Talk:The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (film)/Archive 1

Urban myth?
I recall reading somewhere that, mysteriously, this documentary has never been shown on television in the USA. Someone please renew my faith in freedom of speech in that country and tell me that isn't true, is it? 86.136.3.135 06:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know about that, but I know it has been shown on RTE and BBC, but the makers wanted to release it as a feature but couldn't find a distributor. Seabhcán 14:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure if it has ever been aired on an American Network but it was shown on the CBC in Canada. (Hedel)

I was told that in the university class where I saw it, and to add insult to injury the professor added that the film was first turned down by American distribution. The only people who distributed it (at that time anyway) were European. 200.108.27.63 13:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This would be easy to verify - there are about 5 major networks in the U.S. - ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CNN (possibly MSNBC). Check their websites, call them, send them email. I also heard that none of them aired it. I'm a Chomskyite, so I would be amazed if anyone did show it. But check for yourself. Our press is free to do what they want, but they never do anything that would be bad for profits, like showing a capitalist plutocracy (U.S.A.) orchestrating a coup against a democratically elected socialist president in our own hemisphere. (IMHO)

I know that The Amnesty international didn't dare to show it on their moviefestival in Canada, becouse the opposition in Venezuela (who did the coup) "couldnät guarantee the safety for amnesty members in venezuela". That's horrible.

Curiously, this DVD has been listed on Netflix as "Availabilty: Unknown" for over three years, despite the fact anyone can easily buy the DVD on various websites as well as watch it for free, just not with Netflix.

Critiscism is not really that valid
I recently decided to watch all three documentaries about the Puente Llaguno events. I highly recomend that you watch them in this order.

"Puente Llaguno: Claves de una masacre" The best documentary by far (Revolution is only good for the inside Mirflores cameras and that is it IMHO), they chronologically construct the event masterfully using EVIDENCE (they use the sun dial trick only once) ie they look at a range of pictures and check the watches, they use audio syncronization with the cadena to determine the exact minute of the famous Venevision video, they check the date stamp from digital cameras indy cameramen give them, etc. Show extra footage etc. A must see but it is a crying shame it is only in spanish.

Found here download the 5 segments individually the big one is not working

X-Ray of a Lie. It exists to debunk Revolution, I was initially perplexed since I saw Revolution after "Claves de una Masacre", and could clearly see that it was NOT 1:00 or 1:30 the first clue was that the Chavistas were taking cover and were not in the middle, those that were were in prone position, there was also a dead body in still 2, and there was clear shooting going on, that said they did contradict themselves on the video a few minutes later saying it happened in 5:30 according to their calculations (sun dial, wich is not that accurate specially if they are meassuring personal shadow angles and the blood stain color of a dead occured at 4:40pm). The 2nd part was added later, when they were aware of the mistake they made in the original documentary. That's why this 2nd version begins at 33:12 with "Grabado posteriormente al foro" (recorded after the forum) and it corrects the previous version without removing anything from from the original documentary. Additionally it reveals another manipulation made by "Chavez - The Film" : the picture was electronically enlarged to remove the armoured police vehicle the Chavez supporters were shooting at.

Revolution will not be televised. It is a good documentary but would skip the first part unless you are completely new to the subject, when the action starts (after puente Llaguno) inside Miraflores.Flanker 15:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The shadow
The two screen shots puzzle me. The first one seems to show people on a sidewalk with wavy lines and behind a wall casting a shadow. The second one shows the sidewalk with the wavy lines again, but no wall. Look at the line on the street below. It runs right up to the sidewalk, so there is no wall there. But then, what is is casting the shadow? Since in the tropics shadows can move very fast, especially when cast by a high building, this is very relevant. Of course, this is very easy to check for someone who lives there. Just go to the bridge at that time of year and record at which times such shadows are cast.

Also, I've uploaded a shot that zooms out a bit more, with thick crowds huddling together at both sides of the bridge. If this was shot earlier, before the shooting started, then what are they hiding from? DirkvdM 19:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That is the problem in X-ray of a lie they show TWO different times, one 1:30 and the other 5:30 the skeptic in me says that this is typical of the venezuelan oposition they think that the more critiscism they fling the more likely they are able to convince, even if they contradict themselves. The second shot definitely happens after the shootings as in the Revolution wnbt there are clearly people shooting. Try watching puente Llaguno documentary (part 4 I believe) they show a similar shot but from a handycam and synchronize it with the movement of the people to the exact time of the shootings, the crowds are huddled as well away from the middle.Flanker 01:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The whole "shadow" thing in X-ray of a lie is pure rubbish. First of all, as was rightly noticed by one reviewer already, they first claim (pay particular attention to the ridiculous "experiment" with the battery, where the alleged shadow at 1.30 is practicaly only towards west, only shorter (notice that at that time the angle of the shadow is, of course, much bigger then 15 degrees from the west-east axis, as the shadows should point in north-east direction, but with a much bigger angle), very "scientific" indeed), and then they claim for the frames showing exactly the same position of shadows to be taken at 5.30. The only thing true here, as is perfectly clear and undeniably proven by comparing the frames for the shadows thrown by the same objects (take notice that Schalk contrives his fraud by comparing a shadow of one object in the first frame with the shadow of an another object in the second frame, a clever trick as he does the comparison fast and moves on swiftly, it took me at least four viewings to notice the scam at all) is that the second frame must have been taken shortly after the first (taken the date and the geographical position of Caracas, most probably around half an hour). The whole 1.30pm presentation is therefore vulgar charlatanism posing as "scientific proof".


 * Yaah I am thinking of making a timeline, the two shots are no more than 30 min apart, and they attack the documentary for being dishonest. Flanker 23:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, if there were anti-Chavez protesters under that bridge at the time of the shooting, why don't they show them in their movie? No footing available? How is that possible?Because nobody of anti-Chavez protesters passing through the street at the time brought a camera with them to film the event? Yeah, right. X-ray of a lie is nothing more then a shamless hoax.

Given that we are actually watching the documentaries as opposed to reading an article
How would one interpret a visual cue that is not OR? I believe we should only state what the narrator states as if it were audio.Flanker 02:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Venezuela Bolivariana: People and Struggle of the Fourth World War
Any of you who dispute that the police (who were anti Chavez) fired at the protesters then you clearly haven’t seen the documentary "Venezuela Bolivariana: People and Struggle of the Fourth World War". It is freely available here: http://www.archive.org/details/Venezuela_Bolivariana_VEN_2004 alternatively you can watch it online here: http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-1797179074001054188&hl=en-GB fast forward to 54:00. at 54:22 it shows that a police water cannon cleared the street below the bridge at 3:54pm at 54:29 it shows people running away from the police at 4:00pm. This also shows the protesters up on the bridge. in the background. at 55:57, there is a photo of the police about to start shooting at the protesters on the bridge. at 56:03 it shows footage from the bridge of the police under the bridge. at 56:29, it shows a Pro Chavez protester being shot in the head from a long distance, the time on the hand held camera is 4:20pm. However this is not on the bridge. This basically shows that the police were shooting at the pro Chavez protesters. It also shows footage from under the bridge, behind the police.

So yes there were people under the bridge, running away from the police water cannon and tear gas. You can see that when people under the bridge are running away from the police, those on top of the bridge are looking down, they are not firing, or ducking. Then the police open fire on the Chavez protesters on the bridge. Then the protesters fire back.

X-Ray of a lie is a lie. But generally people will believe what they WANT to believe, rather than the truth (hence why you get UFO sightings, and people assume that they are aliens rather than rational explanations). This can be argued on both sides. Personally I believe that the protesters were the victims here, not the police. Chavez would hardly order the police to fire on the protesters that are supporting him. Yes he lost control of the police, however this was a coup, and the police were under the control of the coup leaders.


 * The police were in control of Alfredo Peña, the metropolitan mayor at the time and a political opponent. Flanker 12:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The article's lack of content
Controversy aside, I came to this article to refresh my memory on the content of the film itself. Even if the film is inaccurate, the first priority should be to discuss that content, and the discussions of accuracy should come later. I think readers would appreciate if someone who has seen the movie more than once would fill in the necessary details and worry about the criticism afterward.

200.108.27.63 13:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Could point. Technically, a portrayal of the content should be the first priority of the article. It is after all an encyclopaedic article and the purpose of such a resource is to provide information on the subject (in this case the film), NOT to spend the vast majority of the article discussing the films legitimacy, which should really be discussed elsewhere (an internet forum, a politics website, a movie mistakes website, etc.). I guess this is one of the current major flaws of Wikipedia though, too many people are more interested in pushing their point of view on others rather than informing as a more traditional encyclopaedia would aim to do. Wikipedia is not an essay website and it is not movie-mistakes.com. Sadly I very much doubt the article will be refocused for the reasons I have given. Canderra 23:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * On this note I made an edit to the caption of the picture of Lucas Rincón announcing Chávez's resignation on TV. It said "It is argued that this event was not shown in the documentary". I removed the "It is argued" as that is not a point for argument. If you've watched the documentary (which I have), you know that that speach or any reference to it was completely ommited from the documentary. Jesús 15:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Can someone improve the shadows section?
I can't make out with certainty what either side is claiming about the shadows on the bridge. What does each documentary claim, and what should I be looking at in Frames 1 and 2? (Please answer by improving that section of the article, not by replying here.) Gronky 13:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * For example, in Frame 2, I can't see the wall that is casting the shadow - maybe just because the picture quality is poor. And the picture claims to show a shadow which is cast wider than the wavey white road markings, but the other shadows in the picture are cast from right to left and this width is measured from top to bottom.  Can someone please fix the article to explain what I should be looking for? Gronky 13:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that WP editors cannot do original research; we can only repeat "x-ray" arguments which are very difficult to understand. I think "x-ray"is just a hoax. --JRSP 18:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I can try to explain: the Irish documentary says it happened at H-hour (during the march) in order to discredit this X-ray initially claims it happened on (H-hour - 4) based on one shadow, but a little while later claim it happened (H-hour + :30 mins) based on another shadow. We can only post what they say even if it is more misleading than not knowing their claims at all.Flanker 21:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Somebody who wrote this article did not understand the shadows part of the "X-ray" documentary at all; it never spoke about the railing shadow, but about the surrounding buildings' shadow instead. I corrected that information on the article. Lenineleal 23:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As I understood in the X-Ray documentary, the originally claimed, the shooting at Llaguno bridge happened at 1:30 around, because they interpreted one shdow as a shadow of a building, wich it wasn't, but of the crowd. So afterwards they introduced a 2nd explanation (i wonder, why they didn't remove the wrong part, maybe to say, that they were wrong, but it's part of the original). This 2nd said, it happened at 5:30 around, according to a blood stain and the shadow length taken from the people there. And to think, it's a hoax only because they are wrong about one thing (everyone makes errors, no?), it's a bit harsh. Especially because "the revolution will not be televised" has more to offer than this one part, and X-Ray proofed, that they were lying in more parts than this one. Example : The media were quiet afterwards. Check the archive of "El Universal", wich is full of critics of Chavez, but they wrote at 12.4.2002 that Carmona dissolved the AN and it's wrong... and and and...--190.77.33.252 22:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've re-organised that whole section. I haven't changed any of the information - I couldn't, I haven't seen X-Ray or Puente.  What I did was I put the related information together.  So rather than one paragraph saying X-Ray said it happened at 1:00, and another paragraph saying X-Ray said it happened at 5:30, I made one paragraph saying that X-Ray said it happened at either 1:00 or 5:30, and that they have evidence which proves each claim. Gronky 20:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What are these red lines in the frames supposed to proof? The first measures the shadow from the bottom of the railing to the edge of the shadow, the second one from the top. Am I missing a point here or are we measuring with two different standards? Channel &reg;   13:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Further, who added the red lines? Obviously, they do not come from "The Revolution...". Are these snapshots from other film or were they altered by an editor to advance a position? JRSP (talk) 19:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Everything but the video?
This article discusses awards, criticisms, counter-criticisms, and reception, but I just realised that it does not mention the content of the documentary :-) If anyone has the time, please help. Gronky 12:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of "needs infobox" tag
This article has had its infobox tag removed by a cleanup using AWB. Any concerns please leave me a message at my talk page. RWardy 17:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

No original research
The subsection "Documentaries, for and against" is 100% original research. In my opinion, it is used as an excuse to promote two non notable films, one contradicting "The Revolution..." theses and another supporting them. First of all a proof of notability of these films is needed, otherwise they must be considered fringe views that do not deserve a place in WP. After that, their support or criticism must be supported by secondary reliable sources, otherwise, it would be original research and therefore not allowed per Wikipedia core content policies. Please do not restore this material unless you can provide reliable sources to support it. JRSP (talk) 11:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The secondary reliable sources are the documentaries themselves. They are not fringe views, both cause quite a stir, among many other things, one must remember that a planned screening of the film was canceled by the organizers of the Amnesty International Film Festival given the arguments against the film. http://www.democracynow.org/2003/11/6/the_revolution_will_not_be_televised. Please do not remove content that provides key information about the reception of the film. This sections are common in film pages.Caracas1830 (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The documentaries are not secondary but primary sources. Working directly with primary sources poses 2 problems: 1) The notability of the sources has not been established, it must be proven that they "provide key information about the reception of the film" and 2) Interpreting or synthesising a source is not allowed per WP:NOR. The solution for both problems is finding secondary reliable sources commenting on the films. Otherwise, the unsourced material should be deleted, I don't think that "this sections are common in film pages" is an excuse for keeping unsourced material in violation of wikipedia core policies. JRSP (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The docs were made and exist only because "The revolution" was made. The interest of a writer must be to contribute, expand and enrich articles, as they are done in the rest of wikipedia, not to censor material that ones does not agree with. Caracas1830 (talk) 07:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * One more thing. This is from the Style Guide of the WikiProject Film with respect to the content that should be included with respect to the reception of Documentaries. "Documentaries present a special case, as they present themselves as recounters of fact. Therefore criticism of content ought to be included if it is presented with reasonable documentation and if there is evidence of public awareness of the controversy. Responses to such criticism should likewise be presented on the same basis. The existence of a public controversy ought to be acknowledged whatever can be said about it; the publicity is by nature citable, and omission creates the false impression that the subject matter is uncontroversial." . As I said before, our effort, as writers must be to expand the content.Caracas1830 (talk) 07:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You said The interest of a writer must be to contribute, expand and enrich articles, as they are done in the rest of wikipedia, not to censor material that ones does not agree with. This would be true if we were talking about notable information supported by secondary reliable sources. I am sure that WikiProject Film recommendation that criticism of content ought to be included is not intended to supersede WP:NOR. There would be no problem if you added criticism supported by secondary reliable sources which may include or not references to "X-Ray". The problem is that "X-ray" is a non-notable film which received very little attention. By the way, I'm also deleting material based on "Puente Llaguno" which actually supports "The Revolution" points, my intention is not to suppress criticism, the only thing I ask is that criticism and praise be supported by reliable sources and not by a couple of non-notable documentaries. Both "X-Ray" and "Puente Llaguno" are self-published material and cannot be used to make claims about third parties, Wikipedia is not a soap box. JRSP (talk) 11:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Per the request for third opinion by JRSP - My opinion is that the section The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (documentary) is WP:OR based on primary sources (i.e. the documentaries concerned). I'd advise Caracas1830 to locate secondary reliable sources to support the section. Thanks, Nk.sheridan     Talk  23:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, Caracas1830, I don't appreciate my edits being labeled as "vandalism". Please check Vandalism. In fact, according to WP:V "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." JRSP (talk) 01:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Red lines in images
Thanks for adding the sources, Caracas1830. Now, I'd like to discuss the red lines added to the images. In both cases you said "a line was added". Would you please be more specific and tell us who added the lines? JRSP (talk) 11:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

El Nacional article
Caracas1830, you sourced the sentence "A documentary made by Venezuelan TV producers and engineers Thaelman Urgelles and Wolfgang Schalk, called "X-Ray of a Lie", claimed that The Revolution Will Not Be Televised was inaccurate and dishonest" using an article from Alexis Correia. Are you sure the article mentions "X-ray"? I will go to the library on Monday to check but at first sight there is something that doesn't fit: The article is from October 2003 while, according to imdb, "X-Ray" is from 2004. JRSP (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

POV
Added POV tag to the reception section, which seems overlong and uses original research in an attempt to make a political point. Little Professor (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Would you please be more specific? What parts of the section you consider POV? There are lots of sources so I don't understand why you say there is POV/OR? JRSP (talk) 02:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The whole section regarding Urgelles and Schalk - first of all it is badly written, almost unreadable in that big chunk of a paragraph. Secondly, rather than summarizing the concerns raised by the duo, it seems to be a systematic critique of the documentary, which seems out of place in a Wikipedia article.

You can remove the tag if you like - maybe it's not so much POV that I was questioning, but rather whether that paragraph meets wikipedia guidelines. Little Professor (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Not really original research IMO, but undue weight given to Schalk opinion so I won't remove the POV tag (perhaps it could be replaced with an "unbalanced" tag). I agree Schalk's concerns should be sumarized as in the present version it is taking as much space as a lot of multiple independent reviews. JRSP (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I sumarized the paragraph, here's the previous version: In 2003 Venezuelan TV producers and engineers Thaelman Urgelles and Wolfgang Schalk, claimed that the film The Revolution Will Not Be Televised was "a flagrant violation of the ethic codes that they learned as alumni of TV production and direction from the BBC in London" and that the film is "a work of propaganda". What they considered was the worst manipulation was made with the images showing the Baralt Avenue without any people and the Venevisión video showing the shooters of Puente Llaguno filmed by Luis Alfonso Fernández. "When we examined the angle of the sun we discovered that the images from the Baralt Avenue were filmed at 1:00 pm while the images from Venevisión were filmed after 4:00 pm but were edited as if they happen simultaneously." They compared this kind unethical behavior with the case of Jayson Blair. . Urgelles and Schalk were also concerned that the some scenes of the people in front of the Presidential Palace on the morning of April 11th were from another gathering which happen another day in another city of Venezuela. . Urgelles and Schalk considered that the film makers also ignored Chávez's "chain" between 3:45 and 5:27 pm, happening while 21 people were killed and 150 were injured around the Presidential Palace. They explained that it was then that the private channels decided to split the screen into two and show the events and then the government shut down their signal. Urgelles and Schalk were concerned that the images of tanks on April 12 moving to the Miraflores palace were not intended to attack Chávez, but those tanks were following Chávez's own order to attack the opposition march. Also Urgelles and Schalk considered that the film makers misrepresent the multiethnic composition of Venezuela in order to give the idea that Chávez followers are of dark skin and the opposition is white and wealthy. JRSP (talk) 14:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

More on POV: Brian Nelson, The Silence and the Scorpion
For a partial listing of items presented incompletely here, see User:SandyGeorgia/Chavez sources, in particular, User:SandyGeorgia/Chavez sources. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 14:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This article is about a documentary. If you want the tag to stay, you need to be specific. Wikispan (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have been specific; I suggest you don't remove the tag :) See the quotes in the attached, linked article.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Do the sources -- or quotes -- mention the documentary by name? Wikispan (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's not be obtuse; is there another documentary fitting that description? At any rate, get the book mentioned by the sources.  It will surely provide plenty of material for expanding this article and explaining the many "manipulations" in the "documentary".  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "In this enterprise, Mr Chavez was abetted by foreign admirers, including the Irish makers of an award-winning documentary on the coup which, Mr Nelson finds, contains 'many manipulations'. ... The Silence and the Scorpion: The Coup Against Chavez and the Making of Modern Venezuela. By Brian A. Nelson. Nation Books; 355 pages; $26.95
 * http://www.amazon.com/Silence-Scorpion-Against-Chavez-Venezuela/dp/1568584180/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266933761&sr=8-1 Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The article in The Economist is behind a subscription wall, hence my general questioning -- does it mention the film by name and, if the answer is "Yes", what specific material would you like to see added. Drive-by tagging is not helpful. The Critical reception section already contains opposing viewpoints and references therefore I see zero justification for the tag. Wikispan (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have given you (twice now) sufficient quotes from the article to avoid copyvio, and to indicate you should get the book, at minimum, to expand and neutralize the article. Please take care with claims of "drive-by tagging"; this article has long been incomplete, biased and non-neutral.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, see here, for a broader answer on the source from DGG, an experienced editor and librarian. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You have given me a single quote from a book review. Not helpful. You suggest I purchase the book to "neutralize th[is] article" and remove the tag. Again, not helpful. Merely saying the article is "incomplete, biased and non-neutral", without explaining why this article is "incomplete, biased and non-neutral", is circular. If there is something in this book that you feel belongs on this page, I suggest you pinpoint it, otherwise tagging is meaningless. Wikispan (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I haven't pointed you to a significant viewpoint that is not given due weight in this article; that a trip to a library or bookstore is needed to correct that does not negate the POV. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The article already describes a number of different viewpoints ("[A] brilliant piece of journalism" to "[A] work of propaganda"). There is no NPOV issue at the present time. But if you believe this article can be improved by the inclusion of an additional viewpoint, feel free to proceed and add the material yourself. Pointing to a book in a library and concluding the article is "incomplete" and thus "non-neutral" is not a legitimate cause for tagging the page. The article isn't going anywhere. It will still be here when you get back! For this reason I am removing the tag. Wikispan (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Voui (talk) 22:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is very well established that this film is a pack of lies. See for example this article or this video:  and judge by yourself
 * User:Alekboyd's blog is not a reliable source. Not everything he says in the link you give is necessarily wrong (the film certainly has flaws), but skimming it I can see a number of claims about the events which are contradicted by better sources. And that points up part of the problem: because there is so much disagreement on what actually happened, this colours people's opinion of this documentary. I'd suggest leaving this article for now and concentrating on the 2002 coup article. Rd232 talk 23:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. Y'all have got to stop referring to Alekboyd's blog, because doing so merely fills up talk pages unnecessarily (see here).  And, there are bigger problems elsewhere; once we uncover all the missing sources (and I'm still working on that), smaller articles can be addressed via those reliable sources.  And "pack of lies" is not the sort of terminology that advances discussion here; there is surely some truth in this documentary. In the meantime, many of us need to get our hands on that book: WP:WIP-- the POV tag should stand until the article reflects all viewpoints. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see the POV tag as really necessary; there are two paragraphs on criticism of the documentary, and if there are specific points to add there, that should be done, but having a POV tag doesn't particularly help. If at some point there's a dispute about how much weight to give different views, then fine; but right now, the article reflects the reliable sources we have. I suspect Nelson has more to say about the events than the documentary per se, and I'm really wary of unnecessary duplication of the 2002 coup article. In any case, if Nelson's version of events differs from the film's, that's not canonical, since we know there are two versions, and the article already reflects that (though perhaps the lead could give more of a sense of that). Rd232 talk 23:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a whole lot of fluff in this article. Short of getting the book, if we reduce the article to something more reliable, clean it up, and add the quote from The Economist (and we can find others), I think we could then remove the POV tag, pending a broader rewrite from the book. But we're not there in the current version (and I notice none of the others talking here have edited in the new content :).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "[T]he POV tag should stand until the article reflects all viewpoints." Impossible. No article will ever reflect all viewpoints. There will always be a book germane to the subject sitting on a library shelf, gathering dust. You cannot pick one out seemingly without knowing exactly what is written in advance, complaining 'Do not remove the tag until someone fetches X from the library', especially when the article today reflects both positive and negative commentary. 'I think Chavez is a dictator and I'm pretty sure this documentary is crap!' is not a valid reason to tag the article. Wikispan (talk) 00:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikispan, if you continue to edit war a POV tag, without making a single edit to the article, you are likely to call admin attention to your edit warring (see WP:TEND as well as WP:3RR). I have provided you clearly sourced material that has not been added. The article needs a rewrite to downplay the one-sided story, and add to the article and the lead the fact that the film has recieved praise as well as criticism and charges of "manipulation". I suggest you actually edit the article to incorporate these issues before removing a POV tag. The book can be used to expand the article, but The Economist snips I've given you are enough for now. Once you've done that, the POV tag can be replaced with an expand tag, until one of us gets the book. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You want to include "snips" of a critical review published by The Economist for a book you have not read, and you do not possess, which leads you to understand, from a single line of text, that the author has something unpleasant to say about the makers of this documentary--but you are unable to describe exactly because the reviewer provides zero detail--and until someone comes into possession of the aforementioned book, reads and confirms your suspicion that The Revolution Will Not Be Televised is a work of fiction, the tag must remain on this page? I will not stand back and allow you to hold this page hostage. Please in your very next response provide specific passages and page numbers from said book. The unattributed review in The Economist mentions this documentary only fleetingly ("Mr Nelson finds [the film] contains 'many manipulations'") therefore, absent the book, it is debatable whether this "snip" is worth adding at all. Kindly provide specifics. Wikispan (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Expand
Sources from Google scholar which may be used for article expansion:

Also, details normally included in Film articles (production costs, timing, development, etc) are missing.

Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Ebert text
hello, I thought anyone could edit but it is not true? This belongs to SandyGeorgia? Charles Rodriguez (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Stop x nuvola.svg|20px]] Indefinitely blocked user. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Why was the review by Roger Ebert changed to leave out his true impressions of the film in this review? "It is, of course, impossible to prove that the coup was sponsored by the CIA or any other U.S. agency. But what was the White House thinking when it welcomed two antigovernment leaders who soon after were instrumental in the coup?" "Note:The last words in George Orwell's notebook were: 'At the age 50, every man has the face he deserves.' Although it is ourtageously unfiar and indefensibly subjective of me, I cannot prevent myself from observing that Chavez and his cabinet have open, friendly faces, quick to smile, and that the faces of his opponents are closed, shifty, hardened."

Not to say SandyGeorgia should put these quotes in, but she should convey that Roger Ebert had a favorable impression. Charles Rodriguez (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The article was not "changed to leave out" anything; I added one small quote to balance your small quote. I also don't think adding the extended quote improves the article, since the full review is available online (I do tend towards larger quotes from sources that aren't available online, so that all readers can see exactly what was said.)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You are looking only at the politics of the film. You are not recognizing the film's positive aspects, even from a filmography point of view. It was a powerful film experience, for many people, like Roger Ebert. You want to strip that part of the film out and only look at it as propoganda. You are not evaluating it as a film, aside the your political views  of its "message".  Charles Rodriguez (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:TALK and avoid highlighting editors in talk page headings. I want to reflect what reliable sources say.  See WP:AGF.  And I haven't "stripped" anything; I've expanded text based on high-quality sources.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So all the sources say it is a propoganda film that is without emotional impact and delivers a biased political message without emotion or interesting filmatic elements?  Charles Rodriguez (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Your logic is going in circles and has nothing to do with any of my edits, since I haven't removed text: the article contains numerous positive reviews and statements. On the other hand, this is what "stripping" the article of reliable sources looks like.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That is not a nice think to say that there is something wrong with my thinking. I added the Rotten Tomatoes review which wasn't even in the article. I think you thinking is going in circles and has nothing to do with the points I bring up. Please stop implying I can't think. Charles Rodriguez (talk) 19:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Response on your talk; article talk pages should focus on improving articles with reliable sources, and avoid personalizing issues with one editor. Since I've deleted no material (but Wikispan has), your arguments make no sense to me.   Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are not reading my complete comments, SandyGeorgia. I said that only at the politics of the film are being described and the article is not recognizing the film's positive aspects, even from a filmography point of view. It was a powerful film experience, for many people, like Roger Ebert. The good points of the film, from the aspect of filmography, are not represented. The film as a work of art is not being evaluated but only the politics. That is my objection. It sounds like a boring propaganda film, when no one says the film was boring or dry. Charles Rodriguez (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And perhaps you are not reading my comments :) The article has plenty of favorable reviews, and if you can find more, that content should be expanded. I'm not worried about that, because I know experienced film editors, who have access to better sources than I do, are planning to work on that as soon as they have time. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for finding an alternate site for the full text of this article online. That allowed me to delete the lengthy quotes I had added, so others could see what the source says. However, WP:EL prevents us from linking to sites that may include copyright violations (does Wilson have the rights to that piece?), so someone may delete it in the future, in which case, the quotes can be added back. Parking the diff here so we can locate the quotes in the event a copyvio source is deleted. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Depends how ethical Brian Nelson is. The webpage has "©2005-2009 by Brian Nelson" at the bottom. The site also says the article is from the Jun 11th 2009 From The Economist print edition.   Charles Rodriguez (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know enough about copyright to sort that, so I've parked the diff here in case we eventually need to recover the text. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

3RR
User:Wikispan, this  is your second  deletion of sources or sourced text:  please be aware of WP:3RR. And this is your third. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Please read my edit summary for each individual action. What exactly is your objection? Wikispan (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You have stripped sourced text, and sources as well, three times now. Your edit summaries don't change that.  Please restate the sources, and the portions of the deleted text in your first deletion that were not repeated in the new text added by Charles R. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * How can we move forward when you refuse to acknowledge the rationale for deletion? Please pay careful attention to the Critical reception section. The first source is not a review of 2002 documentary The Revolution Will Not Be Televised; rather, it is a review of 2009 book The Silence and the Scorpion. (diff) A mere fleeting reference to the aforementioned film is not substantive enough reason so that you may quote extensively from a completely unrelated review. We can solve this problem by quoting directly from the book any passages that strictly refer to the name of this work (i.e. if the author only writes about The Revolution Will Not Be Televised on page 117, you may only quote from page 117; not 14, 56 and 92 before tying the whole thing together with a final quote from page 117). The second source, which is the same as the third, does not appear to mention the name of this film at any time. Therefore I deleted it. (diff) Wikispan (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You can solve problems by editing text, not deleting it summarily (and you deleted an entire chunk of text because Charles Rodriguez subsequently duplicated some of it, when you could have merged some of the deleted portions into his new text). Whatever your reasons for deletion, and no matter how valid you consider them to be, you're still stripping the article rather than editing it, and you've been warned about 3RR.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I removed the text primarily for the reason expressed in my last response to you (see above). You need to make a case for inclusion in light of that reply. Wikispan (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Fourth removal, all of these are very easily sourced, I just haven't gotten to them yet. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 22:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Unless you believe the synopsis is controversial or incorrect, a reference really is not necessary (and 1 will suffice, not 3). The most important aspect when summarising the film is attribution. Make it clear this is the view of the filmmakers -- not necessarily historical fact. Wikispan (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * When controversial information is easily sourced, it should be. Removing valid tags, rather than simply locating the sources, wastes everyone's time (but of more concern is that you're also removing text that will have to be reconstructed, rather than merging the duplicate text created by Charles Rodriguez). You also continue to delete named refs without fixing them, leaving uncited text.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What part of the following sentence do you find controversial?
 * Attribution renders this edit redundant. (diff) Overtagging is discouraged. Wikispan (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Attribution renders this edit redundant. (diff) Overtagging is discouraged. Wikispan (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Synopsis
In almost all Synopsis section of films on wikipedia, the synopsis is a straight forward condensation or outline of the film. In the "Synopsis" section for this film, there are statements like "The film alleges to show Chávez's supporters being shot down by snipers, and then some controversial footage of Chavistas shooting back, which the private media channels then used to say the Chávez's supporters shot at the unarmed anti-Chávez crowd, when they say they were actually shooting towards an empty street with armoured vans from where the shots against them were coming."That is not an objective synopsis. Charles Rodriguez (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I'm repeating myself :) The article is dismal in every sense, but one of Wiki's best film editors, with several WP:FAs to his credit, is reading the sources and planning to improve the article.  Hopefully the edit warring and removal of sources will not chase others away.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes
Charles R, where did you get the new number? I see 48 reviews counted in the infobox, but other film editors know better how Rotten Tomatoes data is presented on Wiki. I don't know where you got the 55? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you look at other wikipedia articles on films, they never mention the number of reviews, as the number is meaningless without context. It should be removed. Charles Rodriguez (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Stop x nuvola.svg|20px]] Indefinitely blocked user. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ummmm ... I don't think that's accurate, and I do just a wee bit of editing on Wiki's best articles. (Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and take care not to compare this article to other articles that may be inferior or not well written.)  Again, experienced FA film editors will know how to write the Rotten Tomatoes text.  The question was, where did you get the 55?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think the average number of reviews on Rotten Tomatoes commonly known, or is it necessarily relevant to this article. This was apparently a BBC TV broadcast that was later giving a small theatrical release. Therefore, if numbers are  compared, like should be compared with like. That is why Rotten Tomatoes give percentages, as what does 48 or 55 mean? Is the intent to show that it was a low number, compared to "Pirates of the Caribbean" or something? This was a documentary with a small theatrical release. That 98% thought it was enjoyable or whatever is the message from Rotten Tomato. Charles Rodriguez (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Changeling (film) - "and in the United Kingdom 83% of critics listed by Rotten Tomatoes gave Changeling a positive review."
 * Fritz the Cat (film) "Film website Rotten Tomatoes, which compiles reviews from a wide range of critics, gives the film a score of 53%."  Charles Rodriguez (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OtherStuffExists: there was a long discussion somewhere (which I can't locate now), about how to describe Rotten Tomatoes data. Film editors will know.  Again, 48 is the number in the Rotten Tomatoes infobox: where did you get the 55?  Is there something I'm missing on that page?  I'm unfamiliar with RT, more accustomed to higher quality sources. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. One dig too many, SandyGeorgia. No more input from me. Bye.  Charles Rodriguez (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * 300 (film) - Rotten Tomatoes reports that 60 percent of North American and selected international critics gave the film a positive review, based upon a sample of 215, with an average score of 6.1 out of 10. Reviews from selected notable critics were 46 percent positive, giving the film an average score of 5.6 out of 10 based on a sample of 39.

Found one piece: "Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database or Rotten Tomatoes, as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew,", so although I've still not gotten an answer to my very simple query of where to find the 55, I suspect the film folk will know how to recast the sentence to reflect guidelines. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Alien vs. Predator (film) - Based on 132 reviews, the film scored a 22% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and 29 out of 100 based on 21 reviews on Metacritic.
 * See above and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; perhaps you can read the FILM guideline page, or query them on talk as to how we write such text. I really don't know.  All I want to know is where you got the 55.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like the articles you pointed me to (above) Wiki's best articles don't follow that recomendation. Perhaps they are not really the best articles? I will kept looking to find one that follows that recommendation. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I guess those  suggested articles  are not the best articles.  Charles Rodriguez (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, they don't always. In fact, even among FAs, you can find articles that are old, in need of WP:FAR, haven't been updated, or weren't reviewed for compliance in all areas.  It's a wiki.  That's precisely why we follow guidelines and don't rely on other stuff that exists.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think there is a fixation on the number 55. I got it by counting the number of reviews. But in a real world sense, whether the number is 48 or 55 has no statistical signifigance. I suggest an avoidance of perseverating on either the number 55 or 48. Charles Rodriguez (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * All I'm after is correct text, reflecting film guidelines. I think we have to use the 48, and that's if we are to use any numbers at all.  Film editors will know.  I just want our text to be correct, which is 48, I believe.  I could be wrong.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reason you consider filling the talk page with Other Stuff that Exists, rather than going over to the talk page of the Film Project (see my link above, to guidelines) and simply asking them? That would be much faster. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC) And why did SandyGeorgia imply that "Wiki's best" was the measure, and then start quoting other sources once that proved she was in error? Charles Rodriguez (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Battlefield Earth (film) - It received a "rotten" rating of 2% on the review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, based on 121 reviews.
 * Richard III (1955 film) On the film review site Rotten Tomatoes, the film obtained a 100 percent fresh rating from both critics and users.
 * Twas not my idea to look at "Wiki's best". Please stop commenting on me. Is there a reason you consider filling the talk page with Other Stuff that Exists, rather than going over to the talk page of the Film Project and simply asking them yourself? That would be much faster than arguing here. I do not set myself up as an expert, and neither do I conprise the majority of recent edits to this article.  Charles Rodriguez (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I do agree all of this discussion could have avoided if you had just answered the very simple query the first time I inquired where you got the 55 :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I do agree that the discussion between 48 and 55, since it makes no material difference,  is ridiculous. And where did SandyGeorgia get the information that 48 is the relevant number? Does she have evidence of how often Rotten Tomatoes updates it page? How accurate is her number? Is it more accurate that actually looking at the number. Should the article say, "as of" the specific date that number was updates, instead on implying that it is a recent number?
 * Stay on topic, please. It was an exceedingly simple question. Please read WP:SOAP, or perhaps back away from the computer if you aren't able to WP:AGF and work collaboratively on the article. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please answer my questions and do not change the topic to one of blaming me. I asked you a simple question.:) Please answer it to justify you numbers. And please WP:AGF and work collaboratively on the article. Asserting that you are always right, and ignoring the questions of others is not collaborative. You have been dominating the editing of this article. Please give others a chance.:) And please consider that you may not always be right, especially without at least justifying your numbers. And please bother to get my name right. You continue to bombard my page with messages from you addresed to the wrong name. Not good.:) Charles Rodriguez (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * MY apologies for the name error, now corrected (perhaps you reminded me of a Chris somewhere). I don't know what article content questions you've asked?  I see lots of accusations, but don't know what questions you have of me that relate to my or your article edits.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Pleasue justify you use of numbers as requested several times above.:) You give no justification. And please add an "as of" date as requested above. Charles Rodriguez (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There already is an as of date; I don't know what you're asking for. As I've explained to you several times, there was recently a discussion somewhere on Wiki about how to avoid having to constantly update RT info because it changes-- I don't know where that discussion was, and you can either find that info by asking on the FILM project, or simply be patient and wait for a film editor to come by.  They are all very busy, and they will get to it.  They are the ones who know their guidelines; my only interest was in knowing where you got the 55, and if you had just answered, we could have avoided all of this.  Please push back and stop.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That a discussion occurred "somewhere" on wikipedia is not helpful. Not at all. My only interest is in knowing why the 48 should be used rather than the more recent figure, and also why there is no explanation of the Rotten Tomatoes review numbers for a noncommerical documentary film as compared to a commerical blockbuster. Just throwing around figures with no context is not good policy in my book. Maybe wikipedia says it is ok, but I don't think it is. Charles Rodriguez (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If that is such a big concern to you, and you can't wait for film editors to weigh in, as I said, you can go over there and lodge a query on the talk page. I've already quoted to you all I know of the guideline, which would seem to indicate we should delete all numbers (the 98% and the 48), but since that clearly isn't always done, I don't know what the answer is.  I do know that if we include the 98, we should include the 48, since it's a very low sample, and the film project points out, subject to vote stacking.  But that is for them to sort, not me; I merely wanted to know how you got 55, since I'm not familiar with RT (oh, but I'm repeating myself :)  Can you please either wait for a film editor, ask over there, and stop going on about this?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hallo. Sorry for weighing in so late. Just before I go to re-watch the film in preparation for knocking up a better synopsis, I thought I'd just clarify this point. The section in WP:MOSFILM about avoiding Rotten Tomatoes isn't worded very well (I should know, I helped write it!), but what the comment about "vote stacking and demographic skew" refers to is the site's user ratings, those submitted by the general public, not the critics' score. Rotten Tomatoes is usually considered a reliable enough source to cite information about how mainstream critics received the film, as that information is added by the site's staff, and is therefore subject to editorial oversight. However, that doesn't mean the site is the best possible source—as reliable sources go, it's OK, but not, say, a highly respected journal. For example, I avoided the site completely at American Beauty (film) because better sources were available. Should similar appear for this film, they should take precedence. All the best, Steve  T • C 00:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * *Are you the heavy weight "film editor" that SandyGeorgia has been saying will step in and edit this article? If so, perhaps you can enlighten me as to why this article is treated almost solely from the point of view of criticizing its perceived political stance, rather than as a work in the art of film. I am blown away by this. Here it is a TV documentary that recorded aspects of a coup in situ, and all the editors of this article are concerned with is putting down its content as biased. They neglect any commentary on the form of the documentary, and whether it was unusual or whether it was run-of-the-mill, merely proceding as documentary films have in the past. Is there anything about this film that stands out? Or is it only because of its politics that anyone is writing about it?  Charles Rodriguez (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm sure its politics makes it a magnet of some kind. And that's fine; there are lots of reasons someone might want to edit an article, and that's a completely valid one as long as neutrality and due weight are maintained. For this article, I've said a few times that I think the focus at this article should be less on the politics and more on, say, the filmmakers or their craft. That to my mind, the best way of fixing this up is to (initially) sideline the controversy and build up the conventional, non-disputed aspects first. Essentially to make something that brings it into line with other film articles. Background, production, funding, distribution. The boring stuff. The controversial aspects we can ringfence into a couple of sections and deal with later, or even field out to other articles where possible. If most of the article can become stable and strong, crafting a truly neutral "Accuracy" / "Criticism" section should be made a lot easier, especially if the atmosphere has become more collaborative by then. So that's all I've done here so far, starting by identifying gaps in coverage and expanding accordingly. This was my intention with the new "background" section, which doesn't seem to me to contain anything (other than the march figure, which we can look at) that anyone of whatever political leaning could dispute. On what the doc. actually claims, that could be conveyed better. I've already started rewatching the film this evening, hoping to do something about that. Steve  T • C 00:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree with you there. The art of the film (and the documentary) ought to be the focus as I see it. All too much hangup on the politics, and little said of the impact of the documentary as a film on the viewer. Much appreciated if you would provide a balance. When I read a film article, I am not all that interested in arguing politics. Charles Rodriguez (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We are most lucky that an experienced FA writer of Steve's caliber-- who also happens to have an amazing temperament-- has taken an interest in the article. We're also lucky that he's not on either "side" of the politics, and will write neutral content, beautifully written as is typical for him, without ruffling any feathers ('cuz that's how he is :)  He wants to be given a chance to develop the film side, and then we can hash out the controversials, but learning to work better together will help assure we don't lose him-- he's a very busy editor.  Adding new sources and suggestions on talk would help, as would discussing edits here before making them.  Steve edits in sandbox, tries to get everything, and then dumps it all in in one big edit.  Regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Example
For example, this content (in the "Synopsis" section):
 * Filmmakers Kim Bartley and Donacha Ó Briain were inside the presidential palace on 11 April 2002 when Chávez was deposed and two days later when he returned to power, recording "what was probably history's shortest-lived coup d'état."[dead link][7]

is a duplicate now of content Steve added in background, but it was sourced to a now dead, self source, while he has added a scholarly source that says the same thing. We could spin our wheels trying to deal with that dead link, or just ignore it until Steve writes the new synopsis. This is why I've been ignoring certain portions of the article since I started working on it a few days ago, mostly doing cleanup, but waiting for Steve's rewrite. I hope this helps explain my approach; I'm dismayed that Wikispan has deleted sources and content that might be better sourced and worked into the new version. (That content was also inaccurate; we have the filmmakers themselves saying they didn't go to the palace until the next day. But since the link is dead, we can't determine why the content was inaccurate-- did the original source goof, or did the content not reflect the source? We don't know, but doesn't matter ... )  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Duplicating text
Charles Rodriguez, you are duplicating text in the article that is already included in background with this edit, and using a media source where this info has already been sourced to a scholarly source. Please take care not to repeat info already in the article. Also, you have several times argued that the article looks too much at the politics, not the film, yet you've chosen one of the lowest quality sources (Variety magazine) to expand info about politics, including tangential text pertaining to Latin American politics, hardly relevant to this film. Perhaps you could rework those edits, after reading the new Background section. Also, Film articles follow a structure laid out on the Film WikiProject, and you're adding text to different sections, and repeating. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 00:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Charles, if you could take a moment to read WP:LEAD, you'll find that the lead of an article is intended to summarize the content of the article. It should contain a summary only of info already mentioned, and hence, should not include new, cited material;   that material goes in the body of the text, where it can all be summarized back to the lead once the article is finished.  Adding new material to the lead means that material must eventually be moved and dealt with in the correct section, and later summarized back to the lead.  Placing new sources on talk is a good way to allow everyone to collaborate on new material, decide where to put it, how to use it, etc.  Since Steve has access to scholarly sources, it would be a shame to find so much work lost if it is replaced by scholarly sources.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sandy, the lead is boring and gives no sense of the film. Is there a rule that an article must be boring and give only generalities with no sense of the actual subject? Please let me know if this is the case. (Thank you for finally getting my name right. I do not think it is a difficult name.) Charles Rodriguez (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As you and Steve discussed above, the entire article is deficient right now, because no film editors have worked on it; it's been a political minefield. That's where Steve's talents will come in if we let him work.  A look at the film guidelines at WP:MOSFILM will give you an idea of the sections we'll end up with, if we can bear with Steve while he develops the material for those sections. Yes, the lead is awful, too, but a common mistake many editors make is to focus first on the lead (because it's first :), and that work actually impedes article process.  Better is view where the article should be headed in terms of structure, get the content in, and leave the lead 'til last.  Steve typically works in Sandbox mode (I've had the pleasure of watching him develop many FAs and bring them through WP:FAC), so he can develop all the text and then move it over, and if the article is quickly changing as he's trying to work, a lot of what's done may be lost or may slow him down.  I hope you're pleased with his well written and neutral background, and will be confident enough to give him space to work, and I also don't want to see you waste your time adding cited info to the lead that doesn't conform with how WP:LEADs are written so will later need to be changed. Steve writes beautifully; please believe me, the article won't be boring for long if we give him space to work.  I apologize again on your name: I happen to know a Chris Rodriguez :)  Hope this helps, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Helloo. Seeing my name mentioned so freely, I want to alleviate any concerns other editors might have, first by making clear that it is in no way my intention to try to take ownership of the article; the best way it can improve is through collaboration and consensus building. I just decided to become involved because of my experience with film articles. Sandy is being over-generous when she describes my editing skills (thanks so very much though—it's appreciated), but I do have a few ideas for improvement that I hope to share over the next few days. And any major content additions I make will be explained fully. You'll have to bear with me though; I am slow to add content, more because of time limitations than any great care I take. :-) (With that in mind, at some point tomorrow I want to add a more guideline-friendly synopsis section. Comments welcome, as always.) All the best, Steve  T • C 22:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Lede section
How many reliable, third party sources—that don't have an axe to grind—actually describe this documentary this way? Google News returns next to nothing. Wikispan (talk) 10:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you prefer, we can switch "controversial" to "biased", which is what the sources say. I thought "controversial" would be less ... controversial.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Or "pro-Chavez" (which is also confirmed by a Google scholar search (which is what you should be using). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 07:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the problem here is context. We should let people know that the events presented in the documentary are disputed by some, but by simply including the word or leaving it out, we don't really tell the reader anything they can parse. The problem is that because the article body is not yet fully rounded, the lead cannot adequately summarise it, and so we either leave things out of the lead, or end up placing facts in it that the article doesn't cover. For me, the disagreement over which adjective to use, if any, is similar to one we thrashed out at WP:FILM a long time ago over the use of "Academy Award-winning" in a similar fashion, e.g. "Transformers is an Academy Award-nominated 2007 film ..."—without the context, it's meaningless and (in that case) slightly misleading. The solution was to avoid it, instead using the lead sentence to present basic, uncontroversial facts ("X is a film by such-and-such about this-and-that") before going into more detail on the other issues later in the lead. Would a good compromise be to leave it out of the lead sentence, but give the issue more prominence in the second paragraph? For example:"The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (also known as Chavez: Inside the Coup and La revolución no será transmitida) is a 2003 documentary focusing on events in Venezuela leading up to and during President Hugo Chávez's brief removal from power in 2002. The film is directed by Irish filmmakers Kim Bartley and Donnacha O'Briain, who were filming a fly on the wall biography of Chávez when events unfolded.""The film presents Chávez in a favorable light before and throughout the crisis, which has led to disputes over its neutrality and accuracy, and it is alternately cited as an accurate portrayal or a misrepresentation of the events of April 11–13. Released onto the festival circuit in March 2003, the film was positively received by mainstream film critics and won several awards."And that's it. It's a lot shorter than what we have now, but the advantage of brevity is that it's easier to control any perceived bias in either direction. For now, at least until the article body is better formed, would that be a better way to go? Steve  T • C 09:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I don't mean that this should be the only content in the lead, just that it would be the only coverage (for now) of any controversial aspects. Steve  T • C 10:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, your approach is logically sound, otherwise we end up with peacock terms ("Award-winning") and well poisoning ("biased") in the opening sentence, which is the earliest sign of a bad article. We can agree on the exact wording later. Thankyou for providing a considered reply. Wikispan (talk) 10:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me, Steve. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Production detail
I believe this sort of detail is exactly what is normally used in film articles, but will wait for Steve to have a look-- putting it here since it's a Spanish-language source, not sure if Steve reads Spanish. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't, not really, but as part of my job I've translated books from French, Italian, Chinese and yes, Spanish, so I'm confident I've got to the esencia of what it says. In truth, we wouldn't usually include that level of detail, unless the location happened to be relevant in some unusual way. For example, if it said, "The government had 10,000 copies made in Cuba because Venezuelan companies refused to press the discs" then I'd say include it. In this case, it doesn't; without a source that provides that context, it might as well be left out. Steve  T • C 21:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Poisoning the well
Another removal of cited text, with no valid explanation. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note, my post was moved to here by another editor; the section heading is not mine.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It is bad practice to interrupt the flow of a sentence with a persuasive qualifier.


 * Otherwise what is to stop other editors from behaving the same way?


 * Let's not turn this article into a battleground. Wikispan (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sourced text removed again; we will need to remember this when/if anyone wants to describe AC Clark as a pseudonymous member of the opposition, or El Universal as supporting the "coup". Also, do you have a source for the text you propose for describing Schalk, or is that a straw man?  Goose-gander: let's be fair and consistent in how we deal with pro- and anti-Chavez statements. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here. This is always a thorny issue&mdash;how we introduce a comment from someone who has struck up a position. We often have a situation in Israel-Palestine articles where, if a commentator is Jewish, someone will usually try to point that out. This is often done in the form, "X, who later went to live in Israel ... " or "X, known for his charitable donations to The Jewish Women's Guild .." :) Sometimes it's clearly relevant, and sometimes it isn't, so it's hard to draw up a general rule.

I don't know any of the players in this case, or the context, so it's impossible for me to judge what the function is of the description of Ángel Palacios. But looking at it as an outsider, and not in context, it doesn't seem to me to stray into well poisoning. So long as it's written in a disinterested tone, and the person is so regarded by high-quality reliable sources, it should be okay. I'd probably say something like, "Ángel Palacios, known as a supporter of President Hugo Chávez, but also as someone willing to criticize the government, argues that ..."

Hope this helps. SlimVirgin TALK  contribs 19:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that helps. Punctuation marks are always preferable. Bracketed comments not only look untidy and disrupt the flow, they appear a bit desperate, as though one is hastily attempting to bias the mind before a person has a chance to read what X actually has to say. Wikispan (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikispan, are you saying that you're removing the text merely because of punctuation, rather than just adjusting the punctuation ??? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Two points: (1) I think it's more the style in which this information appears that hums of well poisoning. 'Person X (described as a "staunch Chavez supporter") considers critics of the president to be misguided'. If you see my point. (2) This kind of hasty deflection appears in one direction only. I'm not against adding this info if it is formatted correctly. That sound fair? Wikispan (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Formatting it correctly-- if the punctuation was the issue--is more expeditous to all than removing the text. These kinds of definitions appear more often in favor of Chavez, IMO; we all see different things in these articles, but I gave you two examples above where similar text favorable to Chavez stands, while this text unfavorable to Chavez is removed.  My point is that we should be consistent across all articles.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not very keen on these kinds of descriptions in Wikipedia articles; in my experience they generally are used to "poison the well", and so it's better simply to give a wiki-link to the person/organization being described. These descriptors also typically betray systemic bias on Wikipedia: you have the one found in relation to Chavez, and SV has noted the one in relation to I-P articles, where one also invariably sees sources or organizations described as "pro-Israel", but far more rarely sees any described as "pro-Palestinian". In a more general sense, the Wikipedia reader is far more likely to see something described as "right-wing" or "conservative" than to see something described as "left-wing" or "liberal". That said, in this case, where there is no article on the individual in question, and the description is helpful and fairly neutral, I think on balance it should be kept. Jayjg (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Citation formatting
Beautiful work so far, Steve; thanks again for your interest in upgrading this article. I've been meaning to have a discussion about the citation formatting problems across all Venezuela/Chavez articles at WikiProject Venezuela, but there has been no interest in that project, so we may as well have it here.

WP:MOS calls for respecting the date conventions in the country of origin. The date convention in Venezuela is day month year (not month day, year). Nonetheless, we have a complete mess of different date formats across all Venezuela articles. We have month day, year; day month year, and ISO dates. ISO dates, IMO, are hard for Venezuelans to follow as they put month first, when Venezuela puts day first.

Further, we have inconsistent citation methods across all Venezuela articles, even though citations frequently must be transported from one article to another. We have a mix of citation templates and a variety of manual citation methods, none consistent.

Also is the issue of language icons, like. I prefer to put it up front, so the reader will see it immediately and not click on the link if they don't speak the language. I'm less fond of the |language= parameter, because it results in output that is hard to see.

We need to standardize the date convention, as well as standardize citation formatting. Discussion? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I agree with all that; I've completely disregarded the prevailing citation format when adding content these last few days. :-) I only noticed it myself today, so if no-one objects I'll reformat accordingly. Cheers, Steve  T • C 15:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, WP Venezuela has only one FA, so besides that one, there is no other Venezuela article now that is written even well, much less as beautifully as this one is turning out; might as well get the MOS issues straight, and hope that will show the way on other articles. So, in terms of citation formatting, I propose the language icon up front, and day month year, no ISO dates.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

X-Ray of a Lie
Why are we giving special emphasis to an amateur-made film, using bullets and bolded text, that is neither listed on Internet Movie Database, receiving not a single review on Rotten Tomatoes, nor returns a single result on Google News? This section is almost the same length as the stub article we have on X-Ray of a Lie itself! I propose we reduce this section substantially, summarising the film's objections in nothing more than a paragraph or two, perfectly in line with WP:NOTE and WP:WEIGHT Wikispan (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * X-Ray will be expanded.
 * Without examining X-ray here, this article is incomplete. X-Ray was made specifically to refute this film.
 * I wouldn't worry about size: I'm chunking in text so Steve won't have to try to translate it. I'm sure he'll reduce and combine things (just as he will eventually eliminate the blockquotes in Reception, since that's not how film articles are written).
 * Please see WP:MOSBOLD on lists. That doesn't mean Steve won't rewrite it to a different format, but it's the correct use of bolding.
 * That X-Ray is not in IMDB or elsewhere is irrelevant; it's a notable refutation of this film, mentioned in numerous reliable sources.
 * I'm confident that Steve will massage everything just fine; having observed his work so far, I hope everyone else is, too. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it most assuredly is not a notable film. How broad is the press coverage? How many reviews has it received? How many awards has it won? Notability isn't defined by how favourably SandyGeorgia receives this film; it is defined by answers to the above questions (which, thus far, you have chosen to ignore). Plus there is no automatic requirement that we must provide a point-by-point 'rebuttal', in the style you have chosen, to either film. Wikispan (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:NN, or submit it to WP:AFD if you think it's not notable. Also, see WP:NPOV which requires that all viewpoints be mentioned. Steve will adapt the style to whatever is best suited to Wiki Film guidelines. Patience (and please stop removing text merely because you don't like the current format ... I'm trying to present info from Spanish sources in a way that Steve can easily digest ... we're lucky to have a neutral editor working on the article). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:NPOV does not permit you to skirt around WP:NOTE and WP:WEIGHT which go hand-in-hand. The film simply isn't notable enough for the space you wish to expand into here on this page, and until you show otherwise, it should stay out. Wikispan (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Regardless of what format they end up in, the article must reflect what reliable sources say about the numerous factual inaccuracies in the film. You have deleted cited text, claiming you don't like the formatting, when in fact, you deleted specifically the sources that explain what factual inaccuracies exist in the film.  You might have re-formatted it, or waited for Steve, but there is no policy excuse for deleting that text.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That is a clear mischaracterization of the existing dispute. Simply because something can be referenced does not automatically mean it can be included at any length here on Wikipedia. The sticking point is Notability and Weight which, for reasons unknown to me, you have again chosen to ignore. Wikispan (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is a pillar of Wiki. Here is X-Ray's IMDB entry, btw. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thankyou. IMDb lists a total number of 1 review(s), from somebody named Mongoose on what appears to be a personal website. Do you have any input on how broad media coverage was for the same film? Wikispan (talk) 00:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The aforementioned reviewer draws a parallel between Fahrenheit 9/11 and The Revolution Will Not Be Televised which I find interesting. An examination of the former article reveals that one particular critic, Christopher Hitchens, is cited no less than 9 times on the same page. This is because his Slate magazine review is one of the most widely read pieces in the magazine's history. Plus many other journalists have made reference to Hitchens' critical review in other newspapers and magazines across the political spectrum. Hitchens' criticism has been given due WP:WEIGHT in accordance with the number of press references it has received, among other things. I honestly believe the separate film you wish to describe here, in quite some detail, is seriously lacking in notability to justify a large amount of space, and would be much better suited to its own article, which we can provide a direct link to. Wikispan (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, own up. Which editor registered multiple accounts on IMDb just to award X Ray of a Lie 10 stars? ("Up 396% in popularity this week.") lol Wikispan (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Unlikely to be a Wiki editor, since everyone on Wiki knows IMDB is not a reliable source except for certain minimal info about the film; I'm surprised you even bothered to check the reviews, since we won't be using them. (On the other hand, it could be because the article was started this week, so people actually went to IMDb because of Wiki?  I doubt it ... ) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised is down a remarkable 5% the same week, despite having 1,205 more votes! That's impressive work. Wikispan (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Text from X-ray of a Lie
Placing the full text here, since what Wikispan listed above is not what he removed. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Urgelles and Schalk argue that the film ignores or misrepresents important details, including:
 * 1) Gunmen: the Puente Llaguno gunmen shot marchers.  The documentary says they fired into the air, based on images taken at a different time.
 * 2) Tank movilization: tanks went to the presidential palace to protect the president.  The documentary says they went to oust the president.
 * 3) Private television signals: the government took down the signals of RCTV, Venevisión y Televén on 11 April.  This is omitted from the film.
 * 4) Chávez resignation announcement: General Lucas Rincón announced to the nation on television that the military had requested Chávez's resignation and he had accepted.  This is omitted from the film.
 * 5) State television: VTV personnel left the facility peacefully.  The documentary says the facility was overtaken and the signal disrupted.
 * 6) Metropolitan Police: the police did not repress citizens during Carmona's interim presidency.  The film distorts the reality with manipulated editing.
 * 7) Private television attacked: private TV stations were attacked by government supporters.  The documentary says the channels had decided not to broadcast information about Chavez's return to power.

Interim suggestion
It's a tricky one to consider; the problem is, yet again, one of context and weight rather than notability. X-ray of a Lie is surely notable; just look at the sources we already use to see that. I spent two minutes dipping in and saw significant mentions of Schalk's analysis in Variety, The Guardian, the Gunson article in Columbia Journalism Review and the supremely neutral Schiller study that Rd232 kindly provided. Indeed, the The Guardian calls Schalk one of the leading figures in the campaign against Revolution. As a result, Schalk and his film's claims are certainly things that we need to mention here. So what about weight? That's trickier to ascertain while the article is still being developed. From what I can see, X-ray looks at many of the issues that several—perhaps more prominent (in the US at least)—sources examine. In an ideal Revolution article, we would use those sources to create an impartial back-and-forth in whatever section we decide should cover the disputes over accuracy and neutrality (Gunson may be good for this, as it contains a partial rebuttal by the filmmakers). In that situation, X-ray would perhaps warrant a smaller section, as its concerns would already be covered. However, as the criticism section is currently lacking full discussion of the issues, from either side, a more prominent mention is probably warranted (for now). What I'd suggest is to tone down the quotes that tell us what the film is, in favour of what it says. So, yes, that would include a concise list of issues that X-ray has, but we'd lose some of the supporting rhetoric. If it helps, I'd also suggest converting said list to prose; it will still say the same things, but will not call as much attention to itself. This is just an example, thrown together in a few minutes (which is why the prose is so clunky!):"Venezuelan TV producer Wolfgang Schalk investigated the film for five months, after he and Thalman Urguelles were commissioned to 'produce a response' to Bartley and O'Briain's film; in 2004 they created the documentary X-Ray of a Lie, which set out to '[expose] the manipulation' of The Revolution Will Not Be Televised. Schalk said the film 'presented a distorted version of events ... to fit a story that appeals to audiences.' X-ray of a Lie claims that the gunmen on the Puente Llaguno bridge did shoot opposition marchers, and that The Revolution Will Not Be Televised used an image of the street below that was taken later that day. It also says the tanks at the palace where there to protect—not oust—Chávez, that the film does not mention the government's taking RCTV and Venevisión off the air on 11 April, nor subsequent attacks on private television premises by Chávez supporters. It points out that The Revolution Will Not Be Televised omits General Lucas Rincón's televised announcement that Chávez had offered his resignation, and says that staff left the VTV building peacefully. X-ray of a Lie also challenges the claim that police repressed citzens during Carmona's interim presidency." Steve T • C 11:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * X-ray of a Lie is nowhere mentioned in The Guardian article. Coverage remains extremely thin. The few sources present in the article appear to be all that currently exist, though I agree they are sufficient to make the film notable, scarcely. The only remaining issue is weight. I strongly agree with your proposal to convert the list to prose, removing all numbered bullets, at the same time retaining the most prominent points of the film. A sensible and workable solution. Thankyou. Wikispan (talk) 12:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Schalk is mentioned in The Guardian, and X-Ray is based on his work and analysis: it's all the same.  Wikispan, your arguments are missing the key fact that we have scholarly sources that discuss the accuracy of this film, yet none of that is in the article yet; if you're worried about due weight, you're not considering that one of us has waited patiently for Steve to finish his work, as the article is developed without yet any inclusion of the significant scholarly sources discussion of accuracy, while another deletes all attempts to balance the article, without discussion.  Adding points about the accuracy of the filme that are based on what scholarly sources say, is not undue, and we give preference to scholarly sources.  Please try to be more patient and collaborative.  I'm willing to accept compromises as Steve's time is limited, but the article is currently undue in the other direction, as no analysis of the accuracy of the film is yet incorporated.  If you didn't like the bullet list, it was easily rewritten.
 * This looks like a workable interim suggestion, Steve, to maintain weight for now since the article isn't yet fully developed-- pending further development of a broader analysis, working in Schiller and Gunson. Thanks again!  Do you think I'm ready to try my hand at writing a synopsis for X-Ray, or is it possible that you might do that once you've finished here? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not quite the same. The article by Duncan Campbell in The Guardian was published in 2003. Wolfgang Schalk's handiwork appeared in 2004. You can't directly adduce this piece to advance notability of a film that is not once mentioned in the article itself. We can, however, use it to say Schalk "is leading the campaign" against The Revolution Will Not Be Televised. Nor do I agree with the assessment that "one of us has waited patiently for Steve to finish his work" (presumably a reference to yourself) while "another deletes all attempts to balance the article, without discussion" (which would be me!). Let's just stick to the dispute at hand, which is near resolution. Wikispan (talk) 13:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Notability of X-Ray is not in question; please stop beating that dead horse. Schalk began analyzing this "documentary" as soon as it was produced; his pre-production work and commentary is valid.  Much work remains to be done on this article to develop the controversy; if you would work on patience and AGF now, the task will be easier later. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

In any case, we can all agree that the reliable sources that talk about the film should be summarized. Tom Harrison Talk 13:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Variety magazine
The following information makes it appear that Variety magazine has taken an editorial stance on this film when, in fact, both pieces were written by different authors.

I only bring this matter up here because after I had provided attribution, assigning names and rearranging the text in correct order of date, SandyGeorgia undid my edit. Wikispan (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I will correct that now; you made that edit after you blanked text. But I wouldn't worry too much about such issues, since Steve will most likely rewrite all of it.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, never mind, I guess I won't, since you are edit warring again. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not concerned about what Steve will or will not do in the future. I am concerned about how the article appears now after you keep editing it. Wikispan (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Now would be a good time to read WP:NPOV, WP:NN, WP:DUE and refrain from editing away content that you don't find convenient. Or just relax and wait for Steve: maybe read some limericks. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (documentary) should be moved to The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (film) for consistency's sake. The lead section will clearly identify it as a documentary film, of course. Any objections? Erik (talk) 15:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That's so weird; I was only thinking that today, along with the very specific thought that if you popped in here, that'd be the first thing you'd suggest. :-) Per the naming conventions, and precedent, I agree; this shouldn't be a controversial change. Steve  T • C 16:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, since the two of you are the film experts on Wiki, y'all know best what the naming conventions are. If that's what is normally done, fine with me!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Move is performed. I don't have any scripts to automatically update the link, though.  If anyone can and wants to update the link, feel free to do so. Erik (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Copies made

 * El Universal said the Venezuelan government had 10,000 copies made,[4] ...

Steve, I noticed that Gunson says 20,000 ... perhaps Gunson was written later? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Gunson is the more recent source, but there are supporting cites for both figures from all over the 00s. No way to know whether they got their numbers from El Universal or Gunson or a third source. Maybe the best thing to do would be to say "10–20,000" and simply cite both? On an unrelated point, I'd like to get my hands on a couple of reviews from Venezuelan film critics (rather than commentators), preferably one positive and one negative. Any pointers on the best places to look? Steve  T • C 14:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The only place I know to search is El Universal ... and I've linked just about everything I've found there. I rather imagine Chavez had something to say at Agencia Bolivariana whatever it's called-- someone else may be able to locate something there? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)