This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Charles Rodriguez (talk | contribs) at 19:12, 27 February 2010 (→SandyGeorgia the only one allowed to change this page?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:12, 27 February 2010 by Charles Rodriguez (talk | contribs) (→SandyGeorgia the only one allowed to change this page?)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff).svg){kind=small} | Venezuela Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Film Start‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
 | Ireland Start‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Urban myth?
I recall reading somewhere that, mysteriously, this documentary has never been shown on television in the USA. Someone please renew my faith in freedom of speech in that country and tell me that isn't true, is it? 86.136.3.135 06:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know about that, but I know it has been shown on RTE and BBC, but the makers wanted to release it as a feature but couldn't find a distributor. Seabhcán 14:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure if it has ever been aired on an American Network but it was shown on the CBC in Canada. (Hedel)
I was told that in the university class where I saw it, and to add insult to injury the professor added that the film was first turned down by American distribution. The only people who distributed it (at that time anyway) were European. 200.108.27.63 13:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
This would be easy to verify - there are about 5 major networks in the U.S. - ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CNN (possibly MSNBC). Check their websites, call them, send them email. I also heard that none of them aired it. I'm a Chomskyite, so I would be amazed if anyone did show it. But check for yourself. Our press is free to do what they want, but they never do anything that would be bad for profits, like showing a capitalist plutocracy (U.S.A.) orchestrating a coup against a democratically elected socialist president in our own hemisphere. (IMHO)
I know that The Amnesty international didn't dare to show it on their moviefestival in Canada, becouse the opposition in Venezuela (who did the coup) "couldnät guarantee the safety for amnesty members in venezuela". That's horrible.
Curiously, this DVD has been listed on Netflix as "Availabilty: Unknown" for over three years, despite the fact anyone can easily buy the DVD on various websites as well as watch it for free, just not with Netflix.
Critiscism is not really that valid
I recently decided to watch all three documentaries about the Puente Llaguno events. I highly recomend that you watch them in this order.
"Puente Llaguno: Claves de una masacre" The best documentary by far (Revolution is only good for the inside Mirflores cameras and that is it IMHO), they chronologically construct the event masterfully using EVIDENCE (they use the sun dial trick only once) ie they look at a range of pictures and check the watches, they use audio syncronization with the cadena to determine the exact minute of the famous Venevision video, they check the date stamp from digital cameras indy cameramen give them, etc. Show extra footage etc. A must see but it is a crying shame it is only in spanish.
Found here download the 5 segments individually the big one is not working
X-Ray of a Lie. It exists to debunk Revolution, I was initially perplexed since I saw Revolution after "Claves de una Masacre", and could clearly see that it was NOT 1:00 or 1:30 the first clue was that the Chavistas were taking cover and were not in the middle, those that were were in prone position, there was also a dead body in still 2, and there was clear shooting going on, that said they did contradict themselves on the video a few minutes later saying it happened in 5:30 according to their calculations (sun dial, wich is not that accurate specially if they are meassuring personal shadow angles and the blood stain color of a dead occured at 4:40pm). The 2nd part was added later, when they were aware of the mistake they made in the original documentary. That's why this 2nd version begins at 33:12 with "Grabado posteriormente al foro" (recorded after the forum) and it corrects the previous version without removing anything from from the original documentary. Additionally it reveals another manipulation made by "Chavez - The Film" : the picture was electronically enlarged to remove the armoured police vehicle the Chavez supporters were shooting at.
Revolution will not be televised. It is a good documentary but would skip the first part unless you are completely new to the subject, when the action starts (after puente Llaguno) inside Miraflores.Flanker 15:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
The shadow
The two screen shots puzzle me. The first one seems to show people on a sidewalk with wavy lines and behind a wall casting a shadow. The second one shows the sidewalk with the wavy lines again, but no wall. Look at the line on the street below. It runs right up to the sidewalk, so there is no wall there. But then, what is is casting the shadow? Since in the tropics shadows can move very fast, especially when cast by a high building, this is very relevant. Of course, this is very easy to check for someone who lives there. Just go to the bridge at that time of year and record at which times such shadows are cast.
Also, I've uploaded a shot that zooms out a bit more, with thick crowds huddling together at both sides of the bridge. If this was shot earlier, before the shooting started, then what are they hiding from? DirkvdM 19:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- That is the problem in X-ray of a lie they show TWO different times, one 1:30 and the other 5:30 the skeptic in me says that this is typical of the venezuelan oposition they think that the more critiscism they fling the more likely they are able to convince, even if they contradict themselves. The second shot definitely happens after the shootings as in the Revolution wnbt there are clearly people shooting. Try watching puente Llaguno documentary (part 4 I believe) they show a similar shot but from a handycam and synchronize it with the movement of the people to the exact time of the shootings, the crowds are huddled as well away from the middle.Flanker 01:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The whole "shadow" thing in X-ray of a lie is pure rubbish. First of all, as was rightly noticed by one reviewer already, they first claim (pay particular attention to the ridiculous "experiment" with the battery, where the alleged shadow at 1.30 is practicaly only towards west, only shorter (notice that at that time the angle of the shadow is, of course, much bigger then 15 degrees from the west-east axis, as the shadows should point in north-east direction, but with a much bigger angle), very "scientific" indeed), and then they claim for the frames showing exactly the same position of shadows to be taken at 5.30. The only thing true here, as is perfectly clear and undeniably proven by comparing the frames for the shadows thrown by the same objects (take notice that Schalk contrives his fraud by comparing a shadow of one object in the first frame with the shadow of an another object in the second frame, a clever trick as he does the comparison fast and moves on swiftly, it took me at least four viewings to notice the scam at all) is that the second frame must have been taken shortly after the first (taken the date and the geographical position of Caracas, most probably around half an hour). The whole 1.30pm presentation is therefore vulgar charlatanism posing as "scientific proof".
- Yaah I am thinking of making a timeline, the two shots are no more than 30 min apart, and they attack the documentary for being dishonest. Flanker 23:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
BTW, if there were anti-Chavez protesters under that bridge at the time of the shooting, why don't they show them in their movie? No footing available? How is that possible?Because nobody of anti-Chavez protesters passing through the street at the time brought a camera with them to film the event? Yeah, right. X-ray of a lie is nothing more then a shamless hoax.
Given that we are actually watching the documentaries as opposed to reading an article
How would one interpret a visual cue that is not OR? I believe we should only state what the narrator states as if it were audio.Flanker 02:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Venezuela Bolivariana: People and Struggle of the Fourth World War
Any of you who dispute that the police (who were anti Chavez) fired at the protesters then you clearly haven’t seen the documentary "Venezuela Bolivariana: People and Struggle of the Fourth World War". It is freely available here: http://www.archive.org/details/Venezuela_Bolivariana_VEN_2004 alternatively you can watch it online here: http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-1797179074001054188&hl=en-GB fast forward to 54:00. at 54:22 it shows that a police water cannon cleared the street below the bridge at 3:54pm at 54:29 it shows people running away from the police at 4:00pm. This also shows the protesters up on the bridge. in the background. at 55:57, there is a photo of the police about to start shooting at the protesters on the bridge. at 56:03 it shows footage from the bridge of the police under the bridge. at 56:29, it shows a Pro Chavez protester being shot in the head from a long distance, the time on the hand held camera is 4:20pm. However this is not on the bridge. This basically shows that the police were shooting at the pro Chavez protesters. It also shows footage from under the bridge, behind the police.
So yes there were people under the bridge, running away from the police water cannon and tear gas. You can see that when people under the bridge are running away from the police, those on top of the bridge are looking down, they are not firing, or ducking. Then the police open fire on the Chavez protesters on the bridge. Then the protesters fire back.
X-Ray of a lie is a lie. But generally people will believe what they WANT to believe, rather than the truth (hence why you get UFO sightings, and people assume that they are aliens rather than rational explanations). This can be argued on both sides. Personally I believe that the protesters were the victims here, not the police. Chavez would hardly order the police to fire on the protesters that are supporting him. Yes he lost control of the police, however this was a coup, and the police were under the control of the coup leaders.
- The police were in control of Alfredo Peña, the metropolitan mayor at the time and a political opponent. Flanker 12:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
The article's lack of content
Controversy aside, I came to this article to refresh my memory on the content of the film itself. Even if the film is inaccurate, the first priority should be to discuss that content, and the discussions of accuracy should come later. I think readers would appreciate if someone who has seen the movie more than once would fill in the necessary details and worry about the criticism afterward.
200.108.27.63 13:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Could point. Technically, a portrayal of the content should be the first priority of the article. It is after all an encyclopaedic article and the purpose of such a resource is to provide information on the subject (in this case the film), NOT to spend the vast majority of the article discussing the films legitimacy, which should really be discussed elsewhere (an internet forum, a politics website, a movie mistakes website, etc.). I guess this is one of the current major flaws of Misplaced Pages though, too many people are more interested in pushing their point of view on others rather than informing as a more traditional encyclopaedia would aim to do. Misplaced Pages is not an essay website and it is not movie-mistakes.com. Sadly I very much doubt the article will be refocused for the reasons I have given. Canderra 23:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- On this note I made an edit to the caption of the picture of Lucas Rincón announcing Chávez's resignation on TV. It said "It is argued that this event was not shown in the documentary". I removed the "It is argued" as that is not a point for argument. If you've watched the documentary (which I have), you know that that speach or any reference to it was completely ommited from the documentary. Jesús 15:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Can someone improve the shadows section?
I can't make out with certainty what either side is claiming about the shadows on the bridge. What does each documentary claim, and what should I be looking at in Frames 1 and 2? (Please answer by improving that section of the article, not by replying here.) Gronky 13:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- For example, in Frame 2, I can't see the wall that is casting the shadow - maybe just because the picture quality is poor. And the picture claims to show a shadow which is cast wider than the wavey white road markings, but the other shadows in the picture are cast from right to left and this width is measured from top to bottom. Can someone please fix the article to explain what I should be looking for? Gronky 13:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that WP editors cannot do original research; we can only repeat "x-ray" arguments which are very difficult to understand. I think "x-ray"is just a hoax. --JRSP 18:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- I can try to explain: the Irish documentary says it happened at H-hour (during the march) in order to discredit this X-ray initially claims it happened on (H-hour - 4) based on one shadow, but a little while later claim it happened (H-hour + :30 mins) based on another shadow. We can only post what they say even if it is more misleading than not knowing their claims at all.Flanker 21:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Somebody who wrote this article did not understand the shadows part of the "X-ray" documentary at all; it never spoke about the railing shadow, but about the surrounding buildings' shadow instead. I corrected that information on the article. Lenineleal 23:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- As I understood in the X-Ray documentary, the originally claimed, the shooting at Llaguno bridge happened at 1:30 around, because they interpreted one shdow as a shadow of a building, wich it wasn't, but of the crowd. So afterwards they introduced a 2nd explanation (i wonder, why they didn't remove the wrong part, maybe to say, that they were wrong, but it's part of the original). This 2nd said, it happened at 5:30 around, according to a blood stain and the shadow length taken from the people there. And to think, it's a hoax only because they are wrong about one thing (everyone makes errors, no?), it's a bit harsh. Especially because "the revolution will not be televised" has more to offer than this one part, and X-Ray proofed, that they were lying in more parts than this one. Example : The media were quiet afterwards. Check the archive of "El Universal", wich is full of critics of Chavez, but they wrote at 12.4.2002 that Carmona dissolved the AN and it's wrong... and and and...--190.77.33.252 22:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Somebody who wrote this article did not understand the shadows part of the "X-ray" documentary at all; it never spoke about the railing shadow, but about the surrounding buildings' shadow instead. I corrected that information on the article. Lenineleal 23:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've re-organised that whole section. I haven't changed any of the information - I couldn't, I haven't seen X-Ray or Puente. What I did was I put the related information together. So rather than one paragraph saying X-Ray said it happened at 1:00, and another paragraph saying X-Ray said it happened at 5:30, I made one paragraph saying that X-Ray said it happened at either 1:00 or 5:30, and that they have evidence which proves each claim. Gronky 20:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- What are these red lines in the frames supposed to proof? The first measures the shadow from the bottom of the railing to the edge of the shadow, the second one from the top. Am I missing a point here or are we measuring with two different standards? Channel ® 13:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Further, who added the red lines? Obviously, they do not come from "The Revolution...". Are these snapshots from other film or were they altered by an editor to advance a position? JRSP (talk) 19:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Everything but the video?
This article discusses awards, criticisms, counter-criticisms, and reception, but I just realised that it does not mention the content of the documentary :-) If anyone has the time, please help. Gronky 12:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Removal of "needs infobox" tag
This article has had its infobox tag removed by a cleanup using AWB. Any concerns please leave me a message at my talk page. RWardy 17:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
No original research
The subsection "Documentaries, for and against" is 100% original research. In my opinion, it is used as an excuse to promote two non notable films, one contradicting "The Revolution..." theses and another supporting them. First of all a proof of notability of these films is needed, otherwise they must be considered fringe views that do not deserve a place in WP. After that, their support or criticism must be supported by secondary reliable sources, otherwise, it would be original research and therefore not allowed per Misplaced Pages core content policies. Please do not restore this material unless you can provide reliable sources to support it. JRSP (talk) 11:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- The secondary reliable sources are the documentaries themselves. They are not fringe views, both cause quite a stir, among many other things, one must remember that a planned screening of the film was canceled by the organizers of the Amnesty International Film Festival given the arguments against the film. http://www.democracynow.org/2003/11/6/the_revolution_will_not_be_televised. Please do not remove content that provides key information about the reception of the film. This sections are common in film pages.Caracas1830 (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- The documentaries are not secondary but primary sources. Working directly with primary sources poses 2 problems: 1) The notability of the sources has not been established, it must be proven that they "provide key information about the reception of the film" and 2) Interpreting or synthesising a source is not allowed per WP:NOR. The solution for both problems is finding secondary reliable sources commenting on the films. Otherwise, the unsourced material should be deleted, I don't think that "this sections are common in film pages" is an excuse for keeping unsourced material in violation of wikipedia core policies. JRSP (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- The docs were made and exist only because "The revolution" was made. The interest of a writer must be to contribute, expand and enrich articles, as they are done in the rest of wikipedia, not to censor material that ones does not agree with. Caracas1830 (talk) 07:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- One more thing. This is from the Style Guide of the WikiProject Film with respect to the content that should be included with respect to the reception of Documentaries. "Documentaries present a special case, as they present themselves as recounters of fact. Therefore criticism of content ought to be included if it is presented with reasonable documentation and if there is evidence of public awareness of the controversy. Responses to such criticism should likewise be presented on the same basis. The existence of a public controversy ought to be acknowledged whatever can be said about it; the publicity is by nature citable, and omission creates the false impression that the subject matter is uncontroversial." . As I said before, our effort, as writers must be to expand the content.Caracas1830 (talk) 07:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- The documentaries are not secondary but primary sources. Working directly with primary sources poses 2 problems: 1) The notability of the sources has not been established, it must be proven that they "provide key information about the reception of the film" and 2) Interpreting or synthesising a source is not allowed per WP:NOR. The solution for both problems is finding secondary reliable sources commenting on the films. Otherwise, the unsourced material should be deleted, I don't think that "this sections are common in film pages" is an excuse for keeping unsourced material in violation of wikipedia core policies. JRSP (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- You said The interest of a writer must be to contribute, expand and enrich articles, as they are done in the rest of wikipedia, not to censor material that ones does not agree with. This would be true if we were talking about notable information supported by secondary reliable sources. I am sure that WikiProject Film recommendation that criticism of content ought to be included is not intended to supersede WP:NOR. There would be no problem if you added criticism supported by secondary reliable sources which may include or not references to "X-Ray". The problem is that "X-ray" is a non-notable film which received very little attention. By the way, I'm also deleting material based on "Puente Llaguno" which actually supports "The Revolution" points, my intention is not to suppress criticism, the only thing I ask is that criticism and praise be supported by reliable sources and not by a couple of non-notable documentaries. Both "X-Ray" and "Puente Llaguno" are self-published material and cannot be used to make claims about third parties, Misplaced Pages is not a soap box. JRSP (talk) 11:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Per the request for third opinion by JRSP - My opinion is that the section The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (documentary)#Documentaries, for and against is WP:OR based on primary sources (i.e. the documentaries concerned). I'd advise Caracas1830 to locate secondary reliable sources to support the section. Thanks, Nk.sheridan Talk 23:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Also, Caracas1830, I don't appreciate my edits being labeled as "vandalism". Please check Misplaced Pages:Vandalism#What_vandalism_is_not. In fact, according to WP:V "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." JRSP (talk) 01:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Red lines in images
Thanks for adding the sources, Caracas1830. Now, I'd like to discuss the red lines added to the images. In both cases you said "a line was added". Would you please be more specific and tell us who added the lines? JRSP (talk) 11:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
El Nacional article
Caracas1830, you sourced the sentence "A documentary made by Venezuelan TV producers and engineers Thaelman Urgelles and Wolfgang Schalk, called "X-Ray of a Lie", claimed that The Revolution Will Not Be Televised was inaccurate and dishonest" using an article from Alexis Correia. Are you sure the article mentions "X-ray"? I will go to the library on Monday to check but at first sight there is something that doesn't fit: The article is from October 2003 while, according to imdb, "X-Ray" is from 2004. JRSP (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
POV
Added POV tag to the reception section, which seems overlong and uses original research in an attempt to make a political point. Little Professor (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Would you please be more specific? What parts of the section you consider POV? There are lots of sources so I don't understand why you say there is POV/OR? JRSP (talk) 02:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- The whole section regarding Urgelles and Schalk - first of all it is badly written, almost unreadable in that big chunk of a paragraph. Secondly, rather than summarizing the concerns raised by the duo, it seems to be a systematic critique of the documentary, which seems out of place in a Misplaced Pages article.
You can remove the tag if you like - maybe it's not so much POV that I was questioning, but rather whether that paragraph meets wikipedia guidelines. Little Professor (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Not really original research IMO, but undue weight given to Schalk opinion so I won't remove the POV tag (perhaps it could be replaced with an "unbalanced" tag). I agree Schalk's concerns should be sumarized as in the present version it is taking as much space as a lot of multiple independent reviews. JRSP (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I sumarized the paragraph, here's the previous version:
In 2003 Venezuelan TV producers and engineers Thaelman Urgelles and Wolfgang Schalk, claimed that the film The Revolution Will Not Be Televised was "a flagrant violation of the ethic codes that they learned as alumni of TV production and direction from the BBC in London" and that the film is "a work of propaganda". What they considered was the worst manipulation was made with the images showing the Baralt Avenue without any people and the Venevisión video showing the shooters of Puente Llaguno filmed by Luis Alfonso Fernández."When we examined the angle of the sun we discovered that the images from the Baralt Avenue were filmed at 1:00 pm while the images from Venevisión were filmed after 4:00 pm but were edited as if they happen simultaneously." They compared this kind unethical behavior with the case of Jayson Blair.. Urgelles and Schalk were also concerned that the some scenes of the people in front of the Presidential Palace on the morning of April 11th were from another gathering which happen another day in another city of Venezuela.. Urgelles and Schalk considered that the film makers also ignored Chávez's "chain" between 3:45 and 5:27 pm, happening while 21 people were killed and 150 were injured around the Presidential Palace. They explained that it was then that the private channels decided to split the screen into two and show the events and then the government shut down their signal. Urgelles and Schalk were concerned that the images of tanks on April 12 moving to the Miraflores palace were not intended to attack Chávez, but those tanks were following Chávez's own order to attack the opposition march. Also Urgelles and Schalk considered that the film makers misrepresent the multiethnic composition of Venezuela in order to give the idea that Chávez followers are of dark skin and the opposition is white and wealthy.
JRSP (talk) 14:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
More on POV: Brian Nelson, The Silence and the Scorpion
For a partial listing of items presented incompletely here, see User:SandyGeorgia/Chavez sources, in particular, User:SandyGeorgia/Chavez sources#.22Coup.22.2C general strike.2C recall referendum.2C Sumate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- This article is about a documentary. If you want the tag to stay, you need to be specific. Wikispan (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- I have been specific; I suggest you don't remove the tag :) See the quotes in the attached, linked article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Do the sources -- or quotes -- mention the documentary by name? Wikispan (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Let's not be obtuse; is there another documentary fitting that description? At any rate, get the book mentioned by the sources. It will surely provide plenty of material for expanding this article and explaining the many "manipulations" in the "documentary". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- "In this enterprise, Mr Chavez was abetted by foreign admirers, including the Irish makers of an award-winning documentary on the coup which, Mr Nelson finds, contains 'many manipulations'. ... The Silence and the Scorpion: The Coup Against Chavez and the Making of Modern Venezuela. By Brian A. Nelson. Nation Books; 355 pages; $26.95
- http://www.amazon.com/Silence-Scorpion-Against-Chavez-Venezuela/dp/1568584180/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266933761&sr=8-1 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Let's not be obtuse; is there another documentary fitting that description? At any rate, get the book mentioned by the sources. It will surely provide plenty of material for expanding this article and explaining the many "manipulations" in the "documentary". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Do the sources -- or quotes -- mention the documentary by name? Wikispan (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- I have been specific; I suggest you don't remove the tag :) See the quotes in the attached, linked article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- The article in The Economist is behind a subscription wall, hence my general questioning -- does it mention the film by name and, if the answer is "Yes", what specific material would you like to see added. Drive-by tagging is not helpful. The Critical reception section already contains opposing viewpoints and references therefore I see zero justification for the tag. Wikispan (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- I have given you (twice now) sufficient quotes from the article to avoid copyvio, and to indicate you should get the book, at minimum, to expand and neutralize the article. Please take care with claims of "drive-by tagging"; this article has long been incomplete, biased and non-neutral. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Also, see here, for a broader answer on the source from DGG, an experienced editor and librarian. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- You have given me a single quote from a book review. Not helpful. You suggest I purchase the book to "neutralize th article" and remove the tag. Again, not helpful. Merely saying the article is "incomplete, biased and non-neutral", without explaining why this article is "incomplete, biased and non-neutral", is circular. If there is something in this book that you feel belongs on this page, I suggest you pinpoint it, otherwise tagging is meaningless. Wikispan (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- I haven't pointed you to a significant viewpoint that is not given due weight in this article; that a trip to a library or bookstore is needed to correct that does not negate the POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- The article already describes a number of different viewpoints (" brilliant piece of journalism" to " work of propaganda"). There is no NPOV issue at the present time. But if you believe this article can be improved by the inclusion of an additional viewpoint, feel free to proceed and add the material yourself. Pointing to a book in a library and concluding the article is "incomplete" and thus "non-neutral" is not a legitimate cause for tagging the page. The article isn't going anywhere. It will still be here when you get back! For this reason I am removing the tag. Wikispan (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- It is very well established that this film is a pack of lies. See for example this article or this video: and judge by yourself
Voui (talk) 22:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)- User:Alekboyd's blog is not a reliable source. Not everything he says in the link you give is necessarily wrong (the film certainly has flaws), but skimming it I can see a number of claims about the events which are contradicted by better sources. And that points up part of the problem: because there is so much disagreement on what actually happened, this colours people's opinion of this documentary. I'd suggest leaving this article for now and concentrating on the 2002 coup article. Rd232 23:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Agree. Y'all have got to stop referring to Alekboyd's blog, because doing so merely fills up talk pages unnecessarily (see here). And, there are bigger problems elsewhere; once we uncover all the missing sources (and I'm still working on that), smaller articles can be addressed via those reliable sources. And "pack of lies" is not the sort of terminology that advances discussion here; there is surely some truth in this documentary. In the meantime, many of us need to get our hands on that book: WP:WIP-- the POV tag should stand until the article reflects all viewpoints. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see the POV tag as really necessary; there are two paragraphs on criticism of the documentary, and if there are specific points to add there, that should be done, but having a POV tag doesn't particularly help. If at some point there's a dispute about how much weight to give different views, then fine; but right now, the article reflects the reliable sources we have. I suspect Nelson has more to say about the events than the documentary per se, and I'm really wary of unnecessary duplication of the 2002 coup article. In any case, if Nelson's version of events differs from the film's, that's not canonical, since we know there are two versions, and the article already reflects that (though perhaps the lead could give more of a sense of that). Rd232 23:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- There's a whole lot of fluff in this article. Short of getting the book, if we reduce the article to something more reliable, clean it up, and add the quote from The Economist (and we can find others), I think we could then remove the POV tag, pending a broader rewrite from the book. But we're not there in the current version (and I notice none of the others talking here have edited in the new content :). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- "he POV tag should stand until the article reflects all viewpoints." Impossible. No article will ever reflect all viewpoints. There will always be a book germane to the subject sitting on a library shelf, gathering dust. You cannot pick one out seemingly without knowing exactly what is written in advance, complaining 'Do not remove the tag until someone fetches X from the library', especially when the article today reflects both positive and negative commentary. 'I think Chavez is a dictator and I'm pretty sure this documentary is crap!' is not a valid reason to tag the article. Wikispan (talk) 00:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see the POV tag as really necessary; there are two paragraphs on criticism of the documentary, and if there are specific points to add there, that should be done, but having a POV tag doesn't particularly help. If at some point there's a dispute about how much weight to give different views, then fine; but right now, the article reflects the reliable sources we have. I suspect Nelson has more to say about the events than the documentary per se, and I'm really wary of unnecessary duplication of the 2002 coup article. In any case, if Nelson's version of events differs from the film's, that's not canonical, since we know there are two versions, and the article already reflects that (though perhaps the lead could give more of a sense of that). Rd232 23:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Agree. Y'all have got to stop referring to Alekboyd's blog, because doing so merely fills up talk pages unnecessarily (see here). And, there are bigger problems elsewhere; once we uncover all the missing sources (and I'm still working on that), smaller articles can be addressed via those reliable sources. And "pack of lies" is not the sort of terminology that advances discussion here; there is surely some truth in this documentary. In the meantime, many of us need to get our hands on that book: WP:WIP-- the POV tag should stand until the article reflects all viewpoints. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- User:Alekboyd's blog is not a reliable source. Not everything he says in the link you give is necessarily wrong (the film certainly has flaws), but skimming it I can see a number of claims about the events which are contradicted by better sources. And that points up part of the problem: because there is so much disagreement on what actually happened, this colours people's opinion of this documentary. I'd suggest leaving this article for now and concentrating on the 2002 coup article. Rd232 23:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- It is very well established that this film is a pack of lies. See for example this article or this video: and judge by yourself
Wikispan, if you continue to edit war a POV tag, without making a single edit to the article, you are likely to call admin attention to your edit warring (see WP:TEND as well as WP:3RR). I have provided you clearly sourced material that has not been added. The article needs a rewrite to downplay the one-sided story, and add to the article and the lead the fact that the film has recieved praise as well as criticism and charges of "manipulation". I suggest you actually edit the article to incorporate these issues before removing a POV tag. The book can be used to expand the article, but The Economist snips I've given you are enough for now. Once you've done that, the POV tag can be replaced with an expand tag, until one of us gets the book. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- You want to include "snips" of a critical review published by The Economist for a book you have not read, and you do not possess, which leads you to understand, from a single line of text, that the author has something unpleasant to say about the makers of this documentary--but you are unable to describe exactly because the reviewer provides zero detail--and until someone comes into possession of the aforementioned book, reads and confirms your suspicion that The Revolution Will Not Be Televised is a work of fiction, the tag must remain on this page? I will not stand back and allow you to hold this page hostage. Please in your very next response provide specific passages and page numbers from said book. The unattributed review in The Economist mentions this documentary only fleetingly ("Mr Nelson finds contains 'many manipulations'") therefore, absent the book, it is debatable whether this "snip" is worth adding at all. Kindly provide specifics. Wikispan (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Expand
Sources from Google scholar which may be used for article expansion:
- Schiller, Naomi (October 2009). "Framing the Revolution: Circulation and Meaning of The Revolution Will Not Be Televised". Mass Communication and Society. 12 (4): 478–502. doi:10.1080/15205430903237832.
- Holland, Alisha (2008). VENEZUELA A Decade Under Chavez Political Intolerance and Lost Opportunities for Advancing Human Rights in Venezuela. Human Rights Watch.
- Clark, AC (2009). The Revolutionary Has No Clothes: Hugo Chavez's Bolivarian Farce. Encounter Books.
- Nelson, Brian (2009). The Silence and the Scorpion: The Coup Against Chavez and the Making of Modern Venezuela. Nation Books. ISBN 1568584180.
Also, details normally included in Film articles (production costs, timing, development, etc) are missing.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia the only one allowed to change this page?
hello, I thought anyone could edit but it is not true? This belongs to SandyGeorgia? Charles Rodriguez (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Why was the review by Roger Ebert changed to leave out his true impressions of the film in this review?
It is, of course, impossible to prove that the coup was sponsored by the CIA or any other U.S. agency. But what was the White House thinking when it welcomed two antigovernment leaders who soon after were instrumental in the coup?
Note:The last words in George Orwell's notebook were: "At the age 50, every man has the face he deserves." Although it is ourtageously unfiar and indefensibly subjective of me, I cannot prevent myself from observing that Chavez and his cabinet have open, friendly faces, quick to smile, and that the faces of his opponents are closed, shifty, hardened.
Not to say SandyGeorgia should put these quotes in, but she should convey that Roger Ebert had a favorable impression. Charles Rodriguez (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- The article was not "changed to leave out" anything; I added one small quote to balance your small quote. I also don't think adding the extended quote improves the article, since the full review is available online (I do tend towards larger quotes from sources that aren't available online, so that all readers can see exactly what was said.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- You are looking only at the politics of the film. You are not recognizing the film's positive aspects, even from a filmography point of view. It was a powerful film experience, for many people, like Roger Ebert. You want to strip that part of the film out and only look at it as propoganda. You are not evaluating it as a film, aside the your political views of its "message". Charles Rodriguez (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- http://www.eluniversal.com/2003/10/03/cul_art_03208I.shtml
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
nacional20031003was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ http://www.eluniversal.com/2003/11/16/apo_art_16264B.shtml