Talk:2002 Venezuelan coup attempt

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090117061420/http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20020412-1.html to http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20020412-1.html

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

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

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

Thanks. x. SP00KY  talk  15:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Some examples, all in Wikipedia's voice:
 * Chávez used a strategy of polarization in Venezuela, a them against us situation, in order to single out those who stood in the way of his progress. He would insult and use name calling against original supporters that would question him; the media, business leaders, the Catholic Church and the middle class.
 * Chávez fired ... members of the PDVSA board of directors on his Aló Presidente program, mocking each worker by name and used a referee whistle, as if to expel them from a soccer match
 * There is no consensus as to who was responsible for the deaths on that day, and this remains a very controversial issue (see MOS:CONTROVERSIAL)
 * ... media owners down to reporters feeling threatened with Chávez even calling out individual journalists by name in speeches
 * A quick improvement would be to attribute all claims in prose: "According to Carroll Rory, Chávez used a strategy ..."However, I agree that fundamentally more non-American sources need to be used. Whether true or not (I don't know), it is concerning that we are referencing claims like Cabello [stated] the media would be "responsible for the blood that will be shed" to the United States Department of State. Given the U.S. state's lengthy history of invasions, coups and economic and military intervention in Latin America, it is clear that sources from the U.S. Department of State have limitations and issues of provenance.American media and individual American experts can differ, of course, from the U.S. government's conflicts of interests, but it seems to me that the article represents a limited range of views. I've added a Systemic bias tag with the aim of drawing more edits to the article. — Bilorv ( talk ) 12:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I will try to spend some time working on this article, i will go through the citations also to see what is being used and where claims are being sourced from. My worry is that if i put the time in to doing so that they will just get reverted, as these kinds of biases are seemingly systemic within the wikipedia project, so i appreciate another user adding the bias tag and so on and being in support. Cheers. :) SP00KY  talk  15:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know the feeling. You can never be guaranteed that your edits won't be reverted, but I agree that you've identified a problem with the article. — Bilorv ( talk ) 18:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey. I noticed that ' The Miami Herald is used in this article a lot. And whilst often what it is saying is in quotes and so on, the paper seems to be a news service that essentially (on the quick research i just did) just an outlet for the most hawkish of american policy in south/central america. Even just to skim their headlines it is funny to see everyone who is not the most grovelling american ally or compradore state leaders in latam being pointedly referred to as 'dictator', and backing every regime change government, (ex: laughably even supporting the Áñez coup in Bolivia) and so on. I personally do not think this is a good newspaper to be used at all, but i realize it may be controversial to delete everything that is 'miami herald' in the article, do you have any suggestions as to how i should approach this.   SP00KY'  talk  22:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It is generally a reliable source and is particularly esteemed in its number of Pulitzer Prizes. I think it is fine to use here and there—it's important to cover the views of American policy—but it doesn't seem like due weight for a regional paper, not even the largest in Florida, to be a dominant source in the article. Do they have investigative reporters in Venezuela? — Bilorv ( talk ) 06:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What various Venezuelan critical journalists have written is something I am yet to look in to. I am trying to immerse myself in the material a little in english, it is a long time since all this happened it feels like a lifetime ago! Currently I am trying to rely on investigative reporters instead of the kind of news reports this article replies heavily on, which is often not to be rude to them but lazy and/or reciprocatively-journalism. I am currently reading 'The Chávez Code: Cracking US Intervention in Venezuela - by Golinger, Eva' and Gregory Wilper t's 'Changing Venezuela by Taking Power: The History and Policies of the Chavez Government', both are by I believe internationally critically accepted journalists. I am still very suspicious of The Miami Herald having more of a look on how it reports against latam but also i have to admit my own strong general bias against american media here (although, both i linked are amerian, both worked extensively in Venezuela with Eva Golinger being Venezuelan-American), i agree to make their takes less dominant in the article and contextualize them with what other journalists are saying. It would be great if could get some input by others for fresh (to the article) sources, too. Cheers. :)  SP00KY  talk  16:07, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify: I meant "do The Miami Herald have investigative reporters in Venezuela?", not "are there investigative reporters in Venezuela?", but you've answered that question.Claims from these books will need attribution in prose but are, I think, generally usable. — Bilorv ( talk ) 18:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I want to point out that Golinger and Wilper are known supporters of Chávez and the Bolivarian Revolution, which affects not only the neutrality of the sources but its reliability as well. Golinger being American and Wilper German, it won't help with the current issue of overrepresatation of English sources. I'd recommend El Acertijo de Abril by Alfredo Meza and Las balas de abril by Francisco Olivares as books to start with, and Margarita López Maya or Inés Quintero as scholars. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you expand a bit on how it affects reliability? Neutrality, yes, which is why I recommended attribution in prose. But every source has a provenance. — Bilorv ( talk ) 19:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delayal, I've been meaning to respond. To put as an example, there are many issues with Wilper's work, but focusing on the main topic here, the most important one is that Wilper states as a fact that the coup was planned beforehand, which is something that has been debunked by journalists that covered the events and as been repeated several times by the Chávez government. The latter point brings up also another important issue, which is that Wilper uses government sources several times, and which in turn also brings up the question of independence.
 * At the same time, omission also affects reliability. Explaining the coup, Wilper ignores many important factors that led up to it, such as the dismissal of the PDVSA board of directors with a referee whistle, on national television, the activation of Plan Ávila, and that Chávez would later admit that he deliberately provoked a crisis. Most of the issues that I have mentioned here also happen with Golinger's work. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. I am aware of the positions of the authors. This choice in reading was intentional on my part, as i already have a pretty good idea of what the narrative from the 'other side of the isle' is (as it is over-represented in the sources of this article), and @BilorvBiorv has already made clear as to how anything from said authors should be added. I do not think it is a good reason to not use them, the issue is how sources are used. which i think we all here are mature enough to understand and use responsibly. I will put the other books on my list and I appreciate the recs a lot, Thank You @NoonIcarus. :) SP00KY  talk  22:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Two wrongs don't make a right, though. If you're aware that there's a side that has a significant bias, which is common with controversial topics, this should allow you to recognize authors that discuss the issues independently, taking the arguments from both sides. I heartily hope that you enjoy these readings. Kind regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * Your gut feeling is right. Chávez and his early communication system pushed forward as much as possible of the involvement of the media, the United States and opponents in the coup to act against them. Care should be taken to distinguish preexisting tension with the coup itself, which was precipitated with the deaths in the Llaguno Overpass. I have made some initial changes to reflect this. I also support an expansion in the Aftermath section for these reasons. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree a bit. The opposition narrative has always been that the coup was a spontaneous event after the overpass violence, but sources make it pretty clear the coup was being planned in advance—participants openly admit this and the CIA report really hammers it in by calling out in advance exactly what went on to happen.  So it's not really just an instance of rising tension, and then a coup just kind of happened.  I already think the article pushes this narrative too much via undue weight.  I returned the info on who the plotters were and that they were openly plotting to the lead.  They're critical points for NPOV balance and I don't think it was correct to remove it based on the source being a primary source (which I don't think documentaries are).  Mbinebri (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It really depends on which events you are focusing on. While there was a willingness to remove Chávez from power (including by peaceful means, as the whole purpose of the 11 April march was to ask for Chávez resignation), many others happened over the course in those days. Chavismo usually argues that the pronunciamiento by the military high command was planned or recorded beforehand, but the journalists present dismiss this version, and the Carmona Decree that dissolved much of the Chávez era institutions was drafted the day after Chávez was removed. While documentaries may not be described as primary sources, but interviews definitely are, so I would like to ask which part is quoted that supports the added statements, specially given that the other two sources cannot be accessed. At any rate, at just a 9 minutes length, I don't think the Aljazeera video can be considered a documentary as much as a video report. --NoonIcarus (talk) 07:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I also forgot to mention the participants: the fact that the military was divided and a part of it planned Chávez removal does not mean that businesses, unions, church leaders or other social actors were part of these plans. --NoonIcarus (talk) 07:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's see how brief I can keep this... probably not very!


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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


 * The difference with the edits you're referring to is that Nelson has been cited in this article for over eight years now, I have not been the editor to include him. The content that you have added, on the other hand, have been cherrypicked references mostly to support opinions or analyses, contrary to facts. Don't repeat these cleanups just blindly to "justify that you're right". --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not an ad hominem, this is analyzing a source who has contributed to the majority of this article. Nelson studied fictional writing and we are supposed to take his word for the majority of this article? You say, "if the problem is using an editorial voice, then use attribution", ignoring that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, especially when it is as undue as having sixty claims made by Nelson that were presented in Wikivoice. We could use more sources to support what Nelson is claiming.
 * You seem to be justifying the inappropriate use of WP:STABLE again, which I have already told you can lead to a block. Just because the information was present for so long does not mean it is not undue or possibly inaccurate. already raised concerns that there were too many citations from the US State Department. You seem to have countered Burrobert's edits with the inappropriate "stable version" argument too. In addition, you inappropriately removed Bart Jones and other sources, citing the essay you mainly crafted, WP:VENRS. WMrapids (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You're not analyzing the source, you're describing and criticizing the author. You remain to explain why statements should be questioned, including those that seem pretty much matter-of-factly:
 * In 2000, the pro-Chávez National Assembly granted President Chávez emergency powers and the ability to rule by decree through an enabling act to tend to the poor state of the economy.
 * On 13 November 2001, Chávez passed a package of 49 laws, using the enabling act which was set to expire the following day such as rearranging public ministries while also changing major laws in the government, oil businesses and land usage without approval of the National Assembly.
 * National Assembly Deputy Juan Barreto told loyalists through the media covering the situation, "The call is to Miraflores! Everyone to Miraflores to defend your revolution! Don't let them through!"
 * By 12:30 pm, thousands of government supporters were gathered around the palace blocking all routes to Miraflores except for the Llaguno Overpass, which was where the Bolivarian Circles had gathered to overlook the route.
 * Pro-opposition police and chavistas entered a gun battle and few demonstrators began to follow behind them with pings of gunfire heard on the police armored vehicles, though the marchers fled shortly after as the violence grew.
 * --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Things that may seem "matter of fact" to you (you've been active on English Wikipedia since the 2014 Venezuelan protests), but readers and the project overall need to have additional sources provided for accuracy and verifiability. WMrapids (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, please focus on the question at hand: Why are you questioning the statements veracity? Why do you believe additional sources are needed?
 * Is there a reason to believe that this information is wrong? Or are you only concerned on reliance on a single sources? Regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * And while simply skimming through the talk page so far and opening the conclusions of the National Assembly's fact finding commission (that I provided above), literally the first section states clearly that Chávez did activate the Plan Ávila, and that Manuel Rosendo opposed this. I have already replaced one of the State Department's sources, but most of the statements are uncontroversial. This is just but one example of why WP:SOFIXIT applies here and this tagging, without any substance analysis, is disruptive. . --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a better source? The link you shared appears to be from an opposition activist website. Also, we would need a secondary source for such information. WMrapids (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You're right, the question is though. What do we do about it?
 * I feel some guilt at doing nothing i said i would for this article but as well as a lot of things happening in my personal life as well as the usual thoughts and feelings around such articles that any changes towards neutrality will be an uphill battle with the so called people who inhabit this space like it is every time NPOV clashes with american foreign policy interests and worldviews, all stresses that make it more often than not simply - to me at least, i am sure to others too though - not worth attempting.
 * So yes, HOW do we improve this article? How do we account for and work around the kind of disingenuous editing and reverts and arguments that will come along with it? SP00KY  talk  17:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Your reply is greatly appreciated. Achieving neutrality, especially in controversial articles like this one, is vital for Wikipedia and it requires the participation of every user involved. While the edits, reversions and discussions can be tiresome, it is important because through this struggle, agreements can be made. The important thing with such editing is not to take anything personal; this includes the edits/reverts of other users and also your own interpretation on being responsible for Wikipedia content.
 * Now regarding improvements, the main improvements we can make is having additional sources and a variety of viewpoints present with proper weight provided. This is an issue with Nelson in this current article; we have a fictional creative writer who was provided a grant from the United States to write about the 2002 coup events. Again, not promoting some crackpot conspiracy about Nelson being a CIA operative or the like, but that if we can have a larger variety of sources, then more details and less doubts of reliability come into play.
 * In addition, the lack of source variety plagues multiple Venezuelan articles where the views of the government are completely wiped from existence. I get it, government propaganda exists, but this makes Venezuelan articles written from the POV of the Venezuelan opposition, especially when there are users editing articles that were apparently involved in the protests themselves.
 * , I also didn't want to get involved in such topics either since I was immediately barraged with reverts and threats of blocks, but I saw a need and had to fill it. Overall, we need more participation on Venezuelan articles because they are very controversial and have some fairly blatant POV issues. If we have a larger amount of viewpoints present, the trajectory of varying views will point articles in a more NPOV direction instead of a few bold editors hammering away with arguments. WMrapids (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * SP00KY listed their specific concerns with the article (some of which I believe were addressed) but you haven't. Unless there's a discussion about substance, there probably will be little progress. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have listed my concerns but you are not listening. The majority of this article was written by Nelson, a fiction writer who had little professional background on the subject. In addition, you have consistently removed information provided by other topic experts without explanation, creating issues with balance. WMrapids (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You are far more optimistic than I.
 * I have followed closely enough to be confident to make edits about even things I think I know and do not have the time to do the reading in a larger sense. I find it very hard to see a lot of stuff in good faith... Maybe i am more 'tinfoil hat' than you guys but I tend to think that organizations rather than actual people direct the tenor of these kind of articles.. I have never once ever in my life met anyone who with a straight face cite US State Department sources on any such event as Article, that whole concept does not seem believable..
 * A large part of me thinks it is imply easier to not engage than have to do the self-defeating routine of engaging sincerely with someone you are certain is not in good faith and the inevitable repercussions of that (,and I think it's very clear who administrators preference on this website..). Having stated my extreme pessimism and or dejection I very much would still like to make an attempt, although I think a rule for myself I have made is that I would rather accept be reverted than having to have conversations with editors I have no faith in and as per my lack of at all lengthily knowledge. SP00KY  talk  23:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

It's true the article heavily uses Brian A Nelson, but in this congested talk page I can't really see any issues raised with him apart from that he was a Fulbright Scholar (not normally used as evidence of being a poor source) and that he used to be a stockbroker. He wrote the Britannica article on Chavez, and seems to have some relevant academic publications. His book has a decent number of citations. Are there scholarly or journalistic critiques of his take that you can point us to WMrapids? BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)