Talk:Responses to the Venezuelan presidential crisis/Archive 1

Map

Most articles that feature a "topic X by country" (in this case, which countries recognized either president) have the map at the top of the page, as the main image. I suggest we move it there. Cambalachero (talk) 12:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I placed the map at the top, and agree with you that it works well there, but then the question is, do we keep the larger version of same later on in the article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Is there a way to crop the image in wiki? Like, make it appear only the Americas or South America without making a new image? That way we could have a partial map on top and full map below. (Note: I consider this proposal a horrible idea if we have to handle two independent images).--MaoGo (talk) 16:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Something like this:

South American nations recognizing presidential power during the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis (click for World map):

  Venezuela

  Neutral

  No statement

  Recognize Guaidó

  Support National Assembly

  Recognize Maduro

--MaoGo (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that crisis has grown well beyond the limits of South America. The United States, Russia and China have an important influence, and can't be left outside. Cambalachero (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

It is not like Russia and US are taken out of the article or anything. You can even click the image to have the full one. But anyhow, it was just a proposal. --MaoGo (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Page creation chat with Drmies

• Why do we have this article in the first place? Drmies (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Drmies to get 100KB out of 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis, which had become huge, so that we could stop dealing (there) with the never-ending queries about moving obscure countries whose opinions will never have any outcome on what happens in Venezuela and are a distraction from building content. What do you suggest? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Ha, User:SandyGeorgia, I'm glad you asked--I suggest we don't have "responses to..." articles anymore. Unless someone responds by sending out a fleet of battleships, of course. And not include "It was reported in the late evening that Instagram had removed the "Verified" label from Maduro's account..." ... Drmies (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I have found these things impossible to combat. We have proseline and timelines in every Venezuela article, and growing lists on every one of them, and worse, crazy long unencyclopedic original research and lists in their infoboxes. What to do when you have 100KB of this kind of content? That saps editor time. We can't delete 100KB, yet dealing with it is a huge distraction. On my own editing on this topic, I try to gather sources, make a list, wait a day for the best English sources, and then add a two- or three- para summary to an article that is, unfortunately, basically a timeline (pres crisis). <sigh ... > I was glad to get this content out of the main article. Good to see you, too, Drmies; remember, Men will be boys! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Ha, I don't have coffee until I've deleted 100k. You remember the Indian plagiarism scandal? I was at some WMF thing where a dude rode a dolly full of boxes of copy paper onto the stage, bragging on how much content had been added through some Wikimedia project--most of which, or some of which, or all of which was later deleted for copyvio. I was thinking that my total contribution to Wikipedia is probably a net negative... And I was also reminded of that scene when, remember, Trump was on TV in front of stacks of paper bragging about how much regulation he cut. I guess I'm the Trump in this picture, a scary thought. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies: WP:NOTCHAT.--MaoGo (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• @MaoGo: seriously dude. Drmies (talk) 03:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

(After two edit conflicts) <smile> A man after my own heart! If I had designed the setup here, we would have two content pages that are not articles, but Lists. One a timeline list, two a Guaido/Maduro list. I'm OK with lists, probably because of the FA/FL days, and because dear User:Colin has written some AMAZING lists, so I see their purpose. Lists separate, and then write articles. What we have across Venezuela topics are lists trying to be articles. Yet some of the content is valuable and can't be deleted ... hence, this ... (MaoGo, I don't see it as a chat. I see it as an experienced, long-time, helpful contributor kindly attempting to explain the problem here :) We spend our time arguing over random country X rather than writing encyclopedic content.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

If you don't want to talk about positions of other countries than "Responses to the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis" isn't the article for you, especially since a lot of it is international.Fenetrejones (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Maybe you haven't noticed how often I am pinged/blamed if I do NOT take action on a country placement on the list, or respond on the topic? The implication being I have a double standard ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

This article is a legitimate case of Wikipedia:Content forking, so yes, it is justified to have it. Cambalachero (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

An absolutely necessary article split due to size. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

It's the "Recognition" section, specifically, that needs to be on a page separate from the main article. A lot of the prose about individual reactions is entirely unnecessary. The social media section will possibly expand if secondary sources are found. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree with page creation, especially the recognition portion.----ZiaLater (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

And so I see a whole bunch of comments here that basically boil down to "if it's verified it should be on Wikipedia". Drmies (talk) 03:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies: Especially if it's about Morocco! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies: I could not care less about some of the social media information.----ZiaLater (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies:, I have to defend a lot of the emphasis on social media in Venezuela topics. The context that has to be understood is one of lack of press freedom and serious censorship, such that social media plays an important role. Venezuelans are by necessity highly wired, and there is a reason internet is shut off in the barrios when FAES goes in. Also, the verified label being removed from Maduro's account was significant, even to the extent of Wikipedia's SELFPUB reliable sources. For instagram to "unverify" Maduro would put him as no longer an official spokesperson for the country in terms of reliability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Sure--but then you have also said that Instagram matters. And I know Instagram matters for some in the way that it did in other places and times, but that doesn't apply to Maduro, who controls the media. What I mean is, "social media" is important differently for different people and for different reasons. But I'm not going to get involved in the editing or the decision-making; this article is too crowded right now. I do appreciate you keeping it real here, with an eye on our standards for sourcing etc. Thanks Sandy, and take care, Drmies (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Guaido is Interim President, not Acting President.

Per RBL2000, Discussion will be here.

As said by mainstream media/reliable sources: https://www.france24.com/en/20190204-venezuela-europe-france-spain-guaido-interim-president https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-politics-spain/spain-recognizes-guaido-as-interim-president-of-venezuela-idUSKCN1PT0OR And the US government refers to him as Interim President: https://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2019/03/289874.htm It is clear how the media and governments refer to him, as interim president. RBL2000 (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC) And he's acting president to the National Assembly, and thus to a body elected by the Venezuelans. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC) Yes, he is Acting President of the National Assembly and is considered Interim President of Venezuela. Two different positions. RBL2000 (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC) Discussion will be in here Talk:2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis#Media and other countries refer Guaido as Interim President, not Acting President. RBL2000 (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Split from 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis

Per this discussion, I am going to split text to this article. Patience ... it will take a few steps. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

For talk page archives prior to 26 February 2019, see Talk:2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis Leave this unsigned so this section will not archive.

Ukraine and Morocco, again...

Moved from Talk:2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis

Someone has moved both to recognition of "Guaidó interim presidency" from "Support of National Assembly" despite sources stating explicity without doubt it is the latter and not the former.

Someone replaced/removed this statement directly from website of Moroccan government which is english: http://www.maroc.ma/en/news/foreign-minister-meets-juan-guaido-speaker-venezuelas-national-assembly With/added this from French news site(?) in French, not english: https://www.lorientlejour.com/article/1155036/venezuela-le-maroc-apporte-son-soutien-au-president-autoproclame-juan-guaido.html

Someone moved Ukraine despite source they use/didn't remove like they did involving Morocco: https://www.unian.info/politics/10433733-mfa-ukraine-backs-venezuelan-opposition-leader.html which translates in its news article parts of this statement directly from Ukranian goverment: https://mfa.gov.ua/ua/press-center/briefing/1317-vidpovidy-rechnici-mzs-ukrajini-katerini-zelenko-dlya-zmi-shhodo-politichnoji-krizi-u-venesujeli

Please restore when have time SandyGeorgia. RBL2000 (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I saw that, I don't understand it, I have never understood it (that is, in the case of certain countries/situations here), I do not know what criteria are being used in other instances, I wish this issue was not even on this page (see my proposal above that we split), and the best I can tell, those sources support the edit. Clearly, I don't get what the issues is with respect to these particular countries, and that is partly because I am not interested. I am trying to write the article, not build a map or list, and I believe that belongs on a separate page so we can write this article without endless quibbling over countries whose position will matter not a wit in the long-run.

I can revert when I see a clearly non-reliable source or a source that does not support the statement. I don't know what we have there, either in terms of the sources or the text, and I don't feel I have enough to revert, because the sources look reliable. I see this:

• The minister also expressed to Juan Guaido the support of the Kingdom of Morocco for all the actions taken to meet the legitimate aspirations of the Venezuelan people for democracy and change; and
• Ukraine recognizes Juan Guaido as head of Venezuela's democratically elected government, the National Assembly, and leader of the democratic opposition," Press Secretary of Ukraine's Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) Kateryna Zelenko has said in a statement.

If you or someone else reverts, or does not revert, I do not care, because I have no opinion on that edit, and would rather write the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Media outlets that are considered as reliable sources should not outweight in any case what is directly said from the govermnent as giving greater validity to media than government itself says is simply choosing to ignore what comes from the country itself, IIRC as there is a saying "straight from the horse's mouth". RBL2000 (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

It is very confusing. I just read the new French source given above for the Moroccan support of Guaidó, and it states that the support to Guaidó was given without clear disapproval of Maduro. And to me Ukraine source is clearly advocating for Guaido as head of state. We need better sources, but it seems that the even the official statements are legitimately vague.--MaoGo (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

That's what I wish RBL would acknowledge. I can revert something that is clear vandalism or clearly using a non-reliable source. I can't revert an edit like that one. Neither will I fault someone who does. I do not know how to sort those countries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Morocco hasn't ever recognized Guaido as Presidente of Venezuela. The last statement of this Ministry talks about the Presidente of the National Assembly. Again, it's better if we guide by official sources instead of Media. Sometimes Media change the real meaning of official statements. https://twitter.com/MarocDiplomatie/status/1090360743453736960 (Please, change again Morocco) (Talk)

I can't acknowledge what isn't stated nor are their statement vague in any sense, Ukraine stated "Ukraine recognizes Juan Guaido as head of Venezuela's democratically elected government, the National Assembly, and leader of the democratic opposition," which is he is the leader of the government which is National Assembly(like there is Parlaments and Senates) and that is he is leader of opposition since he leads the opposition because opposition is behind him. RBL2000 (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Morocco states "Foreign Minister Nasser Bourita held a phone conversation, on Tuesday, with Juan Guaido, President of the National Assembly of Venezuela, at the request of the latter, said the Ministry of Foreign Affairs." and by referring him as President of National Assembly of Venezuela and not as President of Venezuela, context is clear as him being the leader of National Assembly and not being the president of Venezuela. RBL2000 (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, so I read that Ukraine supports Guaido in THREE capacities-- president, head of NA, and leader of opposition. And I can't infer what Moroccan means from what Moroccan said. And I can't wait to get this stuff on a separate page so I don't have to think about it anymore ! Who ultimately becomes or stays President of Venezuela is not going to depend on Morocco, and these discussions have over and over and over kept us from focusing on article content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

There is no mention of word President in the Ukranian statement which states they see him as head of the government which is the National Assembly, that is one capability and how they worded it is gramatically correct in English language. They mentioned "government," then they named it "National Assembly" then they went with "and". RBL2000 (talk) 22:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Morocco sourcing.

Can you explain Ballers19 the removal of reference/source that is directly from Moroccan government with a media outlet? Why Ballers19 put above media outlet over statement directly from the government? Both are published on same date yet Middle East Monitor is not the government source and this is similar to situation when French source was used to claim/assert Morocco supports Guaido as President of Venezuela which contradicts official statement by Foreing Minister of Morocco who held the phone conversation the very conversation mentioned by Middle East Monitor which claim Morocco recognizes Guaido as President of Venezuela when in press release by Moroccan government it is stated: "President of the National Assembly of Venezuela" RBL2000 (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

This was done without discussion nor concensus at the talk page, using non-governmental source that directly contradicts governmental source about position taken by the government which foreign minister of Morocco has stated about position that country of Morocco has taken involving crisis in Venezuela. You have not even made a suggestion, at least make new section with title of the article or your interpretation of what it says with source to check it or you could have made a comment on Ukraine and Morocco, again... section in this very talk page to suggest it. RBL2000 (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I have not seen any updates on Morocco, so it will stay in Support NA section for now.----ZiaLater (talk) 15:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Norway

Why is Norway on Neutral, but Moldova and Liechtenstein who also supported the EU declaration and they are on national assembly supporters. Shouldn't Norway be on the same list. source:https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2019/01/10/declaration-by-the-high-representative-on-behalf-of-the-eu-on-the-new-mandate-of-president-maduro/ Fenetrejones (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Don't ask me it is the source on Liechtenstein and MoldovaFenetrejones (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

They signed the document along with Liechtenstein, Moldova and EU nations.----ZiaLater (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

CNE

The CNE it's a pro-govt entity, not sure if placing it in there is the way to go. Might need a new section with the reactions of TSJ, ANC and MP, just to name the "important ones". --Oscar_. (talk) 12:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Listy articles

@Jamez42:, this created three problems in my opinion. First, it encourages listy articles (instead of well-developed prose), which is a BIG problem throughout all the Venezuelan suite of articles. Second, it encourages non-WP:DUE entries; when inexperienced editors see a list, they tend to add to it. And finally, by creating a list, the prose is not counted in WP:SIZE by the scripts that count prose, so we can end up with gynormous, unreadable articles.

All of those sorts of problems led to us having to create this spin-off to being with; now we could end up with another spin-off of a spin-off, if editors start dumping trivial text to discuss every position of every non-significant player into this list.

I am not a fan of this addition, but defer to others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of all those problems, on second thought I decided to self revert. Thanks for the notice!--Jamez42 (talk) 15:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC) (edit conflict)

US announces new Cuban sanctions

Pence promised in Cucuta that more was coming. So, we have this, not sure where or if to work it in:

• https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cuba/us-allows-lawsuits-against-cuban-entities-but-shields-foreign-firms-for-now-idUSKCN1QL1KV

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Nations of the SADC should be included under "Supporting Maduro"

Moved from Talk:2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis

There are 15 other nations in the SADC that are not included under supporting Maduro. As per the SADC's statement (https://www.sadc.int/files/8415/4980/4167/Solidarity_statement_with_the_Bolivarian_Republic_of_Venezuela_by_SADC_Chairperson.pdf), I think it is very obvious that these nations support Maduro.

In particular these 2 quotes makes it very clear: "In particular, these countries have sought to undermine a democratically elected Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela led by His Excellency President Nicolas Maduro Moros by proclaiming Mr. Juan Guaido Marquez as Interim-President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela."

"SADC notes that the people of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela expressed their political choices through Parliamentary Elections and Presidential Elections held in December 2015 and May 2018 respectively, and urges the international community and all stakeholders to respect the outcomes of these elections."

Making it obvious the 16 states of SADC support Maduro, especially Namibia since it is written by Namibia's president, supports Maduro. If there are no valid objections after an hour, I will be editing these few countries in too. Nebakin (talk) 11:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Answered already above. The Lima Group supports Guiado, but Mexico, a member of the Lima Group, does not. Individual countries may differ from the position taken by groups they are members of. Each country is best viewed case by case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

It may be so for the others besides S.Africa, but the case for Namibia is clear, it is clear as day Namibia supports Maduro since their president personally wrote this statement. Nebakin (talk) 11:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The SADC speaks for the SADC. Do you have a source for Namibia? I have been looking for days, and have found nothing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The President of Namibia wrote the statement, that's the source already. You have already found it. Nebakin (talk) 11:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The President of Namibia in that statement is speaking for the SADC. (It strikes me as strange that there is no statement from him re his own country.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

He wrote this statement for the SADC, which Namibia is a part of, do you even get that? Namibia is a part of SADC and Namibia has not come out to deny or contradict this statement. Therefore there is more evidence supporting that Namibia supports Maduro than not. It is as simple as that, this is as explicit as it can get for Namibia. Their own president wrote it already, why would you even need to expect him to repeat himself? Do you really need him to tweet out the same exact thing he said on his own private twitter? Can you even expect anyone to do that, keep repeating themselves? I really see no valid objection here since it's a clear cut case for Namibia, we shouldn't be looking at things that doesn't exist, but rather things that already do and are right in front of your eyes. Nebakin (talk) 11:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I get it; we disagree. Please avoid personalizing discussions. Use reliable sources. Provide a source, or move on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Nothing was personalised, not even close. Also, source has been provided, editing will commence now since there is already clear cut evidence for Namibia. Nebakin (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

"Geingob, during his toast at the presentation, welcomed Paredes and told him that the Southern African Development Community and the Namibian Government issued a statement on their position which recognises the elected presidential candidate." http://www.nampa.org/index.php?model=categories&function=display&id=18732186 - 20 Feb 2019 Nebakin (talk) 12:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I do not see that text in that source-- I see only statements from Venezuelans. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

It seems the site asks for a suscription. Is there a way I can read the whole article? --Jamez42 (talk) 12:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Nebakin, who is Geingob, who is Paredes, and provide a larger quote. We can take that to the Reliable Sources noticeboard to ask if it is acceptable. Without a fuller quote or context, it is not. We still do not know who is speaking for whom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hage G. Geingbob is the president of Namibia, the very same guy who wrote the SADC statement. Omar Ernesto Berroteran Paredes is the Venezuelan ambassador to Namibia. It's an article by NAMPA, Namibia's national news agency.

https://www.lelamobile.com/content/78955/US-sanctions-cost-Venezuela-billions-Paredes/ -> you can read it here. Nebakin (talk) 13:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks, that helps. Let's make sure I am following all the pieces.

The source is "Lela Mobile", which indicates very clearly that it is based on user-submitted content, which makes it undeniably not a reliable source. Wikipedia does not accept user-submitted content as a reliable source-- that would be the same as citing Wikipedia, where anyone in their mother's basement can say anything. Going on ... Lela mobile says that the president of Namibia, Hage G. Geingbob, gave a toast on 20 February to Maduro's ambassador in which he acknowledged (someone unnamed) as the elected president. Next, we have a press release that either duplicates that or is the source of it (which?), and then we have vague wording about which president is being recognized. (Half the world considers the elected president is Guaido, so this cagey wording continues to be a problem.)

Do you see all the problems? If you can help unpack all of this, we can make progress on Namibia.

Have a look at WP:AGF; responsible editing is all we're asking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I also find it curious that a full month after Guaido swore an oath as interim president, these countries have not unequivocally and simply stated and published their statements of support. Perhaps they want to have it both ways, and not get into trouble with anyone? Appease Maduro while not making a clear statement. At any rate, Wikipedia cannot take the irresponsible position of claiming support in the absence of reliable sources. Neutral is safe territory, based on known reliably sourced information. The sources you have presented so far are neither reliable nor clear in their statements. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

First of all, lela mobile is NOT the source, NAMPA is, it's even stated right in the Lela site (WINDHOEK, 20 FEB (NAMPA)). Secondly, Lela has already unpack all of it as you've asked, so progress is already made. Thirdly, "president of Namibia, Hage G. Geingbob, gave a toast on 20 February to Maduro's ambassador in which he acknowledged (someone unnamed) as the elected president." This right here is proof that you are doing nothing but nitpicking. That "someone unknowned" has already been named, it's already right there in the sentence, "gave a toast on 20 February to MADURO'S ambassador in which he acknowledged as the elected president". I am no English expert, but I can with my education in English, clearly and easily tell you that Maduro is your so called "unnamed person". There is no logical way you can try and convince anyone that it is not talking about Maduro. In that sentence there are only TWO people who are elected presidents (Guaido is NOT elected), Geingbob and Maduro, so please explain to us, publicly and logically, why does Geingbob need to give a toast to Maduro's ambassador to Namibia in which he (Geingbob) acknowledge himself (Geingbob) as elected president? Or is it that, by logic and the rules of the English language , that that sentence have already CLEARLY stated that Geingbob gave a toast to MADURO'S ambassador in which he (Geingbob) acknowledges Maduro as elected president? Please answer it honestly to the best of your English capabilities. Thank you Nebakin (talk) 13:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Maduro is not elected either; this is a cagey statement. You are asking us to accept your statement (maybe others will). Now, you have finally explained who's who, provided a source that may prove reliable (I don't know-- I would ask at the Reliable Sources noticeboard), you have claimed that the press release is a good source (I don't know-- I am not familiar with Namibia), you have made your claim that this statement endorses Maduro. What you have not done is wait to gain consensus before editwarring this into the article. I suggest next time we will all progress faster if you work on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Nebakin Here is the About Us page for NAMPA, which does explain their official capacity. If you could a) recognize that there are over 100 countries on this page and few of us are familiar with all of them, then b) define the who's who involved and use reliable sources, and c) explain the reliability of sources according to Wikipedia guidelines, we will all get there faster and with less agida.

I apologize for my mistake in thinking you were using the Lelamobile user-generated content as the basis for this claim, as I now see you were only using it as a source for the full-text. But you are still asking us to take Lela mobile's word for it. Do you have access to the full source of the NAMPA press release? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Another item for your WP:AGF contemplation: I have been searching for days for a source for Namibia, since it has come up here three times. Had the press release used the words either "Maduro" or "Guaido", it might have come up in my searches. It didn't specifically mention Maduro, hence no way for most people to locate it. See? It's not a Wikipedia conspiracy. It's a cagey press release. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The problem is lack of neutrality when editors in here scrutinize more Pro-Maduro content than Pro-Guadio, as result we have seen how it was rejected that Belarus and Serbia suppport Maduro until struggle that lasted several days when over and over again sources said such and more and more were saying such. Then there is lack of scrutiny involving Pro-Guaido content when Ukraine and Morocco which support National Assembly have been put in Recognizing Guaido despite explicit text of supporting national assembly and not Guaido as president of Venezuela. Ukraine and Morocco are still listed as Recognizing Guaido presidency despite sources not supporting such, specially Morocco when official government site states support for assembly and not presidency of Guaido. RBL2000 (talk) 11:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

SADC member states are not included individually from the statement. The SADC group itself should already be included though.----ZiaLater (talk) 11:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

On Friday

Moved from Talk:2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis

Jorge Arreaza will make a joint declared statement with potentially 46 countries. If the countries ratify it, should we add them to the Pro Maduro Section? Self proclaimed neutral ones who ratify, should they be changed too?

List:

star =Indicates is already on Pro Maduro list

Double star =Indicates is on vocal neutrality section

• Algeria
• Angola**
• Antigua and Barbuda**
• Azerbaijan
• Bangladesh
• Barbados**
• Belarus*
• Belize**
• Bolivia*

• Burundi

• Cambodia*

• China*

• Cuba*

• DR Congo

• Dominica*

• Egypt

• El Salvador*

• Equatorial Guinea*

• Eritrea

• Gambia

• India**

• Indonesia**

• Iran*

• Kazakhstan

• Laos*
• Malaysia

• Mauritania

• Mozambique

• Myanmar

• Namibia**

• Nicaragua*

• North Korea*

• Pakistan

• Philippines

• Russia*

• Saint Vincent and the Grenadines*

• South Africa*

• Sri Lanka

• Sudan

• Suriname*

• Syria*

• Tanzania

• Turkey*

• Uganda

• Vietnam

• Zimbabwe

Source:

References

This is the a RELIABLE source and not a propaganda one. It is El Comercio (Peru) and it is the oldest newspaper company in Peru.Fenetrejones (talk) 00:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Maybe we should just wait until it is signed? --MaoGo (talk) 10:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

First, it depends on what the text of the any document they potentially sign says (as an example, Lima Group supports Guaido, but Mexico doesn't, so we add Lima Group as a supporter, but not Mexico-- groups can't speak for individual countries, so it depends on what text goes behind the document these representatives sign-- if they do).

Second, I would not use El Comercio (Peru) for information like this. Sources are reliable depending on the text they are sourcing. Yes, El Comercio Perus is generally a good and reliable source for basic facts, but something like this would be picked up by major and higher quality sources, in English, so we could use them. Wikipedia always prefers the highest quality source, and en.wikipedia prefers English-language sources when they are available (see WP:NONENG)-- if this were to happen, we would expect the New York Times to cover it. Also ... In working with a fast-moving situation (the concert article), I have found that El Comercio Peru has gotten ahead of the game several times, maybe wanting to be the first to print something. There is no hurry; we can wait for a high quality source before a big change like proposed here, which would not be a long wait. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Aside, as to El Comercio Peru, enjoy this little dittie! [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

ON my little dittie above, El Comercio used the same link, but a few hours later redacted the report to change the commentary and even the title. Since they were so clearly wrong-- and premature-- rather than issue a new report, they changed the one I saw so that now you cannot even see their error. Conclusion: take great care with El Comercio-- they try to move too fast. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Wait: As long as it is a signed document that is not sourced directly from the Maduro government, the source should be accurate. Both parties have already been known for exaggerating their support.----ZiaLater (talk) 11:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I did say wait until the official document is signed. If for example Zimbabwe approved and signed it and Malaysia did not than Zimbabwe would be added and Malaysia would not. That is why i Said the ones "who ratify it"Fenetrejones (talk) 13:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Alright, now that the list is released, ALL of those countries signed the declaration. Source is Swissinfo which is credible. Fenetrejones (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Fenetrejones, I am not sure. At least in the case of India, I am having trouble find any other source that can verify that it is explicitly pro-Maduro. I do feel that we should add a footnote, however, for all the WP:RS that a reporting that it keeps buying Venezuelan oil in spite of repeated requests by the United States to stop. Ignoring the U.S. sanctions doesn't seem to be pretty neutral, but then again I am an American (so the amount of bias I must have on this topic is probably twenty-fold). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I have removed your premature installation. I hope you are aware that yesterday was a very big day on the Venezuela front, and it is not surprising that most sources are focusing on the fact that several people were killed and the UN's focus was on that. You have neither provided this alleged document, nor its wording, and you can wait more than a matter of hours until we have significant coverage to understand exactly what, if anything, was signed yesterday. Considering there are dead people, I would expect high quality sources to get to this not quickly, but they will. You have produced a source that again does not say all that you think it says; where is the detail? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Note that swissinfo.ch has a pull-down menu (top right) to select language - when you reference this site on the English Wikipedia, please ensure that you have the English translated version's URL.50.111.26.175 (talk) 07:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

When we get full coverage of whatever happened yesterday at the UN, if anything, I doubt that we will be using the swiss.info source, as it provides exactly no useful information about this group and where they stand on matters besides Maduro's troops killing indigenous peoples. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

My statement was to the effect that this is the ENGLISH wiki - and English sources are to be used unless no other source contains the information that is needed to improve the article; Fenetreones seems to forget that and is constantly posting sources from other languages that are not unique - in this case, especially, a little thought on choosing the correct language would have gone a long way - instead of the Spanish version of a Swiss news site - which, by the way, I see about on the same level as USA Today so it is valid as a Reliable Source. 50.111.26.175 (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, IP50-- you are completely correct and we are in violent agreement :) Not only on WP:NONENG, but also on the level of the source. If all of these countries support Maduro, the NY Times will be reporting it. In the midst of a very busy news day, we need for Fenetrejones to understand that this information is not likely to be reported by high quality news sources until things settle down. The problem here is that swiss.info does not go into detail and does not say what Fenetre thinks it says. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Source that Fenetrejones used Swissinfo is high quality which reported on countries in the UN support Maduro, Swissinfo is owned by Swiss Broadcasting Corporation which receives funding from Swiss government. RBL2000 (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

In the source provided, I have not seen any official agreement. Do we have a better source yet?----ZiaLater (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Update 2

Wait– I did Google searches and went to the websites of each government on the list and did not find one new statement of support. The source of this support for Maduro comes from the Maduro government itself (El Comercio source above). Also, this document was not to be signed to show recognition for Maduro, but to denounce military intervention in Venezuela (El Comercio source above).. Denouncing military intervention ≠ Recognition of Maduro.----ZiaLater (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Swissinfo isn't El Comercio. RBL2000 (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC) — RBL2000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Swissinfo was using info from AFP. The El Comercio source summed it up well, though, explaining that the gathering was not about supporting Maduro, it was about denouncing military intervention. The Maduro government tried to spin it as support for their government (which they have done multiple times, e.g. African Union).----ZiaLater (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

ABC News: Confirms the meeting did happen. I wouldn't call it neutral because it was made WITH the Maduro government. Swissinfo just does the job of confirming the list Fenetrejones (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Fenetrejones please stop adding refs to talk page without adding reflist-talk !!! Or, alternately, if you don't know how to use reflist-talk, just put the URL for your source, and leave off the ref tags. You keep causing references to appear at the bottom of the page, that others have to clean up. When we should be contributing content, we are cleaning up talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

However, lets see who signs the letter next week as their is meeting planned next week, and which ever sign it are Pro Maduro, but the ones that don't belong in neither section.Fenetrejones (talk) 21:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Fenetrejones: Um, no. Whatever is signed or declared must be explicitly recognizing Guaidó or Maduro. We have held this standard since the beginning of the crisis. We do not interpret statements.----ZiaLater (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

No, if standards were being hold then Ukraine and Morocco would't be listed as Recognizing Guadio as President of Venezuela yet they are instead of recognizing National Assembly as legitimate. RBL2000 (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC) — RBL2000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Fenetre, please understand. Your source says "Arreaza says ... ". Nothing that "Arreaza says ... " can speak for the position of any other country. Even if ABC is a reliable source generally, it is not a reliable source in this case for the change you propose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

He is not speaking for them. They are just signing his declaration. They chose to sign a Pro Maduro Declaration and NOT Arreaza. ABC tells that it happened and Swissinfo just gives the list.Fenetrejones (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

He is not literally speaking for them and he is not choosing other countries positions. If those countries chose to support his position than that is on them.Fenetrejones (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The reason I suggested that if there is no consensus that to wait next week because according to the ABC passage "Arreaza said he expects "some news" next week after diplomats discuss the proposed initiatives with their governments." Which means by then that some of these countries will be un-debatably on the Maduro side.Fenetrejones (talk) 00:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Countries supporting Maduro

Voa confirms it:https://www.voanoticias.com/a/gobierno-maduro-credenciales-ante-onu/4800144.html

"Venezuela seeks the support of the General Assembly to avoid any action leading to the withdrawal of its credentials, as well as alerting UN members of "the current threats of military aggression against the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of the Bolivarian Republic from Venezuela".

In a second letter, number 00057, the Venezuelan Mission invited a meeting with the disputed Chancellor Jorge Arreaza, at its offices in New York on Friday, February 22 at 11:00 a.m. with representatives from Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Barabados, Belize, Belarus, Bolivia, Burundi, Cambodia, China, DR Congo, Cuba, North Korea, Dominica, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Gambia , India, Indonesia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Laos, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mozambique, Burma, Namibia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Philippines, Russia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Tanzania, Turkey, Uganda, Vietnam and Zimbabwe.

In the east document, they also ask for your support to support a letter addressed to the Secretary General of the UN, expressing serious concerns "about the threat of using force against the territorial integrity and political independence of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela."

With the above, they refer to the repeated statements of the US president about keeping all options on the table in relation to the situation in Venezuela.

La Voz de América has not received confirmation that this letter has been sent to the Secretary General."Fenetrejones (talk) 14:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The VOA source discusses who is the legit representative to the UN from Venezuela. It says according to Arreaza there is a "coalition forming" and they are "beginning to work with that group of countries". It mentions a leaked letter having to do with concerns about Venezuela's accreditation before the UN. It clearly says the reps of these countries were invited to a meeting with Arreaza in Venezuela's offices in NY.

• En una segunda carta, número 00057, la Misión de Venezuela invitó a una reunión con el Canciller en disputa Jorge Arreaza, en sus oficinas en Nueva York el Viernes 22 de febrero a las 11:00 a.m. con representantes de Algeria, Angolam, Antigua y Barbuda, Azerbaiyán, Bangladesh, Barabados, Belice, Bielorrusia, Bolivia, Burundi, Camboya, China, Congo, Cuba, Corea del Norte, Dominica, Egipto, El Salvadoe, Guinea Ecuatorial, Eritrea, Gambia, India, Indonesia, Irán, Kazajstán, Lao, Malasia, Mauritania, Mozambique, Birmania, Namibia, Nicaragua, Paquistán, Filipinas, Rusia, San Vicente y Granadinas, Sri Lanka, Sur Africa, Sudán, Surinam, Siria, Tanzania, Turquía, Uganda, Vietnam y Zimbabwe.

The VOA report concerns the accreditation of Venezuela's representative to the UN, and NOWHERE does it make a statement about where these countries stand wrt to recognizing Maduro or Guaido.

Again, nothing usable here, the source is urelated to the topic, and it expects us to take Arreaza's word for the whole business. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

You may not like it, but not even the UN is denying it.:https://news.un.org/es/story/2019/02/1451771 Fenetrejones (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

From 46 to 60 countries, so if all sing document jointly and declare then its clear they side with Maduro as that is joint statement with Maduro's governments foreing minister that is appointed by Maduro. RBL2000 (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@RBL2000: No.----ZiaLater (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that is initiative by Foreign Minister appointed by Maduro's government. RBL2000 (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: here, yesterday, per your request. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Fenetrejones, you would be correct if you were making a statement about the neutrality of the United Nations or if you were stated these countries have been been in discussions with Arreaza about protecting their UN credentials. This is not a blanked statement of support. It is these countries are in talks with Venezuela about possibly taking action on this one very narrow issue. The UN in that second article is only admitting to that much. Thank you anyways for your feedback! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Background

A background piece from DW on the Africa situation: [2] By the way, this high quality secondary source has Morocco with Guaido. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

No more need to take Arreaza or Maduro's words on support

http://www.sabcnews.com/sabcnews/countries-in-support-of-maduro-meet-to-defend-principles-of-international-law-un-charter/

"Over 40 countries, including South Africa, joined a UN group of friends that met in solidarity with the Maduro government and is working to collectively take action through multilateral fora in support of international law."

No need to take "Arreaza or Maduro's words on support.Fenetrejones (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding this Fenetrejones, I think we should refrain to use sources of support if not *explicitly* being from statements of the presidents/prime ministers and/or the foreign ministers of such countries. --Oscar_. (talk) 01:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

However plenty of countries do often show their opinion through the United Nations. For example some countries opposed the NTC of Libya and they did this through the UN. See International recognition of the National Transitional Council. UN signatories are representative of countries, because they are appointed by their respective government.Fenetrejones (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

There appears to be some discussion regarding the credentials of Venezeula's representative to the United Nations. I don't believe there has been any meaningful vote at the UN General Assembly on this topic - to the best of my knowledge Guaido has not attempted to replace the delegate. (There have been several Security Council votes on this topic) I don't think that signing on to a letter supporting Jorge Arreaza's credentials is enough here, particularly for adding dozens of countries to the list. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

He hasn't tried replacing, but the whole point of the meeting was to stand solidarity with Maduro. But yes there has not been a general assembly vote. Actually the security council could have appointed Guiado, if Russia and China did not veto it: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-28/russia-china-veto-un-resolution-seeking-venezuela-elections?srnd=next-china The support is controversial in the end, however it is almost certainly true that these countries did express support for Maduro. None of these countries seem strange for doing so. In fact about a third already did. On the other hand I would like to thank you both for the civilized, non dismissive discussionFenetrejones (talk) 02:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

But the sources you give are still talking about a different matter than Guaido v. Maduro recognition; they are discussing something to do with Arreaza and the UN charter, or the Russia resolution, but do not contain any information about the text you want to use it to cite. The section you edited has to do with recognition or not of Maduro or Guaido as president. The sources do not deal with that subject. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

But the sources contradict what you assert/claim as evident by context of the content in those very sources and Fenetrejones explanation or to be more correct correction of your assertion is undeniable/solid. FM appointed by Maduro/Maduro's government has achieved support from dozens of countries. If that is not recognition of Maduro and his government then I don't know what is, after all such support as described in sources is explicit act of not being neutral due to close interaction with Maduro government. Countries that recognize Guaido closely interact with Guaido's government, in this case countries that support this are closely interacting with Maduro's government to maintain in the United Nations people from that government from being replaced by those from Guaido's government. RBL2000 (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

First of all this discussion is already over by the time you arrived. If "Over 40 countries, including South Africa, joined a UN group of friends that met in solidarity with the Maduro government and is working to collectively take action through multilateral fora in support of international law." is not pro Maduro than I don't know what is. The UN security council was NOT on these countries but about a fact that if that resolution at the security council passed, it would have appointed the Guiado government in the UN. Fenetrejones (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

and their entire purpose IS to defend the Maduro government. Fenetrejones (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

The UN is common place where countries have shown their stance on something and this is far from the first time.Fenetrejones (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Opposing foreign interference is different from the recognition of a government. So far I think we have been strict with this condition. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

That can't be applied to this as it is different from that. This is about rejecting government of self-proclaimed/interrim president of Venezuela Guaido and countries that support him which attempt to replace officials that were assigned appointed by Maduro and his government government to represent Venezuela at the United Nations with those from Guaido's government. RBL2000 (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to add information regarding UN Special Rapporteur

"Alfred de Zayas, a former UN special rapporteur to Venezuela, who was the first UN rapporteur to visit Venezuela in 21 years, said that US's economic sanctions against Venezuela were "illegal" and possible "crimes against humanity", though his report is disputed and has been largely ignored by the members of the Human Rights Council."

I propose adding this to the article. Some people were concerned with it being WP:UNDUE, but considering this view is also shared by, for example, the Kremlin, it seems pretty relevant to me. MrClog (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

References

What Russia says about the US, and what a UN person that not even the UN pays attention to are two different things. We have a Russia section, and reporting their stance per Reuters seems reasonable to me. The UN ex-person would be giving UNDUE weight to an opinion that quacks and not even the org that sent him gives any credence to. Unless mainstream sources cover the UN guy, I believe that text is undue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't expecting this discussion to get so far. My main concern is not only undue weight, but also unreliability and cherrypicking. The very Independent quote mentions that the OHCHR has 56 Special Procedures, and de Zayas seems to be the only one sharing this opinion. One of the issues that I can't get out of my mind was one voice by Susana Raffalli during the 167th sessions period of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights: de Zayas went against of his collegues that visited Venezuela saying that there wasn't a humanitarian crisis in the country, and he limited himself to take pictures of the counter of the charcuterie in front of his hotel. In the other talk page it has already been mentioned how he was invited by Maduro back in 2017. De Zayas is not a neutral rapporteur like the organization he used to represent. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

He’s neutral (not): [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

South Africa's position

My short paragraph about South Africa’s response to the Venz. crisis has been removed with the explanation “primary source”. It’s true that the main source given is a primary one, a South African government website, from which I took a quote from the SA ambassador to the UN. But how is this a bad thing? Policy WP:PRIMARY says “Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia”. According to the explanatory supplement WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD: “Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources.” Isn’t that the case here? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:25, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I've just checked another WP page which was in the back of my mind which I made that edit — the project page WP:CSB. Here's what it says: “Don't overlook the official news outlets of a country. Certainly they will be more one sided than Wikipedians may like, but they may provide a different way of thinking about an article. They may also be useful as a primary source of information about why the government of that particular country has its opinion on a subject and why it acts the way it does. The readers of Wikipedia could benefit from this, regardless of whether they agree with that view or not”. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Aside from being a primary source, why should this article give more importance to South Africa than the other countries. US, Russia and China have a special place because they are powers that have large military resources and veto power in the UN. Iran, North Korea and Turkey have important geopolitical consequences (I would have removed Turkey), Brazil is a large country next to Venezuela and Uruguay and Mexico have a particular position on the region. South Africa is already cited and on the map. --MaoGo (talk) 07:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)--MaoGo (talk) 07:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the article again, I would have eliminated Iran, Turkey, Brazil and North Korea. If the only action is to recognize Guaidó or not is irrelevant, this is already covered in the map. --MaoGo (talk) 07:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The preponderance of reliable sources covered specific countries as relevant to the dispute, and Brazil (as the largest country in SA) was one of those. I agree that North Korea was rarely mentioned. This is a typical source:

• AP News reported that "familiar geopolitical sides" had formed in the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis, with allies Russia, China, Iran, Syria, and Cuba supporting Maduro, and the US, Canada, and most of Western Europe supporting Juan Guaidó as interim president.

Brazil was not singled out in that source, but it is almost all of the time; if was mentioned early on and often. It matters because a) it is a neighboring country, and b) it is a large country. What we have to look at here is due weight; South Africa just isn't there. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; ten years from now, we won't be writing about what position South Africa took in this matter. The geopolitical sides that formed-- with almost all of Latin America and its largest countries supporting Guaido-- receive considerable attention in reliable sources. South Africa does not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Here's another way to think of it. Not everything belongs in an encyclopedic article just because it can be sourced. Due weight is given to sources. Had Argentina, Brazil, Canada and Colombia NOT supported Guaido, we would probably not be writing this article. Had China, Cuba, Russia, Iran, Syria and Turkey NOT supported Maduro, we would not be writing this article. South Africa is not even remotely in the due-weight picture. North Korea is marginal; we could keep it or lose it. It is mentioned in terms of the geopolitical alliance-- it was not mentioned early on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

References

The official position of South Africa is already listed in the Recognition section: giving that source as a primary source for their position in the "Recognition" section would be fine. That is where the article does consider primary sources for each country (even though several editors have pointed out that articles should not ideally be developed around primary sources).

In terms of text developed in the "Reactions" section, we have to consider due weight. That section mentions the primary players as defined by a preponderance of reliable sources. For example, most reliable sources mentioned all along that Maduro was backed by Russian, China, Cuba, Turkey, Syria ... etc. (I am not sure North Korea belongs in there.) It's about due weight; sorry, but South Africa just isn't a major player in the matter, as reflected by the preponderance of sources. Imagine if every single country on the page got a paragraph to expound based on primary sources; we'd have a mess. Their official positionis already listed; they support Maduro, that text adds nothing, but could be added to one of their own political pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I’d agree that S. Africa is not as major a player re Venezuela as Brazil, Russia or China. As you’ve said, the case of North Korea is more marginal. The Vatican, too, is hardly at the centre of this crisis, yet we’ve given it a paragraph. Anyway, with each paragraph being introduced by the flag plus the name of the country it’s about, surely it’s easy enough for readers to skip over those that don’t interest them? I’ve been doing a bit more googling about South African and Venezuela, and found substantial relevant articles in Deutsche Welle (DW) and the Zambian Daily Maverick. How would you feel about a paragraph focusing on secondary sources like these rather than on the primary source used before? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The Vatican is a major player in the conflict, as Maduro called on the pope to mediate (the pope refused). If we add South Africa, where do we draw the line? Every country can probably come up with at least one reliable source-- do we want a paragraph about every country, even if minor players? I suggest that would be UNDUE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

What was it you said in your last comment about "the primary players as defined by a preponderance of reliable sources"? Do news media routinely mention the Vatican in their short lists of who supports who? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes. There was plenty of coverage in media from every country and in every major outlet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Summary of various countries' position in Newsweek today: "In addition to China and Russia, fellow socialist-led Bolivia, Cuba and Nicaragua were among those in Latin America backing Maduro, as were Belarus, Cambodia, Iran, North Korea, Serbia, South Africa, Syria and Turkey. On Guaidó's side were most other Latin American states, as well as Albania, Australia, Canada, the E.U,, Georgia, Israel, Japan and South Korea." They've mentioned almost everyone except the Vatican... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 09:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

“National organizations” paragraph seems to misread sources

The section “National organizations” currently begins as follows (emphasis added):

The organizations supporting the National Assembly include the Venezuela Creditors Committee, a fund bank that can give loans to the ailing nation and which could not finalize an agreement with Maduro in 2017, and all of the other businesses represented by the OFAC union. These include Electricidad de Caracas, providing electrical power to the capital and surrounding areas. PDVSA, the nation's largest oil and gas company, was initially reported as supporting Guaidó, but later pledged loyalty to Maduro.

But according to the sources cited, the Venezuela Creditors Committee is actually a “a group of investors in Venezuelan bonds”, a “group of Venezuelan investors abroad”, so it’s not in fact a “national organization”, nor is it a bank. These investors hold bonds issued by Electricidad de Caracas and PDVSA, but that doesn’t mean they run those companies. OFAC is the Office of Foreign Asset Control, which is a department of the US treasury. It’s not a union and does not represent Venezuelan businesses.

References

As far as I can see, the only point in the current version of this paragraph which is both verifiable and relevant to a section about national organizations is the statement that the oil company PDVSA has pledged loyalty to Maduro. The information about the Creditors Committee position may be relevant to another section on this page, but needs rewording about what this committee actually is. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 07:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't know who added it or when, but I'd delete the whole thing. I don't think any of it belongs in an encyclopedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

UN resolution

"This Friday, it was known with 93 votes in favor and 16 against, The Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect, will be included in the agenda of the General Assembly of the United Nations Organization "Principle of Responsibility to Protect" , known as the R2P principle, in relation to Venezuela." [4]

In addition to Venezuela, thee motion was opposed by Cuba, Nicaragua, Russia, Belarus, Syria, Iran, North Korea, Myanmar, Kyrgyzstan, Sudan, Egypt, Burundi, and Gabon.Fenetrejones (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I think this is based on a fake new that circulated last year along with a image of the supposed voting. I remember it was strange to me since allies like Turkey voted in favour of it. If there are other sources reporting this, we should be good to go. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

From what I see, is that most Maduro allies voted against or abstained. Turkey though does not make sense, since Erdogan supports Maduro. Though most if not all countries who recognize Guiado voted in favor.Fenetrejones (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Jamaica and St Lucia

The article of Reuters says: "leaders who have sided with the United States in backing Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido as head of state". However, if you read the state of the White House, this isn't talk about a recognitio of Juan Guaido as Head of State of Venezuela. It says: "The President will use this meeting as an opportunity to thank these countries for their support for peace and democracy in Venezuela"

At the same time, in this article we have used as criterion OFFICIAL STATEMENTS FROM ANY GOVERNMENTAL SOURCE. Thus, neither of those countries have state anything about a recognition of Guido as Presidente (Head of State/Government) of Venezuela.

In this regard, it's better if we move Jamaica and St Lucia from this section to "Support of National Assembly".

Lavelletta)(talk) 11:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Liberia

Anyone see recently in the news what is happening with Liberia? Thoughts?

https://frontpageafricaonline.com/politics/liberias-weah-sides-with-us-president-trump-on-venezuela/

Ballers19 (Talk) 04:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Map misleading and irrelevant

I think this map is misleading. Under the South Africa comment: "AP News reported that 'familiar geopolitical sides'" That's an extremely prejudicial statement. It's hard to justify why the Associated Press would feel comfortable saying something like "familiar geopolitical sides" in reference to this issue.

My issue on this map: China is red, but as far as I can tell, they're neutral. The Wikipedia article's explanation suggests that China is in fact neutral, not in support of either. The quote from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokeswoman does not mention Maduro.

But further, the United States is blue and I'm not sure the United States is clearly in support of either. Goldman and Sachs made a huge bet on Maduro and the United States Secretary of Treasury is from Goldman and Sachs. This suggests that the United States is actually materially in support of Maduro, regardless of what is said publicly. Further, it's known that the CIA has played both sides in numerous international conflicts over decades.

Frankly, I'm not sure why it would matter which countries recognize which individuals as the legitimate government of Venezuela. Surely only the Venezuelan people can know such a thing. Even the idea of these other countries having strongly stated opinions on the matter is strange and suggests ulterior motives.

I don't think this map should be present on the article. It's not relevant to the actual international responses. At the very least, China seems neutral and should not be painted in accord with the Associated Press prejudices and agendas. Peterius (talk) 04:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Any map from a reliable source will put China in support for Maduro. See for example:Bloomberg's map--MaoGo (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

There are other sources in the article like this one South China Morning Post. --MaoGo (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Every source on the US says that the US supports Guaidó, they even have regular talks with him Pence talk with Guaidó this week and supported him. --MaoGo (talk) 12:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Map errors

This map (created by ZiaLater) has at least two major errors:

• Mexico listed as neutral; however, Mexico supports Maduro also NPR 1-23-19 Council on Foreign Relations 2-20-19
• India is listed as neutral; however, India supports Maduro

I do not know how many other errors there are. I suggest that before this map is restored, every country that is filled in with a color of support for Guaido, support for Maduro, neutral, etc. has a reliable source to go with it. If no reliable source can be found, "unknown" might be acceptable. Until the corrections are made, I am removing this map from articles where it is posted (using comments), as it is misleading.

--David Tornheim (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2019 (UTC) [added RS 21:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC); revised 15:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)]

• The source only states that Mexico has retired his opposition to Maduro, not supported him
• The second reference quotes Augusto Montiel, Venezuela's ambassador to India. He is not even a part of the Indian government, and even if he was we had similar discussion regarding Greece and its ruling party. Quoting the article, "India had not joined the chorus of voices in the west calling for recognising Guaido. At the same time, however, New Delhi had not referred to the government of Venezuela, but mentioned that 'people' in the Latin American country should find a political solution through dialogue." This map has been throughly discussed before, and a disagreement over the position of two countries shouldn't be a reason to hide the image. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support to keep the map. Almost every country in this map has been throughly discussed. --MaoGo (talk) 21:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Re Mexico: [5] lists Mexico under the heading "SUPPORTERS OF MADURO". See also NPR 1-23-19.

Re India: See also also Council on Foreign Relations 2-20-19. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: We have had monitored this situation closely when it was initally an issue, so unless there have been poltical statements within the past month by India or Mexico, I do not see it necessary to make changes. Mexico has shared in multiple statements that they officially maintain a neutrality policy with all governments through the Estrada Doctrine, which was recently reinstated under AMLO. (BBC) Also, India has not made an official position and the only mentions of support for Maduro come from the Maduro government itself (such as the link you included). In fact, it appears India has been looking to align itself with US policy by suspending oil imports from Venezuela. (another BBC source) Do you have more recent and viable sources?----ZiaLater (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

New map??

Since there are some countries that are being added to the list and/or switching sides, someone please make a new map to follow along with the list and publish it. I cannot figure it out. Thank you! Ballers19 (Talk) 07:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• Agree per #Map_errors (permalink) --David Tornheim (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

To add what? What has changed? Aside from David claims?--MaoGo (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Liberia & El Salvador — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballers19 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ballers19: Provide relaible sources and they can be changed.----ZiaLater (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/profile-nayib-bukele-anti-maduro-leader-of-el-salvador/1384205 https://frontpageafricaonline.com/politics/liberias-weah-sides-with-us-president-trump-on-venezuela/ Ballers19 (Talk) 01:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

President Bukele of El Salvador has not made statements about recognition yet, only labeling Maduro as a dictator. Liberia is not stating who they recgonize in that source, this is only strong rhetoric against Maduro so we will see where it goes.----ZiaLater (talk) 03:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Saint Lucia & Jamaica

Saint Lucia is currently listed as recognizing Guaidó. However, Saint Lucia does not actually seem to have made any such statement. They signed on to the Lima Group statement which said that Maduro's election was illegitimate, but they don't seem to have signed on to the statement that recognized Guaidó: Longstanding leftist allies Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua and El Salvador were the only countries in the region to explicitly voice support for Maduro as Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, Paraguay and Peru backed Guaido.[6]

The source currently provided just says that Saint Lucia is one of the nations "backing" Guaidó, but I wasn't able to find any explicit statement. This article (which seems to be an opinion piece) by a journalist in Saint Lucia includes a quotation from their foreign affairs minister: Foreign Affairs Minister Beaubrun this week told reporters that Saint Lucia has not accepted Guaido as Venezuela’s president, stating “We did not pen our name to that statement.” Beaubrun however said that “Saint Lucia remains in discussions. We have not taken any other position and we will apprise you if anything changes.

The Saint Lucia Times says: Saint Lucia’s Foreign Minister, Sarah Flood-Beaubrun, has asserted that this country’s relations with Venezuela are not strained, telling reporters here that Saint Lucia continues to maintain normal diplomatic relations with the South American nation. “We recognise Venezuela as a friend. Our relations have not been strained. We have been very open and frank. Whatever decisions we have taken we have taken in good faith, in friendship,” Flood-Beaubrun explained. (emphasis added)

I'm removing Saint Lucia from the article now given that they haven't made a clear statement in either direction. Please don't re-add it unless you can source it with a clear statement from the government.

— cmonghost 👻 (talk) 11:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I also removed Jamaica for the same reasons as Saint Lucia: it did not sign onto the Lima Group statement recognizing Guaidó and there does not seem to have been any official message from the government. Stating that Maduro is illegitimate does not entail a statement of recognition of Guaidó. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 11:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

(I just noticed similar points have already been made in a different section above, which was not responded to. Feel free to move my comment there if that's important. I disagree that they should be added to the National Assembly section unless there is clear language stating as such, though. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 11:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC))

Let's delete the map

I propose we delete the map from this article and any others it appears on for the following reasons:

• It is misleading because some nations are large and others are small, but geographic area does not actually play a role: each nation has only issued one statement. Canada and Russia, for example, are given extreme weight by virtue of their geography while smaller nations are minuscule in comparison.
• Being unsourced, it attracts further unsourced changes, such as the recent edits by Ballers19 that introduced errors.
• It requires frequent updating but, unlike the article itself, is not easily modifiable, as we've just seen.
• All of the information is already included on the page without the associated problems; there is no need for an inferior visualization.

If a visualization is deemed necessary, one that gives each statement equal weight should be preferred.

— cmonghost 👻 (talk) 04:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

You are wrong. Some countries are being added to the crisis and/or have switched sides. The map needs to be updated, and the photo I provided is up-to-date version, I just could not figure out how to make it smaller. The information is not "misleading" at all. The map is just corresponding with the list, because now we have two different sources of information. The list doesn't match up with the map. It doesn't matter how small the countries are, that was a ridiculous statement on your part. Just because you are making a proposal, doesn't mean that you can just change what you want when other people spend hours to work on things for Wikipedia, just to have them deleted. Ballers19 (Talk) 06:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I didn't revert your changes because I want to delete the map, I reverted your changes because they made the map worse. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 10:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

(1) are you proposing something else? I think is fine like this. Other possibilities are charts with military force, GDP, population, or something like that, but that to me seem more misleading, which is the important factor?. (2) Either we stick with the sources we have or we use a map created by some news outlets, but that that's problematic because they are always outdated (most do not include Korea and Japan). We could have alternatives though, like map by "x News", map by "y News" and this map for comparison. If it is hard to update, we should have sticked with an specific version as we had before, look at 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis the caption says "Nations recognizing presidential power as of 28 February 2019". (3) But what do we put on other pages?. The map is ok.--MaoGo (talk) 10:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we need a map at all; like I said, it's misleading (geographic area ≠ political power or weight) and I don't think it's worth the trouble of keeping it updated and defending it from errors. When I mentioned alternative visualizations I just meant that if someone thought the visual aid was important (I don't), then we should think of a better one. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 10:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Some people here just cannot leave things alone. I do not understand it, really. It has been 5 months since this page was created, and all of a sudden people like to constantly change things around, and it is really annoying. Just leave things be! There is no controversy problem or a POV problem. The map is fine, and it helps the readers get a geographical view of who recognizes Maduro or Guaido in the world. It matches up with the list. Literally, the only pages here that go through problems so often are the ones in English. If you look at ones in other languages, they do not go around changing things all the time, because it will eventually mess up our readers' research or information. No wonder Wikipedia is never a reliable source, because things are always changed and it needs to stop. I get things being changed for valid reasons, however, most of the time they are not valid changes. The map should be left alone, and a new one needs to be created, sine there are new countries that are being added and/or switching sides. The map is not misleading at all. You are more than welcome to look up reliable sources, even though the ones provided are already reliable, thank you next.

https://www.yenisafak.com/en/world/nayib-bukele-anti-maduro-leader-of-el-salvador-3473838 https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politics/ukrinform-ukraine-recognizes-guaido-as-leader-of-venezuela.html https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20190130-morocco-backs-self-proclaimed-venezuela-president-guaido/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ITN0ADayWk (ST LUCIA) https://frontpageafricaonline.com/politics/liberias-weah-sides-with-us-president-trump-on-venezuela/

Ballers19 (Talk) 19:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

My proposal would be to keep the map, but agree on a standard so we know the countries reflected are an accurate map of the situation. My advice would be to take into account only (or for the most part) statements by heads of state or their foreign affairs ministers. Of course, every suggestion is welcome. --Jamez42 (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

A list of standard criteria would certainly help.--MaoGo (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: Those criteria sound fine to me, and I think they should be applied to the Recognition section of the article as well. Note that they exclude Saint Lucia, Jamaica, Liberia and El Salvador, so they should be removed if we adopt them. I would add one criterion: the statements should be explicit statements of recognition; a head of state criticizing Guaidó should not be taken as recognition of Maduro, and vice versa. It is not our job to read people's minds. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 01:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

That is going to be a little complicated, knowing that not every government publicly wrote on the internet recognizing Guaido or Maduro. Some did not even publicly announce, and others did it through videos that never made the media. That is why sources provided are reliable as well. We keep the map and change it to the sources that are being updated and newly released. Ballers19 (Talk) 21:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Any source is not ok. It would lead to contradictions as it has done in the past. --MaoGo (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not saying that, I am saying that reliable sources are good enough to use. Ballers19 (Talk) 22:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ballers19: The sources you are linking do not say what you claim they say. I have looked for reliable sources corroborating your claims (which is actually your job) and have not come up with anything. In fact, such sources do not seem to exist. You have yet to provide evidence for any of the following:

• St. Lucia and Jamaica recognizing Guaidó as interim or acting president (your YouTube link only states they voted to recognize his ambassador, not Guaidó himself, and the source currently in the article does not say either nation recognizes Guaidó, as I've outlined below).
• El Salvador recognizing Guaidó as interim or acting president (the source only says that the president is opposed to Maduro and on good terms with Guaidó, not that the Salvadoran government has recognized Guaidó)
• Liberia recognizing Guaidó as interim or acting president (the source only says that the president criticized Maduro)

Instead of providing real evidence for any of your claims, you have repeatedly made false statements about what sources say, and you have repeatedly reverted edits with no discussion other than edit summaries and insistences that the article is fine as is. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 01:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Standards for inclusion

@Peterius: @ZiaLater: @Jamez42: @David Tornheim: @MaoGo: @Ballers19: (pinging editors involved in the discussions about the map above, apologies if I missed anyone)

Following from Jamez42's suggestion above, I propose the following standards/guidelines for inclusion in the Recognition section and the recognition map:

• The statement was made by the head of state or minister of foreign affairs (or equivalent).
• The statement explicitly recognizes Maduro, Guaidó or the National Assembly (or explicitly advocates neutrality), along the lines of [nation] recognizes/supports Nicolás Maduro as legitimate president of Venezuela, or Juan Guaidó is the constitutional acting president, or something similarly unambiguous. (Criticism of one party does not constitute a statement of recognition of another party.)
• The statement is reliably sourced.

Please let me know what you think; I am of course open to feedback. Hopefully we can develop a consensus and avoid further wasted effort/confusion about what constitutes recognition. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 00:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@Cmonghost: That is the existing standard for the map. Official government statements explicitly recognizing Maduro, Guiadó or neutrality and excluding the multitude of political parties. Sounds about right.----ZiaLater (talk) 04:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Not all sources are following that. Also it is important to discuss how a country becomes National Assembly supporter. What I understand is, that some countries are there because they reject Maduro's presidency but have not said anything about Guaidó.--MaoGo (talk) 07:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The standards that we have already are good, however, they need to be a bit more broad. Some sources do not include some or even most of the listed standards, yet we are still using them in the article. You can tell when a source is reliable or not just by looking at it. Therefore, some sources do not need to bluntly state recognition, as some countries did not express support publicly, leading the media to just make up ways to accurately state the recognitions in their articles. It can be difficult to find some information, but sources that are already provided seem legit enough to me. Ballers19 (Talk) 03:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ballers19: @MaoGo: if there are statements that do not meet these criteria currently in the article, my view is that they should be removed, because they do not constitute a statement of recognition. A head of state liking Guaidó and disliking Maduro is not the same thing as the nation's government recognizing Guaidó as the president, for example. If support is not expressed publicly it doesn't belong here, as we are talking about facts and not rumours. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 13:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, Some sources do not include some or even most of the listed standards, yet we are still using them in the article is a bit misleading, as it implies there is widespread agreement that those sources should be included. In fact, I think they should not be included, for the reasons laid out above, and editors in previous discussions on the talk page concluded the same (see discussion New map?? above). — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I may be mistaken, but I imagined that the "Support of the National Assembly" started with countries in the EU that made a joint statement in the European Parliament, but not recognized Guaidó individually. I suppose the same could be same for the Lima Group and other regional bodies. --Jamez42 (talk) 10:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I see your point, and I agree with it, @Jamez42: Ballers19 (Talk) 20:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Vietnam

Hi, I added Vietnam as neutral, as the FM statement says that their government "wishes for peace, stability in Venezuela". The articles didn't mention support for Guaido nor Maduro. Thanks --cyrfaw (talk) 13:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Italy

After the meeting with Ecuador and the latest declarations, should Italy be included as having recognized Guaidó? --Jamez42 (talk) 01:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

The news I have seen do not reveal the (explicit) support wording used by the Italian administration.I will rather not add it. --MaoGo (talk) 01:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Nepal supports Maduro, they are not neutral

The Nepal Communist Party (the government's leading party) released a declaration of support for the Nicolas Maduro government on January 25, 2019 (http://assets-cdn.ekantipur.com/images/third-party/politics/Venezuela-Nepal-Communist-Party-27012019090839.jpg). This should be edited — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canyonrr (talk • contribs) 22:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

We don't accept party statements.--MaoGo (talk) 22:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Here's another source for the statement. @Canyonrr: I'm afraid that if you attempt to add it, it will be swiftly reverted on the grounds that the statement refers to the Nepal Communist Party and not Nepal itself (even though the NCP has a majority in the Federal Parliament). A similar rationale was previously used to exclude Greece from the pro-Maduro section; Syriza, the ruling party at the time, had released a statement, but no statement had been released on behalf of the Greek government. (This is now moot since the conservative opposition has now taken power and officially recognized Guaidó.)

My personal view is that a nation's ruling party can be generally assumed to speak for the nation's government, especially if they have an absolute majority, but others have previously disagreed with this. You could consider opening an RfC if you're interested in seeing if consensus has changed on this point. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 22:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

El Salvador stopped recognizing Maduro

According to a speech from FM Alexandra Hill in the OAS, El Salvador does not recognizes Maduro anymore: "En este sentido, remarcó que El Salvador no reconoce el régimen de Nicolás Maduro en el país suramericano y que está en favor de buscar soluciones a la crisis política, económica y humanitaria que enfrenta Venezuela" In English: "In that sense, she remarked that El Salvador doesn't recognizes the Nicolás Maduro regime in the South American country, and it's in favour of finding solutions to the political, economic and humanitarian crisis that faces Venezuela" [7]

However, it doesn't specify if they recognized Juan Guaidó as (I) President. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.161.163.222 (talk) 00:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

This is true. El Salvador voted in favor to give Gustavo Tarre his credentials as OAS ambassador, and as such voting to formally recognize Guaidó as president of Venezuela. The delegation even requested to change their vote from an abstention to a vote in favour, explaining the abstention was a mistake. There might be an official statement regarding this. --Jamez42 (talk) 01:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Moved El Salvador based on RS reports Kingsif (talk) 08:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kingsif and Jamez42: None of the sources listed in the footnote say that El Salvador has recognized Guaidó as president, only that the president supports him. Have there been any official statements of recognition from the president? It seems appropriate to remove them from the Maduro section per the IP's source above, but not to move them to the Guaidó section if they have not officially recognized Guaidó. As for Tarre—recognition of Tarre is recognition of Tarre, not necessarily recognition of Guaidó. And without an official statement it doesn't belong in the article regardless. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kingsif and Jamez42: Per my above comment, I have reverted the move as I was not able to find any official government statement to support it. If there is an official government statement indicating that El Salvador now recognizes Guaidó as the president, it could be moved back. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Your edit reason suggests there's a discussion here; there isn't, there's only your incorrect assertion. I think the President's word can be taken, especially when he was openly running as anti-Maduro. El Salvador should no longer be anywhere near Maduro. Undoing your undiscussed and illogical revert. Kingsif (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Please have a look at the section above this one where we discussed qualifying criteria for statements. The section is for governments recognizing Guaidó, not heads of state who personally support him. Nayib Bukele is not El Salvador. If El Salvador has officially recognized Guaidó it should not be difficult for you to find a source supporting that. Please avoid edit warring. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 23:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I know that you know that since it's so late in the day, and since he has made his opinions and policies so clear for months, Bukele isn't going to bother with a government official statement. He's changed the ambassador, how more obvious can you be. Deigning to ask for such a statement that you know won't appear on paper but is blatantly evident is you trying to keep a false statement on the article to suggest more support for Maduro. And that's where I stop talking to you. Kingsif (talk) 23:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

(ec) @Kingsif: Sorry, I was in the middle of typing a follow-up comment when you responded, to the following effect: Oh, I will say that I shouldn't have moved them back to the Maduro section. Sorry, that was a mistake, I had forgotten about the source that the IP who opened this section linked. I agree that they should no longer be in the Maduro section. Perhaps they could be moved to the neutrality section instead, since they have officially "de-recognized" Maduro but have not officially recognized Guaidó. Thoughts? Please strike your allegation that I am "trying to keep a false statement on the article to suggest more support for Maduro". I am doing no such thing. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I feel that El Salvador deserves a mention, perhaps in their own little side note, but since they've now given absolute support to Guaidó bar typing up a press release, I see no reason (inclusive of above criteria) not to include in support for Guaidó. Kingsif (talk) 23:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Thanks for striking the comment, and sorry again for moving them to the Maduro section rather than the neutral section; my bad.

There are two main reasons I'm reluctant to move El Salvador to the Guaidó section. First, I think it would constitute WP:OR since there is no source (to my knowledge) that explicitly states that El Salvador recognizes Guaidó; we would have to synthesize it from their retraction of recognition for Maduro and their recognition of the ambassador. Second, I think using ambassador recognition as a standard is problematic because it would necessitate a number of additions to the Maduro section—those that have not made an official statement but continue to have diplomatic relations with the Maduro government, such as by maintaining an embassy or continuing to recognize a Maduro-appointed ambassador. For example, Lebanon has an embassy in Caracas and Venezuela an embassy in Beirut. Yet Lebanon hasn't made any statement affirming their recognition of Maduro (that I'm aware of). My understanding is that this is why until now we've only used official statements as criteria. I wouldn't necessarily oppose modifying the criteria in this way, as long as it's understood that it will apply equally to both sides. But it would involve a lot of additional work and I have a feeling other editors would object.

Including them as a side note in the Guaidó section would also potentially be OK by me, depending on how that would look; do you mean as a separate note below/beside the list of nations that have officially recognized him, or something else? — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 23:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, a separate note below is what I was thinking.Kingsif (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kingsif: OK, I'd be fine with that if you would like to add it. (Or, if you'd prefer, I can do it when I have some time; let me know.) — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 00:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Turkish media reaction - Guaido/al-Sisi comparision

Hi. I added the reaction on the current crisis said by Turkey's pro-government media. They likened the crisis to what happened in Egypt in 2013 and likened Guaido's actions to the al-Sisi's coup. It also criticized France's Macron for calling Maduro "illegitimate" just days before making a state visit to Egypt. If there is any improvements on the statement please let me know. Thanks --cyrfaw (talk) 21:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Recently added countries

Recently these countries were added and need to be checked:

• Guinea
• Lebanon
• Nepal
• Timor-Este
• Vietnam
• Zimbabwe

--MaoGo (talk) 07:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Human Rights Councils as a rationale?

Since Monaco has been put in the National Assembly column and Algeria on the Pro-Maduro sector due to HRC resolutions, why not New Zealand who was also a co-sponsor on the L.4 Resolution that formed the fact-finding mission? https://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?si=A/HRC/42/L.4/Rev.1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.161.163.222 (talk) 03:15, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

No, that reasoning goes against the old consensus that only an overt declaration by a country's government gets included. I thought I'd removed all of the undiscussed additions, but I'll remove Monaco and Algeria, too. Kingsif (talk) 20:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)