Talk:Crime in Venezuela

During Maduro's first 100 days in office, over 4,200 people have been murdered in Caracas, the capitol of Venezuela. February 2013 was the most violent month in four years in Caracas. [1] [2]

Question: I do not have access to the New York Times to look up the article cited for the statement that the Bolivarian National Police haven't lowered crime, but the Wikipedia pages for Hugo Chavez, Crime and Violence in Latin America, and Policía Nacional Bolivariana all say that they have lowered crime rates up to 60%. Which is true? 50.77.61.217 (talk) 14:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable Data-- Observatorio Venezolano de Violencia[edit]

The article inaccurately presents as reliable information unreliable data from the "Observatorio Venezolano de Violencia". The OVV's methodology has been challenged by Dorothy Kronick, a Stanford PhD candidate, in an article published on a prominent opposition website and cited in a subsequent Associated Press report. Kronick exposes the OVV's flawed methodology ("By OVV's own account, they don't have access to reliable counts for at least the past five years, [and] it's not clear what they're using as model inputs."), and even points to new data from the Ministry of Health, showing violent death rate in Venezuela falling in 2009, 2010, and 2011 (with the last available years currently unavailable). According to Kronick, Robert Briceño León, the chairman of the Venezuelan Violence Observatory admitted to her that "[her] methodological criticisms were valid". Official/CICPC/MPPRIJ figures for 1990-2011 should be included in the article, as well as official homocide rates from press reports on official announcements in 2012 and 2013.--Riothero (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can look at placing the Official/CICPC/MPPRIJ in the homicide rate graphs if I get a better source for the 1990-2011 data. As of right now, that is a random Power Point and could be OR. Also, there may be critics of OVV's data on a blog, but multiple sources cite their data.

So yes, OVV's data has been challenged, but almost every most notable, reliable source uses or states their statistics and even some sources such as the AP one above state "Venezuela's government has gradually blocked access to murder statistics as violent crime has worsened the past decade".--ZiaLater (talk) 03:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am of the opinion that Wikipedia should not present questionable (or outright fabricated) data as factual. The graph at the top must be removed.-- Riothero (talk) 23:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If all questionable data were to be removed, there would be no data from the Venezuelan government as they hardly provide details and are questioned continuously by multiple organizations. Everything is always questioned. The graph will stay as multiple reliable sources support it. Until a reliable source is provided contrary to what the already provided reliable sources say (OVV is used by multiple reliable sources & collects data from several universities according to reliable sources) then no serious changes can be made.--ZiaLater (talk) 11:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Until a reliable source is provided..." you are insisting on presenting as factual... data that is methodologically flawed, scientifically ungrounded, and at odds with official reports? My point is that since there is NO reliable data (from either the government or OVV), there is no justification for posting a graph in this article! To do so would be highly misleading and one-sided (POV)! Graphs on Wikipedia should be reserved for illustrating data that is uncontroversial, and both methodologically and scientifically grounded. (You say the Venezuelan government "hardly provides details", but the same is true of the OVV!--and what few details they do provide, according to Dorothy Kronick--if you bothered to read her article--exposes critical flaws in the OVV's methodology!) I can look up more official numbers when I have free time, as I'm busy this weekend. The best thing to do would be to report both in accordance with NPOV, etc.--Riothero (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I looked around and found information from the UNODC that uses old info from the UN and info from the NGO PROVEA. Would that be more reliable? PROVEA's data is identical to OVV's.--ZiaLater (talk) 05:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

recent years[edit]

the murder rate since 2009 is contested and should not be displayed on the graph, if even there is to be one.--Riothero (talk) 03:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contested according to who?

I looked up the multiple sets of data since the OVV data was POV to you. We now have multiple accurate calculations.--ZiaLater (talk) 04:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ummm.. have you read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Venezuela#Murder_and_violent_crimes? the government's numbers are different from the UN's, which are different from OVV's. --Riothero (talk) 08:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide data from the Venezuelan Government? I can add it.--ZiaLater (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The U.N. figures differ from the OVV's, yet your graph suggests that they are identical. Rather than including contested data, I suggest that only uncontested data, like that endorsed by the U.N., be depicted on any graph that is to be included on Wikipedia. BTW, why do you insist on placing it at the top of the page, rather than in the appropriate "Murder and Violent Crimes" section?--Riothero (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All existing data should be present in the graphs. The UN now cites PROVEA's findings which makes PROVEA needed in the graph.

OVV is also needed because its data is VERY NOTABLE according to the multiple news organizations who used its data.

And of course, the UN's own data (though very outdated, almost by 7 years) should be in the graph. If you were to provide the Venezuelan government's data as well, it too would be included.--ZiaLater (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I forgot to mention about the position of the graph. It was placed there because the murder rate section was smaller before and the graph's image, in order to be read, had to be big and was too large for the section. I can try to move it down there now.--ZiaLater (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have a disagreement, then. In my opinion, graphs on Wikipedia should be reserved for illustrating data that is uncontroversial in nature. Since the murder rate in Venezuela is "the subject of some dispute", as the article currently acknowledges, I do not think that a graph depicting disputed data would be at all appropriate. (For example, Kronick points out why OVV's data is particularly inappropriate for depiction in graph form given its "inconsistent use of 'homicides' and 'violent deaths', which look like synonyms but definitely aren't.... OVV used to report homicides, but their 2013 press release actually refers to violent deaths. So we end up with a case of apples and oranges: OVV's 2013 (and 2012) estimates aren't directly comparable to OVV estimates from previous years". This is all the more reason why only uncontroversial data belongs on graphs.)--Riothero (talk) 00:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a college student on a blog posts such things does not override multiple reliable sources (such as the ones above, Bloomberg, AP, etc.). I respect your opinion Riothero but if we only included one POV in the graph, then the we would not have accurate data or a neutral article.

If you could, can you please give me a link to Ven. Gov. data from 1998-2014?--ZiaLater (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting that criticism of the OVV from an opinionated source (written not by a "college student", but a Stanford Ph.D. candidate) "overrides" multiple reliable sources, because there is nothing to "override". The OVV's figures are not 'reliable' because they are quoted in multiple reliable sources, just as figures by Venezuelan government officials do not become 'reliable' when they are quoted in the same sources. The fact is that the crime numbers from both the OVV and the government are the subject of dispute--a dispute that should be conveyed in accordance with Wikipedia's principle of neutrality, given appropriate weight, etc. I don't see any need for a graph that represents questionable, disputed data from either POV source... --Riothero (talk) 01:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is not weight given in the graph, there is a equal weight. There are obviously multiple sources involved in the graph, not just OVV. There is PROVEA, the UN, and an average between the 3 in the years where each of their data was written. Not showing the info from OVV would be lying to the faces of those looking for information on Venezuela's murder rate.--ZiaLater (talk) 02:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also would like to see where I admitted POV pushing. I said that if we kept only one POV graph that you gave (the UN one) it would be POV because there are multiple sources contesting this. That is why I included multiple sources for the murder rate.--ZiaLater (talk) 02:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by intentional homicide rate by decade: Venezuela: 2000s, 2010s. --Riothero (talk) 13:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look and the best I could find was from CICPC in an OAS report. The data is exactly the same as PROVEA and OVV.--ZiaLater (talk) 19:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you refusing to include government data, after promising to do so? The inclusion of an "average" is scientifically meaningless in this context.--Riothero (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have already told you that the sources are dead links and the only thing I found was the same of PROVEA and OVV. Adding that would be an overkill that would make the graph even more POV making the average murder rate higher. If you would like I could add it but it would make the average murder rate higher and further away from PAHO's data.--ZiaLater (talk) 20:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What are the dead links? Do you not read spanish? The data I gave you is from the CICPC.--Riothero (talk) 22:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You provided links above (2000s, 2010s) which had dead links. I did see the OAS report which had CICPC data from the "Homicidios por cada 100.000 Habitantes en Venezuela. 1986-2007" graph that is on Page 5 (including the title page). The CICPC data is exactly the same as PROVEA and OVV (please compare OVV here in the article's graph and PROVEA here on page 108 under the NGO (d) data). Since the data is exactly the same, there is technically no dispute.--ZiaLater (talk) 23:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.derechos.org.ve/pw/wp-content/uploads/21SeguridadCiudadana1.pdf is not a deadlink. I don't know what you're talking about. So because OVV and PROVEA agree with CICPC data up to 2009, you are refusing to report CICPC data? That makes no sense. You are just now recognizing that the difference emerges in 2009?!?! I pointed this out to you on September 23rd (at the top of the "recent years" talk section)!!! That is why I suggested that the graph cut off at 2009 so as not to confuse agreed-upon-data with more recent data that is under dispute. Just goes to show how difficult it is to communicate to you.--Riothero (talk) 23:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than actually engaging with me on the talk page, you pay superficial attention to my concerns, whilst reverting any objections to your edits. This has got to stop.--Riothero (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We were on the talk page at the same time I think. I always recognized the very slight differences all of the data. Most sources round OVV's numbers into whole numbers while the UN's data puts PROVEA's in decimals. I looked at what you supplied and it looks like it is blend of CICPC/PROVEA data that was calculated by LACSO (Laboratorio de Ciencias Sociales). The CICPC data is only shown in 2012 numbers. I never heard of LACSO and their website is also down (http://lacso.org.ve/).--ZiaLater (talk) 00:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nairobi Pinto[edit]

Could be important read about of case Nairobi Pinto and the alleged complicity between kidnappers and Venezuelan government --The_Photographer (talk) 18:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a better source?--ZiaLater (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Crime in Venezuela. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 10:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Crime in Venezuela. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mar 2019 Wall Street Journal[edit]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-venezuela-some-crime-no-longer-pays-11552642201 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possible bias in article[edit]

Hello fellow editors, While looking at editing the preamble, I started to investigate the sources linked to the statement that Chavez's successor has continued his bad policies. 3 of the sources don't corroborate that statement, and the final source is in Spanish (links 7-10 respectively).

Perhaps we should evaluate this article for bias? It seems like many statements in the article blame people or organizations, rather than offering unbiased reporting of facts. Rather than stating that many Venezuelans blame the police, it would be more factual to show articles of high-ranking police officials being arrested and convicted on corruption charges, for example.

Articles about crime can be difficult because it's hard to ascertain what is actually causing crime. However, I suggest that we try to improve the quality of reporting on this article. Ph03n1x77 (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While scrutiny of the sources is welcome, please remember how institutionalized crime is in Venezuela: the modes used to assess crime in Western countries and even others, where there is higher crime, may not be suitable to apply to Venezuela. For example, Caracas has one of the highest crime rates in the world, and it's not all violence. Editors should also not have personal bias, as a reminder. Kingsif (talk) 23:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Murder rate[edit]

Does the murder rate:

go up: "Crime in Venezuela is widespread, with violent crimes such as murder and kidnapping increasing annually"
or down: "In spite of significant socioeconomic problems, the murder rate in Venezuela decreased between 2017 and 2020"?

Burrobert (talk) 13:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Burrobert (talk) 12:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These statements don't really seem contradictory. Crime increased at first and would start to decrease starting from 2017. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:54, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]