Talk:Venezuelan opposition/Archive 1

Endorse move to opposition to chavismo
The move to new title helps the unabashed POV, but the factual inaccuracies, POV, and original research is still equal. Working in to the article (and the lead) the fact that the vast majority of Venezuelans are opposition, and that includes left-wing individuals and groups as in the sources above, would help. When the leader of chavismo is "reviled", with only 13% support, it's hard to imagine how all that opposition is "right-wing". Sandy Georgia (Talk)  02:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I suggest bringing over the lead from the es.wiki article, and moving whatever the "stuff" (I don't even know what to call it, other than a mash-up of cherry-picked and misrepresented sources)) that is in the lead now, to some section which I don't even know what to call. I would bring over the lead from es.wiki myself, but as is classic for es.wiki, the sources in the lead are dead links.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  03:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Disagree. It is most often described as "the opposition" or "Venezuelan opposition" in sources. WMrapids (talk) 06:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC) In addition, the undiscussed move was reverted. Per WP:BOLDMOVE, "Move wars are disruptive, so if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again." We can discuss a potential move if you would like.--WMrapids (talk) 07:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Move discussion started below. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't prioritize limited time on what title the article is under; the state of POV and factual inaccuracy in the content, regardless of title, is the more prominent issue. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  10:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

POV
This article is, even for levels seen in recent Venezuelan editing, unabashedly biased, reflecting largely left-wing and socialist sources, with little apparent attempt to integrate other views. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Loaded language

 * Politicians forced in to exile are labeled as "fugitives". Sandy Georgia (Talk)  03:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Look up what fugitive means. WMrapids (talk) 06:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There's also the problem with labels such as "right-wing" and "undemocratic". --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:15, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That is what was said in the sources. WMrapids (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sources such as Jacobin or The Intercept might be reliable for facts but they are biased. Wikipedia is still based in neutrality as one of its pillars, and as such we must avoid biased or loaded language. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Legal issues section
This section makes no attempt to present balance. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  03:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The inclusion of opinions from human rights groups did not provide context? WMrapids (talk) 06:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * All said information can be included as prose in the History section. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources
List started:
 * n January 2018, the opposition-appointed Supreme Tribunal of Justice of Venezuela in exile decreed the 2013 presidential elections null after reportedly obtaining evidence that Nicolás Maduro was ineligible to be elected and to hold the office of the presidency, citing that he was born in Colombia.[32]
 * The source says he did not present evidence of birth in Venezuela-- a requirement for holding the office. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Rewrite

 * I just finished doing a major write to the article. I would like commenting more about this, but I want to take a rest and I expect this to get disputed at any rate. For the time being, I wanted to know if this current version still has issues, and further work from there can be done. I removed the tags, but it's possible that problems remain. It would be very good for to participate in this section. Best wishes, --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't expect to find time to view it today, as it's time for turkey here. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Have a good meal. I'm leaving the link here for reference. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * And there it goes. I started a new thread at WP:NPOVN address these issues: Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. The most troublesome current sections probably are Media and Demographics. I will try to develop this further. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Sandy, thank you for organizing the sources. I started with some of them but then got distracted with other edits. My main concern is that while you have placed all of these sources and had them ready yourself, why did you mainly just remove existing information instead of adding other sources to provide balance or context? WMrapids (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't removed anything that was well sourced or due weight; you'll have to provide an example of a removal for me to answer the specific question (tomorrow). I did remove some things that were in the lead of the earlier version, as they were quite not a summary of the opposition ... Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This, for example is a tabloid, and it's likely the fellow is still alive, so BLP. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This is covered at the RSN board; not mentioned in any reliable source. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:26, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * These people are unrelated to the opposition. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Obscure reference to one small group of protestors from one source: UNDUE.  At a quick glance, those are all my deletions; if there is something else you want to know about, pls diff.  I see NoonIcarus made deep cuts, but with the coatrack that was there before, they were likely warranted.  I hope if any content moves elsewhere, it will be better sourced and better balanced. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The main issue with just adding content is that it would create a false balance. There is currently content that shouldn't be included in the article to start with. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Something this bad can't be fixed by adding to it, nor should others be expected to do the fixing. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  06:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Brazen POV
I see the rewrite was undone, and we're back to brazen POV. I'm not going to try to step through or catch up; the problems are plain to see at a quick glance. Enough to see the POV has not improved. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  06:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Lead; contains a cherry-picked sentence from one source (and I can't decipher what the sentence is trying to say, but whatever it is, it's off, because "low levels of repression" is relative to what -- being thrown off a building?).
 * 2004 recall attempt; is all about Maria Conchita's brother now? Clearly UNDUE and cherry-picked.
 * Presidential crisis; treats the election as if only the opposition called it fraud (most of the world did).
 * Demographics; see sources above, completely off.
 * Maduro presidency; is all about a birther conspiracy? More UNDUE and cherry-picked.

Media section
Saying this might be repeating overall issues, but the Media section has important original research problems and should be removed from the article. Besides repeating controversial claims started by Chávez, it also conflates support for the opposition, or a supportive editorial line, as being part of the political opposition, which isn't true.

This is essentially a continuation of the discussion had at WP:VENRS. If the community there agreed that there had to be a case to case discussion for the outlets for an essay, it is clear that the standard for the definition in the main page should be higher. An opposition outlet must have a clear definition and be described as such by reliable sources, per WP:WEIGHT, such as it is the case with Guaidó's "National Communication Center". NoonIcarus (talk) 13:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * That's generally true of most of the sections. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  10:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Since you have been mentioned in recent edit summaries, I would like to ask you directly to clarify: do you think the current "Demographics" section and "Media" subsection should be removed for the issues mentioned? Or do you think that they include content that should be kept? Please let us know your thoughts. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Scholars opinions
Coming back to a recurrent subject: the article is filled with passages that include "according to Corrales and Penfold", "Dominguez compared", "Corrales and Penfold explained", "according to Dominguez and MacLeod", "Jiménez states", and so on, particularly in the Function section.

Who are these people and why are they cited up to 16 times in the article? This is never explained, and newspapers of record are preferrable for sourcing than this, since there are already plenty to choose from. Having such a controversial topic, it would be best if opinions are kept to a minimum and stick to the events. NoonIcarus (talk) 13:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * They are scholarly sources and thus reliable. Newspaper's usually are not recognized as being as reliable as peer reviewed scholarly sources. WMrapids (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The difference is that we don't use the journalists opinions. There also seems to be a false balance by saying that papers can be more reliable only for being peer reviewed, as newspapers have other means for editorial oversight, and that's the reason why the majority of sources that we use is from media outlets. --NoonIcarus (talk) 07:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * At WP:SCHOLARSHIP (which applies aptly to content such as medical or historical) there is a section about: "POV and peer review in journals". You can find an obscure journal or author to promote any POV; journal publication doesn't render content DUE and doesn't guarantee peer review. Peer review in the political realm isn't the same as in, for example, a high-quality medical journal.  And when there exists a preponderance of high-quality media sources on a given topic, we have to weight obscure biased opinions in opposition to the preponderance of sources; just because one author's opinion can be dug up in a journal, doesn't mean it should be given weight in an article (see WP:UNDUE). There are journals, and there are high-quality journals (just like there are news sources, and there are dubious and obscure websites masquerading as news). Generally, if you have to go digging to find these, they are probably UNDUE, and promoting a POV.  There is a ton of that in this article -- content not weighted and balanced with the preponderance of sources; that's without even addressing how sources can be cherry-picked, which is one of the things that needs urgent attention to reduce POV in this article. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I would say it again, scholarly articles are only as good as you can demonstrate that the journal is good, the authors is notable and that it has been cited by others extensively. If I wanted to find scholarly articles saying that Earth is flat or that Einstein was wrong with relativity I can find them very easily, but that does not make them due. Politics and social sciences are hard because there is no good way to assess the validity of an author research as in the more exact sciences..--ReyHahn (talk) 09:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That leads to another thing I have pointed out, that we should analyze how many times has a work or paper been cited to truly determine it's relevancy. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Moving the goalposts again. One can look at Impact factor to see that judging a scholarly sources based on their popularity is controversial and an inaccurate correlation. WMrapids (talk) 17:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not "popularity", it's impact. If that isn't a way to value due weight in the article, then how? --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * As for most sources, it is important to review each on a case to case basis. I know that previously discussed WP:SOURCEACCESS with you when you began removing information before, so let us know if you need help accessing the information. WMrapids (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 22 November 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus that "Venezuelan opposition" is the term most frequently used by RS when reporting on these groups (i.e., WP:COMMONNAME) and that RS mostly use the term "Venezuelan opposition" to describe the contemporary opposition to Chavez and Maduro (i.e., WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). A large proportion of the discussion also criticized the current form of the article as a WP:COATRACK and discussed how that issue might be addressed; however, participants did not appear to believe that cleaning up the coatrack would change the article into a form where a different title would become preferable. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Venezuelan opposition → Opposition to chavismo – Per WP:PRECISION, current title in the Spanish version. Opposition movements in Venezuela have included those against the 20th century dictatorships, including that of Juan Vicente Gómez (Generation of 1928) and Marcos Pérez Jiménez (Junta Patriótica). NoonIcarus (talk) 10:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BegbertBiggs (talk) 00:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: If this move is made, surely "Chavismo" should be capitalized, as it is on Chavismo? Bernanke&#39;s Crossbow (talk) 05:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Chavismo is a noun, but just like Peronismo, being named after a surname, it probably be capitalized, you're right. Many thanks for pointing it out. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Comment: Just realized that an argument for WP:CONSISTENCY can also be made: the Russian opposition article was moved to Opposition to Vladimir Putin in Russia, and plenty of categories already use this format, including Venezuelan ones: Category:Opposition to Fidel Castro, Category:Opposition to Hugo Chávez, Category:Opposition to Ferdinand Marcos, Category:Opposition to Daniel Ortega, Category:Opposition to Ferenc Gyurcsány and Category:Opposition to Viktor Orbán. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Huge majority of sources, especially generally reliable sources, plainly describe the group as the "Venezuelan opposition".
 * This includes:
 * The New York Times
 * CBS News
 * Al Jazeera
 * The Wilson Center
 * Voice of America
 * BBC News
 * The Washington Post
 * The Financial Times
 * Forbes
 * ABC News
 * The Atlantic Council
 * France24
 * Americas Quarterly
 * PBS News
 * Axios
 * Bloomberg News
 * Le Monde
 * The Wall Street Journal
 * Stratfor
 * Etc. Etc.
 * Now, look up "opposition to chavismo" and there is hardly any literature related to the term (actually, funny enough, one of the first results is this article from The Guardian with "Venezuelan opposition" in the headline).
 * Then there is also the difference between "Chavismo" and "Madurismo". These groups exist because they oppose the Venezuelan government, not just a leader's ideology, so it would be blatantly inaccurate to name this "opposition to chavismo" when the group's existence is actually based on opposing the Venezuelan government. This is why the large majority of sources simply describe them as the Venezuelan opposition.


 * While you bring up historical opposition movements, you actually provide links to common name article titles of antiquated opposition movements. In contemporary academic literature, the term "Venezuelan opposition" is the common name for, well, the Venezuelan opposition. It has been for over two decades. So the title "Venezuelan opposition" supports both common sense and accuracy. WMrapids (talk) 16:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment Besides other things, we should bear in mind WP:SOURCECOUNTING, and that only because current media outlets use the term it doesn't mean that it is the best title for the article. --NoonIcarus (talk) 07:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * A large number of sources may discuss the opposition to chavismo, but that's not what this article is, and it's difficult to tell what it intends to be or could work into if it were rewritten to a policy compliant state. If there were such a thing as a conglomerate attack-BLP, the first version would quality.  With the factual inaccuracy, POV, misrepresentation, and cherry-picking of sources, it's difficult to tell what this article could work into or how to name it; its initial state was "How Radical Left Deprecated Sources View Mainstream Opposition to the Effects of Chavismo". One problem is that this article wants to have it both ways (without representing sources on either accurately): it wants to be, but misrepresents, the broader Opposition to chavismo, while pretending that describes the subset used in sources to mean the Venezuelan opposition parties.  If the UNDUE/POV could be repaired, there may be two articles here: 1) the organized parties that form the Venezuelan opposition, and 2) the broader more general Opposition to chavismo, which encompasses popular as well as international segments.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Coatrack articles has some good advice; part of trimming out the coatrack material in the first version has happened, and the (reverted) move to "Opposition to chavismo" was a step in the direction of what the content is actually about, but cleaning out the coatrack should provide a better direction for where to land wrt final article name. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Just want to warn that we should avoid creating a POV fork. The Venezuelan opposition is the Venezuelan opposition, and it has always been described by nearly all sources as such. This article encompasses information on the opposition in general, whether or not it was against Chávez or Maduro. WMrapids (talk) 17:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * To avoid a POV fork, then, perhaps some of the coatracked material belonged at Bolivarian Revolution or chavismo to begin with; that is, a general criticism of the opposition to chavismo can go to either of those places (taking care not to cherry pick sources). This article had been written from one point of view, as a coatrack to broadly criticize anyone and anything opposed to chavismo, to the point of even blaming opposition for chavismo repression, and ignoring significant elements of the left also opposed to Maduro, along with his 13% approval.  (I haven't had time to look at the new version, since it's Turkey Time here, but it's difficult to imagine it being worse than what was here.) Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Information about the Venezuelan opposition belongs in an article on the Bolivarian Revolution and chavismo? Give me a break. WMrapids (talk) 02:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Pls read carefully; that's not what I said. This article is not "information about the Venezuelan opposition"; it's a POV coatrack of information about opposition to chavismo/Bolivarian Revolution and its leaders. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  05:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * See ; the first version of the article was a WP:ATTACK page ("a page ... that exists primarily to disparage ... its subject"s). It has only marginally improved, with attempts to address the attack page and POV reverted. First choice: Gut most of the (POV, UNDUE and cherry-picked) content per Coatrack articles and keep the salvageable at Venezuelan opposition. Second choice:  merge salvageable (that is, not UNDUE and not cherry-picked) portions to chavismo and redirect to there; criticism and opposition should be woven seamlessly into the Chavismo article.   I was hoping by now some of this article would be fixed, but I see from the editing history that's unlikely, so outright deleting most of it may be the next-best option. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  06:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * While the article title "Venezuelan opposition" might refer to any opposition movement against the Venezuelan government past or present, the primary topic seems to be the current one, even in long term sources like Google Scholar. Other opposition movements could be linked by hatnotes. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  08:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, per above. Also, as someone not familiar with this topic I really have no idea what "chavismo" means and it's not a word that appears in the merriam webster dictionary etc. So definitely a recognition problem too. Overall the status quo is fine. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Foreign affairs
Hi. I have removed the recently added information from WikiLeaks because the organization is an unreliable source per the perinneal sources.

The same goes for descriptions where I have cited coatrack. When mentioning organizations or people, it's best to avoid labels such as "American-funded", "anti-leftist", and so on, and stick with a single name unless a context is really necessary, given that it leads the reader to a specific point of view and as such it goes against neutrality. Besides, putting CANVAS as an example, using the description only because a single source says that it's mostly funded by American organizations, when it is a non-government organization, seems a stretch.

The text should be further examined to beware of issues such as weight. Other issues include failed verification: information that is simply is not in the content. The Financial Times article describes the opposition as "US-backed", but does not mention how this backing happens. Given the context of the section, it doesn't seems as much as funding or material backing but rather "supported" or "liked". This is similar to calling Maduro "Russia-supported" or "China-backed" in the article.

Please let me know your thoughts. Best wishes, NoonIcarus (talk) 11:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Ok, let's go over these removals:
 * I have removed the recently added information from WikiLeaks because the organization is an unreliable source per the perinneal sources. The CANVAS information is not from Wikileaks. You are missing something from the sources at best or misrepresenting the citations at worst.
 * The same goes for descriptions where I have cited coatrack. We have been here before. Can you specify what is coatracked?
 * it's best to avoid labels Agreed. I've removed it.
 * WMrapids (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

For issues about Jacobin (and very specifically the article used) see Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 8. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * You have been very adamant about excluding this Jacobin article throughout the project, but have been reverted multiple times by multiple users. The Jacobin information regarding NDI and Venezuela was hardly discussed on that noticeboard except by, who accurately says that what was reported by Jacobin is factual information provided by FOIA documents.
 * So what else do you have to say? WMrapids (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Two editors is not really "multiple users". BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Your diffs appear to show more accurately Burrobert repeatedly reinstating the disputed section and another user trying to offer an additional source, rather than "multiple users" supporting its inclusion. What is clearer with diffs, though, is your insistence in using that very specific article in multiple pages:, even when you're probably aware about the related discussions and know how controversial this has been.
 * My main reason for disputing the claim that "the US helped the opposition win the 2015 elections" is that I have literally not found any other source claiming it. Not even from the NDI itself. Jacobin is the only source claiming this, while there are stacks of journalists and experts that will tell you on how the current crisis was determinant for the opposition victory in the National Assembly. Exceptional claims need exceptional sourcing.
 * I don't have anything else to say, because I have been crystal clear about the issues from the start. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Stratfor's links are dead:, even when trying to rescue them through the Web Archive: , Le Monde diplomatique's source doesn't mention Venezuela , and Tsvetkova's reference doesn't support that the NDI played a rol in the opposition's victory in 2015. I don't see how the current wording and sourcing about "international funding" is either neutral or relevant in the article. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)