Talk:Venezuelan presidential crisis

Iran?

Mausebru added the Iran–United States proxy conflict category to this page. Well, Iran does recognize Maduro, and the Oil Minister of Iran recently met with him. However, I think any relation between this crisis and Iran is tangential at best. Both countries are rich in oil and well-known for their disputes with the United States, but they are very far from each other and not particularly strongly economically or otherwise connected. The crisis was primarily caused by concerns about electoral fraud in Venezuela and a deeper political rift in the country (of course, the United States has had poor relations with the Venezuelan government ever since the time of Chavez, hence their support for Guaidó). Any opinions are welcome. --2A02:AB04:2AB:700:BC59:8151:4E33:5EAD (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

They might be geographically far, but still are close allies united against 'American imperialism' and Venezuela expressed support to Iran during the 2019–2021 Persian Gulf crisis and the Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict, plus the Nuclear program of Iran.--Mausebru the Peruvian (talk, contibs) 22:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

verifikado.com appears unreliable and spam

• User_talk:NoonIcarus#verifikado.com_as_a_reference
• Talk:Jeffrey_Sachs#Expansion_attempts_of_Venezuela_section
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Hipal_reported_by_User:NoonIcarus_(Result:_No_violation)

I've tried to get editors to explain how we could possibly consider verifikado.com as reliable. After three weeks, I'm treating it as spam. Hipal (talk) 00:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

(Strikeout last sentence above). It's been over three weeks, and there's no consensus that it's reliable. --Hipal (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Saying that no explanations have been given to support the sources reliability is demonstrably false: I have stated that "Verifikado is a fact checker"([1]) and that "the website is not a blog, a self-published reference or has any indications that suggest that it is unreliable, particularly without examples." [2][3]). User SandyGeorgia has also commented this, pointing out at Verifikado's status as a fact checker and commenting on how she thinks that the source should be used ([4]). The edit summaries of the restorations go into further details regarding this, and the complaint in the edit warring noticeboard reflects many of these things as well.

Another point I have stated is that [the reliability] it has otherwise remained undisputed for years (WP:SILENT). Not only the cart is effectively being put before the horse, shifting where the onus lies, but the lack of explanations on the dispute of the reliability also makes it harder to offer satisfactory responses. No examples or reasons have been given for the removal of otherwise referenced content ([5]); When discussing the reliability of sources, what's common is to at least give examples on why it should be put into question. ([6]). Even the title of this comment, "verifikado.com appears unreliable and spam", suggests that this assessment is based on personal feelings rather than on policy.

Now the claim has been shifted from saying that not only the reference is unreliable, but spam, which is equally confusing considering how little presence on the project it has (9 pages to be precise, 6 of which are talk pages) and considering that the source's domain is currently dead.

Considering all of this, I kindly ask you to remove the inline tag and leave the text as it was before you started editing. --NoonIcarus (talk) 02:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, no. [7] --Hipal (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Centralizing thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#Verifikado. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Corrected grammar

I corrected grammar in the "lede" section. This Wikipedia entry needs an update. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

End date

Some weeks ago, The Financial Times published an exclusive report saying that opposition parties were considering in withdrawing recognition to Guaidó as president of Venezuela. With upcoming presidential elections in 2024, I think that we can decide to finally put an end date to the presidential crisis and the infobox, specifically on 5 January 2023, date when Guaidó's term would be up for renewal. Any details regarding the consequences can likewise be discussed here. NoonIcarus (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

We might also update the "resulted in" infobox; I'm not sure the number of recognitions are still worth listing there, since they're more a blow-by-blow that happened during the crisis rather than its end result. They're clearly important to list prominently in the article, I just don't see how they belong in that part of the template - it'd be like listing individual battles in the "result" section of a war. --Aquillion (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Map

A discussion related to the map was started at Talk:Responses to the Venezuelan presidential crisis#Colombia and Bolivia. Interested editors can participate there. NoonIcarus (talk) 22:29, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

BRD and ongoing problems

There is an ongoing breach of WP:BRD here (a polite way of saying edit warring) to introduce and give UNDUE weight to one journalist's opinions (Neuman), while removing less biased sources in favor of Neuman's account. Neuman is a journalist who is decidedly anti-Guaido and anti-Trump); his book focuses on and gives a worthy account of the 2019 Venezuela blackouts; other than that, his opinions on Guaido and the U.S. are no more or less worthy than any other reliable source.

I can understand the temptation to read one version of complex events, and think that account answers everything, but a long series of changes here need to be reverted and discussed individually, to remove the UNDUE weight now given to one account, which also at times still puts Neuman's opinions in WikiVoice, in favor of other less biased sources. There has been ZERO discussion of these controversial edits on talk as of 26 October, multiple breaches of WP:BRD, and the article is now to a point that it is difficult to know to which version to revert to correct these problems. Neuman's book has a place in the article; it should not be the basis for most of the article, and Neuman's views have been extensively added as fact (7 September, 24 October, again on 26 October).

Separately, WMrapids, the citations at 2020 Venezuelan Operation Gideon show how to more completely cite Neuman's book, as ebooks don't contain page numbers, it is hard to locate the content you cite if you don't provide chapters-- page numbers alone don't agree across different versions. When citing Neuman, please provide the chapter as done at 2020 Venezuelan Operation Gideon. And please stop editwarring; engage talk when reverting in controversial edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Although I agree all involved in the back-and-forth should talk it through with a focus on individual propositions, there is a bit of hyperbole here. It looks to me that there are 15 Neuman citations. There are more than 466 citations in the article (some are cited multiple times here, as is Neuman). The comment is made that Neuman's book "should not be the basis for most of the article." There is no threat of that.

It makes sense to me that we would want to cite this 2022 book significantly, when I compare it to the other sources in the article.

The vast majority of sources are news articles. The vast majority of sources date from 2020 or earlier, mostly from 2019. This book is one of our most recent sources and -- at book length -- is necessarily a more thorough treatment. JArthur1984 (talk) 20:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not only the number of citations as much as restructuring the entire article to reflect Neuman's POV. And there is not a problem in citing Neuman (when properly attributed as opinion and weighed against other sources) in those portions of his book when he's done good research and footnoted his sources and reporting reliable facts rather than his own or sporadic observer's opinions, rather adding when he goes off with things like, "guaido hired a foreigner to install him in the presidential palace". That's great prose to sell a pop culture book, but not scholarly or content to be included in an encyclopedia. Or the way the Armando Brito content was misrepresented earlier. With full command of all the sources, one has a better shot at knowing when Neuman is writing content that is backed by the preponderance of sources (DUE Weight), and when he's going off into his own opinions based on speaking with a few people. Editing really fast to get in one author's POV is likely to miss the mark on balancing sources, facts, opinions; this week's editing missed the balance, and included POV section headings. Perhaps after the current version is cleaned up, the talk page will be used more actively going forward. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, a specific request for WMrapids is that they please (as discussed on other articles, when citing Neuman) start adding the chapter using the loc parameter to avoid needing to use the {{request quote}} to check Neuman content. I have the ebook and it is not paginated; I cannot verify content based on page nos only. At multiple other articles, it is easily seen how to add the Chapter description. For anyone else who has the book, I encourage perusal of the scanty footnotes, to understand the level of research vs. opinion in Neuman. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I've added the page numbers, which are more specific than a chapter. WMrapids (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

WMrapids I've explained to you that I don't have a paginated copy; I can verify text if you provide chapters. Considering that almost every time you have cited Neuman, I have had to correct it, if you are unwilling to list the page numbers, I will be forced to resort to a {{request quote}} for each instance. That's not a model for collaborative editing; if another editor requests more information for verifiability, please provide it to minimize disruption. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

You are synthesizing an argument about Neuman in an attempt to minimize his reliability. Bias does not equal reliability and the book is very thorough, dedicating many of its pages with interviews of US and opposition officials from a respected journalist. Please stop your dismissive approach. WMrapids (talk) 17:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

We've had this conversation more than once, and you even thanked me for the explanation only a few weeks ago. I have had to correct almost every Neuman citation you have added; please read the footnotes in the book (which are scanty), sort opinion from fact, and take care to accurately reflect the source when its use is appropriate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps this except from WP:SYNTH will help: This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards. As I explained before, this is the normal collaborative process by which we discuss sources on talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I’m not citing policy, I’m describing your actions. If we were going to remove sources with a potential bias from Venezuelan articles, there would be no articles given how polarized the topic is. This is a professional writing a book from their sources and whether you agree with their personal views or not does not mean they are unreliable. JArthur1984 even points out how most sources are news articles while this a dedicated publication on the subject from Neuman, which most likely went through a more stringent review process especially given the sensitive nature of talking to officials. JA also says that there is not an undue amount of information. So what other argument can you provide? WMrapids (talk) 19:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

If you understand I'm removing content solely based on the author bias, then you aren't fully reading or understanding the discussion, and I can't address that problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Here is an easier way to check citations from the physical copy to a Kindle version, instead of requesting chapter titles.

Amazon's preview of the physical copy has the chapter titles and page numbers. Consult the page number in the citation and then you can refer to the electronic chapter.

I think there is only a hard copy physical version, so there shouldn't be any doubt here. JArthur1984 (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, JArthur, but here's what that means, using two chapters we've cited extensively elsewhere as an example:

• Chapter 20, Not Anymore is pages 180 to 189 in my version, 185 to 194 in the hard copy.
• Chapter 30, The Screw-up at Macuto is pages 267 to 274 in my version, 273 to 281 in the hard copy.

So, we can do the reader a service by simply indicating the chapter when we cite it, which is simply not a lot of extra work (copy-paste), or we can expect everyone who wants to verify content if they have a different version to know how to and to want to load up an Amazon preview, figure out which chapter is being cited, then go back to their own version to access the chapter. Which does the greater service to editors and readers?

Because then the next step in most of the content being added to Neuman is to sort which is purely opinion and needs attribution and balancing vs. other opinions for due weight, and which is fact that can be stated in WikiVoice, which in most cases means also reading the footnote sections. Where one will discover just how much pure opinion and speculation Neuman is writing.

The point being, all of this content being added to Neuman requires checking, and it's not a lot to ask someone in good faith to simply add the chapter when citing Neuman. But then we can't demand good faith editing; only ask, to make the work easier on all the rest of us. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I may be misperceiving the disagreement between you two regarding chapter titles.

If the point is you're having a hard time verifying because your Kindle has different pagination, and that you want a chapter title so that you can page through your electronic copy and find relevant portions: you can address that through the Amazon preview method I describe above.

Alternatively, if the point is wanting to add chapter titles to the citations so it will be easier for readers who are in a similar position to you and reading from Kindle, I think that's nice. But it's not incumbent upon @WMrapids to add, anyone interested could do the same using what I am now calling the "Amazon preview method." JArthur1984 (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I ended up getting excited about this idea and simply added the chapter titles myself. JArthur1984 (talk) 20:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

@JArthur1984: most kind of you; see how easy it is? I could do it myself always, but it seems I'm chasing my tail from article after article, cleaning up everywhere, so I prefer to teach others the tricks of the trade ... thx again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

For example, almost all of Chapter 20 is quoting Shannon opinion, with clear sour grapes on board after he was shown the door. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)