Talk:Caracazo

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2019 and 6 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Stevenleicht. Peer reviewers: RitaC99, Shahrozzaman.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

describing privatization and austerity as "economic reform" is NOT NPOV
Privatization and austerity are simply one set of policy ideas. They do not automatically represent "reform" because it is not an unchallengeable assertion that state ownership, job security, and well-funded social services represent corruption. Therefore, using the term "economic reform" to describe them is not NPOV, and can in fact be taken as using a Wikipedia page to advocate for those policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.74.53.131 (talk) 04:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Death toll
I'm bothered by the arbitrary inclusion of 3,000 as an estimate of the number dead (and even more, by the spanish page's inclusion of un millon). Who made these estimates? I'd love to include non-governmental estimates, but so far I can only find passing reference to numbers. DanKeshet July 4, 2005 22:52 (UTC)

I am bothered as well. The site used as quotation is a propaganda site for Chavismo, THE propaganda site abroad. I wonder if that should remain there --Periergeia (talk) 11:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree that the death toll number is completely arbitrary. The reference cited is vague and unclear. The death toll according to the current Venezuelan Supreme Court is on 331. http://aporrea.org/ddhh/n153360.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.111.111.39 (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Padrino
Caldera no es padrino de Hugo Sandy 21:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Need citation
Until there's a source, I am removing the following sentence, "The Venezuelan government, by then headed by Chávez, did not contest the findings of the case, and accepted full responsibility for the government's actions". It's a biased statement with no backup. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.191.85.179 (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Changed the infobox
Though many civilians were killed, a more suitable infobox for this article is the civil conflict infobox. The previously used civilian attack template is unsuitable for this article as it is generally used for terrorist attacks or other comparable acts.-- ZiaLater  ( talk  ) 04:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

What I Plan to Add and Bibliography
I plan to add lots of factual information about Caracazo. This includes: changing the ideas that "privatization and austerity as 'economic reform," changing the amount of deaths, or "death toll" that was resulted from Caracazo, and adding citations to old factual information that needs them. The bibliography for my future additions are below:

Debrek, Red. “1989: Venezuela Caracazo Food Riots.” Libcom.org, 23 May 2019, libcom.org/history/1989-venezuelas-caracazo-food-riots.

Griswold, Deirdre. “Venezuela's 'Caracazo' and Imperialist Hypocrisy.” Workers World, 19 Feb. 2019, www.workers.org/2019/02/41118/.

Kowalski, Philip. “Venezuela's Downfall Isn't About Socialism - It's About Oil.” Www.ozy.com, 22 Apr. 2019, www.ozy.com/flashback/venezuelas-downfall-isnt-about-socialism-its-about-oil/92669/.

Marquina, Cira Pascual. “Thirty Years after Venezuela's 'Caracazo': A Conversation with Livia Vargas.” Venezuelanalysis.com, 14 Oct. 2019, venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/14400.

TeleSUR, None. “La Masacre De El Caracazo.” Alianza Bolivariana Para Los Pueblos De Nuestra America, 2019, www.portalalba.org/index.php/areas/cultura/memoria-historica/8221-la-masacre-de-el-caracazo.

Times Editors, New York. “Price Riots Erupt in Venezuela.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 28 Feb. 1989, www.nytimes.com/1989/02/28/world/price-riots-erupt-in-venezuela.html. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenleicht (talk • contribs) 02:07, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Feedback

I agree that citations are definitely needed, especially whenever statistics are mentioned. I think it would also be interested to briefly mention the process through which Lusinchi managed to suspend constitutional rights. A discussion of how class and gender played into the protests would also be interesting. Finally, I found that the language and formatting used in the article were often sloppy and too casual (it may also be a result of bad translation if the article was translated from another language). I would, therefore, read through it again just to fix some inconsistencies and make it more formal and appropriate for an encyclopedia.

I further agree with the need for more citations across the article as they seem to be severely lacking. I believe you should add more about the relationship between the wider world and Venezuela in the creation of Caracazo.Shahrozzaman (talk) 14:31, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

NoonIcarus's deletions
Please explain why you deleted sourced material restored by. I have restored it back again. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Answered below. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

POV tag
and : You have both added POV tags. , . Please explain your concerns and what might be done to make the article WP:NPOV. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)


 * My original edit did not have a POV tag. I placed it back as a courtesy for NoonIcarus since they have raised concerns. If they could explain these concerns here, it would be appreciated. WMrapids (talk) 04:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I finally have some time to answer. The main current issue is the overreliance sources whose expertise is unknown, when plenty of other sources from scholars are available. Alejandro Velasco's source is used 39 times, Iselin Åsedotter's 12 times and its content now make up over half of the article. Issues such as the quality of the journal or source misinterpretation have been expressed for a long time now (example: Talk:Venezuelan opposition). For example, Springer Nature has already retracted several papers in the past, suggesting that their peer-review process has problems. Being an experienced editor, you should already know that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. We don't use Breitbart as a source for US politics, or blogs from flat earthers for articles about science. Since you have a renewed interest in Venezuela, David, it would really help if you could keep an eye out for this.


 * Another issue is the use of loaded language, specifically "massacre". Many extrajudicial killings were committed, but WP:WEIGHT and WP:LABEL need to be considered. Do we call the 1992 Los Angeles riots a massacre? We can all agree on the amount of deaths, but most sources and works simply call the events riots. Furthermore, there is repeated content between the current version of the article and that of Torture in Venezuela at the moment I'm posting this comment ("Carlos Andrés Pérez administration"), effectively having a content fork.


 * I hope this helps to clarify the issues. Regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * NoonIcarus, we have already had this discussion with regarding your questionable interpretation of reliable sources (preferring mainstream media instead of academic sources). As Boynamedsue said, your interpretation "is the diametric opposite of our actual policy, the ideal article would contain only scholarly sources and nothing else". Again, this seems like you don't agree with the point of view instead of having an actual argument against the reliability of sources.
 * Now, directly responding to your concerns, Springer Nature has addressed their concerns publicly, which shows that they do hold themselves accountable for their publications. If there were a source retracted that is in use on the article, please mention that source instead of making baseless allegations of a publisher being unreliabile.
 * You also use two false equivalencies here; you compare the sources used in this article to Breitbart and the Caracazo to the LA riots. For the former, this is a flawed equivalency as we are discussing academic journals compared to a partisan website. As for the latter false equivalency, dozens were killed during the LA riots (with a metro population of 11 million in 1992) while up to thousands were killed in the Caracazo in a city with a population of about 3 million at the time.
 * Overall, given your experience on the project, this appears to be more partisan editing on your part, especially given your history of whitewashing Carlos Andres Pérez topics. This along with your recent edits of saying individuals were tortured without providing sources is further evidence that you are either not understanding processes here on the project (which is doubtful since you have been consistently active for ten years) or that you are deliberately not here to build an encyclopedia. WMrapids (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If the WP:RS says it is a massacre, then we use the term. It looks to me like that's what the RS says.  I agree that academic journals are far better than mainstream media.  I don't see what the issue is with Alejandro Velasco, who "is an assistant professor of Latin American history in the Gallatin School at New York University".  That sounds more qualified that typical AP news writers.
 * However, I agree the number of citations to that single source is double the number of numerous sources used in the article. (The number of citations to the second most frequent source is also double the third most cited source.) So it probably would be better to distribute out a significant number of those references to other sources of similar quality. Now is there a claim that that source (or #2) holds a bias that is different than other sources of similar or higher quality? --David Tornheim (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * However, I agree the number of citations to that single source is double the number of numerous sources used in the article. (The number of citations to the second most frequent source is also double the third most cited source.) So it probably would be better to distribute out a significant number of those references to other sources of similar quality. Now is there a claim that that source (or #2) holds a bias that is different than other sources of similar or higher quality? --David Tornheim (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of Venezuelan scholars that have a longer professional trajectory than the authors currently cited, are not from the mainstream media and would definitely help to deal with geographical bias: Rafael Arráiz Lucca, Manuel Caballero, Inés Quintero and Margarita López Maya are some, just to name some examples, of which the last one has already been cited to some extent in the article. I don't recall any of them referring to the Caracazo as a "massacre" as the main term. From those, I can already cite Arráiz Lucca because he's the most easily accessible for me at the moment:




 * As I have mentioned, the issue at hand here is WP:WEIGHT: the majority point of view does not refer to the events as a "massacre". One thing is to show that the term has been used, and another one totally different is to demonstrate that it is commonly used. --NoonIcarus (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The response is literally included in a book on Venezuelan massacres and the description is used by other academics. As said, "If the WP:RS says it is a massacre, then we use the term. It looks to me like that's what the RS says." WMrapids (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Some RS say it is, others don't. That's precisely the whole point of WP:WEIGHT. --NoonIcarus (talk) 02:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This is why it has become so difficult to move forward. If I dispute the changes, you revert me. If I explain why I dispute them, you attack me. This is exhausting and I am so tired of it.
 * I did not make comparisons, they were examples to illustrate WP:ONUS; extreme cases that show why verifiable content does not always mean it's appropriate to be included. The main issue here is WP:WEIGHT, just as it has been in several other articles for months now: "massacre" is a strong word that is simply not used by the majority of sources. I would have told Boynamedsue the same thing that I'm saying now because, as I have already pointed out, this is not the first time that this issue is brought up and I'm not the only one that has commented it.
 * That's also not the only issue here. Choosing terms such as "neoliberalism" instead of "austerity measures" and quotes such as "genocide workers in the pay of economic totalitarianism" (which I'm not sure how they contribute understanding to the article?) show how neutrality needs to be improved.
 * If you want this discussion to be productive, I ask you to heed David's advice and strike your personal attacks, specifically the last paragraph and specially since I have already addressed some of these accusations: Talk:Torture in Venezuela. --NoonIcarus (talk) 02:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "[I]t has become so difficult to move forward. If I dispute the changes, you revert me. If I explain why I dispute them, you attack me. This is exhausting and I am so tired of it." You don't think I'm tired of trying to help you recognize some of your poor behavior on the project? You have been consistently active for ten years and have been warned multiple times about your battling behavior. I could go on, but this is an article talk page and we both already know that we can get frustrated with our back and forths. All I can do is recommend that we never discuss things through edit summaries and instead use talk pages going forward for even the most minor of issues.
 * "I did not make comparisons" You directly linked an academic published to a partisan website then tried to compare the Caracazo to the 1992 Los Angeles riots saying that the latter does not have reports of "massacres". Seems pretty clear that these were comparisons.
 * "'massacre' is a strong word that is simply not used by the majority of sources" Is this why you are recommending "mainstream" sources over academic sources? I'm not trying to imply that you are, I just want to understand your rationale. Overall, we have multiple academics and a literal book on Venezuelan massacres listing the response as a "massacre", so it appears that inclusion is appropriate.
 * "Choosing terms such as "neoliberalism" instead of "austerity measures" and quotes such as "genocide workers in the pay of economic totalitarianism" (which I'm not sure how they contribute understanding to the article?) show how neutrality needs to be improved." As shown in the link on your edit history above, you have removed information criticizing neoliberalism and Pérez in the past, so I can understand how you can see this as a bad POV. However, as the sources say, such statements by Pérez show a hypocrisy on his part; he used such strong language against the IMF and then later supported the IMF's motives by implementing an economic shock, which led to tangible effects on citizens who recognized Pérez's reversal on his position. This contributes a lot to understanding the article in more depth.
 * "strike your personal attacks" As explained in my first point, I don't have anything personal against you, just against your poor behavior. Behavior can change, but you have to be active in making that change. Not to toot my own horn, but I have been trying to make positive changes myself and was already going to strike my comment after you provided sources. We seem to be moving in a good direction for now, so let's keep it up!
 * WMrapids (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's just focus on specifics in the article. These broad generalizations about editing behavior or sources aren't helpful, except that I do agree with WMrapids that newspapers are not as strong as academic journals.  Newspaper articles are not a substitute for a strong peer-reviewed scholarly article.
 * I saw someone say in a previous discussion that historical academic journals are not reliable in the same way that scientific journals are--as a way to argue that newspapers are more on an even keel with academic journals. I don't believe that is true and that is not the policy here.  We need to follow principles set out in WP:RS which is a guideline:
 * --David Tornheim (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * --David Tornheim (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Official/Extraofficial vs. Government/Independent
Just wanted to provide some definitions on why the usage of "official" is POV wording.
 * Merriam Webster: a: AUTHORITATIVE, AUTHORIZED b: prescribed or recognized as authorized

The word "extraofficial" is hardly used in the English language, though I see that "extraoficial" is common in the Spanish language to deem things "informal" or "untrustworthy".

So, the wording "Government" and "Independent" is much more neutral when describing sources discussing the number of deaths as it is not minimizing the validity of the sources. WMrapids (talk) 06:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Description of the events
This article should use the term "protests" and not constantly follow it up with rioters. This, more than anything is just bulky language. Riots and looting should, probably be covered in their own section as well as allegations of foreign support. This might reduce some of the WP:NPOV issues this article has. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)