Talk:Sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis/Archive 1

x

REVERT

I am somewhat awestruck that the alphabetization of the list was removed; it is hard to use a list that isn't alphabetical, since you can't find the person, made even more difficult by doble apellido for English-speaking readers. I put a lot of work into getting the full correct names.

Having reverted, I am now working through restoring the intermediate helpful edits.

Please do not remove the spaces I put around citation templates: I find it very hard to edit without them, as the content becomes a wall of text.

Next, after spending the better part of several days to put up a fully cited article (this is a BLP issue), the chart of companies sanctioned was added without citations. I am still working to recover good additions to the chart that were caught in the revert; perhaps someone else can work on adding citations to the companies before re-adding them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: sorry about the spaces. I won't do it again, except for those double spaces that are not close to any reference. --MaoGo (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Not to worry; your eyes may be younger than mine :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Information that was taken from the Spanish article, and added under each country, was duplicated. I had changed the citations to English-language citations, which are preferable on English Wikipedia. So, I have deleted all Company information that was added; it can be re-added if cited, preferably in English. I would have done that work myself, but had grown too tired; please do it right, though, before adding. Content on Wikipedia at MINIMUM should be cited, and preferably to English-language sources when available. Still working to restore good edits to Persons chart. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I had also put a lot of work into assuring that I had full, complete (doble apellido) names on all people, which are quite necessary when working in Latin America, and those were removed ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Harrington v Harringhton, misspelling introduced. I took all data from U.S. Treasury website, which gives full doble apellido name in every case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Companies sanctioned

This is uncited. The text mentions 16 companies, and this is more than 16. It should not be hard to add a citation to each entry. Starting an article on Wikipedia with uncited content is just mind-blowing. Please cite before re-adding; we do have to take care with BLP issues here, and we had versions of this article on the Spanish Wikipedia alleging sanctions on people who were not sanctioned at all, rather sanctions had been suggested. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Second, this list is unhelpful because it can't be sorted alphabetically. Please either make the chart sortable, or set it up alphabetical. Both the company name and the person name should be alphabetical (person by last name), and we cannot add information about living people that is uncited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

extended content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Company Name Established Key people Technical Suport Trading S.A. 8 April 2014 Evelyn Malpica Torrealba (Director) Lumar Development, S.A. 9 September 2014 Evelyn Malpica Torrealba (Director) American Quality Professional, S.A. 4 March 2015 Evelyn Malpica Torrealba (Director and Secretary) Proalco, S.A. 4 March 2015 Evelyn Malpica Torrealba (Director and Treasurer) Internacional Business Suppliers, Inc. 7 August 2015 Carlos Maplica Torrealba (Director, Treasurer and Supervisor) Iriamni Malpica Flores (Director, President, Secretary and Supervisor) Tanker Administrators Corp. 2 September 2015 Evelyn Malpica Torrealba (Director and President) Iriamni Malpica Flores (Director) Maritime Crews, Inc. 2 September 2015 Evelyn Malpica Torrealba (Director and President) Iriamni Malpica Flores (Director) Maritime Administration Group, Inc. 2 September 2015 Evelyn Malpica Torrealba (Director and President) Sea Side Services, Inc. 3 September 2015 Evelyn Malpica Torrealba (Director and President) Iriamni Malpica Flores (Director) Oceanus Investors Corp. 3 September 2015 Evelyn Malpica Torrealba (Director and President) Iriamni Malpica Flores (Director) Marine Administration Panama, Inc. 4 September 2015 Evelyn Malpica Torrealba (Director and President) Iriamni Malpica Flores (Director) Maritime Tanker Administration, S.A. 10 September 2015 Evelyn Malpica Torrealba (Director and President) Iriamni Malpica Flores (Director) Maritime Tanker Services, S.A. 10 September 2015 Evelyn Malpica Torrealba (Director and President) Iriamni Malpica Flores (Director) Marine Investor Corp. 10 September 2015 Evelyn Malpica Torrealba (Director and President) Iriamni Malpica Flores (Director) Marine Investment Group, Inc. 10 September 2015 Evelyn Malpica Torrealba (Director and President) Iriamni Malpica Flores (Director) Inversiones Cemt, S.A. 5 October 2015 Evelyn Malpica Torrealba (Director) Carlos Malpica Torrealba (Director, President, Treasurer and Supervisor) Iriamni Malpica Flores (Director, Secretary and Supervisor) Agencia Vehículos Especiales Rurales y Urbanos, C.A. (Averuca) Rafael Sarria (President) Quiana Trading Limited Rafael Sarria (President) Panazeate Rafael Sarria (President) Globovisión Tele CA Raúl Gorrín (President) Gustavo Perdomo Globovisión Tele CA, Corp. Raúl Gorrín (President) Gustavo Perdomo Seguros La Vitalicia Raúl Gorrín (President) Corpomedios GV Inversiones, CA Raúl Gorrín (President) Gustavo Perdomo Corpomedios LLC Raúl Gorrín (President) Gustavo Perdomo RIM Group Investments, Corp. Raúl Gorrín (President) María Perdomo Grupo RIM Inversiones I Corp. Raúl Gorrín (President) María Perdomo Grupo RIM Inversiones II Corp. Raúl Gorrín (President) María Perdomo Grupo RIM Inversiones III Corp. Raúl Gorrín (President) María Perdomo RIM grupo Propiedades de Nueva York, Corp. Raúl Gorrín (President) RIM grupo Propiedades de Nueva York II Corp. Raúl Gorrín (President) Mago Holdings EE.UU., Corp. Gustavo Perdomo (President) Mayela Tarascio-Pérez Magus Holding LLC Gustavo Perdomo (President) Magus Holding II LLC Gustavo Perdomo (President) Tindaya Propiedades Holding Corp. USA Gustavo Perdomo (President) Propiedades Tindaya de Nueva York, Corp. Gustavo Perdomo (President) Tindaya Propiedades de Nueva York II Corp. Gustavo Perdomo (President) Posh 8 Dynamic Inc. Raúl Gorrín (President) Constello No. 1 Corporation Gustavo Perdomo (President) Mayela Tarascio-Pérez Constello Inc. Gustavo Perdomo (President) Mayela Tarascio-Pérez Windham Comercial Group Inc. Raúl Gorrín (President) Gustavo Perdomo Planet 2 Alcanzar Inc. Raúl Gorrín (President) Potrico Corp. Gustavo Perdomo (President)

These companies were supposedly among Panama's sanctions, save for the last ones, which were US sanctions against CEO's such as Raúl Gorrín. I think they were also added in the Spanish version without a specific source, so I'll try to check them when I have the chance. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• I have found a huge number of sources which do not rise to the level needed for BLP issues; we cannot add this kind of text without a high quality source. Do want to add this, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• And then this from BBC; but Panama airlines fly to Venezuela now, because Guaido flew in on one ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Got it finally. Found at Panamanian Economic and Finance Ministry, so this source can be used: It is already in the article, so just use ref name= PanamaSanc But before we can add the individual director names, we need a source for them. Not a pedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Starting company list work at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox2; please put any sources at User talk:SandyGeorgia/sandbox2 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

•  Done. Except I do not know what was the source on the personal information about Panamanian companies, so have left that blank per BLP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

See also

DOES NOT need to include articles that are already linked within the body of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Work in progress

See User talk:SandyGeorgia/sandbox2 for list of names that were included on previous lists but uncited: I built this new chart COMPLETELY from scratch, and then cross-compared it to other lists. @Jamez42: is going through that list now. BUT ... unless I have a high-quality source, I will not add a poorly sourced information to this chart-- BLP VIO-- many of those people were suggested for sanctions, and show up only in Spanish-language sources, so we shall carefully check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I was writing a response for the remaining people, but I ran out of battery. In brief, the people that is unsourced seem to come from a list suggested by Marco Rubio for the Venezuela Defense of Human Rights and Civil Society Act of 2014. I have looked at the act's content and it doesn't seem to specify individuals. If there's anybody else that could check, it would be excellent. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

That is the same thing I had uncovered. He suggested people that were never actually sanctioned, yet they ended up on our list. That is a Very Bad BLP vio, and we need to take greater care with this page. I'll run through your work in my sandbox next, but let's be sure before we re-add anyone. The US Dept of Treasury website is very thorough, and if people aren't there, they aren't sanctioned in the US. Curiously, I could find ZERO good sources on Luisa Ortega Diaz! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

April 2019 sanctions

Source US adds 2 companies, 34 vessels to Venezuela sanctions list (WP). --MaoGo (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• U.S. Sanctions Two Companies Over Venezuela-Cuba Oil Shipments (Bloomberg). --MaoGo (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Well, bugger all ... it is looking like I am going to have to clean up, alphabetize, remove the BLP issues, and cite the company list (above) myself, since no one else seems to be doing it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Starting company list work at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox2; please put any sources at User talk:SandyGeorgia/sandbox2 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Chart is done; will add these when I get a second wind. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Don't want to interrupt your flow, but have you caught April 5th new sanctions [1]? Kingsif (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Kingsif, just finished them. I cheated on the 34 vessels, and put them all in one entry, or I'd be here all week! [2] New York Times is paywalled for me, so if I missed anything crucial, please add it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

No, just Pence saying that it's because Venezuelan oil should stay in Venezuela. Kingsif (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Color

Should we use a different color for the table regarding the sanctioned companies? --Jamez42 (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: Yes, but I don't know how :) Go for it, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia:  Done! Let me know if the table should have other colors or if they should be either lighter or darker. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I will get back to you after I check on accessibility ... for some reason, I am remembering there are certain problematic colors for the color blind, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: found; here are best colors for accessibility. Did you use those? Also, there are errors still in the Spanish Wiki sanctions chart-- I left a message on your talk. Maybe you can just copy this one to there? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Agh, good call. I remember seeing it someday, but I totally forgot. Replaced; I also made the fixes in the Spanish table, including turning the table sortable :) --Jamez42 (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42:, we still aren't completely in compliance with MOS:COLOR, but I can fix that by adding another column. How do you do this work so fast? Do you put it into a word processor? I will fix the MOS issue next ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Excellent :) I use the "Search and replace" tool while editing, meaning it's enough just to copy the original color with the one I want it replaced with. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: did you see how long it takes me? Where is "Search and replace" when editing Wikipedia? I cannot find it. I am literally ... doing them manually. Could you finish up the companies section, adding the codes as I did on persons? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh, please don't do that to yourself :( We should be able to automate as much as possible. The tool is just below the "Switch editor" option, on the upper top left corner of the code editor box. In the visual editor you can use the Ctrl+F hotkey, assuming you're using Windows. If you can't still find it, I'll try uploading a screenshot. I'll get working on the remaining table :) --Jamez42 (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42:. Oh, dear :( :( Almost 15 years of editing, and I am now seeing that editing box at the top of the edit window. But I cannot find a "switch editor" option or a "Search and replace" option. How much time have I wasted in 15 years ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Don't sweat it :) Sometimes we're you're not used to a new tool it can create mistakes or even take more time. I think this screenshot can give you a better idea, I forgot to mention its icon is a magnifying glass over a sheet of paper. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Incomplete link, and I am now completely dejected :( I cannot find information anywhere about how to use "search and replace" on Wikipedia, and I cannot believe the effort I have wasted for so many years. Maybe I should be put out to pasture :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I'm a mess; I fixed the link. Please don't think that way :( As long as you enjoy editing I don't think it's a waste of effort. There are several tools that I have learned about over the years, and there are probably several more I don't know about. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I have the screenshot now; I do not see a magnifying glass over a sheet of paper. Nor do I see anything about "Switch editor". Maybe I disabled the visual editor years ago or something. Jamez42, would you be able to add the codes to the Company section, as I did on Persons? MOS:COLOR says we should not depend only on color for identification, to help the visually impaired. I give up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I realized I made another mistake: I meant upper left corner :( I haven't been feeling good today. I've finally managed to upload a modified screenshot. I'm also sorry since I'm not sorry if I understand the changes to the code; I added letter next to each sanctioned entity. Best wishes! --Jamez42 (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I hope you feel better; I'm heading out for the evening. My screen doesn't look like that image, but if I switch to Visual Editor, voila, I have a search and replace!! You did the changes right-- thanks for everything Jamez SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

New sanctions 12 April

On it, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-12/u-s-sanctions-four-shipping-companies-for-venezuela-ties SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Canadian Sanctions update (15 April)

@SandyGeorgia

New Canadian sanctions announced today: [3]

For the first time, the sanctions included FM Jorge Arreaza --cyrfaw (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Second source: [4] Thanks --cyrfaw (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Third source: [5] --cyrfaw (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I can offer this list including the position of each official:

• Alfredo Ruiz, Defensor del pueblo
• Larry Devoe, Secretario Consejo de DDHH
• Simón Zerpa, Ministro de Finanzas
• Víctor Cano, Ministro de Minería
• Manuel Quevedo, presidente PDVSA
• Eduardo Piñate, Ministro de Trabajo
• Justo Noguera Pietri. Gobernador de Bolívar
• Omar Prieto. Gobernador de Zulia
• Ramón Carrizalez. Gobernador de Apure
• Jorge Luis García Carneiro. Gobernador de Vargas
• Rafael Lacava. Gobernador de Carabobo
• Gladys Requena. Segunda vicepresidenta de la Asamblea Nacional Constituyente
• Earle Herrera. Constituyentista
• María Alejandra Díaz. Constituyentista
• Marco Antonio Medina. Magistrado del TSJ
• Bárbara Gabriela César. Magistrado del TSJ
• Inocencio Figueroa. Magistrado del TSJ
• María Carolina Ameliach. Magistrado del TSJ
• Eulalia Guerrero. Magistrado del TSJ --Jamez42 (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Yep, thanks, I'm on it ! Lists are most helpful when alphabetized ... I grab them and work offsite to get them in the right order, so if I mess up their definitions, I trust you all will fix them! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42 and Cyfraw:, two things:

• Haringhton Padrón, Katherine Nayarith now moves up to the top, where I have those who have four or more sanctions. She needs an en.wiki bio! Anyone want to create it?

I was thinking about translating a stub today since I started a biography in Spanish, but I need to catch some Zs. Harrington has quite a story; Lorent Saleh accused her of personally overseeing tortures, once he was freed. --Jamez42 (talk) 02:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done! --Jamez42 (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• This has me confused: this page clearly lists the sanctioned by number, as did the previous Canada pages. We previously had 54 sanctioned, now we add 43, brings us to 97 total (I am still adding the new people). So, I agree with that list (or will, when I finish adding the new people). But this source claims there were previously 70 Canadians sanctioned ? I have not seen that number before, and it does not agree with the official Canada government list ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

  Found-- there's another whole list! It has 19, but 3 are repeats, so 16. First list, 40; second 19-3=16; third list, 14; (70) fourth list, 43= 113 total, confirmed here, so I have to add the 19-3= 16 more. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• I don't know what to do about Jose Rivas-- name is too common. Please check my definitions on all ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

  @Jamez42: Jose Rivas is still blank because I don't know who he is. (I re-corrected the spelling on Haringhton but waiting on you to move the article.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Thanks!--Jamez42 (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Will check if the Canada list is duplicate. --cyrfaw (talk) 02:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I think I got Canada sorted now! I synced to the article that said 70, and then adding the new 43, I synced to another source that said 113. It should be clear now from reading the Canada section. Whew-- what a lot of time buried in nasty stuff :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Well then, thank you--cyrfaw (talk) 12:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Arreaza and Carol Padilla

Arreaza and Carol Padilla sanctioned, article of the latter created in the Spanish Wikipedia. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Cyfraw got it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I already provided the update after reading some updates on Venezuela. --cyrfaw (talk) 18:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah, my bad, thank you! I added an ill link. Marking as  Done --Jamez42 (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

17 April: Cuba, Nicaragua, restrict dollar

Reuters:

• Lots of countries angry because Cuba sanctions affect foreign companies
• Rollback of US law against suing Cuban companies, or more specifically, "foreign companies that use properties seized by Cuba’s Communist government since Fidel Castro’s 1959 revolution"
• Rollback of Obama's travel plan, reinstating the complete bar of US travel to Cuba and bar on money transmission between the two
• Restricting Cuban military-owned airline Aerogaviota and four other unspecified entities or people
• Sanctions on Nicaragua's Bancorp and one of the President's sons, Laureano Ortega
• Venezuela Central Bank sanctions
• Prohibit access to dollar

Kingsif (talk) 20:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I added Central Bank, but not sure about getting into Cuba territory in this article; perhaps a Cuba sanctions article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Maybe a section; after all, the Cuba sanctions are with the intention to put pressure on Venezuela, a separate article wouldn't have the context? Kingsif (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I think we are going to see much better sources come in (eg The Atlantic) over the next 24 to 48 hours, and it would be good to get this topic in the right place early on. It is more than Venezuela, and will end up linked in many places—-because of Cuba Nicaragua and the whole US foreign policy aspect. Let’s ping in everyone and explore if we can put the whole thing somewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@MaoGo, Jamez42, Cyfraw, and ZiaLater: where to put the content that came out today (with more analysis likely to come) ... options:

• Create a separate section here (what to call it)
• Create a section at Troika of tyranny
• Create a section somewhere in Cuba relations ... not sure what that would be ...

The thing is, The Atlantic article makes me think this is going to need more treatment than just a section of this already large article. I am sort of partial to expanding the Troika of tyranny article, and then linking that sanction content back to here and also to Cuba and Nicaragua relations articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I just re-read the Troika of tyranny article, and am more convinced this content is a fit for there-- two things-- the lead of that article now mentions sanctions, and The Atlantic articles ties the sanctions directly to the Troika. If we expand the content there with a Sanctions section, we can anchor it, and link it here to Venezuela, but also to Cuba and Nicaragua. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

That seems like a good fit Kingsif (talk) 01:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kingsif: I've expanded Troika of tyranny, worked in the basic named refs, and set up the structure to include mention of sanctions directed at the individual countries. Shall I leave the honors of adding text to you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Yes, great! Kingsif (talk) 14:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kingsif:, you're on ... the named refs are there for The Atlantic and the New York Times, but not Reuters (I think the others are more comprehensive); in addition to adding the new material, you may need to expand some of the older sanctions on Nicaragua and Cuba, but you can just link to this article for Venezuela. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I've done what I think needed doing, if you want to take a look. The main bulk is Cuba, which has context about being used against Venezuela. Kingsif (talk) 15:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

What is still missing, if anyone wants to fill in, are better descriptions of sanctions beginning Nov 2018. Also, more coverage of response from the Reuters article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Effects

I understand some analyses have concluded that defections and advancements on investigations have been motivated by sanctions. If found, I would recommend including them to the section. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

UNDUE content in Effects

So, by including a fringe publication that was reported on by two sources, we now have about 236 words about reports that were covered by scores of very high quality sources, or statements from the highest quality sources, and almost 200 words on the WP:FRINGE report. This is an example of how POV is created. The amount of space in the article devoted to a fringe report is disproportionate, lending to it a significance not accorded by reliable sources. And we haven't even added Hausmann's rebuttal yet. Wikipedia reflects content in rough proportion to sources. We have a distinct POV violation here.

• REMOVE CEPR report as UNDUE. It was largely ignored by the preponderance of sources, was covered by only two sources, one source that does report on it [6] does so in halting terms (see POV section above), and the article is already huge and will still grow (so space should be devoted to mainstream topics). This article doesn't have to accommodate such a fringe topic. Whether it should be included at the CEPR article is for discussion there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
• KEEP CEPR report. As it currently stands, it is well-contextualized and by no means misrepresented as a majority view. It was reported in multiple reliable sources and there is clearly a significant amount of discussion around it in others (e.g., the the state department and Hausmann responses). If the amount of space devoted to discussion of the report is a concern, the disproportionate amount of response that is currently included could be one place to start trimming; it comes off as very the-lady-doth-protest-too-much and not very encyclopedic, as I am beginning to realize is the case for most if not all articles on current events in Venezuela. However, I'm fine with it as it currently stands. cmonghost 👻 (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• As for the "POV violation", when an entire article is written from a non-neutral perspective, it's unsurprising that the addition of elements that might reduce the slant (such as well-attested alternative perspectives) might be jarring. We may have to agree to disagree on whether or not this is a real problem; I see it as a positive outcome. cmonghost 👻 (talk) 22:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• KEEP CEPR report per Cmonghost's arguments above. I'll add: a) CEPR has been cited as a source for other Wikipedia articles with no edit conflicts over their inclusion, at least that I have encountered (such as Economic Inequality, among others), b) Jeffrey Sachs as co-author gives the article significant credibility in my estimation, given that he's a prominent capitalist economist and not someone known for being an apologist for the current Venezuelan government.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 04:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Critics of sanctions

Continued from discussion of CEPR report at Talk:Crisis in Venezuela SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

It was discussed on Talk:Crisis in Venezuela that this material, which was just reverted, would be better suited for this article than that one. almost immediately after adding this material, it was reverted here with the claim made that it can only be added through consensus, which to me smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Both Jeffrey Sachs and UN special rapporteur Idriss Jazairy are notable individuals and their criticisms significant, and balances the paragraph which seems, at least to me, to be dismissive of the notion that sanctions are seriously harming the country.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@C.J. Griffin: My positions stands that care should be taken regarding the wording. Jeffrey Sachs has been described too has left-leaning, and Idriss Jazai has been accused of bias by UN Watch, just like de Zayas. However, per NPOV I agree that the point of view against the sanctions, including of including government officials, should be included, specially given that arguments and statements that sanctions are not the cause for the hardships in Venezuela. I think I could suggest that a "Criticism" section is created, when the information can be expanded and in turn the information in the lead could be summarized. What do you think? --Jamez42 (talk) 13:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I could live with that. I was actually surprised there wasn't a criticism section, given that the sanctions have significant critics. However I disagree with your assertion that Sachs is "too left-leaning". He's an unabashed capitalist and one of the primary pushers of "shock therapy" on post-Soviet Russia, which proved to be calamitous. He also said third world sweatshops could be a good thing. Hardly a leftist position, but I digress. I'm less familiar with the UN official, but given his position and that the OHCHR published his criticism it would seem to be relevant, regardless of his politics. Are you of the opinion that those who are (in your opinion anyway) "too left-leaning", regardless of their prominence, should have no voice here? This is what I'm taking from your comments. And what of the bias of this so-called UN Watch? Who funds and support it? Clicking on the webpage, one of the first individuals I see is a conservative, Stephen Harper. It is becoming more clear to me why the articles on the crisis in Venezuela are some of the most slanted I've ever seen on Wikipedia, and I've been here a long time.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

C.J., I apologize that you have had multiple things come up in the last few days that I have not had time to focus on, and now I have an app't this morning, and a guest tonight. I promise to tune it to this as soon as I can; please ping me if I fail :) But quickly ... criticism sections are to be avoided. If there is criticism, it is best worked in to the text with a logical flow, back and forth; criticism sections segment and isolate text= POV. (I have not had time to look at the text you introduced that was reverted.) Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Please let's remember assuming good faith, I feel the discussion is going alright. To be honest I don't know much about Jeffrey Sachs either, I took the claim from the Business Standard reference provided in the edit: "But a study by two prominent left-leaning US economists, Mark Weisbrot and Jeffrey Sachs, warned that the growing sanctions will "vastly" harm ordinary Venezuelans." I admit that I'm surprised to know about his previous statements. Speaking of Idriss Jazairy, my concern goes mostly towards WP:CHERRY. I found activist Susana Raffalli's comments on this very important: during an audience of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights, she explained that de Zayas was one among forty experts and the only one that claimed that there wasn't a humanitarian crisis in the country. My point is that this view isn't shares by most peers, but I'm precisely saying that per NPOV the view still should be included. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I glanced quickly at the reverted text. We have criticism available from higher quality sources, and we should use that rather than these less reported sources. There are good sources for criticism; these just aren't the best to use. There is criticism at the Crisis article, and there is less biased criticism to be found. Google is your friend, and yes, worry that we are cherrying here not the highest quality sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

It seems there is agreement that per NPOV, these views should be included here. I know criticism sections are not recommended, but are not outright banned either, and many articles have them for good or for ill. I felt that the materials were exactly part of the "logical flow, back and forth" in the paragraph I inserted them in, because there is no real discussion on the validity of sanctions outside the lede that I saw. Adding a section which is not necessarily a criticism section, but where these issues are flushed out where critics of sanctions and the harm they are causing are included, might be a solution. I don't consider WP:Cherry to be an issue here, given these are noteworthy individuals and any mention of sanctions causing serious harm are consistently being removed from these articles on the crisis in Venezuela, making WP:POV a greater concern from where I'm sitting. And the original article was published by Agence France-Presse, which is certainly a reliable and high quality source; it was just picked up by the less notable Business Standard publication. The AFP article should be the cited source if Sachs is to be added, and I certainly believe he should be. The other is published by the OHCHR itself, which makes it notable as well. OHCHR has already been used as a source in these crisis in Venezuela articles, so I fail to see why this one should be excluded.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Critics: break

There is NPOV agreement that criticism must be included, and it is, although as you point out, we have it in the lead, but not in the body. I agree with you that we might fix that by changing "History and legislation" to ... a broader name that does not occur to me just yet ... or adding a new section whose name also doesn't come to me. Ideas for a section that would flow both directions, and not be only criticism? There, we would include the info already in the lead, and hopefully also improve the flow, because we have the same thought in two different paragraphs now (and that problem was made worse by your addition).

We also agree that notable and DUE weight criticism should be included (and we can find plenty of it from high-quality reliable sources, including what is already in the lead). But the UN fellow whose views are not even apparently held in high regard by the UN doesn't fit that category IMO, nor does the report from a source that is not entirely neutral on Venezuela matters (CEPR). There is plenty of good criticism to be found, we have sources free of bias saying they are concerned about what might happen, and we don't need to add sources with even a suggestion of bias when there are sources that are completely neutral saying the same thing and not relying on speculative analysis from an author who has ties to chavismo.

Because the info was split between two paras, the "Nevertheless" also caused problems (there were previous sources saying same). My suggestion: a) we figure out a section name and place for the whole thing; b) gather it all into that section; c) come up with two or three summary sentences back to the lead. Yes, we need to better address criticism here, and I got hung up on where to put it besides the lead. I think if we can come up with a section heading, we may be halfway to solving the problem, and we can then work on what to say in the lead. I do not believe either of those fellows should be highlighted in the lead, and am doubtful that they even belong in the body, when so many neutral sources on the matter can be found. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

So

@Cmonghost:, did you consider reading the talk page before adding some content that will need sustantial work to reflect what the sources actually say? Please do read the discussions above; not even CEPR/Weisbrot claim the level of certainty in that number that is in the wording you added. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:09, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

My understanding is that the Independent is a reliable source, so I had no misgivings about using them as a source (which is where the number came from). Thanks for referring me to the discussion on this page, which I wasn't aware of, though I don't regret making a bold edit in any case. Cmonghost (talk) 04:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Having read the discussion, I'd like to note that I didn't add a criticism section, but a section on the effects of sanctions, including info from a reliable source. Those who are more well-informed about any positive effects are welcome to add some additional information. Cmonghost (talk) 04:19, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: As you suggested in discussion above, a section for "both sides" of the effects of sanctions is warranted. Why then have you removed it and the information from a reliable source that it contained? Cmonghost (talk) 04:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Because you did not even attempt to balance the text you inserted; you clearly cherrypicked, even from the sources you used, in one of the most obviously POV posts I've seen since the presidential crisis began. I am working on balancing it now, and will post it here shortly, and then we can discuss whether it is worthy of inclusion. The first thing we need to figure out (as I stated above) is what to call the section. I hope you can see that we do a disservice to our readers by creating an entirely POV, unbalanced section to highlight only cherry picked portions of one news report, particularly when the lead of this article already has much higher quality sources that say precisely the opposite. It takes some work to do it right; please do next time. While I am re-crafting your text to post here for ALL of us to discuss, maybe you can read the lead and think of whether "Effects" is the preferrred section title, once I move all of that better content down there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

So, you reinserted again clearly POV, one-sided, cherry-picked text, knowing that there is no consensus, having read the discussion, and knowing that I was working on a proposal to put here so we could all work on it. Good start. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I adjusted the text according to your objection, as I noted in the edit summary—I didn't just "reinsert" it, so I reject your below characterization of my contribution as edit warring. As for your inaccurate assessment of my insertion as "POV", note that I made it clear that the section should include multiple perspectives: my goal was to open a glaringly missing section, then add some information based on a reliable source, with the expectation that others could do the same rather than hastily revert. I view this expansion as a service to our readers, not a disservice. I do appreciate the work that is now taking place on the section, but I wanted to explain my actions because you're characterizing them inaccurately. All best, Cmonghost (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll deal with that in a new section; we disagree. When you outrageously cherrypick from a reliable source, please don't expect me to be happy with the work caused for others. If you can't do it right the first time, then an alternative is to propose text on talk for others who can; doing the same thing a second time is disruptive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Given that an actual section is being constructed which could possibly include some of what I added earlier which was reverted, I figured I'd trim some of that to add to this section, along with a rewrite of the material which is already included. This is not meant to be a final version by any means, just some material that might be included once the final version is constructed via consensus:

"A 2019 report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research found that US sanctions on Venezuela were responsible for an increase in deaths during 2017 and 2018, when excess mortality surged around the same time the new sanctions were "depriving Venezuelans of lifesaving medicines, medical equipment, food, and other essential imports". The US state department said the report was based on "speculation and conjecture" and placed blame on "Maduro’s ineptitude and economic mismanagement." Jeffrey Sachs, one of the co-authors of the aforementioned CEPR report, and UN special rapporteur Idriss Jazairy, have expressed concerns that the sanctions could be an attempt by the United States to foment regime change in Venezuela."

--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Sorry, C.J., I know we intended to work on this together, but Cmonghost, in addition to other distractions for two days, edit warred his version in without us, so I had to go ahead and clean it up. It was far too unbalanced to leave marring the article like that.

I do not agree that this content belongs in the article at all; it is UNDUE, it was not picked up by high quality sources rather largely ignored by them (the UN and the HRW/Johns Hopkins reports were all over scores of independent sources), and it is ugly to have text that needs so much explanation and disclaimer from the source about its speculative nature. However.

Some of your prose is better than what I wrote, but some of your text leaves out things which I think are required if the text stays.

Maybe we can now work on it together, and wait for Jamez42 and ZiaLater to also have an opinion. Some specifics on your proposal:

• "A 2019 report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research found

The source itself uses the word "claim" more than once (even in the title); this is a highly speculative finding even according to the source you all give, and use of the word "found" implies a level of certainty that does not exist and is not supported by the secondary source.

• that US sanctions on Venezuela were responsible

Ditto for the word "responsible"; the source clearly says "may"; responsible confers a level of certainty that is not in this report, as the source makes clear.

• for an increase in deaths during 2017 and 2018, when excess mortality surged around the same time the new sanctions were "depriving Venezuelans of lifesaving medicines, medical equipment, food, and other essential imports".

That runs together two separate thoughts to infer a strength of conclusion that is unsupported. Every other source says the sanctions were NOT depriving citizens of anything early on.

• The US state department said the report was based on "speculation and conjecture" and placed blame on "Maduro’s ineptitude and economic mismanagement."[1]

I think I got that basically.

• Jeffrey Sachs, one of the co-authors of the aforementioned CEPR report, and UN special rapporteur Idriss Jazairy, have expressed concerns that the sanctions could be an attempt by the United States to foment regime change in Venezuela."[2][3]

I hate the word aforementioned; we're not that important :) I object to using a UN person that even the UN ignores. And we can find plenty of neutral, unbiased sources that quite clearly state that the US is (d'oh) seeking regime change. We probably already have a source in the article that says that. We don't need to attribute that to someone even the UN ignores, or to authors associated with any bias. We can find something that basic from Reuters or Associated Press; adding these fellows amounts to puffery.

Again, I'm sorry I had to put up something without working on it together as we had discussed. And I still don't like the section heading "Effects", but am still stalled on what to do about it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

And now that I've re-read our earlier discussion, my apologies for things I had forgotten that we had already talked about. I trust you and Jamez and @MaoGo and Cyfraw: will get it sorted from here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

"The US has admitted the sanctions are aimed at dislodging Mr Maduro, ... " is to be found right in The Independent source already given;[7] what better than to say it in the US own words? No need for biased sources of something that is d'oh and acknowledged. What is the reasoning for wanting to push certain people into this article, when their statements add nothing to what the Trump Administration has acknowledged as the goal ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I must say I completely disagree with your reasoning for excluding Idriss Jazairy from the article, and Sachs' statement on regime change for that matter (which has been mentioned by Democracy Now!, Agence France-Presse, and the Independent). A "UN person that even the UN ignores"? Um, *citation needed*? If the UN was ignoring this person, who so happens to be a special rapporteur, why would the OHCHR even bother to publish a statement by this individual (which I added as a citation)? Moreover, it's not like this exists in limbo and I had to go sifting through a plethora of media reports in order to "cherry pick" it and said "ahh hah!" His criticisms are mentioned in the very same Independent article which is used as a citation for the CEPR report in this article. IMO this is due material, and nothing you've said so far convinces me otherwise. I really wish more than just literally a handful of editors were discussing this. This is something I consider important. This is hardly controversial given the established history of US behavior towards Latin America over the last century (Guatemala 1954, Brazil 1964, Chile 1973, etc).--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for mixing up Jazairy and de Zayas. (Damn z's.) More to come, computer problems. Yes, the US wants regime change. (So do 85% of Venezuelans and 54 other countries; we can state it probably in Wikipedia voice and sourced from a neutral unbiased source; it is a no-brainer. That part does not need to hang us up.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Well then I see no reason not to include the latter part of the material I provided an example of above (I'll repost it here: "Jeffrey Sachs, one of the co-authors of the aforementioned CEPR report, and UN special rapporteur Idriss Jazairy, have expressed concerns that the sanctions could be an attempt by the United States to foment regime change in Venezuela."), given it is attributed to reliable sources (i.e., Agence France-Presse and OHCHR).--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Could you please remember to insert reflist-talk tags when you add ref tags to a talk post? If I have to be secretary, janitor and administrative assistant here (cleaning up not only POV unbalanced and incomplete edits but talk page basics), it is kind of hard to actually type a coherent response to anything. If you find references hanging at the bottom of the talk page, it's because a reftalk-list is needed. Alternately, you might consider not using ref tags on talk, rather just enclosing the URL of the source. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay I will. Although I would argue that I'm also attempting to introduce balance in an article which is unbelievably slanted, citing reliable and noteworthy sources. Given there was no objection to my proposal above (just critiques of me forgetting to add a ref tag, etc. I sometimes comment in haste), I am considering adding the sentence as it is reliably sourced with proper attribution to the individuals making the assertions.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much. You may have noticed that I insert breaks between posts to make it easier for me to find things (eyesight). I hope that is not bugging anyone :) I do wish you would wait for consensus on the whole thing before inserting anything; I have still not been able to even lay out my concerns with the text, because of computer problem (lost everything once), and because I was doing janitorial stuff on this page. What is your objection to stating the "regime change goal" in an entirely impartial voice, and why do we need to attribute it to any given individual? I don't understand what we are trying to accomplish; it is a known fact? Why are we phrasing it as "could be an attempt" when we have sources that clearly state that it is? Your proposal gives us something that sounds weasly and has to be then attributed: why aren't we just stating it? SandyGeorgia (Talk)

I went ahead and added it given you provided no objection before I did so. I usually like to attribute assertions to notable individuals so the reader knows who exactly is saying this, especially if the noted individual is reputable and well known. I'm not attempting to be weasly, I just feel it is important in some instances to inform the reader who is making such assertions.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC) \

But (and this is one of Jamez42's bugaboos) when you attribute a fact or a widely-held view, you leave the reader with the impression that it is an isolated opinion. Regime change is the goal; that's a fact. We don't need attribution. There are enough times when we must attribute attribution, that adding it unnecessarily just gums up the text. "According to Professor X, the esteemed author of Book Y on topic Z, the sky is blue." We don't do that. We shouldn't it misleads the reader. The Sky IS Blue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Break

I have not been able to follow your whole conversation. But maybe I hope this could be taken into account as well, if not done so already Ricardo Haussman rebuttal of Sachs and Weisbrot (Amarica's Quaterly). --MaoGo (talk) 14:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, so long as it is mentioned that this Ricardo Hausmann is hardly a neutral source, and neither is Americas Quarterly, published by Council of the Americas, for that matter.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I do not know how reliable is commomDreams.org. But sure, we may state the impartiality of Haussman, but in the crisis, he is more of a main player in the economic terrain than Sachs and Weisbrot. --MaoGo (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

In fact, he's not just a main player in the "economic terrain", he's a "main player" in that he's described himself as an informal adviser to Guaidó as recently as January 2019 and has a long history of intimate involvement with the Venezuelan opposition and the regime change movement, as outlined here: [8]. I hope Bloomberg is a reliable enough source for you. Cmonghost (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Beat me to it. Also found this from Voice of America.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sure, I am not denying his involvement with Guaidó. I am saying he is a key player (it is almost as if Guaido wrote a rebuttal). Imagine that Weisbrot report was disliked by Maduro and he orders Nelson Merentes to write a rebuttal. This hypothetical Merentes rebuttal should be covered. --MaoGo (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

We all know who Hausmann is, just as we all know who Weisbrot is. Shall we pull out the same string of Weisbrot associations with chavismo projects? Qualify Hausmann and Weisbrot equally, or ... decide not to introduce text into the article that the media ignored. If we have to qualify one, we have to qualify the other, and this is where you end up when you try to force in UNDUE problematic text when even the source you all have provided (The Independent) has very clear issues with the CEPR claims (The Independent's words, not mine). Crafting text to reflect opposing biases is time-consuming; it's made harder when dealing with disruptive editing. And we are doing this for text that the media found not worth reporting, but we must ? I would like to deal with the disruptive editing issue first, because crafting this kind of text is difficult enough even if no one is misbehaving; working on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

So here again we see false claims that "the media ignored" information that was reported by a reliable source. Donald Trump is not considered to be a reliable source. But if the Independent or the NYT or any other generally reliable source reports on what he says, then it can be included in the article with the appropriate context. I have never said otherwise in this case. Before you accuse me of disruptive editing, note that you have completely failed to assume good faith in this case, and rather than improving my sourced edit, you hastily reverted sourced information because of unfounded speculation about POV editing. cmonghost 👻 (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I must say I find the above comments after "Crafting text to reflect opposing biases is time-consuming" a little unsettling. It seems like Wikipedia:Ownership of content could apply, unless I am misunderstanding the statements made. No single editor here has final say on what exactly the content will look like. Other editors adding reliably sourced content does not constitute "misbehaving".--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Your comment ignores that we were working collaboratively on how to add the text, we are working on adding the text, but a cherrypicked reflection of what the source actually says was inserted not once, but twice. When dealing with controversial text and now sources with different known biases, it will take time to get it right; inserting unbalanced text against consensus makes the task harder. Cmonghost, collaborative editing please. I try to add content that is picked up by multiple high-quality sources, particularly when it is controversial. As we discussed at length above, it would be made easier if the scores of sources that reported on, for example, the Johns Hopkins work had also reported the CEPR work. They didn't. You can insert text that only one source has chosen to report, to the extent that consensus does not find it UNDUE (at the point you inserted, you did not have that consensus). Regardless, if you choose to insert controversial information that is not widely reported, please do it without cherrypicking, and please attempt to balance your insertion by using what is clearly stated in the source. It saves time for all of us to not have to go through extra iterations to get the text right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

sorry having computer problems and have lost all my text twice. well, the problem with the first introduction of a biased source is then we have to balance it with another biased source. battling biased sources is not a fun way to edit, but you all get what you want i guess and we end up with a crap article. gee, so much easier not to insert the bias the first time, no(?) and stick with high quality neutral sources all the time? were there any crap sources in this article before this? Seriously, now we're down to sources of the caliber of commondreams to deal with the introduction of a speculative report that even The Independent has problems with? Still trying to compose a real response, moving to another computer to start over for the third time. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

How is The Independent, the source that I used to introduce the information about the CEPR report, a "biased source"? My understanding is that it's generally considered reliable. The provenance of the report is clearly indicated in the text, it's not as though it's simply being presented as fact. Cmonghost (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

The Independent is a reliable source, confirmed here.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Weisbrot is a biased source, and you made no attempt to reflect what The Independent reported. Working on fuller response. Yes, The Independent is a reliable source, but nobody else decided this work was worth reporting, but now we are into dueling territory of sources with known biases (Hausmann v Weisbrot). Sorry for my sloppiness in expression above: a bit computer-frustrated at the moment, and trying to decide which of the three to throw off the back deck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:V is a policy page: the idea that something belongs in an article because it can be found in one source is not based in Wikipedia policy. Inclusion of a fringe view is determined by consensus.

Neutrality. Even when information is cited to reliable sources, you must present it with a neutral point of view (NPOV). Articles should be based on thorough research of sources. All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. If there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation. Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view. Indeed, many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to summarize what the reliable sources say.

So, first arguing that I am OWNing the article when there is not consensus for this text is not on. Everything that is reliably sourced does not automatically get a place on Wikipedia. Second, the text might belong at the CEPR article. Third, yea, we are now going to have to attribute all of these dueling opinions if we keep this text, which I believe is FRINGE, based on the fact that practically no source chose to report it, and the one source that did gives us an indication of how they view they "claims". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Hausmann report

I added Hausmann, but I don't know who Frank Muci is, so the wording is awkward, because I later use authors in plural. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Why has Hausmann not received the same treatment as Weisbrot with a little note describing how biased he is? After all, he's an original supporter of the widely discredited Washington Consensus and has been advocating for the overthrow of the current government for over a decade (Salon article). And the right-wing BIASED National Review is even cited as a source to discredit Weisbrot. Talk about POV editing...--C.J. Griffin (talk) 04:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Hausmann's stance is identified already by his association with the Guaido administration; it's a d'oh, he is connected, he is part of the team, we don't need to give his whole political history because the reader already knows he's "one of them". We describe Weisbrot's associations with the topic according to sources. Beyond that, their other associations, stances, etc are or should be in their own articles, if people want to explore in more depth. This is kind of standard stuff, to give the reader enough to know if they want to click on their link and explore further, so calling it POV? What changes do you propose? (Don't look now, but salon.com is left-wing biased :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

True, but it doesn't go into detail about how he has been pushing for regime change for a decade, and is as biased against the government as Weisbrot is in favor of it. And Salon, while a left-wing source, is not included in the article, but the right-wing National Review is. (I guess right-biased sources are okay?) And the note was obviously included as a blatant attempt to discredit Weisbrot; Hausmann, while casually described as "Guaidó's representative to the Inter-American Development Bank", is not given the same treatment. It's almost jaw dropping.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The solution to (some of) that is to add missing info to Hausmann's article. (Anyone in the opposition has been advocating for a return to constitutional order for 20 years, so that's not something that particularly stands out; that he is part of Guaido's team tells the reader it is an opinion with a bias, which we also need to provide for Weisbrot.) But I wouldn't use salon.com to do it; Hausmann is widely known and well covered by many sources, so there should be tons of neutral sources stating his position on return to constitutional order in Venezuela.

National Review is in Weisbrot's article. I have been looking at the footnote per your concern: I copied the text straight from Weisbrot's article, without apparently much thought. I don't have a problem dropping National Review if you think that would render the two more balanced. I just copied from his article his basic positions on Venezuela (without going in to the movie thing). Let me know if dropping NR will suffice.[9]

Please don't accuse me of "blatant attempt"; I copied what was in Weisbrot's article, and shortened it to a footnote. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Fine I'll strike the comment. I was a little stunned to see such an inclusion given the discussion here of POV being placed into the article, and doing what I could to find the most reliable and neutral sources I could find for inclusion here (i.e., OHCHR, The Independent, AFP). I didn't include the article on the CEPR report by the progressive media outlet Democracy Now! in my edits for that reason. But yes, perhaps dropping it would help.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:52, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

"tis done. As you can see from Weisbrot's article, I just copied the whole first paragraph, and wasn't thinking at the time I did it in terms of how it would contrast to/balance with Hausmann. All is good! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

POV editing

Since we did not have this kind of problem here before, I hope we can avoid it going forward.

Source: (The Independent)

May 4:

• Text inserted with edit summary of new section for effects of sanctions—should be balanced with discussion of positive effects (if they can be sourced); understanding that Cmonghost may not yet have read the talk page, the edit nonetheless has three problems:

The text inserted was a highly unbalanced cherrypicked reflection of the source

Balance (as in high quality sources that say the exact opposite) was already in the lead, which you surely read when inserting the text. When creating a new section of only unbalanced text, the balancing text could have been added (as I later did, by bringing the other text down from the lead, and trimming the lead).

We've been hung up on how to name the section, and effects causes problems (see below).

None of this was a problem the first time it happened because you may not have read the talk page, so that's fine. It's what happened next:

• I removed; because there was no consensus for that, it was being discussed on talk, it was extremely POV, and repairing it would be better done with consensus on talk.
• You responded on talk at at 04:41, presumably now having read the talk page, so you know the content is contentious and under discussion. Yet:
• Six minutes later, you inserted a very slightly modified version with edit summary (bold, revert, bold again:) problematic for multiple reasons:

This is not "bold, revert, bold again"; it's edit warring.

Adding the extreme cherrypicking (still present in the second insertion, entirely uncorrected) to the edit warring, it seems disruptive

When added to the other issue about the Section heading and a double standard about "precision" and "accuracy" in language (see below), it starts to look like a tenditious, POV issue. AGF the first time; you did it twice, after reading talk.

• It is surprising that even after reading the talk page, you don't seem to have seen that the insertion failed to reflect the source. Text inserted:

  A 2019 report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research found that US sanctions on Venezuela were responsible for an increase in deaths in the years since their implementation[136]. According to the report, "The sanctions are depriving Venezuelans of lifesaving medicines, medical equipment, food, and other essential imports."

• What the source says (emphasis mine):

• US sanctions on Venezuela responsible for 'tens of thousands' of deaths, claims new report: Claim comes as US seeks to dislodge Venezuela's president

• The source uses the word claim repeatedly throughout the article, yet that is not the word they use when describing ENCOVI's work.

• As many as 40,000 people may have died in Venezuela as a result of US sanctions that made it harder for ordinary citizens to access food, medicine and medical equipment, a new report has claimed.

• May. Claimed. Not a "finding". Not holding someone "responsible". Your wording confers a level of finding that the source does not support.

• The report’s authors based their claims on estimates of excess mortalities contained within Venezuela’s National Survey on Living Conditions, known as Encovi. The annual survey of living conditions is administered by three Venezuelan universities. It found there was a 31 per cent increase in general mortality from 2017 to 2018 – representing more than 40,000 deaths.

• Big difference in how they describe CEPR work relative to ENCOVI. One is a claim; the other is a finding. Now this is all in the context of you just having spent two days on another article arguing for "precision" and "accuracy" in language, so ... I'm viewing your linguistic ability in your (self-expressed) terms. You care about language, but didn't see it here?

• Mr Weisbrot, a cofounder of the CEPR, told The Independent the authors could not prove those excess deaths were the result of sanctions,

• No mention in either your first or second insertion of the highly speculative character the source imparts to this "claim".

• The report claims that since the imposition of new sanctions on the oil industry, things have become more difficult for ordinary citizens.

• Good reporting that let's the reader decide: by now, we get it. The Independent is reporting a very speculative claim, and they are letting us see that. Wikipedia should do no less; we should give enough information that the reader can decide. You gave one side, to present it as a serious finding. The Independent doesn't.

• Asked to comment on the report’s claims that Washington’s sanctions had killed tens of thousands of people, the US state department said “as the writers themselves concede, the report is based on speculation and conjecture”. “The economic situation in Venezuela has been deteriorating for decades, as Venezuelans themselves will confirm, thanks to Maduro’s ineptitude and economic mismanagement. Nicolas Maduro and his corrupt cronies are solely responsible for the suffering of the Venezuelan people and the flight of over 3 million Venezuelans into other countries and countless deaths,” a spokesperson added.

• Neither of the insertions made any attempt to balance by giving both sides of the story. Highly cherry-picked, POV text was inserted twice.

This kind of editing is a timesink, and is not collaborative. And it's disrespectful because it assumes someone else will clean up after you. Please realize that there are very few editors who speak Spanish and are maintaining multiple articles, and please edit in a way that does not assume others will be the janitor. The balance needed to do it right was in the article already, and in the source. You left the work for me, and you made the whole thing harder than it needed to be. Please discuss contentious text first on talk so we can get off on the right foot. It is not cool to plop poor text into an article and expect others to provide the balance, when the balance is in the very same source. When we are dealing with text that is contentious, speculative, and refuted by other much higher quality sources, getting the text right will take some time. At least present the other text side-by-side. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I've responded below to some of the other comments you make here, and continue to reject your accusation of edit warring/bad faith, but I did want to acknowledge that my use of "found" was a mistake, and I hadn't noticed that the articles uses "claims" instead. I think I was likely echoing the line "It found there was a 31 per cent increase in general mortality from 2017 to 2018 – representing more than 40,000 deaths", which doesn't have to do with the connection to sanctions, it's just a finding that deaths increased. Apologies for transposing the verb there and I don't have a problem with the change to "claim". cmonghost 👻 (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Section heading "Effects"

Now, to the section heading problem. I confess: I found the cherry-picked insertion late last night quite troubling when viewed in the context of having just spent two days discussing fine semantic differences over "Liberty" and "Freedom", and "uprising" or "military uprising" at another article, where CMonghost expresses adamant concern for precision and accuracy in language. Yet, there seemed to be a different standard here (drop it in, language doesn't matter, fix it later.) Effects does not work. Adding to the POV insertion a double standard in the use of language between two different articles yesterday is what raised my TEND concerns. If language matters on one article, why not here, too?

This is the very thing that had us stalled on adding the text. And while C.J. had patiently waited for us to return to this, it was suddenly thrust in here after two long days of discussion of semantics on another article.

So, on "Effects": what do we mean? Not getting a visa is an "effect". Lower shipments of oil are an "effect". Losing your business in Panama is an "effect". The whole page is consequences of sanctions and "effects". We are intending to separate something that is vaguely defined in this section, so what is our qualifier here and what do we really intend with this section?

Further. Half of what is in the section is speculation (looking forward), compared to things that are measurable or in the past. What can we do with the section heading to accommodate past vs. future (speculation)?

The heading is off; how can we fix it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

As you will no doubt recall if you return to the other discussions, I never called for editing to cease while we discussed the nuances. "Operation Freedom" and "uprising" are still all over the 2019 Venezuela uprising page and I made no attempt to remove or change them—all I did was challenge some flawed arguments being made in the discussion (e.g., the nonsensical notion that expertise in Spanish was necessary to distinguish the meanings of two English words). Your accusation of hypocrisy is thus well off the mark. In fact I would point out an important difference between my editing and your editing (in this specific instance, making no judgments about your editing style overall): while I made bold edits to invigorate a stalled process (the second of which was different and directly addressed your concern that it did not reflect the language in the source), you simply reverted my good-faith, well-sourced contribution as "POV", hindering the development of the page. You are not the only person who gets to decide what belongs on a Wikipedia page; it is a collaborative process and not limited to those who usually "actually write the articles" as I believe you put it in a related discussion. The above critique about WP:OWN comes to mind here. I would appreciate if you would refrain from this kind of antagonism in future interactions.

As for the section heading, I'm not sure I agree that it's a problem, but something like "Consequences" or "Outcomes" would work equally well. cmonghost 👻 (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I think I see your point now, and "Consequences" or "Outcomes" doesn't really address the issue. I'll think about this more and get back to you unless someone else comes up with something better first. ("criticism" might work to tie it together more but I acknowledge you've already expressed distaste for criticism sections above) — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 22:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the acknowledgement about the "found" "claims" etc issue above. I hope the work I laid out above is taken on board as simply instructive of how I felt left to clean up something that I thought was obvious, so I appreciate your explanation. And I did not react well to hitting that after the whole fruitless day at the Uprising article.

Editing doesn't have to cease and I didn't call for that. The idea that we must accept text in articles just because it is reliably sourced does not account for UNDUE. If an editor adds contentious text during an ongoing talk page discussion about that very text, where it is clear that there is no consensus on due weight inclusion, but consensus-seeking discussion is underway, that is likely to be reverted anywhere on Wikipedia. It is not *me* deciding; it's a consensus-building process.

I'm relieved that you see the effects, outcomes and consequences problem. I guess I'll live with Effects until a light bulb goes on, but if I could have figured out how to overcome that days ago, I would have made the edits sooner. Moving some of the excess detail out of the lead created the balance I wanted to be able to add "criticism". And the lead before was clunky anyway. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Name proposals:assessments', reports, analyses or simply reactions.--MaoGo (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Unwarranted deletion of context for Jazairy statement

@Jamez42: I noticed that you removed the quotation from Jazairy contextualizing the 6 May statement about US sanctions: [10]. Could you please explain why you believe this added context is undue? As can be seen in the diff, the only thing you removed was Jazairy's explanation of the concerns—I don't see how that explanation is unwarranted. In particular I would appreciate an explanation for why you believe that that short quotation is undue, but this gratuitous quotation from the Hausmann piece is not:

"saying that "taking what happened in Colombia since 2017 as a counterfactual for what would have happened in Venezuela if there had been no financial sanctions makes no sense". Calling it "sloppy reasoning", the authors also state that the analysis failed to rule out other explanations, and failed to correctly account for PDVSA finances.[141]"

If your problem is with Jazairy's tone, we can paraphrase the concerns in a more NPOV tone rather than removing them entirely. (And we should then do the same with the above Hausmann quotation.) — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I think it's an issue of balance, because there has been something put in place to mitigate effects on individuals. I can't put my hands on that information right now, and Jamez42 may know better, but I think Jazairy's story is not the whole story (which is not atypical for what we see throughout the Venezuela situation). I can look this up, Cmonghost, but keeping up with the amount of things needing correction this week is ... :( :( ... and I need to prioritize. Short answer: there is more to this story. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

But if something is wrong with Jazairy's statement, it's not our job to debunk it or censor it, is it? We can neutrally report what was said, and if there is a reliably sourced rebuttal, we can include that too. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 16:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

That depends on the rebutting information is. If something is in place to counteract this effect, I would argue that the whole thing could be undue, or maybe just unbalanced. (It is becoming embarrassing how many things are on my To Do list for you :( :( Need to research this ... unless Jamez knows. I am almost certain I read somewhere in some source that something is in place, or will be put in place, to counteract this concern. I could be wrong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

But the only thing that was removed was Jazairy's explanation. Leaving in the statement but removing the speaker's justification unbalances the text. It's as if I went to the above paragraph and did the following:

A US State Department spokesperson commented that, "as the writers themselves concede, "the report is based on speculation and conjecture".[139] The spokesperson added: "The economic situation in Venezuela has been deteriorating for decades, as Venezuelans themselves will confirm, thanks to Maduro's ineptitude and economic mismanagement."[139] Economist Ricardo Hausmann, Guaidó's representative to the Inter-American Development Bank,[140] asserts that the analysis is flawed because it makes invalid assumptions about Venezuela based on a different country, Colombia, saying that "taking what happened in Colombia since 2017 as a counterfactual for what would have happened in Venezuela if there had been no financial sanctions makes no sense". Calling it "sloppy reasoning", the authors also state that the analysis failed to rule out other explanations, and failed to correctly account for PDVSA finances.[141]

I am sure that any such deletions would be swiftly reverted. Why not in this case? (eta: it's also bad writing and leaves the reader with the obvious question of "why does this person think that?" which we're perfectly capable of answering in our article—it's in the same source we're citing for the statement) — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Cmonghost, I see what you mean about the quote issue; that's for Jamez42 to answer. But because the text is presenting information about a potential effect that has (allegedly) been addressed, I can see a problem (besides that there's no economy left to destroy :):) with presenting that info unchallenged.

We have this in the article now:

• U.S. Treasury Secretary Mnuchin stated that, "While this designation will inhibit most Central Bank activities undertaken by the illegitimate Maduro regime, the United States has taken steps to ensure that regular debit and credit card transactions can proceed and personal remittances and humanitarian assistance continue unabated and are able to reach those suffering under the Maduro regime’s repression." The new sanctions will close some loopholes that allow for continued financing of the government. The Central Bank was able to obtain loans without seeking approval from the National Assembly. It also sells gold to the central banks of other countries. And by interrupting the foreign exchange handled by the Central Bank, PDVSA purchases of production supplies are impacted.

To get the new info in balance, that gives us a starting place to read and research (I know I have come across more info), and we may need to relocate some of this text to the Effects section so that both sides are presented together.

In fact, now that we have this "effects" section, there may be text throughout that needs to move, and getting it all together may help us see the elusive name. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

References

I just re-added the information with less charged tone, which hopefully is less objectionable, I'll see about adding some of this text there as well. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 16:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Cmonghost, not add necessarily, but move. We may need to look at the whole thing to pull text out that needs to be moved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. I moved the part of the Mnuchin statement that directly mentions remittances and credit transactions (since that's what Jazairy is objecting to), leaving the rest in place as it doesn't seem relevant to the J. statement. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

As a side note, I can't find any information on what the "steps" the US is supposedly taking to ensure that remittances and ordinary transactions are still possible are—it doesn't seem to be in the Mnuchin statement. If anyone knows what the measures were to limit the impact on ordinary people, it could be added. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 17:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

It also could be that, because I have a hard time paraphrasing and am deathly afraid of copyvio and not reflecting sources correctly, I have a huge tendency to overquote rather than paraphrase to my own words, and Jamez42 has filled the role of reducing my quoted text to paraphrased text. Help yourself to correcting my prose whenever and wherever you see I have overquoted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Cmonghost: I just came back home and I think I'm not following the discussion. Are there concerns that haven't been address, including the original question? --Jamez42 (talk) 23:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Manuela Saenz commandeered by SEBIN

My suggestion is to wait for a better source before adding this:

• https://www.infobae.com/america/venezuela/2019/05/14/el-servicio-de-inteligencia-del-regimen-venezolano-tomo-un-buque-petrolero-cambio-al-capitan-y-lo-obligo-a-llevar-combustible-a-cuba/

I realize InfoBAE (and the many other Spanish-language sources reporting this) is a reliable source, but no harm in waiting to see if English-language sources pick this up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

"Reportedly"

@Viewmont Viking: @Jamez42: I'll try to explain the problem here, it was probably a bad idea to try to do it in edit summaries. The original wording was as follows:

Guaidó declared that the sanctions have affected Cuban spies in Venezuela.

This is a problem because it introduces a presupposition that this Cuban spy network is operating in Venezuela without indicating where that claim comes from. I revised it to say:

... had weakened a network of Cuban spies that he said was operating in Venezuela. (emphasis added) [11]

This is because from what I can tell of the source, only Guaidó made that claim. In an edit with summary "Improving redundancy and weasel wording", the weasel word "reportedly" was added, which obfuscates the source of this claim:

Guaidó said that the sanctions had weakened the network of Cuban spies that was reportedly operating in Venezuela. [12]

I marked this with because there are two sources of attribution in the sentence: "Guaidó said" (which is clearly from Guaidó) and "reportedly" which implies the claim has been taken up by others; it's not clear that "reportedly" refers to Guaidó. If the problem is with using "said" twice (I assume this is what was meant by "redundancy"), I would be fine with changing "reportedly" to "supposedly" or "allegedly", which aren't adverbs of attribution and so would not imply anyone other than Guaidó reported this without requiring two verbs of attribution. Please let me know what you think. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@Cmonghost: Hi! Yes, the main issue is repeating the wording, and also leaving the Cuban spies claim solely in Guaidó. The spy network remains as allegations, but Guaidó hasn't been the one to claim so. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: Does it say in the source who else claimed it? I'm not fluent in Spanish but it looked like only Guaidó made the claim in the cited source. If it's been claimed by others (in this source or in another) I think it should be attributed to whoever is claiming it (that's why I put the tag in). — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

(also, this is a side note, but I'm not sure this info is in the right place, or maybe we should change the title back to "Effects" or "Impacts"; this doesn't seem to be an analysis or a report, just a statement from Guaidó) — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Would it work "analyses and reactions"?--MaoGo (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

That was a bad idea, it will open a whole can of worms, I prefer that we put Guaidó reaction elsewhere. --MaoGo (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure if this is the case, since I can't fully understand the article, but if it's referring just to US sanctions ("sanciones de Trump"), maybe it could be moved to the section describing the US sanctions. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@Cmonghost: Hi again! Sorry, just came back home. The title speaks with the article's voices in saying a spy network has been weakened. Additional sources about said network can be added, but I'd be wary of WP:SYNTH. Again, not being a native English speaker, I'd be glad to know if the wording can be improved. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: Is that reflected by any text in the article itself, or just the headline, which is often not written by the author of the article and whose main purpose is to be attention-grabbing? — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 23:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I just checked and the headline begins with what I assume means "Exclusive with Juan Guaidó", implying that the claim to follow comes from him. (Imagine "Exclusive with Donald Trump: Accusers are lying"—this certainly shouldn't be taken as evidence that Trump's accusers are in fact lying, only that Trump said so.) — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I would argue that quotes aren't used. Besides that, when referring to the Cubans in the article is citing Guaidó, which is why I'm wondering if there's another word for reportedly; not only by other sources, but Juan. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Quotes are only used for direct quotations, not paraphrases like this headline. To indicate that it's a statement from Guaidó, I don't really see the problem with "that he said"; the only word being repeated is "said". Alternatively "allegedly" or "supposedly" would work. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 23:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Argentina entry bans on Maduro regime officials

@Jamez42 - @SandyGeorgia - @MaoGo - @Viewmont Viking - @Cmonghost

Hi everyone, the Argentinean government just introduced a list of entry bans here with title "Measures adopted by Argentina against the illegitimate regime of Nicolás Maduro", introduced on 7 June. The government said that they are doing it based on the agreements of the Lima Group, which requires member countries must adopt measures against Maduro government officials after January 10, 2019, following his 2nd inauguration. Colombia already did those measures I think back in January 2019, but the list is not fully released - only to high-profile officials.

This is currently in development and still waiting for updated information. The blacklist includes all members of the National Constituent Assembly. Thanks cyrfaw (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Canada removes the sanctions on Sebin exdirector

Canada removed the sanctions on Manuel Ricardo Cristopher Figuera [13]. --MaoGo (talk) 07:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Public perception

I think it would be useful to include a section on Venezuelans' perceptions of international sanctions. For example, in this recent poll (which has been reported on here and here as a few examples) 68% of respondents said that they believed international sanctions had affected their quality of life. Is this something that can go into the analyses/reports section, or should I create a new section? — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it could go into the analyses section, but I would like to hear about the opinion of more people. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

If there are not more data points, I guess under analyses/reports is ok.--MaoGo (talk) 20:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Cuba

Why is it necessary to have a Cuba section in the Analyses/reports section?--MaoGo (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I just commented the Cuba section until further motivation is provided [14]. I do not see why it should be relevant for an article about Venezuela.--MaoGo (talk) 11:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

More sanctions

Luis Motta Dominguez and Eutiquio Lugo Gómez sanctioned. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• And Maduro's son [15]--MaoGo (talk) 16:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Cyfraw: thanks for adding Maduro's son, can you add the other two? Thanks.--MaoGo (talk) 00:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done - Added the both 2 and created a new article Luis Motta Domínguez. --cyrfaw (talk) 09:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Cyfraw: Thank you very much. Small detail, I think Motta Dominguez is repeated on the table (Canada sanctioned before).--MaoGo (talk) 11:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done Removed the duplicate table and added a tick instead. Canada already sanctioned him in November 2017. --cyrfaw (talk) 09:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Curaçao gold ban

Curaçao imposed a gold ban on Venezuela [16]--MaoGo (talk) 13:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

More sources Tal Cual, EL Nacional.--MaoGo (talk) 09:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@LuisZ9: do you think you can add a dot on the map indicating Curaçao (gold ban) and color Colombia for its entry ban?--MaoGo (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Chile

Chile forbids the entry to the country to 100 individuals linked to Maduro. It will be probably needed to color this in the map as well. --Jamez42 (talk) 10:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

It is still in future tense, let's wait until it is in place.--MaoGo (talk) 10:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Raúl Gorrín

@ZiaLater and Cyfraw: I have seen that you have created some recent articles related to people in the sanctions list. Would any of you be interested in creating an article for Raúl Gorrín. He has been sanctioned but it is also allegedly denounced as a conspirator in the 30 April uprising.--MaoGo (talk) 09:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Will create the article if possible. Thanks --cyrfaw (talk) 09:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

 In progress: I'm now creating the article through my userspace and the article will go live within a few days. --cyrfaw (talk) 09:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done Article created --cyrfaw (talk) 11:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Subversion accusations (Portuguese)

Venezuelan officials are accused of using cryptocurrency to get around US sanctions, and to inject their economy with dollars. (Yahoo Finance) Kingsif (talk) 12:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

This affair is not about sanctions, the original investigation is here ABC Spanish, maybe it could go into Corruption in Venezuela--MaoGo (talk) 12:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Both stories mention sanctions? It's definitely to do with corruption, but I think the investigation about the sanctions also seems accurate? Kingsif (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah! you mean as a consequence of the sanctions, maybe we may add something in analysis and reports.--MaoGo (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Entry ban

I haven't found the individuals sanctioned by Argentina or Chile. If found, they could be included in the table, or an additional section could be started. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I have not find it either, at least a small paragraph should be written for each country ban.--MaoGo (talk) 15:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Links

• [17] --Jamez42 (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done --cyrfaw (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• New US sanctions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamez42 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done --cyrfaw (talk) 10:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• New Mexico sanctions [18]--MaoGo (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done --cyrfaw (talk) 10:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

• U.S. sanctions target food subsidy scam in Venezuela --Jamez42 (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done After 1 hour --cyrfaw (talk) 11:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

• US entry ban on two officials, English here----MaoGo (talk) 17:38, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Trump imposes total embargo on Venezuela

I just cannot find yet the WSJ article, but I have this article from El País (Spanish): https://elpais.com/internacional/2019/08/06/america/1565055325_220193.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2019‎ 190.161.163.222 (talk) 04:44, 6 August (UTC)

English source Reuters: Trump freezes all Venezuelan government assets in bid to pressure Maduro--MaoGo (talk) 05:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Note: it is not a "total embargo".--MaoGo (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Not a total embargo, no, but still quite a jump from his dubious policing of PDVSA and Maduro's friends. Kingsif (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I just make the remark because I have seen some pretty misleading news titles.--MaoGo (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually, this embargo is only applied to the ongoing Maduro government. There are some exceptions, such as food, medicine, telecommunications and remittances. The embargo only applies to the government and their state-owned enterprises. It also applies on companies that support the government, such as Russia's Rosneft Oil Company. See this official statement by the Treasury. --cyrfaw (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Brazil entry bans

The Brazilian government announced that Maduro government officials are banned from entering Brazil. Source: Brazil will not allow senior government officials from Maduro to enter its territory --cyrfaw (talk) 15:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Updates list

I am starting an update list because the updates keep coming:

• Switzerland sanctions 18 officials [19] --MaoGo (talk) 22:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Update US embargo

I'm updating the list regarding the full US embargo imposed by Trump on 6 August. Also some companies from China and Turkey shunning Maduro government due to Trump's executive order. --cyrfaw (talk) 12:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

September sanctions

More sanctions incoming (Reuters) U.S. targets three people, 16 groups in new Venezuela sanctions--MaoGo (talk) 10:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• (Yahoo) US sanctions Italy, Panama, Colombia firms over Venezuela ties Kingsif (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done On both. --cyrfaw (talk) 10:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• Trump bans Venezuelan officials from U.S., boosts aid in support of opposition (reuters)--MaoGo (talk) 00:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
• US ban top Venezuela officials (BBC) Kingsif (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
• EU sanction 7 Venezuelan security officials (Yahoo) Kingsif (talk) 05:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

For the rest, I'm sill waiting for the identification of the designated individuals. --cyrfaw (talk) 05:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Raul Castro

Added Raúl Castro into the list because he was accused of being involved in the Venezuelan crisis. Any official source on the announcement, please reply. --cyrfaw (talk) 08:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Better not add Cuban representatives to the table, we can add him in the main text if necessary.--MaoGo (talk) 08:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

You're right, I removed him from the list. Instead we will add in the main text. Thanks --cyrfaw (talk) 09:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Switzerland

More from Switzerland El Pitazo--MaoGo (talk) 21:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Looks like the list was same as before. It was introduced in 2018. However, I will update the description of the sanctions policy imposed by the Swiss. --cyrfaw (talk) 07:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

For the DGCIM officials, will add onto the list until I find the official government source mentioning the sanctions. Like when Canada and the US imposed sanctions they have a government website announcing those actions. -cyrfaw (talk) 07:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

[20] Found this, will look for more. --cyrfaw (talk) 07:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

French Senate

El Senado francés se pronunció a favor que UE refuerce sanciones a Venezuela --Jamez42 (talk) 00:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Evasion of sanctions

As it been the case with other sanctioned countries, several cases to evade sanctions have been known, including changing ships flags or names. It would be interesting to start a section about this. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality

@Fachamartel: recently added information about reported effects of the sanctions on the population. Their first edit was removed because of a copyvio from Venezuelanalysis, and similar changes in the United States sanctions against Iran were reverted on "dubious and biased" grounds. I removed information from Mintpress News, which has been deprecated, but the remaining text should be analyzed to improve neutrality and format, avoiding text that is repeated. --Jamez42 (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Fachamartel has once again added content in a similar fashion in detriment of WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH. --Jamez42 (talk) 07:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jamez42: If the repeated edits don't seem good faith, you can probably take it to WP:AIV now. Kingsif (talk) 12:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)}

@Kingsif: I'll first notify them and explain the motives. You could revert the last change and check if there's a copyvio. Earwig's Copyvio Detector still doesn't work for me. @Fachamartel: There are several issues with the last changes you have made, particularly with neutrality. Many of the wordings in the paragraphs could be improved, to say the least:

• US sanctions have severely affected the Venezuelan economy and seriously undermined the access to lifesaving medicine in Venezuela

There are also important issues with original research. A paragraph says that The UN Human Rights Council reported that “the use of economic sanctions for political purposes violates human rights and the norms of international behavior. (...). The source that you included is not from the UN Council, but Rapporteur Idriss Jazairy, who along with Alfred de Zayas has been criticized for his partiality (see, for instance, UN’s Idriss Jazairy thinks genocidal Sudan is the human rights victim). If the comment is to be included, it should be added with proper attribution and the respective section. In the following section the paragraph continues saying "US sanctions fit the definition of collective punishment of the civilian population"

You also quote The Lancet citing loss of oil revenue and prohibiting the importation of essential, lifesaving products, but the article quoted appears to be correspondence, which means that it's an article written by a reader and not the journal. Additionally, the "2014, 43 unilateral, coercive measures have been applied against Venezuela by the US Administration" were sanctions against individuals and not economic, as it is already describe in the article. You use this, along with DW, to mention that German and British sources agree on the adverse impact of sanctions. Not only The Lancet does not agree in an editorial voice with this, but you describe DW vaguely as "German sources", which is weasel wording.

Another important problem is that all of this content appears to deal with US sanctions, which has a section of its own, and should not be included in the lead, even less with the current neutrality and verifiability issues.

For this reasons, I ask you to please self-revert and to use this advice to improve the contribution. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The lead is too long, I will remove the text and add it here so we can review it: --MaoGo (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Also I have to add that some of this information is already in the article since the last Fachamartel edit.--MaoGo (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Text added

US sanctions have severely affected the Venezuelan economy and seriously undermined the access to lifesaving medicine in Venezuela, according to the renowned and prestigious British medical journal The Lancet in 2019 :"Since 2014, 43 unilateral, coercive measures have been applied against Venezuela by the US Administration. These have effectively paralysed the economy, blocked oil exportation globally, and frozen Venezuelan financial assets abroad while denying access to international financial systems. This loss in oil revenue and assets has amounted to a shortfall worth billions of US dollars, prohibiting the importation of essential, lifesaving products."

German and British sources agree on the adverse impact of sanctions: "the impact of US sanctions on the Venezuelan population cannot be overstated. More than 300 000 Venezuelans are at risk due to a lack of lifesaving medications and treatment. An estimated 80 000 HIV-positive patients have had no antiretroviral therapy since 2017."

Critically necessary medicine access for children has been adversely impacted, according to The Lancet: "Access to medication such as insulin has been curtailed because US banks refuse to handle Venezuelan payments for this. Thousands to millions of people have been without access to dialysis, cancer treatment, or therapy for hypertension and diabetes. Particular to children has been the delay of vaccination campaigns or lack of access to antirejection medications after solid organ transplants in Argentina. Children with leukaemia awaiting bone marrow transplants abroad are now dying. Funds for such health-assistance programmes come from the PDVSA state oil company. Those funds are now frozen."

In violation of UN Charter norms and international conventions the access to food has been negatively affected for a country that relies heavily on food imports, according to The Lancet: "Food imports dropped by 78% in 2018 compared to 2013. The very serious threat to health and harm to human life caused by these US sanctions are thought to have contributed to an excess of 40 000 deaths in 2017–18 alone."

The UN Human Rights Council reported that “the use of economic sanctions for political purposes violates human rights and the norms of international behavior. Such actions may precipitate man-made humanitarian catastrophes of unprecedented proportions. Regime change through economic measures likely to lead to the denial of basic human rights and indeed possibly to starvation, has never been an accepted practice of international relations.”

These sanctions have been described as a criminal act against the Venezuelan population. the Human Rights Council of the UN condemnation of coercive measures is echoed by The Lancet: "...US sanctions fit the definition of collective punishment of the civilian population, as described by the Geneva (Article 33) and Hague conventions, to which the USA is a signatory. These sanctions are also illegal under international and federal US law. Given the intentional action to destroy a people, in part or in whole, the US economic sanctions and their effect on the preventable mortality of Venezuelans fit the UN definition of genocide."

The Lancet also denounced the US State Department explicit description of the negative effects on the Venezuelan economy and population : "... (the US) in 2019 boasted about the economic hardship that they have caused through their now expunged communiqué in which they assert that “US policy has and continues to prevent the Venezuelan Government from participating in the international market and has led to the freezing of its overseas assets”. The Lancet further explained that: "...as the sanctions caused the overall loss of $38 billion in the past 3 years, more cuts in imports of medicine, food, medical equipment, and inputs necessary to maintain water, health, and sanitation infrastructure are foreseeable in the immediate future. These measures will undoubtedly cause further grievous harm to the Venezuelan population. Pointing to the economic failures of Venezuela as justification for further economic sanctions, causing further economic failures, is a cyclical, fallacious argument."

References

United Kingdom

Now that the UK has left the UE, is there coverage or information that status of the sanctions afterwards? --Jamez42 (talk) 11:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

UK is currently in transition period, with no changes. After that, it has been said that the UK will be aligned with the EU. Kingsif (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Indictments

Albeit noteworthy, I'm not sure that yesterday's indictments by the US Department of Justice are in the scope of the sanctions. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

More US Sanctions

More United States sanctions against Maduro's regime officials: Treasury Takes Steps to Harmonize International Sanctions Efforts Against Venezuelan Officials — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.161.163.222 (talk) 01:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

And EU sanctions [21]--MaoGo (talk) 11:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

More on tankers

• U.S. blacklists six oil tankers in new Venezuela-related sanctions (Reuters) --MaoGo (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Important update to map

• Latin America, U.S. to ban travel within their borders for Venezuela's Maduro, allies (Reuters)--MaoGo (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

TIAR

• TIAR members approved santions against 29 individuals --Jamez42 (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Passport handlers

Individuals related to SAIME were sanctioned:

• The United States Takes Action Against Maduro-Aligned Individuals.--MaoGo (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

2020 Parlamentary crisis

Supporters and members of Luis Parra's appointed board of directors have been sanctioned Reuters 13 January 2020--MaoGo (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

More planes

More planes sanctioned U.S. blacklists aircraft, amends general license in latest Venezuela sanctions (Reuters)--MaoGo (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Conviasa February 2020 Reuters --MaoGo (talk) 09:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Rosneft

US Blacklists unit of Russian oil giant --MaoGo (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done --cyrfaw (talk) 09:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I will update everything else one by one soon, please stay tuned. --cyrfaw (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Oil transporting

• U.S. sanctions four shipping firms for transporting Venezuelan oil 2 June 2020--ReyHahn (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• U.S. considers blacklisting more oil tankers for trading with Venezuela, sources say--ReyHahn (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Parra visa sanctions

EEUU avanza sanciones contra Luis Parra, jefe del Parlamento elegido por 'chavismo' y oposición minoritaria --Jamez42 (talk) 13:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Parra sanctioned by the EU--ReyHahn (talk) 08:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Swiss sanctions

• [22] --ReyHahn (talk) 11:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)