Talk:Juan Guaidó/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Bias

I tagged the article as biased and in need of clean up with this edit summary:

Tag as biased and in need of clean up. I found more than one sentence that did not reflect the material in the cited WP:RS. In comparison with wikipedia articles in other languages, this article shows a strong bias. The WP:RS says that he is the self-appointed president and strongly disputed, but you would not know that from reading the first two sentences of the article. The WP:LEDE fails to mention how recently he became head of the National Assembly.

Examples of sentences that make statements that do not reflect what is in the cited WP:RS:

The National Assembly declared Guaidó had assumed the powers and duties of president, and continued to plan to remove Maduro. They called for demonstrations on 23 January, the 61st anniversary of the overthrow of dictator Marcos Pérez Jiménez.

References

Compare this article with the similar articles in other languages:

• Spanish
• Chinese
• Russian
• French
• Turkish

--David Tornheim (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: since I wrote none of the text you are discussing, and haven't looked at the sources, I am going to for now address the issue of other language wikis. Every other language I have looked at does not adhere to the strict policies we do, often has unreliably to unsourced text, and Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Saying this article is biased because of a comparison to other Wikis is off. Please do provide a list of sources where you find problems (I have found many myself as I have dug into text that was here when I started editing), but please do not expect another language wiki to be a guide for en.wiki. Wikipedia is a poor source for comparison, and an example for nothing, and I'm not going to that level. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Separately, to the issues; as I understand it, you have tagged the article as biased based on two sentences where you found problems with reliable sources? Would it not be easier just to fix those? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Kingsif, ZiaLater, and Jamez42:, this is text that was here before I started editing and I've not read the old sources. Would you all like to have a look? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: It seems like it was added (or reinserted) by you in a shower of edits [1]. Anyway, it was just a misplacement of a source, the actual sources appears two line after "With massive numbers of demonstrators coming out on 23 January in cities throughout Venezuela and across the world,". --MaoGo (talk) 01:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@MaoGo:, look what I just found ...

• ref name=CNN23Jprotest "Protestas en Venezuela: miles de personas participan en manifestaciones masivas contra el gobierno de Maduro". BBC NewsMundo (in Spanish). 23 January 2019. Retrieved 28 January 2019.

A BBC source with a CNN ref tag name. Some shower of edits :) So somewhere some citations got mixed up. I'll sandbox the whole paragraph and try to track down what went missing. Thanks for finding that! And now you all know why I name refs that way instead of using those dreadful numbers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

References

I do not know about the other languages, but I can talk about the French version, and the French version has a lot of issues of translation from early versions of this article and it is currently out of date.--MaoGo (talk) 01:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I looked at the Spanish one. The last semi-significant edit was 29 March, the lead is dreadfully full of useless detail, and it has none of the characteristics described by David Tornheim, so I'm still not sure what we are being asked (besides for someone to get in here and fix errors found in two sentences). And without some indication from actual reliable sources, rather than a Wiki, not sure what's next. David? Can you provide a specific of which of the other Wikis has what you're after, so we can look at the sources used? The French and Spanish at least aren't doing it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

You mean I got a source in the wrong place? Gee, that sounds just like the kind of mistake I would make :) One thing I'm sure of: if I fix things, my edit count goes up. So, I will have to leave it to all of you :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Are you telling me the issue in one case is over 23 de Enero being the 61st anniversary and that source being two lines later? Oh, dear. That is the kind of information that doesn't even require a source, by policy. (Sky is blue stuff.) But I overcite. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia I do not understand why you feel these concerns were addressed to you. I never suggested you put that material in the article. I have no idea who put those two sentences in. Does it really matter? The problem is that they do not reflect what is in the WP:RS for the citations, which says things like:

* Opposition leader declares himself ready to assume presidency

* Juan Guaidó said he has constitutional right to assume leadership because Maduro is an illegitimate 'usurper'

* “We aren’t victims. We are survivors ... and we will lead this country towards the glory it deserves,” Guaidó added, calling on the people, the international community and, crucially, Venezuela’s armed forces to support him.

* But he called a day of nationwide demonstrations for 23 January to intensify pressure on Maduro

The sources make very clear these announcements come directly from Guaidó. But our article misleadingly makes it sound like the National Assembly is authoring these proclamations, as if they had passed resolutions. Hence, those two sentences are not WP:NPOV. It gives the misleading suggestion that the National Assembly is backing him far more fully than is stated in the sources.

The article is filled with similar problems which has been noted by other editors.

I mentioned other problems in my edit summary, but those have been ignored.

I never suggested that foreign language Wikipedias are WP:RS. But they are less biased than our article is. They make it far more clear the extent to which the leadership of Guaidó is self-proclaimed and disputed. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, David Tornheim, but I wasn't editing this article in its early days, and that is why I pinged the editors who were so they can have a look at that specific text; they can deal with the sourcing to content concerns faster than I can. MaoGo did determine that I placed a reference after the fact on the 23 de Enero text in the wrong place. I can't help much on the earlier text, that was developed before I was editing here. And please don't communicate about a serious issue like POV via edit summary. In my work, which occurred later, if there is something I need to address, I am sure I will be pinged. Did I say issues had been addressed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

David Tornheim In this edit, I have sorted a ref name mixup, and added citations to Spanish-language sources indicating the National Assembly involvement (as opposed to Guaido only, or Guaido acting only as President) in these events and pronouncements. I am sorry it took so long to get to this; I was not editing this article at the time those sentences were crafted, these are not the sources I would have chosen at the time, but they are what I can find now, three months after the fact.

The English-language media typically simplifies things, while the Spanish-language sources supply greater detail on the local level. There was not any misrepresentation in the article; just inadequate referencing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Article tagged

I agree with Sandy on here. Unless more examples are given, I will boldly remove the template. Comparing wikis here is not a good statement unless more detail is given. Also there are many users working in Venezuelan articles right now, even the smallest issue can be quickly corrected if given exactly where to look. --MaoGo (talk) 01:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I have restored the tags, as they were removed after less than 3 hours, and you have not legitimately addressed any of my concerns. I noticed that editors were selectively invited to this discussion. Why have established editors, some of which have expressed concerns about content being biased have not been invited to the discussion too, e.g. Carrite, Kashmiri, The Four Deuces, Huldra? Numerous editors have noted bias in this article. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

David Tornheim, could you please point me towards where this selective inviting of some editors happened? Because I seem to have been left out, and I don't see anything like that on this page. I don't recall ever seeing Carrite here before? To my knowledge, The Four Deuces, who is a regular here, has the page watchlisted, and I imagine Kashmiri does too.

I am hoping you can lower the temperature a bit and give some examples of things you'd like addressed: pointing us to another Wikipedia though, ugh ... that's not a great standard to aspire to ... It seems I placed a citation two sentences after where you were looking for the information in it, but am waiting to hear what else we might do to satisfy your concerns (as long as you don't expect us to use Wikipedia as a model :) As of now, you've listed not a single thing editors can be working on, so the article tag isn't very helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Ah, now I see the ping you are referencing: it was mine. Yes, those are the editors who were involved in the earlier stages of this article development, while I was not actively editing, and they are the ones who know the earlier text. That is why I asked them to look in. Someone else looked in first and found that a wayward citation was actually mine, and was added after the fact. Pinging editors who can fix something fast seems reasonable to me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit summary to text

Translating edit summary requests to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

On the edit summary:@David Tornheim: in your edit summary you recalled a non-RS discussion with an IP, an archived unelaborated comment by an IP and an archived uncontroversial discussion. Two of them are from two months ago, when the article was in a completely different shape. All of those discussion were addressed, without further complains. Using old conversations that claim bias is not enough to prove bias. Again, the best way would be to give examples so we can address them fast enough instead of discussing politics. The template has been added under insufficient motivation. Please explain. --MaoGo (talk) 12:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Noting the edit summary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

This edit summary says:

• The WP:RS says that he is the self-appointed president and strongly disputed, but you would not know that from reading the first two sentences of the article. The WP:LEDE fails to mention how recently he became head of the National Assembly.)

So, which RS would that be? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

• David Tornheim this edit summary is still too vague for me to address. Which source are you referring to? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• Almost any article about him. A simple Google makes it easy to see that. Have you not been following the news about him?

Self-proclaimed: ...CNBC, Time, LA Times, Business Insider; or self-declared: CNN, Guardian, China Morning Post, Al Jazzera, CBC--Canadian Broadcasting.

I already mentioned this on Talk:2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis here on 19:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC). Did you forget about that post?

Additionally, foreign language Wikipedias I had directed you to say it, and that they probably have sources to back it up if the above is not enough:

Spanish:

Luego de varios cabildos abiertos llevados a cabo en todo el país, el 23 de enero de 2019 se realizó un cabildo abierto en la ciudad de Caracas, en conmemoración de los 61 años de la caída de la dictadura de Marcos Pérez Jiménez, donde estuvo presente Juan Guaidó quien, interpretando las atribuciones del artículo 233 de la Constitución Nacional,[Note 1] declaró asumir la presidencia interina de Venezuela.

References

I might add some other Wikipedias that include WP:RS. Although, I welcome anyone else to as well. How much WP:RS do we really need for this?

--David Tornheim (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: I am not clear how you think the Spanish article text you quoted differs from what is in this article. Es.wiki says Guaido "declared he would assume the interim presidency of Venezuela". We say the same thing, to such an extent that I am guessing the older parts of the articles were translations of each other.

I've answered the "self-proclaimed" at the presidential crisis talk. Also, literally taking an oath before the public because there is no independent judiciary to swear one in is not equivalent to "self-annointed", which overlooks the Venezuelan Constitution and law; that is mixing two different concepts.

Having it both ways:[2] do we agree the mainstream media is imperfect or not? More comprehensive detail is available in local language sources. "Swore himself in" is literally correct; converting that to "self-annointed", "self-proclaimed", "declared himself", et al, is sloppy reporting. To my knowledge, there was zero opposition from the National Assembly-- the only independent institution left in the country.

At any rate, moving on: what is being asked for is more coverage of the "self-proclaimed", "self-annointed", "declared himself" reports in the mainstream media. Covering that in detail is a good idea. Kashmiri didn't want that sort of detail in this article: do you think it belongs here or at the Pres Crisis article, or both? It might warrant its own paragraph somewhere. If we can agree on that, I'll dig up sources. (It takes time to find Spanish-language sources that cover the topic comprehensively, but it can be done. I know I have also seen some in English. After Kashmiri objected to any of that kind of content in this article, I stopped adding it; finding sources months after the fact is a bit harder, but doable.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Self-proclaimed

The WP:RS unambiguously says Juan Guaidó is self-proclaimed. We follow the WP:RS, not what editors want the WP:RS to say. See: CNBC, Time, LA Times, Business Insider; or self-declared: Reuters, CNN, Guardian, China Morning Post, Al Jazzera, CBC--Canadian Broadcasting, BBC, Bloomberg, Fox News [This is an old list. I can find probably 20 more like this from sources in this and other Venezuela articles.] NYT says Maduro is president and Guaido is opposition leader. 3/10/19,2/22/2019. USA Today same. 3/26/19. A different Reuters reporter does call Guaido interim president--the only source I have seen so far that does so.[3]

I already mentioned this on Talk:2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis here on 19:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC).

I am re-posting this regarding this edit by Jamez42 which I reverted. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Lead citations

• I was pinged in here, apparently to give an opinion, so I will. I think the lead shows signs of factional armwrestling — all the footnotes are a bad sign. There should be certain facts about Guaidó upon which all should agree. The fact that Team A is emphasizing that he's under investigation for alleged malfeasance and that Team B thinks he's the runaway popular favorite in some poll or another should all be tossed, in my opinion. We're not going to solve the Nicaraguan revolution or coup or power struggle or whatever you want to call it with a Wikipedia article. The Venezuelan people will ultimately decide that issue. Guaidó is one of the participants; we should note that fact and provide his biography without commentary upon either his character, his international friends, or his relative popularity. If you are worked up about those things on either side, let it go — walk away from this piece. Trust me, it's not going to influence the outcome of the contest one way or the other. I think the piece, in general, is better than it was. Just the facts, friends, fuck the politics. Carrite (talk) 03:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree that we should focus on the facts--or more precisely on representing WP:NPOV what is in the reliable sources. I pointed out cases where the text is not reflective of the content in the sources: The first two sentences are a good example. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Carrite: As of this version, here are the citations in the lead. I've removed the polls and that factional stuff. I don't really consider this an improvement but ... meh ... neither do I care one way or the other. The problem now is the lead is short and we'll have to decide what else should go there, but that kind of work is better done once the issues in the body of the article are settled.

• is recognized as acting President of Venezuela by 54 governments.[2]

  Statement that a reader will expect to find in the lead (how much support does this guy have?). Citation there is reasonable because it's hard data, and if it is removed, someone will cn it.

• AP News reported that "familiar geopolitical sides" had formed in the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis, with allies Russia, China, Iran, Syria, and Cuba supporting Maduro, and the US, Canada, and most of Western Europe supporting Guaidó.[3]

  This is a citation to one source that gives a broad summary of the who supports/who doesn't, and chosen specifically to avoid getting overly specific. Seems appropriate and warranted; reader will want an overview of who supports him, but avoid detail.

• Shortly after Guaidó became President of the National Assembly, he was briefly detained by authorities.[4]

  This statement is cited because Kashmiri was very specific about some aspect of the who, why or when; I don't remember. I'd be very happy to lose the citation, as the text is covered in the body of the article, and not controversial. It doesn't need to be arm-wrestled, but it was. I don't remember the specifics, but could go back in archives to see.

• is the subject of a probe into accusations that he helped foreign countries interfere in internal matters,[5]

  indifferent to whether the citation here is removed, but there is no arm wrestling; it's a straight forward statement, not controversial, covered in the article body.

• He was named to Time magazine's list of 100 most influential people in the world for 2019.[6]

  Appropriate for the lead, also in the body of the article and cited in the body, but if we remove the citation from the lead, someone will probably cn it.

Awaiting your feedback. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, so I was also pinged here, so I will give my 2 cents. First of all, I un−watched this article ages ago, as I thought the pro−Juan Guaidó prejudice absurd. He might be "recognized as acting President of Venezuela by 54 governments"...but he is no more closer to being actual President of Venezuela, than I am. That is the fact, and presenting him as "President of Venezuela Acting" is insanely absurd. Huldra (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Huldra, couldn't agree more. You are raising one of the classic reasons that INFOBOXES SUCK, because you are talking not about article content, but infobox parameters. I don't do infoboxes. But edit war that out of there and end up at ArbCom. In my world, the infobox would be deleted, because infoboxes cannot convey nuance. Considering the long-standing problems surrounding infobox parameters on Wikipedia, my suggestion is to remove that. Which I will do now.[4] Watch it get edit-warred back in by infobox warriors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Huldra, there you go. [5] People just gotta have their blipping useless infoboxes. Ballers19, in my edit summary I linked very clearly to this discussion. Did you read it? If having an infobox is going to generate POV, why not delete it? The long-standing problem with infoboxes is that you cannot convey nuance in a parameter, and this is a nuanced situation. Infoboxes bring nothing but trouble, and provide no information that is not already in the article. In this case, it's a problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not up to a single editor to remove the main infobox, especially with an edit summary depicting this as a consensus. Infoboxes play an important role, for example in search engine results. Their structure offers a fair degree of flexibility - we simply need to use it. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

^ Agree. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

We'll need a separate discussion of how to handle Huldra's concern; the problem is not generated by content, it is caused by an infobox parameter, as they don't allow for nuance. (We haven't had an infobox consensus discussion here, so one editor can be BOLD about it; it was reverted, now we need to figure out how to solve this.) According to Venezuelan Statute, Gauido's title in Venezuela is Acting president, and many reliable sources source that. But to put that wording in an infobox, without context, causes problems. Ideas might be explored in a new and separate discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Applicability of that statute to the situation is debatable, the reason being that Guaidó's presidential claim is disputed (to which I think everyone here agrees). If I got it right, he is Acting President according to one reading of the constitution (the supporters argue that Maduro's last win was invalid because of irregularities in the election process which went against the basic tenets of democracy); he is not Acting President according to another reading (which argues that the irregularities alone do not invalidate the elections and that anyway it's not up to the parliament to rule on elections' validity). We need to be extremely balanced here. Wikipedia's role is not to create facts. We also should avoid selecting sources that support only one side of a political conflict (which is an increasingly challenging task in today's world where the powerful media conglomerates follow the political line of their owners or political backers). — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

^agree. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

And none of that back-and-forth context fits in to an infobox parameter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with Huldra. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

• The Huldra issue is an infobox problem: RFC underway below. If the infobox stays, I don't know how that problem can be addressed, so don't know what else to do about correcting this aspect of the problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Re:Applicability of that statute to the situation is debatable ... he is Acting President according to one reading of the constitution ... The Statute was enacted by, according to reliable sources, the only democratically elected or legitimate political body left in a country that has unchecked power in the Executive and no independent electoral body.[6], [7], [8],[9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14],[15],[16] The statute was enacted precisely to define the transitional process in a situation where the Venezuelan Constitution (Article 333) tells the citizens they must restore and enforce the Constitution if it is not followed,[17], [18], but is silent on by what process they are to do that.[19] To the extent Guaido is recognized as President-by-some-name by 54 countries and various other bodies, the Statute is precisely the law governing what he is to be called in these circumstances. To the extent we have to call the position something, the Statute is the only law governing what the name of the position is. @Jamez42: please check if I have this right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I hope I'm not late to the party. I would say that this summary is mostly, if not completely, correct. It should be mentioned that both Articles 333 and 350 have been cited as late as in the 2017 protests, and the common understanding of said process was to continue protesting and not recognize Maduro as president. I would say that the main issue with the constitutional reading is that we don't have a commonly accepted authority to listen regarding the interpretation. However, I personally believe the opposition has stronger legal arguments, from the irregularities while naming the Supreme Tribunal justices to those during the presidential elections. At the end it sums up to having the reliable sources. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Jamez42 anyone who knows Venezuelan law knows the issues explained in that source, but a) this content is rarely explained in English-language sources, and b) it is nowhere to be found on Wikipedia. If we do not create the building block content, we cannot expect our readers to understand the basics, and we can expect to see ongoing claims of bias based on sketchy English-language coverage even in the best mainstream sources. That is why I am going on about setting priorities: the building blocks needed are missing in the English language, while available in Spanish, and the amount of work needed is pressing. As an example, there is ZERO at Supreme Tribunal of Justice (Venezuela) to help non-Spanish speakers or non-Venezuelans grasp the extent of the issue with the TSJ. The foundational content needs to be built to be in better position to address the concerns of bias editors are raising here. They are not going to get that level of detail from English-language sources, because those do not cover it; English-language sources gloss it over with terms like "pro-Maduro Supreme Court" or "opposition-majority parliament" or "self-appointed president", and readers may think such qualifiers carry the same meaning as they would in a country like the US or UK. This content needs to be developed on Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Ah, I completely understand. Should we start a to do list? I could translate the issues and history of the TSJ as well as other Spanish articles. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42:, I thought you'd never ask :) :) When people in a good part of the free world read "pro-Maduro Supreme Court", they conjure up first-world, democracy privileged things like--the Republicans didn't give Obama's supreme court nominee a hearing-- they have variable and media-driven knowledge of the level of issues in Venezuela. It has little meaning to the average person up North why reliable sources say the only legitimate institution left in the country is the National Assembly, or the consequences of that situation. The National Assembly article doesn't lay out anything about what has been done to that institution; it has barely been touched. The TSJ article doesn't lay out the history. Where do we address that Maduro should never have been interim President to begin with? I can't find that anywhere--we can't even answer Cmonghost's basic questions about succession without having to go off on a wild google chase. Where do we lay out how the President of the National Assembly is chosen? Basic building block information is nowhere to be found, so of course others see bias. They read "self-proclaimed president" and there's no fallback in the English language. I should be able to quickly address the issues being raised here, and I can't. I have to invent the wheel. I just wrote the list in this paragraph. Maybe you can convince those who read and speak Spanish to start writing; I am willing to make the minor grammatical copyedits. :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Thank you very much in advance! I've recently have found myself with less tie to edit, but translating now and then should get the work done. I guess Oscar could also help out and I could bring the idea to the Spanish Wikipedia, although I feel it recently has been less active, one of the reasons of why the articles are outdated. Regarding Maduro's controversy, I think the Spanish article includes said sources, in that language, and I've been told that at its time, during Chávez sickness, it was quite a discussion at the talk page. I think I'll get started with the Tribunal article; we could also include the Articles of the constitution, with the translation from Wikisource, in quoteboxes @SandyGeorgia:

Bias in first two sentences of the article

Above [20] and in this edit summary, I said:

The WP:RS says that he is the self-appointed president and strongly disputed, but you would not know that from reading the first two sentences of the article.

--David Tornheim (talk) 04:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@Kashmiri, Huldra, Carrite, and David Tornheim: you can see here the edit where Kashmiri removed the very balance some of you are asking for. The text before Kashmiri's edit was:

• Guaidó's claim to the interim presidency has been recognized by many governments across the Americas and the world and rejected by others, with some calls for dialogue to resolve the dispute.

The text after Kashmiri's edit was:

• Guaidó's claim to the interim presidency has been recognized by around 50 governments, with some calls for dialogue to resolve the dispute.

I think you will all find that, presented with requests based on policy and reliable sources, editors here are willing and ready to comply, but we are getting mixed messages (with not a single reliable source you want incorporated), and you are criticizing this article for missing content that Kashmiri removed and insisted did not belong here (over my objections for balance). Pleasing four masters is not possible. You can see right here, how I bowed to Kashmiri to delete text you are all now wanting back, concluding with my reminder to Kashmiri that this would come back to haunt us:

Marking resolved, if Kashmiri does not want to balance the article with Maduro's side of the story, I will "take yes for an answer", and agree to leave that out. If there are future complaints about imbalance, see here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)""

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

And here, text about Guaido's presidency being contested is deleted from the body as well (having already been deleted from the lead). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Not resolved. see further comment below, starting with "Sorry" You have not addressed my concerns above. [I will comment momentarily.] What is the hurry to take off the tags? --David Tornheim (talk) 02:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[struck --David Tornheim (talk) 03:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)]

David Tornheim, I was quoting (I thought clearly) an old remark showing that Kashmiri did not want that balancing text inserted. I did not say anything was resolved. I have reformatted the post as a blockquote and with bolding to aid readers who may be in a hurry. I am not, nor have I indicated any such thing anywhere on the page; perhaps you are?[21] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Sorry I did not notice the comment that is emphasized in green by the block quote was from February 2019. Anyone who skims this article may make the same mistake. The organization of this discussion leaves something to be desired, and I will attempt break some up into individual concerns.

Another editor, MaoGo, removed the bias tags less than three hours after I posted them. I do not believe that is a sufficient amount of time to allow all editors who have this article watchlisted to have an opportunity to weigh in. That editor is again asserting that there are no issues, when I (and Kashmiri here have made quite clear that there still are, and obviously we are still discussing those issues. Of note, Kashimi said:

* * * A number of editors have expressed reservations about the obvious, blatant bias in the article, only to be met with rebuttals. I will also add here the worrying use of manipulation techniques, characteristic of propaganda pieces (use of peacock terms and phrases; passing of propaganda terms as objective; selective citations; etc.) * * * — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC) [22]

I cannot spend 24/7 working on this article, and I doubt most other editors can either. Some level of patience is required to improve this article to the point that it is WP:NPOV. There is no deadline.

SandyGeorgia: I do appreciate your willingness to discuss issues with the first two sentences in the WP:LEDE. I will continue discussing that with you (and anyone else) soon. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Great, and thanks for the apology. On the organization of the page, starting off by providing concerns about POV (a serious matter) in an edit summary, rather than a well-organized presentation on talk might be part of the problem :)

As to MaoGo, I can read; I know what MaoGo did. In MaoGo's defense, this article's topic has been on the mainpage for three grueling months (which to my knowledge is almost unheard of), and we have had numerous IPs and non-informed editors enter commentary that has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. When an article is on the mainpage, everyone with a keyboard has an opinion. Your initial presentation could have been done in a more serious manner, and I understand MaoGo's reaction based on the shotgun presentation.

I am only now figuring out there is a big cockup in the paragraph you first brought to attention because some citations got crossed, and I will work on that (thank you for catching that).

And I'd ask you all to get yourselves in some sort of agreement on the scope of the article. Kashmiri wanted none of the politics here; all of it in the presidential crisis article, straight basic biographical info here, and insisted we take out a lot of text, so what the heck.

There is no deadline, I am not in a hurry, but neither is it thoughtful to tie up people's time and an article without presenting organized specifics based on reliable sources that you list. Your time is limited, so is mine (it's spring out there, and my manicure doesn't do itself); let's use our time well. Of course I will patiently discuss, respond and address anything that is reasonable and based on quality sources; I corralled prima donnas at FAC and FAR for years. There's no deadline, but there is an expectation that when you tag an article, you will give us something to work with, and hopefully in an organized fashion, rather than spray from a pellet gun. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I wrote the below response before seeing your response above [with edit conflict]. I have not had a chance to read this most recent response it yet. I believe I am done editing for tonight. Thanks for the discussion. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

• @SandyGeorgia: I disagree that "Kashmiri removed the very balance some of you are asking for." In fact, Kashmiri's edit to the first two sentences was indeed an improvement and more WP:NPOV, but at some point that got reverted and the first two sentences again look like they did before Kashmiri's edit.

I do agree that keeping in the text saying 50 countries agree with Guaido--while not mentioning that other major countries like Russia, China, etc. disagreed--did make this sentence buried in the second paragraph less WP:NPOV. That material did find its way back into the WP:LEDE, so I'm a bit confused as to why you are bringing up this old edit which has already been reverted.

The problem with the first two sentences of the WP:LEDE is that they make it sound like Wikipedia endorses Guaidó. With readers' short attention span, a significant percentage of readers will not get to the middle of paragraph two that mentions the other countries that disagree. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not parsing your second to last para. Kashmiri's version had no mention whatsover of those opposed to Guaido, which I thought odd and unbalanced, but finally agreed to disagree. The "familiar geopolitical sides" source appeared later and provides a way to present better context than a tally of countries. I'm bringing it up again to make sure we agree that both sides should be represented, which kashmiri disagreed with, and that both the tally and the geopolitical should be presented, because that's what virtually every reliable source has done for months now. And if saying what practically every reliable source says (is recognized as acting President of Venezuela by 54 governments)—which I don't see—makes it sound like Wikipedia endorses Guaidó, them why not add back the balance that we had before in the same sentence? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Another thought: at one point, we had compromised on "partially recognized acting president" (with a link to the list of countries) to completely avoid the counting construction. That always left me wondering which part of him was recognized: waist up or waist down. For several months now, reliable sources have been using the tally, 54, to explain who he is; finding an alternate expression to eliminate counting might work to lower your concern that it "makes it sound like Wikipedia endorses Guaido". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

General scope

I may be misunderstanding, but my read so far is that Kashmiri wanted minimum politics in the article, cut a lot of what I called balance saying that belonged only in the presidential crisis article, make this straight bio. I am interpreting that David T wants more info about the level of dispute while Kashmiri wanted none, and Carrite wants no arm wrestling. Since it was Kashmiri that removed most of what some of you are now asking for, more guidance is needed on how to please all of you. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the different positions taken, so please clarify. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• David T wants more info about the level of dispute. No. I want the article to report accurately (and WP:NPOV) the facts regarding Guaidó's rapid rise to power and on his self-proclaimed presidency as they are articulated in the WP:RS. More is not required--accuracy is required, particularly in the WP:LEDE.

I have no problem with having significant details of the recent events of his claimed presidency in the WP:BODY, as long as it is WP:NPOV and accurate. The WP:LEDE should probably be shorted and made more biographical.

Citations: I do not see a problem with too many citations in the WP:LEDE. I believe Carrite's concern about citations is that their necessity was a result of problems from the text, text that was not WP:NPOV. Removing the citations will not fix biased text, but actually exacerbate the problem, making the obvious bias even harder to detect. Instead, the text must be fixed to be WP:NPOV and accurately reflect what is in the cited (or uncited) WP:RS of the WP:LEDE.

I agree with Kashmiri's statement A number of editors have expressed reservations about the obvious, blatant bias in the article, only to be met with rebuttals. I will also add here the worrying use of manipulation techniques, characteristic of propaganda pieces (use of peacock terms and phrases; passing of propaganda terms as objective; selective citations; etc.. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Understood in general terms. (We disagree on the history, and the extent to which RS are represented, but getting in to that is not productive, and it has been repeated enough.)

You said: The WP:LEDE should probably be shorted and made more biographical.

If the kinks are worked out of the body of an article first, the lead flows more easily by following the lead guideline:

The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents ... The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources.

To be "made more biographical" is not precisely what the guideline calls for, and this article is long enough now to have a properly summarized four-paragraph lead, per MOS:LEADLENGTH. If you don't mind being patient, I'd rather not get bogged down in this and find it is a better use of time to focus on content and work on the lead later. Too much time is lost in back-and-forth if one tries to tune a lead before the body is nailed down. For now, I pulled info from the lead per Carrite, and the lead is too short and does not summarize the article. But later on that ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

General questions

Two other things:

David Tornheim, you have offered the French, Spanish, Chinese, Russian and Turkish Wikipedias as directions you want us to go in.

• MaoGo says the French article is outdated, and it's easy to see it's tiny, and I can't glean much from there;[23] please explain what reliable source from there you want us to use.
• I've looked at the Spanish article, and it doesn't fit your characterization. It is clearly a translation of an earlier version of this article, but quite outdated with no recent work, and a ton of irrelevant detail poured into the lead. Since I speak Spanish, I think I can state with some certainty that there's nothing there; if there's a source from there you want this article to use, please provide. (I've also looked BTW at Italian and Portuguese, nothing there.)
• So that leaves China, Russia and Turkey. Since I speak Spanish, I don't have need of translation tools and have never learned to use them. I have no clue how I am supposed to look at those articles to pull out reliable sources, so please pass me a cluestick, and let me know which reliable source in those articles you want used. All I can tell from the Russian article is that it's minimal, and has only 15 sources. I don't know how else to satisfy your concern since I can't read those articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Please read my previous comments about the other Wikipedias. I did not say I "offered the French, Spanish, Chinese, Russian and Turkish Wikipedias as directions you want us to go in." [emphasis added]. I offered them for comparison to show that our article is biased. With multiple editors weighing in right now agreeing that there is bias, it would likely be more productive to discuss ways to eliminate the bias rather than try to copy the material from the other less mature articles. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Regardless, without reliable sources from those articles, there's nothing actionable for me to work on here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Another query. David Tornheim, if I am reading correctly, you are objecting to the sentences where you say the content isn't verified by the source because Guaido announcements and positions are stated in National Assembly voice. There's been kind of a shotgun approach here, so I may misunderstanding your statements. If my understanding is correct, Guaido was/is President of the National Assembly, and often speaks in that capacity. How would you have the article distinguish? Please advise if I am reading correctly your concerns, and an example of how you would deal with him having dual positions would help. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Guaido was/is President of the National Assembly, and often speaks in that capacity. That's like saying that Mitch McConnell speaks for the Senate and Nancy Pelosi speaks for the House of Representatives. Legislative bodies typically articulate opinions via Resolution_(law) not via the whims of the chair. Perhaps the rules in Venezuela are different, but I doubt it. I'd like some WP:RS if you want to claim that.

Regardless of what the actual rules of National Assembly, the WP:RS that I have reviewed says unambiguously that he was speaking for himself, while (in my opinion) his statements deliberately give the impression that *He* considers himself to be speaking on behalf of the entire country. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, I'll look at this with respect to the sources then when I have time; Jamez42 is the one who understands Venezuela parliament the best though. He might offer specifics and elaborate whether there are differences relative to normally functioning legislative bodies in other countries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

From what I gather Guaidó has needed to voice the agreement of most, if not all, the oppositions parties in the National Assembly. Political consultant Pedro Pedrosa has claimed that the Statute Governing the Transition to Democracy has actually prevented Guaidó from taken some actions, while acting in agreement with the Assembly. Of course, this is more of a political analysis than a procedural one. Formal statements by the Assembly are called acuerdos. If needed, I can look up in the Internal Regulation of the National Assembly, which includes all of its rules. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Jamez42, I haven't yet found the time to sort out that misnamed citation in the section that concerns David, and I am busy all day. As soon as I get to it, I will ping you if I am still hung up on the way to address this concern using the NA procedures. We are all very busy editors; it's not necessary for you to take too much time on this until I can get the rest of that para sorted. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: It's alright, thank you for your concern :) I forgot to answer this some time ago, I'm currently busy too but I have some time to answer. I don't think I can think the citation for the time being either, though, so I'll be alert of any advancements. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

In this edit, I added citations to National Assembly participation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Bias of Mainstream Media

Sources: Failed ‘Coup’ a Fake Corporate News Story Designed to Trick Venezuelan Soldiers—and US Public, Dave Lindorf, Fair.org; and Once Again, Mainstream Media Get It Wrong on Venezuela, by Michael Fox, The Nation, about the "uprising", April 30, which leaves no great honour to some of the main US news channels, from CNN to NYT. Comments? Huldra (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Some of this is already being discussed in Talk:2019 Venezuela uprising, maybe you should post there. --MaoGo (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I am not aware of sources with a well known bias being used in most Venezuela articles. If you would like to introduce sources like The Nation and Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, we could also add National Review and Media Research Center for balance. By adding and attributing opinion from dueling biases, we might not get a better read, just a very long article. (It is interesting that back when all of the mainstream media was lined up with Chavez, no one thought them biased.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

To me this reads a bit like a case of false balance (depending on what specific National Review and Media Research Center articles you have in mind), as the Nation piece isn't merely reporting an account of the events that contradicts other sources: it is directly asserting that other generally-reliable sources have misled the public . If we consider The Nation to be reliable, then this article implores us to reevaluate whether mainstream American and British media can be considered a priori reliable in this context (although the article does also seem to suggest that the most erroneous reporting was "in the moment" and that sources like the BBC have corrected earlier reports, potentially making this point moot). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Rosguill mostly beat me to it but I wanted to emphasize that bias and reliability are context-dependent, and bias and reliability are not mutually exclusive. Our decisions should thus be made on context, not blind faith in the perennial sources list. The FAIR article and the Nation article for example contain substantive criticisms of several sources used in this article indicating that they have clear bias and sloppy reporting when it comes to these topics (including several outright falsehoods on the part of CNN and NYT in particular). In my view it's clear that these should not be treated as unbiased sources in light of these shocking errors and falsehoods. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

^Indeed. --David Tornheim (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

"To me this reads a bit like" wanting to have it both ways. If we agree to acknowledge the "sloppy reporting" (which has BTW gotten better in the last two years), we have to recognize it in sloppy terms like "self-annointed" which completely ignore the Venezuelan Constitution, democratically-elected institutions, and law (along with numerous other examples, where by going to local or Spanish-language sources, one finds a more complete story). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• @Huldra: Thanks for providing that. We should always strive for balance based on WP:NPOV using the best sources available. Sources like these help show the full picture and can help us make an accurate article. Noam Chomsky speaks at length about now the mainstream media can act as a propaganda arm of the U.S. administration, advancing the administration's version, slant and goals, without sufficient critical review, real fact checking, or striving for balance and completeness. See Propaganda model. --David Tornheim (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I read the FAIR article and I fail to see what this has to do with anything. Sure we have to be careful with the sources, sometimes news outlets can get events wrong, specially when the coverage is happening live. But that's it, some of those errors have even been corrected by the journal editors (and some are TV coverage that we do not do) . The FAIR article may serve as a reminder for less experienced users (and journalists) but I don't know how it adds to the un/reliability of the sources. We still need sources to cover the information here, if not we will have to wait until books are written about this (and then we will probably have even a more difficult task arguing which books are reliable). Experienced Wikipedia users here try to cross-check and continuously revise the informations provided. Also it is a good practice to wait a little bit and not rush on the news like it happened with the uprising article --MaoGo (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by ... gringos working in Venezuela under difficult circumstances, in the "fog of war", and not quite knowing their way around. FAIR points out errors made by international media, while making just as many errors themselves.

As with MaoGo, I can't take much useful from the FAIR report, except that they make the point that the international media often gets it wrong, all of us well know that, reporting from Caracas is difficult, we can spot problems like the one alleged by FAIR, and we often to always doublecheck and crosscheck with Spanish-language local sources. For example, local sources know that long-time caraqueños refer to the area around the airport as La Carlota, from the days before it was militarized and before CCCT was there. Wikipedia never reported La Carlota was taken, because anyone could see on social media (which is how news happens in Venezuela because of press censorship) that it wasn't taken, and I at least never heard any person claiming it was.

Troubling though is that some of the FAIR errors are not just errors but outright distortions or lies. FAIR says:

But as of this story’s May 7 posting date, no correction has yet been made by the Times concerning the article’s fundamental and far more serious errors of reporting, such as there had been “a predawn takeover of a military base in the heart of the capital,”

But the New York Times article says:

The gamble by Mr. Guaidó was brazen: A predawn takeover of a military base in the heart of the capital, Caracas. The deep symbolism of such an act, it was hoped, would help galvanize soldier and citizen alike to end Mr. Maduro’s authoritarian rule.

The Times does not claim there had been a predawn takeover. FAIR seems to have lied. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

In contrast, The Nation is more subtle than FAIR in claims about what Guaido said and from where he said it: rather than claiming Guaido said they had taken La Carlota, The Nation says, "He insinuates that they have taken the Carlota military base in eastern Caracas." FAIR calls reports of "thousands" a hoax, but cites The Nation which says: "Despite these setbacks, Guaidó led thousands in a march heading west from Altamira". FAIR cites The Nation as "excellent", yet they are several times contradictory. The Nation is a political opinion piece written by the narrator of Puente Llaguno: Claves de una Masacre, which is a lesser version of X-Ray of a Lie, which deals with  The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (film) (edit: order reversed SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)), so bias is likely.

Why are we talking about media bias in coverage of the 30 April event at Guaido's bio? This topic is covered at 2019 Venezuela uprising, and there are enough analysis pieces mentioned there that a section on media coverage of 30 April could probably be added. I don't find anything from these articles to add to Guaido's bio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The FAIR article is obviously referring to an earlier version of the article, titled “Venezuela Crisis: Guaidó Calls for Uprising as Clashes Erupt.” The article you link to is called, "Venezuelan Opposition Leader Steps Up Pressure, but Maduro Holds On," which was updated after the coup attempt failed. Note that both versions say Guaido was at an air force base, when in fact he was outside it. The clear implication was that he had taken over the airport and was surrounded by its soldiers (although one would have expected them to be airmen.) That's the message that Guaido, the NYT and the U.S. State Department wanted to convey, although it was false. And it's no defense to say that the text could be interpreted differently, since good reporting is unambiguous. I was watching the news that morning and got the impression that Guaido had taken over the air base, although when I looked at the cellphone images they appeared to be framed to give the illusion that Guaido had a large number of soldiers behind him. TFD (talk) 06:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

...earlier version which is now corrected (bias or not). If there are any errors still, please discuss at Talk:2019 Venezuela uprising--MaoGo (talk) 06:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks TFD, but I linked to the article FAIR linked to in making the claim. Again, be reassured that most editors working on these articles are well aware of the underlying point: the international media often gets it wrong.

The 2019 Venezuela uprising article could well warrant an entire media analysis section, and there are numerous opinion pieces and analysis reports posted to the talk page there that could be used. Someone might take that on: I don't have time. I hope the earliest versions of that article reassure you that Wikipedia didn't jump or get it wrong; we check local sources on unfolding events. People who know Caracas can recognize inside vs. near La Carlota, and I see no erroneous claims or even insinuations from Guaido; let's use hard news reporting, not biased opinion for that. These opinions may find a place in media analysis for the uprising article; I can't see a place for this content in this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support addition of media analysis section as described by SandyGeorgia when she said, The 2019 Venezuela uprising article could well warrant an entire media analysis section... --David Tornheim (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• @David Tornheim:, it's probably not controversial; lots of editors on that article presented media analysis sources they wanted included, but no one has had time to write it. There are half a dozen or more analysis pieces listed on talk (including the FAIR article), so there is a good indication that a Media analysis section is warranted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Bias not yet fixed

As I have mentioned below, the problems of bias have not been addressed:

The article is biased because it should say that Guaidó is self-appointed, as nearly all of the WP:RS says that. He simply stood up at a rally and declared himself to be the president, shocking his supporters.[24][25] It was only after this bold and unexpected move that others who oppose Maduro (and Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution) decided to go along with it. Although the U.S. and a number of other countries support Guaido, three fourths of countries do not. But the first sentence only mentions those that support him not those that oppose him. The United Nations recognizes Maduro and rejects Guaido.[26][27][28]. WP:NPOV requires us to be honest, not to take a side in the dispute as the info. box does by calling him the "acting president".

Take a look at how Britannica handles it:

Venezuelan politician and leader of the National Assembly who declared himself the interim president of Venezuela on January 23, 2019, claiming that the constitution justified his action because the allegedly fraudulent 2018 election of Nicolás Maduro had left the country without a president.[29]

That's WP:NPOV. We can do better.

I have restored the POV tag. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: just to narrow down the issue, would you agree on replacing Template:POV for Template:POV lead, this includes the infobox. --MaoGo (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

How about fixing the problems in the article instead of trying to tweak the tag? Let's be honest, before Guaido declared himself president, he was virtually unknown anywhere, including Venezuela.[30]. He didn't even have a Wikipedia article until Jan. 6, 2019, he was so insignificant. This huge article looks to me like one big puff piece to justify the U.S. and other U.S. allies' position that this obscure man should be president of the country instead of the man elected to be president in May 2018. The article does not even acknowledge that Guaido never ran for president or that his party (Popular Will) boycotted the May 2018 presidential elections or that the U.S. supported the election boycott based on claims it was rigged. When the Venezuelan government asked the U.N. for observers to monitor the election, the opposition refused.[31] Does the article include these details that make the opposition appear uncooperative? No.

The article says right at the top that Guaido is President. That's not WP:NPOV and is deeply misleading, which is why there is a tag. If the article becomes WP:NPOV, the tag can go away. It's not even close, as many others have correctly observed. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: I have not been able to follow every conversation, I can now understand better your position. My objective with the tag is to be clearer to incoming users so they can quickly understand the problematic. Section templates and point by point reasoning are always more rapidly fixed. Avoid just saying to everyone to WP:SOFIXIT when the talk page looks like it does now. Quick addressing of the point you make: • Yes Guaidó was not very well known outside his party, as indicated in the article. • are you really concerned with the opposition asking the UN to not participate? We can squeeze that in if you wish. (most of that opposition broke up and went into madness in internal battles, Guaido was not publicly in those decisions though) • About the puff piece for Western countries, that is surely a common problem with political articles. Those kind of things are a huge issue that has to be handled properly. Many articles in Wikipedia are read under US protagonism perspective and not give enough focus to individuals. Look at Venezuela during World War II, the article makes no mention to Venezuelans (aside from the president named once). The problem with this asymmetric war between US, the opposition and Maduro administration coverage is that they are not taken by the press in the same way. The US claims are taken rapidly by the international press, the US has a better media there than in Venezuela, if Trump,Bolton or Abrams have something to say it is rapidly covered (and rapidly analyzed). The US public intentions are discussed ad nauseum by the media. The opposition and now Guaido administration has a harder time with very unreliable Venezuelan media, censorship and agressions, and yet Guaidó administration has tried to be more public and more direct. I have never seen so many AP, EFE, AFP, Reuters covering non-Maduro speeches and rallies as in 2019. On the side of Maduro government we have many vague statements, full of rhetoric and denials to any of the problematic Venezuelan conditions (that are indeed covered by the media when press announcements are made). We have to get the structure straight to handle this asymmetry correctly, but we cannot give the same weight to everything.

I really think we need more participation and precise collaborations from your side also. If not these conversation will go stale again and we will have another user trying to get that template removed in the future without being able to follow what went wrong. --MaoGo (talk) 06:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: I think this is not the first time that I ask for this. It probably won't be the last one, although I wish it was. Please, pretty please, let's not argue about the U.S. or the "U.S. allies" regardless of how important this dispute is in geopolitics. It will only bring a false dilemma and mud the discussion. The article was created after January 5th because it was when Guaidó assumed the presidency of the National Assembly. Before that, in terms of notability, he was as notable as any other deputy of the National Assembly; he participated in the 2007 student protests as well as the 2017 national protests. Even before taking the position there were already questions and expectations regarding how the new period of the National Assembly would be. It was reasonable, look where we are now, but be it the case that he was better known both in the country and abroad is irrelevant regarding the POV tag.

@SandyGeorgia: is right when she says that there's a lot of background information that is missing, but said information about the elections can easily be consulted in the 2017 Venezuelan Constituent Assembly election, the 2017 Venezuelan regional elections, the 2017 Venezuelan municipal elections and, of course, the 2018 Venezuelan presidential election articles. I strongly advise to read the Irregularities and Controversies sections. Just like there isn't much background about the opposition, there isn't either about the government. It is false that the opposition, including Popular Party, just decided to boycott the elections: most of the opposition parties were virtually banned from participating just for not participating in the municipal elections, after there was a huge disagreement and controversies to participate in the regional elections, and in turn both of which were previously postponed for a year and had several irregularities. In any case, When did the U.S. support this position? It would be the first time that I'm hearing about it. There were not only allegations that the elections were rigged, but also that they were just flawed right from the start. While you may see that the opposition appears uncooperative, I see that the ruling party actively has refrained them from participating in a fair competition in elections.

I cannot stress this enough: the position of the Western hemisphere or the opposition parties is only a little part of what determines the legitimacy of the presidency of either Maduro or Guaidó. Just to put an example, on 20 February, way before that the political opposition took a stance regarding the participation in the elections, Movimiento Estudiantil strongly rejected the elections, citing among many reasons, and I quote: that they looked forward "perpetuating the hell and the misery lived today".

I hope that considering all of this, it can help to solve the aforementioned issues. Best regards. --Jamez42 (talk) 06:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• @The Four Deuces: Thanks for coming to this article with your recent observations here. You are a long-term editor, and I have been impressed with your ability to support and insist on WP:NPOV and keep your cool. I am hoping you can help address the concerns of bias I and other long-term editors have noted. Right now, a number of editors who are singularly focused on Venezuelan politics (SPAs), are making most of the edits and dominating the talk page discussion. We need more neutral editors here insisting on WP:NPOV. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Excessive reliance on non-English sources

This article relies excessively on non-English sources. Given that this is an English-language project, this diminishes verifiability. Guaidó has been extensively covered by English-language sources, and given that per WP:NONENG "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance," I think more care needs to be taken in searching for English sources before using non-English ones.

A related problem is that quotations are sometimes being translated into English by editors without an indication that the original quotation was not in English. See, for example, this diff: [32]. Reading the text as written there, the quotation marks around "help to restore constitutional order" imply that Guaidó said those words. He did not; he said "estén dispuestos a recuperar el orden constitucional". Again, see WP:NONENG: "In articles, the original text is usually included with the translated text when translated by Wikipedians."

This article has severe POV problems; an emphasis on verifiability would go a long way towards addressing them. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for these comments. I too have noticed content that is not reflected in the sources. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

@Cmonghost: @David Tornheim: Is there any way I can help you two verify some Spanish-language sources? Any concerns in particular?----ZiaLater (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Here's an example of a case I just tried to check but wasn't able to due to the language barrier:

On 12 March, the National Assembly approved cutting Venezuela's oil supply to Cuba, saving about US$2.6 million daily, according to Guaidó.[33]

What I wondered reading this was whether this cut actually happened, or was just approved. The text implies that it did, but my impression, which could be mistaken, is that what the National Assembly approves is often or usually overruled by the constituent assembly, or just disregarded altogether. I can't check, though, since I don't know Spanish.

I honestly think a thorough check of all the references in the article would be warranted (not that I think it would be feasible to complete this anytime soon obviously); I did this with the Public perception section and found a number of places where the sources cited were not accurately reflected by the text. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Check here [34]. I would change the wording to reflect some nuance "they have voted in support" (but not add that it was accepted).--MaoGo (talk) 22:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I updated the article with this source. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 03:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

There are at least two problems with using foreign language sources. First, references are helpful to readers who want to know more about the topic. Second, editors use references to check the accuracy of the text. Both are easier when the sources are in English. And while the Spanish sources may be reliable, readers are not familiar with them unlike for example BBC News. One editor said that the story is so fast moving that we cannot wait for English language sources. But Wikipedia is not a newspaper and there is no deadline. I note that no one has added the division that has developed between Guaido and the rest of the opposition and U.S. State Department over the Norway peace talks. TFD (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I fully support replacing Spanish sources when English ones are available. Nevertheless, sometimes that's what we got, the same way that there is no deadline for Wikipedia, we can also say that Spanish source can be substituted once the English sources come to date. For example, when updating on the new numbers of the inflation, every French newspaper that uses AFP (Agence France-Presse) cited explicitly the inflation numbers for each year since 2015, while neither English nor Spanish sources did. AFP newspapers did not bother to write the numbers in their English version of the coverage. It is a reliable source and it is in accordance to the primary source, but this agencies are being neglectful sometimes, the alternative is to wait indefinitely until a better agency covers it or a book is written. I have many examples like this, specially when the comparison is between Spanish and English sources. I tried to update a source in the 2013 elections article about the constitution and I couldn't find an English source even today. --MaoGo (talk) 19:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• @The Four Deuces: Thanks for your comments. Very welcome. In response to your two major points:

(1) Sources: I tend to agree with your concerns. The one advantage of using some foreign language sources--particularly on articles like this--is that it might cut down on the American mainstream bias that supports U.S. administration goals (see Media_bias_in_the_United_States#Pro-power_and_pro-government_bias). The U.S. administration definitely has a "dog in this race", and the reporting tends to support the administration's position. See:

• Talk:Juan_Guaidó#Bias_of_Mainstream_Media (permalink)
• This article that talks about bias in American media in reporting on Venezuela.
• "There's Far More Diversity in Venezuela's 'Muzzled' Media Than in US Corporate Press". FAIR. 2019-05-20. Retrieved 2019-06-02.
• "Venezuela Coverage Takes Us Back to Golden Age of Lying About Latin America". FAIR. 2019-02-22. Retrieved 2019-06-02.

TeleSUR (which has an English version) seems to lack that kind of pro-American government bias, but Wikipedians seem to prefer the American bias to biases of TeleSUR.

(2) I note that no one has added the division that has developed between Guaido and the rest of the opposition and U.S. State Department over the Norway peace talks. I support adding that material. The same goes for this: "Brazil snubs Venezuelan opposition envoy as doubts rise on Guaido". Reuters. 2019-05-31. Retrieved 2019-06-02.

--David Tornheim (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: This article has been under serious revision due to people not following RSs and now you want to promote Telesur? (are you seriously considering it a RS?) Anyway Telesur is a no-no per Wikipedia:Deprecated sources.--MaoGo (talk) 08:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Maogoa, if something is reported in French sources but ignored in English or Spanish sources then it is not important, per weight. Articles are not here to explain what English media has not reported but to summarize what they have. TFD (talk) 03:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Even if it just the data numbers from the Central Bank?--MaoGo (talk) 06:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The problem here seems to be the excessive use of sources which I don't like, let's instead propose the best source there is: Telesur, simply astounding. --Oscar_. (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@Oscar .: Thanks for your comment. I think it is worth reviewing the WP:RfC mentioned above that put TeleSUR in such bad standing on Wikipedia, which is here.

Please note that the RfC's neutrality was immediately challenged in the first comment by Slatersteven. A number of the editors who participated are the same group of SPAs that edit at this article and edit almost exclusively in Venezuelan political articles. That includes the AfD's proposer, ZiaLater, who has a whopping 1,300 edits to Venezuelan protests (2014–present). (See ZiaLater's edit history). It is no surprise to me the request to eliminate TeleSUR as a source came only days after Guaido proclaimed himself president, so that TeleSUR's pro-government bias would be excluded, unlike the pro-opposition coverage from the U.S. media.

One of the reasons given to downgrade TeleSUR was the claim that it lied about the recent humanitarian aid delivery (See: [35]). But it was the American media that got it wrong, not TeleSUR, acknowledged by the New York Times. (See also Max_Blumenthal#Venezuela, [36], [37], [38]).

I certainly would not call TeleSUR neutral, but neither would I call the U.S. mainstream media's coverage--particularly on Venezuela. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The NYT claims that TV, Twitter politicians and less reliable sources lied about the trucks, but Telesur did indeed lie also, see this fact checking by the AFP [39]. Let us keep this conversation under reliable sources. --MaoGo (talk) 05:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually that was my second comment, my first was to say I suspected the sources reliability.Slatersteven (talk) 09:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

What was the first comment of Slatersteven?--MaoGo (talk) 09:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

"I would have said not very reliable.Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)".Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Oscar .: Please remember to assume good faith. The problem is not that I don't like a given source; as I said, the problem is too many non-English sources which makes it difficult for an English-only reader or editor to verify the claims sourced from them. This is particularly a problem since many of the citations from English sources on this page do not accurately reflect their content; this is likely true of the non-English sources as well, but it's difficult for me to know. If you have anything constructive to say about that, I'd appreciate it. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@Cmonghost: TeleSUR publishes in English too. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I know that, but I'm not sure what that has to do with my comment? I didn't say anything about Telesur. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 23:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry if my last message was seen harsh but this has become a circular discussion for quite some time. The comparison between Telesur, a propaganda machine that fabricates fake news (there's plenty of evidence of this in the RfC, but certainly not enough for some folks) and the likes of New York Times is boggling. Also, who says that editing exclusively about Venezuelan politics makes you instantly biased? Guilty as charged if that the case --Oscar_. (talk) 11:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Of course Western sources are biased and can be careless with their facts. However that is true of all sources. All news organizations adhere to their own values which colors their view of the world. Policy however requires us to accept their facts and opinions until academic sources are available. We are of course allowed to mention that some sources, such as Telesur, dispute them. But whether or not it is a reliable source, it has very little weight. However that does not mean that we should omit information reported in mainstream media that coup supporters find inconvenient, such as the fact that they set the aid truck on fire, that Guaido is negotiating with the government or that his envoy was refused by Brazil. TFD (talk) 14:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Great @The Four Deuces: now I'm a coup supporter just for the fact I distrust Telesur as a source. There goes WP:GOOD FAITH through the door. --Oscar_. (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

No idea how you came to that interpretation of my remarks. TFD (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Familiar geopolitical sides

Ballers19, please stop altering the wording from the Associated Press about "familiar geopolitical sides" forming. There is no intent-- or need-- to spell out every country that supports Guaido or not. That would be in the Responses to the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis article. The "geopolitical sides" quotes provides a succinct summary of the situation, and that is all that is needed here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

It does not make sense to say "Western" Europe when it is most of ALL of Europe. Everything I edit here always brings problems for no reason. I sited a source, gave relevant information, and my claim is valid. It is not just Western Europe, it is most of ALL. Therefore, that sentence is not correct until it is changed to just "most of Europe". I did not spell out every country, it was a simple name change from "Western Europe" to just "Europe". The Associated Press may say one thing, but other sources say different. Ballers19 (Talk) 01:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Ballers19, I would like to echo SandyGeorgia in asking you to please stop edit warring. The sentence says "Associated Press reported..." and you are repeatedly changing it to say something that the Associated Press did not report. Since we're discussing this, my vote is to include what the source actually says and not make things up to suit a particular narrative. I have already fixed this a couple times, so I won't undo your edit again, but the current wording, "The Associated Press reported that "familiar geopolitical sides" had formed in the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis, with [...] most of Europe supporting Guaidó.[3]" is false and needs to be corrected. The AP reported no such thing. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 03:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Ballers19 I agree with SandyGeorgia and Cmonghost. Please stop. I have reverted back. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

"Western" Europe is still wrong. If you take a look at the date published in the article by The Associated Press, it is from 29 January 2019, and 29 European countries (NOT JUST FROM THE WEST) declared their support and recognized Guaido as interim President on 4 February, 2019, many days after The Associated Press published their article. They only said "Western" Europe at that specific time, because Spain, France, and the UK had unofficially voiced their support for Guaido through some media outlets, making its way to the United States and its media. Leaders of ALL of Europe officially took recognition for Guaido on 4 February. The part of the sentence stating "The Associated Press..." needs to be removed as well, as it is not relevant to the paragraph. That is what citations are for at the end of the sentence.

Now, do you think it is grammatically correct to say "Western" Europe if is is more than just Western? No, it is wrong. Sweden, Finland, Latvia, Kosovo, Romania, etc., are not in the West. Therefore, my stating "Western" Europe, it gives readers the image of only thinking of Spain, France, Portugal, the UK, Germany, and some others. Whereas saying "most of Europe" gives a more broad perspective to the reader. The article by the Associated Press is old and not valid anymore due to dozens of other European countries recognizing Guaido and not just the West. You can all fight me on this one all you want, but my point has been proven and some arrogant people here are only changing my edits because they've disagreed with me in the past, and that's fine. But when it comes to citing correct information and having this particular article be grammatically correct, I will not let this one go. Only stating "Western" Europe is FALSE and needs to be taken out. It is just "most of Europe". I can provide sources if need be as well, that are more recent and show more than just Western Europe recognizing Guaido. I have also received some 'thanks' for my edit by removing "Western", so keep that in mind. Ballers19 (Talk) 04:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ballers19: You need to base your argument on the WP:RS, not on what you believe to be true. What you believe to be true is "original research" (WP:OR). We don't do that here. Put in references for everything you claim above, and maybe you will have better luck making your case. Without WP:RS that says what you say, you will get nowhere.

In your edit, you replace "Western Europe" with "Europe". But the source YOU use--specifically this AP article--says:

Russia, China, Iran, Syria and Cuba have come down on one side. The United States, Canada, and countries in Western Europe are on the other. [emphasis added]

That is why I reverted you to put in what the source says, not what you say. You are not the authority; the WP:RS is. That's how things work here. It's a simple Wikipedia rule. Spend more time reading the rules rather than wasting our time adding something that breaks our rules.

If you can find reliable sources (WP:RS) that say just "Europe" and not "Western Europe", then you may have a leg to stand on. Until then, you will continue to be reverted. What you are doing is called original research. Not okay. Edit-warring is a serious problem--see your talk page. You can be blocked for it. Don't do it. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Before you start attacking me over the internet, look at some sources. There are only a couple that state "Western" Europe. Also, it is NOT my opinion to state just "most of Europe". It is basically common sense, which you seem to be lacking.

https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/eu-leaders-recognise-guaido-in-venezuela/ States all the countries and not just "Western" Europe

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/04/juan-guaido-interim-venezuela-leader-europe Also did not state "Western" Europe, due to the fact that The Associated Press published their article BEFORE countries in the EU officially declared support for Guaido, which you seem to be misunderstanding as well

https://www.apnews.com/f2cd6e1754dd4154b8ce71cc63e1c8c5 Oh wow, take a look at this one. By the Associated Press, on the correct date, not stating "Western" Europe. Hmm, maybe I have already proven my point??

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-47115857 Another reliable source not stating "Western" Europe, because it is published after 4 February, 2019

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-47053701 States just "European Countries"

I think the article that was provided previously should be discarded. That article was published before nations in the EU declared support for Guaido. Therefore, the article has no legitimacy because no European nation officially declared support for Guaido until 4 February, 2019. We can continue to discuss, and you are more than welcome to continue to play child games and revert my edits. Blocking me will also not do anything. Thanks! Ballers19 (Talk) 17:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

None of those sources state that "most European nations" recognize Guaidó, which is the language you are attempting to add. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 18:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

And the reason for citing one succinct source here is to keep it simple; if the reader wants to know every country that supports either Guaido or Maduro, that is in-- and is more appropriate to-- other articles. Once we start trying to spell out the whole list, the content here becomes longer than necessary or warranted. The "familiar geopolitical sides" construct sums it up nicely. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2019

I agree with Ballers19, the source provided is no longer valid because there are new sources that show more support for Guaido from all of Europe, not just the west. Remove "Western" Europe and just leave it as, "most of Europe". There are many sources that can back up this claim, only a select few say "Western" Europe because they are old Xofiesty (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Please do not use edit requests to attempt to circumvent ongoing discussion. NiciVampireHeart 19:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Well I guess some people just don't know how to edit correctly, and it is a shame. Nonetheless, thanks for the support! Ballers19 (Talk) 17:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

All you need is to provide a similar source, something along the lines "X agency says that Maduro and Guaidó have formed 'familiar sides' Russia and etc. with Maduro and US, Canada, Europe (and Latin America, and Australia, and South Korea) with Guaidó" --MaoGo (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The point is, the entire sentence could be reworded using a more recent article. No? Ballers19 (Talk) 04:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Propose a new wording then.--MaoGo (talk) 10:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

BBC reported that political sides have formed between Juan Guaido and Nicolas Maduro, forming the 2019 Venezuelan Presidential Crisis. China, Cuba, Iran, Russia, and Syria voiced their support for Maduro’s presidency. Meanwhile, after Maduro ignored an ultimatum by the European Union for new elections, dozens of European countries recognized Guaido as the legitimate leader. The United States, Canada, Australia, and most of Latin/South America also recognized Guaido as interim President.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-47053701

Something like this??? Ballers19 (Talk) 15:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

The phrase is kind of ok for me but the source does not go along. Nowhere it says something silimar to "political sides" and the recognition is made over several paragraphs. --MaoGo (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Note also that above the current paragraph there is a link indicating that +50 countries support him and more details are given in the following sections, plus a whole wikiarticle written about who is supporting who. The AP phrase is just to indicate that the usual Cold War-like sides formed at first (that is why Latin America is not included). --MaoGo (talk) 17:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Another point I should have made is there could be a change in wording for "forming of political sides". In the articles, they say that some countries are recognizing Maduro or Guaido. I think we could just say "BBC reported that some nations are taking sides by recognizing either Juan Guaido or Nicolas Maduro as the legitimate President". Not a lot of articles are saying "forming of political sides", they just state who is recognizing whom. The article from The Associated Press is old and a new paragraph should be formed to keep up with what is going on. It is more than just Western Europe that recognizes Guaido. Therefore, there should be a way to put that information into context. Ballers19 (Talk) 18:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

A shorter version works for me. --MaoGo (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, the proposed shorter wording would be redundant given the previous paragraph which already makes it clear that different countries have taken different sides. This change removes the historical context that is currently there. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 20:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

It is not necessarily a different version, it is just a rewording to make the paragraph more recent. The article listen in the current paragraph is outdates from January, and a lot has happened since. Therefore, a new article should be included and replace the information already provided. Look at my examples above so we can come to a consensus. That article was before European countries officially recognized either Guaido or Maduro, and also not to mention Japan, Australia, and South Korea. A newer article should replace the old one with different wording. Ballers19 (Talk) 06:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I continue to support the AP "familiar geopolitical sides" as the most succinct summary of the situation, considering also that a link is provided to the Whole Blooming List for those readers who want to explore deeper. If another, more recent source appears that summarizes the situation as well as the current AP source does, then I would support a change. For now, we have the most succinct summary I have seen in sources, which I still believe to be appropriate for this article. We don't have to spell out every country that supports Maduro or Guaido; we do a good job by saying there are familiar divisions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Ballers has a point though, the article is old and is drawing false sides (why it does not speak about Latin America?). But currently I agree that it is the best article we got so far. I hope that at some moment we can WP:TNT that lead to avoid more POV issues.--MaoGo (talk) 11:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@MaoGo: I may be up for the TNT task.----ZiaLater (talk) 18:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: you either write something and we comment on it, or we start a new discussion on what should be included in this new lead. --MaoGo (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@MaoGo: Take a look.----ZiaLater (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

It is ok but not a great improvement, you just eliminated Maduro's supporting countries. What do @SandyGeorgia, Ballers19, and David Tornheim: think? See [40] --MaoGo (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Finally someone agrees with me. The AP version is out-of-date and needs to be refreshed. We are not spelling out every single country supporting Maduor or Guaido (even though the version already there is spelling out nations for Maduro). The point is the "Western Europe" part is not up-to-date, because that article is from months ago. Isn't it our duty to stay updated for readers with the correct information? A lot of other sources give good summaries rather than the old version by AP, SandyGeorgia. We could find literally any other article that is not as old. We can still say there are familiar divisions, just with more updated information. MaoGo and I agree on this, there could be better articles and we could all try to find some, not just me.Ballers19 (Talk) 01:00, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

If it helps, I have to agree that using "most of Europe" is more appropriate. --Jamez42 (talk) 10:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I think we would need to see a reliable source using that wording first; so far we've seen "many" but not "most". — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 11:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

This back and forth about what you wish was in the WP:RS is not helpful. Please provide the WP:RS and then we can discuss how to summarize it in the article. If you don't have the WP:RS, please just find it and stop talking about what you wish exists and you wish it said. If it doesn't exist, that's the way it is, that's not a problem. Is it? If it is a problem, please explain why.

As for keeping the article up to date, there is no crisis here if the article is using sources a few months old. A claim such as "most of Western Europe" that has a date with it is fine. Obviously support can increase or decrease, so putting a date protects the validity of the article when circumstances change. If you want this Wikipedia article to be updated daily to reflect every change in circumstances in Venezuela (or any other subject matter), please give that hope up. The volunteers we have do not have enough time for that. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I will search for a more up-to-date article that we could use. Ballers19 (Talk) 19:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

We do have this new article that can be incorporated:

"Brazil snubs Venezuelan opposition envoy as doubts rise on Guaido". Reuters. 2019-05-31. Retrieved 2019-06-01.

That will help keep it up to date, which I know is a concern. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:58, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Correct, however it does not include anything about the America's and most of Europe recognizing Guaido. That is the problem trying to be solved in this section. The article from the AP was published before European nations recognized Guaido, so it is more than just "Western" Europe that recognizes Guaido's presidency. Ballers19 (Talk) 00:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Brazil's Bolsonaro formally recognises Venezuelan opposition envoy --Jamez42 (talk) 09:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Pompeo -- "Keeping Opposition United"

WP:RS for consideration:

• "Pompeo: 'Devilishly difficult' to keep Venezuelan opposition united". Washington Examiner. 2019-06-06. Retrieved 2019-06-06.
• Budryk, Zack (2019-06-05). "Leaked audio reveals Pompeo saying US has struggled to keep Maduro opposition united". TheHill. Retrieved 2019-06-06.
• Washington Post, "Exclusive: In secret recording, Pompeo opens up about Venezuelan opposition, says keeping it united 'has proven devilishly difficult'." 6/5/2019.

--David Tornheim (talk) 13:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: Seems fine, just do not know where it will be included. It seems that he is speaking about the military surrounding Maduro as well, not just the typical opposition. If anything, it can be placed in the US-Venezuela relations article and the responses from the Council on Foreign Relations and WOLA seem valuable as well. Side note here; it is interesting that the Washington Post updated Guaidó's support to "some 60 countries" because I have not seen that anywhere else.----ZiaLater (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)