Talk:Crisis in Venezuela/Archive 1

Orphaned references in Crisis in Bolivarian Venezuela

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Crisis in Bolivarian Venezuela's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "http":

From Economic policy of the Hugo Chávez government: "Venezuela's currency: The not-so-strong bolívar". The Economist. 11 February 2013. Retrieved 12 February 2013.
From 2014–17 Venezuelan protests: "Cabello: Machado va a ser juzgada por asesina (Video)". La Patilla. 18 March 2014. Retrieved 19 March 2014.
From Hugo Chávez: "Banco de la Vivienda transfirió 66 millardos para subsidios" (in Spanish). El Universal. 10 November 2006. Retrieved 29 December 2006. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested moves

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: move Crisis in Venezuela (2013-present) to Crisis in Bolivarian Venezuela, which was performed by Anthony Appleyard.--ZiaLater (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crisis in Venezuela (2013-present) → Crisis in Bolivarian Venezuela Venezuela under the Bolivarian government is facing a crisis, which is obvious. What isn't obvious are the exact dates that this crisis began. A more generic title is proposed since we don't have the sources to support a date in the title. --ZiaLater (talk) 07:48, 27 January 2017 (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.

Strange title

This article has a strange title, and I'm surprised it was moved with so little discussion. The phrase "Bolivarian Venezuela" only occurs in the title; it is not mentioned again in the article. What does "Bolivarian" mean in this context? Is it referring to the official name of the country (the "Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela") or does it refer to the Bolivarian Revolution? Or Bolivarianism? If this is about "Bolivarian Venezuela", what other Venezuelas are there? St Anselm (talk) 09:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no other Bolivarian Venezuela and if things were to change, there would most likely no longer be a Bolivarian Venezuela. The term is often used to refer to the current goverment, the Bolivarian government.--ZiaLater (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crisis in Venezuela (2012–present). 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/20140228074857/http://globovision.com/articulo/medicos-del-hospital-universitario-paralizan-procedimientos-quirurgicos-tras-falta-de-insumos to http://globovision.com/articulo/medicos-del-hospital-universitario-paralizan-procedimientos-quirurgicos-tras-falta-de-insumos

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) 14:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 September 2017

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: not moved. If we were going by a nose count, there would be a slight edge for not moving, so no consensus could be justified, but consensus is not a vote, and the strength of argument is on the side of the opposes. The naming policy on the English Wikipedia first looks for the most common name that is used in English-language sources. While COMMONNAME was asserted, no evidence was presented that this was the common name in English. Additionally, arguments appealing to es.wiki are not relevant to naming conventions on en.wiki. Finally, those opposing appealed to consistency with other similar articles involving country names, which is also a part of our naming policy. On the weight of the arguments, I'm comfortable closing this as not moved rather than no consensus or relisting. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 04:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crisis in Venezuela (2012–present) → Crisis in Bolivarian Venezuela – The official name of the sovereign state is the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and the current government is commonly referred to in both the media and scholarly documents across the political spectrum as the "Bolivarian government".[Al Jazeera], [Jacobin], [Venezuelanalysis], [Oxford], Hands Off Venezuela There is no concensus as to when the date of the crisis began since it began before Maduro's presidency. The Bolivarian government also "denied and continues denying that Venezuela has a humanitarian crisis". Since there is no concensus on a date, it would be sutiable to state that this is a "Crisis in Bolivarian Venezuela", since there has been no other crisis in "Bolivarian Venezuela" and there has also been no other "Bolivarian Venezuela" in history. If another crisis were to occur in the future or another government were to be created under the "Bolivarian" title, then a rename with a timeframe may be appropriate. However, most refer to the current government and nation as being "Bolivarian". I encourage multiple comments so this title dispute can be adequately resolved. ZiaLater (talk) 02:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The provided rationale is hard to understand. As far as I know, the country is primarily known as Venezuela, not Bolivarian Venezuela. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BarrelProof: Well, historically the term "Venezuelan crisis" has been used to describe international crises, such as the Venezuelan crisis of 1895 and the Venezuelan crisis of 1902–03. The title "Crisis in Venezuela" is suitable since it focuses on the domestic issues since it is a crisis in Venezuela. However, in this case, the timeline cannot be corroborated, so Crisis in Venezuela (XXXX-XXXX) is not suitable. There are no sources that can confirm when the crisis began; some point to 2009 when the Great Recession hit Venezuela, some say 2012 when Chávez overspent on his electoral campaign, some agree on 2013 when Maduro was elected into the presidency and some argue it all began in 2014 when the oil prices plunged. There is no consensus as to when this crisis occurred, but there is a consensus that it is occurring in Bolivarian Venezuela. Possibly "Crisis in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela" or "Crisis in the Fifth Republic of Venezuela? Both do not roll off the tongue as well, though, but they are more specific.

For example, in other articles such as the Great Tenmei famine (the Tenmei era) and the Tenpō famine (the Tenpō era), articles include a historical "era" to their title. This is the same with Persian or Soviet famines. Other instances such as the Finnish famine of 1866–1868 have historical dates and profound analysis. Since this event is so recent, we cannot decide a definite timeframe. Currently Venezuela is in its "Bolivarian" era, so it would make more sense to call this event the "Crisis in Bolivarian Venezuela". Hope this long response helps and I do not look like I'm just rambling.--ZiaLater (talk) 05:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I agree with the nominator that the current title is sub-ideal, but I don't think the proposed title is an improvement. A merge to History of Venezuela (1999–present) might be an option. Power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Power~enwiki: Not a bad idea, though this event is notable on its own. I am open to other titles, though the one I proposed seems to be the most suitable for now.--ZiaLater (talk) 05:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. (a) the common name of the country should be used; (b) the date in the title is also in the infobox. If there is a reliable source with a different start date, then the article can be changed to that. St Anselm (talk) 10:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Panam2014, Eyesnore, Cambalachero, The Photographer, SandyGeorgia, Jamez42, and Softlavender: Contacting neutral users that have been involved in similar topics in the past.--ZiaLater (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support WP:COMMONNAME. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Similar concerns have been raised in the Spanish Wikipedia, including in article names such as the Spanish version of this article, Presidential referendum of 2016-2017, 2014–17 Venezuelan protests and Shortages in Venezuela (2013-present), some of which have been changed. I think the current proposal is an important precedent to improve related articles and that it gives the reader a better context. I would suggest a title such as "Crisis during Maduro's presidency", but the current situation is also a result of many actions undertook by the Bolivarian administration over a long span of years. I'll ping Oscar_. as well, who might also be interested. --Jamez42 (talk) 03:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that any dates for the "start" of the crisis are original research; it's not like 2017 Qatar diplomatic crisis where there's a clear event on a specific date that started the crisis. Adjusting the article to focus on Maduro's presidency might be an improvement. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as insufficiently clear to English-language readers. I've simply seen it referred to as "the Venezuelan crisis", which is the short, simple, and common name, just like "the Greek crisis", "the Colombian conflict", etc. Moreover, there is lack of clarity (including in the articles themselves) on the meaning of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, the Bolivarian government, and the Bolivarian Revolution. The current redirect from Crisis in Bolivarian Venezuela to the current title solves any issues with people trying to search for or link to it that way. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've not been much active lately, but I also find quite odd to understand the "Bolivarian" mentions. As per Jamez42 mention, I think we're dealing with apples and oranges, in es.wiki the main issue was about the timeline of the protests (the 2014 protests really ended? and how they ended), eventually that discussion led to different articles with similar thematic but the article of the crisis is similar to this one in English. Also, there's another specially focused in the economic meltdown.--Oscar_. (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bolivarian Venezuela, while not at all clear to contemporary readers, is the current legal name of the country, and likely to be used in the future to refer to the Chavez-Maduro governments. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, the legal name of the country is "Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela". St Anselm (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Power~enwiki and StAnselm: I think what power~enwiki means is that the name that will most likely go down in history for this government will be "Bolivarian Venezuela" much like Soviet Ukraine, etc. This is what I was trying to say (you can clear this up power~enwiki if I'm misinterpreting this). Possibly we can meet in the middle and title it Crisis in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela? Much like the German Reich was divided into three "reichs", Venezuela is currently the Fifth Republic of Venezuela. Though the official title of Germany between 1871 and 1943 was "German Reich", we recognize each reich by their "unofficial, historical designation", the German Empire, the Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany. This would be the same for Venezuela. Like Nazi Germany, Venezuela is currently Bolivarian Venezuela.--ZiaLater (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're stretching things a little bit ZiaLater, yes, the legal name is Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, yes, this period of time 'could' be referred as Bolivarian Venezuela, but it's convenient to move this article (and others related) to this term? Sorry but I don't see it. --Oscar_. (talk) 13:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eyesnore, Cambalachero, The Photographer, SandyGeorgia, and Shelbyhoward423: Any final opinions?--ZiaLater (talk) 01:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support IMHO The fusion is necesary and the final title will be more descriptive for anybody. "Bolivarian" period is a easy way to ecognize the timeline when it happend, when the country name was changed. --The_Photographer (talk) 01:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose we use the common name of countries here. "Mexico" instead of "United Mexican States", "North Korea" instead of "Democratic People's Republic of Korea", "Russia" instead of "Russian Federation", etc. "Bolivarian Venezuela" is very rarely used in English - the country is almost always referred to simply as "Venezuela". If there is an issue of imprecise timing, then that should be fixed by finding better sources on dating, rather than by bringing in a descriptor that is rarely used and that most people don't recognize. Additionally, as to the crisis itself, I've read "crisis in Venezuela" and "Venezuelan crisis" used frequently in newspapers and such, but never "crisis in Bolivarian Venezuela" - it is not a common name. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:23, 25 September 2017 (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.

Infobox Casualties

The Infobox mentions the data about Casualties related to the opposition, but does not present any information on casualties suffered by Government forces. I can recall policemen being injured or even killed in Caracas after a bombing in the street. If there is not an official or independent statistic, what should be our course of action? Or does the infobox present the combined causalities of government and opposition groups? Jp16103 02:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jp16103: It is combined casualties. It looks like it is under the opposition side, but that's just how the infobox displays it.----ZiaLater (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Hugo Chávez - Simón Bolívar.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 13:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 August 2018

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: move the page to Crisis in Venezuela at this time, per the discussion below. There is no consensus as to a correct date to use, but there is general consensus that this is the primary crisis in Venezuela being referred to by the search string, and the title can be treated as descriptive which obviates the need for it to be the common name. The disambiguation page is linked in a new hatnote to solve any lingering ambiguity. Dekimasuよ! 02:53, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crisis in Venezuela (2012–present) → Crisis in Venezuela (2010–present) – Previously moved this to the proposed title, but it was deemed controversial. The current title with the "(2012-present)" is the result of my own interpretation as to when the crisis began. However, sources give us a definitive date of 2 June 2010,[1][2][3] when President Chávez first declared an "economic war" because of shortages in Venezuela. The current title has no support from sources and (2010-present) should be used due to the support of reliable sources. --ZiaLater (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk | contribs} 15:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Knowledgekid87: Since you were just involved in the move of 2018 Caracas Bombing, could you take a look at this proposal as well?----ZiaLater (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question: the sources mentioned are from 2010. Are there any sources that date the current crisis to that event? St Anselm (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@StAnselm: No, unfortunately there are only reactionary articles created by sources, nothing analytical. The international spotlight does not touch Venezuela until something drastic happens. 2011: Venezuela enters a housing crisis. 2012: Venezuela enters crisis because of Chávez's health. 2013: Venezuela enters crisis as Maduro begins presidency under the burden of Chávez's previous policies. 2014: Venezuela enters crisis as mass protests occur. 2015: Venezuela enters crisis due to declining oil profits. 2016: Venezuela enters crisis with referendum against Maduro. 2017: Venezuela enters constitutional crisis and experiences mass protests. I hope you see the pattern...

The closest date we have is 2 June 2010, when Chávez declared an "economic war", with that "war" being continued by his successor, Nicolás Maduro. The "economic war" buzzphrase has seen continuous use since that day in 2010, which helps cement the fact that the crisis began in that period. During that time, the bolivar was devalued, DolarToday appeared and other massive economic measures were taken as part of Chavez's "economic war". Though this can partially be attributed to the Great Recession, Venezuela had hardly left its recession in 2011 (housing crisis) and by 2012, the crisis began to worsen (shortages), especially after large amounts of imports were purchased in the months before the 2012 elections. Overall, 2010 gives us a good date, there is hardly a defined crisis before then but there are plenty of issues after that.----ZiaLater (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The 2 June 2010 date, while very precise, is actually rather arbitrary, and is not supported by reliable sources. Perhaps future historians will see this date as the start of the crisis; perhaps not. My best suggestion is 2010s crisis in Venezuela. We could revisit the title in a couple of years if it's still going on. St Anselm (talk) 22:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@StAnselm: That article title is a good suggestion. Giving a specific date right now is fairly difficult so giving a more general title could also help.----ZiaLater (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose any start-date we pick is arbitrary; I don't see 2010 being better than 2012. I previously suggested a merge to History of Venezuela (1999–present); a better option may be to rename that History of Venezuela (1999–2010) and this article History of Venezuela (2010–present). power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Power~enwiki: I think that the crisis is significantly different from just a history article. The article goes into the background and mechanisms of the crisis, something too detailed to be an article about history.

@Kingsif: You have been invovled lately. What is your opinion? Crisis in Venezuela (2010–present) or 2010s crisis in Venezuela? Any other suggestions?----ZiaLater (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crisis in Venezuela (2010-present). I keep forgetting this isn't the actual name. The "official" date is sometime in 2010, when Chávez basically cut Venezuela off from the US and the oil prospects died. And, since it doesn't seem likely to end in the next year, keeping it at "2010-present" is safer than "2010s". Kingsif (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I still support "Crisis in Venezuela (2010–present)". Inviting @Knowledgekid87: @InedibleHulk: @Jamez42: @Cambalachero: @Panam2014: @Oscar .: @Impru20: @FallingGravity:-----ZiaLater (talk) 09:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really wish it was feasible to move the title to just Crisis in Venezuela. I'm still somewhat against a (XXXX-present) title due to the same reasons of the protests: the crisis has had ups and downs, some could argue that the victory of the opposition in the parliamentary elections could have been a possible end to the crisis, since it isn't only economic but also political and social as well. While oil prices have been raising and shortages have "improved", there's still a galloping hyperinflation and PDVSA's oil production is worsening. I'm a little inclined for the suggestion of 2010s crisis in Venezuela as a title, since even though 2010 may have been the beginning of the downfall, I know there are many editors and scholars that will disagree. I wish a term as already been coined by experts and that there's a consensus of what the definition should be, but it seems there isn't. --Jamez42 (talk) 09:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Crisis in Venezuela (2010-present) but also Crisis in Venezuela or Crisis in Bolivarian Venezuela. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:00, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why not "Economic crisis in Venezuela", without years? I doubt that Venezuela has had any previous economic crisis of this magnitude, so even if there were other articles that may use such a name, this ne would be the primary topic anyway. Cambalachero (talk) 12:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm up for Crisis in Venezuela, as previous comments stated, at this point this crisis is so big that there's no need to differentiate with an starting and ending period, it's more or less like the Federal War. I'm slightly against called an economic crisis, since there's political and social crisis happening at the same time. --Oscar_. (talk) 15:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have to support this. Seeing again the disambiguation page Venezuelan crisis, they're mostly about diplomatic and a couple of banking crises. This is arguably the first large scale political, economic and social crisis in the country. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion Just answering the ping. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:32, 25 August 2018 (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.

Communism in Cuba?

The introduction isn't very clear. The current crisis in Venezuela is greater than the crisis in Russia, Cuba and Albania after the fall of communism? Russia and Albania, ok, but Cuba is still communist. The sentence isn't very clear. Holy Goo (talk) 21:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Holy Goo: I think a previous version specified it was after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Maybe it is a better phrasing. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understood that Cuba is in the process of leaving Communism as well. In any case, the "fall of communism" is the fall of communism as a major force in international geopolitics, in 1989; the text mentions the crises in those countries after that specific point. Cambalachero (talk) 01:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison is to severity of economic contraction, not to severity of the particular crisis. The subtitle is off-topic. Cuba is not in any particular crisis at present, at least not any that they are not addressing. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To me the wording reads as discussing specifically the "fall of communism" in the specific sense of what happened in the world in the late 80s and early 90s. In the source the comparison is referring the economic contraction in those countries after the fall of the Soviet Union, not of "communism" in general. There was some degree of economic collapse in Soviet states in the 1990s, including in Cuba, which depended on foreign aid from the USSR which made up a significant part of its GDP. So even though the communist government of Cuba did not collapse at the time, it was affected by the fall of the USSR. I've changed the wording to clarify. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 19:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oil sector

https://venezuelablog.org/crude-realities-understanding-venezuelas-economic-collapse/ User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Facts from the article: There was a drop in the price of oil. The market has improved now but, after maintaining steady production for many years during the Chavista regime, a drop of production began and continues. Maintaining or increasing production requires continual or increased investment. US sanctions have severely decreased the ability of Venezuela to borrow money to invest in its high cost oil. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record: even though oil prices hace improved, oil production in PDVSA continues to plummet.[1] This has little to do with the sanctions and is one of the reasons why Maduro recently met with China. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The author linked in the original post makes the case that sanctions could be blamed for the continued fall in production—he shows that there was an initial drop in production in response to the fall in prices, followed by stabilization. Then US sanctions were introduced which coincided with a much larger drop in production. However, I don't know that this is something that we can include in the article. For one thing, the source doesn't seem to meet RS standards, since it's a blog post written by someone with no clearly established expertise on the subject. Additionally, he makes clear in the article that it's difficult or impossible to establish causality, and that even if sanctions did play a role in the further fall in production, other factors also played major roles. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A blog by a recognized expert, Francisco Rodríguez (economist), with clearly established expertise on a subject can be a reliable source. User:Fred Bauder Talk 06:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Something needs to be done, the crisis was NOT caused by diverting money used for ski vacations in Vail to housing in Caracas... Yet, in a sense it was, managers and engineers did need to maintain a high standard of living if they were expected to continue working. And foreign firms, even Chinese ones, need to feel their investments are safe. User:Fred Bauder Talk 06:15, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is his summary: "An import collapse, caused by the massive decline in oil production, is the main cause of Venezuela’s economic implosion. The fall in oil production began when oil prices plummeted in early 2016 but intensified when the industry lost access to credit markets in 2017." According to him substantial imports are vital to both general welfare and maintenance of oil production. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the author appears to be a recognized expert on the subject. One thing that makes me hesitate about using this as a source when it comes to his claim about the effect of sanctions on oil production is statements like these:

Now, any analysis of causes using a country’s single time-series is speculative at best. Modern quantitative methods can’t offer decisive answers to questions about causality in non-experimental data even with very large data sets. Therefore, what one can say about the causes of the evolution of a single economy’s time trend is very limited. That said, it is still worthwhile to think through different hypotheses and ask whether they would lead to the patterns observed in the data.

As we warned previously, these observations should not be taken as decisive proof that sanctions caused the output collapse.

The data, however, strongly suggests the need for much more in-depth research on the reasons for Venezuela’s oil output collapse and for the discontinuous behavior in the series.

While the evidence presented in this piece should not be taken as decisive proof of such a link, it is suggestive enough to indicate the need for extreme caution in the design of international policy initiatives that may further worsen the lot of Venezuelans.

That is some very guarded language, which he uses and reinforces throughout the article. He makes it very clear that he is producing hypotheses that could explain the data, hypotheses which he believes merit further investigation, and which should encourage caution among policy-makers. The way I read this, he isn't saying that US sanctions caused a fall in Venezuelan oil production, he's saying they might have contributed, and that further research is needed to see if there is a causal connection. But maybe some of his other statements, those directly about the data, or when he speaks more authoritatively about the oil production collapse itself, could be included. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 10:00, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The lede contains this flat statement: "The crisis was the result of populist policies that began under the Chávez administration's Bolivarian Revolution." It is not guarded at all, simply stated as fact. Many sources are cited. I have not gone through them all yet, but those I did look at seem dubious. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This very source contains the line To say that the policies of Chávez and Maduro are to blame for this collapse is both true and trivial. Chavismo has been in power for almost twenty years now, so it is obvious that pretty much anything that is happening in Venezuela now – expect perhaps for last month’s earthquake – is the direct or indirect consequence of what it has done while running the country. To me, that reads as a confirmation that the crisis is ultimately to blame on the policies of Chavez and Maduro. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 22:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Humanitarian assistance

https://www.france24.com/en/20180927-un-asks-venezuela-accept-humanitarian-aid User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 January 2019

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved: consensus is against the move, as AjaxSmack points out, the title does refer largely to the content. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

– We now have an actual crisis on our hands, that is the ultimate outcome of the events described here. It has a separate article at 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis. I propose that this title redirect to that page, and the content here go to an article on the history of the country. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the nominator's sentiments, but the article as it stands is organized as an article about a crisis. It would need some changes to actually be a History of Venezuela (2010–2019). However, it might be enough to merge History of Venezuela (1999–present) § From 2009: Term limits eliminated and alleged human rights abuses into the Crisis in Venezuela article. — AjaxSmack 00:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So which article do I check to find out about something that happened in 2010? 94.21.204.175 (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with making this History; either leave as is, or change to Bolivarian crisis in Venezuela SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree This is a separate article about the overall crisis, not an event that occurred during it.----ZiaLater (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree Last time we had a discussion on how this is the worst crisis Venezuela has had.--Jamez42 (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Some of the article details should be build on in the article History of Venezuela, however, an article focusing on the crisis such as this one should stay. Wikiemirati (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2019 (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.

Structural Bias and Deficient Sources

The articles referenced in support of the statement "Observers and economists have stated that the crisis is not the result of a conflict or natural disaster but the consequences of populist policies that began under the Chávez administration's Bolivarian Revolution" in the first paragraph of this article appear to be cherrypicked and creates a single narrative when there are many. The first articled cited is from the The Chosun Ilbo (Hangul: 조선일보; Hanja: 朝鮮日報). The article itself appears to cite no sources and The Chosun Ilbo is itself recognized by Wikipedia as a conservative newspaper. There is also no information available in English on the author of the article. It is for those reasons that I'm skeptical about the quality of this source. Furthermore, I think citing sources on the English version of this page which readers are likely unable to read, and thus unable to critically engage with, is detrimental to this wikipedia page. There is essentially no way for someone who cannot read Korean to engage with this source and no way for them to verify for themselves the veracity of the source.

The second source cited to evince the statement in question is from the Independent Institute, a think tank which subscribes to a pro-free market position. It seems obvious that this think tank would have a vested interest in claiming that the policies pursued by the government of Venezuela are the cause behind the current crisis. The author, Robert P. Murphy, has been reproved for his opinions on matters like quantitative easing by more reputable economists like Brad DeLong and Paul Krugman. The third sourcecited is also from a Libertarian think tank. The only data this Cato article cites is a study conducted by the Cato Institute itself. Its lack of informational value is only made worse by the overtly hostile position taken by the article.

My point is not to argue that the position set forth by these sources is incorrect, but that their presentation in the Wikipedia article serves to mislead readers into believing that this is the only opinion expressed by "Observers and economists". The use of the term "Observers and economists" is itself misleading as it depicts the authors of the articles cited as unbiased when upon investigation they are clearly partisan. These are not merely observers and economists, they are conservative commentators and free-market advocates. Without a thorough discussion on the proposed causes behind the current crisis and a fair presentation of arguments from a variety of positions it seems this wikipedia page is being used to push a certain narrative. The poor quality of the sources cited is also troublesome. 逆縁 (talk) 04:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~You make sense. I would fix the problem but I do not want to start an edit war.Simon1811 (talk) 12:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Jamez42 (talk) 03:03, 3 February 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Unfortunately, so long as you stick to a neoliberal narrative, people tend to take WP:RS to mean "write with bias so long as you can find a newspaper that says the same thing as you". That's how it is and since you will be hugely outnumbered, you can't do anything about an article like this, which is very little more than propaganda. It's unfortunate that Wikipedia scores high with Google because the impressionable think this is a useful source. When, in fact, it tends to represent the views of the most committed people who work on each article. Grace Note (talk) 01:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unbalanced poorly sourced text removed

Sock, blocked

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

EduardoJanuary, I have removed this text. If you would like to introduce text claiming that sanctions caused the economic crisis, please use an independent, third-party reliable source and make sure your addition is unbiased (discussion that economic crisis predates the sanctions). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have, nor has the text I have inserted claimed sanctions caused the economic crisis. You are misreading. Also its presented as an opinion, the Venezuelan Minister for Foreign Affairs is notable is he not?EduardoJanuary (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto here; please use a third-party, independent reliable source. Please familiarize yourself with the Reliable sources page, and also read WP:EDITWAR and WP:BRD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You dont get to decide that TeleSUR is not reliable. Its used all over wikipedia.EduardoJanuary (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (I didn't decide it, Wikipedia did). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Provide proof Wikipedia says TeleSUR is not a reliable source.EduardoJanuary (talk) 14:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@EduardoJanuary: There are better sources than Telesur. If you can find a better source, we can figure it out on this talk page. Please try to utilize talk pages.----ZiaLater (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ZiaLater: what is the problem with using telesur for government statements?EduardoJanuary (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When a source is known for its bias (not independent, not third-party), it you introduce text from that source without balancing it with text from reliable sources, you are knowingly introducing POV. That may be passable once, or twice, but not repeatedly, as you are doing. Please discuss your edits, and others can help you balance them from unbiased sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well firstly unlike you I am not naive enough to think that there is any such thing as independent media. Secondly, have you looked at the source? Its a video of the man himself saying those words. Are going to argue the video was forged now?EduardoJanuary (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@EduardoJanuary: I am in the process of filing an edit warring report on you, which could result in you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Would you agree to stop reverting edits and start discussing to build content based on consensus? If so, I will not file the report. Please respond, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't take me 5 seconds to find third-party, independent reliable sources on the issue of what the Venezuelan Minister for Foreign Affairs said. Here is one. It would be wise to utilize such sources to avoid edit wars, especially given the controversy surrounding TeleSUR. The New York Times and The Washington Post also reported his comments, so it appears to be notable. These sources are behind a paywall, though.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, C.J.; after I finish the technicalities of the edit warring, I will get access to those sources and attempt to repair the article (unless someone else gets to it first). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times article is not yet available via my library (?); if you have access to it, please doublecheck what I added based on AP. [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This source says that India was exempt from oil sanctions. So, this text:

International sanctions have been ignored by many nations, including India which continues to enjoy cordial relations^{[original research?]} with Venezuela.^{[unreliable source?]}^[1]

needs to be completely reworked to more comprehensively reflect third-party, independent sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^{[unreliable source?]}India Vows to Continue Buying Venezuelan Oil Despite US Treats] TeleSUR

Random information

Sock, blocked

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

SandyGeorgia seems to be editing random information about who is to blame for economic turmoil in Venezuela. How exactly does unrelated commentary relate to the economic sanctions section? EduardoJanuary (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for discussing EduardoJanuary; it appears that you are referring to this series of edits, where I add quote marks because the article contained blatant copyvio,[3] correct citation formatting, do some copyediting,[4] [5] and add a new source (WSJ) for context on new 2019 sanctions,[6] and for balancing the Arreza comments.[7] In what way do you believe this sourced information is unrelated to the economic sanctions? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS: these two edits introduced WP:COPYVIO; Flickotown and C.J. Griffin, please take greater care to either use quote marks or to adequately paraphrase. [8] [9] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is now a book on this subject, which can be used as a source for this article

It's called The Maduro Diet: How three-quarters of adults in Venezuela lost an average of 19 pounds in 2016.

71.182.244.211 (talk) 10:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New navbox template

A navbox page template that includes many related pages, should be added to pages alongside the Crisis in Bolivarian Venezuela sidebar. Use Bolivarian Venezuela Crisis|state=collapsed Kingsif (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article resembles Venezuela

The article is looking like it is copy of Venezuela economy and politics sections. I think it's really needs changes would be nice to create timeline of crisis and navigate through it by describing real events. Any thoughts? DAVRONOVA.A. ✉ ⚑ 19:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is a common way to start an article. Needs lots of work. User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Debt

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/business/energy-environment/venezuela-citgo-oil-sanctions.html User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Venezuelans eating garbage 2018 2.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Petroleum Subsection in Economic Crisis

Hey if it's alright with everyone I'd like to add a subsection under economy dealing with PDVSA and Venezuela's petroleum industry. What's happened/happening etc. Alcibiades979 (talk) 12:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd only recommend watching after WP:RECENTISM. Besides that, I think it's a good idea. If you decide to start the section, I'd ask to please include information regarding the decrease of oil barrels by PDVSA, and not only actions taken by the international community. Best regards. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, it's actually been an issue going back to Chavez who over burdened the fields by pumping too much (bad for geological integrity) and sacking the best of PDVSA, and goes forward from there. I'll make it concise though. Venezuela and Libya have been almost single handedly responsible for OPEC making production cut quotas, jajaja. Alcibiades979 (talk) 03:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhh I didn't think about that! You're completely right. I think it'd be excellent to date back to the 2002 oil strike, how Chávez fired directors and employees, how PDVSA was politized (Rafael Ramírez (politician)|Rafael Ramírez]] once said "La nueva Pdvsa es roja, rojita, de arriba abajo."), how its workforce increased more than four or fivefold but its production stayed the same and overall, how it was sacked of its resources. There is just way too much material to start the subsection. I'll ping @SandyGeorgia: in case she's intereted. --Jamez42 (talk) 10:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very interested (former oil executive), but after and as a consequence of my car accident yesterday, I am really strapped for time for at least another week. Please remind me to re-check here in a week if I forget? But yes, the history of the problems with oil production in Venezuela are quite related to how they sacked people who ran what was once regarded as the best state-run company in the world ... all the way back to the beginning of chavismo. The history of how PDVSA was killed, and how that partly led to the economic crisis is important (the other part being the expropriation of private property and industry, and then the boliburgesia corruption). It is still astonishing that people find it astonishing the Venezuelans are eating from the garbage; you have to have been living under a rock not to have seen this for years. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crude oil trader WTI Cushing baby, hahahaha. I'll get started; digging up sources at the moment. This is the stuff I really like doing. We could do a synopsis here, then take the rest to the PDVSA page. Or even, there's a Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire Page, we could create a Decline and Fall of PDVSA; though probably something for a later date. As an aside I really don't know how Maduro, and Chavez managed to mess it up so bad, I mean I do but it's still hard to believe. Saudi has more people, less oil, a worse region, an arch-nemesis in Iran, and they've made it work whilst carpet bombing Yemen, and funding God knows how many wars through the Near-East. It's not rocket science. Also, looks like your friend returned to the Guaidó page. Alcibiades979 (talk) 12:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quote in mental health section

The quote in the mental section seems a bit "random" and out of place, is it really necessary? BeŻet (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, the quote from Barclays - can't we find a more appropriate quote from a better source than a private bank? BeŻet (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to bump this, does anyone mind if I remove both quotes? BeŻet (talk) 14:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cuban doctors per New York Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/17/world/americas/venezuela-cuban-doctors.html SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone who cannot access the New York Times, because it is paywalled, FOX News gives an accurate summary of the New York Times article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unsubstantiated NPOV tag

In this edit, GPRamirez5 (talk · contribs) has reinstated an NPOV tag with no rationale given on talk for the tag. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctions

Regarding this edit and revert: [10] That is an 8 February 2019 that says, "Many in Venezuela fear that the sanctions imposed last week will push the already suffering nation of about 30 million people into an even greater humanitarian catastrophe," which is not at all what was inserted into the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated to new OHCHR report, which includes a balanced mention of sanctions: [11] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed

@Jamez42: do you have the sources? [12] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, this is the report of the Organization of American States (Report of the General Secretariat Of The Organization Of American States And The Panel Of Independent International Experts On The Possible Commission of Crimes Against Humanity In Venezuela), page 90, number 32. "That same April 19, 23-year-old Paola Andreína Ramírez Gómez, a student at the Catholic University of San Cristóbal, was killed in the vicinity of the Plaza de Las Palomas of the neighborhood of San Carlos, Táchira state, when she was intercepted by several armed civilians on motorcycles “patrolling” the demonstrations taking place in the area. They tried to strip her of her belongings, and as she tried to run away she was struck down by a bullet that perforated her lungs." Here's also a report of the Venezuelan Observatory of Violence, and Infobae reported a summary of the situation as well. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jamez42, I will work on adding this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page 90 of the OAS report is literally a blank page. And the passage you cited makes no mention of "colectivos" or the political affiliations of whoever shot Ramirez. This claim is biased and barely sourced. GPRamirez5 (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with ctrl-f? You can use it to find text; I have corrected Jamez42's typo: [13]. The quotes for all three sources are provided, and seem to state the case clearly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS, @Jamez42: in case you want to correct that page number anywhere else. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the ping. The mistake seems to have been that I pointed out to page 90 of the PDF, not the physical document. Indeed, in the document is numbered as 70. We can use whichever format is better. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

This article violates the NPOV policy by being biased in favor of the opposition. Here are some examples of NPOV violations:

LEDE:

"Observers and economists have stated that the crisis is not the result of a conflict or natural disaster but the consequences of populist socialist policies that began under the Chávez administration's Bolivarian Revolution,[11][12][13][14][15][16] with the Brookings Institution stating that "Venezuela has really become the poster child for how the combination of corruption, economic mismanagement, and undemocratic governance can lead to widespread suffering."[17]" This statement, which is in the first paragraph of the lede, falsely implies that all observers and economists have universally come to a consensus that the crisis is due to Venezuela's socialist policies. This is very far from the truth and ignores the many experts who attribute the crisis in part to the sanctions placed on Venezuela by the U.S. and others.

"Political corruption, chronic shortages of food and medicine, closure of companies, unemployment, deterioration of productivity, authoritarianism, human rights violations, gross economic mismanagement and high dependence on oil have also contributed to the worsening crisis.[22][23][24]" This sentence, from the second paragraph of the lede, likewise neglects to mention the impact of sanctions on Venezuela.

(Similarly, the infobox lists the causes as "Economic policy, crime, corruption, economic downturn, shortages, unemployment, hyperinflation, authoritarianism, human rights violations and political conflict", ignoring the effects of sanctions as well).

"Venezuela led the world in murder rates, with 56.3 per 100,000 people killed in 2016 (compared to 5.35 per 100,000 in the US or 1.68 per 100,000 in Canada) making it the third most violent country in the world." This sentence, at the end of the lede, compares the murder rate in Venezuela (a developing country) to that of the U.S. and Canada (two wealthy developed countries). Would it not make more sense to compare Venezuela's murder rate to the murder rate of other Latin American countries instead?

BACKGROUND:

"Chávez established Bolivarian missions, aimed at providing public services to improve economic, cultural, and social conditions.[33][34][35][36] According to Corrales and Penfold, "aid was disbursed to some of the poor and, more gravely, in a way that ended up helping the president and his allies and cronies more than anyone else".[37] The Missions entailed the construction of thousands of free medical clinics for the poor,[33] and the enactment of food[35] and housing subsidies.[34] A 2010 OAS report[38] indicated achievements in addressing illiteracy, healthcare and poverty,[39] and economic and social advances.[40] The quality of life for Venezuelans had also improved according to a UN Index.[41]" The quote in bold (an opinion taken from a U.S. think tank) is contradicted by the sentences that follow it (which are actual facts from international reports and organizations).

ECONOMIC CRISIS:

I believe that there should be a section on how (according to some sources) economic sanctions have worsened the crisis.

INTERNATIONAL RESPONSE:

"The Wall Street Journal says that economists place the blame for Venezuela's economy shrinking by half on "Maduro's policies, including widespread nationalizations, out-of-control spending that sparked inflation, price controls that led to shortages, and widespread graft and mismanagement."" I believe this should be balanced with a quote from a different source that puts at least some of the blame on the sanctions.

The entire economic sanctions section downplays and erases the effect that sanctions have/will have on the Venezuelan people.

"On August 11, 2017, U.S. President Donald Trump said that he is "not going to rule out a military option" to confront the autocratic government of Nicolás Maduro and the deepening crisis in Venezuela.[207]" The Washington Post article that this cites does indeed use the word "autocratic", but it is not at all a universally-agreed upon fact that Venezuela's government is autocratic – this is just the position of the Washington Post.

Hopefully we can work to make this article more neutral. Iamextremelygayokay (talk) 08:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I completely agree. Even very reasonable and well sourced additions such as this have been reverted to maintain a narrative almost completely in favor of the opposition.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I want to voice what I have expressed many times: criticising the government does not mean being pro-opposition. The best example of this probably is the dissident chavismo which also points out about current issues in the government. Besides that, I agree that adjectives or unnecessary descriptions could be neutralized. On the other hands, the economic sanctions are explained in the article but should be explained further, making an addition to the lead easier, whcih I think should be done. In another article Oscar . gave a good explanation regarding this situation in another article.[14][15]--Jamez42 (talk) 23:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article has flaws, but like have been saying, it's inaccurate to say that U.S sanctions are causing or deepening the crisis. The origin goes back 6 or 7 years and many of the causes have their origins in policies enacted by the government, including the current financial isolation triggered by an enormous amount of external debt. --Oscar_. (talk) 01:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@C.J. Griffin, @Iamextremelygayokay, I have begun to remove some of the more poorly sourced and distorted material. There is an immense amount of it though, and you should feel free to make your own deletions.GPRamirez5 (talk) 00:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GPRamirez5 (talk · contribs), it is odd that you pinged only half of the people previously involved to the discussion. Let me finish up for you. @Jamez42: @Oscar .: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done I have worked through the TLDR post above. It amounts to: a) infobox problems, which I have addressed by removing the insane amount of info from the infobox; b) a request for more information about sanctions and their effect, but no reliable sources given; c) statements about the effect of sanctions, but no reliable sources given (the crisis far pre-dates the sanctions, so it would be difficult to act on this suggestion without reliable sources). Most of the post above relates to sanctions, no sources are given, and the crisis pre-dates sanctions. So, as far as I can tell, everything in the post that can be dealt with in the article, has been dealt with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More done: In a 2018 report, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights documented that "while it is necessary to assess the impact of economic sanctions on the capacity of the government to fulfil its human rights obligations in more detail, information gathered indicates that the socioeconomic crisis had been unfolding for several years prior to the imposition of these sanctions."[17] Thanks, Jamez42 for updating. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking care and keeping an eye on the article :) --Jamez42 (talk) 23:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have not addressed the issues at all, but in many respects made them worse. You have supported deleting the Oxford University Press published work of Mark Weisbrot which documented that the crisis is rooted in the deliberate economic sabotage by the opposition going back to 2002. Meanwhile you have supported the addition of the WP:RECENTISM tabloid articles of La Patilla, and other corporate media outlets with documented bias.^[1] (talk) 13:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Everything in this section is addressed. If you have other concerns, you should specify them before tagging the article. Please start a new section as this one was already difficult to read. Weisbrot is not an unbalanced source on the topic of Venezuela, and your proposed addition was wildly POV, fringe and unbalanced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do you have the temerity to claim "Everything in this section is addressed," when you admit you haven't read the section, Sandy Georgia? And when Weisbrot's work is published by a university press,^[2] yes it is more reliable than your WP:BREAKINGNEWS tabloid trash GPRamirez5 (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this personalization, I have admitted no such thing. Please confine your talk page posts to discussion of the article, and avoid WP:BATTLEGROUND. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting Mark Weisbrot seems like an awful case of cherrypicking. Claiming that the economic hardships go back to 2002, or even that PDVSA was controlled by the political opposition, contradict even government figures. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But it's perfectly consonant with what Michelle Bachelet said, that the crisis precedes the sanctions.GPRamirez5 (talk)

If we take into account causes of the crisis starting from 2002, we first event we would probably consider is when Chávez fired almost 20,000 highly skilled workers from PDVSA in 2003. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. And we have several other articles where this topic can be developed (if it isn't already). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ MacLeod, Alan (2019). "Chavista 'thugs' vs. opposition 'civil society': western media on Venezuela". Race & Class.
^ Weisbrot, Mark (2015). Failed: What the "experts" Got Wrong about the Global Economy. Oxford University Press. p. 224-227.

Request of humanitarian aid

@GPRamirez5: Maduro's government has rejected the aid for the humanitarian crisis several times ever since the National Assembly declared it in 2016, denying the crisis. In regional bodies such as the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights and the Organization of American States, as well as in interviews, government officials have claimed that Venezuela has the capacity to deal with the situation.

Bachelet's oral report even stated that "The extent and severity of the crises in food, health care and basic services, have not been fully acknowledged by the authorities, thus the measures they have adopted have been insufficient."

Oral update on the situation of human rights in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela --Jamez42 (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit summary, the WP:SUMMARYNO message is still NOT apparently getting through; GPRamirez5, please stop making uncivil edit summaries. And please discuss your edits on talk rather than editwarring. When you have been reverted once, please discuss before re-instating. Your slow edit warring is still editwarring: see WP:BRD.

To the point, I read the source, and nowhere can I find that the government requested the aid. Could you please specify which part of the source supports the text you added, lest I missed it. To my knowledge, the Maduro administration has consistently denied there is a humanitarian problem: if you have a reliable source that shows something different, please produce it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unattributed opinion

In these two edits, GPRamirez5 (talk · contribs) added a lopsided, unattributed opinion (which included an Easter egg link[16]). In the next edit, I added attribution to the author, Mark Weisbrot, and then removed the Eaater egg and added a lopsided tag. The attribution and lopsided tag was removed, with a snarky edit summary, "don't play games". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't "opinion" User:SandyGeorgia. It's a verifiable statement which, as your diff shows, was peer-reviewed at the University of Oxford Press. GPRamirez5 (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PDVSA Strike in Chavez Section

More than anything, that sentence just seems out of place. It comes out of nowhere and then is never brought up again. One could argue, and I'm sure some scholars have, that the PDVSA strike and the government's reaction to it have contributed to the current economic crisis. The massive exodus of experienced oil industry workers may have played a role in PDVSA's declining production over the past decade, and that might be something to discuss on the article if it is discussed in good sources. But randomly bringing it up in a single sentence like that is pointless and contributes nothing to the article. I have removed the sentence for now. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed (see "Unattributed opinion" section above). It's quite a minority opinion (Mark Weisbrot), and balancing it with the substantial reliably sourced mainstream opinion would have overly burdened the article-- exploring all the factors of the damage to the petroleum industry in Venezuela since 1998 is a topic best developed in other articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The claim is ludicrous. --Jamez42 (talk) 11:30, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The more complete story from CSIS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A total whitewash, not surprising coming from a slimy outfit funded by the Saudis and other heinous interests. GPRamirez5 (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPR

"Chronicles of a Venezuelan exodus: More families fell the crisis on foot every day". NPR. 4 April 2019. Retrieved 4 April 2019. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done with this, still working on sandbox on content from new HRW report. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Health: Human Rights Watch report released

I am planning to work on this, but the article is already over 7,000 words of readable prose, and the amount of information that needs to be added and updated is daunting. Trimming of outdated info will be needed to keep the article to a readable size. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was my intent to begin adding this content, but this article is such a wreck, that it needs basic repair before major new content. Slow going, did some repair today, much more to do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Better infobox image

It's time to update it, right? There should be images of people firing from freaking helicopters and other badass material. --Bageense^(disc.) 14:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We only have what we have in terms of images; wanna go take some pictures? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Either that or finding material with a creative commons license. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recent CEPR report

This edit was deleted with the claim that it is undue. Given this report was cited in a piece by The Independent, I believe that makes it DUE material. Democracy Now! also reported the findings. Not only that, but the report was co-authored by the economist Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University, hardly an extremist or an unreliable source on these matters. I believe the materials are relevant and should be inserted with the Independent as a source, and reworded if necessary based on the source. EDIT: I propose the following text, based on The Independent report:

An April 2019 report by the economists Mark Weisbrot and Jeffrey Sachs attribute over 40,000 deaths to sanctions during 2017 and 2018, when excess mortality surged by 31 percent around the same time the new sanctions were put into place and oil production fell sharply. The US state department said the report was based on "speculation and conjecture" and placed blame on "Maduro’s ineptitude and economic mismanagement."^[1]

I'd say that is both concise and balanced, and addresses the issues raised by the editor who removed the earlier version. --C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Weisbrot, as well as the CEPR, have been described as biased towards the Venezuelan government; I feel this may be a case of WP:CHERRY. It would be good to make a mention of the disagreements per NPOV, but I'm not sure how. I invite other editors to comment. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding that, while they are a left-leaning think tank, such criticism of being paid off by the Venezuelan government have had to be retracted by some news outlets or there would have been lawsuits brought by CEPR and Weisbrot. Nevertheless, it's not cherry picked; it's been in the news cycle over the last day or two, which is how I learned of it. Would Jeffrey Sachs, a renowned economist, have co-authored a report which was totally baseless given his position at Columbia University? I deemed it relevant per the coverage in reliable sources like The Independent and given that Sachs is a co-author. I have added the US state department criticism from the article per NPOV. I figured that was sufficient given its the only real criticism in the article. It is relevant as it also buttresses the concerns of De Zayas and others who have decried sanctions as having exacerbated this crisis. As a side note, I found it interesting that the article also said this about Idriss Jazairy's criticism of the sanctions, which might also be relevant to this article: I quote (in italics): This is not the first time that concerns have been raised about the humanitarian impact of US sanctions. In January, UN special rapporteur Idriss Jazairy said sanctions “which can lead to starvation and medical shortages are not the answer to the crisis in Venezuela”. I wasn't going to include this but perhaps it should be given Jazairy's position at the UN. Needless to say, this is all certainly DUE material by my estimation. EDIT: here is his statement per the OHCHR. This perhaps something else which should be included. I can't say that I'm not surprised it hasn't been included already, but I digress.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are too many high quality, highly reliable sources (and neutral, third-party, independent) that debunk this for it to be given any weight in this article, particularly considering the source. It is a fringe theory, and this:

... excess mortality surged by 31 percent around the same time the new sanctions were put into place ...

is a good indication of why this fringe theory has no credence. Mortality surged by a third before anything had even changed, because the sanctions had just been put in place? That stretches credibility, and explains why other sources do not report this, and even deny it. That a UN person says it can happen (and may eventually) is quite a reasonable position to take, and quite different from the stretch to say that it did happen coincident with sanctions. Even if this data were the case, we would have to ask why the government suddenly had an urge to supply some health data. To a friendly think tank. When other sources don't report anything of this kind. (Thanks though for letting us now that CEPR and Weisbrot sue ... I wonder how you came to be in possession of such information; could you provide a publicly available source? Please review WP:COI) UNDUE, FRINGE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware that sources were debunking this already. Who is denying this? Can you give some examples? It is explained in the article, as the sanctions made it harder for Venezuela to import food, medicine and medical equipment, and the surge in excess mortality coincided with the sanctions making these much needed materials harder to acquire. In another article from Business Standard, which also covers the report, they quote Jeffrey Sachs as saying "American sanctions are deliberately aiming to wreck Venezuela's economy and thereby lead to regime change. It's a fruitless, heartless, illegal and failed policy, causing grave harm to the Venezuelan people."

Now Sachs is not someone I always agree with, but I'd hardly call him "fringe" given his reputation.

Regarding the lawsuits, they are discussed on Weisbrot's Wikipedia page. Not sure why you are linking to a COI page. Are you insinuating I have some conflict of interest? I have been an editor here for over 12 years, and have absolutely no connections with any organization or think tank, so you might want to take a step back with the bad faith insinuations.

At the very least the statements by Idriss Jazairy per OHCHR should be included in the sanctions section. This CEPR report is just a day or two old and is still in the news cycle, so let's see if it gains any more traction.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How is The Independent a "low-quality" source User:SandyGeorgia? How is an award-winning scholar like Jeffrey Sachs "without credence" ? Are you using the same logic that led you to consider Weisbrot's Oxford University Press scholarship an "opinion"? If it's notable enough for the State Department to address, it most certainly belongs here. GPRamirez5 (talk) 22:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a good point. Besides the notability of Sachs, which the other editors in this discussion have failed to address, the fact that the US state department had to issue statements dismissing the report does add to its significance.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 23:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I'm now more inclined to exclude mentioning the conclusions of the report itself given the opposition by some editors here and instead include the specific criticisms of the US economic sanctions by both Sacks and Jazairy which are quoted above, given their positions and prominence. EDIT: I am considering adding the following sentence to the section on sanctions, right after the last sentence of the second paragraph:

"Both the American economist Jeffrey Sachs and UN special rapporteur Idriss Jazairy have expressed concerns that the sanctions will further exacerbate the crisis and harm the Venezuelan people, and that the sanctions could be an attempt by the United States to foment regime change in Venezuela."^[2]^[3]

I believe this adds some balance to the section which is sorely lacking, IMO. Both notable indivuduals and no mention of CEPR/Weisbrot. Thoughts?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's rather incredulous that someone is asking "who is denying this". I'll start with a few only, since I am guessing I must be misunderstanding the question:

While “Chavismo” (socialist) elites were hit with a variety of sanctions over the last three years, they’ve done little to make an impact on ordinary Venezuelans, whose lives have spiraled into a humanitarian crisis as hyperinflation has driven nearly 3 million to flee. "US sanctions squeezed Venezuela's Chavismo elites. This time, it's oil". Public Radio International. 31 January 2019. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)
International humanitarian aid to Venezuela increased in 2018, after a shift in the government’s discourse from entirely denying the humanitarian crisis to recognizing an economic one. The government, however, blamed the shortages on US imposed sanctions, even though the humanitarian crisis preceded sanctions on the oil sector that could potentially have an impact on the importation of food and medicines. "Venezuela's humanitarian emergency: Large-scale UN response needed to address health and food crises". Human Rights Watch. 4 April 2019. Retrieved 7 April 2019.
The extent and severity of the crises in food, health care and basic services, have not been fully acknowledged by the authorities, thus the measures they have adopted have been insufficient. ... Although this pervasive and devastating economic and social crisis began before the imposition of the first economic sanctions in 2017, I am concerned that the recent sanctions on financial transfers related to the sale of Venezuelan oil within the United States may contribute to aggravating the economic crisis, with possible repercussions on people's basic rights and wellbeing. "10 claves del informe de Michelle Bachelet sobre Venezuela" [10 keys if Michelle Bachelet's report on Venezuela]. Prodavinci (in Spanish). 20 March 2019. Retrieved 20 March 2019."Oral update on the situation of human rights in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela". OHCHR. 20 March 2019. Retrieved 23 March 2019.
Noting that the deprivation long predates recently imposed US sanctions, it said that “Venezuelan authorities under Maduro have concealed the official health information. They have harassed and retaliated against those who collect data or speak out about food and medicine shortages.” DeYoung, Karen (4 April 2019). "Venezuela's health system in 'utter collapse' as infectious diseases spread, report says". The Washington Post. Retrieved 7 April 2019.

I could provide dozens more, but don't think that will help the discussion. So, you are either misreading or misquoting the sources you supply above, or not understanding the timing involved, between OLD and NEW sanctions. For example, you say, ""American sanctions are deliberately aiming to wreck Venezuela's economy and thereby lead to regime change. It's a fruitless, heartless, illegal and failed policy, causing grave harm to the Venezuelan people." That is discussing what COULD happen per NEW sanctions. CEPR is claiming DID happen per OLD sanctions. The old sanctions, according to almost every reliable source, had no effect on well-being, were aimed at the chavista elite and not the economy, and the crisis seriously pre-dated the sanctions. The NEW (more recently applied) sanctions could or are expected to maybe have an impact, as they do hit the economy. Hence, the importance of getting Maduro to accept humanitarian aid for the people. But the CEPR source is claiming that OLD deaths were due to the OLD sanctions, and that they happened immediately, and happened already. There is no other source I am aware of that supports this, and the UN, HRW and Johns Hopkins School of Public Health took a good look at the issue. If you want to beef up text dealing with how the NEW sanctions could affect people, that would be understandable (although possibly breaching WP:CRYSTALBALL, because how do we know if humanitarian aid will help and forestall the effect). But adding a fringe theory supported by no good sources that I know of that says that people died years ago because of sanctions, you will need to find something other than fringe support for that notion.

I see now the PanAmPost issue at the Weisbrot article; I read your post to indicate a broader tendency to lawsuits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Break

Further, I am really not understanding what you all want to include, since the UN OHCHR report is already mentioned, prominently in the lead, and covers the issue that the NEW sanctions could worsen the crisis, which is NOT what the CEPR report is saying:

In 2018, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) documented that "information gathered indicates that the socioeconomic crisis had been unfolding for several years prior to the imposition of these sanctions";^[4] Michelle Bachelet updated the situation in a 20 March oral report following the visit of a five-person delegation to Venezuela,^[5] saying that the social and economic crisis was dramatically deteriorating, the government had not acknowledged or addressed the extent of the crisis, and she was concerned that although the "pervasive and devastating economic and social crisis began before the imposition of the first economic sanctions", the sanctions could worsen the situation.^[5]^[6]

Yes, you clearly misunderstood, as I was referring to direct rebuttals to the CEPR report. But as I mentioned in my latest posting, I believe it would be better to mention the criticisms leveled by Sachs and the UN official (Idriss Jazairy, whose statement is not included in the article at this point) in the sentence provided above, rather than the conclusions of the CEPR report. I believe DUE weight applies here, as more than a few experts are highly critical of the NEW US sanctions and how they could worsen the crisis, and what the intent of the sanctions are.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allright, let me re-read everything and start over ... I got caught in an editing error caused by ref tags and lost the plot. After dinner I will re-read. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re-boot. I'm back, having eaten, and I'm sorry for losing the plot above (and my apologies for the COI query). Picking up a few pieces I missed:

I said, "we would have to ask why the government suddenly had an urge to supply some health data", and now that I have read the actual primary source, I see that their number was pure speculation and not based on any government data, so strike that. Reading the primary source makes it easy to understand why this report has not gotten traction in the press and to see the shortcomings in the analysis, but analysis of primary sources is not our place as editors, and we go by what the secondary sources. Nonetheless, I hope that reading the primary source at least helps both of you get a clearer understanding of why, as an example, when the Johns Hopkins report comes out, it is picked up by hundreds of high quality sources, while this report so far has not been picked up by hardly any.

This:[17]

"Mr Weisbrot, a cofounder of the CEPR, told The Independent the authors could not prove those excess deaths were the result of sanctions, but said the increase ran parallel to the imposition of the measures and an attendant fall in oil production, which has for decades been a mainstay of the Venezuelan economy."

explains the problem with including this sort of speculative text in an encyclopedic article, when multiple high quality sources debunk this fringe theory, and almost no reliable sources have picked it up. I am not impressed that The Independent decided to report this, compared to the scores of sources that typically pick up Venezuelan stories and in this case, have not. Pushing something into Wikipedia that most of the reporting world has decided not to pick up is UNDUE.

“You cannot prove a counter factual,” said Mr Weisbrot. “But [the excess deaths do] not have another obvious explanation.”

I believe he probably says that there is no "other obvious explanation" with a straight face, in spite of the abundance of evidence and reliable sources reporting on the many other obvious explanations, put forward by numerous independent, third-party sources. And that is why we aren't (at least yet) finding this theory broadly reported (and with time, we will probably find good sources explaining in detail why and how this is fringey, but time will tell).

Asked to comment on the report’s claims that Washington’s sanctions had killed tens of thousands of people, the US state department said “as the writers themselves concede, the report is based on speculation and conjecture”.

Of course they have to respond to something they are asked. But so far, we aren't seeing this in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal-- nothing. I suspect the reason is that reporters who have been on this story for years now are not stupid; they have seen all of the "other obvious explanations". The story is not getting wide traction, for reasons that aren't hard to understand.

To the query, "Would Jeffrey Sachs, a renowned economist, have co-authored a report which was totally baseless given his position at Columbia University?" I/We can't answer to what his motives are. We can see that so far, major sources are not running this theory.

To the statement: "I deemed it relevant per the coverage in reliable sources like The Independent", I'm deeming it fringe because of the number of sources who have chosen so far NOT to report it. Particularly when we compare to the huge number of sources that run every aspect of the Venezuela crisis right away.

To the statement, "This CEPR report is just a day or two old and is still in the news cycle, so let's see if it gains any more traction", that is a sensible approach to this situation. We have a report from someone with a known position on Venezuela matters, that by self-admission is pure speculation, and debunking/analyzing the primary source is not something for quick reporting or that fits into one or two news cycles. I suspect we may see better secondary reporting on it, or no more secondary reporting at all, but time will tell. Putting something that the authors acknowledge as speculative in an encyclopedia, when only one real source has picked it up and most have ignored it, doesn't make sense. I agree we could revisit if the situation changes.

In conclusion, so far, I don't think we're missing anything, but if the situation changes and we do need to add something, the highly speculative nature of this report would have to be mentioned. Not just that the US said it was speculation, but the authors' own admission. They basically ... based this claim on nothing ... in opposition to every other entity that has looked at this ... as can be seen by reading the primary source and which explains why it has not been widely reported. That is my take on the notion that the OLD sanctions caused the crisis. As to whether we need more text on the NEW sanctions and what they might cause, we already have that covered, and we are well getting in to WP:CRYSTAL if we overdo that point. Humanitarian aid is supposed to be in place; people in Venezuela are protesting that it is still not being delivered. Food is used as a weapon according to all reliable sources. So is medicine. We don't yet know if the Red Cross Aid will be delivered. Determinations of what factors do or don't worsen the crisis will be best understood over time, but in the current environment, where we have the multitude of sources addressing the way food and medicine are being used as weapons, it is hard in advance to state what may be caused by sanctions relative to other factors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I have no objections waiting to see what develops with this report, if anything. I already agreed to this above. Nevertheless, you have not addressed what I mentioned last time: including criticism of sanctions as an attempt by the US to foment regime change, addressed by both Sachs and Jazairy, both notable individuals. I believe this is DUE material, especially given the history of US intervention in Latin America. I'll repost it here:

"Both the American economist Jeffrey Sachs and UN special rapporteur Idriss Jazairy have expressed concerns that the sanctions will further exacerbate the crisis and harm the Venezuelan people, and that the sanctions could be an attempt by the United States to foment regime change in Venezuela."^[7]^[8]

--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Buncombe, Andrew (April 27, 2019). "US sanctions on Venezuela responsible for 'tens of thousands' of deaths, claims new report". The Independent. Retrieved April 29, 2019.
^ "Venezuela sanctions harm human rights of innocent people, UN expert warns". OHCHR. January 31, 2019. Retrieved April 29, 2019.
^ "US oil sanctions take effect on Venezuela as crisis intensifies". Business Standard. April 28, 2019. Retrieved April 29, 2019.
^ "Human rights violations in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela: a downward spiral with no end in sight" (PDF). Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. June 2018. Retrieved 23 March 2019.
^ ^a ^b "10 claves del informe de Michelle Bachelet sobre Venezuela" [10 keys if Michelle Bachelet's report on Venezuela]. Prodavinci (in Spanish). 20 March 2019. Retrieved 20 March 2019.
^ "Oral update on the situation of human rights in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela". OHCHR. 20 March 2019. Retrieved 23 March 2019. The extent and severity of the crises in food, health care and basic services, have not been fully acknowledged by the authorities, thus the measures they have adopted have been insufficient. ... Although this pervasive and devastating economic and social crisis began before the imposition of the first economic sanctions in 2017, I am concerned that the recent sanctions on financial transfers related to the sale of Venezuelan oil within the United States may contribute to aggravating the economic crisis, with possible repercussions on people's basic rights and wellbeing.
^ "Venezuela sanctions harm human rights of innocent people, UN expert warns". OHCHR. January 31, 2019. Retrieved April 29, 2019.
^ "US oil sanctions take effect on Venezuela as crisis intensifies". Business Standard. April 28, 2019. Retrieved April 29, 2019.

"...we aren't seeing this in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal-- nothing."

Actually, The New York Times published a piece by Jeffrey Sachs raising these very issues:

"By commandeering Venezuela’s only lifeline to food supplies and oil field equipment, the United States has lit the fuse. By the Trump administration’s own estimates, sanctions will cost Venezuela’s economy $11 billion in lost oil revenue in the next year, which is equal to 94 percent of what the country spent last year in goods imports. The result is likely to be an economic and humanitarian catastrophe of a dimension never seen in our hemisphere." GPRamirez5 (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to look just now, but if that is all they are saying, that seems to make the point I raised above. They are not saying past deaths can be attributed to old sanctions. They are agreeing that NEW sanctions MAY cause hardship. And are you telling me they published a piece authored by him? Not independent verification. I will check in on that article later. Re: C.J. on Sanctions, wouldn't that be dealt with in the Sanctions article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: The UN Human Rights Commissioner report. There's nothing in it that contradicts Sachs and Weisbrot at all. The commissioner admits that her information is incomplete, and research like theirs is needed. To use the complete non-WP:CHERRY quote:

"While it is necessary to assess the impact of economic sanctions on the capacity of the Government to fulfill its human rights obligations in more detail, information gathered indicates that the socio-economic crisis had been unfolding for several years prior to the imposition of these sanctions."

But CEPR don't deny that there was an economic crisis prior to 2017. Their executive summary even says 2017 sanctions "exacerbated Venezuela’s economic crisis and made it nearly impossible to stabilize the economy, contributing further to excess deaths."

With just one sketchy sentence, Bachelet didn't make a meaningful pronouncement, and it isn't clear she even meant to. GPRamirez5 (talk) 23:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re SandyGeorga: That's not a bad idea. I'll look into it.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 12:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly enough, the CEPR report was mentioned on Tucker Carlson's Fox News program, of all places. It seems to be getting some traction. Will keep an eye on it for sure.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

COPYVIO

BoogaLouie, this is WP:COPYVIO. Please archive your talk page so people can communicate with you, and please review WP:PARAPHRASE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So now, all of these edits need to be checked, as if there wasn't already a big enough mess in this article. Who wants to help? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Yorker website is down; this edit needs to be checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Checked; straight cut-and-paste. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is plagiarism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I did not respond in time. Seems you or someone else have rewritten or replaced the offending section. --BoogaLouie (talk) 13:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Socialism

Many people blame the current crisis in Venezuela on socialism, but apparently mentioning that is "blatant POV pushing." Did I say it was MY opinion? No. Did I say it was others opinions? Yes. I'm sorry, CJ Griffith, that you don't like Fox Business, but it is a reputable site, along with The New York Times.--Rockclaw1030 (talk) 14:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of these opinion pieces is to link the unique crisis in Venezuela to politicians in the US who push for progressive policies, when what these people advocate has nothing to do with Venezuela. These screeds are intended to smear political opponents in the US, not accurately describe the crisis in Venezuela. This is why it is absolutely WP:UNDUE. And yes, it is POV-pushing, and it will be reverted yet again.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have to follow the edits, but tha claim tha many from the opposition to Maduro allege that the crisis is based on socialist policies is blatantly uncontroversial.--MaoGo (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, such policies are more accurately described as populist rather than socialist, and not one reputable source describes Venezuela as having a “socialist” economy, which would mean that the means of production are entirely socially owned. Outside of some worker coops, this is not the case. It’s a heavily mixed economy dominated by the petroleum sector. This is unique to Venezuela, not the United States. This is what makes these op ed sources wildly undue: their intended purpose is to use the crisis to smear politicians in the US who push for progressive policies, which have absolutely nothing to do with the unique situation in Venezuela. Bottom line is that these sources are absolutely unacceptable.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Why do you bring the US to this? We may look for better sources, but if you have followed Venezuelan media (pro or contra Maduro), Maduro considers his economy as socialist and the opposition blames it for it. We are not here to decide if the economy is socialist enough or not, but many people would blame it on those terms. Here is a source [18] --MaoGo (talk) 14:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also the article is full of mentions of socialist policies (this makes Venezuela socialist or not? you can decide for yourself), why do you bother with that particular one?--MaoGo (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See my edit below. socialist policies do not make an actual socialist economy. I have said why I have issues with this. Sourcing is terrible and biased in the extreme, and it is even more undue for the lede. It is absolutely unacceptable for a wiki article. Both op-eds have no place here.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, we will remove Mike Pence, but I still believe that this is apart of this story. I don't believe this is WP:UNDUE--Rockclaw1030 (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The wording is fine with or without Pence. --MaoGo (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll add the Washington Post story. Thanks for the idea. And the fact that C.J. Griffith added a POV lead, sheesh.--Rockclaw1030 (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read the sources in question? Because the sources added bring the US and US politicians into this, that's why!!!!!! They attack several different politicians in the US who have nothing to do with Venezuela: AOC, Warren and Sanders. Wildly, absolutely undue materials. This is the intended purpose of these screeds obviously, to use the crisis to attack political opponents in the US as advocates of Venezuelan-style socialism, which is not the case at all! And to describe the Venezuelan economy as a "socialist economy" in the lede, impeccable sourcing would be required, not right-wing op-eds which are intended to smear, not inform. A socialist economy is a very specific thing, and given that much of the economy is still in private hands I don't think such a description accurately describes what kind of economy Venezuela has. Even the Venezuela article describes it as a mixed economy, which is accurate. simply having a few self-described socialist policies in place, such as expanding worker coops, does not make a full blown socialist economy.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

would you agree with the lead now? The WaPo article is more nuanced and I removed the NYT opinion article. --MaoGo (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, calling "much of the economy is still in private hands" is a red herring not related to this issue. If you want to dwell into that, maybe I am tempted to ask you, have you seen Venezuela's ranking in private property indexes [19]? and economic freedom [20]?--MaoGo (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't. First of all, the Fox Business article is still there, and is even worse than the article that was removed as it attacks Sanders and Warren in multiple paragraphs, even though they have nothing to do with the crisis in Venezuela. And secondly, I still take issue with describing the actual economy of Venezuela as "socialist". It will take more than an op ed in the Washington Post to verify this. For this article to be both accurate and neutral, it would require a description of Venezuela's economy as a mixed economy and some socialist policies in place, which are more accurately described as "populist" policies by some observers. As it is, this is a dubious description of the economy in the article by my estimation, and a dubious inline tag might be required until an actual reliable source describes the economy as socialist, preferably an academic source. And I'm not advocating adding "much of the economy is still in private hands" into the article. The private sector still exists to a significant extent in Venezuela, does it not? So the means of production of the country are not socially owned, which is what a socialist economy would be. (and for the love of god, one of your indices is from the corporate-funded neoliberal think tank, The Heritage Foundation. Ugh!)--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not all that is left is the Washington Post article. Thankgs, MaoGo.--Rockclaw1030 (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

this is much appreciated, and the article is better for it. But I added a dubious inline tag to indicate a much better source needed for the description "socialist economy".--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I am sorry I did not read the Sanders part. I can agree to disagree on what is Venezuela model right now, this is not a WP:FORUM, but going back to the issue: the statement that some critics claim that the crisis was created due to the adoption of "socialism" (whatever this means for them) is undeniable. Also may we now take the POV template?--MaoGo (talk) 15:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Already done now that those terrible articles have been removed. Thanks. A discussion on the economy would be appropriate for the talk page, given what is in the article.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not all that is left is the Washington Post article. Thankgs, MaoGo. Would it make every happy if we wrote something like "socialist leaning economy"? --Rockclaw1030 (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A more accurate and neutral description would be a mixed economy with populist policies in my estimation.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the understanding. Let us try to get better sources before we continue this discussion. --MaoGo (talk) 15:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanting Wikipedia to be neutral, not politically left or right. --Rockclaw1030 (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Socialism not to blame

C.J. Griffin made this edit with edit summary, "Adding a counter-point to the opinion that socialist policies are to blame, with op-ed from WP:RS" using this OpEd. Jamez42 deleted the key portion "less to do with socialism", despite the clear title in the source, "Here's why you can't blame socialism for Venezuela's crisis". Deleting that phrase makes no sense. I reverted and explained this in my edit summary. I am baffled as to why Jamez42 reverted a second time here. Jamez42: Please self-revert and do not edit war to your preferred version. You can discuss, but for now C.J. Griffin's inclusion of the language with the source stands. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other op-eds in reliable sources have put forth similar arguments, such as this (No, Venezuela doesn’t prove anything about socialism) in The Washington Post, which I am considering adding as a citation. I agree with you the original narrative should be restored, as that is the crux of the argument made in the original source. The door was opened for this by editor Rockclaw1030 when he sought to include op eds blaming in particular the "socialist economy" for the crisis. Problem was "socialist economy" wasn't mentioned in any of them, and they basically slammed socialism in general, including progressive politicians in the US like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and of course a favorite target, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, none of whom have anything to do with Venezuela or even back the regime there. I argued this was highly undue, and through discussion "socialist economy" was changed to "socialist policies" and the offending sources removed. Nevertheless, I still felt it was too simplistic of an argument, and one that is overtly political and POV. This is why I felt it necessary to include op-eds in reliable sources that push back against this highly politically charged narrative that "socialism" is almost entirely to blame for the crisis.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 12:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding additional sources to support the change is not reverting. I explained in my edit summaries that the reasons aren't mutually exclusive, and opposing the wording putting an example. Since these explanations are both given by critics, the phrase could say "less with economic war and more to do with (...)", which can show how it can be undue. Expropriations, price fixing, subsidies, expansion of social welfare, just to mention some, can all be considered socialist policies and have been blamed in the past for the economic crisis, but that doesn't exclude that authoritarianism, corruption and mismanagement has taken place too, unlike other countries. If we are to use such phrasing based on said source, attribution should be used, leaving the wording as "According to Dion Rabouin (...)" or "According to a Yahoo! Finance article (...)", which is already problematic.

Again, I ask not to bring into the discussion US or its politics since it will only bring confusion, and debunking US politicians' claims should not be the purpose of the information provided here. Yes, the current polarization is regrettable, Joanna Haussman talked in her NYT opinion piece how Venezuelans end up been caught in the middle, but editing is not for righting great wrongs. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I ask not to bring into the discussion US or its politics... Request denied. The US is an actor in Venezuela, and much mainstream commentary references US policies and politics.GPRamirez5 (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then, in this case, we will get dragged into strawman fallacies and confusion over the differences between progressive policies in the US and socialist policies in Venezuela, just like currently in the United States. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As if this page were currently free of strawman fallacies lol...GPRamirez5 (talk) 15:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GPRamirez5 has a point. I would add that the progressive politicians mentioned in the right-wing op eds attacking socialism in general have nothing to do with the policies of the Venezuelan government, and do not support that government or actively seek to oust it from power. By contrast, Trump's Administration is gearing up for just that, openly proclaims its fierce opposition to that government it on nearly a daily basis (and hints at military action routinely), and the sanctions imposed by his Administration have exacerbated the crisis since 2017. This would make Trump relevant (WP:DUE) to any discussion about the current crisis in Venezuela, where as Sanders, Warren, and AOC are not at all relevant, except in right-wing circles seeking to smear the entire left for the problems in Venezuela (WP:UNDUE). But this itself might be a non-issue: Trump wasn't even included in the materials in the article you removed. So it is perhaps irrelevant. In fact, US politics are not mentioned at all in the materials added. The real issue here is the recent inclusion of op eds seeking to smear socialism and "socialist policies" or a "socialist economy" by citing it as the main reason for the crisis, AND then using the crisis in Venezuela as the universal example of socialism (the worst offending sources have been removed, but the one still included (WAPO) still does this only without the same level of vitriol), which is why I added materials from mainstream sources pushing back against the narrative that socialism is to blame, as socialist politics and policies exist outside Venezuela and have not resulted in cataclysmic failure, and in fact have been successful in reducing poverty, such as in Bolivia. If the former is DUE, then the latter certainly is!--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind excluding Trump's opinions or other US politicians attacking socialism. In fact, I think that's what should be done, and if there are right-wing op eds included in the article then the problem can be solved including better sources. I can help looking for references that talk directly about Venezuela's policies and not about criticism of US progressive politicians. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamez42: Is your argument that we should not accurately represent the content of some sources because other sources say something different? That sounds like WP:SYNTH. We don't need to amalgamate several different sources saying different things into one line of prose, and adding a new source saying something different doesn't justify removing (for the second time) an accurate reflection of the original source. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, my argument is that the content of said sources is not being accurately represented. Not all critics that cite corruption and mismanagement as causes of the crisis exclude socialism as a cause, and viceversa, some people that blame socialism also cite corruption and mismanagement as being responsible. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like WP:SYNTH. There's all kinds of WP:SYNTH and WP:PRIMARYNEWS littering this article. It ought to be pruned down to peer-reviewed sources and analysis that has the benefit of several years hindsight.GPRamirez5 (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GPRamirez5: Pointing out where these mistakes are to start off would be way more helpful to improve the content. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stagnation

Recent analyses point out that there is a decrease in the inflation increase rate while the devaluation continues, and some analyses have pointed out that there is a decrease in consumption as well as a "stabilization of the poverty". If this receives more coverage, given that it is a trend change, there should be a mention of it. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] {[unreliable source?]}India Vows to Continue Buying Venezuelan Oil Despite US Treats] TeleSUR

[2] MacLeod, Alan (2019). "Chavista 'thugs' vs. opposition 'civil society': western media on Venezuela". Race & Class.

[3] Weisbrot, Mark (2015). Failed: What the "experts" Got Wrong about the Global Economy. Oxford University Press. p. 224-227.

[4] Buncombe, Andrew (April 27, 2019). "US sanctions on Venezuela responsible for 'tens of thousands' of deaths, claims new report". The Independent. Retrieved April 29, 2019.

[5] "Venezuela sanctions harm human rights of innocent people, UN expert warns". OHCHR. January 31, 2019. Retrieved April 29, 2019.

[6] "US oil sanctions take effect on Venezuela as crisis intensifies". Business Standard. April 28, 2019. Retrieved April 29, 2019.

[DownwardSpiral-7] "Human rights violations in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela: a downward spiral with no end in sight" (PDF). Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. June 2018. Retrieved 23 March 2019.

[10Keys-8] "10 claves del informe de Michelle Bachelet sobre Venezuela" [10 keys if Michelle Bachelet's report on Venezuela]. Prodavinci (in Spanish). 20 March 2019. Retrieved 20 March 2019.

[ExtentSeverity-9] "Oral update on the situation of human rights in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela". OHCHR. 20 March 2019. Retrieved 23 March 2019. The extent and severity of the crises in food, health care and basic services, have not been fully acknowledged by the authorities, thus the measures they have adopted have been insufficient. ... Although this pervasive and devastating economic and social crisis began before the imposition of the first economic sanctions in 2017, I am concerned that the recent sanctions on financial transfers related to the sale of Venezuelan oil within the United States may contribute to aggravating the economic crisis, with possible repercussions on people's basic rights and wellbeing.

[10] "Venezuela sanctions harm human rights of innocent people, UN expert warns". OHCHR. January 31, 2019. Retrieved April 29, 2019.

[11] "US oil sanctions take effect on Venezuela as crisis intensifies". Business Standard. April 28, 2019. Retrieved April 29, 2019.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]