Talk:La Salida

NoonIcarus I would remove the tag suggesting this article be translated from the Spanish article, as that article is almost entirely SYNTH. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

@SandyGeorgia: Thanks for the heads up. I found some SYNTH in the article, but didn't know it was so present. Tag removed. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

@WMrapids: I sincerely think you should try to use sources such as news outlets and journalists instead of think tanks and academic papers, which should prevent the inclusion of minorty of even fringe points of view, including that the student movement was funded by the United States. At some times, all of this just repeats the unreliable government narrative, even if unknowingly. Regards, NoonIcarus (talk) 11:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Are you serious? WMrapids (talk) 19:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Also, could you please explain what is fringe? You removed a lot and it can't all be fringe. WMrapids (talk) 22:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

You have been reprimanded for using obscure sources to back controversial claims in the future: 1, 2, 3, so this should not come to a surprise for you.

The fringe content is stating that student movement was funded by the United States, something that was stated in an editorial voice in the way it was phrased. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Why are we using the undue press release of the opposition in the intro instead of secondary sources? This article is reading like a blatant propaganda piece now. WMrapids (talk) 19:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@SandyGeorgia: I have added an alternative description in the lead hoping it will be less disputed. What do you think about it? I know for a fact that civil disobedience is a term used by sources, but I have to look in the footnotes exactly which ones. This can be a neutral way to express the peaceful purpose of the campaign, even if it could differ in practice. If this isn't a good option, the original and last stable version should be restored. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Once again, with rapid-fire changes, I can't track what is being asked or what version we're on. In this version, I see multiple issues:

1. The scholarly source for the date when the effort began is removed.
2. Lower and working class individuals found the La Salida campaign dubious ... is an unattributed opinion (of a source I wouldn't use, but your mileage may vary).
3. According to sociology professor María Pilar García-Guadilla of Simón Bolívar University, some students in the campaign were involved in multiple informal groups, which resulted with strategies "that ranged from the most institutional to the insurrectional." ... more of the same problem we've discussed elsewhere ... singling out a single individual to highlight what comes across as one cherry-picked opinion, rather than reflect a preponderance of sources.
4. The Maduro government would bring attention to evidence that the student movement was funded by the United States, specifically the United States Agency for International Development ... is unbalanced ... and phrased in a way to leave negative implications about AID funding (which Chavez tried also with Sumate).

In this version, the source of the date is back, but all mention of how Lopez defined the effort (and since he launched it, we'd expect to see how he defined it) is gone. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Not sure why you tagged SandyGeorgia in a reply to me, so possible canvassing? There are dozens of sources saying that La Salida was for the removal of Maduro, though they are not included due to citation overkill. They can be included, of course.

As for Sandy:

1. Replied to this below. It was nothing intentional.
2. There are more sources for this as well if you would like them included.
3. Are we not allowed to include an expert's view? It was properly attributed and is not controversial.
4. You are trying to make an equivalency argument between Chávez and Maduro. What is unbalanced about it? We can discuss on how to make it appropriate.

WMrapids (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm about to give up here; how can I be canvassed to a page I'm following and editing? Is there no way to get these accusations to stop? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

The user made an edit and instead of pinging me to discuss the issue, they pinged you. Whether or not you are following the discussion, it seems like they are not interested in my input and are instead looking for support. WMrapids (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Asking a good faith question of someone who was involved in this article from its creation is not canvassing. I'm unwatching here; trying to create content under this ongoing onslaught of accusations is not why I edit Wikipedia and it is becoming increasingly apparent that my efforts to model policy-compliant editing have not yielded results. Please don't ping me back to this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Since you were following the discussion I thought that it would implicit that I wanted to know your thoughts too (instead of, for instance, writing in Sandy's talk page). Just in case there are any doubts: yes, I want to know which your thoughts are about the current lead. Since you haven't objected to it, I hope that you are ok with it. Regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@NoonIcarus: Giving a few days for things to cool down, I wanted to let you know about this edit. We have plenty of sources (and López himself) saying that the goal of La Salida was to end the government of Maduro. Doing this ping as a courtesy so we can be transparent.--WMrapids (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@NoonIcarus: Can you please explain why you are removing information that is widely sourced? I know you may personally dispute this, but when multiple generally reliable sources, NGOs and the UN say that this was the goal of La Salida, an explanation is needed. WMrapids (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

First, I want to know what are your thoughts on the new proposed lead. One of its reasons was to address your concerns about neutrality, which I imagine is at the same time the reason why you have proposed said change.

I would also have to ask which is the purpose of your change (adding "goal to bring end to Maduro's government"). That can already be implicit and conveyed in some way with the name (and its translation), as well as with the mention of civil disobedience. This could also be understood with the previous quote ("solution to Maduro's government"), although I understand that you have disagreed with this.

Last but not least, kindly remember that verifiability does not warrant inclusion by itself, as it has been mentioned several times. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Readers need to know what the goals of the protests were and not for this to be "conveyed". Period. So you think it is not neutral to say that the protests were to remove Maduro? WMrapids (talk) 02:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

"Removal" can range from a resignation to a coup. I have provided my concerns both here and above. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@NoonIcarus: You didn't answer my question about neutrality, so please answer that. You never really provided concerns other than you didn't want it and using your "stable version" argument (which I already raised concerns about). You proposed an introduction that was unattributed and directly from the opposition (López maybe since it was unattributed?) Then you called for "civil disobedience" to be the description used despite sources saying La Salida was for Maduro's removal. Now you seem to accept the sources but are now arguing that it can be interpreted "from a resignation to a coup". So you keep redirecting the topic, which is not helpful.

Sources say that La Salida was a campaign to remove Maduro. The way of removal can be specified in the body or later in the introduction, but the goal of removal should be present at a minimum. Let me know if you prefer the methods in the body or the introduction. WMrapids (talk) 15:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@NoonIcarus: Can you please reply? WMrapids (talk) 23:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have taken long to reply because it has become growingly frustrating to explain the points, but I will do my best to address the issues:

• The original statement was simply a translation from the Spanish Wikipedia. When using it as a quote, it is distinguished from an editorial voice and it is implicit that it was the "official" goal. I'm not really sure what the issue is with this statement, but I included "civil disobendience" as a possible compromise.
• One issue that I have with the sources is WP:SOURCECOUNTING, which I already delve into in the section above. In the past we have already commented on the issue of only using academic papers, which might only reflect the author's points of views and should need attribution, instead of mainstream outlets that reflect a mainstream point of views.
• Again, while I'm aware that verification is not mandatory for sourcing, online links would really help with verifiability.
• Furthermore, you can see from the quotes and the content that many of the sources are biased, covering the Venezuelan opposition in a negative tone. I also wanted to note that guarimba is a pejorative term, but that is something that I will have to explain further in the other main article created.

I hope this helps to better explain my objections. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Let's go through this.

1. You provided the quote from the opposition without attribution in a manner that is deceptive to the reader.
2. You're citing an essay to discount scholarly sources, which are of much higher quality than the typical media outlet.
3. We have sources that verify the information. Period. It's not difficult to find a source, so let me know if you need help.
4. Your personal interpretation on what you believe is biased regarding scholarly sources does not override what reliable sources say.

Information will be restored. WMrapids (talk) 07:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I really feel that we're going in circles. The most important thing that I will note is that what I stated is far from being "my personal opinion", and that is something easily verifiable browsing through government statements ([1][2][3]), included some that I have already added to the Guarimba article. It really is a topic that allows for much exploration, including the Inter-American Commision on Human Rights' decision on the case, but currently a single point of view is being presented.

For the time being, I want to stress this: you are the one proposing the change and you should not reinstate disputed content, since that is edit warring. Remember: Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. It would be much better to know why these papers are preferrable before mainstream media outlets. Which is their impact? How much have they been cited?. Regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:11, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Quit moving the goalposts to only support "mainstream" media and your personal interpretation of what warrants inclusion. We have the United Nations and multiple sources supporting inclusion. Seems more like this is something you don't like and it is becoming disruptive. WMrapids (talk) 20:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Just as a reference, all of the times you have reinstated the content, with no change in substance: [4][5][6][7][8]. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Would it work to add sommething among the lines of "seek Maduro's resignation"? I've seen sources mention this as well. Regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@NoonIcarus: Sources clearly state that it was to remove Maduro. There have been some sources that say they were pleading for the military or foreign intervention to happen as well. Whether it was through resignation, coup or other can be determined in the article's body. WMrapids (talk) 20:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@WMrapids: Please self-revert your latest addition. You're adding disputed content repeatedly to the article. --NoonIcarus (talk) 07:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@NoonIcarus: You are the only user disputing widely sourced information. I have done as much as I can to try to accommodate your concerns. Again, we (yes I'm trying my best to collaborate with you) can find the supposed methods promoted by the opposition to remove Maduro, but the overall goal was to remove Maduro according to sources. I'll help you with these methods soon. WMrapids (talk) 17:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@WMrapids: I'm not the only one that has disputed the wording, though, as the messages above clearly show. Remember WP:ONUS: it not only how it is sourced, but also how it is phrased. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

No other user shared concerns about the objective of La Salida (to remove Maduro), especially with the most recent inclusion of multiple sources. So please, drop it. WMrapids (talk) 17:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes they have, almost a month ago now. They have just grown tired of the discussion and asked not to be notified.

I could have sworn that the first time around that I read the discussion you invited me to collaborate together to find a common solution. I think I might have mistaken the talk page, but I think it might be start answering that way:

Let's do that. After you disputed the initial quote in the lead, I replaced it with something less objectable. Now, I have proposed a different wording to ending Maduro's government. Please let me a wording that would be acceptable to you.

I have added a different phrasing based on the article's first version: in an effort to end to the Bolivarian Revolution prevalent since 1998. Would you agree to its inclusion?

Responding to the real message at hand, though, I have to remind you that you are the proponent of the change, and it depends on you to find a consensus for it. If not, I'm the one that advices you to let it go. I ask you for the last time to no reinstate the disputed wording. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@NoonIcarus: No, I don't agree. Your reply also does not show a user opposing the entry of "Maduro's removal" being the goal (it instead argues about the removal of López's own description, which was undue and unattributed), so you are deliberately misrepresenting information. Sources (and the movement's given title itself) say that the campaign was for the exit of Maduro. WMrapids (talk) 00:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

@WMrapids: Source also cite the movement's original purpose, find a peaceful, democratic and constitutional solution to the government of Nicolás Maduro", including bibliographical ones: Moro, Javier (2023). Nos Quieren Muertos (in Spanish). Espasa. ISBN 9788467069778.. Since it doesn't leave room for interpreation or paraphrasing, couldn't it be argued that it is the best wording?

Many of your sources don't say "to remove Maduro" verbatim. Some use more loaded language, such as "Maduro's ousting" or "to oust the regime". I think we can agree that this should be avoided to comply with neutrality, a concern I have expressed before.

Sources don't really disagree on the goal, they just phrase it in different ways. The important things to remember is that 1) multiple phrasings are widely used by different sources and 2) said phrasing must be impartial.

I have already proposed at least three alternatives to the current one, while you have insisted in a single version. You should be open to work with others to find solutions, but if that's not the case, no changes will come out of it. Best wishes, --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:51, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

@NoonIcarus: Replying to your statements:

• "Since it doesn't leave room for interpreation or paraphrasing, couldn't it be argued that it is the best wording?" No, since it is based from primary sources. If we gave the same treatment with the Venezuelan government as you do with the opposition, we would be writing articles in Wikivoice from Telesur. Also, López said himself that the goal was to remove Maduro, so...
• "Sources don't really disagree on the goal, they just phrase it in different ways. The important things to remember is that 1) multiple phrasings are widely used by different sources and 2) said phrasing must be impartial." Agreed. This is why "Maduro's removal" is neutral; it's not using any loaded language like "attempted coup" or "ousting" and is descriptive enough with explaining the opposition's clear goal.
• "I have already proposed at least three alternatives to the current one." And the alternatives began with you describing La Salida through a literal quote from the opposition (i.e. "find a peaceful, democratic and constitutional solution to the government of Nicolás Maduro") to further weasel wording filled with euphemisms that included "an effort to end to the Bolivarian Revolution", which is original research not supported by sources who explicitly state that Maduro's removal was the goal.
• "You should be open to work with others to find solutions." Just this comment alone is evidence of your sealioning behavior to portray me as acting irrationally. You have participated in gaming the system, moving the goalposts as more sources are added. You ask for "mainstream" sources and they were provided through generally reliable sources like Al Jazeera English, Reuters, The Guardian and even the United Nations. Yet, you demand for more to justify the removal of information you do not agree with. It is clear that you are engaged in bad faith negotiations and that this dispute will go nowhere without intervention from a group of uninvolved users.

WMrapids (talk) 20:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Your tone is really antagonistic and makes this discussion so difficult, but in short:

I'm not sealioning nor moving the goalposts, you might want to check those definitions again. I am not asking you for further sources or evidence, or asking you for more requeriments. Quite the opposite: I have asked about and proposed alternative wordings that can be agreeable to both. You have not liked the proposals, so I have asked you for some on your own, since I don't agree with your wording and I have already stated my reasons why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoonIcarus (talk • contribs)

WMrapids could you explain here why you are deleting a scholarly review that sources the date of the beginning of the effort? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Because I was including the "cite book" reference instead so that more details could be provided. WMrapids (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I see now ... meaning you switched to a format that combines multiple pages to one, and overquotes content that is freely available at the source anyway, so no need to quote. Not an improvement; if you want to use more of the source, then you can just keep the sfn and cite the page number on the new content you want to cite. The source is freely available, and page numbers are easy to pick out. I really can't keep doing so much cleanup on these articles; it's exhausting and I'm not paid enough to be a secretary. And the citation was placed before on the content it was citing, so the reader didn't have to go looking for it among three other sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply