Talk:Venezuelan presidential crisis

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)

If I recall correctly this was added. Marking as  Done --Jamez42 (talk) 19:04, 10 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.[1] --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)

China did not meet with opposition

China's MoFA Spokesperson just came out to clarify that any reported meeting with Venezuelan opposition is "fake news", please update.

From China's MoFA: https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/xwfw_665399/s2510_665401/t1637635.shtml "Q:[...] Secondly, reports say that China has been holding talks with Venezuelan political opposition to safeguard its investment in the country. Can you confirm?" "A:[...] On your second question, I believe the reports you cited were made by the Wall Street Journal. I want to point out that some media has been churning out false information lately. I wonder why it has been acting like this. We hope that it could make media coverage in an objective and unbiased way. As for the Venezuelan issue, China believes that a political solution should be sought out through dialogue and consultation."

Other Sources: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia/china-says-report-of-talks-with-venezuela-opposition--fake-news--11238670 https://www.rt.com/news/451366-venezuela-china-fake-news-opposition/?fbclid=IwAR0HcB9xqOTzoyrRetXQbKo9BQytgX5xQa3dDoJVcsa-JoaHETdaLUbOuMA https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/2186003/no-talks-between-china-and-venezuela-opposition-beijing-says http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1138772.shtml http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-02/13/c_137818964.htm Nebakin (talk) 10:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I have already updated it, marking as  Done. Nebakin (talk) 10:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Added according to the WSJ. As a side note of course China is going to deny having secret meetings with Guaidó's diplomats concerning the Chinese financial exposure to Venezuela. Wiki now carries both sides. The Wall Street Journal is a rock solid source, however, and the Chinese Foreign Ministry has already stated that they are in contact with all parties as per SCMP. Alcibiades979 (talk) 14:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I disagree having the denial by the Chinese MoFA being reduced to nothing more than a practical footnote, therefore I am reverting cum re-wording that entry. Also, not going to argue about the claim the WSJ is a more "rock solid source" than the Chinese foreign ministry itself, or that WSJ is a "rock, solid source". Nebakin (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Two sources state different facts, as per Wiki:NPOV_Due_and_undue_weight, both should be included, which is what I've done. I specifically cited the Wall Street Journal in the article as stating that meetings have taken place, then added that the Chinese Foreign Ministry has denied that it took place, giving weight to both sources as per wiki policy. Alcibiades979 (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Rewording have been completed and this version gives a more complete story while still remaining brief and representing both sources equally, both in quantity and quality. Nebakin (talk) 14:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

China denied having meetings with Guaidó over Chinese investments, however if you read she never mentions that no meetings have taken place, and Geng Shuang another spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry has stated that China has been in touch with representatives from Guaidó: "A Chinese foreign ministry spokesman, Geng Shuang, said on Friday that China’s deals with Venezuela should not be affected “no matter how circumstances change”. When asked at a press conference if Beijing had contacted Guaido, Geng said China has been in touch with “all sides” in different ways." https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/2184773/exclusive-self-declared-leader-venezuela-juan-guaido-extends Alcibiades979 (talk) 14:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

As stated above:

"Q:[...] Secondly, reports say that China has been holding talks with Venezuelan political opposition to safeguard its investment in the country. Can you confirm?"

"A:[...] On your second question, I believe the reports you cited were made by the Wall Street Journal. I want to point out that some media has been churning out false information lately. I wonder why it has been acting like this. We hope that it could make media coverage in an objective and unbiased way. As for the Venezuelan issue, China believes that a political solution should be sought out through dialogue and consultation."

https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/xwfw_665399/s2510_665401/t1637635.shtml

I believe your article is also already half a month old, moreover it is clearly stated that all parties are kept in touch in different ways, this does not contradict anything from the press conference from yesterday (13th feb), having no meetings (as clearly evident by the statement from yesterday) doesn't mean not being in touch at all, even a single phone call is also considered keeping in touch. As mentioned, all parties are kept in touch in different ways. There is no contradiction at all since the term "been in touch" is so broad in definition and does not restrict it to meetings/talks only. Nebakin (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

"On your first question, in recent days, in order to promote the peaceful settlement of the Venezuelan issue, China has been in close contact and communication with all parties." Secondly, reports say that China has been holding talks with Venezuelan political opposition //to safeguard its investment in the country.// Channel News: "BEIJING: China said on Wednesday (Feb 13) a newspaper report that Chinese diplomats had held talks with Venezuela's political opposition to protect its investments in the Latin American country was "fake news"." SCMP: "China has dismissed a newspaper report that its diplomats held talks with the political opposition in Venezuela to protect its investments in the Latin American country as “fake news”." Global Times: "The Chinese foreign ministry on Wednesday refuted foreign media reports which claimed that China has been holding talks with Venezuela's political opposition to safeguard its investments, and called the reports "false."" etc. Anyhow I really need to get back to work. Alcibiades979 (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The part about the meeting for investment have already been mentioned in the first half of the sentence, no point repeating it. Nebakin (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

It is necessary, these two sentences state two different things. This one states that according to Hua Chunying China has never meet with Guaido's representatives to discuss Chinese investments: "however Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Hua Chunying denied any meetings with the Venezuelan opposition to discuss Chinese investments when asked about WSJ's claims in a press conference, stating that it is "false information"." This one states that China has never had meetings with Venezuela period, which is not supported by the references: "however Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Hua Chunying denied any meetings with the Venezuelan opposition when asked about WSJ's claims in a press conference, stating that it is "false information"." Do you see the difference? If in your mind there's no difference, then humour me, I've written all of China's and Russia's sections, and supplied all the references. Alcibiades979 (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

There is no difference, there is only a difference because you are taking it out of context by only quoting the second part, quote the whole thing then tell me there is a difference. So what if you written all of it? It's not your property to claim someone is edit warring when you unhappy about it not fitting your narrative. Also, save your warning for yourself, I am officially warning you as well for edit warring, you are the who REFUSES to settle it in here before making all those edits. Nebakin (talk) 17:53, 14 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)

I'll be marking this as  Done as there doesn't seem to be consensus. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't want to archive with no consensus ... will wait another few days to week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 11 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)

@Kingsif: This should totally be included, it's an idea that has repeatedly been suggested, including one of Maduro's latest interviews. Has this been included? --Jamez42 (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I’m not sure, I’ve been taking a little break while there’s fewer developments, but the article has been restructured again, so I don’t know if it’s been included. Kingsif (talk) 00:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Kingsif I am unaware of any new developments on elections; with Maduro investigating anyone who cooperates with the National Assembly, it is unclear how they can form a new CNE. Should we archive this thread until there are further developments? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I think there haven't been developments, and in my opinion, the government would hypothetically summon elections once Guaido's momentum is lost. As far as I understand, the Comission to name a new CNE is made up of Assembly deputies, who have already received plenty of threats and punishments, so they won't back down, but they have stated that elections will only take place once Maduro steps down and that there's a transitional government. That being said, I agree with archiving. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:34, 18 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)

 Done --Jamez42 (talk) 00:05, 15 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)

Update

I did more trimming and tightening. As of this version, readable prose is 6,900 words and readable prose size is 45KB. WP:SIZERULE recommends thinking about splitting when size is 50KB. If we create Reaction and response to 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis, and summarize that text back to here including the map, readable prose drops by 6KB, to 39.

One problem is the absence of appropriate use of summary style, where text has been forced into this article by merge discussions (eg Guaidochallenge) when the stand-alone article wae notable and could have helped avoid bloat here (eg Venezuela Aid Live, which is an appropriate use of summary style here). Another problem is text that would be a better fit in Guaido's Bio has been forced here by non-policy-based deletions from that bio.

In another week or so, we may be looking at how to deal with size here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

New update

The bullet points in the Reactions section were keeping the prose size script from accurately measuring the word count. Relative to WP:SIZERULE, the 23:40 18 February version has: 52 kB (8147 words) "readable prose size" SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Humanitarian aid

Spanish article tackling the humanitarian aid efforts in the current crisis.--Oscar_. (talk) 23:25, 7 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? [2] 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)

Pro-Maduro/Anti-US interventionism protest in Argentine

https://www.efe.com/efe/english/world/argentines-march-to-us-embassy-protest-interference-in-venezuela/50000262-3889097 RBL2000 (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC) — RBL2000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

There is already enough of this on both sides within the article.----ZiaLater (talk) 09:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done --Jamez42 (talk) 12:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

500 people is no big deal. Macri, head of state of Argentina, is pro-Guaido, and that's what matters here. Even Cristina Kirchner, leader of the opposition and former close ally of Chavez and Maduro, has stayed silent during this crisis and avoided to publicly support him. Cambalachero (talk) 13:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

We are running in to (and the article currently has) a problem of WP:FALSEBALANCE with the protests section. We present the pro-Maduro and pro-National Assembly equally, when they are not. Where tens of thousands show up against Maduro, hundreds show up for Maduro. We also have not explained the coercion factor (forced to show up for Maduro or lose their job or CLAP box). We need to reduce the pro-Maduro text to eliminate false balance. Again, I suggest a summary, where pro-Maduro gets a sentence. FALSEBALANCE is from a policy page (NPOV), and compliance with policy is not a matter of liking it or not-- we must. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I have commented the section while this is solved. The section was added while there were problems with sockpuppet accounts and edit warring, so the discussion should be retaken in order to improve the issues. --Jamez42 (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

You can silence the pro-Maduro protest section, like mass media is silencing the millions of people signing against US intervention[3], but the truth will surface and prevail at some point :) emijrp (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Your statement would carry validity on Wikipedia if there were, in fact, millions, when there may be hundreds at most. And biased Blumenthal is not going to ask how many of those people he saw were forced to show up, or lose their job or CLAP box. FALSEBALANCE is not only a Wikipedia policy: it is a foundation of good journalism. No one is silencing millions of people, because there is no instance of millions of people, or even hundreds of thousands of people, clamoring for chavismo. In fact, there was not even in the heyday of chavism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I hope you apply same standard when people clamor for Guaido/have anti-Maduro protests in Venezuela. RBL2000 (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC) — RBL2000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@RBL2000: [4] --Jamez42 (talk) 23:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Emijrp WP:NOTAFORUM --Jamez42 (talk) 00:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I do not see why we should have multiple sentences listing international protests on both sides since they do not seem very notable. International protests are held constantly. What I feel would be more suitable is a simple sentence or two explaining that demonstrations happened on both sides.----ZiaLater (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

It's likely the time to retake this discussion. --Jamez42 (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• I think that the section should be removed entirely. It is just a tiny single sentence of two lines section, I'm sure that the manual of style discourages that somewhere. Cambalachero (talk) 12:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• I merged the stubby section to the overall section, but we still have a WP:FALSEBALANCE (there were massive demonstrations in support of Guaido in Spain and Argentina, for example and many more, and small demonstrations in favor of Maduro in some places). I believe we should leave the sentence, but correct the false balance with sources. International demonstrations occurred on both sides, with some gatherings supporting Guaidó,[365][366][367][368] while others supported Maduro.[369][370][371] Our sentence incorrectly makes it appear that the demonstrations in support of Maduro were equal to those in support of Guaido, and that is not the case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  False balance addressed (with intervening Ossetia edit). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

References

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)

 Not done --Jamez42 (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

2.10 Military intervention

It's very messy, this chapter. Allied security forces present in the country after invitation by government is not "intervention" according to dictionary definition. Information is relevant, but it seems not neutral to say foreign troops cooperating with national troops are intervening.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.156.174.147 (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

According to the sources, it is intervention. We have no right as users to manipulate or interpret what the sources state.----ZiaLater (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Not only that, but according to the Venezuelan constitution the National Assembly is the only body that can authorize such "invitations". Even then, it can still be argued that this hasn't been approved by Guaidó. --Jamez42 (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I think your justification fall flat in so many ways. Would we talk about separate military interventions in the Iraq war by Blackwater and other private militaries that was hired by the coalition? No, that is not the correct use of that word. Also, these are quotes from interviews that are part of larger context in the sources we are talking about. When example Donald Trump calls Elizabeth Warren "Pocahontas" in interviews, that does not qualify adding a paragraph on her wiki about how she is considered by some to be Pocahontas. Instead, we write about that debate from neutral point of view, as should this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.156.174.147 (talk) 21:26, February 12, 2019 (UTC)

 Not done --Jamez42 (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Current image

Looks quite bad to be honest. Any better edits? I’m not an expert so I’m asking you Bohbye (talk) 08:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

yes, Guaido looks like a clown. But we have no better free image :( :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Article image looks as it if has been vandalized

Hello, I'm concerned with Guaido's picture, it looks as if it were a collage. Maybe Maduro's thugs are prowling around trying to undermine him by vandalizing every single page of his? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.56.0.37 (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done --Jamez42 (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done This is an active problem. The article is still in need of a better image; the one there makes Guaido look like a clown. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Other images

Please can we quickly update with one of the other images of Guaidó seated? The current really looks like the exaggerated lips used for blackface, which is not something that should be on the page. Kingsif (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't speak images-- cannot help :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I tried to update to an equally not-great, but less offensive and actually-looks-like-him version; ZiaLater reverted. I've messaged over at Commons. Kingsif (talk) 00:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Patience ... we will get an image. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Italy

From Italian parliament Twitter account https://twitter.com/guglielmopicchi/status/1095426340285747201?s=19 Theasiancowboy (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken this is  Done --Jamez42 (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

You should use the official line of the government (and not the opinion of a parliamentary of the League. If so, you should quote also Manlio di Stefano, who supports the Italian neutrality). What the Italian foreign minister have said is: new elections, while the P.M. Conte has said at the European Parliament: neither Maduro nor Guaido. Italy is neutral and doesn't support Guaido.

• https://www.repubblica.it/esteri/2019/02/12/news/moavero_milanesi_venezuela-218916725/

(37.160.59.241 (talk) 10:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC))

Ho hum. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Greece and Italy should be neutral

Statement by the EU was not individually ratified by countries to recognize the National Assemly, even if it did both countries have made statements supportive of the Maduro side as well. They should be placed in neutral. Greek Prime Minister stated that they support Maduro[5], and Italy vetoed EU bid to recognize Guadio[6]. Greece and Italy should be marked in grey for speaking supportive of both sides. Jim7049 (talk) 00:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

By this logic, China should be marked as neutral as well. Greek Prime Minister made no statements on Venezuela, but their party did. Italy is in a similar party divide about its opinion on Venezuela.----ZiaLater (talk) 10:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

There is no way they could change their mind. They have decided that Italy supports the National Assembly and so it is. I think that there are two possibilities: 1) Recognizing the EU as an unique body, colouring all the countries in light blue. 2) Considering the different countries: the ones that support Guaido in dark blue and the neutral ones in grey.

Instead,they have opted for a confusing (and unreliable) mix. (93.48.40.135 (talk) 12:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC))

Remember WP:NOTAFORUM. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jim7049:, just making sure you noticed that I merged all three Greece sections to one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: OK. Jim7049 (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Took it to bottom cause no one sees it as new when it's up there. Jim7049 (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The Italian case

It's ridiculous that the source for the "Italian recognition of Guaido" is a tweet of an exponent of The League who have expressed his idea, while the official note of the Government, the speech of the foreign minister and the P.M. saying that Italy is neutral, and the fact that Italy has blocked with its veto the EU resolution on the recognition of Guaido have not been considered.

The usual answer received was: the situation is confusing and we cannot put Italy between the neutral countries. Now, for a parliamentary's tweet (that have exposed his idea and not the Government's line), you have changed it. So strange! You should be more careful about the choice of your sources. (37.160.59.241 (talk) 10:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)) 37.160.59.241 (talk) 10:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Hasn't this been covered above? The Italian parliament already passed a law recognizing Guaidó. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

That was a tweet by a parliamentary of the League (that supports Guaido) in which he have expressed his idea - also to satisfy his voters - writing "hence". But in the text voted by the Italian Parliament (the one above the "hence" in the Picchi's tweet) there is no recognition to Guaido, but the request of new elections. All the proposals to recognize Guaido or to condamn Maduro have been rejected by the Italian parliament. You can read this source:

• https://mobile.ilsole24ore.com/art/notizie/2019-02-12/venezuela-passa-la-risoluzione-di-maggioranza-non-il-riconoscimento-di-guaido/ABzuXOTB

(37.162.21.184 (talk) 07:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC))

It's more complicated than that. After Feb 12 Parliament law, there is now two contradictory interpretation of recognition of Guaido from the Italian goevernment. Picchi is not just a random MP, he's the Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs, one of the two, and the one from Lega side. Thus he has full power to issue official endorsement unless the Cabinet level intervene, which has choose not to do. It is best reflected in that Italy now has two self-dueling interpretation of recognition of Guaido. Foreign Minister Milanesi has not issue any rebuttal yet. See (in italian): https://www.ilfoglio.it/politica/2019/02/15/news/il-guaido-di-schrodinger-238242/ So it is complicated but not that easy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeifengYang (talk • contribs) 20:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC) --WeifengYang (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

You said well: one of the two. The other one is Manlio di Stefano, who many times said that Italy is and remains neutral. Obviously nobody quoted him, because he is not the official voice (as Picchi isn't) of the Government.

It is more simple than you can imagine: is in the law the name of Guaido and his recognition? The answer is: no. It is not a case that some parlamentaries of the Opposition have blamed the Government to act as Pontius Pilatus.

In the tweet of Picchi the word "hence" expresses his opinion. But a Wikipedia source should quote the facts and not a Parliamentary's opinion.

Here the official text voted by the Parliament:

"Italy supports (...) new presidential elections, that must be free and credible, in conformity with the constitutional order."

The original text in Italian, here:

https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2019/02/12/venezuela-intesa-m5s-lega-su-mozione-voto-subito-moavero-scorse-elezioni-illegittime-governo-condanna-violenze/4966507/

(93.48.40.135 (talk) 07:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.48.40.135 (talk) 07:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

So the map changed but not the position of Italy in the article? Also, can we group all Italy discussions? --MaoGo (talk) 12:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I have tried to group the discussions, to avoid confusion and have everything on one topic in one place-- the last time I did, it was reverted. Perhaps if you try? Italy, and same problem with Greece. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I just merged, at least two of the sections. --MaoGo (talk) 14:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

And there's another Italy section above, grouped with Greece. Thanks MaoGo! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I think You might change the current source (that doesn't report the official position of the Italian Government on the crisis) with this one:

"Italy’s fractious populist leaders finally reached an agreement after quarreling about the Venezuelan crisis, calling for new presidential elections but still stopping short of recognizing National Assembly leader Juan Guaido as interim president."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-12/venezuela-s-guaido-expresses-dismay-at-populist-italy-s-stand

(93.48.40.135 (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC))

Bloomberg is behind a paywall-- could you help us out by quoting more of it, or do you have any other similar source? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Is the Washington Post ok? "Italy’s populist government is calling for elections soon in Venezuela but is stopping short of joining its European Union allies in recognizing opposition leader Juan Guaido as interim president."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/italy-new-presidential-election-needed-soon-in-venezuela/2019/02/12/f987d1ee-2ec2-11e9-8781-763619f12cb4_story.html?utm_term=.f559d4aec772

(93.48.40.135 (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC))

Thanks, IP93; I adjusted Italy here, but I defer to @ZiaLater: who is following each country more closely than I am. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Namibia and other Southern African countries support Maduro.

The statement of support for Southern African Development Community was done by none other than President of Namibia Hage Geingob who also speak in the name of SADC due to him also being the chairman of it. Its Southern African Development Community#Member states should be included for support of Maduro unless there is explicit neutrality as with Angola. RBL2000 (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC) — RBL2000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Look at the edit summary for the SADC...----ZiaLater (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

References

 Done --Jamez42 (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@RBL2000: is this addressed to your satisfaction (so that this section can be archived? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Bulgaria

Bulgaria is a unitary parliamentary republic, meaning the parliament holds the authroirty of the state over the executive. This source says the executive has a different opinion of the "government", meaning that he does not hold the official position of the Bulgarian government. Edits have said that the constitution says the executvie office represents Bulgaria internationally, but I am not finding it. Could someone provide a source? Would this make a difference at all because the authority of Bulgaria does support the EU's decision?----ZiaLater (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

---

https://www.parliament.bg/bg/const - "Article 92 states that The president is head of state. He embodies the unity of the nation and represents the Republic of Bulgaria in international relations." Further clauses dictated that the President is the one that represents Bulgaria abroad and appoints Bulgaria's ambassadors to foreign countries. The President, not MoFA, is authorized to represent Bulgaria in foreign affairs. MoFA is just a government agency tasked with the day-to-day administration of Bulgaria's diplomatic corps, embassies and to issue opinion pieces (that have no binding power without a parliamentary resolution, which does not exist in this case).

This does show that there is a clear conflict of institutions between the President and the MoFA, which is why I consider it rightful to include Bulgaria in both categories and in both cases with a note explaining the conflict. Best regards. Goodposts (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC) — Goodposts (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@Goodposts: "Art. 105. (1) The Council of Ministers shall direct and conduct State's domestic and foreign policy". The president must follow the advice of the Council of Ministers. Placing two positions in the article is not recommended. Let's settle this on the talk page first. ----ZiaLater (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• One position, per Zia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: I agree on settling this trough finding a consensus, rather than creating an edit war. The Bulgarian Council of Ministers is the one that creates foreign policy, but, as the nation's official representative in foreign affairs, the President is allowed to represent the country's position trough his statements. The Bulgarian constitution does not state what should happen in cases where the two bodies are in conflict, and only the country's Constitutional Court could resolve that issue. I think that it is fair that both positions be shown prominently, so that the reader can have a better understanding of the the Bulgarian leaders think of the situation. Moreover, the situation in Bulgaria is very divided. While the governing party supports Guaido, it's coalition partner, the United Patriots coalition openly support Maduro , with the Volya party, on which the government relies on for confidence & supply, also openly supporting Maduro, a position that is also supported by the opposition Socialist Party and it's splinter group ABV and various other more minor parties. This means that it would be impossible for the governing party, which has formed a minority government, to ever pass a parliamentary resolution in support of Guaido (which the Bulgarian President has the right to veto anyway). In fact, it's far more likely, given the stated positions of Bulgaria's parliamentary factions, that a resolution supporting Maduro, rather than Guaido, could pass. Hence, the current position can be accurately summed up as a conflict between the Council of Ministers (tasked with formulating foreign policy) and the Presidency (given the right to represent Bulgaria in international relations), with neither side currently enjoying parliamentary backing. The Bulgarian President is not obliged by the Constitution of Bulgaria to follow the foreign policy papers laid out by the Council of Ministers, as the Council of Ministers is not allowed to create legislation. That task is entrusted entirely to the National Assembly of Bulgaria. Without such legislation, the President is free to oppose the Council of Ministers' statements in his official capacity, which is considered an act belonging to the nation as a whole. This is the reason I argue for showing both sides of the argument with equal prominence in the interests of fairness. Best regards. Goodposts (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC) — Goodposts (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@Goodposts: I think the note you made was fine for the reader to check. The official stance of the Bulgarian government is one recongizing Maduro, giving it more weight. The president disagrees and that can be included in the note that you placed.----ZiaLater (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: Very well, I can agree on just the note. However, this creates a problem for the visual depiction of the map, as no notes can be attatched to the image. I think the map should follow precedent set by other Wikipedia articles, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War#Foreign_involvement and introduce a checkered visualisation for nations in which there is an institutional conflict and support is divided between the two sides. I am willing to accept the position of the Council of Ministers as the 'primary' color and position, and the President as the 'secondary' or 'conflict' position. I belive this to be an acceptible compromise that represents both sides in the fairest way possible. I think it may be important, as the United States has accused a Bulgarian citizen of 'laundering venezuelan money' trough a Bulgarian bank , prompting government action which was subsequently also harshly critisiced by the Bulgarian President , whom also vetoed several ambassadorial candidacies, hence the topic of Bulgaria may become more relevant in the coming days.

PS. I find it curious that the Bulgarian government appears to be having an institutional clash not all that dissimilar to the one we are discussing in the article at hand. Best regards. Goodposts (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC) — Goodposts (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

References

@ZiaLater and Goodposts:, is Bulgaria resolved, can this section be archived? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I am fine with the current nature of the note, but have not received a reply about the map. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Color will stay blue in the map.----ZiaLater (talk) 07:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Greenland

I know it is a territory of Denmark, but why can't Greenland be included in the Non-UN states that recognizes Guaido?? Whoever made the map put Greenland as a place that recognizes Guaido, so the list should correspond with that photo. It is just like South Ossetia and Abkhazia from Georgia that recognizes Maduro, but they are also are not countries or public territories. Greenland has their own national anthem, flag, and system of government on the island including a high-commissioner and its own 31 member parliament. With that being said, I think Greenland should be included in this list. Thoughts?? Ballers19 (Talk) 04:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Anyone??Ballers19 (Talk) 00:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

That'd be like listing Gibraltar because it's a British territory. Greenland isn't a state, it doesn't claim to be one and nothing recognizes it. Why would Wikipedia? Kingsif (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Myanmar and Namibia

TASS is not a reliable source; I have removed these for discussion and better sourcing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

1. Myanmar
2. Namibia

Also, these sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Why? Because it is Russian? Since when something being from Russia is invalid for Wikipedia? RBL2000 (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC) — RBL2000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

No, not because it's Russian; because Wikipedia has standards and guidelines for reliable sources. You can see them at WP:RS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Fenetrejones: could you please engage the talk page rather than continuing to insert text that is not based on reliable sources, and communicating your reasoning only via edit summary. Specifically, what does this edit summary ("have not been revealed yet") mean?

Myanmar and Namibia are officially part of the “counter US” alliance that supports Maduro, others Include St Vincent, Cuba, Bolivia, Suriname, Russia, Palestine, Iran, Syria, North Korea and China The rest of the members have not been revealed yet.

Do you have access to information that is not publicly available? Wikipedia relies on published sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Moving to talk again for discussion and sourcing:

1. Myanmar
2. Namibia

Fenetrejones, please discuss your edits on talk. There is nothing on the source's website that addresses reliability, the statement seems to be based on Arreaza's statement, and we should have a stronger source for this kind of content, not a marginal source asking us to take Arreaza's word for it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

First of all, I never made up the whole Anti USA Coalition thin. That is stated in many sources ( here are just a few:) so the coalition is mentioned in reliable sources. In the context for Myanmar and Namibia, the source states "On the other hand, work will be initiated in different instances to defend the principles of the UN Charter such as non-interference and respect for the independence of nations, this with the support of countries such as Russia, China, Cuba, Iran, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Palestine, Syria, Namibia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname and Myanmar." This passage is not a quote from Jorge Arreaza, so we don't have to take Jorge's words to heart. Here is where he made the speech this is an official United Nations website btw. Both the permanent represnative of Myanmar and the permanent representative of Namibia can be seen accompanying Jorge to his speech. The sources that I cited, it mentions are the delegates who joined Jorge on his joint declaration at The United Nations.Fenetrejones (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Fenetrejones (talk) 11:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the sources-- most helpful (I did not say you made it up, but I did ask that you provide sources!) I am a bit uncomfortable basing an edit on a statement of who we can see accompanying Arreaza in a video, but we can see what others say. I also think we can be confident that, if these two countries are part of this "coalition", that will eventually be printed in a reliable source-- there is no hurry. Nodal does not even have an "About" page that I can find-- are you able to locate anything on their website that speaks to reliability? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I can not find how reliable they are, but a positive for its credibility is that it is not a Venezuelan, Cuban, or Russian owned website.On top of it the source, just rounds out what is mentioned in other sources because the other sources do mention China, Iran, Russia, Palestine, and North Korea like here .Fenetrejones (talk) 23:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)User:Fenetrejones (Talk) 23:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again ... got it now ... and now that I understand what the situation is, I will be looking for a reliable source for your addition of these two countries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Abkhazia and South Ossetia

I would like to know why these 2 "countries", which are satellites of Russia (as in occupied by the Russian military) and only recognized by Russia, Venezuela, Nicaragua and Syria are included as showing support for Maduro as separate bullet points. I'm ok with listing non-UN countries like the Holy See, but at least we should list recognized countries.

^If that's not the case then we should start listing Greenland, and other "countries" as separate entities in the bullet points. We could add Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands as separate bullet points as well.^

I'm being sarcastic, in case you're sarcastrophe impaired, but it all seriousness it does look a little weird to have Wikipedia's own articles here pointing to the fact that some regions are occupied by Russia and listed as "independent" of them in the bullet points. Just my opinion. Luisdanielmesa (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

It says states, not countries. And the two of them got caught up in the wonderful USSR dissolution mess and want to be their own states. Abkhazia is doing pretty well getting there. South Ossetia has a good argument in that North Ossetia does exist and is in a different country as a state. Both have their own governance independent of either Georgia or Russia. (And, y'know, a territory of a country is much different to a state. There's been a fight over where the Crimea goes, and on the map it's separate to Russia and Ukraine.) Kingsif (talk) 01:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

By the logic we have used on other countries, I don't think they belong here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

United Nations

Does the United Nations recognize Maduro?----ZiaLater (talk) 04:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

"The secretary general of the United Nations, António Guterres, has offered to help mediate the political crisis in Venezuela. But as far as the United Nations is concerned, Mr. Maduro’s government is still the legitimate representative of Venezuela.

"While Mr. Guaidó has named his own ambassador to the United States, he has not taken steps aimed at unseating the Venezuelan Mission to the United Nations. Diplomats have said such a change would require a vote of the 193-member General Assembly that Mr. Guaidó’s side would most likely lose".Burrobert (talk) 06:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Burrobert: Yes, but is their an official United Nations opinion? I seem to have been corrected because I cannot find a declaration, statement, etc. Other have argued that due to the secretary general's political background, they are sympathetic towards Maduro. I do not know if the secretary general speaks for the entirety of the UN.----ZiaLater (talk) 06:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there has been any resolution about this dispute from the Security Council or the General Assembly. There was a Security Council meeting in late January, but it was seriously divided and did not pass any substantial resolutions. Maduro's foreign minister took part in that meeting, and not even the US tried to have him excluded. Anyway, the UN continues to host a Venezuelan Mission loyal to Maduro, a situation which Guaido and his allies seem powerless to change.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Kalidasa 777: I may try to create a note about this regarding sources saying that the United Nations still recognizes Maduro. This is a good explanation.----ZiaLater (talk) 09:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2019

Add Greenland to supporter of'Guaido Presidency' Figureskater133 (talk) 06:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

See Greenland section already on this page, above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Unnecessary new category

Please discuss. [7] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Too much overlap. If we make a category for the countries that call for new elections we would have to duplicate countries because it is not clear which prevails, the support for any of Maduro/AN/Guaidó or the call for elections. --MaoGo (talk) 15:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

1) Sorry, I didn't intend to duplicate Italy into 2 categories. Also I didn't realize this Talk section had been created, so sorry about that too. I also accidentally pressed publish instead of Preview by mistake on my first edit before I had put in an edit description, so sorry about that.

2) When I re-entered the change - a new category 'Support for new presidential election' (with a further mod, removing the erroneous Spanish near Tweet), my edit description was:

This is explicitly supported by 2 Italy citations (and others are available if needed) and not contradicted by the 3rd (I've removed a 4th clearly erroneous Spanish little-more-than Tweet); there are seemingly no citations for Italy supporting the National Assembly (and its presence there for weeks has basically been illegal OR of the WP:SYNTH variety); other states may or may not also belong in this new category.

3) There is no need to duplicate countries. But we should NOT put countries into wrong categories using illegal Original Research just because it seems convenient (even tho I have probably been as guilty of this as others). If you are worried that will produce too many categories, then I suggest a single new 'Other positions' category, with text explaining the position of each country in it.

4) Otherwise I shall probably just have to flag Italy with Citation Needed (and an explanation about OR and SYNTH in its reason parameter) and OR flags; indeed I may well feel I have to do so anyway if the matter is not resolved here reasonably speedily, as our readers are entitled to know when this sort of thing is happening.

5) Regards, Tlhslobus (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Tlhslobus, we should be able to resolve this with discussion; @ZiaLater: is the editor who has most closely followed all of the sourcing on that section, so we may hear from them. It is my impression (I could be mistaken) that support for the National Assembly was accorded in the earlier EU vote, and that citation may need to be added for Italy, but Zia may correct me. It is additionally my concern that we discuss whether we have the correct title on that section heading. My third concern is that the heading you propose will result in overlap. As an example, the Vatican supports elections, but is decidedly neutral on the Maduro/Guaido issue, so we need to carefully consider before creating overlapping section headings. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. What you mention about the EU is precisely what was WP:SYNTH - there were seemingly no reliable sources saying Italy supported the National Assembly, but we claimed such support on the basis of our thoroughly dubious interpretation of an Italian vote for a complex EU motion (based on a EU official's interpretation of what that motion meant, and not a statement from the Italian government), an interpretation of the Italian position which was doubtful enough at the time, and which has since been superseded by a more explicit Italian position that seemingly doesn't mention support of the National Assembly (or at least none of our sources say it does) but does mention something completely different, namely support for new presidential elections. Regards, Tlhslobus (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks ! But no, what I am saying is that Zia knows the sources better, and she may have a source that has not been provided here, relative to the EU position on support of National Assembly. I really don't know myself, as this whole thing is moving so fast that it is hard to follow every aspect. We need to take our time to hear from those who know all the sources on any particular area of this fast-moving situation, to get this right before we add another section, which will bring additional issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not that fast moving. The current Italian position was 6 days ago. And we shouldn't have to wait for alleged experts to fix what appears to be OR when Google tells us it appears to be. If we can't correct an apparently erroneous piece of OR because putting in something correct might eventually lead to other problems and because some alleged expert just might eventually turn up with a source that says something seemingly not mentioned in all the other sources, Wikipedia would seem to be in deep trouble. Incidentally, while I have still found no source saying Italy supports the National Assembly, here is a major Italian source (albeit perhaps a tendentious one, tho I think La Stampa would normally be regarded as a reliable source) seemingly at least implying that Guaido himself was saying that Italy does NOT recognize the National Assembly:

To all this is added the open "Letter to the Italian people" written and made known by Guaidó, in which he does not hesitate to point out that "59 countries and the European Parliament have recognized the National Assembly", while Italy "is one of the few that has not yet recognized this path".

Tlhslobus (talk) 17:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

If you are impatient, I suggest you place a disputed tag on that one (Italy) entry while we resolve this. Creating a new section, that causes overlap, results in a mess for several other entries (eg Vatican example above), and we need to discuss not Italy per se, but the naming of each section, relative to sources. I did not say the Italy issue was fast-moving, rather the whole Maduro/Guiado matter is, and I for one am not able to keep track of every source. We KNOW that Italy does not recognize Guaido, that is not what is in question here. In question is what to call the section that Italy is placed in. And the person who knows best the souces about every other country in those sections is @ZiaLater:. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, no need, I've now found a reliable source that does support our article's position, so I'm now going to add that and we can close this discussion. Sorry for taking up your time, and thanks for your very useful contributions. Regards, Tlhslobus (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much Tlhslobus; I knew we could get to the bottom of this with dialogue :) [8] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Could use more eyes at Ilhan Omar

The section of the Ilhan Omar article related to the crisis in Venezuela needs some more eyes. Thanks.Adoring nanny (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Adoring nanny, it sure does, but I for one am not going there, because her article is protected by Israel/Palestine ArbCom sanctions because of her alleged anti-Semitic views, and you make one edit the left doesn't like, you get blocked. Her pro-Maduro, RT/Telesur supporting positions are not well addressed in her article, and I'm not touching it. Warning to other editors. Have fun with that. I suggest that if you want to correct her article to reflect her position on Venezuela, that you go to the correct ArbCom page and get clarification on whether edits about her Venezuela position are exempt from Arab/Israeli ArbCom sanctions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Only the portion related to Venezuela is so protected. I actually was specifically warned because I was editing the Arab-Israeli section and didn't realize about the sanctions. The person warning me said I should stop editing the Arab-Israeli part, so I did. But he didn't complain about the fact that I was also editing the Venezuela part. I assume he noticed and was fine with it. So I think that question has been answered.Adoring nanny (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Adoring nanny Not going there with anything short of clarification from the arbs themselves, and not willing to even ask those questions myself, knowing how touchy that situation is. :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Adoring nanny Any changes that should be made? --Jamez42 (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

That article has a one-revert restriction in place per arb enforcement; if Adorning nanny answers that question, she could be blocked for recruiting. You can google and read what Ilhan Omar has been saying, and what is and is not in the article. Please let's not bring the Arab-Israeli arb sanctions to this article :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Venezuelans that she represents in Minnesota aren't very happy with her views: Star Tribune, letter to editor SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)