Talk:2019 shipping of humanitarian aid to Venezuela/Archive 1

Infobox

I have the right side of the infobox listed as such:

Guaidó government
Coalition:^[1]
United States
Colombia
Brazil
Netherlands

I have the foreign countries because they are leaders of the aid coalition, and that is what this article is about. I know that other Venezuela articles don't include other countries in the infobox, but the inclusion is in scope since this article covers international shipping of humanitarian aid - it's not like the Guaidoó government is somehow shipping all this in by themselves. Nice4What (talk) 06:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nice4What: Sorry for the late reply. The issue is we can end up having an endless list of countries in the infobox. It can become a handful, so it is easier to mention the support in the body.----ZiaLater (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

YES! Please don't glob up infoboxes so that they take over articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just think these four countries are included in the infobox since they are the leaders of the infobox, I know plenty other countries are providing aid but not at the same leadership level as these four. That's why I excluded them. Thanks for replying! Nice4What (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from article, "Broken image"

I can find no "broken image", so am moving this template from the article to here:

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Main three images in the opening of the article @SandyGeorgia:--MaoGo (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ha! Thanks, @MaoGo:. Fixed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI about Guaido's position as President

Discussion located here. (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The US states he is interim, not acting president of Venezuela. https://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2019/03/289874.htm RBL2000 (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nails and wire

BeŻet, regarding this edit:

cut from crisis article, and
immediately moved to here.

You installed a duplicate one and a half hours after I moved it. Also, I put it in the section where it fits, so you may not have seen it, but it's in the edit summary just before you edited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks, I'm aware and even sent you a "thanks" for that edit as I haven't noticed it moved there. BeŻet (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead balance

Could someone add one summary sentence here for balance wrt Maduro position? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still unbalanced; the shortages existed and were critical well before the sanctions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How does this make it unbalanced? We are quoting what he is saying. What you're trying to do here is WP:OR and figure out where the shortages are coming from. In this sentence we are simply reporting what Maduro is saying. BeŻet (talk) 10:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maduro and salsa

As mentioned in earlier when this information was in 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis, mentioning Maduro dansing salsa is WP:UNDUE and is a tabloid approach to reporting. As mentioned in the guidelines: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and imagery." BeŻet (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, based on the number of highly reliable sources who are not and did not find it "tabloid". SandyGeorgia (Talk)

New York Times (1): [1]
New York Times (2): [2]
Miami Herald: [3]
Business Insider: [4]
Local 10: [5]
MSN: [6]
CBS: [7]

That's just the first page of results only in English; if I started on the Spanish-language reliable sources that mentioned this, we'd be here all day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Your point about weight would be valid IMO if we were dealing with Maduro's main bio, but here in this article, we are dealing with one isolated situation, in which his dancing through it received multiple mentions in reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But I've explained to you already that the fact that this was mentioned in a lot of sources is completely irrelevant. BeŻet (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maduro dancing salsa is relevant for the reactions of the government, including Delcy's and Diosdado's responses. Maduro celebrated, regardless of what happened on 23 February. --Jamez42 (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But this is blatant WP:OR, you are suggesting that Maduro was "celebrating" while the violence was happening, as if he knew the violence would be happening, or that he was somehow indifferent to the violence. This is not acceptable on Wikipedia. BeŻet (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing (we could do this for pages, so just a few):

You continue to claim this is WP:UNDUE. Due weight deals quite specifically with minority vs. majority viewpoints, as determined by prevalence in reliable sources ... "significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." You have given no policy-based reason why this is not a majority viewpoint. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to not understand the whole point here. This is clearly, obviously, NOT about whether the salsa dancing happened or not. This is not being questioned. We can all safely assume it happened. There is plenty of evidence it happened. The reason this is WP:UNDUE is because it is not only irrelevant to mention it in the article, but because of giving weight to this event it also implies several things: Maduro doesn't care about violence, Maduro was "celebrating" while violence was happening etc. etc.. It is not acceptable on Wikipedia to perform such tabloid-like editorial practices by juxtapositioning two events and attempting to create a specific emotional outcome. Did Maduro know violence would be happening? Did he know at the time of the dancing that violence is happening? None of this is addressed, therefore this is WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH. BeŻet (talk) 10:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that your argument hinges on something having to do with whether it happened is in dispute; that is not the problem here. The problem is you are citing WP:UNDUE, but not providing any reason that has anything to do with UNDUE. Then you go on to draw your own conclusions about what this means as to "Maduro doesn't care, etc ... ", when nothing in our text has anything to do with that. MULTIPLE reliable sources cover the topic, it is not a minority viewpoint, you have not demonstrated that the content is UNDUE, nor have you demonstrated SYNTH. Your argument is based on your own interpretation of what you believe the text is saying, when it says no such thing. If you want to argue UNDUE, you need to show that Maduro dancing was a minority viewpoint held by very few reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, could you all please show at least minimal respect and not remove the template until the discussion is resolved. BeŻet (talk) 10:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will remove the template until you provide a policy-based reason for adding it. If you want to claim UNDUE, please cite the specific page of that policy you are claiming, and relate your argument to it, not an idea about what the text implies when that text is not in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Protesters have set on fire by accident(?) the humanitarian aid truck on fire, not the Venezuelan governemnt.

Video footage is form Colombian TV: https://twitter.com/ConflictsW/status/1099723433875853312 RBL2000 (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From this video at 3:18 minute: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLkVGnVVnz0 RBL2000 (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The burning truck section has a clear bias problem: "Venezuelan National Police fired tear gas upon the caravan.[54] Aid volunteers formed a human chain and removed humanitarian packages from the burning trucks to prevent their destruction." It is unclear if the truck was set on fire by the VNP or by the protesters. The source cited is not reliable at all. The article must point out that it is unclear who started the fire and that there is controversy rather than picking one side Federico 06:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe include this source (?) ^[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serranolio (talk • contribs) 06:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Cite error: The named reference coalition was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ https://www.news.com.au/world/south-america/tensions-flare-as-protesters-set-fire-to-bus-in-venezuela-border-town-over-blocked-aid/news-story/0e763ad151c14de34c7a897b13ad9390

People, please take care with BLP violations. We saw yesterday that sources known to lie were used to incriminate people, and that has consequences in Venezuela. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theory

The sources state its a conspiracy theory. The Miami Herald states in this article "videos circulating on the internet suggested that an errant Molotov cocktail thrown by the opposition might have started one of the fires. Another social media theory: the opposition might have staged the incident to make Maduro look like a monster and set the stage for armed intervention". Conspiracy theories are not credible for an encyclopedia.----ZiaLater (talk) 14:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ZiaLater:, you need to understand that there are three separate things here: the fact that a protester threw a molotov in the direction of a truck as shown in video evidence, the claim that the protesters did that on purpose, and then finally the propaganda that faked the photo to make it look like protesters are pouring gasoline on the truck. When you remove the context, you are, intentionally or not, manipulating the facts and the reader does not understand this distinction. We have evidence that a molotov was thrown at the truck, while we have no evidence that protesters did it on purpose. So we have a distinction between an undeniable fact, and a conspiracy theory. As a sidenote, there is no evidence that the gas canister caused the fire, and is also just an assumption/accusation, so it shouldn't be accepted as the truth and only truth. BeŻet (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BeŻet: As editors, we have no say of what the "facts" are. This is why we use reliable sources. Your explanation just proves that your edit violates WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. There is evidence that the tear gas canister caused the combustion. One source is this article. The other source is The Miami Herald article once again, "Eyewitnesses to the event said the trucks were stopped just over the Venezuelan border and then faced a barrage of teargas. One man ... said he saw one of the gas canisters ignite the tarp stretched over the aid. As the opposition retreated, the truck burst into flames. Three other eyewitnesses provided similar versions." So according to you, conspiracy theories > two reliable sources and eyewitness testimony?----ZiaLater (talk) 15:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've already explained to you that there is a distinction between the fact (molotov thrown at truck) and conspiracy theories (protesters purposefully burning the track). I am not sure what else can I do to make you understand this better? BeŻet (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in regards to the "eye-witnesses" you've mentioned, I hope I don't have to explain why protesters/people trying to get the trucks through the border are not a neutral actor in these events. BeŻet (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zia is not making claims about "eye-witnesses"; reliable sources are. Wikipedia content is based on reliable sources, giving them due weight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bezet, please handle this more carefully. We have seen elsewhere that trying to shove information with criminal implications into an article too quickly has consequences. Please handle it as I did the issue of who fired on whom first at the bridge on 23 Feb, by not making specific claims about anyone during a fast-moving situation. You are pushing not only irresponsible info into these articles, but also WP:UNDUE information. Give the dust time to settle. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd expect exactly the same when without my interventions the article suggests that it is an unquestionable truth that a gas canister caused the fire. This is exactly and precisely why I want to present all accusations, before the dust settles. We have a very difficult situation here where Maduro's propaganda clashes with US propaganda, and we need to be very careful about what we report and how we word it. BeŻet (talk) 15:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We are in violent agreement that we need to be careful (as involves events that could be potentially interpreted as acts of war, and people who can be charged criminally). Again, the text that could cause problems for individuals is the concern, and I am hopeful that you will take greater care going forward. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, its conspiracy theory because they say so like when "reliable sources" stated for example involving Ukraine and Morocco recognizing Guaido as President of Venezuela when no context in their statements directly from their government websites ever made such statement/support for Guaido, or when media claims 200,000 people came to Venezuela Live Aid concert yet satellite photos and drone footage shows not even 1/10th of that. RBL2000 (talk) 16:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that one truck was set to fire. There are sources claiming that the responsible was the Venezuelan National Police, other sources (endorsed by the video) claim it was set on fire by the protesters. Wikipedia does not have to take a side on the story, however it is important to point out that there is controversy and maybe cite both sources Protesters started fire and police started fire Federico 20:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NYT 10 March

Footage Contradicts U.S. Claim That Maduro Burned Aid Convoy. What are you going to say now? That NYT is a Bolivarian state-run newspaper? emijrp (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please take care with WP:BATTLEGROUND; Wikipedia reports on controversies, does not engage in them. The NYT piece changes nothing about how articles are written on Wikipedia. The text about what the NYT piece alleges, compared to what other sources said, will need to be carefully crafted. I removed one that was not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many videos, photos, eye-witness accounts and now even NYTimes say that guarimberos set the trucks on fire and all of this charade is a big bloated US backed lie. But the article hasn't been modified in the slightest and you people are still claiming conspiracy theories and WP'ing users who disagree. Neutrality much? 92.56.37.129 (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in on track, the Wikipedia article is not claiming conspiracy, until now the NYTimes is the only one that has released a(n) (unseen) video (so this incident does not approve any of the unsupported claims made before without proof), and finally the NYTimes article does not prove neither opposition pernicious intentions nor US backup. --MaoGo (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RBL2000: Fighting over what the NYT says, when the NYT makes no statement of fact at all. Please read the article. They say: It suggests that ... was the most likely. And yet, it's being stated as fact in the article. We should not be extending that to in fact (the words inserted) in any case, and, since we do not yet know if the NYT is aware of the allegedly falsified photos used by TeleSur, we should be careful about how the wording is crafted. So, Jamez42 says an NTN24 rebuttal is coming, and in either case, we should not have in fact wording. We can take our time to get this right; please stop edit warring, as that leads nowhere good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaving here the link that talks about the NTN24 response. I urge to keep aggressivity away from the discussion. --Jamez42 (talk) 00:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In favor of waiting, considering we have now have two points of controversy, and there is no hurry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now Twitter is a reliable source? :-) That video has a cut from 13:39 to 13:52, exactly what NYT discusses. The video was cut on purpose. emijrp (talk) 08:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Emijrp: Please stop being aggressive. Nobody here has claimed that, it's the same reason why I haven't included it in the article, I'm only quoting my claim for transparency, which is from a PanAm Post journalist. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have an important question that may need clarifying: if I'm not mistaken, three trucks were burned at the end, right? Did all of them burn in the same spot of the Colombian border? It's very different to set on fire one truck on accident than three others on different spots and in the same day. I can't remember if it also happened in Brazi. --Jamez42 (talk) 08:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to the NYT article: El Tiempo Latino, Poder Latino NTN24. I still have to check them. --Jamez42 (talk) 08:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://panampost.com/david-unsworth/2019/03/13/new-york-times-dishonesty-draws-the-ire-of-venezuelans-colombian-government/?cn-reloaded=1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eyewitnesses

The "eyewitnesses" referenced in the article were protesters. It is important to note that, since they are not a neutral party in the event. BeŻet (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll copy the quote I provided in the edit summary: "'Eyewitnesses to the event said the trucks were stopped just over the Venezuelan border and then faced a barrage of teargas. One man, his head still bandaged from Saturday’s melee, said he saw one of the gas canisters ignite the tarp stretched over the aid. (...) Three other eyewitnesses provided similar versions.' Protesters, namely 'Resistencia' members, are very different from volunteers, journalists. OAS observers and other people present" Now, what proof is there that these eyewitnesses were protesters, if not specified? --Jamez42 (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bezet, please try to avoid original research. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is this related to the article?

So these UN nations reports are from 2018: The United Nations (UN) stated that "[v]ast numbers of Venezuelans are starving, deprived of essential medicines, and trying to survive in a situation that is spiraling downwards with no end in sight"; it recommended increased humanitarian funding for Venezuelans, and cautioned not to politicize aid. The UN said that "humanitarian action needs to be independent of political, military or other objectives", and calls for a de-escalation of tension from both sides. This doesn't seem to be related to controversies of 2019 shipping of humanitarian aid. Thanks-SharabSalam (talk) 08:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One small piece of that text is cited to a 2018 report; most of it is 2019, and yes, is relevant. I have clarified the dates here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[coalition-1] Cite error: The named reference coalition was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[2] ttps://www.news.com.au/world/south-america/tensions-flare-as-protesters-set-fire-to-bus-in-venezuela-border-town-over-blocked-aid/news-story/0e763ad151c14de34c7a897b13ad9390

[1]

[2]