Talk:Protests against Nicolás Maduro/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Neutrality...

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

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

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

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

Issues

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

Background issues

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

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

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

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

Peace talks

• Reports on the peace talks.

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

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

Elaboration on shortages

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

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

Barricades

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

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

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

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

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

Government's Anti-Violence efforts

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

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

Numbers of Demonstrators

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

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

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

Article-level POV tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just a little bit of NPOV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Colectivos are organized groups. Radical protesters are not organized according to sources. They are usually small groups that branch out after formal, peaceful protests. The same can be said about pro-government demonstrators that sources say killed Genesis Carmona. If "anti-government radicals" is placed in the infobox, "pro-government radicals" will be placed as well.--Zfigueroa (talk) 00:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute opinions in article

The opinions of these capitalist advocacy groups do not belong in the economics section anymore than the opinions of the Communist Party does. This is a NPOV violation. The Heritage Foundation is just one of hundreds of groups with a political opinion. The Cato Institute's economic philosophies as it relates to these protests is barely notable, to include them would necessitate that we include the economic opinions of every relevant Venezuelan group, at the very least. In the meantime, we have cherry-picked pro-capitalist sources. I propose we do not include the opinions of US political advocacy groups in the economics section.Masebrock (talk) 03:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the Heritage Foundation is conservative but it is assisted by The Wall Street Journal, a fairly notable editorial focusing on economics. So most likely, this is not just some political opinion ranking unless it is assumed to be so by WP users. The CATO Institute, according to journalist Eric Lichtblau, is "one of the country’s most widely cited research organizations". Even if their ideologies may be contrary to the Venezuelan gov. ideology does not mean they are not reliable according to WP:BIASED.--Zfigueroa (talk) 03:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The Wall Street journal, too, has pro-US, pro-capitalist political bias. It is a US-based newspaper after all. In many articles it is a perfectly acceptable source. However in articles relating to the opinions of international governments, in particular in matters relating to socialism vs. capitalism, their bias is apparent. Their partnership with the Heritage Foundation should tell you where their alliance lies. I do not know if this is the first time the political bias of the Heritage Foundation has been brought into question for usage in Wikipedia articles. If it hasn't been brought to attention before, it should. "Economic freedom" is a complicated philosophical matter, and there is no objectively correct source that we can go to for the answers. Left-leaning political groups in the US have brought much attention to the biases and problems with the Economic Freedom Index. I'm not saying the Economic Freedom Index is wrong, I'm just saying that it is too controversial to put in an article without including the opinions of the many dissenting groups.

As for the Cato Institute, I am not doubting the reliability of their data. It is the inclusion of their capitalist economic philosophy as an explanation for events that is not warranted. There must be many Venezuelan-based economic philosophers that have much more relevant and notable input on the matter. All this being said, I have made a compromise that keeps both quotes in. We describe who the Heritage Foundation is, and clarify that the Cato quote is only an opinion.Masebrock (talk) 04:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. There are a lot of disputes on these articles over capitalism/socialism but these are only what the users perceive and not what is said in the sources.--Zfigueroa (talk) 06:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The end?

Looks like the protests are pretty much over even though a tiny minority is trying to keep it alive through noisy actions. Since they are decentralized and have no clear leader how can it be determined which date to set as the end of the protests and which events are part of the protests and which not? Zozs (talk) 23:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you point some news article that talks about this decline? Or is it your own analysis? Cambalachero (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I can't, but I surely can notice the fact that there are never any real news anymore. There's not going to be any new articles when they are finished (by the way, how can you tell when something is "finished" or not? someone will always continue everything), they are just going to stop reporting about it. That's why I asked: how can we determine the finish date of the protests? Zozs (talk) 00:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

This article admits that the protests are pretty much dead except for a minority hardliner group. Zozs (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The protests will be finished when they are finished and no people protests in the streets anymore. A reduced number of people may suggest that the end is coming near, but not that we are there yet. We need a source that talks about the protests as a past event, and says when they had finished. And no, considering the nature of this event we can't talk about a certain and definite ending date: it is more likely that the reports will say that they ended by the end of May, by the begining or middle June, or something like that. Cambalachero (talk) 02:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

They do seem to be slowing but opposition leaders are still saying that the protests are not over. Machado is a pretty large figure of the protests so we will just have to wait. Will she get arrested? Will she agree with gov. talks? There are a lot of questions, but we will see in the coming months. I know Miguel Rodríguez Torres said that he will make sure the protests are done by June/July (when students get out of school). But who knows, maybe when the students get out of school they'll go straight to the streets. I still have news of protests coming in right now. There are former soldiers getting into the protests now right outside of Miraflores and about a dozen were arrested the other day. Plus with issues of possible sanctions from the US, we may see even more. There are new things happening occasionally so we will just have to wait and see.--Zfigueroa (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

In any case, Wikipedia goes "behind the news": we let things happen, see how do the media reflect them, and only then we write articles accordingly. The World Cup, to mention an example of the opposite type, is an event that will have a clear and recognizable end: two countries will have a last match, one of them will win and become champion, and there will be much rejoicing (it is unknown who will be the champion, but not how or when). This is an ongoing event, and we do not know anything in advance about the end. Perhaps people will simply cease to protest, perhaps Maduro will resign, perhaps the protest is the starting point of a civil war, perhaps another country will take military action on behalf of either of the sides (or even both, as in the Spanish civil war), perhaps Maduro will change his ways and act as an ideal president for the remaining part of his presidency... we will know in time, and will write the article as things happen. Cambalachero (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree on the most part. There are still a lot of "what ifs". But as of now, protests have not stopped, the dialogue hasn't changed much, airlines are pulling out and sanctions of leaders are most likely on the way.--Zfigueroa (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Timeline

How is the listing of every single 'event', no matter how insignificant (for example: "30 May- In the morning hours, three buses blocked traffic...", etc.) appropriate for an encyclopedia article? Short answer: It is NOT appropriate. ...especially when relying on a contested source such as Lapatilla.com (which has come up many times before) as the sole citation. If Lapatilla.com is the only source for a news item, it is highly likely that the news item in question is NOT sufficiently notable for inclusion in the article. But even in cases where other (actually reliable) sources can be provided, "not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." "Wikipedia is not a newspaper." "It is also not an indiscriminate collection of information or a news service. Wikipedia is not a journal of current news. (Alternatively, Wikinews offers a place where editors can document news events.) I am not arguing that the timeline section should be removed (although it should eventually be integrated into the rest of the article), but it should be noted that such a section is highly unusual for a Wikipedia article (I cannot find another article that uses a timeline for such trivial events as "various universities reschedule academic events"!!). For the last time, please be more judicious when adding to the article. Now would be a good time to start revising and improving what is already there. --Riothero (talk) 22:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

That is why Zozs and I decided to create NavFrames for the material since the protests continued and for better organization. It is not being used as a newspaper, current news, etc., its just that the 2014 Venezuelan protests are happening right now. I'm sure even the Venezuelan protests themselves are news to people.

Wikipedia:Notability_(events) is typically only for creating an article that may not be notable. Who knows what may be a catalyst for protests?

With Wikipedia:NOT#IINFO, I see that the timeline is not a:

• 1.) Summary-only description of work (no description of works here)
• 2.) Lyrics database (no lyrics here)
• 3.) Excessive list of statistics (No statistics here. The timeline, is an organized list according to occurrences happening each month, it's not even statistics.)
• 4.) Exhaustive log of software updates (no software updates here)
• Extra.) "Indiscriminate [done at random or without careful judgment] collection" (It is not random or without judgement, it is a specific, monthly collection of what happened during the day of protests)

With that said, I know in some other cases separate articles were made for timelines, but why redirect users that want info about the protests when it can be organized into NavFrames?--Zfigueroa (talk) 04:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

To sum this up, the timeline can be seen as a primary piece to this article through WP:COMPREHENSIVE which says Wikipedia's "primary goal is to be a fully comprehensive and informative reference work". Wikipedia "does not purposefully omit (i.e. suppress or censor) non-trivial, verifiable, encyclopedically-formatted information on notable subjects."--Zfigueroa (talk) 06:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Public support section

I added a new section detailing public support and opinions on the protests. I was considering adding it as its own level-2 heading section, but maybe it's more appropriate under the "Domestic reactions" heading, as public opinion is, after all, a domestic reaction and an important topic, IMO. I moved the polling/survey data there too, as it was oddly structured as part of the "background" of the protests when it is in fact concurrent with the protests and a natural subsection under this new heading. Hopefully what I was going for in the section is clear; if not, I can try to explain it further.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 16:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Length

Somethingdifferentstuff makes a valid point about the article's massive length (and naturally I added to it right away). The sheer size of it makes the page a pain to load after an edit, but I think it shouldn't be too hard to cut down. "International reactions" can be split off into a new article. Who's really going to read that whole thing? The timeline is another candidate for splitting. It probably makes up the bulk of the article's kb size, and with it's level of detail it's likely another major list that the average reader will ignore in favor of more streamlined summary.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 16:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• Split - I agree, split off domestic and international reactions to "Reactions to the 2014 Venezuelan protests" as well as the timeline, which violates MOS:CO. --Jax 0677 (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I never paid attention to the amount of data held in this article. I never knew that there was a preferred amount of bytes in an article. I also never had problems with loading or editing, but I did notice the problem of the length of timeline section a few months ago. I created NavFrames for the section so it would be more organized, condensed and could be a one-stop spot for information about the protests. I also didn't know about the MOS:CO policy so I apologize for that. However, the mention that the data is bogging down your editing times concerns me and I apologize for adding so much detail. We cannot trim down the data, but we can create a new sub article if needed.--Zfigueroa (talk) 05:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I fixed the timeline section. A lot of missing references though so we'll have to go fishing for them on the Timeline of the 2014 Venezuelan protests article.--Zfigueroa (talk) 05:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Recent lede edits

Recent edits in the lede of the article have been removed and will be distributed into the article in appropriate places. Some data, such as one from a CEPR blog (blogs are not reliable sources), will not be added back however. Just an explanation for my edits.--Zfigueroa (talk) 07:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok. I replaced some of the previous content, but a lot was from blog, opinion and other "self" sources. The only other reliable sources used, a NYT article, is already used in the "Public support" section and does not need to be added again.--Zfigueroa (talk) 07:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

You are removing key information that belongs in lede for no good reason.Riothero (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Clearly important descriptions which belong in the introduction of this article on the nature of these very violent protests which have included many episodes or arson, extensive vandalism and even reports of use of firearms from a right wing opposition with a recent history of conspiring towards coup d´etats (see 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt an episode in which Leopoldo Lopez also participated). This has been an important reason why many latin american presidents have critiziced the protests and why international organizations like UNASUR and OAS did not give the protests any support and only called for the end of the violence. All of the sources provided are reports from Venezuela from reliable sources such as The Guardian and The New York Times and another is from the Center for Economic and Policy Research which includes "Nobel Laureate economists Robert Solow and Joseph Stiglitz" as advisors [1]. Frankly i don´t know what "blogs" is user ZFigueroa talking about.--Eduen (talk) 21:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

But also a balanced view of the protests will require changing that main collage of photos which only shows the peaceful protests while not reporting on the extensive violence and vandalism carried out by mass contingents of protesters for a long period of time.--Eduen (talk) 21:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Eduen, I will try to associate your work into the article as much as I can, but you did not provide reliable sources. I am removing these for good reasons Riothero so please have good faith in me and stop provoking edit wars.

Here are a few examples:

• http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/20/venezuela-revolt-truth-not-terror-campaign This is a COMMENTARY from a biased pro-government analyst. Not reliable according to WP policies.
• http://www.ultimasnoticias.com.ve/opinion/firmas/los-domingos-de-diaz-rangel---eleazar-diaz-rangel/repudio-a-las-guarimbas.aspx This is an opinion article, another non-reliable work.
• http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/the-americas-blog/venezuela-who-are-they-and-how-did-they-die-new This is a blog! Not permitted according to WP:RS. I know that there may be Nobel Laurate members of CEPR, but this is just a blog posting on their website.

So according to WP policies, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." This is what is seen and why there is trouble including this into the article. I hope we're having an understanding now. I'm just doing this so we have good work in this article so please have good faith both of you. I will see what I can do. I am going to make some edits and may revert but I will try to fix this. Please use this talk page or even my own talk page for further comments on this so we will not have edit warring blocks.--Zfigueroa (talk) 22:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

In all honesty, each topic that is in the paragraph I removed is already mentioned by President Maduro in the previous paragraph.

Like this:

He (President Maduro) also stated that the government believes half the deaths to have been caused by the protesters, and accused them of causing several millions of dollars' worth of damage to public property. He stated that the protesters have an undemocratic agenda and are supported by the wealthy while receiving no support from the poor.

The CEPR blog article, even if it were reliable (which it isn't since it is a blog), would be an inaccurate interpretation of the article as it does not say anywhere in the article that the majority of deaths are attributed to protesters. Much of the wording is also vague such as "armed civilians" which could be paramilitary groups or protesters. However, information about wire near barricades and "miguelitos" are already discussed in another section as well.

Also, The NYT piece about poor citizens not supporting the protests is already in the "Public support" section.

So, in order to keep the lede more neutral, the lede will stay as before. Thanks for the new photo though Eduen.--Zfigueroa (talk) 23:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

"So, in order to keep the lede more neutral, the lede will stay as before." This sounds like you're having some WP:OWNERSHIP issues there, Zfig, as does your eagerness to revert everyone you disagree with only to turn around and claim good faith means they can't revert you. That's not the way this works. Ditto on the appeals at Talk:3RR. The editors there are ignoring you because you're just asking for someone to come here and tell you you're right.

As for the lead/lede, the added content belongs, as it is summary of important subsections in the article. The sources are reliable as well. You should read WP:NEWSBLOG: not all blogs are unreliable. I'm also amused with your claims about source unreliability. Over the past few months you have been the king of pushing POV material with the excuse that the sources are reliable; now someone else is doing it in your view, so now you're all against that type of editing. Get it straight, man. Your objections to the added content seem biased, honestly. That said, my re-addition of the disputed content is basically just on principle, as I don't think the lead is very good to begin with. I've been meaning to rewrite it for awhile now, but I'm lazy/busy.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 03:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Mbinebri, accusations and name calling against me will not help editing this article. I only wanted the article to be reliable and neutral, so I ask you to have good faith as well. With the Talk:3RR, I only wanted to settle things with Riothero because edit wars don't get us anywhere, so stop accusing me of things once again. Thanks for telling me to read WP:NEWSBLOG since I did not know this before, I only looked at large WP policies (RS, etc.), so I do apologize for that.

For your subsections, I have included reports of human rights violations since they were not included either. Thanks for your concerns!--Zfigueroa (talk) 06:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Zfig, we are explaining our disagreements with you and your edits. That is not name-calling. I am tired of these unfounded accusations (like that I am stalking you). Wikipedia's policy asks that its editors not only act in good faith, but that they assume good faith as well. Riothero (talk) 15:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Lead rewrite

Well, I pared down the lead—by 10,000 bites!—and I feel that this version is a far better summation of the topic. The previous version was waaaaay too detailed and was getting bogged down with info that that was ultimately less important than it probably seemed when it was first added. That tends to happen with articles covering current events. Now the lead's focus really is the protests themselves. I also feel that both sides of the issue are fairly represented and the length is enough to provide a good overview without getting dense. Arab Spring seems a good comparison in terms of lead length. I'm open to opinions...  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 15:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Vast improvement! Great introduction to the entire article. I agree that it is evenheaded. Riothero (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Now it will also be nice to change the intro main collage of the protests which makes these protests seem like they were innocent-almost carnival like-marches while much of them were actually lenghty episodes of protesters commiting various acts of arson, vandalism and even reports of gunshots being used by protesters amid open calls for an end of the Maduro government and supported by the impunity of opposition controlled municipal governments.--Eduen (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Very nice rewrite of the lede!

For the collage, the majority of protests are known to be peaceful according to sources. The collage also represents major events or places during the protests, like the "Freedom Camps" by UN, reactions of when Leopoldo Lopez was arrested and the 12F protests, not the rare occurrences of violent protests. If the collage were to include every small occurrence of the protests, we would have a lot of non-neutral photos as the first thing that readers see. The current photo seems fine as it just shows protesters protesting.-Zfigueroa (talk) 02:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Violent protests were a main characteristic of them. We should not hide this fact in this collage.--Eduen (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

They can see what is "hiding" in the "protest violence" section just like others can see in the "abuse of protesters" section that some authorities abuse protesters. Human rights violations from government authorities are "systematic" and "widespread" in the protests according to some rights organizations, so I guess you could call that a main part of the protests as well. But this would not be neutral to put these photos in the main collage.

Here are some examples of protest articles and their main photos:

• Protest
• 2009 G-20 London summit protests
• International reactions to the Gaza War
• 2013_protests_in_Turkey

I'm not trying to sound WP:OWNERSHIP or whatever Mbinebri said, just stating concerns since I spend a lot of time on these articles. --Zfigueroa (talk) 02:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I kind of agree with Eduen on this one. The collage's images are redundant. They might be of different protests in different areas, but they still amount to a collage of people just standing around, and we only need one of those to get the point across. If we redid the collage, at the very least a barricade image or two could be included along with some sort of scene of street clashes. Personally, I don't think we need a collage at all. It unnecessarily lengthens the infobox, which is very long to begin with, and the examples Zfig linked to show collages are not the norm for such topics.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 19:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

This is starting to get confusing. First, a single picture was placed for the infobox but then a collage was asked to be made from some of the previous photos in the former "Gallery" section. It is fairly neutral as it is and fits well with the long introduction and table of contents.

Here are some more recent examples of protest/demonstration articles:

• Occupy movement
• Arab Spring
• Egyptian protests, 2011 (2011 Egyptian Revolution)
• Hong Kong 1 July marches
• 2013–14 Hamburg demonstrations

When the collage for the infobox was created, it was inspired by such articles and had a goal of being neutral. As for the redundancy, the topic of this article is about the 2014 Venezuelan protests, which in its organized and major settings, mostly involved people marching and congregating to express their disapproval with the situation in Venezuela. This collage captures the protests and major events/places even though it may not be as action-packed as photos of clashes.--Zfigueroa (talk) 00:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

End of protests discussion

Recent edits have occurred stating that the protests have ended as of June. However, protests have occurred past this date. During the final days of July, a caravan of protesters traveled to Ramo Verde to denounce the alleged abuses of opposition laser inside of the prison. Sidor workers have also been protesting for weeks in Ciudad Guayana throughout August, yet in an edit I was told that those protests do not qualify to be involved with the article because they are normal protests over pay that occur in every other country. Should the Sidor workers protesting not be included event though they use the same tactics and are technically protesting in 2014? Also, as one of my previous edits of the timeline article, the Ecological Movement of Venezuela also said they would protest against insecurities on a later date. Should this not be included in the timeframe of the article as well even though it is an organized protest over insecurities and such?--Zfigueroa (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I think there is a significant point to be made here regarding the normalcy of protests in Venezuela. This topic was never about the mere existence of protests—the recent study tracking the number of protests through June explains that large annual numbers of them in the country is normal. The mass, systematic nature of the protests beginning in February is what elevated those protests to notability, but this nature appears to be long over, with things back to the status quo. Obviously, we would all prefer someone to announce a firm end date for our sake as Wiki editors, but the protests were not a distinct event. They were never going to end so much as decline to the point of non-notability and go on in lesser numbers as in prior years, while the media moved on to other conflicts—Ukraine, Gaza, ISIS, etc. If we continue to consider the protests (as a notable topic) ongoing simply because someone somewhere at some point continues to protest, it'll just go straight to December 31, long after the significant coverage has stopped. Then what? A "2015 Venezuela protests" article?

Until a major media source references an end date—if that ever happens—there might not be an easy answer here. Personally, I think our best bet is to offer a very general end date, perhaps just saying a month, and use a footnote—a la the example in WP:REFGROUP—to explain the situation. An "Aftermath" section might also be warranted.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 18:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand. Protests have dwindled, but large ones have been occurring though not as persistent as before. Some protests organized by MCM and others have occurred lately and who knows what's going to happen during Lopez's trial. We should wait a little longer and see but I agree on the most part.--Zfigueroa (talk) 03:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Numbers

why are we using the opposition-linked Venezuelan Penal Forum's numbers as a reliable source (for deaths and arrests)?--Riothero (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Because it's more reliable than anything published by the Maduro regime, of course. bobrayner (talk) 23:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Is this how reliability is determined? if one POV is not reliable, then an opposing POV is acceptable?--Riothero (talk) 23:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The majority of reliable news organizations use their numbers.--Zfigueroa (talk) 00:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I would be remiss if I did not ask for support for your claim.--Riothero (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, as much as I love providing sources sometimes it can be annoying, but it is ok. Here are some examples of news organizations using Foro Penal's data:

• CNN
• El Universal
• La Patilla
• El Nacional
• La Verdad (more recent, 2 Aug.)
• Union Radio

The list could go on. Hope this helps Riothero!--Zfigueroa (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Possible "2014-15 Venezuelan protests" title?

Though the protests are definitely not as strong as the early months of 2014, they are continuing into 2015 with Venezuela being in recession, President Maduro's popularity dropping and increases in debt and inflation. Now may be too soon to make the rename the article as it has only been a few days into 2015, but if protests continue and strengthen, we may need to look at the possibility of renaming the article.--ZiaLater (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The article does not need to be renamed, as the notability of the topic is long over. I'm pretty sure that I even predicted this was going to happen, that you would want to use ongoing minor protests (which are the norm in Venezuela) as an excuse to keep the topic going well beyond its expiration date. Where does it end and what's the point? The timeline article, for example, has devolved into a list of minor news items. Continuing this serves no encyclopedic purpose in my opinion. Also, please be careful about canvassing when spreading awareness of this topic.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 05:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I just messaged users that have been recently involved in such topics and did not intend to canvas, Mbinebri. Welcome back and thanks for your warm comments as usual... but I just have a feeling that this may be the eye of the storm and created this discussion in case that is what is occurring. If everything smooths out, then it makes no difference that this discussion was created. But as with many other things, always be prepared.--ZiaLater (talk) 05:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

"Ongoing minor protests (which are the norm in Venezuela)" is not how reliable sources characterize what is occurring. Zia, I think we will eventually need a new name, but time will tell what that name might best be. The events that began in 2014 are ongoing, but what will be the best name is still hard to tell. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, this article makes it pretty clear that the level of protests that made this topic notable ended back June and that a certain level of protesting is normal. Do you have any sources stating that the level of protesting from early 2014 is ongoing or that the current level of protesting is at least notable in and of itself? Googling "Venezuela protests" brings up a lot of hits for a recent protest against the US sanctions—the first major one in awhile, as far as I can tell—but in coverage of this event, media like the BBC gives the "2014 Venezuela protests" a date range of February to May.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 14:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

As but one (of many possible) examples, the very BBC source you note above mentions February as the "height" of the protests and again, "last week" (mid-December 2014) attempts to sanction MCM, so as I said, where this will end and how the article might eventually be named is to be determined. If you believe what is and has been occurring is "the norm in Venezuela", you might source that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The BBC article says the height of protesting was in February because it was the height. That doesn't change the fact that the article gives May as an end date, which is the real issue. From what I see, the mid-December protest regarding the sanctions has been covered as a one-off protest—not a continuation of what happened earlier. As to the norm of protesting, the first link I provided graphs the decline of protests back to pre-Feb' '14 levels (i.e., pre-notable levels) by June and discusses the frequency of protests in 2013.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 14:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The reason I continue to contribute to the protests article is because the Venezuelan media is still covering protests as if they have not stopped. In sections of their websites, they have links titled "Protestas en Venezuela" or something similar which date back to the beginning of the protests in February 2014. They relate such protests, which many are against public or state institutions, to the 2014 Venezuelan protests. So, the violent clashes, barricades, deaths and such have stopped but not the protests as they are still notable to the Venezuelan media. A lot can happen from this now since Venezuela is in a difficult situation, so we should at least be prepared. As for the recent pro-government protests against US sanctions, the march was primarily for the 15th anniversary of the constitution and to "celebrate in the streets", while it was also used politically to denounce "US interference".--ZiaLater (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm assuming you mean La Patilla's Protestas en Venezuela section? It does have a lot of articles; however, per WP:ROUTINE, the mere existence of some coverage does not establish notability, especially when the coverage amounts to a screencap of a Tweet and a brief paragraph or two of commentary—as is often the case with La Patilla's current protest coverage—regarding a protest involving only a few people. The few cases I went through from LP that did offer more depth seemed to be, tellingly, retrospectives on the protests from back when they were significant and receiving widespread coverage, largely due to the clashes/arrests/deaths you mention being over.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 22:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

You are using the term notability in a different sense than intended on Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

So Mbinebri, you perceive anti-government protests on a somewhat significant scale routine and that to you, they are "common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out"? There is nothing common about high inflation rates, high crime rates and the strong dissatisfaction Venezuelans are experiencing and are still expressing. There are also other news sites that offer such coverage but I do not need to prove it to you Mbinebri. I have done enough of that for multiple users over the past months. Also, we are not discussing whether it is notable to create an article right now, this discussion is about preparing for the possible notable event(s) in the future that would make it necessary to change the title and expand the article. So, with an entire section of news coverage being devoted to protests by multiple organizations, you would think it would be notable, uncommon and definitely extraordinary, especially in such a situation that Venezuela is currently facing. Mbinebri, you are correct if you infer that presently in 2015, the Venezuelan protests should not be covered until something more notable happens, hopefully with the year being better than the previous. But as for 2014, it was the year of protests for Venezuela.--ZiaLater (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

You're arguments are getting a bit muddled. I haven't commented on inflation or crime, and I haven't called protests of a significant scale "routine"—I've simply pointed out that those protests stopped long ago, as did the significant coverage. A few points though... Possible notable events are irrelevant to us as editors because we don't even know whether they will happen. When something does happen, then there's coverage and something to write about, then it's relevant to us. Also, I'm not sure why you think it's so important that La Patilla tags articles by topic, such as the protests (and many others), so that all its articles on the topic can be displayed within a "section." It's an organizational tool most news websites use. Wikipedia has a similar system.

To be clearer on my position here: I think the protests of early 2014 are a distinct topic. The aspects of them that made them notable fizzled out by the early summer, as did the major coverage, so the timeframe reference in the title works. The minor protests that have happened since then have been, to put it bluntly, encyclopedically irrelevant here—they were happening before 2014 and will undoubtedly continue after 2014. If another massive wave of protests occurs, I would not consider it an extension of the February-June protests unless a large portion of the mainstream media explicitly makes the connection. A 2015 wave would likely be a topic worth its own article, depending on the coverage.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 04:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I like to make my small contribution to this discussion, but not before thanking many people as ZiaLater, who have taken considerable time researching and writing about what is happening in Venezuela.

Regarding the name change, IMHO believe that the protests have not diminished, they have just taken another path. After the harsh state repression which were involved unpunished murder of protests participants, people have stopped going out to the streets for fear of being killed and have chosen to use the social networks that the government tries to block. Each week we can see a new twitter topping about issues, right now #AnaquelesVaciosEnVenezuela. In this new year, most likely, we will new escalation of repression.

I have personally participated photographing the protests and I had to leave the country for problems caused by that, I also stopped participating in Wikipedia in Spanish and refrain from editing these articles. --Wilfredor (talk) 10:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the claim that the public protests stopped because people were afraid of being murdered by the government is not credible. Nearly half the protests' deaths had occurred by the end of February—the first two weeks of protesting—in small nighttime clashes in which people were killed by the police and anti-government protestors, while almost all the rest happened by the end of March in a similar fashion. Major daytime protests happened during this and for months after this. Plus, social media was being used from very early on. The large-scale protests didn't morph into hashtag campaigns (which is, IMO, the same thing as the protests ending anwyay)... hashtag campaigns were just what was left when whose protests stopped.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 14:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The government has promoted the purchase and closing of media, so it is very difficult from the outside to understand what is happening. I wish you good luck in finding a Venezuelan with an objective view of the problem. Fear of protest is a well-known situation, due to the use of snipers. Additional armed groups (colectivos) and different mechanisms of repression. I have no absolute truth and for this are the references. What I'm commenting is only my humble opinion based on my presence in protests and experiences over the years of dictatorship. --Wilfredor (talk) 12:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:Mbinebri. The demonstrations have not stopped, for example, this small demonstration happened last night, however, what is important here is not the news itself but the reaction of social networks. By the way, this page has been locked in Venezuela and access to social networks greatly decreased and blocked --Wilfredor (talk) 11:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

If you read the above conversation, you'll see I never argued protests have totally stopped. Rather, I've pointed out that a certain amount of protesting is the status quo in Venezuela, and it returned to that (non-notable) level many months ago. Remember the days when tens of thousands—if not hundreds of thousands—were protesting simultaneously, and there were mass arrests and nighttime violence and it garnered so much media attention around the world? That's what made all this notable, and it's been over for awhile. When you argue that handfuls of people still protest now and then and it gets covered on Twitter, you unwittingly make my argument for me. But I don't need you to, as the media does it nicely. Consider this single-line summation of the protests from the Associated Press: Thousands of activists were arrested and more than 43 people were killed during mass demonstrations against Maduro's government, which raged from February to May. The BBC and The Guardian also cap it at May, while sources like El Universal use June.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 14:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I at no time have refuted your premise. Please be very careful, media used as a reference for decades have been purchased by the government using their friends, including El Universal. It is difficult to know what is happening in Venezuela by different mechanisms when the news only come using twitter. Some Twitter users are also prisoners for disclosing sensitive government information. And mainly I abstained from participating in Wikipedia in Spanish through the same situation. --Wilfredor (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

It is very difficult to know what is happening if there is no independent media. Only twitter accounts, for example, this protest just happened a few minutes ago where have been arrested a 10 year old boy. --Wilfredor (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

This article has 576 cited sources. The timeline article has 763. None are Twitter. Judging by these numbers and the sheer amount of content in those articles and on related topics, finding out what's happening seems to be much easier for the media than you claim. (I also appreciate you acknowledging that you don't refute my assertion that what made the protests notable is over.)  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 19:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Protests notable decrease, to the extent that accrue repressions notables. I would not use the term over, because this is a situation that still exists, however, differently as explained above. In analogous manner, Cuba, some Arab and African countries have no protests under dictatorial regimes (Venezuela understood as a legitimate self dictatorial regime), this is due to the massive repression, leading people to use different mechanisms. Additionally, there is a humanitarian crisis of food and health, people are more concerned with surviving day to day than go out and protest. This is difficult to understand when born and viewed from a country where there is Rule according to higher law. --Wilfredor (talk) 12:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

We all know the truth about what is happening in Venezuela in our own ways and we no longer need to discuss the situation there. So, to bring this discussion back on topic, we can all agree that if protests in 2015 occur on a notable level, they can be covered in an article. The reason I proposed having a possible 2014-15 Venezuelan protests article is because of the 2011–12 Spanish protests article. The Spanish article shows months between certain protests, yet it still has 2011-12 in the title. The protests still occurring in Venezuela may pick up in 2015 months later as they did in Spain and may be due to the same causes. So, I am not advocating a 2014-15 article for the Venezuelan situation, just asking what the best option is in case it happens.

The positive thing for a 2014-15 article would be that there is an existing article for the content, but the negative thing is that the article would be somewhat large. So, if a huge article would result after a possible increase in protests, a new article may need to be created for 2015.--ZiaLater (talk) 06:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

There's a lot of off-topic discussion here (and Twitter is not a reliable source); can folks please stay on topic? What is currently called here "2014 Venezuelan protests" are ongoing protests about crime, corruption, and shortages of basic goods. To the extent protests continue over crime, corruption, and shortages of basic goods beyond 2014, that would be the topic. The date is not the topic, and the lead is skewed in that direction (as if the dates are of central importance). Of significance is the reason for the protests, and to the extent that the corruption and crime continue, the article name might eventually reflect that. Time will tell; the Lopez/Machado/shortage/crime situations continue, and so do protests. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

If there are sources of newspapers or media in general reliable and twitter is not a source that can be used. What sources local you consider to be used ?. --Wilfredor (talk) 10:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a multitude of reliable sources discussing the Venezuela protests, and to the extent they discuss social media, mention of social media can be made. They often do discuss social media, because of the lack of freedom of press in Venezuela, but we can use those as sources only when reliable sources discuss them. Please see WP:RS for reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course the dates are important. What made the protests notable happened within a distinct timeframe, reflected by reliable sources.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 14:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, you are using the term "notability" in a non-Wikipedian way. The dates of the protests did not make them notable; the coverage in reliable sources does. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Article title break

I don't think the Spanish protests article is the best comparison. Protests involving thousands of people happened on a monthly basis with gaps only in Sept. '11 and Jan. '12. If it was the same situation in Venezuela, I would have no problem with an eventual name change. That said, the more I think about it, the more I come around to keeping things as one article if mass protests were renewed, if only because explaining the causes/background all over again would be too redundant to this article and many protest articles follow such a naming convention. It would obviously depend on how reliable sources portrayed the connection. But yes, the size of this article also has to be a consideration.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 14:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

On the Spanish article, agreed (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS); it will be a sorry day when en.wiki takes direction from es.wiki.

Yes, if the protests continue, having everything in one place, one name (whatever that might be) is optimal, to avoid repeated text.

But for now, yes, on size, this article is too long (see WP:SIZE and it is now 16,000 words of readable prose), and some of that is due to unnecessary verbosity, but a good deal of it is due to off-topic content-- unrelated to whether this article can or should grow as warranted by reliable sources. As but one example, have a look at the section on "Polls and survey data". A good deal of that is primary data, not covered by secondary sources, and it's not apparent to me that most of it is connected to the topic at all, rather general commentary on Maduro's administration. A lot of that text belongs elsewhere, or nowhere if based on primary sources unexamined by secondary sources (poll data). As another example, International reactions from every possible corner (Suriname, really?) is extreme, and a good deal of "International reactions" could be pruned (Social Democratic Party of Kenya, really?)-- if we need that level of detail on International Reactions, they might better belong in a daughter article; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list or a directory-- Cher, really ? The "Background" section has content that strays from the topic, and an entire unsourced para (beginning with In 2002), that adds nothing. As an example of excess verbosity, the article now has:

On 5 March 2013, Chávez died of cancer and Nicolás Maduro, who was vice president at the time, took Chávez's place.[68] In the 2013 Venezuelan presidential elections, Maduro narrowly defeated Henrique Capriles with a support of 50.6% contrasted to the 55.1% Chávez had received in the previous elections.[69][70] Throughout the year 2013 and into the year 2014, worries about troubled economy, increasing crime and corruption increased, which led to the start of anti-government protests.

which could easily be shortened and focused, sample:

Nicolás Maduro became President in 2013, following the death of Hugo Chavez.

which could be tacked on to the para before it. Most of that text is off-topic, explored in his own article, or uncited. There is more detail there than is needed to understand this article, that some of that content belongs in other articles.

The "Corruption" section could be pruned; most of that belongs in the Corruption article, which this article should briefly summarize-- no need to rewrite the entire Corruption article, except to the extent sources discussing the protests specifically mention those aspects. We have Wikilinks for a reason: use them! The same can be said for just about every section that includes a Main hatnote-- they are not using summary style, they are rewriting entire articles.

The article is also over-cited, example: intimidation of the media, and human rights abuses of its citizens.[56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65] We don't need ten cites for indisputable facts; pick the one best source and use it.

I'm seeing this kind of excess verbosity and duplication of text in several Venezuela articles. Perhaps efforts would be better spent on getting these articles focused, well sourced, and encyclopedic, and the issue of what the article might eventually be named is likely to solve itself as reliable sources tell the story. Meanwhile, who has the attention span to read 16,000 words of prose? Half of that would be optimal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Lots of good points here. The article is excessively detailed/dense—*cough*ZiaLater*cough*—but articles on long-running current events tend to have that problem as breaking news or new info is easy to overemphasize without regard to long-term significance. I would also note that the non-summary style extends even to sections without hatnotes. The third paragraph of the "Abuse of protesters and detainees" quotes its single source twelve times just in providing an example of abuse that reads more like a story than a summary. I also feel the "Domestic reactions" section is cluttered. I keep intending to clean it up but—ughhhhh—it takes me forever to make even simple edits, let alone major rewrites.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 16:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding, "cough", please avoid personalizing disputes; that can be accomplished by focusing on content, not contributors. We're all volunteers (or at least, we hope we are... in spite of the problem with paid editing in Venezuelan articles), doing our best. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I meant it teasingly. I guess such things never come across in plain text...  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 18:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

It's ok Mbinebri. The reason there are so many international response is due to the fact that earlier contributors were packing reactions from primarily leftist or left-leaning groups. Also, if I did not provide like 15 sources, users would delete them saying they were unreliable, POV, etc (including all other articles I have participated in). As for the poll sections, we can possibly remove it or condense it (Ex. In February it was 50%, in June 40%). The domestic reactions section can be cleaned up since most of that is covered in the timeline article. As for the abuses section, we must be careful since that is a sticky topic even with the UN overviewing it, which might require even more added info. For that section, we could possibly summarize the incidents some more. As for the "single source", that source is the collection of many incidents that occurred during the protests.--ZiaLater (talk) 02:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a tendency to verbosity, so if you can prune about a third of the article, it would be a good start. I understand the sourcing problem on Venezuelan articles of which you speak; my experience was of editors who would delete text they didn't like even if sourced to the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, LA Times, USA Today, etc, which are indisputably reliable sources. But, if you encounter that problem, rather than packing up the article body with a string of 10 citations, see the technique used with citation no. 62 in this article for combining multiple citations into one tag. Pruning the sources down to the best three or four would be good, though. (Best meaning most high-quality publication, preferably English if available, and with an enduring freely available URL if possible.) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I never found out how to do the citations like but I'll look into it now for sure.--ZiaLater (talk) 11:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Nice work! bobrayner (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Get ready... maybe...

So remember that time where I stated that we should be ready for some things to happen? Well, things are getting pretty rowdy again. Shortages and lines are growing in Venezuela, creating displeasure and protests. Now Capriles is calling on Venezuelans to mobilize in the streets and to be "Guarimbas".url=http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/el-mundo/2015/capriles-movilizacion-oposicion-evenezuela-1068715.html[2] This is just a reminder that we might have some editing in the near future to do, nothing else. However, as with most things in Venezuela, the situation is unpredictable and we may not see any protests or maybe even larger ones.--ZiaLater (talk) 16:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It is very likely that the government is giving himself a coup to implement a military dictatorship. --Wilfredor (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: Please, read this new. There is currently a severe crackdown on the protest --Wilfredor (talk) 19:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Wilfredor: Thanks for the information. If you have any other info like this about 2015 protests, go ahead and leave it on the talk page in my sandbox for right now. I have been reading that the Student Movement and MUD is now planning demonstrations. The Student Movement has some scheduled already while the MUD is still planning from what I last read. Stay tuned.--ZiaLater (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Update: Thousands of people peacefully protested in Merida on 23 January. An hour after the peacefully organized protest concluded, another demonstration gathered and was confronted by people on motorcycles which left one injured student from gunfire. Finally, MUD called for a nationwide protest on Saturday 24 January. Just informing fellow editors of what is going on so we can proceed from here if needed.--ZiaLater (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

At the 24 January protests, several thousands protested across the country. When do we begin placing some of this information in an article?--ZiaLater (talk) 03:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Judging from a Google news search, the international media has turned its collective eye back to Venezuela in anticipation of possible new protesting, but that's it. At least as far as the obvious English-language sources are covering it, the protests of last year have not yet resumed. Reuters, for example, says the recent protests are "small and the unrest contained" and "a far cry from unrest between February and May."  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 15:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Once again Mbinebri, it is not about the size of protests but the coverage making it notable. Thousands protested across Venezuela for two consecutive days and it was covered by multiple media outlets. Like stated above by other editors, "while frustration with Maduro is high, many Venezuelans are staying home out of fear of another crackdown on government opponents and are too absorbed putting food on the table to push for political change". Going into the month of February with possible further difficulties while also marking the anniversary of both 12F and the arrest of Lopez, I am trying to keep familiar editors up to date.--ZiaLater (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Sizes of the protests and the resulting coverage are strongly linked, but that's beside the point. As I've argued repeatedly, it is about the coverage—not irrelevant routine news coverage revolving around tweets and Instagram posts of tiny protests, but major news items on large protests. What's starting to trickle onto Google news right now is what I've been saying we need all along in terms of reviving the notability of this subject.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 22:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I agree. It just sounded like you were going towards the size of protests over notability. So when should we actually revive? Like you said, news is starting to come out again making things more notable.--ZiaLater (talk) 02:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Then someone asked why mass protests have stopped. To say that the protests have stopped is like arguing that someone has left to live because they pronounce any words. The fact that they are not on a mass protest is not synonymous this has not taken another path. If manifestations ends in 2014, will give a bad feeling that now everything is much better using as an argument that the protests have stopped. --The_Photographer (talk) 13:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Update 2: The Defense Intelligence Agency of the United States and others are predicting renewed protests before elections. Just another update as the situation continues.--ZiaLater (talk) 04:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that Maybe is time to change this article title. Severals massives protests. I honestly do not understand why we're waiting, there is sufficient evidence of protests and mass repression with deadly weapons. Denying that the protests continue, is bias, for wanting to be overly partial, falls into the trap of having this article with a title outdated. --The_Photographer (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Another video today morning --The_Photographer (talk) 12:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Another protest repressed today --The_Photographer (talk) 04:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Update: Weak opposition mobilization different calls in recent weeks coincides with the decision to authorize security forces to use "deadly force" to control public order signed in late January by the influential General Vladimir Padrino López, Minister of Defense and head of the Strategic Operational Command. [3] --The_Photographer (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Bad move

See WP:DATERANGE. Date ranges on Wikipedia use an WP:ENDASH, not a hyphen, and 2014–15 is the preferred format. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

MSH issues abound

Please review WP:MSH. For example, violent protests, and protest violence are the same thing. This series of articles is not being carefully edited, and quite a few of the section headings are unencyclopedic or leading towards POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

What are some improvements that can be made Sandy?--ZiaLater (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: If you know where are the problems, you could try fix it by yourself?, or make a proposition here --The_Photographer (talk) 11:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Editing "Domestic Reactions" section

Ok, so I went through the section and tried to clean it up the best I could. I had a hard time making section names for the "Opposition" subsection since I had to move so much content. The majority of the content was either moved to another part of the article, moved to another article (most went to the 2014 timeline article) and the rest was deleted for either being repeated information or for not being notable. Any other things we can do with this section?--ZiaLater (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

International Consulting Services (ICS)

According to previous discussions on Wikipedia, discussions elsewhere stating that an "international" organization hadn't even created a website and the Financial Services Authority (FSA) of the United Kingdom placing it on an "unauthorised firm" list for potentially fraudulent organizations, further data by International Consulting Services should be avoided.--ZiaLater (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

First, the previous Wikipedia discussion (from 2012) does not conclude anything regarding polls conducted by ICS. One user ("TaalVerbeteraar") is suspicious that ICS does not have a website. Even though this is hardly a compelling point, the fact is that ICS does maintain a website: http://icslatam.com/ In fact, the ICS report that I cited as a source in the Chavismo article is hosted there. You also cite speculations on an anti-Chavista opposition blog. I hope this does not reflect any political bias on your part. Second, the Financial Services Authority (FSA) regulates the financial services industry in the United Kindom, not opinion polls in Venezuela. The "unauthorised firms" on the Financial Services Authority's warning list refer to financial services firms that are not authorised to do business in the United Kingdom, and which are suspected of boiler room activity (in which "fraudsters cold-call investors offering them worthless, overpriced or even non-existent shares"). There's no indication that "International Consulting Services" is the same firm as the one conducting opinion polls in Venezuela--and, given its common, generic name (here are SEVEN different companies with the name "International Consulting Services", all located in the UK 1, 2 3, 4, 5, 6, 7), I'd say the odds are rather unlikely. Even if it was, there's nothing to implicate these polls themselves in any fraud. Please restore the content.--Riothero (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Then the question is why would a fairly new Venezuela pollster use such a controversial name in English that has data contrasting mainstream polls. For the umpteenth time, please don't assume bias about me, especially since you are a self-proclamied Chavista. The fact that the website was anti-Chavista was new to me but it still made a valid point. I will invite other users to this discussion so we can actually fix this.--ZiaLater (talk) 02:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I think we've put too much emphasis on polls, so I don't really care about this one way or another, but it looks like Riothero pretty thoroughly debunked your reasons for removing the poll information—not having a website (an incorrect point apparently) is irrelevant and it does seem likely the FSA was referencing a different ICS. Plus, the name is awfully generic to be dubbed controversial. So I don't see what there is to "fix."  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 03:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The "no website" discussion made ICS appear dubious to editors and others since the organization claimed to be "international" which in a modern age usually means an organization would share their international findings on the World Wide Web. If I were a Latin American organization, I would also like to name it so it would appeal to my audience (Latin America), where many speak Spanish or Portuguese (the content on their website is Spanish as well which makes it more confusing). Why would you also use a generic name that has been controversially used by others for so long as well? Would it be wise of me to use to create an organization called the National Association of Zia's Investigations? Just a lot of questions surrounding the organization. There have been multiple fake poll organizations in the past created to polish the image of the Venezuelan government so this raised concerns with others as well and this isn't new. I could create a website in a quick period of time and start creating numbers for example. Using such data from a source that is questionable is misleading to readers. More established polls like Datanalisis would be more acceptable. Other poll organizations should be looked at as well for clean up, especially for this article where there is a large amount of poll information.--ZiaLater (talk) 05:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Another question is about the President of ICS, Juan Vicente Scorza. He was a sympathetic contributor to the pro-Chavez website Aporrea.org, showing support for colectivos (calling them "The Sacred Family") and also works for the Venezuelan government at the National Experimental University of the Armed Forces even after becoming head of ICS. He is the son of a father with the same name (Juan Vicente Scorza) who was a decorated scholar but also a leftist extremist who was a captain in the Armed Forces of National Liberation (Venezuela).--ZiaLater (talk) 06:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

If we're going to base inclusion on the ideology of the firm's owners, Datanalisis and AK&A will have to go too, as the former called for Chavez to be killed and the latter is very anti-government as well, while both firms have been accused of misleading questions and under polling poorer areas. I would provide links but Android 5 has made my tablet a nightmare to use.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 15:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that reliable sources cite the ICS, which is perhaps the most important factor here.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 15:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Most of the things calling Datanalisis "opposition-aligned" is a Chavista website called Venezuelanaysis, the Venezuelan government's (majority funded) TeleSUR, or leftist websites. Alfredo Keller & Associates has been called by The New York Times as "one of the country's top pollsters" and I also had a hard time finding information aligning them to the opposition. Is there any proof that they work for the opposition such as being employed or statements from a reliable source?

We have proof in front of us that the President of ICS still works for the Bolivarian government and is the son of a leftist guerrilla. If we are going to start using ICS then maybe we should make an article for them so others can know their stance, know about their founder and President and so we can attribute them properly to other articles. If we did not at least attribute info about this polling organization to readers, then we would be giving them questionable information from a questionable source.--ZiaLater (talk) 06:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Datanalisys and AK&A have been praised, but you're not arguing based on the reputation of the polling firm; you're arguing based on the assumed ideology of the firm's owner. Okay, Scorza is the head of a major public university—gasp!—and once wrote an article praising the "social phenomenon" of motorcycle use in Venezuela, which you misrepresent. So what? Datanalisis' owner calling for Chavez's death points to potential bias far more than what you (don't really) have on Scorza. Do I think think it's actually relevant when referencing a poll? No. I don't care about an owner's ideologies, assumed or otherwise, and the sources used for citing the ICS in this article don't care either. The only one who cares is you, Zia, and your points rely on jumping to false conclusions (the FSA), the firm not having a website (huh?), misrepresenting sources (the motorcycle culture article), and even a "sins of the father" argument. You even threaten to create an article just as a vehicle to try to discredit the firm all because, what, you don't agree with the ideology you assume the firm's owner has? Could that be any more inappropriate?  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 13:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Questioning things is never inappropriate Mbinebri. It is not only me who questions ICS as you can see it was discussed years ago as well. So what we know is that Scorza is a sociologist that works for the Venezuelan government's armed forces. Scorza works for the Venezuelan government. Scorza is also head of ICS. Put it in with the multiple polls123456 that show the contrary with opinions of Venezuelans and you get ICS being a questionable source. We can compromise with this situation by at least attributing ICS properly to Scorza, a sociologist for the Venezuelan government.

Also, I cannot find anything with Luis Vicente Leon stating such things that you accuse him of, so please include citations like I have above. I also apologize for the FSA mix up since I didn't realize how unoriginal the name "International Consulting Services" was. So Mbinebri, make any accusations like you have before but you know that if we were talking about a new polling organization that was being run by a sociologist working for a school run by Capriles, we would be having the same discussion. We attribute work by Lopez's cousins organization so why not for stuff run by Venezuelan government employees? If you would help me attribute information about Venezuelan polling organizations to who they represent, that would be great since you were also making an argument for the ideologies of other polling organizations. But as I see so far, you have been looking at sources sympathetic to the Venezuelan government.--ZiaLater (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Not Leon, but Jose Antonio Gil, quotes the LA Times: "'He has to be killed,' he said, using his finger to stab the table in his office far above this capital's filthy streets. 'He has to be killed.'"

Well, your reasons for originally removing the ICS content were terrible and your reasons for wanting it attributed are not much better, but I'm tired of this argument right now so I simply changed the attribution so it's fair, even though the attribution implies an unproven bias. Seriously though, do you have any reliable secondary sources connecting the ICS and Scorza's background with UNEFA? Just so I can kid myself into thinking we're just reflecting sources?  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 23:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Ohhhh him. I recommend you read this since such statements were discussed before. I will look into more sources later today or maybe tomorrow but we all know how tracks are covered with these issues (ex. CEPR COI edits). Thanks for working with me, if we can't attribute this to Scorza like with Jose Antonio Gil, we can make some changes as well. I know that there aren't many with his name in Venezuela especially after his father died.--ZiaLater (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Another statistic company paid by Venezuela government. This reminds me GIS XXI pollster, property of former Minister Jesse Chacon and currently CORPOELEC President. Jesse had left his position how Minister after his brother Arne Chacon and 5 other bankers have embezzled Venezuela state using its platform for money laundering. However, the current Venezuela government corruption is evident, and there is no need to fire anyone. While your profile is dirtier, you are more capable to assume a position of power. As an example, the current newly appointed Interior and Justice Minister, former president of SEBIN. Venezuela government uses Nazi techniques such as lasagna (see Propaganda Techniques of German Fascism), and massive purchase of pollsters and media, illegally expropriating media and pollsters with, in some cases, institutions with a century of name and prestige. The rule of law is not lost, the rule of law has been forced using legislation to enable atrocities with an air of democracy. It is very funny how kind of polls are continuously used as if it were the absolute truth. A lie repeated a thousand times becomes truth --The_Photographer (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The entire section on "Polls and survey data" should go. It's off-topic, UNDUE, and coatracky. Perhaps a sub-article on Venezuelan polling could be created, and a one or two-sentence summary of one or two very high quality independent secondary sources (BBC, NYT, etc) about polls could be retained. So much to be said about the situation, and talk page discussion centers on this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

We shouldn't present Venezuelan government propaganda as though it were fact. It saddens me that a minority of editors continue to do so. bobrayner (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It saddens me how casually some editors throw around the term "propaganda" in order to censor or discredit reliably-sourced material they don't agree with.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 19:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. There has been no objective argument about the validity of this particular poll (Sandy's arguments about the relavence of polling in general to this article I can respect.) In fact, there has not even been any objective evidence presented at all that the company's CEO is personally pro-government (as if that was relevant.) It's worth remembering some people are crucifying him for... what exactly? Failing to be an opposition politician or publicly opposing the government? What is this, a witch hunt? There is no evidence pointing in any direction as to which way his politics lean. Keeping your political opinions close to your chest is a smart business move whether you're in Venezuela or America. If anything (stressing those two words), it speaks to his professionalism. No one has any idea what his politics are, and anyone who says they do is, well, full of it (and thats setting aside that his politics have nothing at all to do with whether he's a good pollster, a question that has been totally ignored.) --4idaho (talk) 21:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

People familiar with Venezuelan polling know that polls are quite unreliable, typically biased some 20% in favor of the regime. Anybody making reference to them does so rising his credibility. 73.46.81.84 (talk) 02:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Bias

This sentence reflects a bias present in much of leftist media: "Publications like The New York Times have observed that the protests have exposed a class divide in Venezuela, as the protests have primarily occurred in wealthier urban areas with limited participation from the working-class, despite lower-income areas being hit especially hard by the country's economic struggles." The truth is that the protesters in the wealthier urban areas do not live there, but commute there from the poor areas where they live, because they are unable to protest in their own neighbourhoods due to death threats from the "colectivos". Those are not empty threats, many have been tortured and murdered by the colectivos, in an attempt to make people stop protesting against the dictatorship. 73.46.81.84 (talk) 02:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Image size changes

I changed image sizes from ###px to upright=#.## per WP:IUP. Recently, I changed my preferences from 300px to 400px. Upright scale changes percentage of image size, depending on user preferences and 220px default scale for unsigned viewers. Lately, the images look very big when I use "400px". However, the size is about the same when "220px" is used (or if you are not signed in). Since we should not change size back to "px" (unless there is a good reason for everybody), I think I need help on changing upright scale for each image. --George Ho (talk) 03:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 2014–16 Venezuelan protests. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140222175219/http://www.laiguana.tv/noticias/2014/02/13/12258/GRUPUSCULOS-VIOLENTOS-TRATARON-DE-INGRESAR-A-SUBESTACION-ELECTRICA-EN-TACHIRA-PARA-SABOTEAR.html to http://www.laiguana.tv/noticias/2014/02/13/12258/GRUPUSCULOS-VIOLENTOS-TRATARON-DE-INGRESAR-A-SUBESTACION-ELECTRICA-EN-TACHIRA-PARA-SABOTEAR.html

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140225032227/http://www.el-nacional.com/mundo/Reino-Unido-preocupado-detenciones-Venezuela0358164301.html to http://www.el-nacional.com/mundo/Reino-Unido-preocupado-detenciones-Venezuela0358164301.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 23 March 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus is that the protests continued through 2015 and 2016, and limiting to 2014 would not be an accurate reflection of the article content. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

---

2014–16 Venezuelan protests → 2014 Venezuelan protests – I find it a nonsense mix up protests of 2015 or even 2016 as part of "La Salida" movement of 2014. The Venezuelan Observatory of Social Conflict and PROVEA (among others sources) clarify this in their reports of 2014; the peak of social unrest was in early 2014, with a few demonstrations later that year. Yes, we saw everyday protests in 2015 and even in the first quarter of 2016, but they are very small and isolated in comparison of 2014. Oscar_. (talk) 23:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The article currently covers the protests in 2014 and 2015, so the move would be inappropriate. Either it should be 2014–15 protests, or the reference to the 2015 bits should be removed (which I don't think is particularly useful given that they appear to be continuing along the same line?). Number 57 19:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
• Vote against move - Agree with Number 57 above. The protests are linked and the same. The only difference is years. This article covers it all. Let's just leave it as is. There is a Timeline page that provides a chronological list of events. Perhaps we can provide a link further up in the page, or in the infobox? DaltonCastle (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Page can be split into different articles, you can start with {{split}} page tag. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I see that the protest movement in Venezuela grew largely from the "La Salida" movement in 2014 and even according to the The Venezuelan Observatory of Social Conflict, has continued to get bigger in 2016, saying "The situation has got worse in 2016. Protests have increased in number and size". Though the numbers of those participating in protests are not larger, they say that the number of protests have grown significantly. Also, there are growing calls for more protests by the opposition as well, though many do not participate out of fear or preoccupation with economic difficulties.--ZiaLater (talk) 00:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.