Talk:Responses to the Venezuelan presidential crisis/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Using "pro-Maduro" as an adjective

This and related articles have been drafted, edited, and approved to appear on the main page by administrators, FA reviewers, and subject matter experts. Now Notrium, who has never before edited a Venezuela-related article, comes to think that using the term "pro-Maduro" is not NPOV. That's the background before I respond to his comments.

@Notrium: Venezuela's government for the last few years has become more fractured than ever before, resulting in the National Assembly (the main elected government) being ignored by the President, who also all but banned anyone but him running in the last election and so is internationally disputed and internally seen as a dictator by those legitimately elected people of the National Assembly. The President (Maduro) then created the Constituent National Assembly to replace them, and filled it with his friends, holding complete control over it. This is lengthy to explain to people who don't know that, and who would otherwise think that the body called Constituent National Assembly sounds perfectly legitimate, and thus to summarise it we say "pro-Maduro", which it unarguably is. Even they themselves use it, and do so proudly. This is similar for other government and electoral institutions; the National Electoral Council had all of its members replaced with, again Maduro's friends, so that his perhaps not-so-fairly won victory wouldn't be challenged - so we call it "pro-government", as in Maduro's government, because it will not challenge their rule. It's just a statement that simplifies a long-winded background. The background is not necessarily needed, but for the average reader to not be confused when this article tells them an Electoral Council that in any other country would arbitrate on electoral proceedings seems to do nothing, we must give the adjectival phrase that sums up that this institution has an affiliation. Which is in the sources, too, mind.

This is why the terms must be used, not that they are biased in the first place - they are biased only if you think that supporting Maduro or the government is inherently bad or good and using the term would be denoting that; the good standard of writing in these articles means that while facts are presented, the opinion that being 'pro-Maduro' infers anything besides exactly what it says is not given. That's your own reading.

ETA: The same goes for the Supreme Tribunal of Justice; I already explained that in an edit comment saying that, well, there's two of them. Do you want to really confuse readers by not telling them which is which? No. And the only way to separate them is by the one that exists to back-up Maduro's statements and the one that's trying to get him arrested. So guess what we have to say... "pro-Maduro".

This is a very common term that has been used for years in relation to the political turmoil in Venezuela, completely unchallenged, both on Wikipedia and in popular media. So, I'm not making a personal argument when I say "I don't think you understand", I simply mean, again, exactly and only what it says: I don't think you understand, because no editor who does would think that the label isn't NPOV.

Kingsif (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Kingsif:, Your comments above contain many easily verifiable factual errors, like claiming that I never edited a Venezuela-related article or that Maduro "banned anyone but him running in the last election", or that the term "pro-Maduro" has not been challenged before in that context in those articles. Furthermore, you are still condescending towards me - please be civil.

Also it seems like you have not read my edit summaries (because you are ignoring some of my arguments again), so I am going to have to repeat myself a bit here (but edit summaries do have the length limit, so maybe I should not blame you on that so much ...).

By qualifying an institution as "pro-Maduro", you are pushing the POV that the institution lacks integrity and agency, to assert a claim like this one you would need reliable sources; and even then the claims should for neutrality be qualified with who exactly is claiming that the institution is "pro-Maduro". Even then, the phrasing could not be exactly the words "pro-Maduro", as that is a simplistic, arbitrary and subjective, and thus non-encyclopedic characterization. In which other Wikipedia articles can you see such phrasing in relation to a group or institution, especially of such high dignity as a supreme court or a constitutional assembly?

Regarding your own arguments that the adjective "pro-Maduro" is necessary for disambiguatory purposes: Firstly, you are overblowing the issue of ambiguity, as the other supreme court is already qualified with "in exile". If you want to clarify which supreme court a statement relates to (which I would not mind at all), you must use neutral language, such as "Supreme Tribunal of Justice in Venezuela".

Lastly, since I suspect you carry pro-Guaido and/or anti-Maduro feelings and are maybe be involved with the crisis to a degree that makes it hard to keep neutrality, I would like to remind you that we are talking about a constitutional crisis here, meaning that all sides are trying to (or at least pretending to) act according to the relevant constitution an we can not (for neutrality) give one of them the air of legitimacy or illegitimacy without very good justification. To be honest, after reading your comments above (eg., "because it will not challenge their rule"), I am convinced that you see the situation here in a "black and white" fashion, and I would suggest that you refrain from editing the Venezuelan crisis-related articles in the interest of neutrality. Notrium (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

EDIT: as a thought experiment, try imagining using pro-Guaido as you did pro-Maduro. That may help clarify the effect on neutrality. Notrium (talk) 23:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Notrium: First, thank you for being civil - I can assure you that none of my comments to you have been intentionally uncivil or condescending, as I haven't read yours to be. I also skimmed a few pages of your edit history and saw nothing Venezuela-related, so forgive me if I missed something [ETA3: now found, you edited one page c.5 times to remove things (correctly, I guess, so thanks) about support of the National Assembly, in what looks like a capricious sojourn from more European articles. No wonder I missed it!] (regarding the other 'inaccuracies', I was presenting a brief history, certainly simplistic, so apologies). Could you identify where 'pro-Maduro' has been suggested as non-neutral before? I know BBC Mundo uses it as shorthand everywhere, which it wouldn't if it could be seen as biased.[ETA4: Found this, too. You said it was POV, and two other editors disagreed. Looks like we have an historical consensus to go with.]

I obviously disagree that By qualifying an institution as "pro-Maduro", you are pushing the POV that the institution lacks integrity and agency; the same could be said for calling, for example, the NRA "pro-Trump", which is a mere statement of fact. In a crisis where there is a whole Wikipedia page devoted to describing which side people have picked (this page, it's this page), it's not wrong to state outright which side people have picked. Especially on this article. Where we literally list it. Or is this page "pushing the POV" that 22 separate countries "lack integrity and agency"? No, it's not.

Of course, I'm willing to hear about being simplistic (not arbitrary, I've explained there's a need, and not subjective, since they publicize their alliances) – if you think the labels "pro-Maduro" and "pro-government" are too simple to aid understanding for readers, please offer an alternative. Re. in which other articles - we both know this is a unique situation. In which other country do you see two versions of every government body?

Hmm, on disambiguation reasons, I don't think I'm overestimating the issue. Here's the thing: the Supreme Court vs the Supreme Court in Exile, to an uneducated reader? The first sounds legitimate and the second criminal. When in reality, the second one is the one most widely recognized by international governing bodies. To try and keep it both accurate to reality and neutral, we don't label either with terms like 'legitimate' (obvious POV), but we can say who they support in this crisis in articles related to this crisis. I acknowledge your suggestion of Supreme Tribunal of Justice in Venezuela, but note that because of conventions of naming on Wikipedia, this is likely to be seen as saying it is the Venezuelan Supreme Tribunal of Justice, and so the extra words haven't added anything.

I don't carry any feelings except something along the lines of "man, can this crisis be over", and wanting to spread the word around the world, I swear (fun fact: I have been accused both of supporting Maduro and being a US mole editing to overthrow him or something, it's wild when you edit a lot of these!) But, yes, we give neither an air of being right or wrong - the thing I've been doing to all these articles since it broke out, 10 months ago. I hope you can see the 10 months of getting the wording a good balance that I've put in, and probably that this is also why I'm going to be protective of such wording. Using "pro-Maduro" and similar is the fine balance of not over-explaining every paragraph and not using definitely POV adjectives. It's been hard keeping them clean. (I'm just ignoring the I would suggest that you refrain from editing the Venezuelan crisis-related articles because, no offense, it made me laugh. I would suggest giving my edit history a look.) Back to topic: I do not see the label "pro-Maduro" as inferring anything negative (or positive, but it's clear which you're worried about), especially based on your comments that we agree on about Wikipedia representing both Maduro and Guaidó neutrally: if WP is not saying that Maduro is bad, which it isn't, then how can saying that something supports Maduro be bad(?). I can see, I give you, the potential that just saying something has taken a side is in itself, no matter the side taken, perhaps a form of bias. But, again, this is a page literally about which side different organizations and countries are taking, because it's a crisis where they have to pick a side, and Wikipedia is reporting on which side they have picked. So the Constituent Assembly picked a side in 2017. That's all "pro-Maduro" is saying. It's saying there's two sides to the government in Venezuela, and this body has picked the currently leading one. Kingsif (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

ETA: I started typing before your extra comment, but here's a few examples of where the term "pro-Guaidó" is used on Wikipedia. Which is also fine. 2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt, Embassy of Venezuela, Washington, D.C., Code Pink. Kingsif (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

ETA2: You throw around accusations of users being "uncivil" towards you when they are not. First, this won't get them to concede to you. More importantly: if you truly think someone is being uncivil, ping them with an WP:AGF and then take it to arbitration. If that sounds excessive or inappropriate for what they've actually written, they're not being uncivil, they're most likely just explaining things as plainly as they can in the hope that it is so simple they don't have to keep expanding. Kingsif (talk) 00:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Probably an important note: Notrium told me that this wasn't the first time someone said that "pro-Maduro" was POV, so I went looking for that. And I found it. In February, Notrium (only him) made the argument and was shut down pretty decisively by 2 other editors, Jamez42 and SandyGeorgia: editors with a combined time contributing to Venezuela articles so old it can drink. For 9 months, he hasn't touched Venezuela articles and, based on this editing behavior, appears to have gone back to make the argument again based on enough time away that we did all forgot it was denied before... until he brought it up. Kingsif (talk) 01:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Kingsif:, Regarding the civility discussion, it is not relevant to this discussion, but I will say that your point of "take it to arbitration or shut up" is bunk because it would (will?) lead to a toxic environment where malicious people can be uncivil as long as it is not too bad, and good intentioned people would get brought to arbitration without warning. Thus the WP environment produced would be at the same time forcibly quiet on one part and uncivil in the other.

Regarding the discussion earlier this year, the situation then was somewhat different, because the two editors in question kept stubbornly insisting on a wrong interpretation of multiple sources (to such a degree - like ten sources as far as I remember - that it was arduous on my part to AGF), until I made them realize they were wrong about the sources ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2019_Venezuelan_presidential_crisis&diff=prev&oldid=882588991 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_Venezuelan_presidential_crisis&diff=prev&oldid=882582278 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_Venezuelan_presidential_crisis&diff=prev&oldid=882582594 ), in other words their argument was debunked.

Regarding your argument about a source also using the phrasing in question, remember that sources are almost always biased, that does not excuse non-neutrality on Wikipedia.

EDIT: Additional policy and fallacy links for readers: poisoning the well, WP:LABEL, WP:INTEXT, WP:BLP

EDIT: regarding your comparisons with the US NRA, the situation is different there, for multiple reasons: Firstly, the NRA is not a basic societal institution that is supposed to be independent, thus saying that NRA is pro-Trump (I assume their officials/spokesmen publicly supported Trump?) does not push the POV of NRA lacking needed integrity. Simply put, it is insulting to the state institution in question to call it pro-somebody. Secondly, I assume from your words that NRA officially and publicly gives support to Trump (not just acts in a way that benefits Trump), so the situation is very different there and here.

EDIT: Note that this issue is also affected by BLP policies (or, legally, defamation laws), because Wikipedia must not defame the members of the institutions in question nor Maduro himself.

As a solution to our debate that should satisfy everyone, could we use:

EDIT for clarification: the following diff-like structures contain the text I propose before the "instead of", and the state from a few days ago after the "instead of". Notrium (talk) 12:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

* Supreme Tribunal of Justice, most of whose members were appointed by Bolivarians and/or Supreme Tribunal of Justice in Venezuela, as opposed to the one in exile instead of pro-Maduro Supreme Tribunal of Justice.

* National Electoral Council, which some consider to be pro-government instead of pro-government National Electoral Council. Note that NEC is the fifth branch of government in Venezuela and the members of the NEC are not even appointed by legislative bodies as far as I understand and are probably not politicians.

* Constituent National Assembly, most of whom are Bolivarians, instead of pro-Maduro Constituent National Assembly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notrium (talk • contribs) 08:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Bolivarist is not an adjective, "Bolivarian" is. Aside from that, I think this discussion is getting out of hand, maybe we could drop the adjectives in some places but adding "pro-Guaidó" or "pro-Maduro" is a simple solution to explain on which side are the different organisms without making the phrases more complex. This is a two sided struggle. "Pro-government" may not be a good adjective as both representatives make part of the government. Also I think we may show that neutral reliable sources are using these adjectives. --MaoGo (talk) 09:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@MaoGo: It is not enough to "show that neutral reliable sources are using these adjectives". Because this is a constitutional crisis involving the highest instances of all branches of government (including courts), something clear like a guilty verdict in court of law is not feasible. It is necessary to show that the institutions in question (for each one) actually are "pro-Maduro". Thus even if most reliable sources were calling the courts "pro-Maduro", we would still be insulting the members of the institutions in question by using such phrasing, and thus making WMF subject to a defamation suit; without there being actual proof of the claims.

On the other hand, we could say, for example, "Newspapers XYZ claims the Supreme Tribunal of Justice is 'pro-Maduro'". Notrium (talk) 09:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Even if there are documented cases of the same institutions calling themselves that like the Armed forces or the ANC? To write "most sources claim the TSJ is pro-Maduro" followed by a series of sources seems cumbersome.--MaoGo (talk) 09:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I can think of alternative adjectives, like "loyal to Maduro", "supporter of Maduro's presidency" or "sided with Maduro".--MaoGo (talk) 09:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality and verifiability are paramount, especially for BLP.

Those alternative adjective phrases are just as bad, some even worse, than "pro-Maduro".

@MaoGo:, @Kingsif: It is starting to seem to me like the issues with the article stem in part from efforts to oversimplify a complex subject. Not everything is explainable in a few words, and also remember that this is not https://simple.wikipedia.org Notrium (talk) 10:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

A way to break this back and forth and focus on the issue, is to review specific stances one by one. @Notrium: would you agree?--MaoGo (talk) 11:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean. The dispute already is only about three sentences in particular, but with possibly wider consequences (if there are more such sentences). How could this be broken down in a useful manner? Notrium (talk) 11:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Oh sorry, I thought there were more. I saw multiple edits in multiple articles. Could you write the three sentences here so we can have a more focused discussion?--MaoGo (talk) 11:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@MaoGo: I meant the three sentences discussed right above your Comment (the "instead of" diffs). There are/were other disputes between me and Kingsif, like using "de jure" for one of the institutions in a biased manner, but those issues are separate. Notrium (talk) 11:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I meant another thing, I meant the actual wordings in the article, as they were as a whole before your edits.--MaoGo (talk) 11:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I forgot to mention why applying the label "pro-Maduro" to an institution is simplistic: A state institution like the ones we are talking about here could only be called pro-somebody if its charter (or something similar) described it as such. For example imagine a monarchy, that has institutions that are defined by law to defend the royal position/swear an oath of allegiance. In that case the institution could be called "pro-King" (though an additional qualification may still be required). In addition to that, in reality the institution is composed from its members (for example, justices), so it would be necessary to call specific members "pro-Maduro", instead of the whole body. Notrium (talk) 11:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

It is maybe too late to answer to this, but let me make a point here. Venezuela is not a normal democratic cohesive country. For example in UK, there would be opposing members in the parliament, you could even have some anti-monarchy members, but everyone would agree to follow the laws and everyone agrees who has which position in government. In Venezuela there is a constitutional and presidential crisis, on one hand, Maduro administration has disowned the parliament and has created a new one, on the other the parliament has disqualified the executive and the new parliament. Also you have most of the members of pro-Maduro institutions (TSJ, executive, CNE, ANC, parquet) come from the government's party. This is not the case of UK, in Venezuela there is rarely a middleground. --MaoGo (talk) 09:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

It is difficult for me to see what the "pro-Maduro" or "pro-government" label adds to this article aside from potential BLP violations and poisoning the well (also see WP:LABEL). Any potential informative content, such as that the independence of certain agencies from the Maduro administration is disputed, is already clear from context and when following the relevant wikilinks. For example, the lead of the CNE page says: the CNE has been described as being pro-Maduro. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I said it eight months ago and I'll say it again: the discussion about the legitimacy and bias of the de facto Supreme Tribunal is quite lengthy, and quite a good part can be read here, but I'll copy the most important part here:

The Tribunal was appointed by the lame duck National Assembly just days after the last parliamentary elections among several irregularities, including the violation of the period of challenges, its lack of responses and the omission of the final selection of the candidates. Not only that, but none of the justices had the years of experience or met the requirements for holding office, including lack of convictions or political affiliation. Did you know that during this appointment a member of the pro government Assembly even voted for himself?

I don't know what is more evident of an institution being pro-government than the fact that it is filled with former party members, supporterts and politicians. It's a pity that I cannot find a reference at the moment, but near all of the sentences of the Tribunal have been in favour of the government. The closest source I found is this one: in only 12 sentences the high court questioned actions of the Electoral Council, but 89% of these sentences were in favour to the government and its allies against opposition parties or allies. For these reasons, I have no idea how "our arguments have been debunked".

@Notrium:, you don't have a consensus to change the long standing wording of the articles, not only this one, which is why I strongly suggest to revert said edits. In my opinion, knowing how controversial the topic is, I think the best course of action is a Request for Comment. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42:, your argument is WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. Please understand that neutrality and verifiability are more important for the encyclopedia than your personal stances, especially as this is a WP:BLP issue. Also, you failed to address my or Cmonghost's arguments. Notrium (talk) 23:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Notrium: I'm terribly sorry, but I have repeatedly referred to previous discussion where this issue has been addressed and where sources have been offered, so I have no idea what do you mean with "my personal stances". I can leave here an infographic of all the requirements not met by the justicies of the Constitutional Chamber as an example. I haven't replied directly because I have in the past and continuing to do it so would turn the discussion ad nauseam, but there are plenty of verifiable and reliable sources that refer to the Supreme Tribunal as "pro-Maduro" or equivalents. If you prefer mentions in sources different than news outlets, I can refer again to NGOs, such as the analysis of Suprema Injusticia, which I quoted before and whose purpose is to examine Venezuela's judicial system: The stick used [by the Supreme Tribunal] to measure the opposition is no the same as the one used to evaluate the chavismo. Besides expressing its sympathy with the revolution, the justices block the lawsuits against the high ranking officials of the chavista process and go out in their defense. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• RfC Proposal This is getting long, even besides the opening walls of text; to ease it up and to avoid confusion, I think a way forward would be to bring every contested sentence to RfC, discuss whether to keep each or change, and then discuss changing the phrasing. And for everyone to keep an open mind about these topics, and listen to arguments. This could take some time. I'd also suggest arbitration since it's clear we all know a decent amount about all these institutions so probably aren't best placed to know what kind of phrasing is most useful to the average reader. I will accept that in a long paragraph, sticking 'pro-Maduro' in front of 'Supreme Tribunal of Justice' is quick and simple to me, it's because it triggers the knowledge of the entire debate that I already know; to others, it may not.

I assume we all want these articles to be as clean and useful as possible, so a consensus should emerge quite easily. Kingsif (talk) 00:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I also invite @Notrium: to join WP Venezuela if you want to get involved with more clean-up, more perspectives are always welcome :) Kingsif (talk) 00:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

As the proposer, I agree with the initive. I'd suggest the request to be worded more or less like "Should these articles include 'pro-Maduro' as a qualifier of the Supreme Tribunal of Venezuela?". --Jamez42 (talk) 12:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Notrium and Jamez42: I suggest that while an RfC and more general discussion is ongoing, we stop editing (and in particular where you're having a dispute). We don't want the crisis in Venezuela articles to look like a hostile environment or to scare Notrium away from the topic if he's here to contribute constructively. Kingsif (talk) 20:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Kingsif: I'm sorry if my last edits have caused any of the two things, my intention was to keep the last stable version before the issue was brought up and to focus on the discussion. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Bolivia switches recognition to Guaido

The acting President of Bolivia has recognized Guaido as interim president. Source --cyrfaw (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I believe this is included. Kingsif (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Politics

You mean the fascist put in by a coup d'etat? Funny that. Simonm223 (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC) @Simonm223: WP:NOTAFORUM. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC) Evo has been president for 13 years and violated teh constitution of Bolivia by terminating term limits. He also rigged and corrputed the recetn presidential election, leading to protests (backed by members of the military and police force) that resulted in his resignation. Bolivia is better off without dictator Evo. Now, democracy can be restored by an interim President. She is not a fascist, she is a Democratic, constitutional, ACTING President. @Ballers19: --Ballers19 (talk) 15:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Should Venezuelan crisis-related articles use terms like 'pro-Maduro', and, if not, what alternatives can be used?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should Venezuelan crisis-related articles use terms like 'pro-Maduro', and, if not, what alternatives can be used? Some initial notes:

• The result of this discussion, and comments in it, may be used to make up a standing guideline for WikiProject Venezuela - to maintain consistency and abide with consensus through all related articles.
• I would suggest not using POV/NPOV arguments in regards the use of 'pro-Maduro' and similar - this is where the original cyclical debate came from, because it can be interpreted differently, and these arguments don't seem to sway anyone. Equally, of course, defending the terms as being neutral shouldn't be used an argument to keep them.
• Please keep in mind the unique situation of Venezuela; it is almost impossible to compare with any other country.
• This discussion also includes use of 'pro-Guaidó' and 'pro-government'.
• Please keep comments and replies coherent, using appropriate indents and third-level headers if necessary.

Kingsif (talk) 15:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Re. Supreme Tribunal of Justice

Re. 2017 Constituent National Assembly

In general

• "Pro-Maduro" and similar terms should not be used except with in-text attribution and only where there is no violation of WP:SYNTH. Despite the request in the RfC statement, I am going to make a WP:NPOV argument — the benefit of using an RfC is to solicit opinions beyond the editors who typically edit Venezuela articles and who have entrenched opinions about what is POV and what is not. Anyway, the use of these labels is clearly contrary to WP:IMPARTIAL, which says: A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. "Pro-Maduro", which suggests that the institutions are corrupt or compromised, is consistently used to dismiss actions or information that are inconvenient to the opposition; this is one of several reasons that Venezuela articles have a clear slant in favour of the opposition. An illustrative example still remains in the article, in which poll results that indicate opposition to military intervention and US sanctions are discredited by the suggestion that the pollster is corrupt:

A pre-23 January 2019 poll by Hinterlaces, a pollster headed by Constituent National Assembly member Oscar Schemel [es] and described as pro-Maduro,[250][262] reported that 86% of Venezuelans would oppose a military intervention, that 81% oppose US sanctions, and that 84% support dialogue to end the crisis.[263]

Here, [250] and [262] are completely unrelated articles from 2013 and 2016, respectively, long before the poll itself was released; this is a clear violation of WP:SYNTH. Note that although another pollster cited in the article, Datanalisis, has been described as "pro-opposition", by reliable sources such as AFP [1], no such WP:SYNTHY disclaimer appears before mentions of their results. This is an embarrassing and unencyclopedic pattern throughout articles on current events in Venezuela (check out Second inauguration of Nicolás Maduro if you really want to have a laugh, there's a WP:SYNTH or WP:NPOV violation in almost every paragraph), and I'm glad that it is finally being discussed. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the SYNTH arguments are good, there's probably a wikistyle way of writing that eliminates that. For balance sake, I would support having a pro-gov or pro-opposition, or something, label next to, well, anything and anyone that comments on the crisis that isn't some kind of institution generally accepted as neutral (i.e. foreign governments that don't fund either side). Do you have any other articles you want to bring to the discussion specifically?

I also think that Hinterlaces statement itself came as a compromise after some editors opposed the inclusion based on WP:RS concerns. Which is something else to think about. Kingsif (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• "Pro-Maduro" should not be used in the clearly nonencyclopedic way it is currently used on Venezuela related articles, relating to basic state institutions of democracy that are supposed to be independent and said in Wikipedia's voice. As Cmonghost said, there is an embarrasing pattern here of strong bias, original research and BLP policy violation. This is not just with the usage of the "pro-Maduro" label, but in general on Venezuela-related pages there is a lot of violation of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:UNSOURCED and WP:OR. The "pro-Maduro" label in particular is a good example of that pattern, because it is clearly being used in an unsourced (or synthesized) non-neutral manner that is derogatory to the living persons that are members of the National Electoral Council, Supreme Tribunal of Justice, and Constituent National Assembly. This has the effect of presenting them as Maduro's "drones" without integrity or agency ("corrupt or compromised" in their official duties), thus poisoning the well. Regarding the oft-repeated arguments about "making the phrases more complex", I repeat my point of simple.wikipedia.org also being free to edit. Also take a look at WP:LABEL, there it is said that in-text attribution is preferred for loaded language and contentious labels. Notrium (talk) 18:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Quoting MaoGo from the discussion immediately above the RfC: "[...] "pro-Maduro" is a simple solution to explain on which side are the different organisms without making the phrases more complex. This is a two sided struggle." The issue here is that it is derogatory to the individuals involved to reduce them to Maduro supporters. An encyclopedia can not present things as just a "two-sided struggle". Notrium (talk) 22:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Notrium: while we appreciate your voice on this matter (genuinely), most of this comment is an attack on editors, rather than constructive. I ask that you rephrase or strike some of it. Thanks for the edit including WP:LABEL though, very relevant policy.

@Kingsif:, I am not attacking editors, rather their editing. I am sorry for the negative feelings that you may be experiencing, but really the situation here has gone long enough and there is no alternative to telling it like it is. Notrium (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, I already linked to WP:LABEL above/before the RfC. Notrium (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Notrium: Thanks for clarifying your arguments, I can now understand some of the points you've been making a lot better. And I suggest if you have concerns on other articles, to start discussions on the specific talk pages, I'm sure we'll all try to come to a good resolution. Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Off-topic

@Notrium: I find the following text, quoted from your comment above, to be an attack on editors. I ask that it be struck or rephrased. These parts of the comment are not AGF, and not really relevant to the question at hand. As Cmonghost said, there is an embarrasing pattern here of strong bias, original research and BLP policy violation. This is not just with the usage of the "pro-Maduro" label, but in general there is a black-and-white outlook among a few editors that impose it on Venezuela-related topics, while being ignorant about WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:UNSOURCED and WP:OR. In general by black and white I am referring to the effort to depict portions of Venezuelan society that the editors in question are obviously (from comments on talk pages) against as Maduro's drones without integrity or agency, thus poisoning the well. And where you name an editor whilst detracting their edits; though not an attack, this can be frowned upon if not productive. You didn't need to call out MaoGo specifically with Quoting MaoGo [...] Regarding their oft-repeated arguments about "making the phrases more complex", I am reminding them again that this is not simple.wikipedia.org., which sounds condescending. I am surprised that you frequently accuse other editors of being uncivil or condescending to you, but refuse to acknowledge when you engage in this. We all slip up out of passion or anger, I am sure I have before. I ask that you amend, strike, or remove some of the content of your above comment, where it is non-productive in relation to the discussion. You can be angry, but just ranting about what you see as NPOV, etc. violations is not contributing to solving it. And if the language attacking other editors, who I remind you have contributed to at least keeping these pages updated a lot more than you have, isn't removed I will go to arbitration. Sorry, but I don't like it when one guy thinks it's ok to do that, especially when the target is vaguely 'everyone who edits Venezuela articles in a way you don't like'. Separately, as a friendly suggestion to help discussion run more smoothly, I also feel that when you use such strong wording as The "pro-Maduro" label in particular is a good example of that pattern, because it is clearly being used in an unsourced (or synthesized) non-neutral manner that is derogatory to the living persons that are members of the National Electoral Council, Supreme Tribunal of Justice, and Constituent National Assembly. you are not helping yourself. If you instead say that you "interpret the label as being used..." or that "in your opinion...", it would probably go down better for all. Your phrasing, particularly "clearly", makes it evident that you believe your opinions to be correct, and this suggests that you will not engage with other views - so editors will not respond kindly to you. Using more cooperative and less headstrong, dare I say 'black-and-white', phrasing will encourage more friendly debate. Which is all I want. Your opinion is valued, but it is still your opinion, not a 'clear' fact. Kingsif (talk) 20:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• Proposal to use longer phrases with efn @Cmonghost and Notrium: One route we could go that can somewhat address concerns in both your comments would be to create informative phrases for institutions on both/all sides, which are in some way attributed to RS. To not overcite or overload an adjectival phrase that draws away from the purpose of the sentence, some expansion could be written in detail in efns. What do you think of this suggestion? Kingsif (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

So you are basically backing my proposal from above the RfC, but with the additional words going in efn? I am not sure how I think about that, actually footnotes are almost always harmful in general. Could you be more specific regarding this proposal? Notrium (talk) 19:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Sure! For example, replacing the disputed 'pro-Maduro' or whatever with something from an RS that can contextualize whatever is being said. So if it is, as an example I am making up, "the pro-Maduro Supreme Tribunal of Justice unanimously upheld X, which Maduro proposed", we would replace it with "the Supreme Tribunal of Justice that operates alongside the government in Venezuela ..." In the efn in this case would be perhaps a link to Supreme Tribunal of Justice in exile with a note saying that several members were displeased with the government or fired on disputed grounds from the TSJ, and continue to work in a separate capacity in exile (i.e. operating against the government and in exile). There wouldn't be any other text, to avoid giving a view in Wikipedia voice on which of the bodies could be better or worse, just all the facts presented. But there's too much context to write it all out, without the sentence becoming obfuscated. Kingsif (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I support using footnotes for clarification (and deduplication of the clarifications) of the confusing situation of there being two Supreme Tribunals of Justice. On the other hand, I am not really seeing where else would footnotes be appropriate. Notrium (talk) 22:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

In other situations except ANC vs AN it is likely they wouldn't, an in-line clarification should work where it isn't a government body that there are two of. Kingsif (talk) 22:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I really don't think it's necessary to use footnotes. Any reader who is confused by the existence of two similarly-named institutions can simply click or mouse over the relevant wikilinks, where it is explained in detail. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 04:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• "Pro-Maduro" and similar terms should be used in the same way that terms such as Pro-Guaidó and opposition have been used in the past, since it is important to distinguish institutions in this polarized crisis. Using said terms doesn't mean that they are "corrupt or compromised", it is up to the reader to shape their impression on that, and this difference has even been used in infoboxes of the conflict. I forgot that I wanted to suggest the term government/opposition controlled, which has been for the National Assembly in the past. While I think that it is more natural for elected institutions, such as the National or the Constituent Assembly, similar variations could be used for the high courts, such as nominated by the government/opposition, which is the case of the justices. If it helps, I would suggest that these terms could be avoided in the lead, and I would also like to show my support for the idea of using footnotes, which can be very helpful and have also been used in other articles of the presidential crisis.--Jamez42 (talk) 14:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Different institutions are already easily distinguishable using neutral terms such as "in exile". I don't think disambiguation is a good reason to use contentious WP:LABELs. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I don’t think “in exile” is that neutral, I think it’s less than the terms currently being discussed. It implies illegitimacy directly, when saying something is pro X or Y does not Kingsif (talk) 22:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

But that's the current standard in place for Supreme Tribunal of Justice of Venezuela in exile... Is it not the common name? If not that article should be moved. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 23:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

To "distinguish institutions in this polarized crisis" is exactly what should be left to the reader, if I understood you correctly. Notrium (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• Should not be used The 2000 U.S. Supreme Court had a majority of Republican appointed judges and ruled in a questionable decision in the election in favor of the Republican candidate for president, yet we don't refer to it as "pro-Bush" or "pro-Trump." Presumably after 20 years of chavista administrations, most appointees would be pro-chavista. But using the term injects a bias into articles, by questioning their legitimacy. Whether or not Maduro or Guaido is the rightful president is a matter of opinion, not of fact, and should not be presented as such. TFD (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
• Pro Maduro should not be used as per TFD et al. Simply put, when we have a situation where the institutions of a government are seen as being divided, we should tread with extreme care lest we end up communicating propaganda. This is precisely as relevant in the United States, with its partisan judiciary (and even partisan county clerks) as it is to Venezuela. Simonm223 (talk) 12:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
• Similar terms where needed. The situation in Venezuela, where different institutions are aligning with different leaders, is typical of countries undergoing revolution. While we cover ongoing affairs, there's no reason we shouldn't state different institutions' affiliations. We should be careful, however, not to "popularize" the discussion: follow RS with the strictest form, and watch for encyclopedic style and content. Here "pro-X" can be problematic, as it's easy to "pull out" and "pull off", so more detailed phrases would be preferable ("which has aligned with...", "which is lead by X supporter so and so..."). "Pro-x" shouldn't be completely disregarded, however. Another thing to watch out for are changes - we're dealing with current affairs, so a "pro-X" today can be a "pro-Y" tomorrow, and this should be update quickly across the topic area. François Robere (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• Pro-Maduro and pro-Guaidó and similar terms can be helpful when describing the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis. The different institution have a clearly sided with one or another, and this is supported by most sources. That an institution is sided with Maduro or Guaidó does not imply that all members are aligned in the same way but it should be used when the institutions clearly support all the actions of one or another leader, as it is mostly the case in this crisis. Sometimes the adjective is not necessary, but in introductory paragraphs or separate articles where a summary is needed the adjectives may help establish a clearer picture. Larger phrases can also be used when more context is needed, but to avoid cumbersome paragraphs, I see how the adjectives could help. The use of Template:efn could be used too to avoid misunderstanding and to provide a larger context.--MaoGo (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Request for closure

This RfC has stalled without comment for over a month; I am involved but will ask if there are any passing uninvolved editors willing to get into closing this, it may be a lengthy task to assess the various arguments. Kingsif (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Argentina no longer recognizes Guaidó

Argentina no longer recognizes Guaidó but they did not say anything about Maduro, where should it go? Reuters--MaoGo (talk) 23:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

For more confusion, Reuters says that Argentina does not recognizes Guaido anymore, EFE does not cover that.--MaoGo (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Spanish Reuters has a quote.--MaoGo (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

2020 section would be nice Kingsif (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean? We start a section for countries that reaffirm, change or re-deny their alliances? I guess it would be nice to have a 2019 vs a 2020 maps if things change too much. --MaoGo (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, things could change a lot, again. Responses in 2019 vs 2020, with an introduction to the 2020 giving some background on the disputed AN election, may help. If Argentina is the only one to change, though, just update Argentina's position with a explanatory footnote like El Salvador has. Kingsif (talk) 00:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Wakari07: I undid this edit because we do not have the name of the authority that said that Guaidó is not recognized (in Reuters Spanish, the source goes anonymous). Also where would Argentina go? EFE had the exclusive but forgot to say that Guaidó's official was excluded because Guaidó is no longer recognized.--MaoGo (talk) 02:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@MaoGo: Of course the authority is named: it's the spokesman of the Argentinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship. And the fact is recognized by Guaidó's (now former) "special representation mission"... a letter was sent, that is stated as a fact by Reuters. I don't see what's unclear here. They only recognize one—the former—embassy, so that implies they recognize the government (but that's a personal thought, at least Argentina is out of the Guaidó camp). Wakari07 (talk) 02:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Just reading about this. @MaoGo: Should we use the statement of the minister's spokersperson as its official statement? Or maybe is it better to wait for further statements? --Jamez42 (talk) 13:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I would prefer to wait, (1) we do not have a name, we have "a spokeperson" for the non-recognition of Guaidó (Reuters Spanish is the only source to provide the quote)(2) only Reuters is claiming this, as far as I know (3) Argentina has to go somewhere. We could add a note in the governments section. --MaoGo (talk) 13:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jamez42: If I understand well, you are reverting my edit with the argument that either the spokesperson of the ministry doesn't represent his ministry, or that Argentina's foreign ministry wouldn't represent its government stance on foreign affairs? @MaoGo: What about EFE source cited above? Argentina is not on that list (anymore). We may put the history of the Argentinian position in Reactions > Governments. Wakari07 (talk) 13:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I reverted on the grounds that the action was only not recognizing Guaidó's ambassador, before learning that the spokesperson also addressed his recognition, but knowing this I ask if there should be a change based on the previous criteria we have maintained in the past, or if it WP:TOOSOON. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Guaidó reacted in a Bloomberg source [2], he described Argentina's position as (so-called) "neutral" after Argentina had terminated his envoy's mission. But WP:NPOV is a good reason to not list Argentina in the neutral countries either. Wakari07 (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

So far, the "Maduro presidency" section has been reserved for countries that have explicitly supported Maduro, his claim, or explicitly rejected Guaidó, so I believe the vocal neutrality section would be the best option. Later I can change the color in the map to the reflect this. I wonder if @MaoGo: agrees. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

As far as I know, Argentina didn't express its neutrality either. It now recognizes only the government's embassy. Unless Guaidó got to direct the ambassadors and I missed something, I stand by my edit and I think Argentina at least shoud not be listed anymore among the countries endorsing him. Wakari07 (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @Kingsif: as well. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Vocal neutrality per the New York Times saying Fernandez, who took office on Dec. 10, has been cautious with his stance over the Maduro government - that is definitely deliberately not endorsing Maduro. Kingsif (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I worry on how are we going to handle other cases like these. It is obvious that Argentina is playing low profile, not releasing an official statement on Guaidó's recognition. According to the agreed rules this to me does not constitute an official statement.--MaoGo (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

What about if we leave Argentina out and in gray in the map? We don't have a vocal neutrality statement nor recognition of either claimant. --MaoGo (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

It's complicated, but I guess that could work. What do you think @Kingsif:? --Jamez42 (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Removing Argentine until there's security on the position can work. Something will probably come with diplomatic pressure soon. Kingsif (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

In the Bloomberg and the New York Times articles, they report that Argentina is now neutral. Due to the previous actions regarding recognition, however, we should wait until an official statement is made.----ZiaLater (talk) 09:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: thanks for understanding. Before we continue editing the map, what do you think of Kingsif proposal to create a 2020 section? Specifically, having different files to keep a new and an older version of the map? Like for example have a 2019 and 2020 map? Or a pre-Bolivian crisis map and a post-Bolivian crisis map. I am really not good with files in Wikipedia so that's why I am asking you.--MaoGo (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@MaoGo: Not a bad idea, but multiple sections would be repetitive.----ZiaLater (talk) 11:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

ZiaLater MaoGo, Hi friends! some news outlets on TV reported that Argentina recognizes Guaidó as the President of the National Assembly, shouldn't that be light-blue?. Thank you for your enormous contributions. --CoryGlee (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@CoryGlee: If you can provide the sources, that would help a lot. Thanks for sharing!----ZiaLater (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

ZiaLater Yes friend, of course, This is the source in Spanish . Basically the end of the text underlines Argentina recognizes Guaidó as "prominent opposition leader". --CoryGlee (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@CoryGlee: this is not different from EFE or Reuters first hand coverage. It says that Guaidó is not recognized as president, recognizing him as a "prominent opposition leader" is not the same as recognizing him as either acting president nor as president of parliament.--MaoGo (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

MaoGo I understand, I may have well misunderstood the text I'm rather inept in these issues, But I stand by "No Statement Color" by now until a new stance is defined. I'll be paying attention and giving you all the information first hand as I can :)- (Smiling face) --CoryGlee (talk) 15:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@CoryGlee: thanks for understanding and thanks your participation, we need more eyes on this issue. --MaoGo (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

2020 and more maps section

Please discuss here about your support/concerns separating the maps to have some historical maps, I propose that we keep at least two maps, either 2019 and 2020, or pre-Bolivian crisis and post-Bolivian crisis (the map was pretty stable up until there were some regime changes in Bolivia and other Central American countries). Inviting those involved: @ZiaLater, Kingsif, and Jamez42: (I would appreciate if a more experienced user can handle the map split). We can use this discussion to argue also if we need a 2020 section to detail other changes in the upcoming future. --MaoGo (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: It's not a bad idea because of how complicated this crisis is, but a lot of it would be repeated between 2019 and 2020. About 50 countries would have the same positions, so this would only add unnecessary data to the article.----ZiaLater (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

If it is decided to split the maps, it can be done similarly as it has been with the 2018 election map, leaving reactions as far as May 2019. I have to admit I'm a little reluctant of this idea too, though. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Uruguay

President elect of Uruguay responded to Guaidó's congratulations for his election, but as far as I know there has not been further statements on this. Any thoughts? --Jamez42 (talk) 13:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I have not seen an official statement, has the new elected administration already started their period?--MaoGo (talk) 13:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@MaoGo: Ah, good point, they start on 1 March. Let's wait until then. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Luis Lacalle Pou will recognize Guaidó only as President of the National Assembly. Once he assumes the presidency, we can change Uruguay to "support of the National Assembly". --Jamez42 (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal on regime change

Has anyone seen the recent Wall Street journal article Why The US Bid for Regime Change in Venezuela Faltered? I don't have access to it and it may contain some information that can be used here. Burrobert (talk) 04:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

References

The actual name of the article is "How Putin Outfoxed Trump in Venezuela". It is a good summary of the crisis, but I am failing to see what it can add here.--MaoGo (talk) 07:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes for some reason the WSJ changed the title of the article. I was using the original one which you can still see if you look at the URL. Thought there might be something useful there but if not, no problem. Burrobert (talk) 07:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

When I have the time, I'll check it in more detail.--MaoGo (talk) 07:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The original title can still be noticed in the URL. I think it's an interesting article regarding geopolitics and the Foreign involvement article, but not much other than that. --Jamez42 (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Confusing Argentine position

Hi all! ^_^ , I've been trying through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs's website and all to try to know Argentina's position exactly now. It refuses to recognize Guaidó, but when Maduro sent a possible ambassador, she was rejected as well. Furthermore, I must say not a single communique clarifying the position has been released. Should we maintain "No Statement" in this case? or neutrality should be considered? Thank you all friends ^_^ --CoryGlee (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@CoryGlee: Hi! Thank you for your feedback :) So far we have used the darker gray for vocal neutrality, a country which explicitly states that it won't take sides (basically wishing a peaceful solution and everyone to be happy). Some time ago I thought about proposing to change the color to "Support of the National Assembly", based on Argentina's declarations after the vote on 5 January and its differences with countries such as Mexico, who gave a much more ambigous statement. It might be WP:TOOSOON to choose a position, but it'd be interesting to know what other contributors think after a month has passed by. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jamez42:, very nice to meet you! ^_^, exactly, I also proposed to light-blue Argentina. On that date you mentioned, Argentina released a statement where it said the refusal of entry to Guaidó to the Assembly was "inadmisible" (a word in Spanish for unacceptable, impermissible). More opinions rather than welcome!, Thank you again Jamez42 ^_^ --CoryGlee (talk) 01:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@CoryGlee: do you have a source on the Maduro's ambassador been rejected? If that is the case, light blue seems like a good compromise.--MaoGo (talk) 07:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi! @MaoGo: Yes!, Here they go (One is this one), Another, And this. Nice to meet you BTW!. ^_^ --CoryGlee (talk) 13:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Jamez42 Your opinion is highly appreciated as well, given the sources given, you're an excellent contributor to the article and map. ^_^ --CoryGlee (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@CoryGlee: Thank you very much! Nice meeting you too :) Please let me know if you would like to discuss any other issue. The crisis is currently "stale", but at the same time that also means time could be spent in maintenance instead of creating content. --Jamez42 (talk) 20:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Jamez42, I am a sensitive person who avoids arguments on hot topics but I am amazed at the civility which reigns on this hot topic :-). I'd like to know, (if you handle Spanish language), as to if you consider like MaoGo, of light-blueing Argentina given the sources given or it's as you mentioned earlier WP:TOOSOON ^_^ --CoryGlee (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@CoryGlee: Trust me that there have been quite a lot of heated discussions in the past in other articles; currently not seeing any is a welcome respite for me. Yes, I believe that light-blue is currently the most accurate position regardless of WP:TOOSOON. I hope that future actions and statements confirm this, and this could be reviewed at any time in the future on the contrary. Spanish is my first language, so feel free to share Spanish sources or in writing in the language if the time comes if you feel like it :) --Jamez42 (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Jamez42 Perfecto pibe, ah re que hablaba en argentino puro haha. Perfect my friend, whoever sees this, feel free to re-color Argentina -- as said by Jamez42, for now. --CoryGlee (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Responses by country

Hi again! ^_^, am I allowed to include reactions from countries as far as Palau's or do you deem not needed?. Also, could someone please check my grammar in Argentina's reaction?, thank you so much. --CoryGlee (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Avoid adding too much commentary, we are only keeping mayor countries on that section. Argentina is fine. --MaoGo (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Puerto Rico

@Fenetrejones:, you have been reverted by three users. I believe you should self revert and further explain your rationale here. Pinging editors: @MaoGo, Ballers19, and Xofiesty: --Jamez42 (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jamez42:, Responses there ONLY include UN member states countries. Bolivia is a UN member state. Morocco is a UN member state. Kosovo is not a UN member state. Which is why it is included under non member states. Countries are only included under member states recognizing, if they are UN members. In case of Kosovo, states like that have their section BECAUSE they claim independence whether you recognize them or not. Puerto Rico is not a sovereign state, nor does it claim independence thus it should not be included, except under the United States. Would we include Chechnya for example if its government voiced support vocally Maduro? It would not make sense to include it because it is neither a UN member or claiming independence just like Puerto RicoFenetrejones (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

For the record, I reverted Fenetrejones adding Myanmar not Puerto Rico. Indeed, Puerto Rico should not be added as a UN state.--MaoGo (talk) 11:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@MaoGo: Should Puerto Rico be added as a Non-UN state? --Jamez42 (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I am no expert on this topic. As a Puerto Rico is not a sovereign state would it matter if we include it?--MaoGo (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

My interest would be to keep the format of "Non-UN states", but I think it could be a good standard to not include state with limited sovereignty. As I see it, I think Puerto Rico's status is akin to an autonomous or overseas territory. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Puerto Rico seems to be in a gray area, I am not taking a side right now. Whatever decision we take, we need to take into account the following: (1) Puerto Rico is already blue in the map (2) the source that was used does not even name Puerto Rico (3) Puerto Rico was a key figure in the 23 February 2019 attempt to pass humanitarian aid (4) last time Puerto Rico had an election it was decided to become a state. Some possible solutions are either: (a) add some comment in the government section above (b) add it to United States in the list (as United States and Puerto Rico) (c) add an Template:efn (d) include it as a non-member state.--MaoGo (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I like the proposals. I'll leave the current version and look out for more insight. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Inter-American Development Bank logo.svg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I think Uruguay should be colored as Argentina now

Luis Lacalle Pou was inaugurated and he had said that he would recognize Guaidó only as head of the National Assembly. As it was discussed in previous sections. I leave it up to excellent contributors Jamez42 and MaoGo ^_^ ...... --CoryGlee (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed if true, @CoryGlee: source? --MaoGo (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@MaoGo: Pardon me, I always forget to source, but this is already linked in the article Source --CoryGlee (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I am not good with the images, but I am sure some user will make the changes soon.--MaoGo (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@CoryGlee: Sorry for the late response! In my opinion we should wait for an official declaration. So far, the source provided dates back to before the election. In any case, hopefully said notice shouldn't take long. Cheers! --Jamez42 (talk) 01:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Maduro was not invited to Lacalle Pou's inauguration. --Jamez42 (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

The support figure doesn't make sense.

How do you gather that government in Venezuela only has 20 state support? If a country isn't supporting Guaido then by default that state would be recognizing the actual government in Venezuela as opposed to the exiled one based in Washington, D.C. CaribDigita (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

We are considering that a country supports Maduro if an official from that country has stated publicly that they recognize Maduro (or that reject Guaidó). Same with Guaidó or any other position. Some countries just never say anything related to Venezuela.--ReyHahn (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Change the World colors for certain countries

We need to change colors for as many states as are Switzerland, Uruguay, St. Lucia and Jamaica. These countries are listed as information on whom they are backing, but colors on a world map are showing previous stances of those countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.39.213.2 (talk) 12:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Did Switzerland,Saint Lucia or Jamaica said something new? --MaoGo (talk) 12:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, color on a world map should be changed for Switzerland, Saint Lucia and Jamaica to dark blue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.39.213.25 (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

This keeps coming up but we need sources.--ReyHahn (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Yemen in Red

Hi! ^_^ - should Yemen be colored red as recognizing Maduro given the source given by the user who added Yemen to the article? Thank you! --CoryGlee (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi ReyHahn! how are you hope fine. Do you update the map? Bolivia should be back to red. (Source) Thanks! CoryGlee (talk) 12:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

CoryGlee glad to hear from you again. I do not know how to manipulate images, let us wait for a volunteer to do it. You may find one in the article associated in to the image. Also please find a source that is not WP:Deprecated. --ReyHahn (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

ReyHahn, the same I say!!, glad to see you!! ... perfect! to anyone reading this, Yemen and Bolivia should be red, I'll try to find a better source for Bolivia, I saw it on TV being the Juan Guaido image being removed from the embassy. Thanks again ReyHahn!!! I appreciate you! --CoryGlee (talk) 18:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

EU recognition

The European Union no longer recognizes Guaido presidency, at least not as it did before, so I think it has to be changed. https://lta.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN29B2A9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.155.134.233 (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Good to know, I will suggest that we profit this moment to archive the current map and end the article. Put that the map lasted until this date and indicate that this whole article applied between 2019 and 6 January 2021.--ReyHahn (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

ReyHahn, hi friend!. Yes, I think the map must be finished. For example, Ethiopia recognizes Maduro yet it is not in red. Yemen too as said above. And about the European Union, I'm a bit confused. Should they all be changed to light blue like, e.g. Argentina, Italy? Cheers. CoryGlee (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Well finally how we handle this article is going to depend on Talk:Venezuelan_presidential_crisis#End_date. Some of the discussion on that is there.--ReyHahn (talk) 20:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Peru should be light blue.

Hi. I think it's time to change the colour of Peru to light as per stated in the following source (RPP) that on 5 January 2021, Peru decided (under a possible victory of Castillo) that (by the vice-foreign minister)

"En este momento, la posición del Perú, reitero, es que desde el 5 de enero no reconoce ninguna autoridad legítima en Venezuela." (At this moment, the position of Peru, I repeat, is that since 5 January (2021), [Peru] doesn't recognize any authority in Venezuela". (RPP Perú)

I thought of either light blue or gray stating no position. Open to opinions! CoryGlee (talk) 12:52, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

There is uncertainty about Peru's position. Guido Bellido, Prime Minister of Peru, publicly rebuked Vice Foreign Minister Luis Enrique Chávez for his stance on Venezuela and said the government recognised legitimate authority in Venezuela. Apparently, Castillo and Maduro met during the CELAC summit in Mexico. Burrobert (talk) 13:31, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Argentina, Serbia, Spain, Mexico

Some sources were recently removed from this page and the position of a number of countries altered. No new sources were provided to justify the changes. Here is what the sources that were removed say about these countries:

• Argentina (source from 2020): With this decision, Alberto Fernández considers Nicolás Maduro as the only legitimate president of Venezuela and returns the diplomatic legation in Buenos Aires.

• Mexico (source from 2019): Mexico maintains its recognition of Nicolás Maduro as the president of Venezuela, the government spokesman said on Wednesday, We consider that he is the legitimately elected president," Jesús Ramírez, a spokesman for the government of President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, told the Milenio Televisión network.

• Spain (source from September 2021): The Government fully rehabilitates Maduro with this gesture and considers the stage of Juan Guaidó to be over.

• Serbia: (source from August 2019): Venezuela and Serbia promote cooperation ties in police matters and the fight against drugs.

Burrobert (talk) 16:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The convention so far as been to conduct the changes based solely on recognition, given that we have also distinguished active support from vocal neutrality or no changes at all. Among this changes, this appears to be the case only of Mexico because the soource specifically mentions "We consider that he [Maduro] is the legitimately elected president". --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are saying. The quotes above for Argentina, Mexico and Spain make it clear that those countries recognise Maduro as the president of Venezuela. Burrobert (talk) 12:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The statements above are very clear. Here are some more for Argentina:

• In a blow to Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido, Argentina’s government said on Tuesday it did not recognize him as his nation’s interim president ... We do not recognize Guaido as president, but as a leader of the opposition.
• Argentina's president said he recognizes the legitimacy of the elections set for the renewal of Venezuela’s opposition-led National Assembly, adding he "will not promote" a coup against any president. Alberto Fernandez underlined that his administration "never" recognized Venezuela's opposition leader Juan Guaido after his self-proclamation as interim president as the previous government of Argentina did. We have not refused to recognize Venezuela's elected government. That is why we have never recognized Guaido. I do not understand this confusion. I do understand, however, that some people want to take advantage of it. I will not promote a coup against any president. That is why I have always repudiated what happened in Bolivia.
• (This one is more general) In a 7 December 2021 vote at the UN General Assembly (UNGA), the UNGA voted overwhelmingly to confirm the credentials of Venezuelan diplomats representing the government of President Nicolás Maduro. More than 170 countries voted in favour of the confirmation or abstained. The only countries that voted against it were the United States and a handful of its allies: Australia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Georgia, Guatemala, Honduras, the Marshall Islands, Israel, Paraguay, the United Kingdom, South Korea—and, of course, Canada. This means that only eight percent of states recognize the legitimacy of the self-declared Juan Guaidó “government” at the UN. At the height of Guaidó’s international popularity, less than 60 of the 193 UN-recognized countries recognized him as the president of Venezuela, a number which has gradually decreased over time.

Burrobert (talk) 13:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

You have answered part of the question yourself. Argentina still recognizes Guaidó as leader of the opposition. This downgrade of status has already been reflected in the map as light blue and there's nothing new under the sun here. This position was referenced by its position during the National Assembly Delegated Committee election, in which they deemed the block of the entry of opposition deputies as "unacceptable". The discussion held on the issue can be consulted here: Argentina no longer recognizes Guaidó", in case you want to take a look at it. No, the sources that you provided do not "make it clear that Argentina recognises Maduro as the president of Venezuela"

There's an important difference when it is compared to active support or recognition for Maduro after Guaidó's challenge, particularly in the early stage of the presidential crisis. I'm not sure how the Canadian Dimension article is relevant to this, but it reflects the fallacy used by Maduro supporters to argue that the status quo is active support or recognition to Maduro, contrary to just vocal neutrality or plain indifference, and is one that has already been refuted in the past. Guaidó appointed representatives abroad after receiving recognition from them, but not the other way around; given how politically complicated and complex the issue is, until now there have not been governments that have backtracked on this statements, part of the reason why some of the changes have been to "Support of the National Assembly" or "Vocal neutrality". This convention be change if the community decides so, but because of these reasons I don't think that the rescission of the ambassadors credentials alone is sufficient to carry out the proposed changes. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Your argument is very hard to follow, partly due to your idiosyncratic English. None of the following statements are about ambassadors.

• Currently, Argentina's position of recognising Maduro as president is not listed. Yet we know that "Alberto Fernández considers Nicolás Maduro as the only legitimate president of Venezuela". We also know that the Fernández government recognizes Venezuela's elected government and never recognized Venezuela's opposition leader Juan Guaido. The position of the Argentinian government could not be clearer.
• Currently we say that Spain supports Guaidó as acting president. Yet we know that, in September 2021, the Spanish government fully rehabilitated Maduro and removed its former recognition of Juan Guaidó. Again, very clear.

Burrobert (talk) 14:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

It might also be possible because I'm covering several points, let me know if you wish me to try being clearer in any of them. Unlike Mexico, the statements are from an editorial voice, and not government statements. Care should be taken with Vozpópuli in particular, which is critical to the Spanish government and the Spanish Socialist Workers' ruling party. Because of this and the reasons above, Spain could be moved to the Support of National Assembly section, along with Argentina. --NoonIcarus (talk) 02:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

References

What?

Who changed Peru (neutrality stated in source) and Argentina (support of National Assembly) to red? ???????? CoryGlee (talk) 13:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@CoryGlee: An editor has been edit warring in Wikimedia Commons for some time now regarding this. I would invite other editors to keep an eye on the map and participate in its discussion if they have the chance. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Mexico, Honduras, Bolivia, Colombia have repeatedly explicitly recognized Maduro

Mexico, Bolivia, Colombia, Honduras all have full diplomatic relations with Venezuela, all have ambassadors that refer to Nicolas Maduro as the president of Venezuela, why are they marked incorrectly? 97.120.109.223 (talk) 06:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Deleting out-of-date map

I strongly suggest we delete the out-of-date recognition map.

First, it's overall relevance is now unclear -- it purports to show recognition of Guaidó as of December 2022. Five days into January 2023, the Guaidó interim government was dissolved.

Second, the map shows all of Europe as recognizing Guaidó as of December 2022, but the EU dropped recognition in 2021. In the edit history, @Noonicarus observes that EU member states may have continued recognizing Guaidó after the EU dropped recognition in 2021. It is a fair point, but it seems necessary then to be able to specifically articulate which individual EU states continued recognition after the EU stopped. I do not believe we should display a map without this specific information in hand.

For now, I have added the "dubious" and "out of date" templates to the map, as I do not think we should have a reversion controversy over this. Are there any other views among editors? JArthur1984 (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Best wishes @JArthur1984:. I have responded to your thread below. The map is useful to illustrate how international positions regarding the presidential crisis changed over time, before the government's dissolution. I have updated the US' position in the image, and we can consider if to keep 5 January 2023 as the final date for the map (the date where the dissolution was made effective). Happy editing, --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

European Union

Hi @JArthur1984:. In 2019 the EU was not able to approve a recognition of Guaidó because Italy voted against, instead choosing to support the National Assembly. Instead, the member states that are blue in the map were added gradually, with the statement of each individual country. If related statements are found, a change of color is in order. You can see Commons#Light blue, Commons#Italy / Switzerland / Greece, Commons#EU countries, Commons#Slovak statement, Commons#About Denmark and Commons#Ultimatum of the European Union for reference. Best regards. NoonIcarus (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry -- we are exchanging talk comments and edit comments simultaneously. The map remains incorrect as USA should not be dark blue. The individual EU countries remain dubious. As one obvious example, we show Portugal as dark blue, but the article says nothing about Portugal at all, much less as of the date the map purports to show. We should not have a map that reflects information not sourced in the body of the article. I remain of a mind that we should delete until it can be conclusively verified with sourced information, but keeping the templates is a minimum. JArthur1984 (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I must amend my comment here as I am reminded of the date of the map. The US would still be dark blue as of the map date. But this takes me into the question of what makes the map relevant now that the situation has changed dramatically? JArthur1984 (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@JArthur1984: I'm not sure if I understand your concerns. The US color has been corrected (as I believe you're aware, per your corrections), and information about Portugal is included and sourced in the article () I also think that care should be taken not to put the cart before the horse: if there isn't new information about a specific country, normally we should conclude that the stance or situation has not changed; concluding otherwise would be original research. The WP:ONUS to change the positions is on the person that proposes the change, who should provide references. If this isn't demonstrated, the tags should be removed. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

My view is that the map is of questionable relevance given the dissolution of the interim government, and I believe we should have sources that affirmatively show an EU country continued recognizing Guaidó following January 2021 in order to make them dark blue.

With that being said, it seems that only you and I have an opinion on this issue, and in the absence of perspectives from other editors, I do not intend to tag or edit the map further. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@JArthur1984: While I stress the importance of individual declarations, I changed the caption in the map to take into account the issue with the interim government dissolution: "Countries recognizing presidential power during the Venezuelan presidential crisis as of 5 January 2022, before Guaidó's interim government dissolution was made effective" I hope it helps. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

United Nations

In 2019, UN Secretary-General António Guterres kept a specifically neutral stance, declaring "urged parties to 'lower tensions' in Venezuela and called for all relevant actors to commit to inclusive and credible political dialogue". Speaking to the Security Council, UN Under Secretary-General of Political Rosemary DiCarlo said "We must try to help bring about a political solution that will allow the country’s citizens to enjoy peace, prosperity and all their human rights." ([3]) I also recall a statement by UN officials saying that they do not determine the legitimacy of governments, but I can't find it at the moment. The General Assembly is only one of the six main bodies in the United Nations, and it should be mentioned that no statement to support its move to the "Maduro recognition" section has been provided. In other words, unlike many of the statements sourced in the article, the General Assembly has not approved a resolution The UN Security Council has likewise failed to reach any resolution on the matter. No other statements regarding the UN Secretariat hae been provided.

Another concern that I have with similar edits, which is something that I expressed in the Spanish Wikipedia, is that "Maduro presidency Recognition" has been used interchangeably with "Support". Russia, China, Cuba, Iran, Syria, and Turkey, among other supporters, all hace aspects in common: the recognized the 2018 presidential election results and actively supported Maduro, continued to support Maduro vocally in 2019 after the challenges to his legitimacy and have actively opposed foreign interference in the situation. This is a far cry from the recent proposed changes. To give perspective, these were the same elections where the UN refused to provide assistance ([4]). That is the same reason why countries that maintain diplomatic relations with Venezuela but have not made any declaration whatsoever have not been colored red. As a compromise, I have changed colors of the map considering other factors, including restoration of diplomatic relations and presidential inauguration invitations, but we're getting dangerously close to original research.

For these reasons, the UN should be kept in the vocal neutrality section, and care should be taken with future changes. NoonIcarus (talk) 16:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The UN should not be in vocal neutrality given that it seats the Maduro government representative. Seating of the government representative followed the 2019 comments you describe. However, your comment regarding the General Assembly being one of several potentially applicable UN bodies is a fair point, and a nuance I addressed in the paragraph description of the UN response which appears earlier in the article, but given the list formatting is not capable of being re-addressed in the list. One alternative would be to delete UN from the "list" section entirely, as the "list" format fails to capture these nuances which we believe to be important. The other points you raise seem to suggest the list approach is not an effective way to present the information at all, and that it should be formatted as a narrative instead. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@JArthur1984: I think it is the same problem there is with the appointment and dismissal of ambassadors. In some cases, governments and organizations have contradictory positions, offering public statements while at the same time keeping diplomatic relations, or quietly changing diplomatic positions. The situation in the General Assembly should not change much, because as far as I know, credentials are renewed yearly. Removing the UN from the list might be a good middle ground. Good thinking, and many thanks. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@NoonIcarus Thank you as well, I believe we have pleasantly worked through some important issues and nuances. JArthur1984 (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)