentary about the coup and that there is controversy about the film. JRSP (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No, the entire paragraph lends credence to the "documentary" view, which is very contoversial. That the doumentary meets Wiki's notability requirements has nothing to do with the balance of the preponderance of reliable sources that give no or little credence to the "documentary" view. Notability and NPOV are two different things. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

But if the documentary is notable it is worth mentioning it. How do you suggest the paragraph should be rewritten? JRSP (talk) 04:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Sandy do you think that it's not a documentary? Is that what you want? And they actually let you have a wikipedia account? that's scary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.142.254 (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Lead

A lead should summarize the entire article; this lead completely leaves out any mention of the events leading up to Chavez's removal, and jumps straight to Carmona. (Of course, there is also an incomplete accounting of events leading to his removal, but that's another issue ... for now, the lead should summarize the article, not omit half of the story.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Fine, yes, it should summarise the "events leading up to the coup" in a brief sentence or two (tricky, perhaps...). I don't know how much more detail it needs in the lede on the removal; but I'm sure we can figure that out. Do you have anything particular in mind? A lot of the details are quite practical and not necessarily significant enough to include in the lede. More of a problem is the "Background" section, which isn't really good enough in the body (there may be more details elsewhere on WP, but I suspect it needs new sources). Doing justice to that in the lede probably needs expanding the Background first. Rd232 ^talk 09:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is an older, more correct version of the lead:

The Venezuelan coup attempt of 2002 was a failed military coup d'état on April 11 2002. It saw the brief overthrow and arrest of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and the installation of a businessman Venezuelan Federation of Chambers of Commerce (Fedecámaras) president Pedro Carmona as interim President for 47 hours. In Caracas, the coup led to riots and a pro-Chávez uprising that the Metropolitan Police attempted to suppress. Key sectors of the military and parts of the anti-Chávez movement refused to back Carmona. The pro-Chávez Presidential Guard eventually retook the Miraflores presidential palace without firing a shot, leading to the collapse of the Carmona government and the re-installation of Chávez as President.

The older version is more neutral and correct, but still had left out mention of the protests against Chavez and the events leading to his resignation, but it's a stat towards more neutrality than what is there now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Media role

Sourcing can be improved here (and such sources may be useful elsewhere too). For instance Cannon (2004:297) (full cite in article):

Opposition criticisms of the government’s aggressive behaviour towards them do not take account of the persistent, equally aggressive and almost universal media campaign against the government at both home and abroad (Various authors, 2002; Werz, 2001). Their complaints about Chavez’s attacks on the media and the effects this had on freedom of expression were compromised by their almost total disregard for transmitting the facts during the coup. Indeed, according to one analyst, ‘there was an information blackout planned in solidarity or connivance with the de facto government [of Carmona]’ (Gonzalez Plessmann, 2002: 20).

Gonzalez Plessmann, A. J. (2002) Venezuela: oposicion y estado de derecho. Observatorio Social de America Latina Year III 7: 19–23.

Rd232 ^talk 14:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

See WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV; what is lacking is a preponderance of info from mainstream reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I think I just talked about adding more sources... and generally, WP:SOFIXIT. Also, what's your problem with that academic paper; Columbia Journalism Review; Le Monde; Bart Jones? Rd232 ^talk 17:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You cannot use one article to support a claim that is unsupported by a multitude of mainstream reliable sources; that is cherrypicking. On medical articles (which I usually edit), you can find a source for just about any wacky idea you can dream up, published even in a peer reviewed journal, yet contradicted in dozens of others. That's why we rely on a preponderance of sources, not just one. Cherrypicking, and undue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

So in response to my question about what's wrong with the sources given, you go off on a tangent summarisable by WP:FRINGE. How about answering the question? Or providing sources that reach other conclusions? If you can't or won't, the decent thing would be to drop it, but it would be more constructive to pursue DR than to talk about abstract policy not clearly applied to the present case. Rd232 ^talk 10:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Sandy: whats a 'reliable mainstream source'? Where a figure like President Chavez is concerned, the MSM aka the corporate press, is automaticlly 'un-reliable'. Jalusbrian (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

POV

See also: Talk:2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt § Name of the article, Talk:2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt § Illegally detained, Talk:2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt § Irish Documentary, Talk:2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt § Lead, Talk:2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt § Media role, and Talk:2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt § Events in the coup

This article fails to summarize and discuss events leading up to the removal of Chavez, cherrypicks sources, does not give due weight to mainstream reliable sources, gives undue weight to a controversial documentary, uses and heavily relies on non-reliable sources like Chavez administration government sources, Eva Golinger, Venezuelanalysis, one journal paper to the exclusion of a preponderance of reliable sources (Bart Jones) and others, has a WP:LEAD that doesn't summarize the article and gives undue weight to controversy, and fails to include updated and reliable mainstream sources. Worse, it fails to even tell the story of Chavez's removal completely, focusing instead on a controversial "documentary" which gets scant review in reliable sources, and skipping over a full analysis of Chavez's role in his toppling, focusing instead on the failed interim government.

And recent articles like this NYT aren't reflected at all; updates to the article since 2006 have been to make it rely heavily on one journal article (Bart Jones), to the exclusion of a multitude of other sources. Cherrypicking from one source is not how neutral articles are achieved on Wikipedia.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

What does the NYT article adds that we should reflect? What sources do you propose to balance Jones? JRSP (talk) 04:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The couple hundred in Lexis-Nexis, which will take some time to add :) At least The New York Times is online and available to anyone (as are several other major reliable sources, like the BBC, the Washington Post, etc.), but it will take much work to neutralize the one-sided version here. The over-reliance on Bart Jones is a particular problem. If this article is supposed to tell the story of the "coup" (resignation), why is Raúl Baduel entirely missing? Sort of like Sumate is missing. Orphan articles we don't want anyone to read? Where is discussion of the massive protest marches that led to Chavez's resignation? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Súmate is not a particularly notable actor in the coup, except for Machado signing the Carmona Decree. The developments in Maracay with Baduel are more interesting. JRSP (talk) 05:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Because the story now leaves out all mention of events and protests that led to Chavez resigning. They're strangely missing from the article, along with any mention of Raul Baduel, whose story is not convenient for Chavez (and leaves those articles interestingly orphaned, as if those events and these people never existed :) I've inserted mention, but in doing so, I note an extreme reliance in this article on one source, Bart Jones, that needs to be corrected. I don't know if the problem is the source, or cherry picking of info from the source; I see I'm going to have to get hold of that article to make sure this article accurately represents that source, since we've already seen a problem with translation. This is an extremely skewed accounting of Chavez's resignation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Newsflash Sandy....Chavez never resigned. The 'protests' against Chavez are by those who formerly ruled and were dismayed by their sudden loss of power to as they say a 'black monkey'. Your whole tenor speaks of someone steeped in 'non-reliability' bias Jalusbrian (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Jones (2008) is a book, published by The Bodley Head, an imprint of Random House. Parts of it are available via Google Books preview. (I have the book though.) Rd232 ^talk 10:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

And by the way, the lead still warrants some mention that this has never been ruled a coup in Venezuela; you can expand the sentence rather than revert it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

For a partial listing of items presented incompletely here, see User:SandyGeorgia/Chavez sources, in particular, User:SandyGeorgia/Chavez sources#.22Coup.22.2C general strike.2C recall referendum.2C Sumate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

That page seems to suggest (unless I'm misreading it) relying heavily on a single article in the Economist which is either by or heavily reliant on Brian Nelson. (It may be a variation of this article by Nelson.) Nelson's article was developed into a book, which has been critically reviewed (by a source you won't like, but it draws on other sources so many of the points are independently verifiable).[8] Rd232 ^talk 15:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope :) I still haven't had time to get to sources beyond the Economist, there are many, and my Sources page at this stage merely partly presents issues that remain incomplete and biased in these articles. Nelson's accounting is quite well backed up by many sources; fact remains, there are two sides to the story, and we only present one. Wiki articles consistently and across the board give undue weight to a partisan source's accounting of events (Venezuelanalysis.com), to the exclusion of other, much more reliable and non-partisan sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

As noted above, many of the points in the VA book review are drawn from other sources. I would say that the academic article Cannon (2004) - the only academic article on the subject I know of - clearly identifies the two sides of the story (I can email on request). Those stories are clearly laid out in Jones (2008) and Nelson (2009)'s books; with the Wilpert review of Nelson helping to identify some of the differences. Both views should be clearly explained in the article. Rd232 ^talk 15:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't gotten to those sources yet, Rd, but I dont' trust VA's summary of anything (I guess that goes without saying :) I'll get there! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Just how 'reliable' is the NYT? Which brought us non-reliable info on Iraq WMDS!? And why are the Chavez administration, Eva Golnger etc non-reliable? What you maen is theyb dont refeclt your very obviously non-reliable POV, Sandy! Mainstream sources(aka the corporate press) have a long history of being 'non-reliable'..witness how they backed the 2002 aborted coup and the Iraq invasion Jalusbrian (talk) 11:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

If you don't think the New York Times is a reliable source, perhaps you can post to the reliable sources noticeboard for clarification. Prepare your humor meter first, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The NYT is a reliable source and although they are sometimes wrong, like any paper, we can look to corrections or subsequent reporting of events in other publications. However we must be careful of stories that quote unnamed sources and speculation, as the NYT Iraq stories did. TFD (talk) 23:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Jalusbrian is absolutely right, you cant have your cake and eat it too in saying the Venezuelan national source is not reliable but the NYT is. Lihaas (talk) 07:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Reference #9 missing/dead (US and Spain quickly acknowledged the pro-US Carmona government..)

The last sentence of the introduction states "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."[9] I clicked on the footnote to see the source, which links to a page at the Venezuelan Embassy, but the link is dead. Please fix or remove this sentence. Thanks.
link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Venezuelan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat_attempt#cite_note-embassy-8
Proxy003 (talk) 04:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed with archive.org copy. JRSP (talk) 03:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

us recognition

how comes there is no mention of the us' immediate recogntion of the new govt?Lihaas (talk) 07:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

coup d'etat "attempt"

The coup did consummate for two days. It shouldn't be considered an "attempt". --Amnesico29 (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I've wondered about the naming as well. It seems more like a very briefly successful coup, and then a counter-coup. I think it's normally referred to as just a coup, not a "coup attempt". Rd232 ^talk 20:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's ask the dictionary. A "coup," according to Merriam Webster, is a "brilliant, sudden, and usually highly successful stroke or act, however the article seems to use "coup" as a shortened form of "coup d'etat," (which is itself an acceptable definition of a "coup"). A coup d'etat, according to M-W, is "a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics; especially : the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group." I think--according to the M-W definition--the coup (if that's what we're going to call it) was successful for two days. --72.47.85.102 (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Recent expansion

In the last couple of days I've put a lot of effort into expanding the article, filling in big gaps and clarifying a lot of things. I'm thinking of putting it forward as a Good Article nominee, but before getting to that I really need regulars here to have a close look at the current article and see if there are any issues to be resolved before that can happen. thanks, Rd232 ^talk 18:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Anyone? Rd232 ^talk 23:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Nominated - let's see what happens. If it fails, it fails. Rd232 ^talk 01:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)