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) 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)

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 [5], so you better put up or shut up. Jim7049 (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Third request to stop personalizing discussions (Put up or shut up, after "are you stupid?" Please confine your discussion to sourcing and content). Thirty-third most popular is not a measure of reliability, and regarding this edit, please do not remove maintenance tags until you have consensus. You replaced one marginal source with another; please gain consensus as to whether the sourcing is adequate to the statement, considering every other source reflects Serbia's commitment to dialogue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

You need consensus to put up those tags because no person has called that source unreliable, and you need a reason to call it unreliable. Jim7049 (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

This remains unresolved, with maintenance tags removed from article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

It's a perfectly valid website - this is news, not propaganda. Doesn't seem to lean hard-right or hard-left. The edit should stay, and the tags unnecessary. Serbia's position on this is easily understandable considering their position on Kosovo - they didn't support the Catalan independence event, either. Additionally, let's not be so thin-skinned and taking offense so easily. As someone famous once said, "if you're going to play lumberjack, you need to be able to handle your side of the log." TP discussions can get a bit testy. Man-up. 18:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.22.143 (talk)

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 [6], 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)

"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)

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 [7]. 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)

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)

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) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Jamez42 (talk) 03:54, 7 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)

• Oppose I agree, while the events are developing, better to have more detail, and then later trim detail as we move farther from the event. -Furicorn (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support summary mode for this is the most neutral road. Wikipedia is not a daily newspaper. --MaoGo (talk) 22:27, 6 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.[8][9][10][11] 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. [12]. --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)

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 [13][14]--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)

Agree SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I found this: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-politics-uruguay/eu-backed-group-gathers-to-discuss-good-faith-plan-for-venezuela-idUSKCN1PW0MT and also a video from the uruguayan chancellor Rodolfo Nin Novoa https://twitter.com/perezvalery/status/1093611820731035649 and also cover from RT https://actualidad.rt.com/actualidad/304908-mogherini-rueda-prensa-venezuela — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.158.111.52 (talk) 01:25, 8 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.[15] --Jamez42 (talk) 03:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

There are English, and Chinese sources for this as well. I put it in a different article. It does require a bit of reading between the lines however: A Chinese foreign ministry spokesman came out and said that China was willing to work with whomever, and was in talks with both sides, when asked if China supports Maduro a government spokesman responded that his inauguration was attended by China, also a Chinese/Hong Konger news paper, The South China Morning Post, (wholly owned by Ali Baba; important because Ali Baba won't tolerate political controversy see Southern Weekend) posted an article about Guaidó and how he wanted to work with China. These do show a much more neutral stance, than what was originally had, but it's hard to add to wiki. I'll list some of the articles for you though:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-counts-the-costs-of-its-big-bet-on-venezuela-11549038825 https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/2184773/exclusive-self-declared-leader-venezuela-juan-guaido-extends https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/2183519/wary-china-offers-support-embattled-venezuelan-president Alcibiades979 (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I found a great article on this so I went ahead and added a bit: https://www.americasquarterly.org/content/change-coming-chinas-venezuela-policy Alcibiades979 (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Alcibiades979: Thank you very much for adding the info. Just today I listened to an interview explaining that China cancelled a long term project with PDVSA owrth billions of dollars due to its unability to pay, but I haven't had time to check, so I wanted to leave the note here. Best wishes! --Jamez42 (talk) 01:04, 9 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)

The problem is that they immediately define Hinterlaces in the text as “pro-Maduro”, while the anti-Maduro position of “La Patilla” (which is the only source of information about the polls allegedly conducted by Hercon and Meganálisis) apparently considered a fact that does not need to be mentioned. 37.151.19.210 (talk) 05:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

That is the problem. Note that the Wikipedia page of "La Patilla" includes a sentence which states " It has been described as having an anti-Bolivarian government stance" with two sources cited. --59.66.60.251 (talk) 10:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, the user "59.66.60.251" is me (I forgot to log in again).-- A planetree leaf (talk) 11:04, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, the text at La Patilla with the claim that "it has an anti-Bolivarian government stance", is not fairly representing the source (WSJ). Because it is behind a paywall, I accessed it at my library via ProQuest, and encourage others to do similar. World News: Venezuela's Press Crackdown Stokes Growth of Online Media, Minaya, Ezequiel. Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]08 Sep 2014: A.15. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 9 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)

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)

Article size

@Kingsif, Power~enwiki, and Jamez42:

We are quickly approaching 200,000 bytes so we might have to cut down on a few things.

Some recommendations are:

• International protests section — possibly summarize that protests happened on both sides internationally.
• Government reactions — Maybe a separate article? (See: Reactions to the 2014–2017 Venezuelan protests) Military intervention section should remain.

Any other recommendations are welcome.----ZiaLater (talk) 08:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I have another suggestion that will address both above: we should start a separate article, Reaction and response to 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis, and move BOTH Reactions and Response sections there, which includes protest information. The map work on this page is a distraction from writing the rest of the article. Just summarize those two sections tightly here, using WP:SS as done at Guaido, so that we can focus on writing this article, without a gazillion posts and edits about the map and protests. That will leave this article more focused and a more readable and maintainable size. Once the initial kerfuffle of who supports whom is settled, there will still be a "crisis" to be dealt with (elections, transfer of power, threats and intimidation and on and on). The time spent on responding to reaction and response posts is frustrating, when there is so much relevant writing still to be done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

A lot of the bloat is the list of every country's position. I'm not sure we can move that off this page, though. Beyond that, it's hard to say what should be done - if the situation continues for months the "Events" section will need to be split off and summarized here. The "Censorship" section could possibly be moved to a (renamed) Block of Wikipedia in Venezuela page as well. And there is more on "protests" here than in the protest article. I'll re-evaluate next Wednesday, hopefully I'll have a clear idea of what should be done. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd oppose splitting the "Events" section, which is perhaps not well named, because it is the heart and narrative of the article (maybe should not have been set up initially as proseline). The map and stuff about each country is basically a List, that is much more easily summarized to here; who supports or not will eventually become irrelevant, as Maduro either departs or does not, and the relevant story is told here, as the main article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

We certainly can't split the events section now. But if this continues through April or May, there will be too many events to cover all of them in detail in one article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

While I think that by April, with some distance, we will be able to trim much of the verbosity here, and have a nice article. As an example, the section on Military defections suffers from PROSELINE and NOTNEWS issues: we should resist the temptation to list every defection, and we should be able to trim this section considerably. Lists are the most logical to split. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I did a ton of trimming (redundancies, verbosity, unnecessary detail, and the like). As of 0200 UTC 8 Feb, the "readable prose size" per WP:SIZE and WP:SIZERULE is now at a manageable 38kB (5885 words). The article itself is a good readable size, and still has room to grow. What is chunking up the overall size is the map and the lists. I still suggest that once things stabilize, the entire Reaction and recognition sections can be split to a List, and summarized to here with WP:Summary style (which needs to be better employed in every Venezuelan article). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

El Salvador

El Salvador already has a note for flipping, should it be added that their newly elected President supports Guaidó? Kingsif (talk) 12:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Truth be told I think we should wait for an official announcement. However we could get ready to change the country's position when that happens. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree we can give it a bit more time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

On Ukraine recognizing Guaido

There seems to be misunderstanding. Ukraine recognized Guaido as leader, but not as interim president. MFA Ukraine retweeted this tweet on 5 February 2019: https://twitter.com/SergiyKyslytsya/status/1092736626202157057 which explain how Ukraine support Guaido, but not as interim president. So maybe Ukraine should be moved to "support National Assembly", not Interim President? --WeifengYang (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

From whom is that Tweet? There is no official flag on the account. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Ukraine recognizes Guaido as leader of Venezuela https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politics/ukrinform-ukraine-recognizes-guaido-as-leader-of-venezuela.html --Vitalik1986 (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia:@Vitalik1986: If you check this verified twitter account for Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine (@MFA_Ukraine), They retweeted the tweet I posted above, around 5 Feb 2019 （scroll down a few you'll see MFA_Ukraine retweeted this tweet). The tweet begin with quote "Лідер, але ще не президент: події у Венесуелі очима українського дипломата" (translation: Leader, but not president: events in Venezuela as Ukrainian diplomat). Which means MFA Ukraine officially is saying that they endorse Guaido as the leader of the only democratic body in Venezuela, but MFA Ukraine had not yet officially recognize Guaido as interim president. --WeifengYang (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again! I am staying out of the map mess, which is a full-time job, but putting the most complete info possible here will help ZiaLater when they get to this thread. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@WeifengYang:@SandyGeorgia: Most likely it's a point of view of Sergiy Kyslytsya. If you look describe of him tweeter (@SergiyKyslytsya), there is "The views are personal, and are not the government's position unless it's clearly & explicitly indicated. Here is how it works: I don't imply, you don't infer!". --Vitalik1986 (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Bulgarian tweet

@WeifengYang: There is no verified flag on this Twitter account, so I have moved this citation here for discussion: Zaharieva, Ekaterina (6 February 2019). "Today the #Bulgarian government decided to officially support and accept @jguaido as acting President of #Venezuela. We need a new democratic presidential vote. Committed to the better future of the people of 🇻🇪. Looking forward to the first meeting of the EU-driven #ContactGroup". Twitter. Retrieved 6 February 2019. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, could you please specify which part of this source specifically deals with Guaido, provide the exact text, and provide a translation here for discussion? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: For the Bulgarian Minister of Foreign Affairs Ekaterina Zaharieva's account, here is a verified account for Saudi Foreign Ministry that @ the Zaharieva account: https://twitter.com/KSAmofaEN/status/1092464889396891648 (in the tweet @EZaharievaMFA is the account I quoted for Bulgaria, some countries' MFA account is not verified but accurate, such as the Czech MFA account). On the Bulgarian language, the translation is this part: quote (paragraph 6 first sentence): "Вярваме, че г-н Хуан Гуайдо, председател на Националното събрание, като изпълняващ функциите временен президент на Венецуела, ще насрочи провеждането на свободни, честни и демократични президентски избори в съответствие с конституцията." Translation: "We believe that Mr. Juan Guido, President of the National Assembly, as interim president of Venezuela, will schedule free, fair and democratic presidential elections in accordance with the constitution."--WeifengYang (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks; @ZiaLater: is working on the map, so this more complete information will help them put this together. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2019

In the third paragraph, add UN "Security Council" (be more specific; this was the very first time the Venezuelan crisis officially entered the UNSC's Agenda).

Also, the regime of the usurper Maduro (official now that most of Europe calls him that and recognizes Guaidó) has claimed the US wants the oil that belongs to the People of Venezuela (who are on the streets asking him to step down in percentages of 85-90); it has been widely argued, chiefly by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (@SecPompeo on Twitter) that it is Russia and China that have been stealing Venezuela's riches (including many tons of gold) for years now.

It should also be added, that while there is a sort of crisis going on, the Constitution of our country definitely tips the scales in favor of Acting President Guaidó (@jguaido on Twitter) and his Legitimate Government. All of these edits I suggest for the intro section, not for the article as a whole.

@Jamez42 #SOS #Venezuela #SorryNotSorry

Dialsamai (talk) 05:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I have added "Security Council" to UN-- thanks! For your other suggestions, Wikipedia text must be based on reliable sources. Having followed the sources closely, I do not believe we will find one that has wording that will allow inclusion of any "tipping of the scale" one way or the other, but if you have one, please put it here for discussion. Also, if you have sources for the Pompeo statement, please include them.

Twitter tags don't go anywhere or do anything on Wikipedia-- they just show as text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The Pope and the Vatican's role in the crisis

Both the disputed presidents have requested the intervention of the Pope as mediator. Maduro: http://www.ansa.it/english/news/2019/02/04/maduro-letter-to-pope-relaunches-dialogue-parolin_9b7d6067-9ce8-4674-8900-3422d440c8fe.html

Guaido: http://www.ansa.it/sito/notizie/mondo/2019/02/07/venezuelaanche-guaido-si-appella-a-papa_af6eb6a3-b2cb-42cc-ab56-89eb54104a46.html

The answer of the Pope: "we are always willing". https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6668867/Venezuela-crisis-Nicolas-Maduro-says-not-history-traitor.html

I think You might add it in a new section called: "Attempts of mediation", involving also the Montevideo Conference. (93.48.40.135 (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)) — 93.48.40.135 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The opposition has been clear about the Pope and mediation, saying they will not negotiate with any party that will help further human rights abuse in Venezuela; perhaps you are confusing the Pope with God in the source provided. I suggest we wait to see how this develops, and how mainstream and Venezuelan sources cover it as it develops. There is no hurry to add something that is still murky. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

For example, El opositor remarcó que ha sido "muy claro" al decir que no irá a un "falso diálogo" y se refirió a las palabras que ofreció el papa Francisco sobre una mediación en Venezuela –luego de que Maduro le enviara una carta– y dijo que el Vaticano puede servir como garante para quienes se han "negado a ver la realidad venezolana".[16][17] [18] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

And another very clear statement of position on dialogue today: [19]. A general statement that the National Assembly will not dialogue with parties to human rights abuse (and they have had previous encounters with Francis) should do it. But where to put it in the article ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Protest deaths removed for discussion

It was reported on social media that by midday, two people were killed in protests in San Cristóbal, Táchira, and four in Barinas.

References

I have removed this text for discussion and better sourcing. Further, we have a source saying 13 were killed, so not sure why we need to include poorly sourced text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

PS, I am done copyediting for now, in case anyone wants to look for typos. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Deleted part on Venezuelans protesting in the US

Not to spam, but so people know what I'm doing. Here's what I deleted:

In the United States, Venezuelan protesters gathered in Washington, D.C. and New York.

The sentence relied on two sources. One is some sort of Turkish website which strangely has a logo that borders on copyright infringement with the Spanish Alcoholics Anonymous (don't believe, search the Alcohólicos Anónimos, then go to their website), I would imagine it lacks affiliation though. Anyhow, never heard of them, and Turkey has a horrible reputation when it comes to free press, so the source can't stand alone. Second is an MSN article, meh, but it states in the article that it relies on a report from Sputnik. Sputnik is commonly called Russian propaganda. If you know Spanish peruse the article and you'll see that it never mentions the people are Venezuelan, and if the photo is actually from the protest that the article stated 30-40 attended, then you'll see they don't look Venezuelan either. If the sources were decent, I would have just taken out the Venezuelan part, but the sources are a nightmare, so I chopped it. If you disagree please let me know, and let's discuss! Sources: https://www.aa.com.tr/es/vg/galería-videos/manifestación-pro-maduro-en-washington/ https://www.msn.com/es-ve/noticias/mundo/seguidores-de-maduro-en-las-calles-de-nueva-york/ar-BBSNgcYAlcibiades979 (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I think we need to leave something in the article about chavismo protests. Even if practically no one ever shows up, we should show they happen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I have some free time right now, and I'm still hyped up from work so I'll work on a couple of paragraphs for RussiaAlcibiades979 (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Chavismo

The "Bolivarian Revolution" was a thing that didn't work out very well and has petered out; the more encompassing and enduring term is chavismo. Changed in lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Humanitarian aid

Spanish article tackling the humanitarian aid efforts in the current crisis.--Oscar_. (talk) 23:25, 7 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)

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)

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)

Slovakia and El Salvador

• Slovakia declines to back Venezuela's Guaido as Maduro faces rising pressure
• Bukele prioriza relación con EEUU y se aleja de Venezuela y Nicaragua --Jamez42 (talk) 02:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I do not think it will be changed. This page is evidently pro-Guaido. The neutrality of an EU state is considered "Support to the National Assembly". (93.48.40.135 (talk) 12:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)) — 93.48.40.135 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@Jamez42: Slovakia is neutral. We can wait to see what the president-elect of El Salvador says when they take office.----ZiaLater (talk) 13:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: Agree. Just letting the talk page updated with the latest news. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Pro-Maduro protest?

https://www.france24.com/en/20190207-uk-protesters-demand-central-bank-return-maduro-gold?ref=tw RBL2000 (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC) — RBL2000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I think that is an adequate source and content could be included, as long as it is balanced (ie, both sides). Perhaps you would suggest content here on talk? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

? By making a section here on talk I am suggesting it since I can't edit this wiki article. RBL2000 (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC) — RBL2000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Ah, I see ... sorry :) I am out of time today, but I hope someone will get to this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

RBL2000, you have a small tag in your sig that is making everything that comes after it small ... I removed, but can you change your sig? [20] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Troll Jamez42 keeps putting that tag. RBL2000 (talk) 12:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC) — RBL2000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

RBL2000, you may want to remove the inappropriate personalization. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:49, 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)

POV wording in lead, "pro-Maduro"

SandyGeorgia, your claim that "TSJ was appointed outside of constitutional processes" is original research. The Supreme Tribunal of Justice (Venezuela) article does not say anything about that, and also I could not find any mentions of that by reading a few news articles. Notrium (talk) 01:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I suspect you don't fully understand the term original research on Wikipedia. The fact is well and easily cited-- keep reading this article, where you will find voluminous footnotes and sources, right in this section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Notrium: There was a discussion about this in Maduro's talk page, I'll link it here because it's a good read. Longs story short, the new tribunal was apointed with lots of irregularities and its justices do not meet the requirements for holding office. Not to mention that all of them subordinated to the questioned Constituent Assembly. --Jamez42 (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Overlinking

Could folks please have a look at WP:OVERLINK? There are many unnecessary links in this article (I have just removed another link to United States, for example, but it keeps coming back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Correlation between Map and Country

There is so far four countries for which the correlation between the map and the country list in the recognition is missing. Trinidad and Tobago (in map as neutral, does not appear on the list), Serbia (in map as pro-Maduro, does not appear on the list), Slovenia (in map as pro-National Assemby, does not appear on the list), and Cyprus (in map as pro-National Assemby, does not appear on map). We should put them on the list with confirmed source. --WeifengYang (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@WeifengYang:  Done I didn't put Serbia per the reasons that I have stated in the edit summaries. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)