Talk:Venezuelan presidential crisis

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)

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)

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)

Where should Serbia go

They have said that they will not recognize Guiado source:https://mundo.sputniknews.com/europa/201901251085023338-serbia-no-reconoce-a-guaido/ --Fenetrejones (talk) 7:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I am unable to find a single unbiased source on this. I hope we are not sourcing things to sputniknews in this article, in the absence of other sources? Perhaps another source will emerge. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Unbiased sources don't exist for anything 212.15.177.105 (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done inadequate sourcing found to attribute any position to Serbia at this time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jim7049: regarding this edit, please read WP:BRD and WP:EDITWAR-- you did not discuss before you reinstated text that is not supported by a (very marginal) source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Go read the source before accusing someone of edit warring. "Serbian Foreign Minister Ivica Dacic today expressed his support for Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro". The first paragraph. Jim7049 (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Albertonews is not a strong enough source for this kind of statement. You were wise to remove your personal attack, and I will give you one free pass. Don't do it again. Please get familiar with BRD; discuss on talk and gain consensus before you re-insert deleted text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: So are you claiming the source is lying about the foreign ministers statement? That's pathetic, here are some 3 additional sources confirming that: [1], [2], [3]. Since there are facts, you go get consensus if you wanna change sourced material. Jim7049 (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Your first two sources are the same, are poor quality, and do not say that. Your third source, Sputnik news, does not even say that. Every source firmly reiterates Serbia's commitment to dialogue to resolve the situation. Your text relies on one marginal source (Albertonews), when every other source available disagrees.

Stop personalizing the discussion, with words like pathetic and lying, and confine your discussion to sources, thank you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Here is where it says [4]. Jim7049 (talk) 23:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, that source does verify the text, although I doubt that it is high enough quality, either, to resolve the contradiction with every other source. I will leave that for others to opine. I do not consider either it or Albertonews to be of sufficient quality to be making statements about Serbia's position, given the clarity of every other source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

If you doubt it being not high quality then you have no idea what that source is, because it's the 33rd most popular website in Spain, so you better put up or shut up. Jim7049 (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

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)

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 [5], 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

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)

"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

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 [6]. 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)

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)

China meets with other parties

Just dropping some links here in case they become useful: Chinese reps say they have been meeting with multiple political parties in Venezuela. Obviously no statement of neutrality, but if that does happen, this might be a step in the process we could add. Or it could be written into the China reaction paragraph if anyone has the time/effort. Observador (Portuguese), ANSA Agency (Italian), Prensa Latina (Spanish). Kingsif (talk) 12:12, 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)

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)

International protests section

I think this can be easily summarized as:

International demonstrations occurred supporting and denouncing both Guaido and Maduro. Pro-Guaido social media users shared #XXXX while pro-Maduro user shared #XXXX.

I do not think we need a peeing contest of who protested where and said what. Internationally, it is more appropriate to summarize such information.----ZiaLater (talk) 05:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

There wasn't any problem with this section when it reported only pro-Guaido protests, you didn't asked to be reduced. I added examples or pro-Maduro protests and they were deleted because lacking references. Then, I added references and now, curiously, you ask to trim the section :) I am against deleting this section, the international protests are relevant, sentences are sourced and the article isn't long enough to justify this trimming. emijrp (talk) 12:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree Simon1811 (talk) 12:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Jamez42 (talk) 03:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I have to say I like the International protests section its balanced and its good for information. I just don't see any reason at all to getting rid of section. KingTintin (talk) 12:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed however I think ZiaLater is right that we have to be careful it does not turn into a "peeing contest"Simon1811 (talk) 12:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Jamez42 (talk) 03:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support, summarizing the section can help with avoiding edit conflicts. @Emijrp:, it doesn't matters what content was before, it matters the current content in the article, and any proposal helping to comply with Wikipedia's policies shouldn't be disregarded. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support, to avoid this article becoming even more bloated, when there is a protest article. Remove all unreliable sources, and one or two general sources, and then link to the protest article in one, or at most two, reliably sourced sentences. (And while at it, please go through and eliminate all the unreliable sources and text unverified by source that I highlighted above as repeatedly inserted by one editor. I am gone all day for a conference. If that editor is still inserting fake news by the end of the day, I will seek admin intervention.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Sockblocked, but I still support using summary style for this item. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose (i.e. keep the section) - it's easier to let people add the information and remove it later if it isn't valuable than to keep it out. The protest article 2019 Venezuelan protests is very out of date. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:04, 2 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.[7][8][9][10] 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. [11]. --MaoGo (talk) 19:31, 2 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)

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)

AN elections

CBC & ABC say that Maduro has proposed that he will hold free elections soon! To replace the National Assembly. Does this warrant a brief mention? Kingsif (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should take Maduro at his word that the elections will be "free", but this should be in the article in some form. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

References

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

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

• Pro-Maduro mural in London.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:07, 3 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 [12][13]--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)

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

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)

Montevideo contact group

This section should be improved. Some countries and organizations should be added in the section about the Montevideo contact group according to Mogherini's words: it will be coordinated by the EU (with the active participation of Germany, France, Sweden, UK, Spain, Portugal, Netherlands and Italy) and some Latino-American countries (Bolivia, Costa Rica, Ecuador and Uruguay).

https://www.agenzianova.com/a/5c56e4244a9b23.26901047/2291419/2019-02-03/venezuela-mogherini-e-vazquez-giovedi-a-montevideo-incontro-gruppo-contatto-internazionale — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.162.70.141 (talk)

These changes should probably be proposed at International Conference on the Situation in Venezuela. I'll leave this un-answered in case someone else wants to add content on this. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:51, 4 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

• Maduro and Guaidó (Presidential crisis).png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

China's neutrality

An editor in the Spanish Wikipedia offered an article that mentions that China has now taken a more neutral stance in the crisis.[14] --Jamez42 (talk) 03:13, 5 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.

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)

"Public opinion" section

In that section several times refer to opinion polls, which should show a low level of popular support for Maduro. And all of these polls are published on this website, which "has been described as having been anti-Bolivarian government stance." The anti-Bolivarian website refers to a poll that I conducted, I suspect, by an anti-Bolivarian "public opinion research agency." And as a result, it turned out that "the people are against Maduro." What a surprise. Should La Patilla be considered as RS at all? 37.151.19.210 (talk) 09:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

We also have Hinterlaces, which is likely state propaganda, so the section is balanced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

European Union

Sorry for opening this again, but Prodavinci published an interactive map on the position of each European country regarding crisis. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:36, 5 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)