Talk:Human rights in Venezuela/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Sources

What primary sources you refer to? Please explain thanks.Proofknow (talk) 16:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

IAHCR, HRW and European Parliament are being used as sources for facts that concern themselves and third parties. This kind of material should better by based on secondary independent sources. JRSP (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I welcome your suggestion. Having said that, reports from said entities need to be cited, and IAHCR, HRW and European Parliament, as far as legitimacy of sources is concerned, are valid.Proofknow (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:PSTS - primary sources should be used carefully, and generally to back up secondary sources. Disembrangler (talk) 19:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Disembrangler, may I ask, why are you taking the liberty of removing perfectly valid, appropriately sourced information? I suggest you familiarise yourself a bit more with the topic before removing other editors contributions.Proofknow (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you try not being condescending. Also (re this diff) try reading WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Disembrangler (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Proofknow, in my opinion you are cherry picking information from the primary source to advance a position. To avoid this problem, please use secondary reliable sources to support your additions. JRSP (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Far from being condescending, I am merely questioning your reason to use some of the wording from the sentence of the IACHR and not the whole of it. See WP:NPOV.Proofknow (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not a sentence, it's a judgement. And the source you're using is a Spanish press release, which you're putting a misleading spin on. You're also deleting sources without explanation. Finally, you're claiming to represent a consensus when you're in a minority of one. Disembrangler (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

But Disembrangler, the source you have provided to support your argument is using the very same *sentence* (sentencia means sentence in case you do not speak Spanish) to advance the notion that Venezuela did not violate guarantees of the American Convention. How can you possibly dispute the very source of the information you are quoting? See my edits and see who is deleting stuff here before further ado. The academics you have quoted are not human rights experts as far as I could tell, nor do they seem to be spokespersons of any reputable human rights organization. I guess it would be better to try and settle through other avenues, for both of you seem very opinionated to me.Proofknow (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

(a) I didn't provide the Spanish IACHR PR source, you did (b) "sentencia" translates as both "judgement" and "sentence" (c) this isn't particularly important here. On the issue of substance, it is not up to you to say "these people are not human rights experts". They are a large number of reputable people who effectively criticised a shoddy and biased report. Read their criticisms, and you might see why my initial reaction was that maybe the report shouldn't be mentioned at all here, because it says a lot more about HRW than about human rights in Venezuela. But OK, I guess it has to be mentioned. Finally, you're changing what the judgement says in the Spanish by dropping the fact that the failing is not violating rights directly, but failing to prevent violations by others. This is obviously an important distinction. Disembrangler (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You provided a source (Venezuelanalysis no 4) that is based on the *sentence* of IACHR, all I did was to link to the primary source in order to verify that what your source contends is a true reflection of the sentence, which it is not. Curiously one of the academics that has questioned HRW's report seems to be the editor of that very site you're using to support your argument. There's no public information anywhere suggesting that those academics are experts in the field of human rights, therefore quoting their views appears to be WP:UNDUE. I have no desire to enter into endless and unfruitful discussions with unhelpful editors, so I will defer to others.Proofknow (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

In what way is it not a true reflection? (And it's not that curious that one of 118 academics interested in Venezuela has a connection with a Venezuela website.) Also your question about them being human rights experts demonstrates to me that you've not read their criticisms of the HRW report. Disembrangler (talk) 23:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, just saw this at the mediation cabal. I'll pick it up if you wish. A short preamble, after having skimmed the discussion so far - this is good advice to keep in mind for any article: if an editor is worried about either the reliability or the use of a source, it is always preferable to find another one than to have a source dispute. Source disputes are horrible, in part because A) they're hell to sift through, and B) technically, any information that doesn't pass the threshold of verifiability - by whatever standard - are subject to removal within an article, which starts discussion (A) and some edit warring.

I recommend that those involved think of another way of addressing this issue aside from the thin ice the current sources are standing on. --Xavexgoem (talk) 18:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for your advice Xavexgoem. Researching the topic I have noticed that the sentence of the IACHR is mentioned in other media, for instance IACHR issues ruling on Venezuelan journalists, and IACHR decision proves complete freedom of the press in Venezuela. So both points of view, that is to say the the IACHR established that Venezuela had violated some articles of the American Convention and not others, are equally valid and that is precisely what I have been trying to include. Alas Disembrangler would have none of it and wants only his view, that is that IACHR ruled in favor of Venezuela, to stand. His view is correct only in part, because it is no less true that in the same sentence the IACHR condemns the Venezuelan government of violations to articles 1.1, 5.1 and 13.1 of the American Convention dealing with rights to be treated equally, to humane treatment, and to freedom of thought and expression. This information, despite being part of the very same sentence that Disembrangler argues cleared the Venezuelan government of any wrongdoing, has been edited out by him a number of times for no apparent reason, other than POV-pushing.

The issue of the academics goes along the same lines, as Disembrangler wants to give undue weight to the opinions of people who are most definitely not in the league of Human Rights Watch and are not authoritative sources on human rights issues.Proofknow (talk) 11:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Proofnow, your last edit deleted material based on a secondary source leaving only a primary source which happens to be a 15 pages long judicial decision written in Spanish. I hope you understand that for most Wikipedians an English language secondary source is more useful for verification purposes. JRSP (talk) 17:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

You also deleted several other refs and replaced them with a citation needed tag. If you have any concerns about the reliability of these sources, use a "verify credibility" tag instead and explain for each case why you consider the source is not reliable. JRSP (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to delete any secondary sources, and I apologise for that. I want to include the two sources cited above, both of which refer to the IACHR sentence. Do you agree? Further, I would like to hear other opinions about undue weight given to academics cited.Proofknow (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

ABN is associated to the Venezuelan government and therefore should be treated as a primary source. El Universal is a secondary source but it does not say that the Venezuelan gov had violated the 'freedom of thought and expression' but ' their duty "to ensure the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and the right to physical integrity" '. This is consistent with what Venanalysis says, that is, the government did not violate the freedom of expression but failed to do enough to prevent and punish acts of intimidation by third parties. Therefore, I consider that this source does not support the changes you are trying to add. Also, Disembangler's version does not clear the Venezuelan gov of any wrongdoing, it clearly states that they were found not-guilty of 3 charges and guilty of one. Regarding the opinion of scholars I think they are notable enough and are appropiate to balance the paragraph. [removed by myself] JRSP (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Your interpretation, and that of Disembrangler, is, I have found out, right on the money JRSP. Here's the relevant part in the sentence "The State is responsible for the non-compliance with the obligation contained in Article 1(1) of the Convention to ensure the right to freely seek, receive and impart information and the right to humane treatment, enshrined in Articles 13(1) and 5(1) of the American Convention," Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela Judgment of January 28, 2009, (see page 116). Therefore non-compliance with obligations, instead of violation, is the correct wording to refer to it. I appreciate your opinion regarding the scholars, but I still would like to hear from other editors, considering that there's no information about their expertise in human rights. They may have an opinion, but I still think is an error to put it in the same context as that of one of the most reputed human rights groups in the field, given their apparent lack of credentials WP:UNDUE.Proofknow (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the word "guilty" used by El Universal source is too strong, IMO Venezuelanalysis wording is better so I'd suggest working with the latter, I think however that we should not quote directly from the IAHRC primary source, I see no need of mentioning article numbers. [removed by myself] JRSP (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the scholars' letter, you say "there's no information about their expertise in human rights". I don't know if some of them can actually have worked in that field but I understand that they mostly criticize the validity of the research methodology used by HRW, in particular, the reliability of some of the sources cited in the HRW report. JRSP (talk) 15:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, AFAIR it's a detailed criticism of the report's methodology and sourcing. As to notability, the fact that HRW responded to the initial criticism (though not to the refutation of their response) should settle that. Disembrangler (talk) 16:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Tascón List

It is not true that the Tascon list paragraph is not referenced. look at the main article, there are plenty of references. Voui (talk) 23:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

ok I understand now. The tag is linked to a mistake in the reference: it should be Tascón list, not Tascon list Voui (talk) 23:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

JRSP, I think that you can now remove your tag. I think that it is clear there are plenty of references in the main article.Voui (talk) 23:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Fifth Republic

I think more information should be added into this section to make it more pertinent and relevant to the overarching scheme of human rights abuses in Venezuela. Also, the single source used in this section does not seem reliable as it lacks basic citation requirements such as publication names and date along with author name. If there is not enough information to list under this section, I think it would be a better idea to simply incorporate this section to the Tascón List instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elisabethvillalta (talk • contribs) 03:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Enriching the Article

I have worked to enrich the article with many human rights issues. I believe that the article is now a little more documented. However a lot still has to be done. Happy new year to all of you. Voui (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

{{rfctag}}

The question is whether the introduction of the article should mention only what the Venezuela constitution says about Human Rights and what international treaties says or whether the introduction should mention the actual effective Human rights situation today in Venezuela as described by notable Human Rights organizations like Human rights watch. Voui (talk) 13:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The changes you introduced here are problematic in a number of ways, starting with essay style and with the, sweeping, unsourced claims. Review WP:NPOV and reliable sourcing policies. Secondly, the structural issues are problematic, it's probably best to discuss each issue individually on what to do with it, if you disagree in detail. But broadly, there has (IMO) to be a distinction between the legal situation and perhaps general assessments thereof (if there are any), and specific events. Rd232 ^talk 13:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't revert to your version, it is just too poor. It actually starts with "It has been 10 years since Hugo Chávez was elected president of Venezuela..."!! That, along with the sourcing and general style and structure issues, makes the difference between the versions far beyond a disagreement on emphasis and presentation. Rd232 ^talk 13:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

this version is only an abstract of the summary of Human Right Watch report. I agree that it can be improved but at least it touches the real subject, which is the current human rights situation of Venezuela, not only what the constitution says ...Voui (talk) 13:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Your version of this article is extremely poor, in the sense that it does not mention the main criticism of the human right situation in Venezuela, by prominent organizations. Voui (talk) 13:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

My version of the article certainly does mention those. It's not in the lead for the reason I said below, which is that the body needs expanding before that can be handled properly in the lead. Your version is nowhere near WP:NPOV: talking about Chavez' "first major achievement" is no more NPOV than claiming the coup "providing a pretext for a wide range of government policies that have undercut the human rights protections established in the 1999 Constitution." Rd232 ^talk 13:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

So by all means leave this RFC standing, but please do not revert to your version - keep something closer to what there has been, and wait for some external input. Rd232 ^talk 13:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To clarify for anyone coming via WP:RFC: the issue is which of these two versions mine or Voui's is a better basis for future development (neither is particularly good). Voui's RFC question is far from neutral; and in fact the RFC is premature, since it would be perfectly possible to add a paragraph summarising "the situation today" to the lead of my version. The difficulty is that such a summary, as in Voui's version, compresses all the NPOV (including WP:WEIGHT) and sourcing issues present in the body, and risks being WP:Synthesis. More (good, secondary, not primary) sources are needed before worrying too much about the content of the lead. Rd232 ^talk 13:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• To make things more clear, and using simple words, it seems to me that the problems with your current introduction are the following:
  • purely based on the articles of the constitution and international treaties, no link to concrete reality of human right situation in Venezuela. This is very weird: could you imagine an old article concerning the human right situation in the USSR mentioning only the rights that were in the constitution? The USSR would have been the country with the best human rights situation in the world!
  • too old. Based on what happened before the Chavez government. the current situation in Venezuela must be mentioned in the introduction.
  • what I propose is an introduction based on recent reports of notable human rights organizations, which is really the minimum that should be mentioned in a human rights article. What I have added is just taken from Human Rights watch report for 2009. But I have nothing against improving it. See for example the report here A Decade Under Chavez - Political Intolerance and lost opportunities for advancing human rights in Venezuela
  • the content of the article must also be improved, to take into account the human rights violations mentioned by human right organizations, with appropriate answers of course
  • the effect of your edits is in fact to hide the current human rights criticism by human rights organizations. I must say I have nothing against answering such criticism, but the criticism by notable organizations should at least be mentioned, including in the introduction Voui (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I've already answered most of these points. Yes, in general it is desirable for the current situation to be summarised in the lead; it is currently covered (in both versions) in the body, albeit not very well (very bitty). But, to quote myself: "The difficulty is that such a summary, as in Voui's version, compresses all the NPOV (including WP:WEIGHT) and sourcing issues present in the body, and risks being WP:Synthesis. More (good, secondary, not primary) sources are needed before worrying too much about the content of the lead." Basically, the body needs to be improved first, or vast amounts of energy will be spent arguing about formulations of text in the lead based on too little sourcing. Later, with more sourcing, it will be easy(ish) to expand the lead appropriately.

As to using the HRW report as the sole source for the lead - I don't think so. Apart from being a primary source, this report was heavily criticised. Academic sources are preferable if it all possible. Rd232 ^talk 14:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to answer your argument about "improving the body first". Your proposed introduction has no link with the body. This is why I proposed to transfer it in the body under the titles "Human rights and the constitution" and "Human rights and international law". See here: [1]. But you did not accept it and you reverted! Voui (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

As regards your second point Rd232, about the fact that the Human rights watch report was criticized, fine with me! Let's mention such criticism in the page! No problem. The point is not to rely on a unique report but to mention that these criticism exist and mention what they say. But I would have of course nothing against mentioning also that those reports have been criticized. But I believe that you should agree that, in an encyclopedia, in an article on human rights, the heavy and detailed criticism of human rights in Venezuela by human rights organizations should be mentioned prominently.Voui (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that Voui's introduction "It has been 10 years since Hugo Chávez was elected president of Venezuela..." sets a "Chávez-centric" tone that unnecessarily limits the scope of the article. I agree that current situation must be mentioned but that doesn't mean that the article has to be an indiscriminate list of human rights issues. We also have to be aware of recentism, unlike human rights organizations; precision and accurate fact checking is more important here than time. JRSP (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I propose the attached compromise. See the new version. Voui (talk) 17:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I reverted your version to previous consensus edit. Please wait until we reach a new consensus, if you want to propose a compromise, make your proposal here at talk page or, if too long, create a subpage in your user space with your proposal. JRSP (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

That version was slightly better than your (Voui's) previous one, but still not an improvement on the status quo. General points: it is important for WP:NPOV to not give the impression that until Chavez was elected there were no problems at all, and also not to make sweeping statements like "discrimination on political grounds has been a defining feature." just because HRW says something like that. The structural issues remain; and as an aside, it's perverse to head the Tascon List section "petition rights" without mentioning that it was the 1999 constitution which introduced the relevant rights. In general, I don't think you've got enough of a feel for how Wikipedia articles need to be written to attempt such large-scale rewrites - I suggest you stick to editing parts and making suggestions until you get more experience. As JRSP suggested, a userspace draft may help, especially if you're willing to collaborate with others on that draft. Rd232 ^talk 19:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment to RFC

Hi, please see WP:LEAD for a guideline on what kind of information should be placed in the lead. The lead should be a summary of the rest of the article, and should reflect what sources say. In terms of the specific questions, I think that the nature of the Venezuelan constitution can be shortly discussed, and also the substance of criticism relating to the human-rights situation deserves mention. Mentioning the coup against Chavez, or even mentioning Chavez overall, is not necessary in my opinion. Mentioning HRW or Amnesty by name is not, again, in my opinion strictly necessary in the lead. The lead should present the human-rights situation in a compact standalone way with minimal clutter. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Dailycare and thanks for all comments.

Rd232, the issue is not my supposedly low experience or your experience. There is no doubt that a lot of the article could be improved, including the right to petition. The precise issue here is the introduction: it cannot focus on specific topics like the constitution and the international law, that are outdated and have nothing to do with the rest of the article, and without even mentioning obviously notable Human rights facts. I suggest to write as follows the introduction:
"The 1999 Constitution of Venezuela significantly expanded human rights guarantees by, among other things, granting Venezuela’s international rights obligations precedence over domestic law. It also created a new Supreme Court and sought to provide this court with the institutional independence it would need to serve as the ultimate guarantor of these fundamental rights.
But, according to Human Rights Watch, "a wide range of government policies have undercut the human rights protections established in the 1999 Constitution: discrimination on political grounds has been a defining feature. At times, the president himself has openly endorsed acts of discrimination. More generally, he has encouraged his subordinates to engage in discrimination by routinely denouncing his critics as anti-democratic conspirators and coup-mongers—regardless of whether or not they had any connection to the 2002 coup.""
Voui (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this proposal. The HRW inform is a primary document which has been criticized by third parties. As a matter of fact, it should not be used anywhere in the article, except as a backup for secondary sources. Why HRW and not AI or any other human rights organization? The AI 2009 report on Venezuela[2] does not mention "discrimination on political grounds" as an important issue. JRSP (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Any human rights report is criticized, especially in the country and by the authorities of that country. But their arguments should however be mentioned completely. The counter-arguments could also be inserted, no problem with that.Voui (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it is interesting to summarize in more general terms what JRSP and Rd232 have been doing to this page, and their differences with what I believe should be done.

It seems to me that what they have done is the following:
- delete as many violations of human rights as possible. They went as far as deleting the paragraph I inserted concerning the killing of Mijail Martínez, on the ground that "we can't mention here every concern Amnesty International has with HR in Venezuela", or the paragraph I inserted concerning the jailing of political opponents and the demonstration of students concerning that, on the ground that "they are not political opponents but coup perpretators" isn't it POV? It should be kept, but there is nothing wrong in having counter-arguments exposed in the text.
- try to make what is left appear as minor as pure "event" and not real human rights. They took on their own, without any discussion, to reorganize the article by "rights" and "events". This is also POV.
- then put an introduction that is limited to the legal theoretical aspects of Human rights, with no description of the real context, the broad picture of all these serious human rights violations.
I have suggested rather:
- a plan which focuses on all aspects of human rights violations
- mentioning in the text all human rights violations, as documented by HR organization but with a proper criticism of what they say, if such criticism exists
- an introduction that gives the broad picture associated with these violations.
Voui (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I've undone your recent changes. You claim your inexperience doesn't matter, but it does: you've breached the three revert rule, and you've also started a WP:RFC before proper discussion and then undermined it by trying to have that discussion before there's much chance for input. Your comments above also suggest that you're unaware of the assume good faith rule. Finally, when there are many differences, it is generally far more productive to address those individually than to try to force acceptance of your version wholesale. How about closing the RFC, which isn't terribly helpful at this point, and then discussing one thing at a time? A new RFC after some more discussion like that would be more productive. Rd232 ^talk 22:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought I made only 2 revert, but maybe I am wrong. If this is the case I am sorry. Well I have no problem to concede that I am not as experienced as you are, but contrary to what you say I always assume good faith. But how can I address individually each problem, as you propose, when you delete every edit I make without any discussion? When I mention that you and JRSP delete as many violations of human rights as possible, this is a fact, not assuming bad faith. When I say that you and JRSP went as far as deleting the paragraph I inserted concerning the killing of Mijail Martínez, on the ground that "we can't mention here every concern Amnesty International has with HR in Venezuela", this is a fact. When I say that you and JRSP deleted the paragraph I inserted concerning the jailing of political opponents and the demonstration of students concerning that, on the ground that "they are not political opponents but coup perpretators", this is a fact. I do assume good faith.Voui (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking at other human rights pages

I looked at other human rights pages and this is fascinating. The Venezuela one is really the only one where human right violations are hardly mentioned! At the same time as there is such a huge documentation of human rights violations by HR organizations! Look for example at Human rights in Brazil, human rights in Cuba, Human rights in Mexico. This is absurd. Voui (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Currently Venezuela's Human Rights abuses are being fully covered by sources such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch on a weekly basis. It is definitely interesting to observe the intersecting lines of governments, media critiques and the way the government handles them. With Freedom of Expression a fundamental right listed in the Venezuelan constitution, would you say that certain abuses are not being covered as much as violent and physical abuses in Venezuela? Elisabethvillalta (talk) 05:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

RFC response

Document any claims in the body with reference to Reliable Sources only, particularly higher quality reliable sources such as published NGO reports from NGOs known to have a non-political stance.

Write lede to reflect claims in article. Lede shouldn't be sourced, but should only reflect sourced statements in the body of the article. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Suppression of tag
Could somebody explain to me how come the RFC tag has been suppressed? I thought that the rule Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs was that it could be suppressed only by the one who has put it in the first place, or after 30 days. But maybe I am wrong. Thanks Voui (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I archived the RFC here. As I said in the edit summary, "end RFC - this is such a mess, and RFCs need to be clear". The RFC was always badly formulated, and it's been overwhelmed by the amount of other issues. We need to get some clarity on those (maybe RFC on those if necessary), before going back to the trickier issue of the lead. When we do, we should agree on what the issue (nature of the disagreement) actually is before launching it. PS once again, despite your protestations that you do understand the WP:AGF rule, you continue to sprinkle your comments with words like "suppress" and "hide". Rd232 ^talk 12:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I assume good faith: I believe that you, in good faith, believe that we should err on the side of deleting paragraphs, facts etc. instead of presenting a lot of content. My view is that we should add content and enrich paragraphs, not delete them. More importantly, it seems that this is a fact that you did not respect Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs. It does not look good for an admin.Voui (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Since Rd232 has decided on his own to terminate the RFC on the introduction, I believe we should at least have no introduction and put the content where it should be, in the text itself.Voui (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't be silly. The RFC was a mess (due to your inexperience, I think), and I put it out of its misery (to avoid wasting people's time, and to avoid putting people off commenting if/when there's another RFC, because there is a jading effect when one article keeps throwing RFCs). Believe me: long experience tells me that it's a complete waste of time to fuss over the intro when the article body is undergoing major revision. OK? Please respond to my Reboot section, and do not revert. Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 21:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

How to organize the article?

It seems to me that the article is a sum of human rights violations; It should be more organized.
I suggest the following plan:
- legal basis for human rights in the constitution (where we would put part of the introduction)
- legal basis for human right in international law (where we would put part of the introduction)
- political discriminations (where we would put the tascon list and add some other events)
- the justice system (independence of justice, etc.)
- independence of the media (press and TV)
- organized labor (to be added)
- relations with human rights organizations (HRW, killing of Mijai Martinez, etc.)
What do you think? Voui (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I assume like so many articles, this one "just grew" and was never really organized at all. The lead is pretty terrible but no one is really to blame if my suspicions are correct.

My guess is that any organization would be preferable to the mess that is there now. It is just awful! My thought, subject to the comments of other editors, is that you should just do it. Once it is done, maybe a better way can be perceived. Thanks for suggesting it. Student7 (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

A radical change without consensus is not a good idea right now, due to our ongoing content disputes. I think it is better to keep status quo version until new consensus is reached. JRSP (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

If you have nothing else to propose we should try at least Voui (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem with your suggestion is that it is basically redoing all your recent edits that have been reverted so I think we should better reach consensus in several points before going through that change, in the meantime, please keep last consensus version. As an alternative, you can create a userspace draft as it has already been suggested to you. JRSP (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok I did not reorganize the article. For the sake of clarity of the page, I only created 3 titles to regroup some existing titles which are now subtitles. I did not change any content. Hope it helps. Voui (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it's awful, as I said below (and how exactly is that not reorganisation?). See for example Human rights in Brazil, which you mentioned above, for an example of the sort of headings that might be appropriate. Rd232 ^talk 21:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I would argue that legal basis for human right in international law should come before legal basis for human rights in the constitution simply because it is more beneficial to understand topics on a macro level to then devolve into the topic on a micro level. However, I do see how all these options can be arranged in a variety of ways. Do you think adding a section on the lack of legally binding international power/international pressure would beneficial as well? Elisabethvillalta (talk) 05:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Specific issues

Let's take each of the issues in turn. Some of the problem stems from the failure to recognise fully what it means that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This means it does not, in general, report events for their own sake - that's what newspapers are for. (cf WP:NOTNEWS). Instead, it covers general issues within the scope of the topic, of which particular events may be examples if they're notable enough and clearly enough related to the general point. What is notable for an inclusion within an article is determined by filtering through secondary sources - the more secondary sources report something, the more likely it should be included.

Political opponents

The statement The Chavez government has used the justice system to jail political opponents is not supported by source.[3] As far as I can read, there are allegations by a group of protesters and information (attributed to a local group) that some opponents have gone to trial and some remain in jail but it never says that the government used the justice system against opponents. JRSP (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor who read the source: This is correct. The source could support different claims, but they'd need to be attributed to the claiming group within the source. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The claim is overblown (not backed up by the source); the source refers to one hunger strike (the text has "hunger strikes"); and the thing is completely unbalanced. Part of the reason it's unbalanced is that it's basically reporting an event. The failures of the judicial system (and perhaps police) are part of the "human rights" topic, but that should come under a heading aimed at that topic, not specific events. Rd232 ^talk 21:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You are right. I edited the article.Voui (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Now the section is "political prosecutions". I'm sorry, you're just going off the deep end here, NPOV-wise, and in terms of your sourcing: you're going far beyond what the individual sources say: see WP:SYNTHESIS and reliable sourcing and verifiability. You must stop what you're doing and do a userspace draft instead of working on the live entry. You're clearly not ready for that. Rd232 ^talk 21:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

you also seem to be clueless about copyright. See WP:COPYPASTE, and in particular, Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. The entire problematic first paragraph of "political prosecutions" is lifted with minor changes from the source given there. Rd232 ^talk 21:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

And now you've [4] committed another copyright violation by copypasting from another Wikipedia article without acknowledging the source. See WP:COPYPASTE. Rd232 ^talk 21:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This idea of political prosecutions is all over the place. You cannot deny it. Again, this should be mentioned, but the possible rebuttal can be mentioned too. Again, we must discuss the issues, not delete them. But I agree to change the title to "alleged political prosecutions".Voui (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Who says that "the idea of political prosecution is all over the place"? This sounds like WP:SYN. JRSP (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Mijail Martínez murder

Although Martínez was a human rights defender, his murder is unrelated to his work in this area. According to this news report[5] four persons have been arrested and one has confessed; the murder was related to a theft attempt. JRSP (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Which is precisely why such events should not be thrown prematurely into an encyclopedia article. WP:Recentism is a useful essay on this issue. Rd232 ^talk 21:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

on wikipedia English version, sources should be in English, not in Spanish.Voui (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This is incorrect - English sources are preferred, especially if there's an English source as good as the foreign language one, but foreign language sources are perfectly acceptable. Rd232 ^talk 21:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I have edited the paragraph to insert the counter argument. The way to deal with such issues is not deleting them, but giving all aspects of the issue and counter arguments. Voui (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

No, no, no. This is not about pro and con (as you suggest with your edit) - this about whether his death has any relevance at all for this page: and it doesn't. You cannot just include everything that might be relevant and then include a "counter argument" that it isn't. On that argument you could add some text about "bad weather in China" and then a counter-argument that the weather in China has nothing to do with the human rights situation in Venezuela. Rd232 ^talk 21:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I respectfully disagree. This is not about the pro and con but wikipedia cannot decide what is the truth or not, that would be POV and also original content. When there are allegations about human rights that are notable, they must be mentioned in an article about human rights. Otherwise there would be no possible page about human rights in any country. This killing is clearly notable, as this is on the amnesty international page. See [6].Voui (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Not only I couldn't find sources in English, this case is hardly mentioned by Venezuelan nationwide press. Most of the coverage I found was from El Impulso a local paper from Barquisimeto, the city where the event took place so I think the case in not notable enough for inclusion in the article. JRSP (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

There is one notable source, which is amnesty international. Isn't it notable? See [7]Voui (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Amnesty International urgent actions are not reliable, you have to understand that a HR organization and wikipedia are different things. For AI urgent actions, time is critical so fact checking is not very strict; wikipedia is a different thing, we don't need to rush so we can be more strict verifying things. Generally speaking, an isolated AI urgent action does not make an event notable. Can you imagine any HR article in wikipedia if we included all AI urgent actions related to that country? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. JRSP (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

globovision section

Where to start with this disaster?

1. clearly a sub-issue of Press freedom
2. title egregiously violates WP:NPOV (and is also inaccurate - the section is about RCTV and Globovision)
3. various other NPOV issues
4. the first paragraph is unsourced, as a key claim in the second ("the only remaining channel...") this was in the copyvio
5. the copyright violation from HRW (a primary source - cf WP:PSTS) I've fixed.

Rd232 ^talk 21:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it should be under the same title as press freedom, under a title like "Independence of the Media". Voui (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If that content has any place here at all, it should clearly be merged. The title "harassment of globovision" remains inaccurate and egregiously violating NPOV; and a subheading isn't really necessary anyway. Rd232 ^talk 21:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

HRW uses the word "harassment". See here [8] Voui (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out how Globovisión winning a case at the Venezuelan Supreme Tribunal is "harassment". JRSP (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

right to petition

The "right to petition" section perversely doesn't actually mention the rights (created under the 1999 constitution, AFAIR). And the new structure is as bad as the previous suggestion. "freedom of the opposition"? that's not a thing. Especially in a democratic country without an actual unified opposition movement. Rd232 ^talk 21:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Please improve it and mention who actually created this right! The problem with your edits is that instead of improving paragraphs you just wish to delete Voui (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

In fact "right of petition" is a political right, not a human right. I understand that the inclusion of the Tascón List in this article is due to the allegations of discrimination against the petitioners but not because of the violation of the right of petition itself as the referendum was eventually held. JRSP (talk) 15:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Reboot

OK, can we try and start again? I've edited it down, for now, to content that is reasonably OK (well, there are still parts that are too newsy, but OK). The prior version is here. What I suggest, then, is that rather than screaming "OH MY GOD YOU'RE DELETING EVERYTHING!", we take a collective step back and say, what should actually be in this encyclopedia article. (Yes, an ecncylopedia article, not a collection of news issues, nor a collection of "everything bad, regardless of sourcing or context, to do with Venezuela".) There are lots of other articles on Venezuela topics, and there is no reason at all, for instance, to duplicate Eligio Cedeno here. Per WP:SUMMARY, we summarise relevant things briefly and link to them as necessary.

First of all, we should remember the title of this article: human rights in Venezuela. (Not "everything bad that's happened under Chavez".) First point: human rights (per human rights article) are "basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled." If we introduce things like the Tascon List, it has to be made clear how this relates to human rights, and what rights. Second point: history did not begin in 1999; we should bring in historical issues as well. Third point: we should be looking for good (preferably academic) secondary sources. Fourth point, specifically for Voui: respecting copyright is not optional. If WP:COPYPASTE doesn't clarify the issues enough, just ask someone (WP:Helpdesk if you prefer to ask someone other than editors active here).

OK, so (bearing in mind Human rights in Brazil and perhaps others) issues we should seek to develop (preferably, please, in a userspace draft)

• justice system political influence - "due process rights"?. One of the biggest issues, needs good secondary sources, and an overview, not picking a few examples. And let's not forget the history: this didn't start in 1999.
• Agrarian violence and oppression. Agriculture in Venezuela touches on that.
• Human trafficking. There is an article on that, albeit basically a US State Dept report.
• Domestic violence. Domestic violence in Venezuela doesn't even exist as an article.
• Violence against human rights defenders. Martinez doesn't seem to be an example of that; and in any case, an encyclopedia article shouldn't be collecting examples, but rather an overview from secondary sources.
• political rights etc (see eg Human rights in Colombia); Tascon List would fit here somewhere, as would the creation of recall rights in the first place
• other suggestions.

So I suggest some initial discussion here, then going off to find some good (secondary, reliable, preferably academic) sources, and then drafting at User:Rd232/Human rights in Venezuela. Can we do that? Rd232 ^talk 12:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I would add a section on the bad conditions of the prison system, this has been a chronic HR problem in Venezuela . Many sources mention the inefficiency of judicial system as an important cause of prison overcrowding (I think more than one half of the inmates are waiting sentence). Police violence and indigenous people rights are important too, IMO. I agree with Rd232 that the article should have a better historical perspective and I also think it should be less centered in politics. JRSP (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Frankly I agree to add paragraphs on Agrarian violence, Human traficking, that would enrich the subject, but please don't do it at the expense of what has already been done. Don't change the structure of the article before a consensus is reached. If you wish to do something specific and original, please create a userspace draft. thanks. Voui (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Funny that you should repeatedly delete them then. Anyway, the human trafficking sentence was already in the article, and the agrarian violence in Agriculture in Venezuela; the relevance of both is clear and both seem to merit a separate section. But if you would agree to edit in a userspace draft, I'd be fine moving them there for now. What should not happen is to repeatedly to restore your problematic content as is, but instead to take a step back and look at the broader picture of which the points you want to make are part, and find sources to fill in more of that picture. You know the expression "can't see the wood for the trees?" That's a common trap, and it really must be avoided. Rd232 ^talk 21:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said edit the page and add these paragraphs, this is ok with me.I will do it if you wish. On the sources, the problem is that you do not accept the most obvious sources: the human rights organizations. I agree they are obviously not the only sources, but they cannot be ignored.Voui (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on summarising reliable sources, and to avoid issues of original research, secondary sources are preferred to primary. Press releases from human rights organisations are primary sources. If you'd like someone else to explain to you why this is and how it applies here, you could ask at the WP:Helpdesk. Rd232 ^talk 22:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Murders in Caracas

Well before Chavez, Caracas was very high in murder rates. This did not improve, in fact got worse when Chavez took over. So bad did it get, that the regime no longer reports murder rates. Therefore they "can't" be reported since there is no source. A nice touch there! Reporters state that the Caracas morgue has 60 new bodies in it each week. Whew! While some of those doubtless come from crime, some most likely are political hits as well. But none can be reported. Too bad for human rights. Too bad for this article.

One of the worst rates in the world, but you won't read it here. Must go elsewhere for that fact! Student7 (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I gather from that that you think it's a bad thing that Category:Crime in Venezuela conspicuously lacks the parent article Crime in Venezuela. Feel free to take Crime in Brazil as a model, say, and fix that. Better than complaining in an accusatory tone, don't you think? I'm less clear on crime itself being a human rights issue; but once Crime in Venezuela exists, it'll be easier to address that here, focussing on the human rights aspects of that rather than dumping the whole topic here. Rd232 ^talk 22:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The related Law enforcement in Venezuela isn't redlinked, but it might as well be. And that's topical, given recent attempts at police reform, if anyone has time/energy/interest for it. Rd232 ^talk 22:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Reboot part 2

Attempting to move on, then.

Demonstrating the purpose of a userspace draft: User:Rd232/Human rights in Venezuela. Some thoughts there from me on how the Big Picture structure might look. Next up would be finding some decent sources on what kind of (sub)categories of human rights to include; AI/HRW or something academic would be a start. After that, we could look for sources on general overviews of each subcategory, and after that, if it's still necessary, discuss inclusion of the specific issues (Cedeno etc) and discuss how those examples might fit in. Any interest? Rd232 ^talk 16:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I see via Category:Human rights in Venezuela (since he didn't comment out the category) that Voui has created an alternative draft, User:Voui/Human rights in Venezuela. I guess, in the circumstances, that may be fine. We can compare the versions at the end of a week and see how to proceed. Rd232 ^talk 20:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion after protection of the page

The way Rd232 has behaved does not seem to me appropriate. Reverting all the significant improvements of the article and then asking himself for protection of the page!! It was obviously not needed.

The page of Rd232 seems to me incredibly poor.

Just compare his page: [9] and the last page before he reverted: [10]. And look at the difference between the 2 pages:

• His introduction is absurd. We are supposed to talk about human rights in Venezuela and the only thing that appears in the introduction is what is in the constitution and in international law! This has nothing to do with the real issues: freedom of the press or TV, the tascon list, harassment of the opposition etc. I tried to have a debate on this introduction, by creating a WP:RFC. But Rd232 not only refused this discussion, but went as far as terminating this RFC, which is clearly against wikipedia rule Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs. This is incredible for somebody who, on top of that, is an administrator! Aren't you chocked to see an administrator not respect the wikipedia rules? Especially for Rd232, who is always very quick to teach lessons about wikipedia rules.

• Then look at his paragraphs. There is a sort of censorship of many issues: nothing appears concerning the Tascon List, for example, which is one of the major human rights violations in Venezuela. Look for example at [11]. There is also nothing related to the repression of the opposition in Venezuela, by a justice system that is politicized. This is however well documented: just go to the web pages of Human rights organization: Human Rights Watch / Venezuela and Amnesty International Venezuela page. Look at what is there, and at what is not in Rd232 page.

• Overall I believe that the page [12], i.e. before reverts of Rd232, was much better, still to be improved however. Please help me create a real page on Human Rights in Venezuela, with real content.Voui (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Any chance you could think again about how you'd like to proceed? Starting a new section which amounts to a rehashing of old complaints already replied to (like the closure of the bad RFC), and repeating "my version is better" is not helpful. Instead, try engaging with the section above (and repeated user talk page suggestion to you) on how to proceed. I suggest we can proceed in one of two ways: one, if you declare that you have no interest in taking the content forward in the "big picture" sense repeatedly discussed, we can seek external input separately for each single issue. We can draft the requests collaboratively. two, if you do agree that big picture is a desirable thing, then copy your version from the article history to your userspace, and spend the week looking for more sources and content that address that. At the end of the week, we can discuss the results, and hopefully be in a much better position to move things forward. Rd232 ^talk 09:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

the first thing that I suggest is to move the introduction. What you put in the introduction is interesting but is not an introduction and should be in the text. I therefore propose that we have no introduction in the page for the time being since there is no consensus. We will come back to it when the text inside will be more advanced. If we agree on that I think that we can move forward and work together on each paragraph of the page.Voui (talk) 11:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Fine, move the intro down in your draft. It doesn't matter much at this point, it will need substantial rewriting as the body develops. That's been my point all along: the lead is supposed to summarise the body (WP:LEAD), but when the body is weak and in flux, it is a waste of time to put much effort into rewriting the lead; instead, leave it as is and work on the body. Rd232 ^talk 12:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

A bad lead is better than no lead. I agree that Voui's version contains much more relevant information, but it needs reorganization. I think the way forward is to introduce the additional information one bit at a time, instead of a lot at once. It's easier that way, and we dont' have to revert anything. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Right I concede again that one for the sake of moving forward. So why not begin with the plan? Then we will go point by point. I suggest the following plan:

   * 1 Legal basis for human rights in the constitution
   * 2 Legal basis for human rights in international law
   * 3 Independence of Media
         o 3.1 Press freedom
         o 3.2 The Globovision Affair
   * 4 Freedom of the Opposition
         o 4.1 Right to petition
         o 4.2 Independence of justice
               + 4.2.1 Eligio Cedeno case
               + 4.2.2 Arrest of judge María Lourdes Afiuni
         o 4.3 Alleged Political Prosecutions
   * 5 Gender and sexual orientation equality
   * 6 Relations with human rights organisations
         o 6.1 Expulsion of Human Rights Watch
         o 6.2 Killing of human rights defender
   * 7 Human trafficking
   * 8 Agrarian violence
   * 9 References
   * 10 External links

What do you wish to modify? Voui (talk) 13:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not going over this again. The section above ("Specific issues") is the place to continue discussion of the specific issues; create new subsections if necessary. Copypasting the table of contents of your version, in view of everything that's been said in this section, is totally unhelpful. Continue discussion in that section on specific issues, and look at comparable human rights articles for other broad headings to discuss in this section. Rd232 ^talk 16:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This shows you don't want to work together. I propose that we agree on a plan and then try to agree on the text in each point.Voui (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

How are we supposed to agree on a plan we you ignore every suggestion I make, and walk away from the section where the discussion about details was taking place? But then when I direct you back to that section, so as not to disrupt the Big Picture discussion any further, that "shows you don't want to work together". I can't help wondering how old you are. Rd232 ^talk 16:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, a header is not yours, it is the community's. It's (almost always) unacceptable to edit another's comments, but editing headers is fine, if there's a reasonable reason. And there is: this is a subsection of the previous discussion, namely How Can We Proceed Now (I called the section "reboot"). Rd232 ^talk 16:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason to modify the title of the talk page. After disrupting the page itself, now you disrupt even the talk page!Voui (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not modifying the title of the talk page (that would entail moving it). I changed the indentation of the section header, to more clearly link this discussion with the previous. But if you're going to take offence and edit war even at that... jeez, if I offered you a cup of tea, I imagine you'd want someone else to taste it. How are we supposed to collaborate if you have this kind of attitude? Rd232 ^talk 16:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I take your remark above: "I can't help wondering how old you are" as contrary to WP:CIV and WP:NPA. Not good, again, for an admin so prompt to teach lessons.Voui (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm amazed you're even aware of those policies, given some of the things you've seen fit to bold earlier in this section. But, fine, I apologise if my reporting of my musing offended you. Rd232 ^talk 17:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

So, are you going to respond to the section above, "Reboot part 2"? I take it you're not actively seeking to derail attempts to move forward in a meaningful way; but you're doing a good job of distracting from them. Rd232 ^talk 17:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

May I remind you that one wikipedia rule is WP:AGF? This does not show in what you do and write.Voui (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Comedian, eh? After all those accusations of bad faith, a quite carefully worded statement ("not actively") is demonstrating a failure of AGF? In case it wasn't clear from the first clause in the sentence, I wasn't saying that the distraction was intentional either. Rd232 ^talk 17:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain to me what is the purpose of not writing here but rather above? Voui (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I already did, several times. But if you can't see why it matters, why not humour me? Rd232 ^talk 17:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

No, no, don't implement any bloody *plans*. That's just pointless effort and won't work anyway. Just improve the article, bit by bit, a couple of things per day. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Rd232, could you explain to me why we should work on a page that is your user page, not a page that would be my user page, for example? Voui (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. I explained it above, in the Reboot part 2 section. And you didn't even tell anyone about the existence of your draft! (And BTW, this is why I wanted to merge this section with that one.) Rd232 ^talk 16:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Work on a new page

I have looked at your draft page User:Rd232/Human rights in Venezuela.
The main things that are not acceptable are the following:
- the introduction does not mention human rights current situation and is purely mentioning the constitution. I suggest that we transfer the text to a paragraph about the constitution, and leave blank the introduction, for now
- the independence of justice paragraph is not good enough. I have prepared something more substantial, that is here: User:Voui/human rights in Venezuela (addition)
- there should be a paragraph about the Tascon List and the alleged discrimination against political opponents.
If you accept these 3 corrections, we can have a good start with a page we can improve thereafter step by step.Voui (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your input, but since I clearly haven't been working on those aspects, and the page protection is some days from expiring, it's rather premature. You would do better to spend your time and effort either responding to some of the many comments of mine you've not responded to, or looking for secondary sources. It baffles me that after everything I've said you continue to rely on AI press releases and the like. Never mind trying to find an academic book or article, at least look at the annual reports. PS This message would have been better on my user talk page or the talk page of my draft, since it is quite far removed from the actual article and a message directed at only one person. Feel free to move it, along with my response. Rd232 ^talk 12:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I have answered all your question and you have never answered mine, like here: you just do not answer.Voui (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You are unwilling to help build an article that is balanced. Behind all this wikilawyering stands only a naked will to delete any information that is against the government.Voui (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

If there are any questions of yours I have not responded to (or not answered to your satisfaction), please let me know. Conversely, allow me to jog your memory on some of the exchanges that petered out, with the issues unresolved, because you didn't reply:

1. section: "How to organize the article?"
2. section: "Specific issues", subsections "political opponents", "Mijail Martinez murder", "globovision section", "right to petition", "reboot part 2"
3. section: "Discussion after page protection", my comment (12.29, 9 Jan) on writing leads of articles, beginning "Fine, move the intro down in your draft."
4. section: "Discussion after page protection", my comment (16.35, 9 Jan) on resuming the discussion in the Specific Issues section, beginning "How are we supposed to agree on a plan we you ignore every suggestion I make..."
5. section: "Discussion after page protection", further exchange on resuming discussion under "Reboot part 2", ending with my comment (17.34, 9 Jan), "I already did, several times."

So much for that. Now I must ask you once and for all to either drop your constant accusations of bad faith, exemplified by your latest comment just above, or to pursue some dispute resolution such as WP:WQA or whatever you think best (advice at WP:HELPDESK if necessary). One or the other, please. Rd232 ^talk 00:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You never answer any question I make and they are very simple questions :
- why do you want to mention in the introduction only the constitution ? It is a simple question that I have asked since a long time. Your answer was to revert and to ask for page protection. This is the type of answers I get! How ridiculous: an article about human rights that mentions only the constitution. Again, if we had taken the USSR, it would have been a champion of Human Rights, because it had the longuest constitution on this.
- you independence of justice paragraph avoids the actual real substance, which is the accusation of the opposition that the justice system is weaponized against the opponents.
- nothing about the tascon list. In a human rights article? Give me a break!
I have proposed to you a reasonable compromise (adding only 2 of my paragraphs to your draft and then working on the whole article) and you did not even consider it.
Voui (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

If there is a need of one example of how your edits are, just consider that the Tascon List, probably the most notable Human rights event in Venezuela in recent times, is not even mentioned in your version of the article that you have made protected. This is the real scandal.Voui (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Look, both of you:

1. Take a break. Don't go on Wikipedia. Stop discussing this article. Take a week long deep breath, and calm down.

2. When the article is unprotected, come back, and improve it bit by bit. You are not going to agree. That's OK, and normal. But don't make big changes or alternative versions, because you are only going to argue about those, and make new long arguments about 200 different little petty issues you aren't agreeing on, and everybody else will just go "geez, STFU!" and not help.

3. When you come back, make small improvements, slowly, so that others can look at the issues and come with alternative interpretations etc.

That way the article can be improved without edit wars. Sounds OK? --OpenFuture (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments, and I hope they will encourage a sadly lacking spirit of collaboration and serious discussion to flower. However I don't think you're sufficiently taking into account that the approach you suggest (discussing each issue one at a time) was tried and failed, leading to edit warring and page protection. The "bit by bit" discussion was and is in the "specific issues" section above, and it ran into the ground because Voui disengaged from it, as noted above. At this point developing the parallel draft versions, and then going from there, seemed like a good way to go; and I thought Voui was on board with that (I could only assume, since he didn't bother to reply to my suggestion - under "Reboot part 2"). Now he's come along complaining about my incomplete draft. Constructive comments on the talk page of my draft would be welcome; even reiterating existing concerns neutrally would be OK. But doing it here, on this article talk page (naturally, he ignored my suggestion to move it), and in this tone, is entirely unhelpful. In sum, this entire section stems from a premature comment on my userspace draft, and is a complete waste of elections. Rd232 ^talk 11:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's possible I'm wrong, but what I saw in the history was big changes, reorganizations and reverts back and forth. That doesn't sounds like incremental bit by bit changes. Voui's changes during the 7th of January was 5000 characters back and forth. During the 6th you made a series of changes that remove 5000 characters. That's not a small incremental improvement. And during the 3rd you did these changes: [13] . I also don't see that as a small improvement. That's big changes. I don't know who started the big changes, and I don't think it matters. I just think you should make small improvements, slowly, so they can be discussed, and have more people involved in the discussion, instead of just an edit war. You both obviously care about the article, without you it will take a long time to get good, but unless your attitudes change you are just gonna get each other banned, which is pointless. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I basically agree that that's what should have happened - Voui was making lots of changes which made it hard to get a handle on the discussion, so the sensible thing was, as you suggest, to revert to the prior stable version and make incremental changes following discussion. Various reverts to and fro were motivated either by disagreements over that approach, or attempts to move things forward structurally, without introducing lots of new issues or content. (Later on, as it became clear this approach wasn't going to be accepted, I added a couple of stub sections, but there seemed to be no disagreement about those anyway.) On the other hand, the structural issues are in fact so great that discussing alternate versions (maybe with an RFC, if necessary) seems likely to be helpful to choose a base version, and then discuss outstanding issues bit-by-bit. Rd232 ^talk 13:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Protection template

I've just corrected the protection template on the main page, which had protection expiring on the 21st, when I actually set it to finish tomorrow. I am still watching this page, and I will reprotect if the edit war immediately breaks out again. Thanks. GedUK  12:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for moving forward

I have proposed a compromise that could be - it seems to me - a good start: taking the page written by Rd232 User:Rd232/Human rights in Venezuela, add the 3 paragraphs I have worked on here User:Voui/human rights in Venezuela (addition). We will have, it seems to me, a very broad and complementary work and that will be a good start to improve the article paragraph by paragraph.Voui (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but despite putting in rather a lot of time to do the research for my draft, it's still some way from being finished (eg, I've not done anything at all on the lead yet, that being the last step; but I mention it as it was a key concern of yours). If you don't want to wait, we could start an RFC simply on your proposed addition. Some kind of discussion on it, with external input, is unfortunately necessary because in its current form I think your work suffers from much the same flaws as before: titles not neutral, bits and pieces cherrypicked without context or general overview; "example" cases without any evidence that those cases are more significant than any others. Yes, it's a lot harder to do a general overview from secondary analytical sources than drop bits in from news articles, but I'm still surprised that you haven't even tried (yet). Rd232 ^talk 02:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

To give a concrete example of the sort of problems: the Blanco section relies on a press release from AI (so no evidence of notability); and in addition it declares as fact that he's detained "For political reasons...", rather than reporting AI's opinion that "it appears to be politically motivated". In addition the current contextless phrasing is quite compatible with a politically-motivated DISIP dawn raid; but the case is nothing of the sort - he was arrested for alleged violence during a protest, and AI's highlighted his case because they think the government has no evidence. Rd232 ^talk 02:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I have answered your critics. See here User:Voui/human rights in Venezuela (addition). In any case, I agree that you change the page to your draft. You will be able to continue to edit it. I will also work on it and also edit it. If you don't do that I will have no other way than editing the current article but that would make everything more complicated because you will not be able to substitute your draft to the existing article.Voui (talk) 10:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

In the meantime, I will put a NPOV sign on the existing page.Voui (talk) 11:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

You've not answered the criticisms; you disengaged with the "specific issues" section above and never returned despite repeated requests to do so, and your current draft does much the same thing. The only major difference is that you dropped the Mijail Martinez murder. The same issues of selectivity and NPOV exist as before, with much the same material. Since my draft is not ready, and I have no wish to implement the current half-done version (especially since you'll then drop your content into it and claim it a "compromise"), we'll have to do something else. And in fact we may as well just do an RFC on your proposed additions now, since it seems clear that whatever I come up with you're going to continue to want to add them. So propose some (neutral) draft RFC text, we agree it, and launch the RFC and go from there. It would be slightly better to wait on the RFC for me to finish my draft, so that could go in the discussion mix; but I don't know how long that'll take, and so far patience has not been your foremost characteristic. Rd232 ^talk 13:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

A RFC would be better after there is some text that is contested. So, if you don't want to copy paste your draft, I will work on the existing text. Voui (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)Cough... "after there is some text that is contested"? OK well there clearly is some text that is contested, namely this User:Voui/human rights in Venezuela (addition) and/or snippets of it you seek to add. So I propose the following as an RFC text, on the assumption that you're not willing to wait for me to develop my draft further:

A user has proposed additions to this article which can be seen here: User:Voui/human rights in Venezuela (addition). Other editors maintain that these additions are clear recentist violations of WP:NPOV (in both the selectivity of the information presented and sources relied on, and the manner in which it is presented), and argue for development of a broader perspective summary of the human rights issues, using a variety of secondary sources and a historical perspective. An attempt to do this is underway (User:Rd232/Human rights in Venezuela), but incomplete at this time. Question: is the proposed material User:Voui/human rights in Venezuela (addition) suitable in its current form or with minor changes; and what direction should development of the article go in?

Rd232 ^talk 18:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to mention current human right issues?

Now JRSP argues that we cannot even mention Eligio Cedeno, after Rd232 did not accept the Tascon List. Should there even be a page on human rights in venezuela, if we cannot mention human rights real issues. Voui (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

You copied my clearly incomplete userspace draft (User:Rd232/Human rights in Venezuela) into User:Voui/compromise. Note the reference under the Fifth Republic section. Yes, to save you looking, it's a link to... Tascon List, indicating that it's an issue I intend to cover, in an appropriately contextualised way. Rd232 ^talk 18:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is not meant to be a list of current issues, please avoid WP:recentism and using "urgent action" requests as sources. I would suggest going from general to particular, defining main lines in the article and developing those lines without losing sight of the historical perspective. Tossing recent particular cases into the article will eventually lead us to an indiscriminate collection of information. JRSP (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW, recently created Political prisoners in Venezuela looks like a WP:POVFORK. JRSP (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Please go for your comments to the relevant page. I will answer to you on that page. But I understand that what you mean is that at least it should be somewhere and I see that as positive! Voui (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Please nominate Political prisoners in Venezuela for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G7 (Author requests deletion). It is clearly a POV fork, deriving largely from User:Voui/human rights in Venezuela (addition). Furthermore, your return to edit warring against consensus rather than resolving issues by discussion and dispute resolution is disheartening and against policy. More on the dispute resolution in the section above. Rd232 ^talk 18:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussions concerning the page political prisoners in Venezuela should happen on this page. I do not agree that this is a fork. This is a real notable subject that is more specialized than "human rights in Venezuela" but however qualifies as a notable subject. There should be in Human rights, a paragraph about political prisoners, for sure, and it should also link to the page about political prisoners. If you disagree please go to this page and argue there.

As regards edit warring, I do not understand your point: I was just trying to edit the page and in fact the only thing I did was to add a sub title. Do you mean to say that we cannot modify this page? Voui (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It is clearly a fork in both content and intent: it is much of the same content you were seeking to add here, but have given up discussing. As for edit warring - your facetiousness ill becomes you. Please pursue the dispute resolution as discussed above. Rd232 ^talk 19:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Just ask for deletion of the page and let's have a public debate. And please may I remind you that discussion concerning a page should on the discussion page related to that page, not somewhere else.Voui (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It's possible to mention current issues, but that's not what the main purpose of the article is. I changed the section to a stub of the types of things I think should be there. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

One of the feature of Wikipedia is that it's continually updated. I dont think is "recentism" to mention the current state of human rights in Venezuela, its not like the media coverage of the subject started yesterday. --Jmundo (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:Recentism isn't about "mentioning" anything, it's about the natural bias of Wikipedia editors to rely on sources freely available online. Which kinda means a bias against info from before the mid-90s, which in turn means neglecting history. Rd232 ^talk 12:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Also according to the WP:Recentism essay: "One of Wikipedia's strengths is the collation and sifting through of vast amounts of reporting on current events, producing encyclopedia-quality articles in real time about ongoing events or developing stories." --Jmundo (talk) 14:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

That relates to articles specifically on recent events. Articles like 2010 Haiti earthquake have been praised by external sources for the reasons you quote. But that has nothing to do with writing more general articles, like this one, where recentism is an issue. Rd232 ^talk 14:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be of great value to mention current issues Venezuela is dealing with considering that this page has not been edited since 2010. Since then many new Human Rights violations have occurred under the Maduro administration and international pressure has yet to sway the Venezuelan government. Current events such as arrests of journalists and people simply video tapping arrests would be very beneficial to article such as this as it would help the reader obtain a sense of development within the human rights realm. Also mentioning the recent medical and food supply shortages in the country would be highly worthwhile for those attempting to research policy efforts. Elisabethvillalta (talk) 02:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Human Rights Foundation

This is an article written in January 2003 by Human Rights Foundation founder, president and CEO[14]. This article shows that he has taken sides in Venezuelan politics, so an organization founded and led by him cannot be considered an independent source. JRSP (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

By writing about human rights in Venezuela, you are automatically taking sides. That doesn't mean you are not independent. It also doesn't mean you are not reliable. And in any case that link was not used as a source, but an external link, so I don't see how that argumentation applies, even HRF isn't independent. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It's such a dubious organisation, and the site linked to so polemical. HRF's "Caracas Nine" website of supposed political prisoners (currently at 6 I think) is a transparently cynical and disengenuous attempt at propaganda. Its FreeRCTV website is hardly any better; it doesn't explain RCTV's role in the 2002 coup, and fails to mention that RCTV continues to broadcast via satellite and cable. Its funding sources are quite interesting: Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Sarah Scaife Foundation, John Templeton Foundation. Rd232 ^talk 09:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not big or well known, and as such obviously automatically dubious, but none of the other things you mention casts any additional doubt on it. It's pretty clear that you don't like what it says, but I don't see why that would be an argument to remove the link. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't cast any additional doubt? A supposed human rights organisation that goes to bat for press freedom for a media outlet which actively participated in an attempt to overthrow a democratically elected government [15] without even explaining that background? I mean you can argue about due process etc, but omitting the background so comprehensively, in combination with omitting any mentioning of satellite/cable? (Similarly, one of the "Caracas NineSix So Far" is a 2002 coup conspirator.) Frankly, especially in view of his dad's activities during the 80s and some of the people involved with the organisation, it is pretty clearly part of the US-based "democracy promotion" campaign against Venezuela - a campaign which should surprise no-one and is hardly in doubt. For comparison, external links at Human rights in the United States are all US-based or international, and I doubt any attempt to introduce external links to dubious Iran-based organisations, say, would meet with approval. Rd232 ^talk 10:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

To reference the point of bias I believe it is absolutely necessary to reference Universalist and Relativist perspectives of human rights. Also, taking the view point of the United Nations or NGOs, or Human Rights Watch & Amnesty International would not be a terrible idea. It might seem impossible to stay objective, as we all believe in the protection of our inherent rights, but I believe that looking through the lens of Human rights advocates would be the most beneficial and serve the wikipedia page's purpose. advocacy. Elisabethvillalta (talk) 03:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

In any case the link [16] is not an informative page about HR in Venezuela but a campaign. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. JRSP (talk) 12:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

See, *that's* a good argument. No need to go to POV arguments. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Even those who do not agree with you have the right to freedom of speech. It is *not* dubious to support the freedom of speech of those who have other views than you do. Not renewing a channels transmission license because they criticize you *is* a freedom of speech issue, no matter if you agree with what they say or not. Chavez has also participated in coups. Do you think *he* has no right to freedom of speech? Right, thought so. Your arguments against this organization are based wholly on that you don't like what they say, nothing else. And that is not relevant on Wikipedia. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, let's get back to what is relevant. Do we agree that the EL is a campaign and therefore not appropriate per WP:SOAP? JRSP (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia should be neutral. Neutral is not "avoiding information that is POV". Neutral is "presenting POV information in a neutral way". All information is POV after all, one way or the other. In an article about Human rights, the POV of notable human Rights organizations must be available for those who wish to look. Voui (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• And btw, JRSP and Rd323 are not very consistent. In the page that they jointly edited 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt, they have put a link for example to: "The US and the Coup in Venezuela". www.thirdworldtraveler.com. Retrieved 30 June 2006. Includes six articles arguing that the US assisted in the coup. How can anything be more POV than that? Voui (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Please produce a diff proving that I added thirdwordtraveller as an EL to the coup article or retract your affirmation. JRSP (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice example of WP:AOBF. Did you make any attempt to check the history? The only edit I made prior to 2009 was this in April 2006. It was in fact added by User:Ikip in July 2006, and AFAIK has been there ever since. I'm not sure I've ever noticed it before; I certainly don't recall ever looking at the link. (It appears you haven't looked at the link either - the link merely puts together 6 news articles published by other organisations, it isn't original analysis.) Rd232 ^talk 21:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The inconsistency of editors is irrelevant. WP:NPA. Discuss the article, not the editors. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

New material

I've added some stuff from my userspace draft, which means some things from the previous version need incorporating appropriately. Rd232 ^talk 12:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

This article is POV, one-sided, and you can't write a neutral articles using almost exclusively non-reliable sources and biased sources like Venezuelanalysis and very few mainstream sources. Please add reliably sourced viewpoints. HRW would be a good place to start searching other media for balancing this article; the issues in Venezuela are well documented. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry for relying on biased sources like HRW (er) and academics like Coppedge (er). Yes, the new material is unbalanced; it was a userspace draft that needed much more work, but I didn't have time due to RL, and then due to various debates breaking out in other articles; now I've introduced it as-is since it at least gives a basis for development. I did of course concentrate on aspects completely ignored by US / Venezuelan opposition editors; sadly, they haven't made any attempt to develop material based on good sources, and at this point, I'm washing my hands of the whole thing, at least for (hopefully) a good long while. Rd232 ^talk 16:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the first way to help make this article NPOV is to change the name to "Human Rights in Venezuela, consistent with the naming of the article about other countries.[17] The Four Deuces (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That's very confusing... You seem to be suggesting capitalising the R in rights, but no other article of this type does it, as the navbox on the page and your search link both show. Not sure how NPOV comes into it either. Did something go a bit wrong with this post, and you meant to say something substantially different? Rd232 ^talk 11:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have been confusing it with the naming of another article. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thought so - couldn't make head or tail of it :) Rd232 ^talk 17:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Glad that's cleared up, I was also confused. Also, see WP:MSH on uppercase in headings. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The article is a propaganda from/for the 'officialist' regime. The first two paragraphs are full of lies. More propaganda is scattered throughout the rest of the article. You just have to watch the news to confirm this article is a bunch of lies. If you don't believe this is propaganda, watch: I have tagged this as NPOV on 5/5/2013. Let's see how long the tag lasts on. Would someone interested in a fair report of the real situation have any objections to leaving the NPOV tags on?

The two tags from May 2013 questioning the neutrality of this article are still there. Has the dispute been resolved? I don't see any recent discussion on the talk page about this and few, if any complaints that are specific enough to allow an editor to take action on. Without an on-going discussion or more specific complaints, I think the tags should be removed. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Having gotten no response, I went ahead and removed both templates. If there are still problems, they can still be discussed here. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 03:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

OAS and European Parliament on human rights in Venezuela

• "Democracy and human rights in Venezuela" (PDF). Organization of American States. 30 December 2009. Retrieved 24 February 2010.
  • Forero, Juan (24 February 2010). "Venezuela, President Chávez criticized in OAS report". The Washington Post. Retrieved 24 February 2010.
  • "Venezuela violates human rights, OAS commission reports". CNN. 24 February 2010. Retrieved 24 February 2010.
  • Prado, Paulo (24 February 2010). "OAS Report Chastises Venezuela". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 24 February 2010. ... issued a scathing report that accuses Venezuela's government of human-rights abuses, political repression, and eroding the separation of powers among government branches in the oil-rich country. In its sternly worded conclusion, it blames the government of President Hugo Chávez—already reeling from a recession and energy shortages that have undermined his popularity in recent months—for "aspects that contribute to the weakening of the rule of law and democracy." ... the government refused to allow the authors, a panel of seven researchers from other member states, to visit the country. Many of the issues highlighted by the report have been disclosed over the years by human-rights groups, academics, and government opponents in Venezuela. The problems include the firing of judges critical of Mr. Chávez, the shuttering of critical media outlets, and the exertion of pressure on public employees, including those of state oil giant Petróleos de Venezuela SA, to support the government at the ballot box. ... Mr. Chávez has been struggling to maintain his popularity at home amid severe economic, infrastructure, and social headaches. In addition to the downturn and ballooning inflation, the government faces mounting criticism and public protests over chronic problems including power blackouts, soaring crime, and a perceived lack of investment in crucial sectors, including roads and the all-important oil industry.
  • OAS Report Critical of Venezuela's Chavez NPR
• "Human rights: Venezuela, Madagascar, Burma" (Press release). European Parliament. 11 February 2010. Retrieved 24 February 2010.

• "European Parliament OKs resolutions". UPI.com. 12 February 2010. Retrieved 24 February 2010. The members expressed concern about the movement toward authoritarianism by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's government, the European Union said Thursday in a release. In January 2010, six cable and satellite television channels were ordered off the air after they were criticized for failing to broadcast Chavez's speech on the 52nd anniversary of the overthrow of Perez Jimenez.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Instead of quoting a story that quotes Michael Shifter about an OAS report you should state what the report says and provide a link. In 2001 people like him told us that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and links to Al Qaeda and could wipe out the U.S. within 45 minutes. Do you still believe that? The Four Deuces (talk) 07:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

/* Administration of justice */

This section appears to rely on several rather dated sources without indicating so e.g refering to the social conditions present 10 years ago which are likely to have now changed considerably, SensiStarToaster (talk) 22:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Why does history in Venezuela starts in 1958 when it comes to human rights?

This is not only here but within the Chávez governments: they tend to analyse the human right violations that existed between 1958 and 1998 exclusively. --Periergeia (talk) 08:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Antisemitism

From a few articles, some of which are sited in the Henrique Capriles Radonski article on Wikipedia. There have been numerous accusations against Chavez for encourage or at least tolerating antisemitism. I'm sure there are plenty of opposing views but I only included what was already on Wikipedia, so please add any opposing sources you feel appropriate. Gtbob12 (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Tolerating antisemitism is not, in and of itself, a human rights issue. It can obviously be motivation for human rights violations, but that requires action, not just rhetoric. The heading is/was part of a larger section on economic, social, and cultural rights, which the the hat-noted main article categorizes as "the right to education, right to housing, right to adequate standard of living, right to health and the right to science and culture." For an antisemitism section to be warranted, it needs to reference violations of these rights, which the section did not do. Also, related articles do not mention antisemitism as a human rights issue. Human rights does not mention it, nor do articles like Human rights in the United States, Human rights in Russia, Human rights in England, Human rights in Germany, etc., mention it, let alone have sections on it. This article is the only one I can find pushing this angle.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 14:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

POV, not RS

This edit [18] is based on non-reliable sources and is highly POV. Volunteer Marek  20:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I am surprised by this sudden interest of yours in Venezuela. Anyway, what you advance is little more than an opinion, that you have not substantiated. It is not just Noam Chomsky who says the report is biased, but more than 100 experts. The source that cites this fact does not matter, the fact is verifiable in a great number of other sources. If you disagree, the burden of proof is on you. Againstdisinformation (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Uh, who are these "experts"? Where is this "great number of other sources"? Let's see'em then we can discuss this. Right now you got non-RS.  Volunteer Marek  21:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

And no, actually the burden of proof is on you, since you're the one trying to add controversial text based on non-RS. Volunteer Marek  21:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

VA is biased, there is no proof of the contrary. Is pretty much like Diario VEA or VTV but with the particularly that is in another language. --Oscar (talk) 14:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The reverts without comments need to stop. Againstdisinformation, suggest you try WP:RSN to get comments about the source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

In addition to questions about its reliability that source just makes a blanket statement without providing any other info. It's not clear who, how, when etc. It's just a cherry picked quote found on the internet. Volunteer Marek  15:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

NeilN, I will follow your advice, even though Volunteer Marek's questioning of the source is spurious for at least two reasons. First, it is not a "blanket statement", it is the text of an open letter to the Board of Directors of Human Rights Watch by more than 100 experts on Latin America, including specialists from the universities of Harvard and Johns Hopkins, without editorial comment. Thus, unless VM can demonstrate that the public letter is a pure fabrication by the source, his objection makes no sense. I very much doubt he can prove this, since a list of the experts is provided. Second, since I added a mention of Poroshenko's decree banning a number of reporters from Ukraine in the article Human rights in Ukraine, Volunteer Marek has been following me on every page I visit and systematically removed all my edits, even though he never had any prior interest in said pages. In my opinion, this rather weakens his objections. Againstdisinformation (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Here is HRW report that has been criticized in the letter. The critique does not really challenge most conclusions by the HRW report. For example, it tells that, yes, the regime by Chavez was oppressive, but the HRW report did not show that it is was more oppressive than the previous regime in the same country, etc. Clearly, the publication by HRW is not "disinformation", but possibly a report that slightly over-emphasized human right violations that undoubtedly took place under Chavez. Now, here is the question: does simply mentioning that a report has been "criticized" somewhere adds any value or improves this page? I do not think so. Basically, we should quote sources that tell something important about human rights in Venezuela. However, this letter (unlike the HRW report) does not tell much about this subject.My very best wishes (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Even if this letter were added, it would have to be attributed to the authors and signers. The letter does not show any evidence of the report being "widely criticized" as multiple signers are supporters of the Venezuelan government (Oliver Stone, Mark Weisbrot, Gregory Wilpert to name a few).

So if such information were to even be added, the addition would appear like:

"In September 2008 the Venezuelan government expelled from the country Human Rights Watch Americas Director Jose Miguel Vivanco, over the publication of a report entitled A Decade Under Chávez: Political Intolerance and Lost Opportunities for Advancing Human Rights in Venezuela, which discussed systematic violations to human, civil and political rights. The report was criticized by Venezuelan government supporters who accused the Human Rights Watch of biased work."

But like My very best wishes says above, would this improve the article? I don't know, but it would seem POV against the small section about HRW since the individuals involved in the letter are simply parroting what the Venezuelan government said (which all of the individuals linked above do). I suggest we keep the section as it was, specifically between the two parties, the Ven. gov. and HRW. If we had a specific response from the Ven. gov., that may be more suitable. Hopefully this helps.--ZiaLater (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I beg to differ, it would improve the article to provide the information that Human Rights Watch report has been criticized by more than 100 independent scholars specialising on Latin America. They can't be simply dismissed as "parroting what the Venezuelan government said", otherwise we might just as well dismiss any information we don't like. As for the claim that "the critique does not really challenge most conclusions by the HRW report", it is a misrepresentation. The letter states in the very beginning that "The report makes sweeping allegations that are not backed up by supporting facts or in some cases even logical arguments.", for instance. The objections to keeping the letter have, I am afraid, an aftertaste of WP:I don't like it and smack of ideology. Againstdisinformation (talk) 01:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

As an afterthought, I would like to note that the original argument against the inclusion of the letter was that the source was 'not reliable'. Now that this has been thoroughly debunked, the argument shifts to whether or not mention of the letter would improve the article. What will come next? Againstdisinformation (talk) 01:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the initial WP:RS issues were in regard to the use of either Venezuelanalysis (VA), a propaganda arm of the GOV or the other sources that didn't seem reliable and wouldn't work. Since VA is just disseminating the letter, it is not the primary source but the secondary source. What TFD is stating on the noticeboard issues you raised is whether the wording that you, Againstdisinformation, used. The wording "widely criticized" is incorrect since many of the signers are Venezuelan government supporters, only representing a small niche of people which is definitely not "widely" anything. As for the neutrality issues, if we open up the can of worms of letting Venezuelan government supporters and propagandists views be represented here, then why not allow those who criticize the Venezuelan government be posted here to? Should we start placing information from the opposition stating alleged human rights abuses and torture by the political police? It would be more simple if it were just HRW vs. GOV instead of HRW+opposition+right wingers vs. GOV+propagandists+left wingers. So instead of having an all out brawl, lets have the parties at hand (HRW, GOV) duke it out.--ZiaLater (talk) 02:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

If "widely criticized" is unacceptable to you, we can replace it by "more than 100 Latin America experts". However, we can't dismiss the signatories as "Venezuelan government supporters". A great number of them are eminent scholars working for the most prestigious American universities. Moreover, your statement that "if we open up the can of worms of letting Venezuelan government supporters and propagandists views be represented here..." only shows that you are yourself less than absolutely neutral. However, Wikipedia should be neutral and can't ignore notable facts in order not to offend editors with strong political leanings. Againstdisinformation (talk) 03:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I only use sources for such statements so for the POV accusations you state, you know already not to cast stones. I wish I had a POV so it'd be easier to make such edits but instead I am trying to help you compromise for such additions. If I wanted to censor you absolutely, I would have used a completely different tactic, so please Againstdisinformation, quit trying to spread disinformation.

So here is a list showing the views of others involved in the list:

• Rodolfo Acuña 12
• Federico Álvarez 1
• Tim Anderson 1
• Robert Austin1
• Donald W. Bray & Marjorie Woodford Bray 12
• Charles Bergquist 1
• Chesa Boudin (son of far-left radical Kathy Boudin)
• Clara Mantini Briggs 1

I'd go through the whole list, but I'm sure this sample of the first few signers along with other GOV supporters I mentioned above explains this better. The people who created this letter knew who to ask help from. Like I said, I only use sources.--ZiaLater (talk) 05:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree. In addition, this letter has been completely rebutted by HRW. Should we also include the rebuttal? No. In fact, every notable book or report on hot political subjects has been challenged one way or another. This is nothing special and does not belong to this page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

MVBW, I believe ZiaLater is sincere. I know this is an issue near and dear to his heart, and I would be loath to offend him. On the other hand, I am puzzled by your sudden interest in Venezuela. In your whole editing history there is not a single mention of that country, while, since I have edited this article, you make post after post to oppose me, as you have consistently done in many unrelated articles. That, in itself, weakens your arguments. The only invariant is your opposition to me, whatever the subject may be.

Now I address the serious editor. It is true that a number of signatories are leftists or even marxists. In my opinion, it is not a sufficient reason to conceal the existence of the open letter, which is a notable fact. This will achieve nothing. While it may dupe illiterate people (who don't read Wikipedia anyway), it might lead others to think that Wikipedia has become a propaganda outlet. It is precisely to avoid this that I want Wikipedia to present fairly all views and opinions. Againstdisinformation (talk) 19:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I restored mention of the controversy, adding clean and uncontrovertible sources. Againstdisinformation (talk) 12:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

comment

While there is some reason to a bit wary about about a potential bias in HRW's work, the discussion here imho misses the point somewhat. The real story here is not so much here whether a report contained some bias or was criticized by academics for such bias, but that an NGO member (or journalist) is getting expelled for publishing a (potantially) biased report or more general a report which puts the government is an unfavourable light. Such an expulsion is rather rare to almost non existent in countries with "good" human rights record and relatively free, diverse press. And in that it is at best of minor importance whether the report was criticized for bias or not, i.e. this information can in doubt be dropped from that section of the article. However if (controversial or disputed) content of that report is used as a source in another section of the article, then and there is might be justified (and maybe essential) to mention the academic critics.

Another thing that all conflicting parties here should keep in mind is, that trying to achieve a "maximal negative" or "at least negative" description is usually resulting in a bad encyclopdic style and creates the impression of an ideological hack.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Kmhkmh: Thank you for presenting reasoned arguments, it has become a rarity in Wikipedia. I agree with you that the expulsion of NGO members or journalists is to be condemned, and Volunteer Marek undoubtedly does so too. However, he deems the mention of Poroshenko's decree banning journalists in the article Human rights in Ukraine to be totally unacceptable POV-pushing, as you can verify. I am sure you appreciate the logic and the neutrality. I am afraid I have to disagree with the assertion that the alleged bias of HRW is "of minor importance", it has an explanatory value. I have provided links to the open letter, the response by HRW and the response to the response. This provides invaluable information which helps better understand the incident. I see no reason why this should be kept out. Againstdisinformation (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

As an afterthought, I can't resist giving you an example of the double standards pervading Wikipedia articles. Here is an excerpt of the article Human rights in Israel: "In April 2012 the UN released an official statement on which Israel was listed as a country that is restricting the activities of human rights organisations. Israel, the only democratic country to be named on the list, was included because of a bill approved by the Ministerial Committee on Legislation that would restrict foreign governmental funding of Israeli non-profit groups. The bill was frozen by the Prime Minister and never reached the Knesset, but the statement said: "In Israel, the recently adopted Foreign Funding Law could have a major impact on human rights organizations"". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Againstdisinformation (talk • contribs) 16:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Kmhkmh: If the consensus against the edit is based Kmhkmh's position, I would cautiously support it, if only as a way of avoiding political football among editors. However, if the consensus is based on blacklisting any factual criticism from specialists based on their "Chavista bias", this is a flagrant violation of the policy on RS. I clearly see a more than a few editors eagerly grinding that axe. An RS does not need to conform to some arbitrary "neutral POV", which in practice end up being defined by the range of views expressed in US and British establishment sources. An RS does need to to be the result of factual research by specialists. VA largely conforms to these criteria. The main exception to these RS criteria is politically-charged research coming directly from governments, which have the power to manufacture evidence and an overwhelming imperative to make themselves look good. But even then, most government sources are perfectly ok to cite if they are properly attributed and not completely discredited. I do not want this to become a consensus for blacklisting VA or any other factual source based on the fact that editors don't like its politics or its affiliations. For the same reason, I would not support blacklisting of supposedly "pro-US" or "pro-opposition" sources either. As is the case of all contentious issues, radically different points of view exist and that's something editors have to live with. Guccisamsclub (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

One comment with regard to VA (which I hadn't seen before) and sources in general. Yes sources themselves don't necessarily need to be neutral (though relatively neutral reporting is often a quality sign of a source), but simply being the result of "factual research by specialists" is not enough. In addition we require a certain (ideally academic) reputation of specialist/author and/or the media in which the analysis is published. At first glance I'm not sure (and somewhat doubt) that VA fulfills that.

However even it doesn't that implies by no mean means that you are restricted to "anti chavista" mainstream news media of the US or UK. You can also use smaller outlets with a good reputation and scholarly publishing (various journals and books). Also there is a large English speaking world outside the US and the UK, i.e. you could cite reputable news media from Canada, New Zealand, Ireland, Australia and India (or academic books/journals published there). You can also resort to various reputable non-english sources without being forced to use disputed or heavily biased federal venezuelan ones. Look at Spanish speaking sources from Chile, Spain, Mexico, ... for instance (again preferably academic publications). Or look at Dutch, French, Scandinavian, Italian, German, Japanese, South Korean sources. There are plenty of options other than conservative (corporate) US/UK mainstrean versus left Chavez supporters/Venezuelan state media. In fact a good idea is probably to largely ignore those two "extremes" and primarily rely on what reputable and often less politicized sources from other countries say.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Well the "anti-chavista" material will never go away. To pick up on Againstdisinformation's example, it would be the equivalent of politely asking, on the Russian wiki, that Russophile and anti-Poroshenko sources be be given less weight. Actually, I'd wager that at this very moment they are busy discussing whether or not they should blacklist "Ukrainian POV sources". On the issue of human rights, the only universally recognized one is the right to cry crocodile tears about the human rights violations of official enemies. That just won't go away, sadly. That's as true in Russia (through Russia's propaganda is cruder) as it is in the US and everywhere else. The best that can be hoped for is that contrary views and evidence are presented as well. In this regard something like VA, which serves as the single most important aggregator for sympathetic or politely critical assessments of Venezuela, is crucial. Articles in scholarly journals are golden, but they are not there to challenge the specific claims of the "anti-Chavistas", with new allegations surfacing every other day (incidentally all the major US outlets are "anti-chavistas", when they cover Venezuela at all). So journals can't provide the necessary balance in this regard. But Articles in the VA, which are generally well-documented and come from independent analysts with a lot of knowledge about Venezuelan society, do precisely that. The VA will often publish a long and informative article in response to some poorly-documented claim making its rounds in the American media. Read an article in the American press, then read a rebuttal from Venezuela Analysis. I doubt you can in good faith conclude that the former is more informative or better documented, at least not in most cases. Lastly, I feel that you are looking for a middle ground that simply doesn't exist on the issue. Most people who write about Venezuela have made their up their mind one way or the other about PSUV vs the opposition. Each side has a substantial following, and neither will simply go away. Of course one POV has an overwhelming following in the US, and therefore the main concern is that it should not be permitted to blacklist other POV's as "extreme".Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Well whether a "middleground" is achievable or not, WP has sourcing policies that should be followed, independently whether they result in a personally favoured outcome or not. Controversial content should in doubt rely on high quality sources only (and avoid hyped descriptions in overly politicized press publications). Similarly an editor claiming that some source has a high quality analysis is not good enough, this needs to be backed by reputation and third party assessments. I.e. if there are positive reviews of VA in reputable media (preferable by scholars) or if it is otherwise accepted/established that VA is a high quality source, it can be used. But simply you saying so, is not enough nor is the "need" for a counterweight to other presumably extreme positions.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm probably throwing this discussion off course slightly but I have been active on Venezuelan articles. I am not trying to keep this letter or its authors censored, I just don't want something like this and this to happen again. Bickering between sources is not too productive and only leads to strained edits in the future between Wikipedia users that should be working together. Venezuelan topics are very controversial, often with WP:COI issues and reversions. If the mention of the letter is added to this article, the least we can do is attribute it to who the scholars are, primarily leftist or Marxist as Againstdisinformation said they were. This does not make them any less reliable or bad people, their views just need to be represented for neutrality and reader concerns. However, I do not think adding the letter would do any good as it would leave open a path for controversial edits in the future.

I am also concerned about the weasel wording Againstdisinformation has been using, with the edits of the HRW report being "widely criticized by experts" and the proposal of adding "more than 100 Latin America experts" by Againstdisinformation seeming weasel-like as well. Againstdisinformation, I saw that you have been discussing about editors following you and I admit that I have been one of them. I do not have an interest in Russian politics or Vladimir Putin but I got involved in such articles since your edits disrupted the neutrality of the articles. I hope that you know that no one is trying to spread disinformation or censor your edits at all, we just want to keep Wikipedia neutral so we don't have to have argument like this in the future. I suggest you read some of the Wikipedia policies such as Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:Reliable Sources to help you out. I hope this helps you through the controversy Againstdisinformation, I know it takes some getting used to.--ZiaLater (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

If it looks like a weasel, thinks like a weasel and edits like a weasel, it is probably Againstdisinformation. Just a poor joke from a poor editor with a poor username. Seriously, I have no more interest in Hugo Chavez than you (or I) have in Putin. It just seemed to me that the bare mention of Vivanco's expulsion, without any context, when the report has given rise to such a major controversy was, well, "disinformation" (obfuscation, if you prefer). Againstdisinformation (talk) 22:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't take it wrong, we do need an extra set of eyes with some articles. I'm just offering advice on how to avoid weasel wording and how to maintain neutrality on controversial articles. If you could provide a response from the Venezuelan government it would be preferred and would represent more direct actions between the Venezuelan government and HRW.

Here is something from The New York Times mostly seen as a very reliable source according to WP:NEWSORG, states that:

“ The expulsion, broadcast partly on state television here, comes at a time of increasingly erratic actions by Mr. Chávez. In the last week, he expelled the American ambassador, rounded up military officers and accused them of plotting to kill him and clashed with the Vatican over its granting of political asylum to a political opponent. The Foreign Ministry said in a statement that Mr. Vivanco violated the law by entering the country on a tourist visa to do human rights work. The ministry also said that Human Rights Watch, which is an outspoken critic of the Bush administration, was acting in concert with the United States government in a campaign of aggression against Venezuela. “Accusing us of being part of a conspiracy is a distraction tactic used to attack the messenger,” Mr. Vivanco said. “We have never had this experience anywhere in this hemisphere.” The expulsion of the two men came after they released a long report here on Thursday documenting rights violations in Venezuela. They pointed to Mr. Chávez’s dismantling of judicial independence and his use of a 2002 coup that briefly ousted him from office as a pretext for consolidating power by weakening rights protections. The report also discussed the government’s intimidation of local human rights defenders and nongovernmental organizations, documenting the use of state television to carry out attacks on advocates doing work that criticized Mr. Chávez’s creation of a military reserve under his command. “Our expulsion reveals yet again the degree of intolerance of this government,” said Mr. Vivanco. ”

So there you go, that's what the GOV and HRW said, not what supporters or opposers of the GOV stated.-ZiaLater (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a strong view on this particular dispute; I only care about it not setting a precedent for dismissing quality sources as "left-wing" POV.

Putting that aside, I don't find your line of reasoning persuasive. Are we disputing the style of Againstdisinformation's contribution? Surely that issue can be discussed separately from its substance. Or that Againstdisinformation's POV has lead him to inject a very minor weasel word into, for example, the Putin article? Correcting something like that is trivial. Are we trying to prevent a mention of the notable (and not fringe, outside the US) criticism that HRW report has elicited from spilling into full-blown bickering about "who is right about human rights in venezuela"? But we only alerting the readers to the fact such criticism exists, not to arguing for or against the conclusion of HRW, which is a completely different matter and entirely beyond the scope of the section.;; Are we trying to avoid having any conflicting sources, so as not to set a precedent for "bickering"? I am sure you'd agree that this would be ridiculous. The easiest way to avoid bickering is limit ourselves to sources with one POV, and we all know which POV that is. There is no general rule for dealing with conflicting sources, other than limiting the space for such disputes and removing editorializing.

As for labeling the scholars who signed the letter as "leftists" or "pro-Chavez", I don't see a good reason to do that. No sane reader will assume that these people are analysts working at the Brookings Institution. Anybody who cares about their POV, can easily guess what it is; he/she can also read the source material and find out. It's the same reason don't label mainstream American journalists "pro US" or "anti-Chavez" every time we cite them. There seems to be a double standard at work here, where the POV Washington Post or Freedom House is not worthy of mention, while scholars and journalists sympathetic to the PSUV are considered not only grossly biased but also unreliable. Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Attribution would go in line with Wikipedia guidelines, according to WP:BIASED and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV (this explains this situation well). If we simply state that "more than 100 Latin America experts" or "widely criticized by experts", it would not be fair to the readers and would be weasel wording which should be avoided. If we allow even one "very minor weasel word" (weasel wording lol) we should allow it for everyone. If we allow people to use biased sources, then we open up the chance for others to place biased sources. Also, we can't assume things about readers and think all of them are a "sane reader". That is why we have such guidelines for weasel wording.

As a proposal for a neutral edit, here is my suggestion:

In September 2008, the Venezuelan government expelled Human Rights Watch Americas Director Jose Miguel Vivanco from the country, following the publication of a report [132] entitled A Decade Under Chávez: Political Intolerance and Lost Opportunities for Advancing Human Rights in Venezuela, which discussed systematic violations to human, civil and political rights. [133] The Venezuelan government responded, stating that Vivanco had violated a tourist law and that Human Rights Watch was acting in an aggressive manner against Venezuela with the assistance of the United States government. [NYT]

There, it discusses why Vivanco got expelled from both sides. No extra POV baggage, all purely what both parties said.--ZiaLater (talk) 04:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry to disagree Zialater, but anyone reading that without knowledge of the wider context has to conclude that the deluded Chávez expelled the HRW delegation on the basis of a conspiracy theory, under a false pretext. That may be the case, but I fail to see why we should feel compelled to conceal the existence of the open letter criticizing the report. It is a notable fact which sparked a major controversy and it is correlated to the expulsion in an obvious way, keeping it out makes the article less, not more informative. Also, I can't accept that the authors were all leftist admirers of Chávez. Some of them were leftists, even marxists, but certainly not all, while most were scholars, specialists of Latin America. As for the 'weasel wording' "widely criticized by experts" and "more than 100 Latin America experts" that may give the impression that we endorse the authors of the letter, we can remove it. We could just write: the report itself has been criticized by Latin America experts in an open letter to HRW and provide links to the report, the letter, the response to the letter and the response to the response. In my opinion, this would be at once neutral and informative. Againstdisinformation (talk) 06:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Your proposal would leave open the argument from other sources that might be right wing as well in the future. So we'd have HRW and GOV say this. However, some experts defended the GOV while other criticized the GOV. This does not make anything better because people take sides on all arguments. Let's stick to the main parties. If the Chávez administration was afraid of using this wording, which you say has people think "the deluded Chávez expelled the HRW delegation on the basis of a conspiracy theory", then they wouldn't have used it. This is straight from the horse's mouth, not from the clean up crew of defending experts.--ZiaLater (talk) 11:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

"The ministry also said that Human Rights Watch, which is an outspoken critic of the Bush administration, was acting in concert with the United States government". Speaking of 'weasel wording'...Any way, I have stated my position. I believe that not mentioning a well-known controversy looks like wilful obfuscation. However, if the consensus doesn't go my way, I will relent. Againstdisinformation (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

After seeing the amount of effort directed at deleting notable sourced material, I have to say I am in fully in favor of Againstdisinformation's edit. I found none of the reasons given for the deletion persuasive. I've already stated the reasons why, so I won't repeat myself. All this sets a very bad precedent (or rather the continuation of a trend).Guccisamsclub (talk) 20:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

ZiaLater's proposal above is worded neutrally and on topic. It also avoid weasel language or exaggerations. I'm fine with it. Volunteer Marek  22:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The article is already too biased. Certainly, the expulsion of the HRW delegation is unacceptable and Venezuela's human rights records is not stellar but then, the US records is even worse. If we want to keep the open letter out, we should have an entry about the Filipina human rights activist Liza Maza who was barred in June this year from entering the U.S; while suppressing any comment the US administration's supporters would undoubtedly make. Just for neutrality and fairness. I can make the entry. Againstdisinformation (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Will you please stop trying to derail the discussion (again!). This isn't an article about Liza Maza. Volunteer Marek  23:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, I am perfectly aware that this article is not about Liza Maza. But the two situations are very similar. In both cases, human rights activists are prevented to do their work in a country of the western hemisphere. In the case of Venezuela, we present it as a violation of human rights so gross that mentioning anotherwise well known controversy amounts to endorsing the Venezuela government, while not only do we condone the United States for a very similar case, we don't even mention it. Not a peep. Are you not afraid that this might induce the cynics to think that Wikipedia has double standards? Againstdisinformation (talk) 03:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

If you want to put in something from HRW into the relevant US article be my guest. But that's beside the point. Stop derailing the discussion. Volunteer Marek  03:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@My very best wishes and Oscar: What do you think of the current proposals? Just wanted your say due to your previous involvement on this talk page topic.--ZiaLater (talk) 14:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I would rather not include last phrase (by bold) you propose to include. I think WP pages must focus on facts (and being expelled is a fact) rather than on various accusations that are simply not informative. My very best wishes (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Againstdisinformation: This is an article about Venezuela, not the U.S. Whether or not it's a similar case, it's decidedly non-neutral to point to that in an unrelated article. It's akin to adding info on the deaths of German POWS in Soviet custody to the article on German war crimes -- and, yes, I've seen that happen. ≠GAB^Hello! 20:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@GAB: I am afraid I fail to understand your comparison. I brought this example about because it illustrates the fact that when it comes to human rights, Wikipedia, unfortunately, does not uniformly apply the same standards to all countries. I could give literally dozens of examples. In my opinion, this is a trend that has to be corrected. With regard to the report, I still consider that we cannot mention it, while concealing at the same time the major controversy to which it has given rise. You will not that I have always been consistent on that point, while the reasons presented by the opponents of inclusion have changed with time. First, they contended that the source for the letter was not reliable and when this was debunked, they said that the scholars who signed the letter were in fact "Chavistas"; if that were the case, American Academia would be teeming with "Chavistas". 05:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)Againstdisinformation (talk)

Yes, the first sources you provided did not seem reliable. The first appears to be an American blog (not RS) and this one led to what appears to be empty (I see multiple articles and the data appears missing?) Once we found the source from Venezuelanalysis, we got to see who signed the letter and more information. Many of them are international scholars that defend the left or Marxist causes. Some even defend the Bolivarian government on a regular basis. Once again, this does not represent "American Academia" or show that the HRW report was "widely criticized" or a "well known controversy" as it is just 100 individuals with many of the individuals not being American or having a POV. With the letter being promoted by pro-Bolivarian groups, signed by pro-Bolivarian/leftist individuals that really have no part in the conflict but to defend the Bolivarian government, the injection of this onto the article appears to be POV. It is also funny how they say that HRW's "view of the Venezuelan media seems to mirror the view of the right-wing Venezuelan opposition, or the U.S. Right's view of the 'liberal media' in the United States" while the letter's statement right here seems to mirror the GOV view ("The [Venezuelan] ministry also said that Human Rights Watch ... was acting in concert with the United States government in a campaign of aggression against Venezuela").

Anyways, I have tried to see if the addition of the Bolivarian government's response to the article would be beneficial but both Againstdisinformation 1 and My very best wishes 1 believe that the inclusion is not helpful. So, some of us accept keeping the original info and some accept the response of the GOV. Are we somewhere between these two ideas right now?--ZiaLater (talk) 09:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Your account of the sequence of events is not entirely accurate. The text of the letter being correctly reproduced in 'notmytribe.com', I thought the reputation of the source was immaterial. However, Volunteer Marek rejected it, along with 'nacla', claiming the sources were not RS. I therefore gave Venezuelanalysis as reference, but was reverted again. On Neiln's advice, I tried WP:RSN to get comments about the source. There, Rhoark confirmed the validity of the source and added "The letter was originally published by the North American Congress on Latin America and most of the signatories would qualify as experts in the field". Only then did the discussion move to the claimed (by you) allegiance of the experts to the then Venezuelan government. I am not trying to defend Venezuela, but I am strongly opposed to pushing the controversy about the report under the rug. The open letter does not reflect merely the opinion of "just 100 individuals with many of the individuals not being American or having a POV", it has had a worldwide echo (the first time I heard of it I was in Paris, not exactly in the vicinity of Carracas) and it provides crucial context to the expulsion of the HRW delegation. It is clear that you have strong feelings about Venezuela, whereas I have strictly none. You may therefore think that it is somewhat mean of me to insist, but I am just trying to defend the reliability of Wikipedia. Do you really believe that an article written in the tone of your last post would help in this regard? Againstdisinformation (talk) 17:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Rhoark also said you were cherry picking, a fact you somehow fail to mention in your description of the discussion at WP:RSN. Volunteer Marek  18:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Really, Volunteer Marek, this distortion of facts is very childish, and an insult to the intelligence of the other editors. Here is exactly what Rhoark said: "Per WP:CHERRYPICKING if one of these sources is cited there is a duty to cite the successive responses.", which has been exactly my position all along, as you will find out if you read the comments on the talk page: "I have provided links to the open letter, the response by HRW and the response to the response". Againstdisinformation (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on the contributor, please. My very best wishes (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Also from the RSN discussion:

“ It is reliable, there is little doubt that the letter was sent, its contents are reported accurately and the signatories signed it. What might be an issue is weight - you need to show that the letter has been widely reported. TFD (talk) 17:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC) ”

It does not matter if you were in Paris or on the Moon Againstdisinformation, if it were a "widely reported" controversy, we would see it in more places than blogs or Venezuelanalyisis. If we add the GOV response, it its not sweeping it under the rug as we give the POV of the other direct party, but you and other users disagree with that too. It would be like if there were a police officer that would arrest a well-known celebrity for drunk driving and the police officer was "let go" from their job. We don't let 100 of those fans of the celebrity write a letter defending the drunk driving accusations become a good reason to criticize the police officer's actions, even more if the defending letter were not "widely reported" and the letter was found on websites supporting the celebrity. You said, "if the consensus doesn't go my way, I will relent". I think we have bigger fish to fry now Againstdisinformation.--ZiaLater (talk) 00:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Relax Zialater, I mentioned that I first heard of the controversy in Paris precisely to address the fact that, according to you, it has not "been widely reported". Apart from soccer, Parisians are not obsessed with Latin America. Had I been on the moon and heard it from the Selenites, there's no way you would have made me relent (just joking). See if you can find a consensus with the other editors. But, please, try to make the wording look as neutral as posible. We are not there yet. I shall not participate in the discussion for a few days. I am growing tired of it: an exhausted Chavista (bad joke again). Againstdisinformation (talk) 03:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected the page for a week due to edit warring. I see that discussion is underway, which is good, but the discussion should be in lieu of the edit war, not concurrent with the edit war. If the edit war resumes when protection expires, I will not hesitate to issue blocks to prevent further disruption. Hopefully this intermediate step is effective. --Laser brain (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! GAB^Hello! 21:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

After looking at the long discussion above, I would tell there is no consensus to include this material (criticism of HRW). However, if anyone feels strongly about it and wants this material be included, they should open an official WP:RfC and wait for closing by uninvolved admin. My very best wishes (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• The Four Deuces commented on the RSN thread that the reliability of the source isn't the problem; the issue is one of weight. Try as I might (I just spent twenty minutes searching and reading) I cannot find any coverage at all of that letter. I mean, there are some big names in the letter (including Chomsky's of course), but coverage is indeed missing. The only book source I found that mentions any criticism of the report was written by Gregory Wilpert, and we all know where that link goes. In reports by the US Congress, articles by The Guardian and the BBC, academic monographs on Venezuela, the letter gains no traction at all so I don't see a good reason for calling it notable and relevant criticism that should be included. Drmies (talk) 23:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Human rights in Venezuela. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR530032004?open&of=ENG-VEN

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Human rights in Venezuela. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130814185202/http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/02/25/world/AP-LT-Venezuela-Rights-Report.html to http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/02/25/world/AP-LT-Venezuela-Rights-Report.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Human rights in Venezuela. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive //web.archive.org/web/20081214053945/http://a330.g.akamai.net/7/330/25828/20081021185552/graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Democracy%20Index%202008.pdf to http://a330.g.akamai.net/7/330/25828/20081021185552/graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Democracy%20Index%202008.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100217062438/http://www.amnesty.org:80/en/for-media/press-releases/venezuela-globovisi%C3%B3n-attack-must-be-urgently-investigated-and-journalis to http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/venezuela-globovisi%C3%B3n-attack-must-be-urgently-investigated-and-journalis
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110608212529/http://www.freemedia.at/press-room/public-statements/singleview/2070/ to http://www.freemedia.at/press-room/public-statements/singleview/2070/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090627035944/http://www.rsf.org:80/In-cure-worse-than-cold.html to http://www.rsf.org/In-cure-worse-than-cold.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080507153638/http://www.unionradio.net:80/Noticias/Noticia.aspx?noticiaid=196132 to http://www.unionradio.net/Noticias/Noticia.aspx?noticiaid=196132
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://noticiero.venevision.net/index_not.asp?id_noticia=20070326001704&id_seccion=04
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090531041429/http://www.unodc.org:80/unodc/en/treaties/CTOC/countrylist-traffickingprotocol.html to http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CTOC/countrylist-traffickingprotocol.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Human rights in Venezuela. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091130080303/http://www.counterpunch.org/liebertz06212007.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/liebertz06212007.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://deportes.eluniversal.com/2007/03/05/suc_ava_05A841609.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100108074252/http://www.robertamsterdam.com/venezuela/Bolivarian%20Rule%20of%20Lawlessness.pdf to http://www.robertamsterdam.com/venezuela/Bolivarian%20Rule%20of%20Lawlessness.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.amnestyusa.org/actioncenter/actions/uaa34609.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150221002730/http://english.eluniversal.com/nacional-y-politica/150220/amnesty-international-deplores-actions-against-mayor-ledezma to http://english.eluniversal.com/nacional-y-politica/150220/amnesty-international-deplores-actions-against-mayor-ledezma
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090902131912/http://report2009.amnesty.org/en/regions/americas/venezuela to http://report2009.amnesty.org/en/regions/americas/venezuela
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130514221603/http://english.eluniversal.com/2010/02/24/en_pol_esp_iachr-requests-the-v_24A3481131.shtml to http://english.eluniversal.com/2010/02/24/en_pol_esp_iachr-requests-the-v_24A3481131.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131020120703/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2010/02/venezuela-government-violating-basic.php to http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2010/02/venezuela-government-violating-basic.php

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)