Talk:Venezuelan crisis of 1902–1903

Source?

A good source for the 'Background' section, but I can't figure out how to integrate into article:

• (12 Sep. 1892) – THE CIVIL WAR IN VENEZUELA. MOLESTATION OF MERCHANTS AND EUROPEAN CONSULS. The Sydney Morning Herald; Wednesday 14 September 1892, : p. 7

~:74.60.29.141 (talk) 09:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

de:Titus Türk (german version)

In relation with this you may be also interested in this guy and create an own avatar about him.1970gemini 10:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Venezuela Crisis of 1895 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Venezuelan civil war

The "Venezuelan civil war" refered in the led is really the Federal War? Reading the article seems more the es:Revolución Legalista or the es:Revolución de Queipa.--MiguelMadeira (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@MiguelMadeira: Kind regards. Do you mean the current phrasing of after President Cipriano Castro refused to pay foreign debts and damages suffered by European citizens in recent Venezuelan civil wars? I know this reply comes years later, but the civil war in question should be the Liberating Revolution (Venezuela), which was the one related to the debts of this conflict. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@NoonIcarus: Yes, it was that (the passage was delinked at April 2019).--MiguelMadeira (talk) 13:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 12 December 2023

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: no consensus. There is no clear consensus among the users for the proposed change, as there are two users in favour and two users against, and one user is suggesting reverting to "Venezuelan crisis of 1902–03" as of 2018. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

---

Venezuelan crisis of 1902–1903 → Venezuelan blockade of 1902–1903 – Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISION. This episode from Venezuelan history is widely known as a naval blockade, and this change would be less vague than simply calling it a crisis. NoonIcarus (talk) 11:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. I see lots more results for "Venezuelan crisis" than "Venezuelan blockade" in reference to the 1902–1903 events. There was a blockade, but the crisis was broader than that. Srnec (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Please bear in mind WP:GOOGLETEST. Venezuelan crisis might have more results due to all the existing crises in Venezuelan history. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

No. I controlled for that. That's what I meant by in reference to the 1902–1903. Srnec (talk) 05:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Crisis is always too vague. Unless it is overwhelmingly referred to as that (e.g. "Agadir Crisis", "Suez Crisis"), I would favor the more precise and informative description. Walrasiad (talk) 19:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Support. Much more precise for such a small change. This crisis was central about the blockade. Venezuela has had many crises. Blockade is a better word for the title. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

"Venezuelan blockade" is ambiguous. Was Venezuela blockading or blockaded? If you Google "German blockade", you will see that the blockade of Germany is not usually intended. In fact, the top hit I get at Google Books is "German blockade of Venezuela". If the title must have "blockade", then it should be "blockade of Venezuela". Srnec (talk) 05:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I think “blockade” is better word choice than “crisis”. The references and further reading feature examples of “Venezuela blockade” with disambiguation by date range. I don’t find it ambiguous, thinking it normal that Germans may blockade as well as be blockades, but don’t think it likely that Venezuela would blockade another nation. However, it you think it’s ambiguous, suggest something better.

I take your point about the crisis being more than a blockade, involving debts and coercion, and haven’t decided my opinion on that question. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: "Venezuelan blockade" is not the common name ([1][2]/[3][4]/[5][6]) and, per Srnec, nor precise. It was seemingly only more popular at the time (1 January 1902–31 December 1903) with NewspaperArchive.com returning 17,188 results against "Venezuelan crisis"'s 6,056. However, literature, being more reliable and contemporary, takes precedence. Additionally, "blockade of Venezuela" does return more results compared to "Venezuelan blockade" [7][8][9]. XxTechnicianxX (talk) 07:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Ngrams demonstrates the prominence of the term until at least the 60s (without considering current use by academics such as Polar's Foundation History Dictionary [10] and historian Rafael Arráiz Lucca), when the country was transitioning to democracy, having ousted the military dictatorship and later facing internal unrest with the communist guerrillas (and several military uprisings: 1, 2, 3), which should drive the point further that "crisis" is just ambiguous. Later on Venezuela would face the economic crises of Viernes Negro, the Caracazo riots, two coup attempts in 1992 and a banking crisis in 1994, and all of that before the ongoing well-known crisis.

Just a few years before the blockade, Venezuela had a diplomatic crisis with the United Kingdom in 1895, and just around the corner it had another one with the Netherlands in 1908. Blockade (or blockade of) is simply a lot more descriptive. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

As Ngrams surveys Google Books, there is a WP:RS concern. Per WP:NAMECHANGES, if "Venezuelan blockade" was more popular until the 1960s but was supplanted by "Venezuelan crisis", then the latter is more appropriate. "Venezuelan crisis" is vague, but in relation to 1902–1903 events, it is the common name. "Venezuelan crisis of 1902–1903" integrates such whilst clarifying enough for navigation. Per WP:NCWWW, it satisfies most parameters and, as primary adherence is to WP:COMMONNAME, does not need further clarification. Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ESTABLISHED, the Polar Foundation and Arráiz Lucca are irrelevant; only English-language works can be considered as there is sufficient coverage. Rather than change the title, I suggest redirect(s) "Venezuelan blockade"/"blockade of Venezuela/"1902–1903 blockade of Venezuela"/"1902–1903 Venezuelan blockade" be made. XxTechnicianxX (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

• Move back to Venezuelan crisis of 1902–03. Concur with those above indicating that the "crisis" moniker is the common name. However, the bold 2018 move from 1902–03 to 1902–1903 IMHO shouldn't have been made. MOS:DATERANGE allows for two-digit years as the second of two consecutive years, and it looks more concise and clearer (particularly giving readers the immediate clue that it was over a few months, not over a period of multiple years) when presented the original shorter way.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:49, 10 January 2024 (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.