Talk:2007 Venezuelan RCTV protests

Venezuela High‑importance

	Venezuela portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Venezuela, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Venezuela on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VenezuelaWikipedia:WikiProject VenezuelaTemplate:WikiProject VenezuelaVenezuela articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Article name

I have no better name for this, but these protests involve thousands of people and I think they deserve an article. Feel free to change the name. Weatherguy1033 02:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect addition

This edit is completely incorrect. The "alleged" coup (even if one believes that interpretation of what happened) was after and as a result of the marches in which demonstrators clashed, not part of it. This needs to be reverted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting fantasy. The coup d'etat was documented as happening. Literally documented. Filmed and televised happening. Showed Chavez being arrested, led away. Then the coup leaders having the same on Chavez's release. I don't know what you think a coup is, but just because a coup happened to somebody you don't like and might legally give them reason to shut down a station as much as if CNN advocated armed insurrection in Washington, D.C., doesn't mean it's not a coup. Professor Ninja 04:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The coup is not documented as happening. Chavez was held at a military base following his 'resignation' (Up to you whether you think it was coerced or even happened), people rioted in pro chavez demonstrations as the new government 'De Bolivarised' the country. I suppose one could argue that either way a coup happened, either Chavez was forced to resign by force, or the sucession rules were violated or heck, you could even say Chavez's return was a coup of sorts (if you believe he did indeed resign free of duress). Its certainly not so 'black and white' and I doubt it ever will be made clear exactly what happened Narson 23:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Exactly. Problem is, the international press couldn't deal with the complexities, and always labeled it a "coup". It's POV to consider it a coup, but since reliable sources labeled it as such, we're stuck with it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying is that the coup was never documented? Ever? There is no video evidence? No hard documented claims? Would you both be willing to resign as wikipedia editors if provided video evidence of a coup you claim doesn't exist? Professor Ninja 11:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article on the coup. There is enough there for the other side of venezualan politics to claim that Chavez resigned. I really don't have a side in this, but you can not leap down the throats of wikipedians when they point out there is annother point of view in the country in question, as you did to SandyGeorgia. The fact that some opponents claim the coup never happened because Chavez resigned in 2002 is relativly germaine to the international view of chavez (As if thats the side you take, then Chavez seized power in 2002 with his own coup, rather than a counter-coup). I am sorry that you feel so threatened by other points of view (including the neutral) that you feel you have to attack other people, but it is not acceptable behaviour in polite society. Narson 15:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your first point goes against "no original research". The article on the coup is not germaine in any way unless it demonstrates a preferred style for Venezuelan political offices. Second, I didn't leap down anybody's throats and challenge you to demonstrate where I did. Third, your belief in the idea of a neutral point of view is the fallacy of the golden mean. You do not seem to understand the difference between true neutrality (a presentation of the facts without bias towards the inherent morality of them) vs. presenting "both sides" of the story. A story, contrary to what we've all been taught, has exactly one side: the truth. Everything else is a falsehood. To assume neutrality has been achieved by disseminating two mutually contradictory extremes is the very definition of this fallacy. Of course I don't feel threatened by other points of view, and this is again a fantasy. I appreciate the repetition of the canard of the fallacy of the golden mean representing true neutrality, however. Of course, I also never attacked people, but feel free to attempt some sort of indoctrination of polite society.

By the by, the article you attempt to reference hilariously contradicts your own argument. "The Venezuelan coup attempt of 2002 was a failed military coup d'état on April 11, 2002. It saw the brief overthrow and arrest of leftist Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, the dissolution of the democratically elected National Assembly, the dissolution of the Supreme Court, and the repeal of the country's constitution." Ignoring the first sentence, which de facto invalidates your point of view that the actual article at least presents the idea that the coup never happened, the second sentence lists three things which resulted from it. The dissolution of the National Assembly and Supreme Court and the repeal of the constitution. Discounting Wikipedia's own article on coup d'etats, coup d'etat is defined as "a sudden and decisive action in politics, esp. one resulting in a change of government illegally or by force." Since it was illegal to repeal the constitution and dissolve the National Assembly, whether or not Chavez resigned willingly or under duress (though people with a functional understanding of having a gun to their head typically understand the situation to be duress) is a moot point. Even entertaining the fact that this was not duress and Chavez spontaneously resigned just for his own personal amusement, the dissolution of the National Assembly, the repeal of the Constitution and the appointment of interim leaders is definitely illegal, thus it is a coup. Ergo, not only is SandyGeorgia demonstrably wrong, but you are also demonstrably wrong. Furthermore, it is demonstrable that your own opinion that the idea of the coup never happening is in line with Wikipedia's NPOV policies is incorrect, as NPOV's own article asserts that one should let the facts speak for themselves, as well that one should not present equal validity for differing viewpoints, going so far as to use this cartoon as a perfect (and quite apt, in this case) example. Since it is verifiable (another cornerstone of Wikipedia policy) that these dissolutions and repealing did in fact take place, they are therefore the facts, which, according to the very policy which you cite, speak for themselves. Period. Professor Ninja 13:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out in two of my replies, that one way or the other, a coup could be seen to have occured. However it might not have been against Chavez (And may even have been partly by Chavez). As for the article, it does present other viewpoints within it, the point being that unless we are going to go into the ins and outs of the events of 2002 including claims by opposition etc (which is done in the main article) perhaps we should simply leaf that whole history section a little less verbose and link into the article on it?

As for you leaping down throats, if you think your responses have been civil or non-confrontational then, by all means, believe that (Though your response to SandyGeorgia certainly read as condescending, and it is definatly not your job to try and bully editors to quit wikipedia as you did above). Now, I'm going to leave this talk page before I lower myself to the sniping that is so very tempting to put into this in response.Narson 14:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't bully anybody to quit. Asking a simple question -- if you can be provided with information that proves your viewpoint incorrect, will you hang up your spurs and go home? -- is not bullying. It's seeing just how far a person will pursue a lie. I got the response I expected, none whatsoever. It's easier to spew opinions without consequences than it is to back it up with everything you have and with everything at stake. That's a perfectly civil thing to do, unless you believe civil societies enforce consequence-free behaviour. Professor Ninja 17:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bullying is the norm on Wikipedia whenever editors try to insert balance into the series of Chavez articles; I'm used to it, it doesn't trouble me. Let's stick to reliable sources. 1) The Venezuelan Supreme Court — that same one controlled by Chavez — ruled that there was no coup, and no one was charged. 2) Wiki is not a reliable source; what Wiki calls the events of April 11 is irrelevant. 3) Whether one agrees with the Act put in place by the transitional government, it was based on the Constitution, and calling it "illegal" is an oversimplification, just as calling the events a "coup" is an oversimplification that has been furthered by an international media that largely wasn't paying attention in 2002. Generally, the whole issue of Wikipedia labeling the events of April 11 as a "coup" highlights the dilemma (as discussed at length in the development of WP:ATT) of "verifiability vs. truth" on Wikipedia. We report what reliable sources say. Reliable sources almost all call it a "coup". Truth (that the Venezuelan Supreme Court ruled there was no coup, and no one was charged) is secondary on Wikipedia. We call it a coup because reliable sources called it a coup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah martyrdom, how you've been missed. Insert balance into Chavez articles by claiming what did happened didn't. Balance indeed. So let's go over your opinions. 1) You are of the opinion that Chavez, who says there was, in fact, a coup, controls the supreme court. This supreme court that he controls directly contradicts his own opinion despite the fact that he controls them. Top that off with the fact that supreme courts ruling on the reality of situations is irrelevant. They dissolved the National Assembly and the Supreme Court (that Chavez controls!) and repealed the constitution. All of this is illegal, all of this revolved around replacing the leaders in the judicial, legislative, and executive branches, and thus is a coup, regardless of whether or not the Supreme Court said it was or not. The Supreme Court of Venezuela could rule tomorrow that the sky was pink with purple polkadots, wouldn't make it so. 2) Funny, I made the same point. So I guess we agree to agree. 3) The same constitution that was repealed, hmm? Kinda makes you wonder, why repeal the constitution at all if everything they did was constitutionally legal. I didn't realise, personally, that the constitution of Venezuela permitted the constitution of Venezuela as well as the executive, legislative, and judicial branches to be removed. It sort of makes the entire point of having a constitution, well, pointless. Which brings me to my next point. No, nothing that transpired in 2002 was constitutionally legal. Yes, the legislature may be dissolved. Yes, the executive may be recalled. However, the executive may dissolve the legislature (a right which exists in, among other places, Canada and the United Kingdom) and the executive may only be recalled by referendum or referenda. Which didn't happen in 2002, making the next executive illegitimate, making the dissolution of the legislature and judiciary and the repealment of the constitution a coup. We call it a coup because it was a coup. Because according to every definition of a coup, it was a coup. Because regardless of the Supreme Court's ruling, a coup is a coup. The supreme court cannot rule on the definition of a coup, and if a set of circumstances meets all criteria for being a coup, it is a coup regardless of the opinions of the judicial branch. It did what coups do. We call a coup a coup. I'll go one step further and boldly assert that you know this and you are slightly and deliberately loose with the truth, SandyGeorgia. Professor Ninja 17:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editors, please remember WP is not a forum: 1) Can someone source this statement about the TSJ saying there was no coup? I mean explicitly, not an interpretation by some editors of a TSJ rule, 2) I agree WP is not a RS. 3) Is there a RS saying the "Act" was based on the Venezuelan Constitution? JRSP 18:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further sources

Possible info to be added, and some sources:

El Universal — Venezuela's main newspaper — in English
Second Venezuela TV is under fire. BBC News (29 May 2007). Retrieved on 2007-05-29
TV row widens Venezuela's rift. BBC News (28 May 2007). Retrieved on 2007-05-29.
Romero, Simon. Venezuela: Government Sets Sights on Globovisión and CNN. New York Times (May 29, 2007). Retrieved on 2007-05-29.
Romero, Simon. Venezuela Police Repel Protests Over TV Network’s Closing. New York Times (May 28, 2007). Retrieved on 2007-05-29.
Romero, Simon. Chávez’s Move Against Critic Highlights Shift in Media. New York Times (May 27, 2007). Retrieved on 2007-05-29.
Associated Press. Court: Venezuelan TV station must stop broadcasting. CNN News (May 23, 2007). Retrieved on 2007-05-29.

What source says the RCTV'Equipment was seized????

????? CaribDigita 23:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This source das 00:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is suspect... Even in Guyana (Right next door to Venezuela) they are saying no equipment is to be taken.[1]

And one of the "Example" links above says no equipment was taken.[2] See bottom right... The Taiwan news might end up getting itself sued too with slander like CNN.

http://www.cpj.org/news/2007/americas/ven29may07na.html

"On Friday, the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, Venezuela’s highest court, ruled that RCTV’s broadcasting equipment and infrastructure must be made available to TVES. According to the tribunal’s Web site, the National Telecommunications Commission (CONATEL) assumes responsibility for RCTV’s equipment, including microwave dishes and antennas, while the court reviews RCTV’s appeal of Chavez’ decision not to renew its broadcast concession. The court also ordered the military to temporarily guard the equipment used by RCTV."

http://www.ifex.org/en/content/view/full/83753/

"President Chávez has silenced Venezuela?s most popular TV station and the only national station to criticise him, and he has violated all legal norms by seizing RCTV?s broadcast equipment for the new public TV station that is replacing it."

http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=309640&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/

"Venezuela's Supreme Court ruled that RCTV must temporarily leave its equipment and broadcast infrastructure in military hands when it goes off the air to ensure that TVes can provide quality service. Granier called the decision "an unconstitutional seizure of our equipment"."

http://www.worldnewsaustralia.com.au/region.php?id=137314&region=4

"Venezuela's Supreme Court ruled that RCTV must temporarily leave its equipment and broadcast infrastructure in military hands to ensure that TVes can provide quality service."

Good enough? It seems pretty clear RCTV equipment has been seized by the government of Venezuela for the alleged purpose ensuring a smooth transition by allowing the new station to use the old one's machines. This might be temporary; nevertheless, it doesn't change the fact the equipment has been seized for the time and being and, under military control, has been used to provide a smooth transition into the station that has replaced RCTV.

Also, from english.eluniversal, one of the sources you cited, http://english.eluniversal.com/2007/05/26/en_pol_art_tsj-orders-rctv-to-h_26A874677.shtml Jaimeastorga2000 03:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's pretty clear all of RCTV's equipment has been seized. Some people might make the mistake of thinking "seized" means the equipment needs to be physically removed and taken somewhere. That isn't what has happened. The RCTV-owned equipment has been seized, in-place, by the government/military, and is being used by the government to broadcast its own content. Seems like some people want to go to any lengths to defend what Chavez is doing, though. Of course, the seizure is clearest to Venezuelans, who will now be viewing government controlled content via the frequencies and equipment formerly used by RCTV. How anyone can justify this is beyond me... das 12:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone explain me how come RCTV can actually still transmit via cable if they have no access to their equipment? --64.228.177.43 22:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC) La_Nuit[reply]

More sources

CaribDigita 02:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources of what? A deluded article that says that RCTV wasn't "shut down" but instead, its license just wasn't renewed, as if that doesn't effectively shut them down? And then an unrelated article about how Venezuela is "suing" CNN, which has nothing to do with this article? This is the truth about RCTV, and about what happened with CNN (which was an error of putting the wrong video with audio, the type that happens routinely all over the world). But Chavez wants the world to believe that a video mixup showing something that is clearly and totally unrelated to Venezuela is really secret "propaganda" designed to somehow link him with Al Qaeda, and it sounds like you believe it too. das 12:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They lost the license to broadcast on public airwaves. They are free to continue broadcasting in other media, including satellite, cable and internet. "Shut down" isn't really the right word. Zocky | picture popups 14:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say they are effectively shut down as most people live in a state of poverty and don't have cable. And internet? Ha! Certainly not in the home.

No they aren't as their equipment was stolen by the government for broadcasting propaganda through TVes.

Just curious das, is there a source for this?? ->(which was an error of putting the wrong video with audio, the type that happens routinely all over the world)--LaNuitDesDemangeaisons 23:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Violence by Police in Aftermath

I added this in after watching Globovision's program Buenas Noches and viewing several videos they broadcast. These videos also appeared on Univision later. 67.128.187.123 03:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition is interesting, but unsourced and, based on what you say above, it is original research. It will need to be reverted unless you can provide a reliable source which says what you added. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if its in press...but if it is, it would be in Globovision...I'll look to see...67.128.187.123 04:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be great. Adding unsourced text doesn't make the article look reliable, and it's best if you can cite anything you add. I segregated the uncited text, so it wouldn't detract from the article's credibility. Thanks for checking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Found it. Weatherguy1033 21:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Background

The background section jumps from Carmona being appointed "transitional President" to Chavez announcing in late 2006 that RCTV's license won't be renewed. The unaware reader might wonder "wait, if Carmona is president, what's Chavez doing making an announcement like that?" That gap should be filled in. PubliusFL 13:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it's a lot to add. Chavez started the process of undermining freedom of the press long ago, was threatening this move and others for several years, first making it illegal to criticize him on TV, but 1) this information was usually censored from the Chavez Wiki articles, and 2) the international press didn't start paying attention until after the Chavez UN speech. May need to look to the English version of El Universal to fill in the gaps, as I'm not sure how much is in the international press (although I suspect it can be found with a good search). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a go at (briefly) covering that Apr.2002-Dec.2006 gap here and on RCTV. Sources aren't great; might try to improve them with a direct quote from the Aló Presidente transcript, if I can find it. An article on the Ley Resorte would be more than useful, too. Re "international observers paying attention" -- too right. Here too: the RCTV article was as calm as a millpond until right before the shutdown weekend, even though it had been brewing for six months or more. Bolivian Unicyclist 14:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, much still to be done here, but hard to get any real work done at the rate that unsourced editorializing is being added to the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still Broadcasting on Cable?

According to BBC, "the network will still be available on cable, but losing its public broadcast frequency will deprive it of most of its audience." [3] Quacks Like a Duck 17:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RCTV is not broadcasting over cable TV. AFAIK, resulting from an agreement with colombian network Caracol, they have only managed to air their news program (El Obervador) over the colombian cable channel at 12 am.--Jenizaro 21:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

How many times has this page been vandalized? (I just counted the "MOO" at the very beginning and reverted it) Weatherguy1033 23:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I reverted at least twice this afternoon. DarkAudit 23:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone (especially an administrator) think that this page should be semi-protected (blocking anonymous IPs and newly registered users)? Weatherguy1033 00:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shutdown

I changed the details page to TVes...The shutdown part of RCTV is too broad and includes what's already stated on this page without as much information as TVes' page. Weatherguy1033 00:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I haven't been able to post the citation required, but I don't really know how to do that. About the last events posted here are the links

http://www.eluniversal.com/2007/05/30/rctv_ava_pp-espanol-critica-n_30A877371.shtml http://www.eluniversal.com/2007/05/30/rctv_ava_camara-de-representa_30A877481.shtml

If someone could add them to the article I would widely appreciate it. Thanks.

Thanks for posting the links, Oscar. Normally I would go ahead and add them for you, but I suspect we should be able to locate an equivalent citation in English. I'll work on it tomorrow if no one else gets to it. Of much interest would be something cited to Christopher Dodd, since he was previously a staunch Chavez supporter, and appears to have changed his tune. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for citations to be in English. Zocky | picture popups 10:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely true... Official policy states: English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources --Elliskev 12:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a silly policy for things that happen in non-English speaking countries, but in any case "in preference" doesn't mean "ignore non-English sources". Zocky | picture popups 14:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English-language sources are preferred when they are available; in this case, they probably are — we just need to find them and add them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean that we should ignore the information until we find them. There are enough Wikipedians who speak Spanish who can confirm for us whether the sources say what is cited or not. In this case, preferring English sources introduces POV. Zocky | picture popups 10:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Providing a source that is not in English (as the only source) on the English Wikipedia misses the whole point of verifiablity. Sources in languages other than English are fine, but on their own they are so lacking as to be worthless. Nonsources, almost. --Elliskev 14:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The information is not being ignored; the text is still in the article (or it was last time I looked), awaiting citation to an English source, which anyone should be able to find quickly on a search. When English language sources are available, they are preferred. We have a Spanish-language source, so the text is sourced; it's just waiting for someone to fire up a search engine and put an English-language source on it. I'll do it myself when I'm home on a faster connection unless someone else gets to it sooner. Past discussions at WP:ATT and WP:RS have been clear that English-language sources are preferred when they are available (since this is the English Wiki and our readers should be able to verify info), but other language sources may be used when no equivalent is available in English. In this case, they should certainly be available in English; we just need for someone to add them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed

I'm going to remove the citation needed tag on the sentence "This raises the number injured to 37 (or something like that)" because its a number calculated by adding the numbers (which are cited) above it. If I'm wrong please tell me. Thanks. Weatherguy1033 06:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's synthesis, original research; we need to leave the cite needed until a reliable source reports the number. There may be more. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biased Background

In my opinion, the background section is slightly biased due to its focus on the events of April 2002. While those events are extremely important, the section neglects to mention the Law of Social Responsability in Radio and Television (Ley Resorte), which restricts the freedom of the press, or the legal suit which the Venezuelan government has brought against Globovision and RCTV, or the declarations of William Lara (the minister for comunication and information), who vowed to sue and fine any media which labelled the RCTV event as a "closure," all of which are also part of the relevant background.

The article also omits anything but an oblique and passing mention ("The Venezuelan government has also denounced CNN and Globovisión.") of the legal proceedings which the government has iniciated against Federico Ravell and Leopoldo Castillo (both of globovision) under the ludicrous claim that the transmision of images of the assasination attempt on Pope John Paul II accompanied by the tune "Esto no termina aqui" ("this does not end here") constitutes incitement to kill the president. While this is not strictly relevant, it is my view dishonest to say that the government denounced gobovision, without saying why it did so, especially if the denounciation is patently absurd.

Further, while the article does mention Chavez labelling the four private TV networks "the four horsement of the apocallypse," (back in 2004) it neglects to inform readers that one the four, Venevision, which has since changed its editorial line to a more pro-chavez position (or at least to a less pro-oposition position), successfully applied for the renewal of its license this may.

The combination of all these curious omisions results in an unduly pro-chavez article.

Endspilot 21:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Wikipedia so chavista??

Wikipedia once again offers a partial and pro-Chávez portrayal of a situation. Why the article doesn't mention the sudden decision by the Supreme Court to retain RCTV transmission equipments and to assign them to the new TVes network? I think it's a very relevant fact considering how an arbitrary and abusive decision it was by the Supreme Court: it was made public 2 days before the closing of RCTV and in record time for venezuelan standards in response to an appeal made by a group of users on May 24th. --Jenizaro 21:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Because anyone can edit articles, that's why. And that often includes young, idealist, ignorant people who have their own beliefs about what happens in Venezuela. If, in addition to that, an editor happens to also be a leftist, then the rules to follow are clear: assign NPOV tags, {{Fact}} tags, etc., or delete and destroy at will anything that he/she finds displeasing or contrary to treasured beliefs, with the excuse that "it was pure POV", or "it was unreferenced", or whatever. If a Venezuelan resident writes or edits in accordance with his/her own interpretations of events is understandable, whether he/she is a chavista or not. But what is bewildering is to find that texts can be (and are) customarily obliterated or twisted by (for example) a 19-year-old kid who has never been in Venezuela, doesn't speak Spanish, and is a resident of, say, Canada, or Scotland, or Japan; in short, by someone who is utterly ignorant of the history, of the previous events, of the raison d'etre of the current state of affairs. Such editors, true aliens to the subtle political/cultural/historical/strategical facts of a country that is foreign to them, purport to "know better" and decide they have enough authority to clobber and run over texts written by people who have lived all their lives in that country, who have the knowledge and the experience; showing no respect for their contributions, and readily crying out loud "Be Civil!" when criticized or contested. Really disgusting, indeed! --AVM 02:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(sorry for interrupting the below comment, though it also expresses my sentements very well. I just elaborate a tad bit more)...I understand your point of view but I, being in the "ignorant" category you've devised, don't appreciate it. It is not the age of a person that determines what they understand and don't. I, being younger than 18, understand things that many adults cannot in various subject areas and, though what you have said above is true in many circumstances, your comments are guilty of generalization. Obviously one must correct POV and biased statements, but making generalizations based upon location of residence, age, and linguistic ability is unwarranted. (Luckily I was born in Venezuela, speak Spanish, but reside in the United States, the son of an economist and a business administrator). "Being civil" applies to everyone, and waging the struggle against bias in Wikipedia and elsewhere is not one in which the person attempting to correct it vents their frustration, but rather a silent service to the community. Weatherguy1033 18:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've observed different reasons for the pro-Chávez bias on Wikipedia. Editors who know the full story aren't always committed to making well-sourced edits based on reliable sources over the long haul, and often pop in and out of these articles until they give up fighting the POV and bullying, while editors committed to advancing a pro-Chávez version remain long after others have gone. It's an issue of endurance and understanding that you must be vigilant about reliable sources and neutrality over the long haul. Too many editors who can tell a balanced story of the events in Venezuela don't make healthy, painstakingly reliably-sourced edits, so can end up doing more harm than good. I haven't found these qualities to be related to age or whether one is Venezuelan. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you still beat your wife? --JRSP 09:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Young, idealistic, and irrational supporters of controversial figures tend to apply themselves with much more zeal than do enemies of same. It's as simple as that. -anonymous

That statement I agree with. Weatherguy1033 18:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is biased against Chavez

The Coup clearly happened. The "general strike" mentioned in the article was not a general strike in the real sense but a strike of capital. Billionaire oil magnates essentially shut the country down and were supported by a minority of the population. Chavez has won election after election and the constitution includes the right of recall. There is a documentary film being released in the UK on June 15th called the war against democracy (John Pilger) which will document the moves by the US to destabilise latin american regimes they do not approve of. I have an article on my blog that may be of some use. [4]

Reliable sources, please. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, you are being too considerate towards this anonymous (that is, unsigned) post. What nerve! And he or she accuses the article of having a bias? What is he/she talking about? "Billionaire oil magnates" in Venezuela, where all the oil business (from the earth's crust to your gas tank) belongs to the state? What an imagination! This post, like many other posts about Venezuela, is just the voice of ignorance. I would recommend to simply delete this piece of nonsense. --AVM 20:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this information relevant

In the first paragraph it says "RCTV had Venezuela's largest viewing audience, with 10 million of the country's 26 million people viewing its shows and soap operas." Is this information relevant for the article? Carlos5678 04:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is relevant background information. Monni 05:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't even understand the question; how can it not be relevant that the largest station in Venezuela is closed down? Readers need some sense of context, perspective, to know if an obscure station, or a widely-viewed one, was closed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats true, it should be kept Carlos5678 20:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is relevant, though "its shows and soap operas" sounds stupid, like "its shows and cooking shows" or "its shows and sitcoms". It would be better to either excise "and soap operas" completely (and change "shows" to "programmes") or change it to "its shows, including soap operas and newscasts". Professor Ninja 11:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Background Section follows a non NPOV

I find the background section clearly biased. On the first paragraph it presents only a side of what happened. While it is true what is written, it is taken out of context. It never mentions the coup that really happened, so it looks like the author was trying to create the impression that the coup never happened and Chávez supporters came up with it. The background continues with information that although is factual, is written to portray a bad image of Chavez by taking the statements out of context and failing to mention the reasons Chavez had to say those phrases (it is the reader who has to judge if Chavez's reasons are valid or not, we have to mention them). The government has argued more reasons for not renewing the license besides the coup (Im looking for *reliable* sources about this).

After that, the article quotes a part about the Venezuelan ambassador to the US, that does not belong to the background of the protests, but to the background of RCTV's final days.

Finally, the last paragraph that says the the Supreme Court is packed with Chavez allies requires a reliable source. Some of the articles do not relate to Chavez's alleged allies in the Supreme Court (The article "Chavez Pulls Plug on Venezuelan Television Network (Update4)" does not even mentions the composition of the Supreme Court). The BBC article only mentions that the opposition considered the move to be a crowding of the judiciary, it never stated it to be fact, so it actually never says what it is intended to support. The Petroleum world articles does exactly the same thing, it only states that the judges are all allied to Chavez, and never backs it up (addendum, is Petroleum world considered a reliable source??). Finally the article by Human Rights Watch fails to mention other events that happened at that time, like the boycott that opposition legislators kept trying to do in the assembly. Adding to this the fact that Human Rights Watch has been critical of many governmental decision, I feel that this article alone cannot be used to support the claim. The citation needs another, more reliable source. Carlos5678 05:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at today's changes to the article, but as of yesterday, all six articles sourcing the Supreme Court statement specifically addressed that text, so your characterization (above) was not correct as of yesterday. For example, the "Chavez Pulls Plug" Bloomberg articles says, "Chavez controls the judiciary"; dozens more articles can be used to cite this text if you want more. Regarding your statements about bias, you've given your personal opinion; please provide text cited to reliable sources if there is information you want incorporated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a perfectly valid source for Chavez packing the supre court. http://www.rnv.gov.ve/noticias/?act=ST&f=2&t=11482

It is in fact an official organ of the Venezuelan government, and thus inherently pro-Chavez. It says that the Congress (on which Chavez' coalition had a comfortable majority) appointed 49 new magistrates to the Supreme Court. It also explains that among other spots, the government filled that previously occupied by Franklin Arrieche, whom parliament removed from his job as vice-president of the court. It is noteworthy that just before his sacking, former magitrate Arrieche was the author of a decision clearing many of the army officers disloyal to Chavez on April 11. A decision, which caused Mr. Chavez to call the TSJ a "plasta" (which I believe can be translated as a piece of shitt, though I might be wrong since I am not entirely familiar with Venezuelan lingo) on national TV, and to denounce and insult the subscribing magistrates repeatedly.

Endspilot 13:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Reply to Sandy) So that means that if an article affirms something, it becomes true?? If the NYT says [Dipendra of Nepal] is alive, without any kind of proof, just by the fact it was said, does it becomes true??. I would really like to see some secondary (analysis, experts, people-with-knowledge AKA no journalists) sources that provide a reasoning for the statement, not just someone that simply repeats it. Second, I don't need to provide reliable sources in order to delete inaccurate content, because since the content does not have anything to prove it true (the articles state it to be fact, but NEVER provide the reasoning behind it or a reference to it). Secondly, the article on RNV does not even mention Chávez, nor the political affiliations of the new members of the court. Any conclusion someone reaches upon reading the article its personal and hardly encyclopedic. The article states the proceedings in the National Assembly to name a new Supreme Court, which in Venezuela is the correct procedure. Carlos5678 20:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Reply to Endspilot) The Supreme Court is an official organ of Venezuela, its positions are filled by the Assembly so stating that the judges are his allies just because his party has the majority of the assembly is a stretch. Regarding Arrieche, it only mentions he was removed from his office. The reasons for his removal does not have any bearing on the composition of the new supreme court, so the rest of your comment is simply unrelated to the fact. Carlos5678 20:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos5678, you may find a read through of WP:ATT helpful. Deleting extremely well-referenced text without consensus doesn't usually lead good places. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I disagree with Carlos5678's deleting without consensus, I do agree that the background section appears to be written in a persuasive way. There isnt a mention the 2002 coup attempt (only that "the military asked for his resignation") until the second paragraph which leaves one with a very one-sided view of what happened. It doesn't reflect the force that was used to do certain things which could explain (maybe not justify, thats a matter of opinion) the reaction by Chavez supporters and later the reson Chavez gave to close down RCTV. If you require sources for all of this I can look it up, but I think this is widely known and I'm just looking to reach an agreement. --Antonio.sierra 08:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Media freedom in Venezuela

Based on three months spent in Venezuela in 2006, our experience was that media freedom does exist and that Chavez is in no way a dictator. Everywhere we went, people gave us their sometimes anti-Chavez views without looking over their shoulders. TV and radio channels and newspapers frequently carried reports critical to the Government - not just CNN or BBC World but more than one local channel too. We did notice one unusual feature. The relentless campaign against the Chavez Government carried out by sections of the TV, radio and press for the last eight years simply would not be tolerated in the countries of Europe or North America. Believe me, we are not talking about reasoned debate: for example, the series of absurd inventions about the Cuban doctors before they arrived. Now the doctors have been operating successfully for several years, the press has gone very quiet about them. With respect to the close involvement of RCTV in the unsuccessful mutiny and coup of 2002, I believe this would have been treated as treason - or terrorism - in most other parliamentary democracies. What did the Venezuelan Government do? They waited 5 years for RCTV's broadcasting licence to expire, and refused to renew it on the grounds of multiple infringements of the terms of that licence. Surely it was the very least they could be expected to do? DermotUK 12:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your impressions, while otherwise valid, are clearly non NPOV. And besides, a three month visit to Venezuela last year is not exactly an authoritative source. Endspilot 13:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a talk page header to remind editors that talk pages are for discussing edits to the article based on reliable sources, not personal opinions and unsourced essays. I also added the BLP header because of mentions of specific living individuals. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DoS travel report

Is there an independent verification of US Department of State claim of "at least one fatality"? DoS is not very reliable for Venezuelan issues. JRSP 22:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree with your assertion that DoS is not a reliable source regarding that particular statement, i.e. that there are reports of a fatality. However, I can't find another reliable source to add, so I'll refrain from reverting any removal. --Elliskev 00:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that the DoS is not a reliable source, but I haven't kept up with other sources, and since injuries/fatalities will eventually be clarified, I'm not concerned if we take it out for now. It's a problem of recentism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using US (a main target for Chavez attacks) as a source is probably not going to do great things for the claims that this article is not NPOV :) I agree with waiting for a more neutral, or at least a confirmed source (And as an encyclopedia we can leave up to the minute reports to the nice people at WikiNews :) Narson 01:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing said in the article about the student protests...

Maybe it is because information is running slow, or that some colaborators still mantain a one sided wiew of the events. Since May 28 to this day, students from almost all of the country's universities, including some high schools, have rallied in a peaceful manner in favour of freedom of speech and pluralism, admitting as a flag the reinstatement of RCTV. They have been delivering documents of concern and pleas to the OEA, the National Comission of Telecommunications, and a comission of the National Assembly on June 1. The demonstrations by the students have shown to be strong, so much that some deputies to the National Assembly have given very serious declarations about them. The student protests have been on the main headlines in and out the country since Tuesday May 29, and have brought concern about the state of fundamental rights in the country, as well as abuse from the Metropolitan Police. I expect that the theme of the student protests is depicted here, in a neutral point of view manner and rightly sourced. I see its becoming an event of importance, and is influencing greatly in public opinnion. Thanks. --Alex Coiro 06:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just dropping by but it seems to me that if the coup is in this article mention should be made of Chavez supporters killing demonstrators. For crying out loud these killers were on video..... El Jigue208.65.188.149 14:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right...which video again? (I suggest you watch 'The Revolution will not be Televised'. It helps) Weatherguy1033 03:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Puppet ?

JRSP, please explain the confusion/difference ?? The article says, "Last week, Mr Chavez accused the Brazilian Congress of acting like a "puppet" of the US after the Senate in Brasilia passed a motion urging him to reconsider his decision to revoke the licence of Venezuelan television network RCTV." It's almost a direct paraphrase; what's wrong? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You dropped a very important word. Please be more careful when dealing with living people. JRSP 02:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, would you like to tell me which very important word I dropped, and if that's the only problem, why you didn't just add it, rather than delete the whole thing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You dropped the word "congress". JRSP 02:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so attempting not to plagiarize the article, I dropped a word which you strangely consider a BLP violation. Is there a reason you couldn't just add that word back rather than delete the entire passage ? And if I add the word "congress" to the passage, do you have a problem with it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult for me to figure out your intentions considering your history in "quotations" [5] --JRSP 02:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JRSP, the exchange above does not seem to reflect AGF on your part, and calling an edit sourced to BBC "poorly sourced" because one word is dropped doesn't seem to assume good faith either. It is difficult for me to understand how you can't comprehend the passage you cite above as directly stating what three of us argued to you that it did sate, but I must assume good faith and accept your word that you just don't see it. No problem, but please take care with assuming good faith in other editors, and in how you label the edits of others in your edit summaries. Since you haven't objected to my adding back in the passage if I add your one word, I'll do it. Safer still, I will use a direct quote of the BBC passage so as not to offend your sense of quotations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more source that could be helful

I haven't edited this article, nor do I intend to. To those that may concern, this article seems to contain quite a lot of information. I'm not saying the writer doesn't have a POV. I'm saying he does present an awful lot of information to back his POV that could help improve the article. Regards. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 01:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Wilpert, Venezuelaanalysis, not an unbiased source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove unsourced

I have been going back and attempting to source uncited commentary that was introduced this week. I want to know if anyone objects to removing the following, for now, and readding when sources are located, as I have not been able to find sources for these passages:

(This statement is much too broad to source. I don't recall who added this, but I can't find anything to source it. There is plenty of text already about various positions; can we source this particular sentence or remove it?) National associations, groups and unions of journalists in Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Ecuador, Peru and Uruguay have also spoken out against the decision.[citation needed]
(This is original research; I'm not able to find any reliable source which discusses the number of injuries or arrests accurately. Can we delete it? We don't really know how many are injured or arrested.) This raises the number injured (as of May 29) to thirty-seven with protests still occurring in parts of Venezuela such as Mérida, Maracay, Carabobo, Valencia, Maracaibo, and Caracas.[citation needed]
CNN commented that a sizeable proportion of those were state-employed civil workers who were ordered to march.[citation needed] (I'm not sure how we handle these cases; this is how pro-Chávez demonstrations are run, and I'm sure CNN said this, but if CNN makes on air comments that aren't yet committed to print media somewhere, the information is not verifiable. I think, because it doesn't meet WP:V, we may need to delete it? Fox News also reported that Sunday's anti-Chávez protests were the largest yet, but that the now state-controlled television refused to cover the anti-Chávez demonstrations, instead running only re-runs of the pro-Chávez demonstrations the day before. Fox News reported that on air, but I haven't yet seen this in a hardprint report, and I don't believe we have a verifiable way of including this kind of information. Anyone ? )

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, I don't know. I guess that a broadcasting-only channel like CNN probably has no available printed version of their newscasts. Also, I guess that CNN would be reluctant to confirm or re-transmit anything already aired, either; or they just can't provide such service. So their news are admittedly very hard to verify, unless someone had a VHS or DVD recorder available, but then such media would be of no avail in Wikipedia, anyway. CNN did say that, and for most of us who have watched the pro-Gov't marches and the huge deployment of Gov't-paid buses to carry those "demonstrators" to and fro, that news is to be credited. At any rate, the Venezuelan government has declared that it will sue CNN, so we'll be seeing more about this. --AVM 20:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, something said over the air is verifiable. It's just hard to do. WP:V doesn't mandate that the information has to verifiable via an Internet search. You could verify it by writing CNN and paying them for a copy of the program that ran on X day and hour. A thorough citation might be sufficient to deter other editors from deleting the statement for being unsourced. Tempshill 03:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe someone knows how/where to find transcripts of CNN and Fox News broadcasts? At any rate, the information will eventually come out in hardprint format. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/? Tempshill 03:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that site; not all transcripts are available yet, so one has to keep checking back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More uncited (could be edited to reduce to known facts rather than removed):

Carmona's decrees were followed by pro-Chávez uprisings and looting across Caracas. Responding to these disturbances, Venezuelan soldiers loyal to Chávez called for massive popular support for a counter-coup.^{[citation needed]} These soldiers later stormed^{[citation needed]} and retook the presidential palace, and retrieved Chávez from captivity. The shortest-lived government^{[citation needed]} in Venezuelan history was thus toppled, and Chávez resumed his presidency on the night of Saturday, 13 April 2002.

Direct quote

AVM, I checked the source, and this was a direct quote, so should probably be restored. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fox News

Adam Housley from Fox News reported that a street dealer told him that the Venezuelan Gov was forcing people to attend to a Pro-gov march and giving each demonstrator caps, T-shirts and free lunches plus some cash. This is not my idea of "multiple reliable sources". JRSP 08:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cut this from article. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary sources:

It was reported^[who?] that pro-Chávez protesters were bussed to the site, given a free shirt, hat and lunch, or paid about 25 dollars to attend, that much of Chávez support was "paid for or threatened", and that "supporters" worked for the government and were told to attend or be fired.^[1]^{[unreliable source?]}

JRSP 16:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As anyone from Venezuela should know, it's not at all an extraordinary claim. It's common, a well-known practice, and anyone with a view of the city can see the hundreds of chartered buses with state employees being brought in and supplied, and anyone who can speak Spanish can talk to scores, legions, and boatloads of demonstrators who will tell you the same thing they told Adam Housley. You need to justify your charge that it's an extraordinary claim; it's not at all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show us a more neutral source for this claim? If it were "common knowledge" there would be a lot of independent reliable sources reporting this. JRSP 17:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which you've searched for in Spanish and not found? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Housley, Adam (June 2 2007). "Protests in Venezuela Turn Ugly After President Hugo Chavez Yanks TV Station Off the Air: Saturday, June 2". FOX News. Retrieved 2007-06-06. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

International reactions section

This reactions relate to the end of the broadcast license and not to the protests. Perhaps it should be moved to the RCTV article (or alternatively, the article could be renamed). JRSP 11:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

We need to rename this; for starters it was May to June, and we have JRSP's point above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Shutdown at all!

As everyone knows and easily can check by just visiting the website of RCTV (http://www.rctv.net/) the 55 years old TV-Station was never, not for a single second shut down by anyone or anything at anytime and is still up and running. Is this really so complicated that grown up people can't understand it after two years?. JUST THE LICENCE FOR BROADCASTING VIA PUBLIC AIRWAVES (you now, this old school Television, were you have an antenna on your TV, something Europeans and US-Americans didn't see for a decade) was not renewed. The Station is still up and running, broadcasting via cable, satellite and over the internet.

The only thing what stopped at May 27th was the radio-transmissions. This is for sure improperly described by shut down.

So please, can we just reach a consensus on this basic fact and change that in this article so that it may reflect what really happened? --80.219.146.186 (talk) 13:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

restructure/rename

This article really ought to be refocussed to cover the entire RCTV licence issue (at least the terrestrial licence). A lot of stuff can be moved from RCTV here, with a brief summary left there, and then everything will make more sense with less duplication. Rd232 ^talk 00:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 April 2015

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

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2007 RCTV protests → 2007 RCTV protests – The protests occurred in both May and June of 2007. The current name may also imply that there was another month of protesting when there was not. ZiaLater (talk) 01:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - a more concise name. Stickee (talk) 04:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not fond of starting articles with dates, and I don't see what the 2007 adds to the article title (see earlier commentary about restructuring the entire article). I support a change to simply RCTV protests. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree with that SandyGeorigia, there hasn't really been other RCTV protests so maybe RCTV protests is more suitable.--ZiaLater (talk) 11:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 2007 RCTV protests. 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:

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) 03:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on 2007 RCTV protests. 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:

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) 22:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2007 RCTV protests. 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/20070605001156/http://www.cpj.org/protests/07ltrs/americas/ven24may07pl.html to http://www.cpj.org/protests/07ltrs/americas/ven24may07pl.html

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) 09:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Housley, Adam (June 2 2007). "Protests in Venezuela Turn Ugly After President Hugo Chavez Yanks TV Station Off the Air: Saturday, June 2". FOX News. Retrieved 2007-06-06. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[1]