Talk:Guaidó administration–Silvercorp agreement

Recognition numbers

The number of nations recognizing Guaidó seems undue (especially in the intro) as there is not a similar entry for recognition of Maduro. It may be inappropriate altogether except for the crisis and recognition articles since reporting of recognition focused on Guaidó instead of Maduro; Maduro remained de facto leader of Venezuela and many nations would maintain their status quo positions without releasing statements. WMrapids (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Multitudes of sources raise this as it provides context for the president; almost no sources include similar for Maduro. I do recall coming across somewhere in the hundreds of sources for these articles one that gave an equivalent for Maduro. Although that probably makes it undue, I wouldn't object to adding the equivalent Maduro info if you are able to locate a/the source that does it. That would mean mentioning that basically the Maduro supporters are Russia, China, Cuba, etc ... but claiming something is UNDUE without a source analysis when this is commonly sourced all over the place, including to AP in the article, isn't the way to go about adding Maduro equivalents. Find a high-quality source instead for Maduro equivalents. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

What is UNDUE and POV are lopsided statements that Guaido had to be "installed" as president when essentially the entire free world already recognized him as president, while Maduro retained control of the military, for reasons explained in scholarly sources, not news reports. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Sample, [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

PS, you are edit warring again to remove long-standing consensual text in the original article from which this article was extracted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• I have to agree with Sandy here, the usual count of countries for Guaidó was used often to introduce his legitimacy during the events. Also have you resolved the in-line templates? It does not seem supported by sources.--ReyHahn (talk) 22:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  So the entry is to reinforce the "legitimacy" of Guaidó? WMrapids (talk) 23:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  Please do not look much into it I was talking in past tense. The point was that for somebody that is new to these articles a president of a nation like Maduro can be introduced by referring to him as "president". Guaidó was no president before the events, however Guaidó's claim to presidency was not a tantrum of some random person, he got some national and international support, (even if he failed his goal).--ReyHahn (talk) 23:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  Ok. The main issue is the intro; the verbal claims of "legitimacy" for Guaidó existed without the context that Maduro held the tangible "legitimacy", which is undue. There's no issue with explaining this more thoroughly in the body. WMrapids (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

We're watching - UNDUE inclusion

Clearly positioned by the authors as a preliminary opinion, undue, removed; please gain consensus before re-adding. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

That is not the case. This was a document published in July 2020. If it were to need revision, the Institute for the Study of War would have made one. Also, they acknowledge the denials made by Guaidó, yet still make their own conclusion. WMrapids (talk) 01:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

It seems that the comments above are not a "good reason" and that the literature written by a subject expert is "hyperbolic opinion". Would like an explanation on this.--WMrapids (talk) 02:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)