Talk:Venezuelan presidential crisis/Archive 2

Journalists

The "censorship" section talks about detained/deported journalists. I have read that the journalists didn't have the proper permissions. The Maduro's government position [1][2] isn't available in the current text. emijrp (talk) 14:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I dont see any valid reasons why the government postition and explanation should not be included so I add it.Simon1811 (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Jamez42 (talk) 03:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

The government frequently locks up innocent people for no reason, especially journalists - as long as you're noting that the government explanation is dubious at best should it be added. Kingsif (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Emijrp:@Simon1811: First, we shouldn't include tweets as references. Second, that doesn't explain the detention of Venezuelan journalists. If you listen to their declaration, when they were detained the guards didn't even know they were journalists because at the time they were not doing any coverage; the Venezuelan journalists were just showing the Chilean ones Caracas at night. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

If they are from official accounts confirmed by twitter themselves I do not see the problem, in fact I have seen twitter used as a citation for Donald Trump statements on other articles.Simon1811 (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Jamez42 (talk) 03:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Simon1811: You could try answering to the rest of the arguments too. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. Tweets can be used if from official sources, especially Donald Trump because... does he ever do anything not on twitter? In terms of accuracy, though, it seems clear that they were arrested arbitrarily - either for simply being a journalist or completely randomly. Maybe the government later found out that the Chilean journalists were not in the country with a valid journalist visa, which still isn't grounds for immediate deportation, but that is original research given the statements, with sources saying that A. they were arrested without a reason and B. they were deported for not having correct documents. Even assuming both are true, we can't know what happened in between (though Arreaza seems to be one of the more honest PSUV politicians - again, completely OR). Kingsif (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Not entirely; see below for fuller explanation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done @Emijrp: @Simon1811: @Kingsif: @Jamez42: ----ZiaLater (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Emijrp: @Simon1811: @ZiaLater: @Jamez42: Reuters says that the journalists were accredited, working for EFE... Kingsif (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kingsif: The source states they were working for EFE, not that they complied with Venezuelan law.Simon1811 (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Jamez42 (talk) 03:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

True. I know a thing about journalists and visas. You need to be both accredited (authorized to work in the position for any valid media - they were definitely accredited) and also have the correct visa, for working, for working specifically as a journalist, and for working specifically for the media you are accredited to. They could have slipped up there, but we don't know, since the statement only mentions accreditation, which we know they had (unless EFE are lying). Kingsif (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Please see WP:SELFSOURCE, which describes under what circumstances official tweets are reliable sources. As an example, Donald Trump's tweets are sometimes, but not always, a reliable source-- it depends on the statement being sourced. He may speak for himself and his positions. A tweet from Trump saying, for example, "Hillary says Rubio is a twit" would not be a reliable source for what Hillary says or for a statement about Rubio. As another example, if Trump tweets that "Hillary is a twit" that is a reliable source for what Trump says. Sources are reliable or not depending on what they are sourcing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Notwithstanding. Undue weight should also be taken into account. If something is available only on Twitter, and not mentioned in any other reliable source, it may be undue weight to include it. This guideline has to be somewhat relaxed, though, in a country with no free press, with most official media shut down. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Conatel and radio censorship

There are some sources claiming that the Venezuelan media regulator CONATEL is censoring and closing radio programmes that critic Maduro and favour Guaidó openly. See example [3], should this be included? --MaoGo (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Just include sources, ideally multiple. Bohbye (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@MaoGo: Yes, in the censorship section. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I dont think anymore should be added (after this is added) that section is getting a bit hectic. Maybe it could be simplified.Simon1811 (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Jamez42 (talk) 03:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I just added it. I tried to take a neutral stance, but I hope it does not seems too off topic that way. --MaoGo (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done the added material looks fine to me. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

#HandsOffVenezuela

Why is not it covered in Social Media section? Just looking at Twitter overall the tweets have far more hearts/likes and retweets/share's than Guaido Challenge hashtag from the opposition, Hands Off Venezuela should be covered in Social Media section.

Most popular Guaido Challenge tweet: https://twitter.com/Diego_Arria/status/1089597908821917696

Most popular Hands Off Venezuela tweets:

https://twitter.com/medeabenjamin/status/1088500072898351110

https://twitter.com/ArielElyseGold/status/1090318903140593664

https://twitter.com/MikePrysner/status/1088701422110105600

https://twitter.com/nikiashton/status/1088303987248562176

Seriously people, how could anyone miss something that is considerably if not way more popular? RBL2000 (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC) — RBL2000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I have not seen them mentioned in mainstream news coverage, and do not see a reason to include them as of now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

We must remember that Russia and Venezuela use bots to spread pro-Maduro sentiments on Twitter. Let's wait for a reliable source.----ZiaLater (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Well guess I and thousands of other people are bots according to you and its not like the US would ever use bots and other countries too. You see on these "reliable" sources coverage of Anti-Maduro protests yet not for Pro-Maduro ones. Asking for sources and coverage from media about hands off venezuela hashtag is double standard as twitter can be used as sources and pitures of Pro-Maduro were used in here as sources and proof of such yet weren't covered by "reliable" sources. RBL2000 (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC) — RBL2000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please see WP:SELFSOURCE; official social media accounts may make statements for and about themselves. In that aspect, Hands Off Venezuela may make statements about itself in its article, but statements from individuals on social media are (other than stating their own official positions from an official account) not reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Seriously, do you really expect to see such information in Wikipedia? Everything that's not aligned with the official western propaganda has no place in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.54.49.96 (talk) 17:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Please review WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:RS; if you have a reliable source, your comments can be addressed. Otherwise, disruptive editing can be removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

There was a large Hands Off Venezuela protest in London, which I know from actually seeing it rather than from any reporting - the UK media has not reported on any of the pro-Guaidó protests, either, in line with their "focus on Venezuela" stance (one of the BBC reporters in Caracas had a brief police run-in, without being arrested once they saw "BBC", oddly enough). And all the people at the Hands Off protest were middle-class white British socialists, it appeared. If anyone knows, how much clout does the movement have? Kingsif (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

It carried weight among the left leaning in the Chavez heyday, and per Livingstone-- in the period when Chavez was the darling of the left (which described most US media as well). It no longer does. There are indications everywhere, including Wikipedia, of former Chavez cheerleaders backing off, which is part of why there is less mention in the media. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Because anti-Maduro propaganda worked and why Chavez cheerleaders backed off then propaganda is also aimed at throwing dirt at Chavez. RBL2000 (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC) — RBL2000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Twitter is not a reliable source in this instance; please stop adding it. See WP:RS. There are uses for Twitter as a source, (see WP:SELFSOURCE)-- this isn't it. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

One excuse after another to remove, censor and revise history, Pro-Maduro never happened according to you. Go on lie and deny, deny you removed proof and evidence. RBL2000 (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC) — RBL2000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@RBL2000: Please remember Wikipedia is not a forum. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

RBL2000, I have linked you many times to the guideline pages explaining under what circumstances Twitter can be used as a source. Also, please reference this section above, where you were right and the OAS text was fixed. It would be a better use of your time to search for a reliable source that mentions the text you want to cite. Please see also WP:TEND, and refrain from filling the talk page with posts that do not use sources to discuss edits. If you have a source, it can be incorporated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

EU / Greece

That last line under EU is problematic. Greece is not the only country to not back Guaidó as Italy doesn’t have an official position. One of the two-DPMs backs the Guaidó proposal (Lega) but the other is firmly pro-Maduro. Conte has not given an official position. There might be other leaders, yet who have not provided an official statement

Secondly, I fail to see how EU effectively controls the Greek position as they cannot be forced to recognise a leader they don’t 103.70.152.5 (talk) 08:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Italy

The words of the vice-PM Di Maio: "we do not recognize neither Guaido nor Maduro as President. (...) The people of Venezuela will decide".

Furthermore Italy has blocked the UE on the recognition of Guaido as Venezuelan President.

https://tg24.sky.it/mondo/2019/02/01/venezuela-veto-italia-guaido.html

(93.48.40.135 (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)) 93.48.40.135 (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Despite it is written that Italy is officially neutral, in the map it is coloured in light blue (so that supports the National Assembly). I think it should be changed.

Italy's situation is, like almost every single matter nowadays, very unclear and ambiguous. Basically, Five Star's ministers supported Maduro or are neutral, while League's ones are pro-Guaidò, so de facto, the position of Italian government is neutral. -- Nick.mon (talk) 12:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Another issue regarding the map in the "Recognition" Section

This map colors Taiwan as a independent country, however MOST UN member states recognize the PRC ONLY. If this map wants to show the de jure situation, then Taiwan should be included as a part of the PRC, while Crimea, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia remain as part of their respective country (Ukraine and Georgia). If the map wants to show the de facto situation, then perhaps Crimea should remain as part of Russia since it is under de facto Russian administration, while Abkhazia and South Ossetia should be colored separately since the de jure and de facto situation should not be shown on the same map. According to the previous facts, maybe this map needs adjustments to reflect the de jure or the de facto situation. A planetree leaf (talk) 06:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

You'll have to discuss this at commons:File talk:Venezuela president recognition map 2019.svg; there's nothing to do here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Italy

Italian Deputy Foreign Affairs Minister, Manlio Di Stefano, stated: "Italy will not recognize Guaidò because we totally oppose the fact that a country or a group of countries can determine the internal policies of another one." (Ansa) So I'm not sure we can add it in the section "Supporting National Assembly". -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Nick.mon: Italy still shared their support for the National Assembly in a joint statement with the EU. As stated before, we should wait until Sunday before we edit European countries. We can be patient.----ZiaLater (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree with ZiaLater. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok, you were right. Foreign Minister's undersecretary Guglielmo Picchi (from the League) has just declared that Maduro's presidency is over. Well, they're a bit confused... -- Nick.mon (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Lega is against Maduro. M5S is pro-Maduro. It’s why there’s no concrete statement 103.70.152.5 (talk) 07:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The situation is fluid. Nothing is permanent, and recognition will change every day. We just need to make sure we are listing the latest version. Bohbye (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Bloomberg says it is a struggle over the wording: [4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

According to AFP Greece supports Maduro...

https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1089848060983693322 - I guess AFP takes seriously when Syriza the ruling party of Greece made public it supports Maduro yet certain individuals said in here its not valid. Also Mexico. RBL2000 (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC) — RBL2000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please focus on content, not contributors. If you can't keep a neutral tone and keep making blanket accusations that everyone is being biased, I'll have to ask that you be topic-banned from editing this page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The case is that Syriza is one party, even if it is the leading party. If the Republicans said they supported Maduro, you couldn't assume that the US as a nation and government does, because there are other parties. Government, not party, positions are taken as confirmation. Kingsif (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Greece hesitated in supporting EU statement involving Venezuela, Guaido complains about Greek support of Maduro as legitimate President of Venezuela. http://www.ekathimerini.com/237112/article/ekathimerini/news/venezuelas-guaido-expresses-concern-over-greek-position SYRIZA is the government, the support by SYRIZA to Maduro would have not been published without very leaders of SYRIZA that are in the government and are the government itself. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-47019347 77.217.233.160 (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Grèce

Support Maduro according to the independent

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/venezuela-nicolas-maduro-us-sanctions-alexis-tsipras-greece-support-a8751771.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.70.152.5 (talk) 12:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Just mentions Tsipras, not whole government. Kingsif (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

He and his party lead Greece, they are the government. Little to no mention is about current Polish government in media and elsewhere as government when its stated PiS did that or stated that. No need to mention the obvious, more often than not I see Trump or Republicans say, did, do that and not The US government. 77.217.233.160 (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hinterlaces

Hinterlaces, is a notable polling organization and it opinion polls have been reported on by multiple reliable sources. Wikpedia can report their poll results and then state that they are accused of supporting chavismo if neccessary.Simon1811 (talk) 13:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Jamez42 (talk) 03:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Some users here only accept polls that show opinions against Maduro's government. They are a bit biased, at least. emijrp (talk) 13:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Simon1811: I already provided arguments in the previous edit summaries, but I'll copy them again anyways: "Hinterlaces is not a reliable pollster. Its director, Oscar Schemell, is a member of the Constituent Assembly and it consistently publishes results different from other pollsters, always favouring the government. Talk:2017 Venezuelan Constituent Assembly election#HinterlacesMore can be read here". My last edit summary also explained: "When a progovernment source (Venezuelanalysis) says "Pro-government pollsters, such as the company Hinterlaces give Maduro a 17 point advantage.", without quoting "accusations", this is as neutral as you can get. The ties of its director haven't been disputed either.". So far, none of these arguments have been rebutted. Also, please ping me next time so I can read the message.--Jamez42 (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

And how are Hercon, run [5] by Marcos Hernández Lopez, who has been writing anti-Maduro opinion pieces such as [6] for years, or Meganálisis, whose vice-president [7] Rubén Chirino Leañez calls [8] the Maduro government a "dialog of death", more reliable pollsters? They are clearly blatantly biased against Maduro. --84.113.220.111 (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC) — 84.113.220.111 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 23:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC).

Sockblocked SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

So, since some people here realize that the facts are against them, they resort to shooting the messengers. I am not here for a "single purpose", I have been a regular reader and occasional contributor to Wikipedia for years, as you can see from my editing history. Just because I have not edited many pages in that time does not make what I write any less true. And I just cannot get rid of the impression that the "sockblock" against the alleged "sock puppet" Simon1811 is being primarily used as a means of censorship (in order to push a pro-putsch POV), too. --84.113.220.111 (talk) 12:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Emijrp once again, please refrain from personalizing discussions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

It certainly should be included; I'm not sure what "pro-Maduro" means here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Guaido challenge merge

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guaido challenge

Extended content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I propose to merge Guaido challenge into this page, with its own section. I think that the content in the article doesn't warrant its own article at this point, but more usage and the nature of being viral, especially if/when it morphs away from the topic of this crisis, may later give reason for a separate page. Kingsif (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2019 (UTC) Kingsif, thank you for the speedy work; perhaps we have never met? Notability on its own is met, even though the challenge has been going less than two hours. I am still working on it; you tagged it literally after one edit, my first pass. See also ¿Por qué no te callas? The same arguments were made the first day there; yes, as you indicate, it is likely to grow. With me working on it, it will grow, and with reliable sources. Please have a look at Bespoke and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bespoke. I cannot see a valid reason why you can't link it into the relevant articles. Nor do I see why we would burden this article, that will become very large, with a humorous meme. Or perhaps I should continue my hiatus, better. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC) Simply opening the topic for discussion. I would currently support a merge based on the direct connection - the reason for the "meme" is a conflict of the crisis. I do, yes, recognize that the nature of the internet may morph it into something that should have its own article, but that could take a while. Kingsif (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2019 (UTC) And I hope that you also realize that if you did such a speedy action on a new user, it is unlikely they would come back. Fortunately, as I've shown you above, this is not my first rodeo, but nonetheless, that was pretty rude after only one edit. I have little inclination to develop the article further now, although scores of sources will appear tomorrow with more content-- will see what tomorrow brings. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC) I have been nothing but polite, I believe your words are completely unwarranted - is it "rude" to suggest a merge with perfectly valid reasoning? Not at all. Please note that I didn't know there had only been one edit, but you had at that point already mentioned the article's existence on Guaidó's talk page and I immediately thought it should probably be merged, for now. I know you're not new, and I expect new users would be happy to engage in conversation. Kingsif (talk) 01:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC) Could you offer, please, some policy-based reason for this proposed merge? The article meets notability, this article is already suffering from bloat, and that topic doesn't really fit with this article (other than a one-line mention). Like most articles in the Venezuelan suite, this article already has text repeated across multiple articles (most Venezuelan articles are written as if the purpose of wikilinks is not understood, but more likely because everyone is trying to shove their own POV into every article, so they re-write everything rather use wikilinks). And it doesn't strike me as useful to have more than a one-line wikilink to a humourous meme in an otherwise very serious topic. Also, if you didn't know there had only been one edit, might I suggest you consider taking more time to investigate the history of articles before tagging them? I had put up the start so I would have the refs available for expansion, and was next creating redirects, tagging the talk page, notifying other pages, and doing all the sorts of things responsible editors do, and I came back minutes later to find an immediate tag. I hope you can understand how such actions diminish motivation to continue developing a topic; why would an editor develop a topic that someone else wants to merge away, especially when that someone else has no policy-based reason for doing so? When you saw that I had mentioned the article on Gauido's talk page, right there, you had the opportunity to discuss instead of tag. More significantly, might you consider that this kind of editing is why editors capable of cleaning up Venezuelan articles, with Wikipedia and real-world knowledge of Venezuela, decide not to bother? Now, someone added uncited text today, so I cleaned it up and worked in more text from English-language sources, because I dearly hate for articles I start to be trashed with uncited text, unreliable sources, and POV. Since no one yet has supported your request to merge a notable article into this (bloated) article, might I politely request you to remove the tag, or let me know how long you want to leave it? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC) You're suggesting I need to read out a policy script for thinking a merge would be appropriate, but that's not necessary when common sense can be used: 1. short article (I am under no obligation to investigate how many edits have been made, and number of edits is rarely reflective of quality/value/etc. anyway) 2. at the moment, it is only significant in the context of another article. So whilst it is notable and cited, it may be better suited elsewhere. In any case, I simply wanted to facilitate discussion, as I said in my first reply, because I thought there may be grounds to merge. You were being a responsible article creator, which I thank you for. However, returning to a merge tag I myself would not be deterred - I'd participate in discussion and may even be encouraged more to expand. I'm not responsible for how you react to something that is a perfectly reasonable, even expected, action. I don't think "this kind of editing" (adding tags?) makes editors with knowledge of Venezuela want to not bother - it's just another part of Wikipedia. You seem to be taking this oddly personally? - correct me if that's wrong, I don't mean to offend. You're right that nobody has supported by merge request. Instead, they have implicitly suggested for the page to be deleted. Since you haven't actually engaged in discussion about why it shouldn't be merged - simply telling me it shouldn't and asking for the tag to be removed - I don't see why the tag should go. It might also be stopping other editors from adding an AfD proposal. Kingsif (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC) What if we merge Guaido challenge with Juan Guaidó? --MaoGo (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC) But ... why? It meets notability, can still be expanded, and got 7,500 hits yesterday. What is the urge to overburden articles with excessive text, rather than using wikilinks? Guiado challenge is already worked in to Juan Guaido, with the one sentence it merits. Why burden the BLP with four paragraphs about a comical meme? The problem across the board with Venezuelan articles is they are too long, because they don't link out to sub-topics appropriately. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC) Oppose Merge This article is only two weeks old and is already up to 100kb. The last thing it needs is a merge. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC) Merge, this article is prompt to loss its longterm notability. Similar to Block of Wikipedia in Venezuela article that is now abandoned, I fear this article could be rapidly abandoned too. Let's merge it while it is still short. --MaoGo (talk) 09:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC) I am not familiar with this kind of logic for merge, and have never seen it at AfD either. As an example, see ¿Por qué no te callas?; it is 11 years old, I have not abandoned it, and what would be the difference if I did? It's not going to change or deteriorate. (I am still following and maintaining Featured Articles I wrote in 2006-- gawd I must be old!) Could you steer me towards a guideline or policy page that mentions "longterm notability"? The only reference I can find to long at WP:NN is that we have requirements to help us avoid long bloated articles, which is the road this one is headed down, and will be even more so, if we add other content to it. Also, the article that is more likely to be abandoned is this one. WP:SIZE is a good read. WP:MOSLINK is also helpful in understanding why Wikipedia uses Wikilinka. Yes, it is too bad that Block of Wikipedia in Venezuela is now abandoned; that happens to too many Venezuelan articles, partly because they are too bloated with verbosity making them difficult to edit. THIS article is the one more likely to end up abandoned, because one way or another, this "crisis" will be resolved eventually, and no one will care if Laos supported Maduro or not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC) The longterm notability is the question of does a fad or media moment seem like it would actually be notable outside of its two weeks of popularity. So it seems notable when it's suddenly and briefly popular, but in a year or so if someone comes across it they may very well think that it was never notable and just a small internet fad someone made a page for. Compared to PQNTC?, that moment had big international impact and still is known and used. (And I haven't "abandoned" the Wikipedia block page, I translated the Spanish page and have seen no other news on it, can't exactly update). Kingsif (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC) I think Kigsif explained it well, there may be not a guideline for longterm notability but it is an argument like any other when dealing with a merge, Guaido challenge may be sourced but it notability is still low to be memorable. Go to a platform like Reddit for comparison, which is known for being a large meme-driven website, it has like 5 post about Guaido challenge and none with over 200 upvotes. I know this is not enough as source to disprove the challenge completely but it is a demonstration of how unnoticeable this challenge seems to be. About Block of Wikipedia in Venezuela, the block seems to have ended about the 18th January. Also Laos position may be important for future relations between Laos and Venezuela, Guaido challenge does not seem to have the same weight. --MaoGo (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC) I've removed the hatnote for this discussion: regardless of whether this content is in this article or another one (and I don't have time to care which is more correct) it's INAPPROPRIATE to promote a hashtag challenge regarding a current geopolitical event here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC) it was promoting discussion, not the actual thing. How else would you suggest alerting people to this buried thread? Kingsif (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC) I'm going to go through the talk thread and archive everything about an infobox (prior to the current one) or other news updates that have been updated. That should make it easier to find this. Beyond that, you can find consensus for this material the same that we would any other material. There's no banner to merge "US Press conference on sanction, January 28 2019" here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC) Power~enwiki, thank you, and I completely agree. This article, about a serious world event with grave consequences, is on the main page, and the #Gauidochallenge was a humorous diversion for a very anxious, depressed and traumatized people, who are watching as scores of their people are killed and imprisoned. Having this article tagged with a humourous meme, while on the main page, is offensive, disrespectful and unnecessary. It promoted no discussion, no edits, and no logical reason for the proposed merge was ever provided. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC) After a bunch of procedural stuff, I'm here to comment on the merits here on including this information. Yes, social media's impact here is relevant. The "Guiado challenge" seems like a soap opera that I can't follow, and the description appears to be pushing a specific narrative of controversial current events. It appears to have a bunch of noise on Twitter/Instagram, including a few United States politicians (Marco Rubio). Rubio's opinion is as unnecessary here as Bernie Sanders's is. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC) Power~enwiki an interesting part of the soap opera is that the Russians got involved to make fun of Rubio for what they called him getting involved in coup-mongering while people were dying! But by that point I had lost interest in developing or expanding the article. (Rubio is not in the article; once every celebrity under the sun started participating in the challenge, I removed mention of any individual, to avoid a gynormous trivia list.) I really do not care if it is merged, deleted, or anything; I did care that a tag of little consequence was trashing this article while it was on the mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

OAS voted against recognizing Guaidó

The OAS is claimed to recognize Guaidó in the table here, but a proposal to do exactly that was actually voted down 18 countries to 16 according to [9]. --84.113.220.111 (talk) 20:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

that's a Cuban source, notoriously Maduro-biased. Better source needed. Kingsif (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

An excuse, how shocking! RBL2000 (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC) — RBL2000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Do not use a source from dictatorship countries !! 73.158.103.169 (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

you... you need a better source... Wikipedia requires it... Kingsif (talk) 21:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

You... You need to differentiate between two people. It is easy, put some effort in it. Read the username. Wikipedia requires it yet here we are twitter being used as source, double standards and hypocrisy RBL2000 (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC) — RBL2000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

(edit conflict)you... you need to be able to identify a joke. Were the ellipses not enough? Harry Potter? No? OK. Hey, if it's the tweet of a reliable person, it's probably more reliable than some state media. Kingsif (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The actual Wikipedia policies are that sources are needed to prove what is stated on the page, no citation is actually needed to remove a false and unsourced statement. The source that is present on the page states that OAS voted against recognizing Maduro. But now in a later vote they also voted against recognizing Guaidó. Nobody has provided a source that claims otherwise. Also note that I am the one who linked to the Cuban source, not RBL2000. --84.113.220.111 (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

If it doesn't have a Reliable Source, it effectively doesn't exist for Wikipedia. So there doesn't need to be a source that claims otherwise. I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm saying you need a reliable source. Kingsif (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The article is making a claim: It claims that OAS recognizes Guaidó. There is no source for that claim. The claimed reference is actually dated from January 11, i.e., 12 days before Guaidó even self-proclaimed himself "interim president", and the name "Guaidó" does not appear a single time in that reference. Hence, the claim is unsourced and must be removed from the page, independently of whether you consider Radio Havana Cuba a reliable source or not. --84.113.220.111 (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah! It seems we were talking across purposes, misunderstanding. Will review source and remove if appropriate. Kingsif (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC) Update: checked sources - they denounce Maduro's reelection, they ask for recognition of Guaidó, and in a quick google the BBC reports the Almagro-on-behalf-of-OAS (which it says is OAS) support for Guaidó on 23 Jan. Kingsif (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

How can the OAS have recognized Guaidó on January 23 when the meeting on that subject was only held on January 24 according to OAS themselves [10]? -- 84.113.220.111 (talk) 23:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

By the way, your source is government-controlled media of a state apparently supporting the National Assembly. How is that a more objective source than government-controlled media of a state supporting Maduro? --84.113.220.111 (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The BBC isn't state controlled, surprise! Even if it was, some states don't have oppressive regimes and actually support freedom of the press, so their media doesn't blindly write what their leader spouts. The BBC is the most neutral source of information there is, with their reports being neutral towards Venezuela, Maduro, and Guaidó. As for the date... I don't know. Unless Luis Almagro can suddenly time travel, he jumped the gun. The search for a source continues. Kingsif (talk) 00:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

The BBC goofed here, and The Guardian got it right. (That one goes in the record books.) Guaido does not have OAS support; he has the support of 16 OAS countries, but they failed to pass the resolution supporting him after Luis Almagro (OAS Secretary General) issues a premature tweet. The Guardian quotes the tweet; the BBC goofs. Almagro was speaking for himself, before the special session. But neither does Maduro have their support, as they specifically DID pass a resolution rejecting his legitimacy. See sources below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

For such a topic - while it is current and controversial, the OAS itself is the best source as to their proceedings. The international press agencies (AP, Reuters) would also be fine. Twitter isn't enough. We can ignore it until there is such sourcing. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Confusion abounds; there are three separate issues. 1. Earlier, the OAS passed a resolution to NOT support Maduro.10 Jan 2. Later, 16 OAS countries supported him (Guaido), but they failed to pass a resolution to support Gauido,25 Jan although 3. Almagro does. [11] The article currently shows the OAS in support of Gauido, which is incorrect. But as happens with trying to present information in tables or infoboxes, it is a nuanced situation, because they reject Maduro's legitimacy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Further, part of the problem here is that someone inaccurately rewrote a direct quote from The Guardian, here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

This has not yet been corrected, and the current statement is sourced to--for gosh sakes, people-- efectococuyo! And it is an 11 January source (before Guaido assumed the presidency) that discusses the earlier OAS vote. It does not even verify the text it is citing. [12] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the article is still spreading the fake news that "OAS supports Guaidó", despite proof of the contrary. It looks like the semi-protection is being used deliberately as a means to protect the current POV bias of the article. --84.113.220.111 (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

This appears to be correct now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: the OAS has not recognized Maduro-- please read this talk section.[13] Luis Almagro supports Guaido; the OAS rejected Maduro's inauguration, but failed to pass a resolution in support of Gauido. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry. Another user attempted to make that edit but it was blocked due to an edit filter. It appeared constructive so I made it on their behalf. I've no opinion on the content itself. Feel free to revert :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

References

John Bolton's comments regarding Venezuela's oil

This discussion started with a misquotation and got several POW warrior IPs.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please add it as it is highly relevant to the topic “We’re in conversation with major American companies now,” he said. “I think we’re trying to get to the same end result here. … It will make a big difference to the United States economically if we could have American oil companies really invest in and produce the oil capabilities in Venezuela.” Source: http://time.com/5516920/inside-john-boltons-month-long-p-r-campaign-against-venezuelas-government/ 103.70.152.5 (talk) 10:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC) In the Fox News discussion, Bolton explains how it will benefit both the United States and Venezuela. The statement comes after mentioning that the US would shift oil purchases to the Guaidó government. Taken out of context, it sounds like "oh, the US is looking for oil again". But the context is more like "oh, US investment that hasn't been able to been in Venezuela will benefit the Venezuelan people". I find it funny that you actually exclude the major point of the quote. After mentioning sending oil funds to Guaidó, Bolton says, "I think we’re trying to get to the same end result here. ... It'll make a big difference to the United States economically if we could have American oil companies really invest in and produce the oil capabilities in Venezuela. It'd be good for the people of Venezuela, it'd be good for the people of the United States". You can see the interview here and discuss it here. [Source] (see 7:15) ----ZiaLater (talk) 12:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC) Guadio's people, not Venezuelan people. 212.15.177.105 (talk) 13:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC) Bolton @Simon1811: Having a look into Bolton's statements sources, one can have a insight of the reliability of the source: "Trump’s hyper-militaristic National Security Adviser John Bolton spilled the beans in an interview on Fox Business", "the US government initiated a political coup attempt in Venezuela", "neoliberal capitalist opposition that has pledged to privatize state assets and welcome in corporate partnerships", "in a bid to fund his coup regime", "right-wing opposition". Not only is this incredibly biased, the article isn't even that long for the amount of epithets used, but it is also written as an opinion piece. Looking at the second source, finding califcatives such as "Embattled Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro" and "foreign-backed conspiracy", give the impression the article, again, is written as an opinion piece. Analyzing both cases, the statement is phrased in a way that a minority opinion is presented as a well established poing of view with weasel wording. ("This led to accusations") --Jamez42 (talk) 13:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC) WTheir statements are presented as mere opinions and not as facts, if they were presented as facts there would be a problem. I dont see the problem with noting statements made. Also please reply to the Hinterlaces section above. Simon1811 (talk) 13:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Jamez42 (talk) 03:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC) Sockblocked SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC) America out to steal oil Many sources have pointed out have America doesnt really care about restoring democracy to venezuela and only want to get access to their oil. This opinion is curiously missing from the article. It is the elephant in the room. Some sort of remarks noting the opinion should be included.Simon1811 (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Jamez42 (talk) 03:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC) Reliable news sources, if they mention it at all, note that it's a mere opinion from either Maduro or socialist defenders in nations far from Venezuela, and that it has no evidence to support it. Why would Wikipedia note such a thing? Kingsif (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC) It's an opinion speculating about the motives of a foreign country. There's no reason to include it, and no place in the article to include it either. We wouldn't include speculation that Cuba wants to continue the communist revolution, or that Russia wants to keep oil prices high. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC) Sockblocked SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC) So, can you provide a reliable news source backing up the claim that USA cares about democracy and not the natural resources of Venezuela? It's the same story as with Iraq. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.54.49.96 (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

African Union

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

---

Sputnik News is not a reliable source. The article only quotes Jorge Arreaza, who in turns quotes the Deputy Chairperson, who only states his support to the Venezuelan people and the president. It doesn't talk about legitimacy. Other outlets suggests the region has not pronounced itself about the situation: [14] I see this issue has been mentioned before in the talk page, so I wanted to bring it to the attention of other editors. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

There may be other sources; the one on the page (reinstated a moment ago) is Sputnik, so I added the RS? tag - if we can't find an RS soon, remove it. Kingsif (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kingsif: There is this https://newsusaeveryday.com/the-venezuelan-foreign-ministry-the-african-union-has-supported-maduro/ Simon1811 (talk) 15:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Jamez42 (talk) 03:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Simon1811: That does not seem like the most reputable source either... ----ZiaLater (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Simon1811: The source only quotes Arreaza again. There doesn't seem to be a declaration from the African Union or a vote, like in other organizations. I should also point out that the article only has eight post views, and I suspect those are from the editors here. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Jamaica Observer and Africa Times say that the African Union is neutral hasn't given a position. Kingsif (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Your first source is from January 24 and I do not see were in the second source it states that. Could you quote it please?Simon1811 (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Jamez42 (talk) 03:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

The fourth paragraph: "The African Union, which sent electoral observers to Venezuela in May, also has no formal statement."

Note that I'm just providing sources with other statements, I'm not going to pass judgment on this one. Kingsif (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Removed, as Sputnik and any sources quoting Sputnik is an unreliable source. No other independent reliable sources could be found. Simon1811 do not edit war to add it back. Bohbye (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

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

New Ambassadors appointed by Interim President

Can someone add the information with sources? Bohbye (talk) 08:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Some items are more relevant to this "Crisis" article, others are more relevant to specific individuals. I do not think that info belongs here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

more coming today-- I will summarize over at Juan Guaido. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I removed this section, that had not a single reliable source; please discuss. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Ofcourse pro-Maduro protests would get removed, same when Belarus was forced on this article to be "vocal neutrality", one subversion after another against facts. Might as well deny and lie that pro-Maduro protests didn't happen and the double standards when other twitter links/references are still in the article. Straight up manipulation. RBL2000 (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC) — RBL2000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@RBL2000: Please remember Wikipedia is not a forum. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Images

Too many images, the text is cluttered, and some of them add little value. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

mexico and antigua and barbuda

Al Jazeera states "Mexico, however, stood apart, saying it recognises 'the authorities elected in accordance with the Venezuelan constitution' ".

For this reason I believe mexico should be described as recognizing Maduro. Thoughts?Simon1811 (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Jamez42 (talk) 03:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Please search the talk archives for the perennial issues/concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: No sources have been provided stating mexico has vocal neutrality, in fact sources have been provided saying the opposite. I dont see how you cant object to this.Simon1811 (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Jamez42 (talk) 03:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't object or support-- I am not following the mess of who's for whom, except to know that the talk page and archive are full of the same questions, and to note when people are using non-reliable sources. There are a ton of Mexico and Antigua/Barbuda posts in archive; I don't know the answer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

South Africa

Someone made a big edit with no discussion; wanted to make sure @ZiaLater: saw it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: South Africa supports Maduro. See this. Thanks for notifying me. ----ZiaLater (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2019

Ukraine recognized Juan Guaidó as President of Venezuela. Ukraine recognizes Juan Guadio
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine
Ukraine recognizes Juan Guadio as the head of the single democratically elected Venezuelan government - the National Assembly, as well as the leader of the democratic opposition.
Please, make changes in the article according to this information. Change country from section Support of National Assembly to section Guaidó interim presidency.
Thx. Vitalik1986 (talk) 21:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

South Korea

Here is the official release by the South Korean government. They have not declared a side, but state "The government of the Republic of Korea hopes that Venezuela will restore democracy as soon as possible by undertaking a peaceful and democratic process in which all of the political actors of the country participate". @Seoul1989: @Simon1811: @Cyfraw: @SandyGeorgia: Where should this go?----ZiaLater (talk) 14:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Out of time, Zia-- have to get to a meeting. without investigating further, sounds neutral ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Seems neutral, they have no come out in favour of either.Simon1811 (talk) 14:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Jamez42 (talk) 03:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

That's definitely neutral. Stick it in there. Kingsif (talk) 15:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Neutral since South Korea just has refused to recognize either Maduro or Guaido. cyrfaw (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Constituent Assembly

The paragraph that includes the Constituent Assembly reasoning that the political parties should have been disqualified should be changed because it wasn't the body that directly disqualified them and because in the first place it shouldn't have issued a decree regarding the elections, since according to the Constitution its only function is to draft a new constitutional text. The electoral law in Venezuela also doesn't place any restrictions on parties that haven't "participated in the immediately previous elections" --Jamez42 (talk) 17:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: has this been resolved? If not, could you please link here to the section that concerns you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: It has been solved, thank you for keeping an eye :) It was in the Background section while there were disruptive edits, and I opened this section to prevent an edit war back then. I think the topic has been discussed, luckily. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Non-reliable sources and text not verified by citations in Pro-Maduro section

@Emijrp:, I found quite a few sourcing problems here with just a cursory check; I did not even attempt to check them all. You are using sources that are not reliable for this topic, and using sources that don't support the text added. This has become quite time consuming, making it hard to keep the article up to date. Would you mind posting your sources on talk and gaining consensus as to whether they are reliable before adding text, so others don't have to spend so much time correcting? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Telesur could be synonym of fake news in Spanish, they're been caught several times altering and/or fabricating information in order to support their bosses (the Venezuelan government). One of the latest: they posted a picture of a concentration in Yaracuy (western Venezuela) but in there it can be seen clearly the sign of the Agua Salud subway station of Caracas, the capital of the country. --Oscar_. (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Oscar .: Hi Oscar. There's currently precisely a discussion about the reliability of Telesur. You might be interested in joining. Cheers! --Jamez42 (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Now cleaned up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Hundreds of thousands Cuban forces in Venezuela?

Really? Not everything on a news article is accurate info. Anyone else feels it ahold be removed? Bohbye (talk) 05:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Please provide a diff/link to the edit in question. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Here's the ref in question: [15]. David O. Johnson (talk) 06:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the ref; it is used four times. What's the text being questioned? Could people on this talk page please stop assuming others will troll through the entire article to discern what a talk page post is referencing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, that source says: "En Venezuela ya hay cientos o miles de personas del aparato de seguridad cubano que controlan el Estado venezolano," which translates to "In Venezuela there are already hundreds or thousands of ..." not hundreds of thousands, so whatever text is being questioned, I suspect it is a typo (or --> of). A better translation would be "hundreds to thousands".

Presenting talk page queries in the form of Diff-for-text and link-for-source would be expedient for all ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done, here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

"Homeland"

The Guardian claims that Guaido used the word "homeland". Can someone access the original tweet, or a Spanish-language source for what word he actually used? Referencing the morning of 23 January, they say:

Juan Guaidó, the new leader of the opposition-held national assembly, repeated calls for members of the security forces to withdraw their support for Maduro. “The world’s eyes are on our homeland today,” he said in an early-morning tweet.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Found it! --Jamez42 (talk) 00:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much-- will fix that now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Is this enough to list as support for Maduro?

"Meanwhile, the Minister of Energy of the People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria, Mustapha Guitouni said that his visit to the Venezuelan territory is to express the support of the Algerian government to the Venezuelan government and continue to expand bilateral relations." - Published 09 Jan 2019 http://mppre.gob.ve/en/2019/01/09/foreign-minister-arreaza-russia-belarus-algeria/ Nebakin (talk) 12:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Nebakin: Let's wait for a more reliable source, preferebly one from Algeria releasing a statement itself. I will see if I can find one.----ZiaLater (talk) 13:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, I will add, this occurred shortly before the crisis began. Positions may have changed since then.----ZiaLater (talk) 13:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The latest official statements that I can see from Algeria's Ministry of Foreign Affairs is from 2016. See here. We can wait to see if more comes in the following days.----ZiaLater (talk) 13:44, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Stale. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Twitter "censorship"

@KingTintin: Twitter not only reported that these trolls accounts were linked with Venezuela, but also with Russia, Iran and Bangladesh.[16][17][18][19] They reported that bots were related to the account and that their tactics were the same as the ones used by the Internet Research Agency, the same that attempted to influence the 2016 US presidential elections. Citing Abby Martin and Russia Today isn't very neutral either. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I am at a conference all day today; Abby Martin out. If unreliable sources are still being inserted, I will seek admin intervention this evening. We have explained sourcing til blue in the face here: Basta. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

According to Reuters the accounts of Venezuela were removed in December, this does not seem related to the current events. [20]. --MaoGo (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42 and MaoGo: is this cleared up (that is, can this be archived)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: This has been solved and I encourage archiving. --Jamez42 (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Solved. --MaoGo (talk) 11:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, @Jamez42 and MaoGo:, could you remember to go back through and always mark {{done}} on anything resolved, as I was accused elsewhere of inappropriate archiving. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Oh, excellent, I agree that it will help. Best wishes! --Jamez42 (talk) 12:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I thought about marking only a few sections, but I ended up browsing through the whole discussion. Best regards. --Jamez42 (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done --Jamez42 (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Afrikan Union for Maduro.

The Afrikan Union is for Maduro.

• African Union Supports Maduro Amid Political Crisis - Venezuelan FM 108.20.255.82 (talk) 03:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

...says Maduro's government. Would like to see a statement by the Union themselves, and preferably reported on by someone other than Sputnik Propaganda. 199.247.44.74 (talk) 08:03, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

This has already been discussed above, please read the talk page to make sure topics haven't been discussed before. --Jamez42 (talk) 11:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

For those editors that insist in saying that the African Union supports Maduro: Vicepresident Thomas Kwesi Quartey, who's usually quoted on having supported Maduro, rejected these claims and as representative of the African Union, he sent a diplomatic protest to the Venezuelan embassy, demanding that this information is rectified. See document in second ref [21][22]--Jamez42 (talk) 13:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree. It looks like Maduro or Sputnik made it up. African Union denies Maduro support and protests in front of Venezuelan Embassy (press release) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done --Jamez42 (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Proseline

WP:PROSELINE is a very helpful essay. I understand it is hard to avoid this when an issue is in the news, but we can at least try. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)  Done --Jamez42 (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Legal justification for the challenge

I have no idea what this series of edits is trying to say or mean. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

That what Guaido/opposition does is legal though yet it isn't. RBL2000 (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC) — RBL2000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Reliable sources please. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

References

 Done A section has been included. --Jamez42 (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

EU changes

After the EU's deadline for calling elections passed, several countries (including the UK and France) have publicly supported Guaido's claim. Other countries (such as Italy) have made statements explicitly not supporting Guaido. I think the article is fairly up to date on this, though sourcing could be improved. I'm archiving all old threads about EU members on the talk page as the situation has materially changed and those discussions aren't likely to be relevant. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

19 countries have made a joint declaration recognizing him. Thought I should leave the link. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done I think we have a good idea on the countries that have signed the joint declaration and other countries are being discussed separately. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Iceland

Add Iceland as recognising Guido https://twitter.com/GudlaugurThor/status/1092497534415704065 153.92.131.86 (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done while the Twitter account is verified, I'd like slightly more coverage before adding this. There are a few sources mentioning the tweet but no independent verification. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done Recognized. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Venezuelan Liberation Front

The question was raised on clarifying what the "Venezuelan Liberation Front" was. Fearing that somebody misunderstood and added the name of a guerrilla group, I looked at the ref and I saw that it is the translation of the Frente Amplio Venezuela Libre. This was the effort of the MUD coalition to renovate the opposition when it was way more fragmented, which includes the opposition parties as well as civil society members, such as students and professionals. It hasn't been that successful, if you ask me, but with this info some clarification could be provided. --Jamez42 (talk) 00:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Jamez42. So we have

The National Assembly worked with the Venezuelan Liberation Front to create a plan for the demonstrations, organizing a unified national force.

Introducing the term isn't helpful here. I am going to change it to:

The National Assembly worked with a coalition to create a plan for the demonstrations, organizing a unified national force.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done --Jamez42 (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Inauguration of Maduro

Please correct the year in this passage. "Supreme Court Justice and Electoral Justice seen as close to Maduro defected to the United States just a few days before the 10 January 2018." Should be 2019. Thanks. --Tavadyan (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Oopsie, thanks, done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

The same problem with "In December 2018, Gauidó had traveled to Washington D.C. and met with OAS Secretary General Luis Almagro, and then on 14 January to Colombia for a Lima Group meeting, in which Maduro's mandate was rejected.[116]". Thanks for an interesting article --Tavadyan (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

that one is right ... he went to DC in Dec 2018, then to Lima Group in Jan 2019. At least I think that's correct. You want to add 2019 to January I guess? Doing that ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

You are correct. --Tavadyan (talk) 05:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Tavadyan, can this section be marked resolved and archived? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Please do. Glad to help. --Tavadyan (talk) 13:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done --Jamez42 (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Henri Falcón

Hi

According to his Twitter account (checked), he recognize Guaidóas president. Could we add it? --Panam2014 (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

If so, we should report all the names of Generals who support Maduro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.162.70.141 (talk) 08:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll mark this as  Not done per WP:NOTNEWS. A similar inclusion was discussed about Capriles. --Jamez42 (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Lima Group "Ottawa Declaration on Venezuela"

Given that Mexico did not attend today's Lima Group event, remaining 13 attending members issued a joint declaration that clearly supported Guaido as the interim President of Venezuela. Does that mean the two remaining state out of the 13, namely Guyana and St Lucia, should be included in the list of states that recognized Guaido? Before changing I wish to seek a consensus here. WeifengYang (talk) 23:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@WeifengYang: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, Paraguay and Peru are the only nations who have signed the declaration recognizing, though Guyana and St. Lucia were present at the event. No change yet.----ZiaLater (talk) 22:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Seems to be  Done --Jamez42 (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

"The National Assembly [...] is seen as 'the only democratically elected institution left in the country'."

How about we put that in the active voice?

"The Financial Times sees The National Assembly as the only democratically elected institution left in the country."

It's either incredibly biased (if the source is omitted in the article) or meaningless (because a single newspaper's opinion is not notable). 91.10.43.65 (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC) — 91.10.43.65 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 31 January 2019 (UTC).

Done. (That you can find the same or similar wording from just about everyone is what makes it notable.) Passive voice and failure to attribute quotes are present throughout the crisis articles-- that can happen when an article is on the main page and is hard to keep up with. So thanks for calling this to attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I've added a bunch more refs in a note, to prevent the suggestion that only FT thinks that. Reuters agency is one of those who said it, so I made sure none of the other sources were using the Reuters report. Kingsif (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Didn't last: someone already converted it back to passive, weasly voice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy with the current wording of Maduro disavowed the National Assembly in 2017; it has been referred to as the "only democratically elected institution left in the country". Saying that the National Assembly is the only democratically elected institution left in the country, in Wikipedia's voice, isn't reasonable here. Contemporaneous newspaper sources alone, no matter their volume, aren't sufficient sourcing. I'd want at least one in-depth source on the government of Venezuela here. Maduro may be "illegitimate", but aren't there mayors or judges in the country? Why don't they count? None of the current sources are detailed enough to explain that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

power~enwiki Yes, there are former mayors and former judges in Venezuela: very competent ones. The problem is, generally if they weren't in line with Chavez/Maduro (chavismo), they are either dead, in jail, silenced, banned or in exile. In other words, no-- there is absolutely NO independence of any branch in Venezuela. Both Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International say this. Perhaps some of us who have known this for so long have gotten sloppy about citing this sort of thing, because it is truly equivalent to citing "the sky is blue". There are some legally elected deputies that have survived in the National Assembly, only because Maduro tends to avoid taking out too many of them at once, lest the world turn on him. Since one National Assembly deputy was recently thrown off a building (officially he committed suicide while in the torture prison), and another imprisoned there and tortured in the last six months, they may have reached their current limit. And see judge Maria Afiuni for the answer on what happens to judges in Venezuela. She let someone go who had been held for three years without charges filed. She was imprisoned. And released to die, with her anus and vagina destroyed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

If there's a good source from the likes of Human Rights Watch that includes things like a description of the non-independence of the judiciary, I'd be more inclined to support saying that in Wikipedia's voice. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Power~enwiki That will be easy. I have been out all day, and am still catching up. I will cite the whole mess better later, unless someone else gets to it first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

No rush; there will still be a bit of a phrasing issue with passive voice that I'm not sure how to solve as we shouldn't attribute the quote to any specific news agency, and "the Western media says" is a very bad phrasing. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

HR feedback

Power~enwiki In addition to the seven media sources in the article (there are scores more) here's the human rights orgs most recent reports (they even mention mayors for you :)

... it has been referred to as the "only democratically elected institution left in the country".

1. Venezuela: Events of 2018, Human Rights Watch

   No independent government institutions remain today in Venezuela to act as a check on executive power. A series of measures by the Maduro and Chávez governments stacked the courts with judges who make no pretense of independence. The government has been repressing dissent through often-violent crackdowns on street protests, jailing opponents, and prosecuting civilians in military courts. It has also stripped power from the opposition-led legislature.

   In 2017, President Maduro convened a “Constituent Assembly” by presidential decree, despite a constitutional requirement that a public referendum be held before any effort to rewrite the Constitution. The assembly is made up exclusively of government supporters chosen through an election that Smartmatic, a British company hired by the government to verify the results, called fraudulent. The Constituent Assembly has, in practice, replaced the opposition-led National Assembly as the country’s legislative branch.

2. Venezuela: Events of 2017, Human Rights Watch

   In Venezuela today, no independent government institutions remain to act as a check on executive power. The Venezuelan government—under Maduro and previously under Chávez—has stacked the courts with judges who make no pretense of independence.

   The Venezuelan government has jailed political opponents and disqualified them from running for office. At time of writing, more than 340 political prisoners were languishing in Venezuelan prisons or intelligence services headquarters, according to the Penal Forum, a Venezuelan network of pro-bono criminal defense lawyers.

   In mid-2017, the Supreme Court sentenced five opposition mayors, after summary proceedings that violated international norms of due process, to 15 months in prison and disqualified them from running for office. At time of writing, one was being held at the intelligence services’ headquarters in Caracas; the rest had fled the country. At least nine more mayors were subject to a Supreme Court injunction that could lead to similarly long prison sentences if they are accused of violating it.

   Opposition leader Leopoldo López is serving a 13-year sentence for allegedly inciting violence during a demonstration in Caracas in February 2014, despite the lack of any credible evidence against him.

3. Venezuela 2017–2018, Amnesty International

   The judicial system continued to be used to silence dissidents, including using military jurisdiction to prosecute civilians. The justice system continued to be subject to government interference, especially in cases involving people critical of the government or those who were considered to be acting against the interests of the authorities. The Bolivarian National Intelligence Service continued to ignore court decisions to transfer and release people in its custody.

Here are some Human Rights Watch and AI reports:

1. Slide into dictatorship
2. Constituent assembly sham
3. Wave of arrests as government turns against elected opposition

I think, actually, that the case is strong enough that we can talk about saying it in Wiki's voice.

Sources directly claiming that the National Assembly is the "only democratically elected" or "only legitimate" political body in Venezuela include: Financial Times, The Telegraph, the BBC, Economic Times, CTV, Business Times, Reuters agency, CBC, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

New text on "only democratically elected"

@Power~enwiki:

OK, I worked in the HR sources, and text as of now says:

Maduro disavowed the National Assembly in 2017;[40] international media characterizes the National Assembly as the "only democratically elected institution left in the country",[a] and human rights organizations said as of 2018 that there were no independent institutional checks on presidential power.[b]

Maybe you want to tighten the wording? I would support Wikipedia voice, as:

Maduro disavowed the National Assembly in 2017;[40] as of 2018, the National Assembly was the only democratically elected institution left in the country,[a] and there were no independent institutional checks on presidential power.[b]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Sources on "only democratically elected"

This edit removed the BBC. The source says:

On Saturday, the US is expected to demand a UN Security Council statement recognising Venezuela's National Assembly as the country's "only democratically elected institution", Reuters reports.

@Notrium: please reinstate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

And this edit removes Reuters, which says:

full support for Venezuela’s National Assembly as the country’s “only democratically elected institution,”

And tomorrow there will be a slew more of sources saying the same thing, since Nancy Pelosi used those very words today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

And another. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I explained everything in my edit summaries, but OK, I will do it again. I removed the claim that BBC and Reuters (and some others) newspapers journalists/news articles themselves claimed that the National Assembly is the "only democratically elected" institution because that is not what they say, they merely report on the US Government saying that. Notrium (talk) 02:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Please take care with your edit summaries. Calling other editors "liars" anywhere could get you blocked, but even more so in edit summaries, since the attack cannot be removed. And it you don't agree with the wording, than propose a change-- don't delete sources which are clearly in support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

And another. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

And another: "the country's "only democratically elected institution." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

weasle words. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

What I did was correct the article,which contained misinformation; the sources were not saying what the Wikipedia article was claiming they say. I can not understand what you are complaining about. Notrium (talk) 02:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I have restored the citations, and left your wording. The citations clearly support the text, but your wording is fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

To conclude this discussion: The problem (now addressed) was that the Wikipedia article falsely stated that sources say something, the wording was Sources directly claiming that the National Assembly is the "only democratically elected" or "only legitimate" political body in Venezuela include, introduced here.

I tried to fix it by removing one by one sources which do not say either of those things, but then SandyGeorgia added the refs back so I instead changed the wording to Sources reporting on claims of the National Assembly being the [...]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notrium (talk • contribs) 03:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that your point was valid that many of those sources were pointing to the same thing (the UN statement), but disagree that stripping the sources was an optimal solution; rewording was the better choice. I also want to point out that you should not call other editors "liars" in edit summary. AGF and all that; I seriously doubt that the editor who added the sources originally understood the point you raise, and did it deliberately anyway. Further, in subsequent work on the same paragraph (adding the human rights sources), I failed to closely check the sources that were already there, so I acknowledge your point about the incorrect attribution and scope. But still-- don't strip reliable sources, fix the text to conform to what the sources say. Repairing prose for sources already given is much easier than having to go back and find sources. Another option is to comment out a source, and raise the problem on talk. But wholesale deletion of sources is just a timesink for everyone. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry for throwing around the "lie" word :( Notrium (talk) 04:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Notrium; you have earned my respect for that! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Notrium:, there is a whole huge thread near the top of this page, where I argued that we had enough sources to make this statement in Wikipedia's voice, without attribution; I had not checked the sources that were already there as closely as you did. Is it allright with you if I merge this thread up top with the rest of the same topic, so it will all be in one place? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I am fine with merging the threads. Notrium (talk) 04:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Notrium; this was partly my fault, too, and I appreciate your work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

This seems to be  Done --Jamez42 (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone object to archiving? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

a neutral point of view is not possible on wikipedia when powerful people/interests are involved

My suggestion for improving not just this article, but all wikipedia articles about political ideologies and involving powerful vested interests, is for editors' countries/locations to be disclosed. How many wikipedia editors on this page are from the usa I must wonder? How many have been exposed to decades of propaganda telling them their country is the leader of the free world, a champion of democracy motivated only by altruism etc.? Wikipedia is dominated by a particular ideology/world view, and this is one of many wikipedia pages where the only chance anyone has of glimpsing the truth is to go straight to the talk page and look for content which has been removed from the article. It is obvious who is going to win the edit wars on this issue. 101.184.26.231 (talk) 02:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC) — 101.184.26.231 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You could propose that at the talk page of WP:NPOV; please use this page for discussing this article, relative to reliable sources. WP:NOTAFORUM. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

You are aware that there is an American Left, right? Cambalachero (talk) 11:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Mexico

@Simon1811: Mexico, just like Uruguay, has advocated for a mediation and a dialogue between government and opposition; even if they recognize Maduro has the president, they shouldn't be listed as supporters of Maduro. This can also be seen in the "Vocal neutrality" section. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: ok, no problem.Simon1811 (talk) 15:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Jamez42 (talk) 03:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

According to [23], Mexico actually recognizes Maduro. --84.113.220.111 (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Mexico is neutral. It doesn't back Maduro nor Guaidó, so it shall be listed as neutral. Uskill (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/01/mexico-stays-neutral-venezuela-political-crisis-190126152842450.html
• https://www.crisisgroup.org/latin-america-caribbean/mexico/mexicos-new-neutrality-venezuela-crisis

The current government of Mexico has always recognized Nicolás Maduro as president of Venezuela. Mexico's neutrality is with respect to the nonintervention or interference of its internal affairs:

• The López Obrador government said it recognizes President Maduro as "democratically" elected from Venezuela.
• Mexico still recognizes Maduro as legitimate president of Venezuela.
• Mexico will not ignore the government of Maduro: Chancellery

Regards Jaontiveros (talk) 05:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done --Jamez42 (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Russia?

Under international reactions, we have details about China and even more details about the US. We need to list Russia in detail because they are very important to the outcome of this crisis and not just the US and China. Can anybody fill in that info? Bohbye (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

This is a good point but I think there becomes a real issue with finding ostensibly neutral sources on this topic for very deep analysis, both due to the political nature of the conflict and the recency of events. This article highlights some interesting links between Rosneft and the ruling PDVSA [24]. More sources can be highlighted or found. 174.113.101.67 (talk) 07:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you, but the article is undergoing constant edit-warring, has poor sourcing, too many images, a lot of prose issues ... who has time to develop new text? The Rosneft/PDVSA issue is important. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I can do this, I stay abreast of Rosneft and PDVSA for work anyhow. Alcibiades979 (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Venezuela has strangely vanished from Rosneft's 10k. Their 2016 or 17 had a big section on them, their 2018 mentions Venezuela a total of 4 times, and PDVSA once. Which if they were an American firm would most likely be illegal since their holdings in Venezuela should be listed as a liability or atleast discussed because of the political situation, but oh well. I'll get it done. I found a list from 2016 of their holdings in Venezuela which are much greater than the 10k would lead one to believe. Alcibiades979 (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Here's what I added let me know what you all think. I relied heavily on Rosneft's financial statements: Russia has been a vocal supporter of Nicolas Maduro, as well as being a military and economic ally.[318] Economically the Russian National Oil Company Rosneft has participated in numerous joint ventures with Venezuelan National Oil Company Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A.. Through this joint venture Russia has invested heavily in Venezuela. Rosneft has made direct investments in six Venezuelan Oil Fields of around $2.5B USD, the largest of the fields Petromonagas and Petrovictoria Rosneft values at $1.637B USD, taking in profits of around $500M USD per year, and revenues of over $1.2B USD.[319] Rosneft has also acted as a major lender, and oil marketer for Venezuela. In addition to Rosneft’s production from domestic fields, it further markets an additional 225,000 bbl/d ($11.25M USD/d) for PDVSA, and has made large loans to the company with $2.7B USD outstanding, to offset risk PDVSA has pledged a 49.9% stake of Citgo as collateral for loans outstanding, although this potentially could run into issues with US legislators.[320] Russia has also made direct loans of $17B USD to Venezuela although it will not comment on the current amount outstanding. To protect its ally Russia has made shows of force, such as flying two Tu-160 nuclear capable bombers to Venezuela,[321] as well as reportedly sending over 400 Russian Mercenaries from the Wagner Group to protect either Maduro or Russian Assets in Venezuela. In addition to direct support Russia also acts vocal supporter of Venezuela in the UN.[322] Alcibiades979 (talk) 12:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I used around because Rosneft's financial statements use Rubles and not USD, so I converted to USD. Also Rosneft only places a value on two of their 6 fields, and only discusses their profit from three. So being financial statements I was conservative in estimates. Alcibiades979 (talk) 12:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

This article seems to have a significant bias towards Guiadó's positions.

I don't have the time currently to go through every section of the article, so I will just use one section as an example, the Basis for Challenge section. At the time of this comment, there are three sentences in that section, and one source cited. The source that is cited is an editorial in the Washington Post that was written by Juan Guiadó himself.

The first sentence states that Article 233 of the Venezuelan constitution establishes that the leader of the National Assembly is to hold office in the absence of a legitimate president. While I don't actually know what the Socialist Party of Venezuala's position is on this, I did go and read 233, which covers what should happen if the president dies, is removed by the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, becomes permanently disabled, abandons his post, or is recalled by popular vote. If any of those things happen before the president's inauguration, the leader of the National Assembly acts as interim president and a public vote must occur within 30 days to elect a new president. If one of those things happens after the inauguration, the Vice President holds office instead. An illegitimate election isn't any of the things listed in Article 233, so that is probably Guiadó's interpretation of the constitution that is being presented here as the facts on what Article 233 says.

I don't think the second sentence violates NPOV, since it seems to be a pretty accurate reading of Article 333.

The third sentence is what seems to most violate the NPOV. "Further, he argues that both the national and international community must unite behind a transitional government that will guarantee humanitarian aid, bring the restoration of Venezuela's rule of law, and have the ability to hold democratic elections." This sentence doesn't seem to serve a purpose other than to promote Guiadó's position. It's an unnecessary sentence directly stating Guiadó's argument for the transitional government in a positive way.

No opposing point of view is mentioned in this paragraph, and on reading the article as a whole, it looks like there are a number of instances where the point of view of Guiadó is presented, sometimes as fact, and the opinion of Maduro's party is not mentioned.

The views of the Socialist Party of Venezuela and countries that support Venezuela are certainly a minority view globally. Most Western mainstream media seems to support Guiadó's position as well. But due to the controversy and factual disputes surrounding the crisis, spending the majority of the article explaining Guiadó's position does not fairly represent both sides of the controversy.

This is especially concerning, since the Censorship section notes that several media outlets have actually accused Wikipedia of taking sides with Guiadó when Wikipedia called him the president of Venezuela on his page. In a possible additional example of violation of NPOV, this article presents that pro-Guiadó bias as "taking sides with either group," when all three sources are specifically mentioning Wikipedia naming Juan Guiadó as president.

A completely neutral article on the presidential crisis may be very difficult to achieve, since it's harder to find information, at least in English (my Spanish is poor, so I haven't done much research in that language) about the opinions and positions of Maduro's party. Whitevelcro (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, the basis for challenge section shouldn't have anything opposing Guaidó in it, given it is just explaining why he challenged Maduro, so none of that needed there. I believe the statements regarding contributions are quoted from Venezuelan sources, so your reading of the article may not take from it what the Venezuelan people understand.

Users are slowly working on trying to even content, but a lot of info about Maduro comes from very obviously pro-Maduro sources, so RS can't be established.

I think you misunderstand the Censorship section - it notes that adding the info was good, that people who support Maduro edit warred, and that Venezuelan state media trying to suppress the opposition blocked Wikipedia to present an image of unified support for Maduro. There's a whole contextual history. I'll assume you know enough about it, with a little reminder that it's generally accepted Maduro's supporters tell a lot of lies. RE your claim that a certain phrase is not neutral - I picked that phrase up directly from sources and the Spanish wikipedia, so this article isn't stating anything but what sources say.

Adding to that, what you call the "POV of Guaidó" can, with caution, be assessed as closer to fact than other sources. Kingsif (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

My comment on the "basis for challenge" section is that it doesn't seem to me to be factually accurate based on my own reading of the Venezuelan Constitution, and is only showing the pro-Guiadó interpretation of the constitution. I went ahead and looked for some other sources on that fact in particular, and there is significant factual dispute on the constitutional argument Guiadó is making. For example, this article from a Harvard professor of law who states that, while Maduro was not elected in a fair election, Article 233 does not give Guiadó power to declare himself the president.

The neutrality of sources is not necessary for the sources to be reliable. As the wikipedia recommendation on neutrality states, "Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view. Indeed, many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to summarize what the reliable sources say." It is not our job as Wikipedia editors to determine which source is factual, but to "fairly represent [...] all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view."

The claims that "it's generally accepted Maduro's supporters tell a lot of lies" and that the pro-opposition view "can, with caution, be assessed as closer to fact than other sources" are not our role as Wikipedians to determine or assert. While we shouldn't pretend that Maduro's party is correct or that their claims are accepted by the majority of nations, people, or Venezuelans, we also need to do our best to present them fairly and proportionally, and try not to assert things as fact that are disputed by a significant minority. Rather, we should clarify the perspective from which the facts are presented and mention if a fact is in question. This isn't particularly simple to figure out, and it will take a lot of effort, but this is why I'm focusing primarily on raising awareness that the neutrality is in dispute, so we can double check our claims and avoid an Anglo-American bias Whitevelcro (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, okay - as long as sources of questionable reliability and neutrality have a note saying they're a "pro-X". I'll also look to clarifying in the Basis for Challenge section, it should mention other constitutional elements, anyway. Kingsif (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Curious that, I see non-neutral writing in both directions (pro-Guaido and pro-Maduro), but most of that is due to poor sourcing, oversourcing, and plain poor writing and bad word choices. So, as happens with most Venezuelan articles, this one is probably going to continue with tags because it is overburdened with unnecessary detail that should be covered in other places (attempts to persuade the reader rather than link out to other articles where the same material is covered), and overburdened with multiple sources on plain statements that would do better with one high quality source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC) Sourcing etc is pretty well cleaned up now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Venezuela articles typically need a style edit, when its settled down, ideally. Kingsif (talk) 02:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

You expect neutrality in a serious current event that gets edited every few minutes? Bohbye (talk) 06:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that This article seems to have a significant bias towards Guiadó's positions. we need to balance this page. KingTintin (talk) 04:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Jamez42 (talk) 03:54, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done Improved. Further issues can be talked about later. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

On 23 January, Guaidó was sworn in as Interim President.

This sentence is a passive construction ("was sworn in"). But it was done by himself, nobody did it to him. So I suggest a construction like "On 23 January, Guaidó declared himself Interim President." Even "took an oath" would not fit.--183.182.121.33 (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC) — 183.182.121.33 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

He didn't "declare himself"; the National Assembly (the only legally elected body in Venezuela) did. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

This of course is a lie.--183.182.121.33 (talk) 12:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC) — 183.182.121.33 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

 Not done Per WP:NPOV --Jamez42 (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Italian colour on the recognition map

In the "Recognition" section it is written that Italy is officially neutral. But on the map it is coloured in light blue (support to the National Assembly). It's contradictory. Which is the right version? 37.162.83.236 (talk) 07:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

See multiple sections below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Trinidad and Tobago

Who do they officially support? "He restated Government’s position in the ongoing political crisis in Venezuela as neutral, saying that Government has “no horse in the race” and making it clear that his administration was not taking any sides in the matter. Trinidad and Tobago has recognised Nicolas Maduro as the elected President of the Bolivarian Republic". Ok?----ZiaLater (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Neutral http://www.looptt.com/content/pm-us-venezuela-crisis-its-difference-opinion 103.70.152.5 (talk) 06:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Italy, Ireland, Greece

Nowhere in this source is Italy or Ireland or Greece's individual position mentioned (so they shouldn't be in the Support National Assembly section)

The EU's position does not supersede individual members' positions (otherwise every EU state even those recognising Guaidó should be moved there but that makes no sense) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.70.152.5 (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

https://www.politico.eu/article/brussels-caught-off-guard-by-venezuelas-political-turmoil-nicolas-maduro/

Secondly, as Maduro is the incumbent leader, I propose the states recognising him are shown before the states recognising Guaidó 103.70.152.5 (talk) 05:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Disagree. 1) Not "incumbent", 2) alphabetical order, 3) majority support Gauido. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

You should decide what to do with the map:

1) All the EU have to be coloured in light blue, since it supports the National Assembly.

2) If you colour in dark blue (support to Guaido) some EU countries, you should colour in grey the ones who don't (for example Italy, that is neutral, as you wrote below the map before, and calls for new elections but not support the National Assembly). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.160.51.176 (talk) 06:58, February 6, 2019 (UTC)

Please sign your posts by entering four tildes ( ~~~~ ) after them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I think the map is clear. Perhaps the wording that is confusing you is "Supports National Assembly"; those countries have expressed support for the National Assembly, but not Guaido. Perhaps someone will suggest better wording. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

This is the official position of the Italian government, calling new elections. No reference to the support for the National Assembly.

http://www.governo.it/articolo/venezuela-nota-della-presidenza-del-consiglio/10853?fbclid=IwAR3yuBj1ZU2zMs3L6Dr1pO8jyJtmUt5eD-fhvjo7X5vA80dJg5raxpfBWs4

Moreover the source you use is outdated (25/1/2019), when some EU countries had not yet recognized Guaido as President. Please update! (37.160.51.176 (talk) 07:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC))

Thanks for signing. I am not working on the map (which is an image), but someone will come along who can address your concern. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

As said multiple times, Italy, Ireland and Greece signed a joint declaration with the EU showing support for the National Assembly. That is the smallest amount of support they have shown to an entity and it will stay on both the article and map until a position changes (for Guaido or Maduro).----ZiaLater (talk) 08:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

As said multiple times, the situation is fluid. Saying "two weeks ago Italy supported the National Assembly as all the EU" is an incorrect approach. Things change, and a source dated 25/1 is not actual: some of the EU countries that in the 25/1 supported the National Assembly, now support Guaido, others (like Italy) request elections.

You can read the official note by the Italian government I linked above.

So, please, update.

(37.160.23.71 (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC))

Their position has not really changed. Italy is calling for early elections (which they also did with the EU statement). From what is being said right now, Lega Nord recognizes Guaido as interim president but the Five Star Movement has some members that believe they should remain neutral so they do not seem subordinate to the United States. Overall, there is no reasons to change positions as of right now.----ZiaLater (talk) 10:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, it's Greece again

In between my copy edits, Ryopus moved Greece; just putting this here so it doesn't get missed, with no opinion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)