Talk:RCTV

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reporters Without Borders[edit]

I'm removing mention of the referendum which Reporters Without Borders claimed, since Venezuela's info minister claims they were lying. [1] Further, Wikipedia's own entry on RWB casts doubt on its bias within Latin America. [2] -- Tayssir 02:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that if a government says another institution is lying, one should delete the quotation from that other institution? Can you tell me what government announces it IS violating human rights? (PS: The Libyan Goverment, for example... Fairfis 22:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I agree. We have seen how governments claim that International Organisations lie about their offices and this is often their attempt to cover the truth. I think that by eliminating the quote, one is condemning the role of Reporters Without Borders based in no more than subjective assumptions. I would strongly suggest to put the quote back again and to add words such as "allegedly" or "supposedly" which already reflects a non-biased claim. I will also demand from other users to resign of using their own clearly biased judgments when modifying this article since the issue is already very controversial. Andrews128 (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


There is a BBC headline about a protest in Caracas over RCTV. Can someone quote it onto this article? --DanCBJMS via 134.117.168.237 06:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Verify credibility of this organization[edit]

Please, verify the credibility of the Human Rights Foundation. Its president Thor Halvorssen is (or was) member of an "advocacy group" per request of Carlos Ortega (former labor movement president) and Carlos Fernández(former head of chamber of commerce) [3]who were the leaders of the 2002 strike/lockout, a failed attemp to overthrow Chávez government. JRSP 23:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current Event Status & Proposed Renaming of section?[edit]

I propose we rename the Criticism section into something along the lines of Opposition and/or Shutdown controversy given the current happenings with RCTV, or at least make it a subsection. And why haven't I read anything on the mass protests against its shutdown? Reuters article on protests Franck Drake 06:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RCTV Update[edit]

I updated some, had to mention briefly two things, first as of Saturday RCTV has shut down its live internet stream, and for those broadcast history buffs (like me) had to make mention of the final program airing on RCTV.

On a personal note, someone should know where to send the idea to 1BC to have RCTV FULLY on the internet as well as on cable/satellite. The protest got a bit tense by the way and water cannons were being used, Im providing "Live" Instant coverage as I am watching the live feed of Globovision of the demonstration, hope its ok Lugnuts6 23:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People showing support for RCTV are being chased away from the building by cops with gas bombs. The supporters are throwing rocks and bottles at the police.

I see my brief posting of the police action on the demonstrations was removed, but thats ok. I just wanted to contribute a bit to history Lugnuts6 04:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Did See (via globalvision web steram) the first few moments of TVes,Is it against rules to request a barf bag for what is in fact "the chavez channel" Lugnuts6 05:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final moments[edit]

I found this Youtube clip of RCTV's last 12 minutes. Maybe we can write more about its final minutes. It appears like Guardian messed up the order of events in the last broadcast in an article about RCTV closure(there is a link to it at TVes's article)... Tarmo Tanilsoo 13:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shutdown section[edit]

Needs to be cleaned up and re-written for neutrality. There are egregious violations on both sides. Notably, single sources that are part of the controversy are used as authoritative (ie HRW) and statements of support are not sourced. Thanks!--Cerejota 11:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also notice some weasel-wording and original research. Please, don't!--Cerejota 11:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RCTV failing to pay taxes to the Telecommunications Commission[edit]

Article: The truth about RCTV (29-May 2007)

CaribDigita 14:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a reliable source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV changes to the lead[edit]

This edit — surprisingly marked as NPOVing the lead inthe edit summary — has introduced POV to the lead, and should be reverted or rewritten. It introduces unsourced claims, and states as fact that the license expired, which is disputed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm not sure how that made it more POV. I primarily removed most of the personal references to Chavez. When American government does something, even if it was influenced or decided by the president, we don't present it as Bush's private matters, but rather like government business. I also presented the other side of the story, which was completely absent from the lead before.
As for "dubious" claims: the many newspaper articles I read about the matter say that the license expired 20 years after its introduction in 1987. That the station was the loudest opposition voice is also reported widely in the Western media, and I don't remember anybody anywhere disputing that RCTV supported the coup attempt - it was even thanked by the perpetrators when it seemed that the coup will win. Zocky | picture popups 15:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Irish documentary is not a reliable or unbiased source; it's the equivalent of sourcing a Michael Moore "documentary". The article continues to trend more and more pro-Chavez POV. "The government accuses the network of participating in the 2002 failed coup d'état that briefly overthrew Venezuela's democratically elected government." The other side of the story is that Chavez resigned at the request of his military leaders after they refused to follow his orders and open fire on marchers, so this sentence clearly presents only a pro-Chavez POV. The opening paragraphs of CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS and MSNBC don't state that they are anti-Bush, biased, pro-liberal; singling out that a Venezuelan TV station exercised its (previously) democratic right to freedom of the press is pro-Chavez POV. In the US, CNN can bash Bush and push a liberal agenda all day long, and that isn't mentioned in the lead of their article. A TV station in what used to be a democracy is not disallowed from supporting ... um ... democracy ... as they choose. The lead continues to become more pro-Chavez POV, and is not at all neutral. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When American government does something, even if it was influenced or decided by the president, we don't present it as Bush's private matters, but rather like government business. Apples and oranges. Bush doesn't control the executive, legislative, judicial, military, electoral processes, and police. In other words, the USA is a functioning democracy; Chavez rules Venezuela by decree (you're aware of that, right?). All decisions are his decisions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of this content might be merged if neutrality is the goal — saying only that RCTV supported a "coup" against a democracy is a blatantly non-neutral version:

On April 11, 2002, anti-Chávez and pro-Chávez demonstrators clashed at the Miraflores palace. According to BBC News, a sector of the Armed Forces asked for the resignation of President Hugo Chávez, whom they held responsible for a massacre during the demonstrations.[1][2] Commander of the Army, Lucas Rincón Romero, reported in a nationwide broadcast that Chávez had resigned his presidency,[1] a charge Chávez would later deny. Chávez was taken to a military base while Fedecámaras president Carmona was appointed as the transitional President of Venezuela,[1] following mass protests and a general strike by his opponents.[3]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, the problem here is that this can't be made "neutral" in the sense that we present both sides as equally right. Everybody knows RCTV supported the coup, and the Venezuelan government exercised its legal prerogative to refuse renewal of the license. We can like or dislike Chavez, but that has nothing to do with what actually happened. In this case, I'm afraid, Chavez has the law on his side, and RCTV doesn't. However we write the article, that fact will remain. Zocky | picture popups 19:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I'm only getting jibberish in that explanation. We don't decide who's right; we report what reliable sources say, without using undue weight to any version. The story now is weighted only one direction. RCTV (and every other station) supported what happened on April 11, which is described now in a POV fashion, giving undue weight to the Chavez version, and ignoring others. Perhaps there was some logic in your explanation above that reflects Wiki policies, and I didn't read or interpret it correctly. You seem to be saying we decide what's true (and you seem to believe you know what that truth is). And it's plainly redundant to say that Chavez has the law on his side, when he rules by decree and he *is* the law. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c Venezuela investiga el "Carmonazo". BBC News (October 5, 2004). Retrieved 13 June 2006. (in Spanish)
  2. ^ Interim Venezuelan president sworn in. BBC News. (13 April 2002). URL last accessed on 31 Aug 2006
  3. ^ Upheaval in Venezuela. PBS (April 12, 2002). URL last accessed October 29, 2006.

2002 coup removed Venezuela's democratically elected government[edit]

The 2002 coup removed Venezuela's democratically elected government. Nobody should try to obscure that fact, and anyone who wants to dispute it should feel free to present references supporting their disputation here.

Look up; previous section. Tell the *whole* story, not just the pro-Chávez version. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean this: "The other side of the story is that Chavez resigned at the request of his military leaders after they refused to follow his orders and open fire on marchers". Please cite your source for this.

Already stated above in two BBC sources, although there could be string of others. In case you don't want to sort through the text above and many sources, here are some excerpts:
  • "Aunque se desconoce aun la identidad ni la filiación política de los francotiradores, un sector de la Fuerza Armada Nacional pidió la renuncia del presidente Hugo Chávez, a quien responsabilizaron por la masacre. Tras varias horas de incertidumbre y desinformación la madrugada del 12 de abril, el Gral. Lucas Rincón anunció en cadena de televisión que "ante la gravedad de los hechos" se le había solicitado la renuncia de su cargo al presidente "la cual aceptó. Pedro Carmona Estanga, entonces jefe de la patronal Fedecámaras, se encargó de un "gobierno de transición", gobierno que habría de durar menos de 48 horas."[4]
  • Business leader Pedro Carmona has been sworn in as Venezuela's caretaker president at the request of the armed forces after Hugo Chavez was ousted from office. ... Military leaders said Mr Chavez resigned at their insistence after he ordered troops and civilian gunmen to fire on a crowd of more than 150,000. At least 13 people died and more than 240 were injured. But Mr Chavez's daughter rejected that and said he was the victim of a coup. 'It is a lie, all lies, he said he never resigned, that a group of military took him away and he is being held incommunicado,' Maria Gabriela Chavez told a Cuban television station." [5]
Exactly as stated in the text above, and repeated throughout the press worldwide, pick any number of sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A secret resignation given only to the people holding him captive is interesting, but beside the point. Those carrying out the coup also dissolved the National Assembly, declared the country's constitution to be null and void, and suspended the judiciary. [6] This is why it is correct to say that the coup removed Venezuela's government, and it is incorrect to say that the coup removed just Chavez. Does anyone dispute the assertion that the entire government was overthrown?

The line President Chávez had demanded that the TV channels run his speech at precisely the moment the crackdown on the protest began. is highly POV - and i believe also false, shooting began hours before chavez speech. It implies, via the word crackdown, that Chavez or his supporters had conducted the shooting, which is at best unknown. We do know that the shooting was done by the Metropolitan Police, and there is plenty of reason to believe they were working with the coup to create an incident to justify the coup.

I on the other hand will like to point out out that the putsch in 2002 has not been declared juridically and this is one of the reasons of why several organizations have condemned the reluctance of the government to renew RCTV's license. It was indeed, gral Lucas Rincon who announced the population that President Chavez "resigned" and it is gral Lucas Rincon who is now the ambassador of Venezuela in Portugal (we cannot then suggest that Gral. Lucas Rincon stood aside the opposition then, can we?). In so far, though most people would agree that there was a coup d'etat in Venezuela (including me perhaps), this putsch has not been registered in judicially as a fact. One cannot claim that it was a indeed a coup d'etat without falling in the realm of interpretation and value judgment.Andrews128 (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is RCTV shutdown?[edit]

According to this BBC article (fouth section from bottm) RCTV is still avaliable on cable-tv. To me that would disqualify it from beeing called "defunct". --Jonte-- 19:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is my understanding, but it is defunct in terms of what it used to be (the most popular TV station accessed by "most" people). Consider which segment of the population watched it most, and which have access to cable TV in Venezuela. It's effectively defunct, although theoretically still operating; not sure if that can be fixed from the sourced material? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But the main problem is that the article then cofirms that the station was "shut down" by the government while it in reality only lost it's service on the public tv-net. --Jonte-- 19:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my personal knowledge (without combing the sources), I believe you are correct and the wording should reflect that. What it means is more brainwashing of the masses, as they have less access to cable tv, and in my personal experience, RCTV was the more preferred at lower incomes (not sure if there is a reliable source to back that up, though). Anyway, as to whether you can adjust the "defunct" in the text, it's a matter of what the sources say, but I think you're correct. If there is a source which explains how this impacts the lower income groups, it would be good to explain that. (It's also probably part of why Chavez chose RCTV and not one of the other channels. It's all in the same vein as the indoctrination that is now beginning in the schools — start with RCTV, the channel watched by the popular classes.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am just as biased as you, as a Chavéz supporter I am happy that RCTV finally lost their license after repeted violations agianst the regulations. But our personal opinions should not reflect a wikipedia article. We must make them as neutral as they can get. --Jonte-- 20:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, your text should say what the sources say, not what we know to be the case, in the event reliable sources haven't reported it (I don't know if a reliable source reports on the population segments that are affected by the RCTV shutdown). By "regulations", I'm assuming you're referring to the restrictions Chávez put on freedom of the press, so that he couldn't be criticized. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, the law that allowed Chavez to do this is from 1987, long before Chavez was in power. You are obviously not neutral on this issue, and perhaps it would be best if you let it go for a day or two. Zocky | picture popups 15:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources for your edits, please. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was in Venezuela about 6 months ago and was surprised to see Fox News on the television in my hotel room. Is this not the most anti-chavez tv station in the world? You can be imprisoned in the USA for signing up for Al-Manar (the most anti-american tv station in the world), so I wonder if Chavez restrictions on the press are really all that broad.

That could be because of 2 things. 1)He wants America's good will at any cost, or 2)He'll clamp it down the same way he clamped down on RCTV. No new licence. Much more legal (if any of them are) this way.DARK 15:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go and read the wikipedia articel for [broadcast license]. Fox News is entitled to send via cable (as RCTV still is) but not to use public terrestrial (Radio) Frequencies because they are limited and as any other country in the world Venezuela has a management on this limited resources. Look out for the U.S. laws for terrestrial licenses and you will see even more restrictions for content and constitution of the channels to receive this rare Frequencies. Fairfis 22:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stubbiness[edit]

There are four stubby sections in the middle of the article; each of one sentence or less. They should be merged to one, with the correct use of combined templates at the top of the section per WP:GTL. A section for one sentence doesn't look good for an article linked on the main page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recentism[edit]

I am a bit concerned that this article is starting to suffer from Recentism. Almost a third of the article now is about the recent shut down. Perhaps some of this detailed content should be moved to May 2007 RCTV protests (and that article could be renamed to something more like 2007 RCTV shutdown. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, but ... Might make more sense to do that after it's off the main page, because it will just get added back in while it's there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality tag explanation needed[edit]

Can anyone explain the neutrality tag on the Reasons section? What important information is left out, given undue weight, or what imbalance needs to be addressed (please provide reliable sources backing up claims). Unless specifics are provided, it can't be addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the problems in this article have not been explicitly stated, and I'm not convinced that there are enough to warrant the tag.
Blaiseball 20:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further sources[edit]

Possible info to be added, and some sources:

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could provide other sources, these ones are all against the government. --Carlos5678
That claim is biased. I see nothing wrong in using these sources above. Tarmo Tanilsoo 10:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree that my claim is biased, but so are the claims of the articles. All this articles reflect the same perspective on the issue, other sources that might serve as a counter-balance are completely ignored. For example [7] --Carlos5678 200.84.244.180 19:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources, please; have a look at WP:RS SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article can be considered a reliable source. From Wikipedia:Reliable sources "...their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand...". A Policy Analyst for an NGO working on Foreign Policy can be considered more authoritative than the writings of a general duty journalist for a general news network. For example, Simon Romero is a journalist for the NYT, hardly an expert on the field. Besides, I find amusing that everything that casts Chavez on a different light is branded by you as unreliable sources. Can you tell to me where does it says on Wikipedia that only mainstream media is considered reliable?? --Carlos5678
I suggest you post to the talk page of either WP:ATT or WP:RS, asking opinions as to whether CounterPunch holds extremist views or is known for editorial balance and fact-checking. Wikipedia:Attribution#Reliable_sources The BBC and the New York Times are typically pro-Chavez, but they have a reputation for editorial oversight which I don't believe is shared by your source, even according to our own article, at CounterPunch (newsletter). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are arguing proof-by-omission since in the Counterpunch article in Wikipedia it never says anything about the existence or lack of, editorial oversight. [Alexander Cockburn] who is the editor of Counterpunch is a columnist for reliable sources such as the L.A. Times. If he writes for reliable sources, probably his own work is reliable. Also arguing if anything "...is known for editorial balance and fact-checking" is fallacious because the knowing or not knowing of a statement is unconnected with the truth value of the statement. Besides, having an article titled "Venezuela Police Repel Protests Over TV Network’s Closing" show inaccuracy because the station is not being closed, its license was not renewed (a company that is closed cannot continue to do business, RCTV can continue to broadcast in cable, internet or any other medium except VHF TV). If the article opens with such innacurate information, one could argue that is not reliable. But I will take your suggestion and ask in WP:RS --Carlos5678

Context[edit]

Venezuela is in the midst of a socialist revolution in which a broad range of industries deemed central to the peoples interest are being nationalized . Some mention of this seems appropriate. Lycurgus 21:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shutdown Dispute[edit]

I find this section pretty misleading. Reasons:

  • On the first paragraph it says "thereby forcing the channel to cease operations on that day." and quotes a BBC article. This is false, the decision forced the channel to end its over the air transmissions, which is extremely different from ceasing operations. Evidence to that effect can be seen on YouTube (for example [8])were editions of the News segment of the station can be seen.
  • In the second paragraph it says "Venezuelan Supreme Court of Justice (TSJ)—controlled by Chávez allies" uses the relationship with Chavez to create the impression that the decision is unfair or illegal. Should be rewritten so that someone without knowledge of the Venezuelan situation does not get the impression that the decision is unfair because of them being Chávez's allies. Perhaps quote the real reasons for being unfair or illegal.
  • "Supreme Court ordered RCTV to stop broadcasting as soon as its license expires and approved the government's takeover of all of its equipment and stations, though it would review the station's appeal of the decision." The takeover was temporal pending the appeal from RCTV. The article must state that.
  • "...preparation for its forced close-down on Sunday," Extremely misleading, the channel was not closed down, its lease on a public frequency elapsed. Closing down implies being out of business. Although someone could argue that taking the frequency might lead to being forced out of business it is not the same thing. RCTV can continue to air in cable networks which is a proven business model and therefore does not automatically imply being forced out of business. Besides, the government decision did not force them to take down its Internet stream, they chose to do it themselves and the article does not reflect this.

--Carlos5678

How could they be able to broadcast without equipment? Tarmo Tanilsoo 11:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only the equipment used to broadcast in open air TV was taken by the government, the equipment required to produce TV was not taken. --Carlos5678 200.84.244.180 19:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know if Carlos realise it, but by saying they confiscated the equipment, he is admiting a violation of the law by the Chavez government. And by the way, the license was renewed for ALL other channels (which broadcasted the same the same in April 2002) which show political persecution by the government (both executive and judiciary, which are controlled by the same man))

Internet stream[edit]

I noticed that RCTV's Internet stream is working, but I don't know what channel it does show... Tarmo Tanilsoo 12:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hours ago it was broadcasting Canal Caracol from Colombia. Now it's black but the RCTV logo with the lion is on the black screen.

85.75.56.74 15:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RCTV news bulletins are being broadcast at http://worldtv.com/rctv. This is where many people in Venezuela are watching it.

90.194.215.223 21:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bias[edit]

It appears to be that this article has taken a very biased tone in the defense of the news channel. In fact, everyone in the world community knows that shutting it down is justified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garric (talk • contribs)

Are you mad? Get out of Wikipedia, Communist! Arbiteroftruth 04:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Arbiteroftruth. Wikipedia is not a place for political agenda or propaganda. 89.221.77.229 08:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Above was me. Just forgot to log in. However, we have to keep in mind that no personal attacks are allowed Tarmo Tanilsoo 08:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Civil or not, you are expousing Communist and tyrannical opinions. This is not mainstream anywhere. Arbiteroftruth 18:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, when I saw your first comment, I actually thought you were making a sarcastic joke. Actually I'm not sure if you still are, especially with the lunatic username...
Seriously, you can be for or against the RCTV shutdown (I'm mostly against), but it was a highly dishonest propaganda station of Venezuela's rich white elite, and that ought to be made clear in the article (in cited and NPOV terms of course).
Eleland 18:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Let's clear up some things right now.

Tanilsoo did not advocate Communist-Tyrannical beliefs. Garric did. RCTV is standing up for Democracy, while TVes is no better than a Soviet propaganda station. Arbiteroftruth 20:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I didn't. In fact, I hate such beliefs the most in the world so I consider it as terrible insult to be called Communist. I am on the side of Democracy and I live in a democratic country. I completely agree with Arbiteroftruth once again. I was advocating WP's rules. Now I have to do it again to remind that WP is not a forum. Tarmo Tanilsoo 12:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we all mistook the word "Above was mine" as in the very first comment in this thread (which was also unsigned) was yours. I apologize for any misunderstanding. Arbiteroftruth 21:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a shocking chapter of this discussion page. Arbiteroftruth, your behavior is untolerable. Even if Garric would be a communist, Wikipedia believes in freedom of opinion or do we not? On the other hand you are extremly bad informed about the topic and it is quite clear, why the terrestrial broadcast license didn´t got renewed and wouldn´t have been renewed under almost any countries law for terrestrial broadcast licenses. Fairfis 22:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My behaviour was justified, as the person who said the comment was eventually discovered to be nothing but a troll who engages in edit wars and flame wars. He supports the Chavistas in this instance, and the NeoCons in other US-related pages. So, do not question until you have all the answers. Thank you. Arbiteroftruth 03:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalized text[edit]

Placing the original, sourced, cited referenced text here, as it has been repeatedly vandalized and/or changed (not sure, based on all the edits), such that the current text has nothing to do with what the cited sources say:

On April 11, 2002, anti-Chávez and pro-Chávez demonstrators clashed at the Miraflores palace. According to BBC News, a sector of the Armed Forces asked for the resignation of President Hugo Chávez, whom they held responsible for a massacre during the demonstrations.[1][2] Commander of the Army, Lucas Rincón Romero, reported in a nationwide broadcast that Chávez had resigned his presidency,[1] a charge Chávez would later deny. Chávez was taken to a military base while Fedecámaras president Carmona was appointed as the transitional President of Venezuela,[1] following mass protests and a general strike by his opponents.[3]

What is currently on the page is uncited, original research, although the changes were made to text that was cited, and the original sources are still listed — needs to be fixed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you don't like it, so it must be vandalism.
Eleland 20:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rather, you Eleland feel that anything you write is the revealed truth and must be kept and loved. No such luck here. If you write it you must source it. Like it or not.
24.239.146.40 20:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c Venezuela investiga el "Carmonazo". BBC News (October 5, 2004). Retrieved 13 June 2006. (in Spanish)
  2. ^ Interim Venezuelan president sworn in. BBC News. (13 April 2002). URL last accessed on 31 Aug 2006
  3. ^ Upheaval in Venezuela. PBS (April 12, 2002). URL last accessed October 29, 2006.

Datanalisis[edit]

User Eleland Eleland (Talk) insist in making changes without sourcing the supposed "facts" he includes. One of these "facts" refers that Datanálisis' director called for the assassination of Chavez. This is simply false. he not only did not call for the death of Chavez, but criticized the declarations of Pat Robertson in such regard. I include the link to the article that contains such such criticisms here. [9]

24.239.146.40 20:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having a hard time keeping up with the uncited, unsourced opinion, so instead am placing the sourced, cited text here so it can eventually be repaired, but ANYTHING posted about a living person that is uncited can be immediately removed per WP:BLP as many times as needed. All editors should respect WP:RS, but even if that isn't happening, it is imperative that derogatory or otherwise uncited claims about living persons be removed immediately. See WP:BLP, not subject to 3RR. I haven't been able to review this text yet, as I'm on a very slow connection, but if this is what Eleland is doing, it needs to be brought quickly to admin attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I posted was clear and correct. I posted that according to the Los Angeles Times, this person called for the assassination of Chavez. This was indeed in the L. A. Times. In fact, this article was specifically cited in a U.S. Senate hearing [10].
Eleland 23:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if there are BLP violations in the text or if they have been addressed, but the source (above) is a biased one, and would not be strong enough to source a potential BLP violation (please see WP:BLP, which demands only highly reliable sources). The authors are some of Chavez's most ardent supporters, and the source is far left. A statement sourced to the LA Times needs to cite the LA Times, not a biased account of what the LA Times may or may not have said. I have a slow connection and can barely keep up today — I hope someone has made sure BLP violations are removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The original article is entitled "Opposition Wishing for Ultimate End to Chavez" and is archived at [11], however, you have to pay to read the full text and the abstract doesn't include the portion I referred to.
This portion has been mirrored at [12], in addition to the two other sources I mentioned which QUOTE (not provide "biased accounts", QUOTE) the Times, but I'm sure this won't be good enough for you. What really happened is, Mark Weisbrot lied on the Senate floor, and scores of different people all posted the same fabricated LA Times quote with absolutely nobody on the entire Internet calling them on it. I commend you on your vigilance, most people would never have caught this.
Eleland 01:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a reliable source but it is in Spanish[13] quote: tiene que ser asesinado JRSP 01:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
JRSP, I'm on a slow connection, but I paid for and downloaded the LA Times source, so I can verify that mirror text posted to a message board (not a RS). However, the connection to Gil as owner of the company isn't established in the Times article. Perhaps you can fill this in and do it correctly, as I have a slow connection? I've verified that the LA Times mentions Gil, but it does not name him as owner of Datanalysis (you know how we've had problems before with Jr., Sr, padre, hijo, primo, etecetera, so that has to be nailed down very tightly). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC) (PS, Elaland doesn't seem to understand the need to cite it to the Times rather than a report of the Times; if you have time, can you sew up the loose ends?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saving the unsourced text here until we can iron it out; because there are a gazillion "Gils" in Venezuela, all of whom fit this description, we really must find a reliable source that specifically connects *this* Gil as the owner of Datanalysis. Considering many generations of Venezuelan men use the same names (and often the only way to sort them out is by the doble apellido or mother's maiden name), we have to get this right per WP:BLP.

Datanálisis' director is, according to the Los Angeles Times, "among Venezuela’s elite", who "moves in circles of money, power and influence".[citation needed] Previous Datanálisis polls were widely at variance with the actual electon results.[citation needed]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.datanalisis.com.ve/detalle.asp?id=292&plantilla=1 --JRSP 17:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also check http://quintodia.com/archivos/402/edicion/index.php?dir=secciones&pag=pais_5 .

Quinto día is a weekly related to Carlos Croes, he was a Minister of Jaime Lusinchi and currently has a TV opinion program in Televen. Quinto Día is considered a serious publication, slighty anti-Chávez but reliable, something like El Universal. The note from Quinto Día explicitly establishes the connection between Gil Yepes , Datanálisis and the LA Times article. Please notice he is the President of the company, not the Director. JRSP 18:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There could be a problem with lack of authorship of that article; why does it say Anónimo at the top? Who authored that article? Can this statement be reliably attributed ? Because of BLP issues, we've got to make sure it's tight that it's not us making the connection, rather a reliable source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to Venezuelan law, the responsibility for what Anónimo says relies on the editor of Quinto Día (Carlos Croes, I think). Anónimo is probably a pseudonym for an editorial team. JRSP 20:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh ... so now we've got like four different footnotes to tie it all together. I've got to get off this borrowed computer for now; if you can find a way to tie it all together that doesn't make Wiki liable for a BLP violation and clearly attributes who said what where, I won't remove it per BLP. It has to be carefully phrased to avoid synthesis and to respect BLP—maybe propose the text here for review by others? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no ambiguity here. There is no naming issue, no question of a different guy being involved. The LA Times article begins thusly: Jose Antonio Gil is among Venezuela’s elite.

He moves in circles of money, power and influence. He was educated in top U.S. schools. He heads of one of the country’s most prestigious polling firms.

And he can see only one way out of the political crisis surrounding President Hugo Chavez.

“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.”

Perhaps some DIFFERENT Jose Antonio Gil who heads some DIFFERENT top Venezuelan polling said this, and then when he was widely quoted as being the FIRST Gil, nobody bothered to correct it for years? And then J.A.G. claimed he was misquoted rather than pointing out that it wasn't him? This is a joke.

A statement to the effect of "The LA Times quoted J.A.G. saying Chavez 'has to be killed'" is entirely sourced, supported, and in alignment with policy. Although not strictly necessary, it might be a good idea to add that Gil subsequently claimed he was misquoted.

Eleland 20:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eleland, it appears that you don't understand naming conventions in Venezuela; if you would like us to explain them, several of us can. For now, I'll just say there are likely many people who share that name and fit that description, particularly considering the size of the Gil family. The LA Times article did NOT place that comment with the owner of Datanalysis. Even if we all believe it's the same person, we can't do original research on Wiki. What is not sourced is connecting the LA Times article to the owner of Datanalysis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eleland, in spite of a clear discussion above of the BLP issues with adding this text without adequate citation, I see that you re-added the text. Please read and understand the importance of WP:BLP violations on Wikipedia (which are not subject to WP:3RR). JRSP and I have proposed several alternatives to avoid a BLP issue; please do not re-add the material until this is ironed out. The LA Times does NOT place Gil as the owner of Datanalysis, the Gil family in Venezuela is extensive, and many of them have the same name. Please give JRSP time to source this correctly, or use the alternate data I've given below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate solution[edit]

If we can't "connect the dots" on the Datanalysis survey, an alternate solution is to delete all info about the Datanalysis survey (since the suggestions above are that it's allegedly biased). There's an alternate source today, a Hinterlaces survey showing 83% opposed. http://english.eluniversal.com/2007/06/01/en_pol_art_eighty-three-percent_01A878331.shtml SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, for the love of Pete. Not too long ago I posted some sources on the Hinterlaces guy too. There is a division in Venezuela right now between the haves and the have nots, between the wealthy people associated with the old establishment and those who were outside of it. And MOST of the established polling companies are associated with the establishment. Neither Hinterlaces nor Datanalysis is any exception. Both of these polling agencies consistently misforecast election results. Both have top executives who are clearly and firmly anti-Chavez.

I'm kind of astonished that someone would seriously argue that Jose Antonio Gil didn't say what the Los Angeles Times quoted him as saying, or claim that to post that was to post unsourced material. Really, it's enough to make you give up on Wikipedia.

In general the article remains enormously biased, and I see that the changes I made in order to restore some semblance of balance to a few sections of it have mostly been reversed.

This article [14] reports both Datanálisis and Hinterlaces forecasting a close race in the 2004 Recall Referendum. Contrast this with Seijas predicting Chávez winning in almost all States as it actually happened. Just in case, Seijas is not pro-Chávez, he's more related to AD. JRSP 01:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As long as you can source it, it seems reasonable to add that these firms have been off before. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC) (Although others would counter that the Referendum was close, and Hinterlaces and Datanalysis got it right. [15] :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, they changed their forecast a few days before the Referendum, pointing towards a Chávez victory. BTW, the Datanálisis poll also said that there was not a big concern about loss of freedom of speech, the main concern was the telenovela[16] JRSP 02:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't surprise me; I'd consider that addendum a good addition, if others agree. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Accused of supporting the coup".[edit]

It's extremely disingenous for anyone to dispute the statement that RCTV "is accused of openly supporting the failed 2002 coup d'état". This is the entire foundation of the revocation of their license and has been reported anywhere you care to look. Certain editors are simply adding dispute or non-cited tags to everything they don't agree with, without any credible rationale for doing it. In any case, I have a citation from a sympathetic organization that is beyond reproach in this matter. Don't delete it again. Eleland 01:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum, I'd like to point out that "X is accused of Y" is not a weaker version of "X does Y". It's a different statement. It's factual to say, for example, that Hitler accused the Jews of bankrupting Germany. Putting that statement into an article would not be taken as endorsing the viewpoint.

I find it genuinely difficult to understand why editors won't even admit that RCTV is a pro-coup opposition station. It's possible to believe that the station favored the coup without saying this means it should be shut down.

Eleland 02:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, you are confusing {{Fact}} and {{Failed verification}}. On the edit you reference, a citation had been added which did not source the text. The citation was in error. Second, I suggest a read-through of WP:ATT will help you better understand the importance of correctly attributing anything written on Wikipedia to reliable sources. Considering how quickly this text is changing, and the number of unsourced citations and editorialzing opinions, it's important to make sure that citations given actually support the cited text. In this case, it did not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody else put that BBC article in by mistake. But before that I had the RSF link, and it was deleted by an IP.
Eleland 02:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping up with correct and incorrect sourcing is an ongoing chore. By the way, the sentence still isn't cited quite right. According to whom was RCTV "highly" critical of Chavez and his government ? Without a citation, it's opinion, and I'm not sure the "highly" holds up. Editorializing and hyperbole should be avoided. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

X-Ray of a Lie[edit]

"Footage of this statement appeared in the Irish documentary The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, which was disputed by a subsequent documentary, X-Ray of a Lie."

Yes, I know that the broader conclusions of this doc were disputed, but was there any specific dispute about the segment where the coup leader says "we had secret weapon, the media, and I thank you"? I've never heard that particular quote being disputed as fabricated or out of context. Please consider the sources in terms of what they are sourced to support, and don't try to "balance" by adding sources which don't actually dispute the claim at issue.

Eleland 06:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using The Revolution Will Not Be Televised as a source is the equivalent of using a Michael Moore "documentary" as a source; the problem is solved by sticking to reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But that wasn't a claim made by the doc, it was actual footage recorded off Venezuelan TV and replayed in the doc. Unless you can find somebody halfway credible who claims that was a fabrication, it ought to stand. At most, we could weaken it to "a quotation attributed to X, and apparently supported by footage in the documentary,..."
Eleland 18:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a "documentary war" going on as a further documentary was made, called 'Puente Llaguno: Claves de una Masacre' that rebuts the claims made in 'X-Ray of a Lie'. The doc 'X-Ray of a Lie' does not even have an entry for it in imdb.com, which raises the question as to whether it is even a real documentary. 'The Revolution Will Not Be Televised' on the other hand won numerous international awards and is clearly the more reliable source.

And all of them are probably dubious. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They include a Chicago International Film Festival award, a Banff Television Festival award, a Prix Italia award, a Seattle International Film Festival award, and a Peabody Award among others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.210.20.38 (talk • contribs) 06:36, June 2, 2007

IP 74.210.20.38, please see the talk page guidelines above, and please sign your talk page entries by entering four tildes (~~~~) after your posts. Your new response is a welcome improvement per WP:CIVIL. Moving on ...

WP:CIVIL

Michael Moore has an Academy Award for a "documentary" which contains documented fiction. It seems that fiction as documentary sells well in the film crowd. Wikipedia articles typically rely on better sourcing, or at least better attribution when mentioning such "documentaries". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Considering the track records of some documentaries of recent years, a documentary is no longer automatically a reliable source, and some documentaries are less reliable than others. And the awards that they receive from their sympathetic peers don't make their contents any more reliable. Kevinp2 00:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my naivety and I appreciate your tutelage, SandyGeorgia. Wrt to WP:CIVIL - I am afraid there has been a misunderstanding. I asked about your education not to slander you, but to better understand where you were coming from. I would like to claim that all I wanted was to find common ground - but the frank truth of the matter was I was hoping to better understand your thinking so I could more effectively persuade you. I may disagree with your politics, but I have high regard for your considerable intellect. Wrt documentaries being "poor sourcing" - I am not so naive as to believe that all documentaries are 100% correct. I am not so naive as to believe this of any reference material. I was simply suggesting that one of these documentaries was probably more reliable than the other, and then presenting information to back that supposition up. The beauty of Wikipedia is that the user always gets to decide for herself which sources she believes to be credible. 74.210.53.170 21:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing said about the student protests[edit]

I mean the May 2007 RCTV protests, about the role of students, concerning freedom of speech in te country. My note is in the talk page of that article. --Alex Coiro 06:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Article[edit]

Shoudnt a new article be created about the shutdown- a seperate article? Arigont 16:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Condi Rice quote[edit]

I'm not sure Condoleeza Rice is the best person to illustrate "international criticism". Outside of a minority of Americans her administration is regarded around the world as reckless and imperialist. It would be better to have a quote from a somewhat more neutral organization like Reporters Without Borders (although even they have problems), or from a European leader.

Eleland 13:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that a majority of Americans regard their own government as reckless and imperialist. Quoting her is just fine. Kevinp2 15:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And a majority of Russians do not regard their government as reckless or imperialist. Why do we not put in a quote by Vladimir Putin? 74.210.53.170 19:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, of course it's fine to quote her, but she's not a good representative of international opinion. Better to quote somebody like RSF. This would actually strengthen the point being made. Eleland 16:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki readers need to know what the US says (since Chávez targets the US in his foreign policy) *and* they need to know what broader international opinions are; one doesn't preclude the other. Although it happens in this case that most are in sync. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced original research[edit]

This statement is vague and unsourced and should be removed unless someone can provide specifics and a citation—who are these "leaders" and what reliable sources characterize these interviews thusly?

  • RCTV reported these actions as a victory for democracy and conducted friendly interviews with leaders of the movement.[citation needed]

This statement is also vague; since there are no identified "coup leaders" and no one was charged with a "coup" in Venezuela, the statement (apparently souced to a "documentary" which has been challenged) should be deleted. Who is this alleged "coup leader" and where is the hardprint, reliable source for this information?

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's difficult to know what will pass your standards of "reliable sources". Not to mention you've decided they have to be "hardprint" -- is there a rule against using online or non-written material that I'm not aware of? And it seems that when claims ARE properly attributed, as in the LA Times article mentioning Jose Antonio Gil, certain editors seem quite willing to remove them anyway.
I have the distinct impression that claims favorable to RCTV are being let off the hook, but anything which presents them in a negative light is being sandbagged with endless claims of "original research". For example, why is it necessary for us to wait on a Venezuelan court decision before calling the coup a "coup"? The OAS condemned it as a coup immediately; even the Bush administration condemned it once it had failed. Yes it is good to report the opposition's argument that no coup occured, but that POV can't be allowed to dominate all discussion of events.
And why do you get to decide what's a documentary and what isn't? I'm aware that particular claims made in TRWNBT were challenged by anti-Chavez partisans, and that those challenges were themselves disupted by pro-Chavez partisans. A widely screened and discussed picture which won many top international honours and was distributed by the national broadcaster of Ireland is not some student film you can just blow off.
Eleland 21:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added Nomination for Neutrality[edit]

I feel that the reactions (both National and International) are not as Neutral as it suppose to be. All I see is the "freedom of expression" side of things and not the "they supported a coup" side. I put this to start a civilized discussion.

d.m.an 22:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well as far as I know this was the substance of almost all international reactions. The most you can say is that some international reactions were fairly tepid and emphasized the right of Venezuela to regulate its media at least as much as the freedom of expression issues. The OAS statement for example falls in this category.
Eleland 02:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no doubt that the "They supported a coup" side of things needs a little more representation here. I'm not sure it really ought to go in either of those sections, though. I fixed up the National Reactions one... Putting a little more background on the polling companies, adding a bit about an anti-RCTV protest, quoting Cilia Flores, and moving the polling stuff to the last since Venezuelan opinion polls aren't really very indicative of much. 75.63.127.149 22:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Random passerby, July 3[reply]
Mainly, we need an RCTV and the Coup section. The history seems to be drawn basically straight from the RCTV site, probably by RCTV staff, and it rather comically skips from 2000 to 2005.75.63.127.149 22:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Random passerby, July 3[reply]

There hasn't been any changed so I will Dispute the Neutrality in both reactions d.m.an 16:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you can show with reliable sources that they actually supported the coup, it is irrelevant since Venevision and Televen broadcasted the SAME on the SAME DAY and they are having ther licenses renewed. Clearly there is at least a component of political retaliation here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.109.32.51 (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I added a bit of international reactions that were on the pro-Chavez side of things. I do feel that the article is still heavily weighted towards being pro-RCTV, however that's somewhat logical since most of the reaction was on that side. I do feel that it'd be possible to remove some of the quotes, in order to clean the article up and make it appear more neutral. Also, it'd be possible to reduce the number of organisations mentioned. For example

Many individuals, international organizations and NGOs—including the OAS's Secretary General José Miguel Insulza[56] and its Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression,[57] the Inter American Press Association,[58] Human Rights Watch,[59] the Committee to Protect Journalists,[60] and the Human Rights Foundation[61]—

could be reduced to

Many individuals, international organizations and NGOs[56][57][58][59][60][61]—

This style would compress things while retaining the information. I'm not going to edit it myself that way, however, because I really don't know if that is an appropriate style. -shrug- Viruk42 (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Background section is too long[edit]

I think the background section could be shortened. Must of the info in this section is available in the 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt article. This section can be summarized to focus in the relation between the role of RCTV in the coup and the loss of its license. JRSP 21:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First Paragraph not quite right[edit]

The first paragraph needs revision. It would seem as if the license controversy is a minor bureaucratic question. I think 90% of the people who check this article want to know about this matter (at least for now) so it should be presented as the controversial issue it is. I would suggest adding some of the criticism and contrary views.

For the record: I do not agree with the license revoke and I think chavez is a dictator in the making and I believe Wikipedia is very deficient at covering current events. Still this is my true opinion. SimonWikiDr 20:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what more you want from the lede section. About 70% of it is about the shutdown (more like 80% if you count the background about the coup). Yes, it is true that the very first paragraph does not mention this, but I'm not sure why you think this is a problem. The first two paragraphs of Adolf Hitler do not mention the Holocaust, for example, but this doesn't mean Wikipedia downplays the holocaust.
I hope that doesn't invoke Godwin's law...
Eleland 20:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RCTV broadcasting online?[edit]

Following sentence from header sparked questions

Currently, RCTV continues to broadcast over the internet, and remains popular with viewers through this medium.

Well, station's internet stream is not working and their schedule hasn't updated since closedown. This sentence needs to be changed or removed unless it is verified. I understand from it like station is transmitting all its programs over the Internet, however I find no ability to watch it, only El Observador is available through Internet. Tarmo Tanilsoo 15:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have watched the online programming of RCTV for over 3 continuous months, it's true also that the tickets given for such an action are limited (which would explain the difficulty to receive one), but with a little effort and time anyone can receive one (eventually). I have also recorded and uploaded to a popular video uploading site one single program ("La Entrevista") in that time period, the journalist regularly gives permission, and encourages the viewers to record and share the content by saying "[...] prepare your recording machines to further analyze and share [...]"(in spanish) (i posted this in case anyone is concerned about copyright). I also have successfully recorded over 12 continuous hours of programming to make sure all the programs were being broadcasted online (but i don't have any permission to share them, so i have refrained from doing so until i've acquired it). I´m sorry i don't have a wiki account yet (and i am very busy right now), but the proof of what i´m saying can be found on YT under username:luisdanielmesa.--201.172.37.22 (talk) 07:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cable is widely available in Venezuela???[edit]

The article sources that "RCTV also maintains the right to transmit TV programming via satellite and cable, both of which are widely available throughout Venezuela". According to all the numbers that I could find, this is false, at least in 2003-2004. The three largest cable operators account for 595.000 accounts [17], and the total multichannel penetration (Cable + DTH digital Terrestrial + Satellite) is 25.5%, which is anything but "widely available" (it is comparable to Greece and Spain, which, from completely different reasons have low penetration rates as well. I would agree, it is higher than much of South America, but South America has a very low penetration rate altogether) [18]. --Xanthar 13:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both "widely available" and "this has limited impact, because of a low penetration rate for cable" are POV. I think the article should just say "RCTV also maintains the right to transmit TV programming via satellite and cable". Any qualification of low/high must be supported by (and attributed to) reliable sources and not by editors' opinions. JRSP 15:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references ![edit]

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "RSF" :
    • {{cite web | url = http://www.rethinkvenezuela.com/news/05-30-07la.html | title = Hugo Chavez Versus RCTV | publisher = The Los Angeles Times | date = [[May 30]] [[2005]] | accessdate = 2007-06-15}}
    • {{cite web | url = http://www.rethinkvenezuela.com/news/05-30-07ips.html | title = Easy to See the Speck in the Other's Eye | publisher = Inter Press Service | date = [[May 30]][[2007]] | accessdate = 2007-06-05}}
    • {{cite web | url = http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=20218 | title = Government urged to drop idea of referendum on privately-owned network’s future | publisher = Reporters Without Borders | date = [[December 30]] [[2006]] | accessdate = 2007-05-30}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 23:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closed Again[edit]

Yep, It got closed again, it isnt streaming anymore and the site is down —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.109.41.148 (talk) 05:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2007 loss of licence[edit]

I know it's a major episode, but the amount of detail on this is huge. It may be trimmable (there's a lot of coup background), but maybe a better solution would be to move it to its own article. There's a lot of overlap with media representation of Hugo Chavez, for instance. Rd232 talk 14:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ah, just found (up this page) May 2007 RCTV protests which any spin-off of the licence episode should surely be merged with. PS In Jan 2010 RCTV broadcast the current Fedecamaras President calling for a "military solution" to the current political situation. [19] I think if that happened in the US, they'd be off air before you can say Guantanamo... Rd232 talk 14:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Venezuelanalysis is a pro-Chávez site[edit]

Why should be it be considered as a reliablly unbiased source of information (except for the illustrating the government's stance)? It is run by pro-Chávez apologists with ties to the Venezuelan government. The site presents itself as independent and "unbiased" when it is in fact it is not. 201.208.1.34 (talk) 09:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's just not true. News and opinion are clearly distinguished, and opinion is generally not un-critically pro-Chavez (the odd one that is sticks out embarrasingly). It reports facts which the international media virtually never report (just as the Venezuelan private media don't). Actual contradictions between VA and other sources are rare because the others just aren't interested in reporting the details. I'm reminded of that US quote about people being part of the "reality-based community". It's well established that the Venezuelan media try to create their own reality (cf Dingles 2005, Columbia Journalism Review), and the international reporters move in those circles and basically go on that. Rd232 talk 10:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite true, and has been discussed many times on Wikipedia; please stop introducing sources with a known bias. And, RCTV has been well covered by international media, so your argument about Venezuela media doesn't hold up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
if it's been that well covered then you'll have no trouble at all sourcing the same information from AP etc. Be my guest. Rd232 talk 11:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding? Venezuelanalysis do the exact same things that you're doing right now, which is overrepresent the government viewpoint (in an overly positive light that echoes the government line), whitewash any criticism and discredit, straw-bait or misrepresent those who criticize. 201.208.1.34 (talk) 09:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Venezuelan government POV[edit]

Recent editing [20] has introduced almost exclusively biased sources into this article, and no mainstream reliable sources, although many reliable sources discuss RCTV events and issues, current and past.

Today's (so far) [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] (and past) editing introduced or used non-reliable websites with a known bias or affiliation with the Chavez administration, like:

  1. http://www.rethinkvenezuela.com
  2. http://www.tsj.gov.ve
  3. http://www.mre.gov.ve
  4. http://www.aporrea.org
  5. http://www.venezuelanalysis.com
  6. Socialist outlook

All of these are biased sources, yet RCTV issues and events are widely reported by mainstream reliable sources; the use of these sources introduces bias into the article. Further information is available in these reports about the Venezuela Information Office:

Simultaneously, Rd232 has reverted three times in a few hours, rather than seeking sources for info added or adding a citation needed tag: [27] [28] [29] (the last edit removed neutral words like "allegedly" and "according to the government").

At the same time, text has been altered without sourcing, to biased or incomplete versions of events.[30] [31]

A simple Google news search shows RCTV has been extensively covered by many mainstream news sources (BBC, LA Times, New York Times, CNN, Reuters, etc.), and there is no justification for the introduction of biased or less than reliable sources, much less a heavy reliance on them. There seems to be a whitewashing of this article to eliminate controversy and put forward only the Chavez government version of events, from sources with known bias. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really - those diffs show "text has been altered without sourcing, to biased or incomplete versions of events"??? Anyway feel free to either replace those sources with better ones having the same information, or show the information is wrong, or show that a particular source is unreliable (the latter a discussion for WP:RSN I think). Rd232 talk 11:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out, just for the record, that my use of the source in question was essentially limited to including a brief statement about how other channels had been affected. That, in and of itself, does not necessarily favor the Venezuelan government's position even if it was reported by a pro-Chavez source. The only other edit I've made consisted of moving the most recent information towards the end of the section in order to reduce any possible chronological confusion.
At the same time, I agree that information from properly referenced mainstream or even opposition sources should be added in order to supplement the article and address the existing POV issues. Having said that, it's also obvious that the Venezuelan government's point of view should be adequately represented but removing expressions such as "according to the government (or *insert source name here*)" is definitely unwarranted. Juancarlos2004 (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the phrase was redundant there (there wasn't likely to be any confusion, and it's not contrasting with someone else's view) but if you really feel it's necessary, OK. Incidentally, there is a related discussion about sourcing at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Venezuelanalysis. Rd232 talk 21:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weisbrot quote[edit]

I removed the text attributed to Mark Weisbrot, from the Guardian opinion piece. ("Economist, and Venezuela scholar, Mark Weisbrot said: "In Washington DC, if I try to broadcast on an FM radio frequency without a legal broadcast licence, I will be shut down. When this happens in Venezuela, it is reported as censorship. No one here will bother to look at the legalities or the details, least of all the pundits and editorial writers, or even many of the reporters.")

Reasons are:

  1. I don't think that opinion pieces are good sources, except for the author's opinion. In this case, Weisbrot already has a clear opinion on this issue, so his is not of a neutral economist, as seems to be implied. That is not to say that his opinion is unfounded, and his scholarly articles are certainly good WP:RS. But this case seems to be "supporter of Chávez says RCTV takedown OK". Well, yeah.
  2. The quote fails my personal idiot test. If the ABC news broadcast license were not renewed in the USA, and there were potential political reasons, it would be a massive scandal. So Weisbrot's comment doesn't seem useful at all to include in this article.

I am going to be without internet for a while after today, but those are my two cents. Awickert (talk) 15:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the quote should have been removed. However, as far as your second point, if ABC violated all sorts of FCC regulations, refused to pay taxes and fines, and openly participated in a coup attempt, I don't think there would be a big public outcry over press freedom if their license was not renewed. There would probably be (as in the case of RCTV) a lot of complaints about favorite TV shows going away, but I don't see people construing it as a "civil liberties" issue. Anyhow, just thought I'd point out that this wasn't a "decision not to renew due to political reasons", as much as a "decision not to renew due to repeated and egregious violations of the law". -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Verification Needed[edit]

Article states "Since its return, RCTV has become the most watched channel in Venezuela (despite being on cable). Only 30% of houses have cable in Venezuela but the total amount that view RCTV is higher than all viewers of TVES, Venevision, and all other channels. In Caracas and in Valencia twice as many people view RCTV than Venevision.[93][verification needed]. I think someone requested verification because the link is broken. New link to the same article is here: http://fher-caminante.blogspot.com/2007/07/rctv-en-primer-lugar-de-sintona-en-su.html

I hate Chavez, but I don't think this source validates the point the above paragraph is trying to make. The source article was written in 2007, immediately after Chavez closed RCTV. My Spanish is intermediate; I only understand ~90% of the article. The problem I have with using this article is that it's statistics and numbers are only snapshots in time. It appears that on one day, "Caracas RCTV logró 22 por ciento, seguido por Venevisión con 13,6 por ciento y Globovisión con 7,4 por ciento. Valencia respondió con 19,5 por ciento a favor de RCTV, mientras que Venevisión obtuvo 10,4 por ciento y Globovisión 2,4 por ciento. En Barquisimeto la sintonía de RCTV se ubicó en 23 por ciento, mientras Venevisión fue vista por 15,2 por ciento y Globovisión por 9,2 por ciento." I don't think that the Wiki article correctly portrays the intent of the source article. The Wiki article makes it appear as though RCTV has had and still maintains higher viewership numbers than the other stations. If this was the case, the author of the source article would have said "Caracas RCTV ha logrado...." or "Caracas RCTV lograba...." But as the source article is written, on one day at one point in time, "Caracas RCTV logró..." --160.133.1.228 (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, source is a blog so it does not comply with WP:V and WP:RS. JRSP (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on RCTV. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 23:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on RCTV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:RCTV&oldid=1205017751"