Wikipedia

Talk:Sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis/Archive 2

< Talk:Sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis
Latest comment: 1 year ago by WMrapids in topic Sanctions and regime change efforts
Archive 1Archive 2

verifikado.com appears unreliable and spam

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I've tried to get editors to explain how we could possibly consider verifikado.com as reliable. After three weeks, I'm treating it as spam. -Hipal (talk) 00:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

(Strikeout last sentence above). It's been over three weeks, and there's no consensus that it's reliable. --Hipal (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Saying that no explanations have been given to support the sources reliability is demonstrably false: I have stated that "Verifikado is a fact checker"([1]) and that "the website is not a blog, a self-published reference or has any indications that suggest that it is unreliable, particularly without examples." [2][3]). User SandyGeorgia has also commented this, pointing out at Verifikado's status as a fact checker and commenting on how she thinks that the source should be used ([4]). The edit summaries of the restorations go into further details regarding this, and the complaint in the edit warring noticeboard reflects many of these things as well.
Another point I have stated is that [the reliability] it has otherwise remained undisputed for years (WP:SILENT). Not only the cart is effectively being put before the horse, shifting where the onus lies, but the lack of explanations on the dispute of the reliability also makes it harder to offer satisfactory responses. No examples or reasons have been given for the removal of otherwise referenced content ([5]); When discussing the reliability of sources, what's common is to at least give examples on why it should be put into question. ([6]). Even the title of this comment, "verifikado.com appears unreliable and spam", suggests that this assessment is based on personal feelings rather than on policy.
Now the claim has been shifted from saying that not only the reference is unreliable, but spam, which is equally confusing considering how little presence on the project it has (9 pages to be precise, 6 of which are talk pages) and considering that the source's domain is currently dead.
Considering all of this, I kindly ask you to remove the inline tag and leave the text as it was before you started editing. --NoonIcarus (talk) 02:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, no. [7] --Hipal (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Centralizing thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#Verifikado. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Potential errors on the map

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I noticed something strange about the map at the top of the article, the one that shows countries have introduced sanctions against Venezuela. For the most part it looks correct to me, but I noticed that parts of Northern Norway, Central Norway and all of Svalbard are marked as green. Did these particular regions introduce their own sanctions against Venezuela or is this just a mistake with the map? Not a Sandwich (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 29 June 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago16 comments10 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Per WP:CONCISE. (closed by non-admin page mover) ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 09:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

International sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis → Sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis – None of these sanctions are international, on the contrary all sanctions against Venezuela are unilateral sanctions imposed by a few states and multinational organizations, including the US, the EU, Canada and probably a few other countries. Hence, the article name is misleading and should be moved to a more appropriate article name. The term "international sanctions" give a false impression that the sanctions are in fact international and sanctioned by the United Nations, when they are in fact not. Te og kaker (talk) 21:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment: I do not get it. The complain here is that these international sanctions are not worldwide sanctions?--ReyHahn (talk) 21:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The complaint is that these sanctions are not in fact international but unilateral sanctions (unilateral and international are two different things, learn the difference). This makes the article name misleading, as there are no international sanctions against Venezuela, only unilateral ones. --Te og kaker (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
If you want to reach consensus please take your time on explaining your terms. Do you know how that differs from other articles called "International sanctions during X"? (truly curious here--ReyHahn (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC))
I don't recommend focusing significantly on this (the policy Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies), but even Sanctions against North Korea is worded without the "international," and of course those sanctions even include UN Security Council-imposed sanctions. JArthur1984 (talk) 23:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak support: I think that some sanctions here can be considered international sanctions (per the Wikipedia article definition) however as there are also some unilateral sanctions I think the proposed article covers both.--ReyHahn (talk) 22:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, I think I misread the international sanctions article. In the lead it seems to say that international sanctions can be issued by other countries and not necessarily by a collection of countries. There is no proof so far that "international sanctions" equals "UN sanctions". A good definition of "international sanctions" from a notable source is needed to solve this debate. As of now, it seems like a matter of taste and maybe a general RfC on the question could help us to standardize the title of many of the articles that have "sanctions" on their title.--ReyHahn (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
That being said, I am fine with the shorter title, so I am neutral. {{replyto|SilverLocust}} (talk) 08:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject International relations has been notified of this discussion. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Support. "Sanctions" is much more WP:concise than "International sanctions". CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 03:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Lancet

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Why is the discussion in The Lancet not included in the entry? The Lancet is one of the WP:RS specifically cited in WP:MEDRS. Nbauman (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@Nbauman: Is this the Lancet article you are mentioning that I placed in this edit? WMrapids (talk) 07:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
The content in the Lancet editorial is not biomedical, so MEDRS isn't relevant here. The Lancet editors are going outside their normal medical realm to criticize the Maduro regime for using food and medicine as a weapon; they are certainly entitled to do that, but MEDRS doesn't apply to this content as the information is sociopolitical, not biomedical.
Nonetheless, see #Lancet editorial misrepresented; the edit misrepresents the source and whitewashes what the editors said about Maduro. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

January agreeement ??

Latest comment: 1 year ago10 comments4 people in discussion

Separately, the amount of space/size given to the Weisbrot/Hausmann issue is way too much and I was planning to rewrite that entire section for a better thematic flow/organization (right now it's WP:PROSELINE) and to reduce that one section. I see someone attempting to entirely remove Hausmann,[8] which I don't see any basis for, nor can I find mention of some January agreement; what and where was that agreement, and are there objections to trimming that whole UNDUE bit to be more in line with due weight? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The overall issue is that Hausmann was a Guaidó appointed official, including when he published the study cited at length. In January 2023, a series of back-and-forth edits about how to address his concurrent political status resulted in a stable version of the article noting that he was the Guaidó appointed representative to the Inter-American Development Bank. That was deleted today as unsourced.
In my view, if Hausmann is to be used, the material absolutely must be qualified with Hausmann's political role. At the moment of my reply, the article contains the political role with a citation for it. This seems fine. I also think Hausmann could be removed entirely, but specifying his political role seems much less controversial. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
So there was no talk discussion that I need to read, then? I am traveling and iPad editing, and would like to better consolidate and trim that entire section when I am back to real computer (saturday or sunday). Regardless of Hausmann's appointment, he's among Venezuela's most respected economists, and shouldn't be ignored, but I hope to find a better way to resolve that disagreement and the entire messy section. Will taking this slower work for others, to avoid in the meantime edit warring? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
We are essentially back to the stable version, but now including a citation for his political appointment. This addresses the grounds supplied for the removal of the political appointment language today, so it ought to be fine pending a more holistic re-write of the section. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
I will look into that entire section then when back to a real computer ... it needs a major restructuring to get away from PROSELINE, a better thematic organization, and reducing the whole back-and-forth on Weisbrot/Hausmann. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Well, there went the stable version with citation.
I'll nonetheless refrain from editing on this point until you've had an opportunity to look more holistically at the section over the weekend. We would obviously benefit from a third perspective on the material. JArthur1984 (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
You mean the mention that Haussman was a Guaidó apointee? I have already included the fact in a footnote, with the mention from the reference. I agree the whole paragraph and section needs reviewing, though. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes. I'm not sure if it's quite sufficient but also I don't want to have unnecessary disagreements. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
JArthur1984 I agree that this is not sufficient. The mention of Haussmann's status of being a Guaido official should be included and not hidden in a footnote. WMrapids (talk) 04:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I had just started trimming and standardizing US/EU to U.S./E.U. when the release of sanctions edits started, so it is probably better I hold off until that works its way through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Gratuitous tagging

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Many of these tags were gratuitous; some already had secondary sources, some didn't require secondary sources (attributed opinions), and a (very) few were valid. I've cleaned up those I could; there are still two big chunks of primary-sourced text which may be given UNDUE weight if secondary sources don't back them. Cleaning up size issues will be easier if sourcing is first clean. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Burrobert: Just wanted to inform you about the tags since it appears to be you edit. What were your concerns and did Sandy clear this up for you? WMrapids (talk) 04:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
If Burrobert plans on re-tagging anything, a justification here on talk would be nice; it was odd that some primary sources speaking for themselves as opinion were left, while others were tagged. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

A useful essay on overquoting

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Content moved without attribution and misinterpretation of size

Latest comment: 1 year ago29 comments4 people in discussion

Please see WP:CWW on the improper move of the list and the post at User talk:WMrapids re this being the third time at least that same has happened.[9]

Further, with respect to size, removing a list does absolutely zero to the readable prose size, as lists are not calculated in readable prose.

WMrapids, PLEASE begin to use article talk pages to discuss your edits so as not to create unnecessary cleanup work for other editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The size (300k) was simply too large. There are multiple issues here; the old article size results with choking, Wikipedia is not a directory and verifiability does not not guarantee inclusion. The split is justified, especially since the inclusion of all entities and individuals on the project is questionable. After the split, many notable sanctions are still included in the history of sanctions in prose throughout the article. WMrapids (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
In addition to the incorrectly attributed move of the individual list, other content was blanked. There are better ways to trim this article; pls engage talk before reverting again, and gain consensus about the best way to proceed towards trimming the article (it is now just above 10,000 words of readable prose, so bringing the size down is not unmanageable, and it can be done without leaving an unintelligible sub-article). This is an odd statement ("inclusion of all entities and individuals on the project is questionable") since the article could not be a featured list (a sample of Wikipedia's best work) if it was not complete. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
So you're going to ignore the choking issues that face readers and users? WMrapids (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm not "ignoring" anything; you made a messy move, didn't clean up after yourself, didn't seek consensus, blanked content, etc. so the mess has been reverted. Collaboratively reducing the size is the way I roll, and you well know that, as you saw a model of how to proceed collaboratively right here. I do not intend to continue to do all the cleanup that results from non-collaborative, non-consensual editing. Clean up the messes you left,[10] including this, and then discuss with others the best ways to reduce size here (which aren't necessarily the way you did it). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Why would I need consensus for an initial edit? Must I ask you for permission for each edit on Venezuela-related topic? As I have already said, I made a mistake with my initial edits and have fixed them for the most part. WMrapids (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Of course you don't need anyone's permission to edit, but when editors make non-collaborative editing a habit and then leave the cleanup for others, they can expect to be reverted when patience is exhausted. Doing a correct content move takes a lot of work to get both ends right, you didn't do that, perhaps you didn't notice the hours it took to get the Silvercorp Agreement right, and asking others for help on talk is not a bad idea and gets the job done more quickly and with less agida.
If you are willing to slow down, engage talk and edit collaboratively, I'll be happy to go back through this article and do some trimming; that is, since I wrote a lot of the content, I hopefully won't ruffle anyone's feathers by ditching some of it. (I already pulled some poorly sourced bits that were added during my break from Venezuelan topics.) But I am not interested in being reduced to secretary and mediator again on another topic. And I won't be home for two more days, and have exhausted my hotspot data limit, so patience. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: My main concern is the list; not that it exists but that it is very heavy on browsers for everyone (sure that can't be good on your tablet haha). If we could include the main, notable sanctions in the body and then move the rest of the listed information to list article, that seems reasonable. Again, no intention to "ruffle" anything, but it seemed necessary upon my encounter and I didn't want to bother anyone else with something that appeared clear at the time. Sorry that it's been a bother anyways... WMrapids (talk) 04:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
I have moved the list-- this time, I hope, correctly ... fixing the lead over there, and the hatnotes over here, and with proper edit summaries. I will slowly pick through the text to trim the readable prose size. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
By the way, it's not at all hard on my browser or iPad, and the KB of the article, at 250, was not even remotely large compared to some really problematic articles, but done anyway. And I do hope you can understand that when other editors have put a lot of effort into developing a well-sourced article, with a complex table, seeing this done to it, rendering it uncited and without a lead, is not going to generate warm fuzzies. Just something to keep in mind. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
And another reason to discuss before moving is to get the name right; ships and planes are not organizations, individual vessels were sanctioned, and that's why the original content used the word entity; now List of people and organizations sanctioned during the Venezuelan crisis needs a move <sigh>. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Apologies. Should be fixed. WMrapids (talk) 05:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
And for questions about similar lists, please see the consistent title use in List of people and organizations sanctioned in relation to human rights violations in Belarus and List of people and organizations sanctioned during the Russo-Ukrainian War.--WMrapids (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
All manner of garbage is to be found on Wikipedia; I suggest consulting WP:FL for better examples. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Blue color

Can anyone tell me why Carvajal is in blue color over at List of people and entities sanctioned during the Venezuelan crisis? Best I can tell, it's undefined, and it breaches MOS anyway by using only color to convey ... something. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

It seems to have been introduced in this edit by Farolif [11]. Probably a typo. Note that Alex Saab got blue too.--ReyHahn (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
It could also mean sanctioned people that have been arrested? Not sure. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:SIZE

Hi @SandyGeorgia:. Since you were the one that provided a format to the list of sanctioned people and you're experienced in watching out for articles sizes, I thought about notifying you about the recent concerns, but I see that discussion has already started. Although my Prosesize gadget says that there are currently 69 kB of readable prose size, but I wanted to ask you what you thought about a split to List of people and organizations sanctioned during the Venezuelan crisis (sorry if you have already said it!), and I see this has already been done as well. Kind regards, NoonIcarus (talk) 10:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, NoonIcarus. Short version (see #Content moved without attribution and misinterpretation of size): the split did not need to happen per WP:SIZE, and should have been discussed first, but neither do I see any harm resulting in going ahead with it. If others disagree, we should discuss whether to re-merge the content back here.
Longer version: there has been long long long-standing discussion at the talk page of WP:SIZE about how to apply the split recommendations now that most people have much faster connections. I, for example, right now have a spotty connection, but had no problem loading the article. The modern concerns about WP:TOOBIG, as stated on that page, do not apply to WIki Markup size, rather only to readable prose. For reasons beyond my comprehension, many editors either don't know what readable prose is, or don't know how to use the tools to calculate it, but for our purposes here, it's important to note that lists and tables are not counted in readable prose size, and the split did nothing, zero, to the readable prose size here. The objections to readable prose longer than 10,000 words have to do with difficulty in maintaining the content, and reader attention span. The readable prose of this article is as of today only slightly above 10,000 words, and my plan was to continue trimming some older overquoting, which was needed anyway. Because of POV concerns, I suspect we tend to overquote throughout Venezuelan content, and with hindsight, I see a lot that can be removed.
So I'm working my way through it, and expect to be able to bring the readable prose to a manageable size, and think that work was needed anyway; but the long story is we did not have a serious size reason for the split, and if there are serious objections to it, we should discuss. If others view it as a POV fork, that's a problem: note that in the Silvercorp Agreement split, which was a legitimate TOOBIG readable prose issue, I specifically raised those questions before proceeding, which was not done here. If done correctly (it initially wasn't), it doesn't trouble me, but I'm open to persuasion. If others have objections to the split, they should bring them forward, but the work needed on trimming readable prose is an entirely separate matter; bringing the table back will not change the WP:TOOBIG readable prose size. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
PS, another thing I could do -- but will only do if others are concerned -- is ping in some stalwarts of the featured lists process, as they are well versed in how to best build list pages. I am generally unimpressed with the overpinging/canvassing that is occurring throughout Venezuela content, so will only seek that feedback if others concur it may be helpful or needed. Slow and steady wins the race. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Many thanks for the explanation. One of my points precisely is that the readable prose still did not warrant a split, but you also give a good explanation that I was unaware of. Please let me know if you need any help in this regard. Best wishes, --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
NoonIcarus in the trimming effort, I moved this to the sub-article as it is content not totally related to the sanctions, rather the broader agreement, and we have room for expansion there, while this article is TOOBIG. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: That's alright, thank you for the heads up. Would you like me to help with the trimming? --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Issues remain from improper split

See WP:PROPERSPLIT

As I was trying to read through to finish removing overquoting and to begin work on the messy Reactions section, I began to find problems that relate to the split.

  1. The WP:TOOBIG issue in readable prose size is already being reduced by removing overquoting, and will be reduced even further when that, and cleanup of the Reactions section, is completed.
  2. The citations were still out of sync between the List page and this Article page, and every time I had to fix one, it meant I had to fix it in two places. There are (at least) three problems with the citations:
    1. The U.S. Treasury pages are press releases.
    2. Most of the old U.S. Treasury pages changed URL and were dead links, and had to be replaced.
    3. Almost none of the citations here had archive-urls, so new pages had to be looked up.
    ALL of that had to be done on two pages; it's helpful to first have clean citations before creating a split, that wasn't necessary anyway, and resulted in a double maintenance load. But much more importantly:
  3. The new List article was subject to more Gratuitous tagging of primary sources, because we built the table using the direct references to the sanctions in most cases, which were primary sources, although the secondary sources exist here on the main page. By separating the List from the Article, we effectively ended up with a primary source list-- making it subject to deletion and tagging.
  4. And further, as we've known for years at the WP:FAC archives, what makes a page slow to load are the transclusions like  Y,   Done,   Not done etcetera, so by removing those tick marks from the table, we should not have load time problems here.

Since we don't have a problem with excess readable prose, and removing the tick marks should ease the load time problem WMrapids had, my suggestion is that the split should be undone, and we should contemplate whether to re-do it once we've finished cleaning everything up, and can see if it's still needed. WMrapids if can accept this approach, a {{prod}} tag at List of people and entities sanctioned during the Venezuelan crisis can make it go away so that we can decide down the road if it needs to be re-created, and we can do that slower, making sure everything is in order first. For now, it's just not expedient to have to fix things in two places at once, and I found the problems as I was trying to update which sanctions were removed ... updating in two places, with citations that don't match, is a burden not warranted by the absence of size problems here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Actually, better than a prod (because of all the attribution mess) would be to just redirect the list back to here for now, which lets us decide in the longer run if the split is really needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

As of this 23 October version, the article is down to 8,500 words of readable prose, and that's without tackling the extremely bloated Reactions section yet. I'll stop for a bit to allow others to catch up, and begin to think about Reaction section proposals once others have weighed in. I do not believe this article warrants a split; the bloat has been and can be addressed through other means, with the Reactions section remaining. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Missing info: another example of why it's better to keep the list with the article

At the bottom of the Persons sanctioned list, beginning at 2019-09-27, Alexis Enrique Escalona Escalona Marrero, there is a series of people sanctioned on 27 September 2019 that don't have citations. A google search indicates they were sanctioned, but I can't tell by whom, or whether they are included in the article content, and what citations should be attached. Does anyone know how to clean this up? @NoonIcarus and ReyHahn: I wasn't paying attention then, but it would be good to clean it up in both the article and the table. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Found one piece: Voice of America. Treasury EU SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  Done, but found more (still to do). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Reactions section rewrite

Latest comment: 1 year ago21 comments3 people in discussion

This is a trimmed and rewritten Reactions section; I self-reverted so we could discuss improvements here.

I re-organized to thematic paragraphs (see the inline comments), and even with the addition of The Lancet content, trimmed 500 words by combining like thoughts and reducing overquoting and redundancies (many of the sources are saying the same thing). This brings the entire article to 8,000 words of readable prose; well under WP:TOOBIG.

WRT the dueling economists, I removed both footnotes explaining their alleged biases. In the case of Weisbrot, the commentary from other experts speaks well enough for itself, so I did not see any need to identify any bias as a chavista supporter -- let the facts speak for themselves. In the case of Hausmann, he says nothing/zero that isn't common knowledge in the oil industry or in Venezuelan history, or has anything to do with Guaido tapping him (a very highly respected economist) as an advisor, so I likewise saw no reason to single him out.

If others find the addition helpful, pls feel free to revert it back in and improve as necessary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  1. You placed 2023 information ahead of 2019 information, misrepresenting the situation. For instance, the WP says in 2019 that the economic difficulties predated sanctions, yet AJ in 2023 says that the sanctions began to affect ordinary citizens. Seems to be leading the reader towards minimizing the effects of sanctions.
  2. Where is the information from Francisco Rodríguez (economist) discussing the effects of the sanctions? He said that sanctions greatly exasperated the already declining economic situation of Venezuelans. Surely we can remove the some of the quotes yet keep the overall material stated by him.
  3. Footnotes removed are OK.
  4. A chronological order should be used in the reactions section. As stated in multiple sources, the sanctions were gradually enhanced against Venezuela, so this should be explained throughout the section in order. Flip-flopping between various statements appears to be a clumsy way to lead the reader through various claims and dates.
WMrapids (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
The existing approach to Weisbrot/Hausmann is a problem. The body of the text couches Weisbrot in terms of political position as "left leaning," presumably so that the reader can consider how political stance might impact his analysis. And yet Hausmann is described in-line as "Harvard economist." To be a political appointee like Hausmann is a fact of much more significance to the reader's evaluation of how political stance might shape analysis. And unlike fuzzy labels like "left-leaning" which means different things from different global perspectives, being a political appointee at the time a source publishes the cited article is very, very, very concrete. JArthur1984 (talk) 19:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
I think the last two paragraphs could still be considerably trimmed, as I did with the rest by consolidation, but didn't want to cut too deep at first. So I left most of what was there, but it's all UNDUE relative to the rest, and I'd prefer to see both the UN and the dueling economists reduced to half of what they are in that version. Re, WMrapids concerns, I'm not a fan of building articles via WP:PROSELINE, and certainly not with the oldest first; introducing the most current/recent info first seemed preferable. And Rodriquez's views were still included, along with everyone else's; they don't each warrant a shout out (as neither do Weisbrot/Hausmann ... one possibility is to move the whole Weisbrot theory to his own page, as it's getting much more attention here than it warrants). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Definitely have to disagree with you Sandy.
The whole motion of the article is an increased tightening of sanctions; that is much more natural than bouncing between timelines and arguments.
I agree with JArthur1984 that the "left leaning" label should be removed. We can keep it short and sweet; Rodriguez said X, Weisbrot said X while Hausman countered with X. We don't have to get into too many details and quotes.
As for the UN info, we also don't need all of the conjecture about bias, etc. Just place that the UN rapporteur said X and some NGOs responded with X. WMrapids (talk) 20:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
I like your point about simple. In this instance, both Weisbrot and Hausmann are wikilinked and therefore we could leave it to the reader to evaluate them by following the links. JArthur1984 (talk) 20:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Saw this after I wrote, but got that part, Jarthur ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I saw the latest commentary after I worked up the 21:14, October 24, 2023 version, which I self-reverted. In that version, I removed *all* labels, which seems the easiest solution to that whole mess. I also trimmed a lot of the UN stuff. I tried to incorporate all the earlier comments. I think/hope the only place where we disagree is wrt chronology/proseline. I tried to clearly identify that chronology with this structure: first para, Maduro position; second para, Guaido position; third para, beginnings of crisis, and then leading in to ... As the humanitarian crisis deepened and expanded, the Trump administration levied more serious economic sanctions;[205] some economists and non-governmental organizations opined that the 2019 sanctions worsened the economic crisis, ... There isn't really a timeline ... we have almost everyone saying in 2019 that crisis pre-dated sanctions, we have a 2023 statement by Al Jazeera re 2023 that I've given perhaps UNDUE prominence to highlight that issue, and I've grouped the medical/food/medicine stuff thematically. I hope this is getting closer; I'm much happier with the readable prose now at 7,900 words, and writing in a way that we are singling out very few specific individuals and their affiliations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Oops, intended to remove all labels, but missed one ... nutrition expert Susana Raffalli ... agree better to let the reader follow her link if they want to know what kind of expert she is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
If you all agree with the trimmed content, we can work out the flow separately. (I Hate PROSELINE, and prefer to group content thematically.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia Why is the list still included? Also, where is Rodriguez? The chronology looks better regrading Al Jazeera, at least. WMrapids (talk) 02:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
WMrapids, I explained a few days ago back up in the size section why the list was brought back. See #Issues remain from improper split; the split left a citataion mess, separated primary from secondary sources, and it wasn't needed based on either WP:TOOBIG (readable prose) or load time. The TOOBIG issues are resolved by cleaning up the overquoting and redundant prose, and the load time issues are removed by getting rid of the tick marks. (We discovered last decade at WP:FAC what a horrible effect tick marks have on load time.). We have an easier article to maintain by keeping it all together, secondary sources that augment the primary sources in the table are in the article content, and since there aren't load time or readable prose issues, we have a more complete article by keeping it all together.
Rodriguez is in the named ref AlJaz2023 ... the original content was:
  • In 2023, Al Jazeera wrote that the sanctions had affected citizens; economist Francisco Rodríguez stated the economic complications existed prior to sanctions, which worsened the economic crisis.
which is now split. Many economists and sources say the same thing, so they are grouped. The first clause (affected citizens) is intact in the rewrite. The second clause (existed prior to sanctions) is in the section with inline hidden comment "Crisis pre-dated", grouped with all the sources who say the crisis pre-dated sanctions (but I see I added it twice there and need to remove one), and the third clause (worsened the crisis) is grouped with all the sources and economists who say that sanctions worsened the crisis, in the section with the inline hidden comment "Sanction increase" with the content "worsened the crisis". If you go in to edit mode on the rewrite version, and ctrl-f search on AlJaz2023, you'll see all the bits are there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
The list still doesn't fix the choking issues, which is detrimental to both editors and readers.
And thanks for the explanation for Rodriguez. We're making progress, but not quite there yet. WMrapids (talk) 03:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
What are the choking issues? The page is 250KB, even on the ridiculous connections I often have, I'm having no load time problems, and 250KB isn't a number I've ever seen anyone have problems with. What problem is happening on your end, and what kind of connection do you have? Is anyone else having a problem? If so, it could be the way colors are set up in the table. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

With this 26 October version, readable prose is now under 7,900 words; WP:TOOBIG issues are well resolved; all labels of different economists, experts, etc are removed; and like content is consolidated thematically. Since most sources are saying the same thing, highlighting of individuals is rarely needed or warranted, although I've retained the instances where attribution is unavoidably needed. Please review the discussion of this rewrite above, including the WP:SIZE matter, @JArthur1984, WMrapids, NoonIcarus, ReyHahn, and Bobfrombrockley:. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, noting pre-trim and pre-rewrite version, last edited by Bobfrombrockley at almost 11,000 words of readable prose. The overquoting that characterized this article is occurring throughout Venezuelan content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Overall size at 239KB after cleaning out unnecessary markup; that is just not a size that should be causing page load issues, although the excess transclusions fersure could have been an issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't experience any load issue JArthur1984 (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
There may be an opportunity to trim more adjectives from the reactions. Transparencia Venezuela's "kleptocratic, inefficient and authoritarian" seems not critical, nor does Bachelet's quoted adjectives devastating and the like seem to do too much for us. Clearly a topic where reasonable minds can differ but when I see a number of adjectives in a row it's usually signals to me that we could make our prose more encyclopedic. JArthur1984 (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Done, [12] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Rewrite un-rewritten

After multiple editors engaged collaboratively above to summarize the contents and avoid singling out individual opinions, we now have two fairly obscure authors singled out in this series of edits:

  • In July 2019, Jean Galbraith wrote in the American Journal of International Law that despite promises from the United States that ordinary citizens were not to be targeted by sanctions, the economy of Venezuela was damaged by sanctions.[19] In 2022, Marc Becker wrote that the sanctions were enacted in a regime change effort designed by the United States to affect the military and public so that they would become desperate and remove Maduro through a coup.[17]

Galbraith repeats territory already covered and summarized when we trimmed the article and should be combined with those opining that sanctions increased problems; we have an entire paragraph on that, and she says nothing new. Becker is not Reaction; it's his opinion that goes elsewhere in the article. Rejigging this section so that it will again grow to a laundry list of the opinions of every Tom, Dick and Harry is undoing all that we did last week.

The edits also changed the thematic paragraphs established back to proseline/chronology.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

UNDUE content in the lead, which is not a summary of the sources or the article

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments2 people in discussion

This is not a summary of the contents of the article, or the preponderance of sources, and I have removed it; please work towards a consensual version of what the sources say about the effects of sanctions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Can we agree to past wording that while the economic crisis preceded sanctions that the sanctions worsened the situation? There are multiple sources saying that sanctions worsened Venezuela's economic situation. WMrapids (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
There are multiple sources saying sanctions worsened the situation; there are multiple sources saying they did not. Oil shipments and corruption continued unabated, and those affect the economy and the humanitarian crisis. We can't just ignore the sources that millions were made by corrupt officials by not delivering food to those who needed it, for example, or that it was Maduro's refusal to accept aid that harmed the people. I suggest rather than shoving something in to the lead, that we work through a series of proposals as we've done elsewhere on this page to gain consensus from all that we have accurately reflected all sources-- not three obscure newly found ones. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Ok. The information on effects from the introduction has been removed until we have a consensus on what to include from sources and what may not be undue. WMrapids (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
That's fine; I had already mentioned that we needed to revisit the lead, once the body was updated, at #Lead proposal: missing later than 2019 reactions to effects. But the rewrite of the rewrite of the Reactions section now needs to be ironed out-- it's going backwards and growing the article again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: Didn't see that. Thanks for sharing the link. WMrapids (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Update needed

Latest comment: 1 year ago35 comments3 people in discussion

Could others please list updates needed, including sources (besides the obvious update to the 2023 partial release-- I'm still looking for the most comprehensive source on exactly what was released, just haven't had the time to finish that ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I have been the editor that placed the tags and one a fervent believer that updates are needed. The main reason why I added it is due to the list of sanctioned people, because this track has stopped some years ago. I think this should be easily verifiable with OFAC's Sanctions List Search Tool. If I have some time, I'll give a hand with this. Best wishes, --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Thx, NoonIcarus, so I was backwards in thinking it was more industries that needed updating, and moved the tag to the wrong place ? See also my question at #Missing info: another example of why it's better to keep the list with the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Found this list to review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
To add - U.S.
  1. And I see that none of 2020 was added to the charts, so will also work on those (they are in the article, but not the chart). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
    Added Parra & co. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. US Treas, 2021-01-19: Ellsworth, Brian; Parraga, Marianna (19 January 2021). "U.S. blacklists oil traders, tankers for undermining Venezuela sanctions". Reuters. Retrieved 28 October 2023. "Treasury Targets Venezuelan Oil Sector Sanctions Evasion Network" (Press release). U.S. Department of the Treasury. 19 March 2021. Retrieved 28 October 2023. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
    Done, [13] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. US Treas, 2020-06-18 Psaledakis, Daphne; Parraga, Marianna (18 June 2020). "U.S. slaps sanctions on Mexican firms, individuals linked to Venezuelan oil trade". Reuters. Retrieved 28 October 2023. "Treasury Targets Sanctions Evasion Network Supporting Corrupt Venezuelan Actors" (Press release). U.S. Departmen of the Treasury. 18 June 2020. Retrieved 28 October 2023.
    Done, [14] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
  4. US Treas, 2020-03-12 Mohsin, Saleha; Millard, Peter (12 March 2020). "U.S. Sanctions Second Rosneft Subsidiary for Backing Maduro". Bloomberg. Retrieved 28 October 2023. "The United States Increases Pressure on Illegitimate Former Maduro Regime with Designation of TNK Trading International S.A." (Press release). U.S. Department of the Treasury. 12 March 2020. Retrieved 28 October 2023.
    Done, [15]
  5. US Treas, 2019-11-26 "U.S. blacklists Cuban firm tied to Venezuela sanctions evasion". Reuters. 26 November 2019. Retrieved 28 October 2023. "Treasury Takes Further Action Regarding Designated Cubametales for Attempting to Circumvent Sanctions" (Press release). U.S. Department of the Treasury. 26 November 2019. Retrieved 28 October 2023.
    Done, [16] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
  6. US Treas, 2019-09-24 "U.S. sanctions target Venezuelan oil moving to Cuba". Reuters. 24 September 2019. Retrieved 28 October 2023. "Treasury Further Targets Entities and Vessels Moving Venezuelan Oil to Cuba" (Press release). U.S. Department of the Treasury. 24 September 2019. Retrieved 28 October 2023.
    Done, [17] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
  7. US Treas, 2019-07-03 "US Hits Cuba With Sanctions in New Move Against Venezuela's Maduro". Voice of America. 3 July 2019. Retrieved 28 October 2023. "Treasury Targets Cuban Support for the Illegitimate Venezuelan Regime" (Press release). U.S. Department of the Treasury. 3 July 2019. Retrieved 28 October 2023.
    Done, [18] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Evasion
  1. Another evasion to add, Swiss: [19] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
    Done, [20] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Swiss
  1. Found more Swiss from 2020, to do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
    Done, [21] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Update, @JArthur1984, NoonIcarus, and ReyHahn: I am still working on the entities (Items 4 through 7 above, and the Swiss evasion), but I believe I am caught up on all individual sanctions. I reviewed all US Treasury press releases, found a list of all Canadian sanctions and cross-checked against it, found a list of EU/UK sanctions and cross-checked against it, and think I'm updated on Swiss. Did Colombia relax entry bans on anyone? Could you all glance at the individual sanctions to see if you notice anyone missing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Oopsie ... looked at es.wiki and found 2020-07-23 [22] (Biden White House is not updating the sanctions page). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Done, [23] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
And EU 2021-2-22 [24] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Done, [25] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
And 2020-12-18 [26] [27]; the White House list went to heck under Biden. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Done, [28] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Sandy, thank you so much for all the recent improvements, I know it must have surely taken some time. I will take a look too later, but by then I believe everything should be good enough to removed the tag. Many thanks once again. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@JArthur1984, NoonIcarus, and ReyHahn: My apologies for the false alarm earlier; I do think I've gotten everything I can find now, and would appreciate review towards identifying anything missing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Colombia travel bans

Although Colombia during the Petro administration has made statements about relaxing sanctions, I don't have any insight on whether any concrete steps to do so have been taken. JArthur1984 (talk) 01:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Like JArthur1984, I don't recall a relaxation or withdrawal of sanctions, but Maduro did visit Bogotá in April 2023 for an international summit ([29]). --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Oddly, Colombia seems to have prohibited entry for everyone but Maduro. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Ah, my mistake. I took a look at the table, where Maduro was originally included, but looking at the reference that seems to be correct. Other officials might have visited as well, but I would have to check up on that too. Cheers, --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
NoonIcarus I believe it was I who misread the chart: see this 2019 source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Then this in July 2022. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
And this in September 2022; is there an official govt announcement, and did it apply to everyone? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you once again for your dilligence, Sandy. I am not aware of this announcement being made official, but I will let know if I find anything. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Because I can't find any official announcement, for now, I've only footnoted it in the table. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with that, it's best to play it safe and avoid original research. Thank you kindly. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Sanctions and regime change efforts

Latest comment: 1 year ago14 comments2 people in discussion

In this edit of United States involvement in regime change in Latin America, multiple sources say that the sanctions by the Trump administration were enacted to push for regime change. How should we include this in the article? WMrapids (talk) 18:42, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Best I can tell, you already have, but this prose is an awkward way to introduce it, as it reads as forced, trying to work in the words regime change. During the administration of President Donald Trump, sanctions were increased towards Venezuela in regime change efforts to oust Maduro. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Would it be better to say "in regime change efforts against Maduro"? WMrapids (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
I suggest if that it's so awkward to work the words in, there may be an underlying reason to consider, and to think about whether it's even necessary. It is already abundantly clear throughout that the sanctions aim to remove the Maduro regime and restore democracy; regime change is not the word most sources use, and finding three that do does not necessarily reflect a preponderance of sources nor is it words we must use in this article (that article - regime change - is a separate matter). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
This is an argument on semantics. Removing the Maduro regime is regime change even if the argument of recognition arises. WMrapids (talk) 20:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
And your edits introduced tortured prose, while also singling out individual commentators, which is something we had previously eliminated. When sources are saying the same thing, we've combined them to one statement to avoid a series of he said-she said and overquoting. I've reduced that again. You introduced text twice now that has been twice corrected and removed by others; please gain consensus on talk for further edits to this content, which is torturing the prose in the interest of introducing wording used by select, but not most, sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

So ... and again ... rapid-fire editing has moved beyond what I can keep up with, especially while iPad editing from hotspot. I'll come back to this one when I'm on a real computer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Corrected per above notes; please gain consensus if you intend to continuing introducing content (also at #UNDUE content in the lead, which is not a summary of the sources or the article) that has been twice removed by others. The way to write Wikipedia articles is to first read all secondary reliable sources and summarize what they say-- not to first decide what we want to say and then google until we find a source that agrees. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for making baseless assumptions. Maybe you could be correct next time and notice that this information is something that was found after reviewing multiple secondary sources too? Omitting what you don't agree with ("Oh, well I read all of the sources and you're wrong") is inappropriate. Again, there are numerous sources saying that the US specifically made regime change efforts through the sanctions, including generally reliable sources.
So besides your own personal opinion on "what the sources say", why should it not be included? WMrapids (talk) 03:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
I merged the new sources with like sources, removed repetition, eliminated unnecessary attribution of opinions shared by many sources, reduced some overquoting in citations, moved some obviously-not-lead material out of the lead, and corrected some prose that was tortured by its attempt to introduce the words regime change. The diffs and discussion are above; what is the content you claim I omitted ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
The part where I wrote "the US specifically made regime change efforts through the sanctions". Any reason why this is continually removed? WMrapids (talk) 04:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
This is the diff of my changes (I already posted it above). Your push to incorporate the specific words regime change into the article left tortured prose; I left your link to regime change, with the words efforts to remove Maduro, as that a) preserves your desire to work in a link to regime change, while b) using the term most commonly used by sources (which is not regime change), and c) corrects the tortured prose from the awkwardness of the attempt to force the words regime change into an article which is obviously removing Maduro & Co from power. Most sources don't use the words regime change; you went out and found some that did. That's fine, but that doesn't mean we need to end up with tortured prose just so we can highlight one Wikilink, nor should we be framing the whole construct in the way a couple of sources do, when most sources don't use that specific term at all. I preserved the link (not because I think we must, but as a courtesy), and corrected the prose to reflect the preponderance of sources. If you want to highlith the words regime change more prominently, you know how to do that; convince everyone here that's what the preponderance of sources do (not just a few).
Separately from that, your whole series of edits from two days ago had introduced tortured prose, repetitive content that undid the rewrite we worked on collaboratively here, and added UNDUE content into the lead which didn't summarize the content at all. If you edit like that, you should not be surprised to find other editors unable to tease out any good from the mostly bad, and simply removing the whole thing and asking you to gain consensus for your edits. That I'm willing to do the extra work to merge in the good doesn't mean most editors will, after a string of edits that aren't an improvement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Re "baseless assumptions", double messages are confusing. You were previously opposed to the word regime; now you want it used in this case, because a few sources do, when most don't? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
The word "regime" initially meant a government in general, yet it has negative connotations today. However, "regime change" still harkens back to the original meaning (a forced or coerced change in government) and is not related to the more recent use of the word "regime". WMrapids (talk) 04:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sanctions_during_the_Venezuelan_crisis/Archive_2&oldid=1243870361"