Talk:Guarimba

Tags
I was hoping to leave this message after trying to improve the issues. However, since these were reverted, on the "bright side" the concerns are still present, which are mostly about neutrality and original research: This should cover the problems overall. This is the last version where I tried to solve the problems:. Regards, NoonIcarus (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Starting with the term, "guarimba" is a colloquial term for a street barricade. This is already point out in previous content such as the Protests against Nicolás Maduro article, so I don't know why it is now as a "urban guerrilla warfare tactic" or as an unique form of protest.
 * The article fails to mention how the term has become pejorative and has been used to criminalize demonstrations, giving them a violent connotation. This has material for an excellent analysis and explanation, but it states content in an editorial voice that should normally be attributed and cites primary sources, such as the Constitution and a sentence of the Supreme Tribunal directly
 * The article does not mention any background information. Apparently Venezuelan demonstrators only started building barricades has a protests method because Roberto Alonso suggested them to. There were already precedents such as in the late 80s, and terms such as tirapiedras or encapuchados go back to generations. Even Chávez' supporters started guarimbas to protest his detention during the 2002 coup. Anyone familiar with Venezuelan modern history will tell how far this is from the truth, or point out how there are other equivalents in the region (see Peron's descamisados, for instance).
 * Last but not least, as with other disputed edits, the content largely depends on English language academic papers, instead to mainstream media outlets, which suggests that the majority points of view are currently not being reflected.
 * Do you have any thoughts on these? Regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

You have yet to respond to these mentioned issues. Besides the ones above, I'm also concerned about the overreliance on a Miami New Times article from 2007, a local source that is used 11 times and is mostly used to reference content about Robert Alonso. As with other articles, this is problematic per WP:WEIGHT and WP:AGEMATTERS: instead of reflecting a mainstream point of view, we're amplifying one from an article from 16 years ago, which is more troublesome considering the history of promotional edits by Robert Alonso (simply look up the tantrum he threw after his article was deleted). The article is giving more weight and credit to Alonso than it should, even including topics totally unrelated to the protests, such as the Daktari Ranch affair. This is an article about the guarimbas, not about him.

This is even without considering the neutrality issues, including that you're changing the sentence The first guarimbas started in late February 2004, blocked Caracas neighborhoods, after the National Electoral Council announced that the signatures presented to request the 2004 presidential recall referendum had to be examined a second time., closer to original source, to During protests following allegations of fraudulent signature collections by the National Electoral Council. for some reason, or the videos that you're now including from government outlets that need independent verification for facts. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Ah, almost forgot: you're insisting on using guarimbas as an adjective instead of a noun. That is just odd and bizarre, and the majority of sources leave clear that a guarimba is a barricade, while guarimberos is the people that partake in them or the pejorative term for demonstrators. Maybe you could look further into the PROVEA sources you have already used? It's a good start. Best wishes, --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello? --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We seemed to have addressed this first concern.
 * Find a source to describe the "pejorative" claims you raised.
 * Find history and provide it, but that does not mean that you need to remove what current sources state. The more recent guarimba protests/tactics are directly descended from Alonso. Just because a Miami New Times in 2007 provided relevant information on guarimbas at that time does not mean that it is irrelevant; please remember that WP:AGEMATTERS revolves around "in scientific and academic fields", so you seem to be grasping at straws to exclude this information somehow. The Daktari Ranch affair is relevant since the sources directly relate the guarimba protests of 2004 to this incident.
 * has now questioned your removal of peer-reviewed academic sources on Talk:Lima Consensus as well. Please stop.
 * "[V]ideos that you're now including from government outlets that need independent verification for facts". This is false. The source that provided this is an independent TV channel. Whether it has a bias or not is unrelated to its applicability for this article.
 * I never suggested "using guarimbas as an adjective instead of a noun".
 * WMrapids (talk) 14:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Since I didn't number my comment, it's confusing trying to follow the response, so I'll respond as a whole just like I did originally. I just finished doing a major translating from the Spanish version based on reports from the International Fact-Finding Mission on Venezuela, the Organization of American States and human rights NGO, including PROVEA, which you have cited before. All of the new information should show what I've explained, particularly about "guarimbero" as a pejorative term.
 * You seem to be missing the point about that age matters. I'm pointing out that this is a source from 2007, way before the 2014 and 2017 protests happened, so it's only natural that that definition is outdated. I can't stress enough too that the overreliance on a local source is problematic, when there are a lot others with better quality. "Guarimba" is currently used as an adjective several times throughout the article, including as "guarimba protests" and "guarimba tactic", which should be fixed, and your uploads are from community television channels, which means they receive government funding (and don't really have editorial independence, either). While we're at it, I don't know what you mean with the "removal of peer-reviewed academic sources" at Lima Consensus. I can only recall inline tagging, so it's better that you provide diffs in this case. I hope all of this answers the questions. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm simply baffled by the amount of content removed, including with rationale such as OAS report has a conflict of interest as it is paneled by Irwin Cotler, an attorney of Leopoldo López. The last sources provided were supposed to be from the highest quality that can be found about the civil unrest in the country. All of the uses of the term by security forces were intended to back up the arguments that I have made here ad nauseam, just like Chávez was first cited about the 2009 protests. --NoonIcarus (talk) 06:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I'll explain each edit:
 * This is not an adjective, it is denoting being a member of a group based on their method of action. Think of a recon soldier, a race car driver, etc.
 * These actions are responses from the government. The opinions are also responses from the public and other groups. Placing them in a consolidated section provides more balance.
 * Did not find this in the sources provided and it appeared to be original research. If you could provide specific quotes and page numbers, that would clear things up. That still does not take away from it possibly being undue.
 * The OAS is an anti-socialist organization and it deliberately chose a lawyer for an opposition leader to lead this investigation. Again, not only is this a possible conflict of interest, it is undue.
 * See above.
 * Blatantly POV and not necessary. We already have information about reported torture, etc. regarding the Venezuelan government.
 * Let me know if you have any other concerns so we can balance this out. WMrapids (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll seek to address each one in short. --NoonIcarus (talk) 06:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * RfC about the use of the OAS as a source started here: Reliable sources/Noticeboard. --NoonIcarus (talk) 07:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I have some time to respond to the issues.
 * I don't understand the point that you're trying to make or the difference. They're descriptive, they're still adjectives, and even the government has used the word as a noun. I see the attempts to fix this were also reverted and that its use was amplified.
 * I don't understand this point either. Sections titled such as "Public opinion" or "Reactions" are common place in Wikipedia, so there shouldn't be a reason to mix statements with actual policies.
 * The information can be found at the page specified at the footnote, p. 87. There's also an English version that you can read, where the information is between pages 83 and 84.
 * Again, this is an ad-hominem argument and you're not addressing. Namely, the main points at hand: if there detainees were called "guarimberos" and if they were mistreated of not. Besides, this article is not about Leopoldo López. I can look for further sources later, but this should not be a reason for deletion.
 * The statements are used to prevent a WP:SYNTH symmary (eg: "Protesters detained in 2014 were called "guarimberos"). The article goes at lengths to describe the negative effects and comments about the guarimbas, so at the very least it should cover the treatment of the detainees.
 * The cleanup tags cannot be removed while these issues remain. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, not trying to be coarse, but it could be your lack of understanding some English? Like with the shakedown incident. Guarimba protester is used to specify between non-guarimba protesters. While the government may group all of them together, we are not using government sources (And I know you'll be sure that we don't use them).
 * These are all responses. Placing the responses from the public, including opinions, alongside government and opposition responses provides more balance.
 * As I said, this may still be undue. Do we need to know what it smelled like in the cells too? We need to determine what is balanced and relevant.
 * It looks like you opened up something on RSN, so we can wait for that. It's not an ad hominem and it looks like other users have similar concerns with the OAS' bias.
 * Again, relevance and balance is paramount.
 * WMrapids (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, then. All of these are reasons why the tags are in place, though. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I also just noticed that the description about the Helicoide cells is minimal. They only mentioned how they are called, how some of them were destined to "guarimberos", and at most "The former detainees said that both holding cells were overcrowded and in very poor conditions, with no access to water or toilets, and where inmates have had to sleep on the floor". It's far from being unbalanced or irrelevant, as claimed. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I have read through the above and am not entirely sure what tags are being discussed. The ones at the top of the page? All of the in text tags here lacked justification. I am very concerned about Noonicarus declaring Last but not least, as with other disputed edits, the content largely depends on English language academic papers, instead to mainstream media outlets, which suggests that the majority points of view are currently not being reflected. This is the diametric opposite of our actual policy, the ideal article would contain only scholarly sources and nothing else.--Boynamedsue (talk) 03:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I have restored the reference to Kingsbury per the above.--Boynamedsue (talk) 03:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * A recap on WP:WEIGHT
 * I'll reply to this given that it has been cited several times and I've also been meaning to for some time.
 * Here, I'm voicing the concerns that other editors have already expressed previously. At Talk:Venezuelan opposition, (no ping) said:




 * Likewise, (no ping) said:




 * However, to continue the train of thought I'll reiterate again: you seem to be misinterpreting the verifiability and neutrality policies.
 * This is arguably best illustrated by the Lancet MMR autism fraud paper (similar to ReyHahn's example). Andrew Wakefield's 1998 research paper was published by The Lancet, was peer reviewed and is a scholarly source; it concluded that vaccines caused autism. Ever since, it has been retracted, repeatedly refuted and plenty of sources reach the opposite conclusion, including mainstream outlets, even though Wakefield has continued defending his conclusions. Should both points of view be given equal weight? Is Wakefield's source more valuable for an article because it is a scholarly source? Clearly not, and that's the gist of WP:WEIGHT (part of the neutrality policy).
 * Let's take another example, this time about the topic at hand. MintPress News staff writer Alan MacLeod published a paper in 2018 titled "Manufacturing Consent for the 2018 Elections in Venezuela and Colombia", a comparative analysis between the elections that year in both countries. It is a scholarly source and, as far as I know, peer reviewed. It concludes that the electoral conditions in Venezuela were better than the ones in Colombia, failing to mention the barring of opposition candidates, irregularities, advantages by the ruling party, and so on. There might be kernels of truth in the source: there were irregularities in Colombia's elections and independent candidates ran in Venezuela's election, but we cannot state the conclusions with an editorial voice because there are plenty of sources (both mainstream and academic) that reach a different conclusion.
 * Just in the same way, I can look after scholarly sources that support I specific point of view. For instance, if we wish to describe Maduro's government as "autocratic", a "dictatorship", a "totalitarian regime", there will be plenty of political science papers that use those descriptions (take a stroll through the Revista Venezolana de Ciencia Política, I assure you there are plenty of papers with that conclusion). However, the terms cannot be used so easily, because there will be likewise plenty of scholarly sources that have an opposite point of view, that say that these are not adequate descriptions.
 * I hope this helps to clarify my position and, fortunately, help you be less concerned. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

SYNTH issues

 * While I'm at it: information about the Supreme Tribunal ruling on the protests was removed arguing that it is unrelated to the barricades, when it specifically talks about the right to transit (something that was first brought up by WMrapids), but at the same time the 2014 protests section was further expanded to include attacks on transport, regardless if they took place at barricades or not. This should be the perfect example of the first points that I made when I started this section: that barricades are being conflated with protests, and if this continues this article will only be a WP:POVFORK of the 2014 Venezuelan protests article. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Looking further at the edits... "shaking down" is not the same as "robbing". --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. Please see extortion. Let me know if you need additional help with English synonyms. WMrapids (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't appreciate the snarky comment, I will let you know if I need any clarification. The wording here is clearly different from an armed robbery, for example, and this is not the only SYNTH issue that I detected just skimming through the recent changes. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not snarky. You have had a few difficulties with certain descriptions, especially in this article.
 * Just see the Merriam-Webster definition here:
 * shake down – "to rob by the use of trickery or threats"
 * Honestly, it is becoming exhausting that we are arguing over the definition of a shake down now and your editing is becoming disruptive once again. WMrapids (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one including new content, though. Exceptional claims require exceptional sourcing as well, at any rate. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of issues, but I'll just ask to be careful with SYNTH issues, since original research and unreferenced information has ended up being included in the article. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Every one of the edits were explained in the edit summaries, and you can see further information. This is also the fourth revert you make under 24 hours, so I have to ask you to self revert. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I self-reverted. Apologies. WMrapids (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You can review the changes that you disagree with more carefully. Notice that one of the ones that is being reverted is fixing a typo, for instance. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Gara
In this edit summary, why is the Gara article not considered an opinion piece? It is clearly labeled under the Analysis category. NoonIcarus (talk) 12:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No one thinks of the Kale borroka when talking about the guarimba. The only two articles, out of twenty-six, that mention this are the 2004 BBC article and said Gara opinion piece. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Analysis is not opinion. WMrapids (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If the Analysis category doesn't hint at this, the biased language should:
 * The "guarimbas", much more than a bourgeois "kale borroka".
 * There is no more symbolic territory for the Creole right wing than the famous Plaza Altamira
 * The also known as Plaza Francia has been a bastion of reactionary groups.
 * It was a meeting place for military coup plotters, a nucleus of support for the bosses' strikes, and today, a meeting place for a handful of well-off youngsters -most of them- who play at being rebels by practicing the so-called "guarimba", the Creole "kale borroka".
 * It is surprising the instrumentalization made by the right wing of the more than 40 dead, treating them as if they were "their" dead, taking into account that a great majority of them were from the Chavista side.
 * The cruelty of the message is breathtaking, as other "unforgettable" slogans coined by the bourgeoisie in times of Chávez's illness, such as the one that said "Long live cancer". These are interspersed with other more frivolous ones, such as those that can be seen in the posters that have been pasted on tree trunks: "I also want to travel to Europe", "I want my own urbanization (luxury neighborhood)" or "Maduro, I don't even have enough money to get my tits done".
 * On the one hand, we have the aforementioned well-to-do children, who play counterrevolution with the complacency of the international media latifundia, which magically turns them into popular heroes against a repressive regime.
 * It is also surprising the patience with which the popular sectors are enduring the aggressions.
 * --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Bias, which is something you are personally interpreting, does not mean the source is unreliable. However per WP:NEWSORG, I will agree with you that news media analyses and information from editorial boards are not appropriate for bold claims. Wanted to make sure that there was a policy supporting your removal based on "analysis" and found it. We can keep it out. WMrapids (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Take a look at WP:RSOPINION. I'm saying that this cannot be used for referencing because it is an opinion piece, pointing out at the loaded language as proof, nothing else. I'm glad that we can agree on this, though. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Pejorative term
The refs I included in the article explained why "guarimba" and "guarimbero" was a pejorative term, even going to the lengths of including the quotes in the sources, but you removed them. I will leave some examples in the talk page as reference:


 * Organization of American States: anyone who participates in demonstrations or expresses disagreement is labeled a "guarimbero" or "terrorist" (pag 57) and On the other hand, the constant use of stigmatizing insults with degrading political epithets and accusations of being 'guarimberos' - a pejorative term used by government supporters to describe those who participate in opposition demonstrations - demonstrates that members of the security forces knew that the acts they were committing, viz: killings, imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty, torture, rape and other forms of sexual violence, persecution or forced disappearance, were part of the attack directed against a particular group of the civilian population
 * PROVEA: The official sector developed an overwhelming campaign of rejection and demonization, calling this type of action "guarimbas" and those who supported them "terrorist guarimberos", thus becoming the new enemy to be subdued with blood and fire.
 * Human Rights Observatory of the University of the Andes Public officials of the criminal justice system in Mérida, using stigmatizing and violent language, differentiated these persons and their legal proceedings to their detriment under the denomination of "guarimberos" or "guarimba cases".

I supposed that all of this should give at least a some weight to what I have been saying for months now. NoonIcarus (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * And after this I'm astonished that you just double down on your assertion: Nowhere does it specifically say that it is a "pejorative" term] ([). --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Also, you're asking me to discuss first when you have not responded?? WP:CANTHEARYOU much? --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have responded adequately in lengthy edit summaries. I have also responded above. You are being redundant in trying to frame the word "guarimba" as a pejorative term when it is frequently used in independent media.
 * Vice Media: Colectivos and Guarimbas Face Off in Venezuela
 * The Nation: "2014 guarimba protests"
 * NBC News: "A guarimba is a Venezuelan term for an anti-government protest"
 * El Mundo (Spain): "Group: Guarimberos. Members: The number, undefined, grows day after day. Mission: Protect the protesters with their shields from attacks with tear gas and pellets."
 * The Atlantic: "more radical elements of the party take to what’s called guarimba, a tactic used in the past of tearing up whatever is around on the street and blockading neighborhoods."
 * NPR: "guarimbas, setting up blockades, setting things on fire or throwing rocks at police."
 * So yes, it may be used as a catch-all by the government, the term itself used by independent sources is not "pejorative." WMrapids (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Not all sources are equal, though. The ones I have offered are dedicated to providing an in-depth analysis of the situation, instead of a passing mention of a news article. The OAS report is almost five hundred pages long. --NoonIcarus (talk) 06:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The Vice News piece cited first in this list is precisely about how the terms "collectivo" and "guarimba" are terms used by each party to demonise the other. The term “guarimba” is a throwback to the years of Chavez, who used it to identify opposition groups after a 2002 coup and a 2004 referendum that attempted to unseat him. It doesn't say it's a neutral description. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Using the term indifferently, especially in their title, shows that the term is not provocative for English readers. Again, it may be an interpretation, but using the term wantonly takes away from the argument that the term "guarimba" is somehow offensive. WMrapids (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The Nation piece is partisan commentary - as clear from the title "Once Again, Mainstream Media Get It Wrong on Venezuela" - not news. Not good for asserting a term is neutral. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The context of the NBC quote undermines its use to claim the term is neutral: One of the chants that rang out across the plaza during the demonstration was, “Somos petroleros, no somos guarimberos.” A guarimba is a Venezuelan term for an anti-government protest, so the slogan is meant to say the group are simply oil workers, not political protesters. In other words, those described as guarimberos reject the term as pejorative. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That your personal interpretation compared to NBC's direct definition of "A guarimba is a Venezuelan term for an anti-government protest". Plain and simple. As NBC is saying, the workers are saying that they are not political protesters or members of the Venezuelan opposition, just protesting for wages. So if a generally reliable source like NBC News can generally call guarimbas "a Venezuelan term for an anti-government protest" without directly noting anything pejorative about the term, then so should we. WMrapids (talk) 18:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * El Mundo is more ambivalent, but it's clear that the term is often used as a term of abuse, while some embrace it: Les dicen los guarimberos, nombre que causa rechazo en el oficialismo y antes también en buena parte de la oposición. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And finally here NPR are quoting Maduro: "We are confronting monsters who want to destroy Venezuela," [Maduro] said. He urged people not to take to the streets or participate in guarimbas, setting up blockades, setting things on fire or throwing rocks at police. Again, it's a term used by the government to denigrate, not a neutral term. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Just a note re the El Mundo quote, it says that the term "guarimba" provokes a negative reaction with the government and used to also provoke a negative reaction in a large part of the opposition. This is very badly phrased. It suggests that nowadays a large part of the opposition do not mind the term, but that the government do not and have never liked it. I actually know what I think the writer is trying to say, but it is so badly written that we can't really use it as evidence here. This is pretty typical in the Spanish press btw, they are awful at prose.
 * At the moment, there are no really good sources stating "guarimba" is pejorative, there are examples where it looks like the usage may well be pejorative, but that leads us down the path of WP:OR. Boynamedsue (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The OAS, PROVEA and Human Rights Observatory of the University of the Andes are all good sources, and very clear on that regard. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The last three do not specifically say that Guarimba is a pejorative term, and are not neutral academic sources, especially PROVEA. As I stated on the RS page, the OAS report is opinion sponsored by an organisation with a history of publishing false information on Latin American politics. False information that wound up contributing to the deaths of very many innocent pro-democracy protestors. I would have no problem with a quotation attributed to the report's authors stating they were working on behalf of the OAS, ideally this would be part of a section with contrasting views on the nature of the term.Boynamedsue (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Please see the comments above about addressing the substance instead of the character. In other words, are there facts stated that should be questioned? Why? I can recall that yourself mentioned that you had to familiarize yourself with the added content, so it'd be good to have some feedback about it . You might also want to take a look at WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS
 * I also noticed that you have cited the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in the past (1, 2), which is dependent on the Organization of American States, so I should ask: is there a reason why you should doubt their description of the Ayacucho and Juliaca massacres as "massacres"? Regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Forgot to mention: no reason has been provided on why the human rights NGOs PROVEA and of the ULA are not neutral, or unreliable for that matter. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No source is neutral on politics, but PROVEA's language is not scholarly which leads me to think it is not any use for us here. All of these sources are specifically anti-government, which does not make them unreliable, but it does mean they should be attributed on political topics. However, they simply do not say what you want them to. None of them state that the term guarimba is pejorative. The OAS is very much a biased organisation with a history of making false claims. That does not mean everything it has ever said is false, but it is a very good reason for attributing to it when it is the only source for an opinion.


 * I find your suggestion that I should ignore the "character" of the OAS to be baffling. Our job is to judge how reliable sources are, if they have a history of publishing blatanylu false information on political topics, this gives us an indication that they must be treated with care. As for stating I am somehow attempting to right great wrongs, I would draw your attention to WP:NPA, and advise caution.Boynamedsue (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I cited WP:RGW because you happened to mention False information that wound up contributing to the deaths of very many innocent pro-democracy protestors.. Unfortunate, but also unrelated on the report's reliability. Per WP:BIASED, neutrality is unrelated to reliability in a source (even if sometimes it can be a good indicator one way or the other), but the fact that the OAS is an "anti-socialist" organization is an opinion, just as the fact that the Bolivia's election report was flawed is not widely accepted: the European Union released a report reaching the same conclusions, and the OAS confirmed their initial conclusions afterwards. I have to point out again above the the quotes above about the us as a pejorative source, but there is already information in the article that backs this up, saying that Maduro criticized the tactic's use as a way to disqualify the opposition as "fascist" and "violent". No response has been provided either on why it is acceptable to use the OAS as a source for Peru, but isn't when discussing Venezuela. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST. To make this clear, in any and every situation where the opinion of the OAS is the only source for a claim, it needs attributing. The same goes for the EU. Both bodies are political organisations.Boynamedsue (talk) 13:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I found a source by Human Rights Watch that also describes the term as pejorative:


 * Human Rights Watch: Many were insulted with political epithets, accused of being “guarimberos”—a pejorative term used by government supporters to describe those who participate in opposition demonstrations—. --NoonIcarus (talk) 08:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Robert Alonso
In relation to Robert Alonso, the 2004 protests section clearly states that it was Bloque Democrático which called for the first guarimbas, and not Roberto Alonso, meaning that the related content is unrelated. I also don't want to repeat myself about my concerns about promotional content, which I have mentioned above. NoonIcarus (talk) 02:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Alonso was directly related to the popularity of guarimba protests and was in fact the leader of Bloque Democrático. You also do not have to repeat yourself about "promotional content" as it has no basis. WMrapids (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Revista de Estudios Globales y Arte Contemporáneo (unreliable reference)
Not long ago I looked deeper into the Revista de Estudios Globales y Arte Contemporáneo source, which is a publication about art. Its description about the "guarimbas" and other movements, such as Ukraine and Egypt, leaves much to be desired:



I wonder if it can be argued is this represents a mainstream point of view about the protests, and I wonder why such obscure articles need to be used in this article. NoonIcarus (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Agree. That passage is very dodgy. BobFromBrockley (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Removed, due to the stated reasons. --NoonIcarus (talk) 03:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't see what is wrong with that, tbh. It is clearly opinion, but it doesn't render a source unreliable. In non-academese it just says Euro-Maidan was bad, the global media is biased in favour of Western capitalist interests and that Western powers were involved in Euro-Maidan and Kosovo.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If you have questioned the OAS' reliability due to its neutrality and you're consistent on how you analyze sources, then at the very least you should be concerned about this source and understand my point.
 * In any case, I'm explaining that this source doesn't provide an accurate description of said events, hence why it isn't reliable. See also WP:RSOPINION --NoonIcarus (talk) 08:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

OAS Panel of Independent International Experts
Kind regards. Based in the input from the RfC at Reliable sources/Noticeboard, I have added attribution to the content from the OAS Panel of Independent International Experts. I also included additional sources to help with verifiability, such as from Human Rights Watch and Venezuela human rights NGOs PROVEA and Foro Penal:





Please bear in mind that in this case I'm asking about reliability, and discussions about weight can take place apart. Pinging participants there so far, as well as , who first disputed the content. NoonIcarus (talk) 08:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Every incidence of someone being described as a "guarimbero" is not always notable and can be undue. Thank you for attributing the information, though. WMrapids (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I hope that this edit is sufficient as it properly attributes and provides a general idea of what the government did with labels and its actions. WMrapids (talk) 02:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)