Talk:Venezuelan presidential crisis/Archive 4

Red Cross POV

First, BeŻet, please stop using Venezuelanalysis.com to source text; it is not a reliable source for the text you are using it to source. It can only, maybe, sometimes, be used to source the position of the government it represents, but not other fact. I have removed this text:

• International Red Cross has declined to participate in the Washington’s humanitarian aid plan to Venezuela after raising concerns about the aid being "instrumentalized for political ends". Similarly, United Nations has warned against politicizing humanitarian aid in Venezuela.

for better sourcing and correct phrasing. The sources you need to represent this correctly are in my sanbox, at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox#Example of a distortion made into a lie. Please read through that, use third-party, independent, reliable sources, and rephrase your addition in a way that is balanced and NPOV.

(Also note that Venezuelanalysis is trying to have it both ways with Dobson, listing that information as opinion, but then claiming he is a correspondent. At ANY RATE, Venezuelanalysis cannot be used to source factual information; it is a known, biased, chavismo website.)

I would also ask that you recognize that this article is on the main page, and until/unless you understand better the correct sourcing for this article, it may better serve our readers for you to propose your additions and sources on talk, because a lot of time is going into correcting your additions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, please try to read the entire article, so that your text is added to the section that is already discussing the topic, here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

There are reputable sources expressing the concerns of Red Cross representatives about the politicization of US AID to Venezuelea: ICRC director of global operations Dominik Stillhart: “We are not kind of an implementing agency for any donor, specifically not to implement things that have a political tone”. I think this should be reinstated in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:b07:5d2a:6749:38b0:d89a:2ab4:b59b (talk • contribs) 13:59, February 21, 2019 (UTC)

The interesting thing about these POV edits is that they generally want to insert that the political tone is coming from one side only, without mention of the issue of politicizing aid by refusing to let it in. Please propose balanced text that you would like to add, based on reliable sources. Also, if you would sign your posts, by entering four tildes after them, it would help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm new to editing Wikipedia, especially having discussions on talk pages, I'm trying the four tildes thing in this comment now. Also, I'm not really sure what's the correct way to propose an edit in situations like this, I will have to look into this. For the time beign I'm just going to type it here. I would expand the sentence: "It also said its ability to work in the current environment in Venezuela was limited" with "and that it would not take part in operations that have a political tone". The source is the AssociatedPress article that I just linked above. 2001:B07:5D2A:6749:38B0:D89A:2AB4:B59B (talk) 09:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Don't worry about formatting, 2001:B07; your sig worked, and your post is properly formatted, which is way better than we often see from new users-- it's a steep learning curve.

I promise I will get to this today ... I want to look at your source, mine in sandbox, and the new one below, and come up with two to three sentences. Yesterday I was just too busy, but I will do it! (Did you have a chance to look at the source I posted just below here?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

2001:B07, please have a look at this version with new text I worked in. I didn't use your source, because a source already in the article had the same wording. I also worked in the CNN source below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

References

off topic discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It is ironic SandyGeorgia how you distort thus lie about Venezuelanalysis.com by claiming it represents the government of Venezuela which is inaccurate and misleading narrative that government of the United States of America is parroting, do we say that BBC, VOA, NHK and what not represent positions of governments of their respective countries? Same when you claim/assert for sources you deem unreliable along with basically saying in essence that information being reported by several sources doesn't matter because you deem are not reliable and would only say they're reliable if reported by what you deem reliable yet you're going to say what Wikipedia deems reliable despite many sources you say aren't reliable have been used on Wikipedia and were not labeled unreliable sources even if those sources are not common which does not give you right to label them on your own judgment as unreliable in blatant manner to pretend neutrality when demonstrating with your reasoning and bias to make this article not neutral by fact of sourcing used and narrative that is being pushed when effort has been made over and over again to check for sourcing involving pro-Maduro content such as support of his government. This happened for example with Belarus, Serbia, Laos and North Korea yet haven't seen much if any about pro-Guaido except Italy and Greece with former being forced by several users as recognizing Guaido.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RBL2000 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC) Don't any of you people reading this go with "This is not a Forum" when this is talk section and thus forum, we're discusing involving this article and sources that are being used so do not abuse Wikipedia rules by distorting meaning thus lying by intention as it happened several times involving sourcing. RBL2000 (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC) — RBL2000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Here's comment from head of International Committee of the Red Cross in Colombia who's POV is that aid from the US is not humanitarian. Do not use excuse about language being Spanish, google translation from Spanish to English is nearly 1:1, context is untouched. RBL2000 (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC) — RBL2000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. References That source is no different than the ones I link to, quoting Harnish. (You might have noticed, while personalizing your comments to me, that I was the one to correct the Italy and several other issues.) Propose text based on reliable sources, and it will be included. (The Red Cross by the way is already included.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Good, neutral info

Red Cross could be expanded from this CNN report; putting it here because I don't have the time just now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Bulgaria

Bulgaria is a unitary parliamentary republic, meaning the parliament holds the authroirty of the state over the executive. This source says the executive has a different opinion of the "government", meaning that he does not hold the official position of the Bulgarian government. Edits have said that the constitution says the executvie office represents Bulgaria internationally, but I am not finding it. Could someone provide a source? Would this make a difference at all because the authority of Bulgaria does support the EU's decision?----ZiaLater (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

---

https://www.parliament.bg/bg/const - "Article 92 states that The president is head of state. He embodies the unity of the nation and represents the Republic of Bulgaria in international relations." Further clauses dictated that the President is the one that represents Bulgaria abroad and appoints Bulgaria's ambassadors to foreign countries. The President, not MoFA, is authorized to represent Bulgaria in foreign affairs. MoFA is just a government agency tasked with the day-to-day administration of Bulgaria's diplomatic corps, embassies and to issue opinion pieces (that have no binding power without a parliamentary resolution, which does not exist in this case).

This does show that there is a clear conflict of institutions between the President and the MoFA, which is why I consider it rightful to include Bulgaria in both categories and in both cases with a note explaining the conflict. Best regards. Goodposts (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC) — Goodposts (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@Goodposts: "Art. 105. (1) The Council of Ministers shall direct and conduct State's domestic and foreign policy". The president must follow the advice of the Council of Ministers. Placing two positions in the article is not recommended. Let's settle this on the talk page first. ----ZiaLater (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• One position, per Zia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: I agree on settling this trough finding a consensus, rather than creating an edit war. The Bulgarian Council of Ministers is the one that creates foreign policy, but, as the nation's official representative in foreign affairs, the President is allowed to represent the country's position trough his statements. The Bulgarian constitution does not state what should happen in cases where the two bodies are in conflict, and only the country's Constitutional Court could resolve that issue. I think that it is fair that both positions be shown prominently, so that the reader can have a better understanding of the the Bulgarian leaders think of the situation. Moreover, the situation in Bulgaria is very divided. While the governing party supports Guaido, it's coalition partner, the United Patriots coalition openly support Maduro , with the Volya party, on which the government relies on for confidence & supply, also openly supporting Maduro, a position that is also supported by the opposition Socialist Party and it's splinter group ABV and various other more minor parties. This means that it would be impossible for the governing party, which has formed a minority government, to ever pass a parliamentary resolution in support of Guaido (which the Bulgarian President has the right to veto anyway). In fact, it's far more likely, given the stated positions of Bulgaria's parliamentary factions, that a resolution supporting Maduro, rather than Guaido, could pass. Hence, the current position can be accurately summed up as a conflict between the Council of Ministers (tasked with formulating foreign policy) and the Presidency (given the right to represent Bulgaria in international relations), with neither side currently enjoying parliamentary backing. The Bulgarian President is not obliged by the Constitution of Bulgaria to follow the foreign policy papers laid out by the Council of Ministers, as the Council of Ministers is not allowed to create legislation. That task is entrusted entirely to the National Assembly of Bulgaria. Without such legislation, the President is free to oppose the Council of Ministers' statements in his official capacity, which is considered an act belonging to the nation as a whole. This is the reason I argue for showing both sides of the argument with equal prominence in the interests of fairness. Best regards. Goodposts (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC) — Goodposts (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@Goodposts: I think the note you made was fine for the reader to check. The official stance of the Bulgarian government is one recongizing Maduro, giving it more weight. The president disagrees and that can be included in the note that you placed.----ZiaLater (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: Very well, I can agree on just the note. However, this creates a problem for the visual depiction of the map, as no notes can be attatched to the image. I think the map should follow precedent set by other Wikipedia articles, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War#Foreign_involvement and introduce a checkered visualisation for nations in which there is an institutional conflict and support is divided between the two sides. I am willing to accept the position of the Council of Ministers as the 'primary' color and position, and the President as the 'secondary' or 'conflict' position. I belive this to be an acceptible compromise that represents both sides in the fairest way possible. I think it may be important, as the United States has accused a Bulgarian citizen of 'laundering venezuelan money' trough a Bulgarian bank , prompting government action which was subsequently also harshly critisiced by the Bulgarian President , whom also vetoed several ambassadorial candidacies, hence the topic of Bulgaria may become more relevant in the coming days.

PS. I find it curious that the Bulgarian government appears to be having an institutional clash not all that dissimilar to the one we are discussing in the article at hand. Best regards. Goodposts (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC) — Goodposts (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

References

@ZiaLater and Goodposts:, is Bulgaria resolved, can this section be archived? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I am fine with the current nature of the note, but have not received a reply about the map. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Color will stay blue in the map.----ZiaLater (talk) 07:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: You can't just make arbitary decisions like that, not based on consensus, especially when precedent set by other articles listing similar conflicts is exactly the opposite. Your profile states that you're "willing to work with anyone", but so far it appears that you've done little, but re-state your hardline position and refuse to even discuss the possibility of changes, even when I've agreed to make major changes in my own position to accomodate yours. I have given you many different well-sourced reasons as to why this is not the best approach. You only reply with "the color will stay the same". Follow your own motto and work with me. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Abkhazia and South Ossetia

I would like to know why these 2 "countries", which are satellites of Russia (as in occupied by the Russian military) and only recognized by Russia, Venezuela, Nicaragua and Syria are included as showing support for Maduro as separate bullet points. I'm ok with listing non-UN countries like the Holy See, but at least we should list recognized countries.

^If that's not the case then we should start listing Greenland, and other "countries" as separate entities in the bullet points. We could add Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands as separate bullet points as well.^

I'm being sarcastic, in case you're sarcastrophe impaired, but it all seriousness it does look a little weird to have Wikipedia's own articles here pointing to the fact that some regions are occupied by Russia and listed as "independent" of them in the bullet points. Just my opinion. Luisdanielmesa (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

It says states, not countries. And the two of them got caught up in the wonderful USSR dissolution mess and want to be their own states. Abkhazia is doing pretty well getting there. South Ossetia has a good argument in that North Ossetia does exist and is in a different country as a state. Both have their own governance independent of either Georgia or Russia. (And, y'know, a territory of a country is much different to a state. There's been a fight over where the Crimea goes, and on the map it's separate to Russia and Ukraine.) Kingsif (talk) 01:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

By the logic we have used on other countries, I don't think they belong here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit request

Morocco and Ukraine don't recognize Juan Guaidó as inter Presidente of Venezuela but as leader/president of the Venezuelan National Assembly

• Morocco recognizes Juan Guaidó as President of the National Assembly of Venezuela, the current source that Wikipedia has is from a Media. However, its MFA says: "Foreign Minister Nasser Bourita held a phone conversation, on Tuesday, with Juan Guaido, President of the National Assembly of Venezuela, at the request of the latter, said the Ministry of Foreign Affairs." (Source: http://www.maroc.ma/en/news/foreign-minister-meets-juan-guaido-speaker-venezuelas-national-assembly).

Secondly, Ukraine did the same recognition as Morocco. The Wikipedia source, from the Ukranian MFA, says: "Ukraine recognizes Juan Guadio as the head of the single democratically elected Venezuelan government - the National Assembly..." (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Venezuelan_presidential_crisis#cite_note-321)

REQUEST: Please, move Morocco and Ukraine from "Guaidó interim presidency" to "Support of National Assembly". Or create a new section named "Guaido leader/president of National Assembly". Thank you. Lavelletta (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC) — Lavelletta (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

 Done RBL2000 (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

And undone; please discuss. I find nothing in the source that supports this change; please point it out. We also need a better understanding of the reliability of this source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Stop playing games, you have read it and context is clear involving Marocco:"Foreign Minister Nasser Bourita held a phone conversation, on Tuesday, with Juan Guaido, President of the National Assembly of Venezuela, at the request of the latter, said the Ministry of Foreign Affairs." and this is directly from website managed by Morrocan government so I doubt you actually checked the source. RBL2000 (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Similar for Ukraine unless you want to claim Ukrainian Independent Information Agency is unreliable source. ""Ukraine recognizes Juan Guaido as head of Venezuela's democratically elected government, the National Assembly, and leader of the democratic opposition," Press Secretary of Ukraine's Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) Kateryna Zelenko has said in a statement."" RBL2000 (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

References

And reverted again, without consensus by RBL2000. RBL, would you please add reflist to your posts, as I have explained several times on this page?

Your edits are also restoring a FAIR (biased) source, when we now have a higher quality reliable source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why SandyGeorgia is there need for concensus involving reliable sources, you're disputing UNIAN involving Ukraine and Morocco involving their official website announcing position of Moroccan government, where is logic in that? Answer me this, if there was consesus to ignore reliable sources then you would not be against that? Also the longer you drag this on the more people are being misinformed on position of Ukraine and Morocco which is a fact you can't deny despite you denying explicit sources as evident by your actions. Your reverts have no valid reason. Again you going with FAIR and applying double standards, why don't you remove all sources in this article all every article on Wikipedia due to "bias" yet allow CBC News while also going on with "higher quality" when FAIR's article is critical of coverage as that is their purpose which it seems you don't find that "high quality". RBL2000 (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

First, please read WP:BRD; when your additions have been removed once, then discuss to gain consensus before re-adding them. You are edit warring, and you can be blocked.

Regarding the FAIR source, it is Wikipedia that deems it as a perennially biased source, not me. I was willing to leave it in the article when we had no other source; now we have CNBC, which is a reliable source, so there is no need to additionally carry a known biased source. Please familiarize yourself with how we determine reliability of sources on Wikipedia, and see the FAIR entry on this page.

ZiaLater, you reinstated FAIR with the edit summary that an SPA had removed it; it was I who removed it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, I get it. So it is fine to remove sources without discussion yet it is not fine add them back after being removed without discussion and for that matter census. Please explain yourself with valid reason and not double standards that are hypocritical. RBL2000 (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps someone else can help you understand what has been explained many times, over many weeks, to you on this page. I am approaching the point of seeking admin attention for WP:SPA WP:NOTHERE and WP:TEND. I have tried my best to explain Wikipedia policies and guidelines to you, so perhaps someone else will be more successful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you should explain how is morally and ethically valid to remove a sources based on your opinion about the quality of the source while also not seeking discussion thus not seeking concensus if it should be removed yet when it is restored then you seek discussion and concensus which is double standards. It is fine when it is removed yet it is not fine when it is added back because there was no discussion should it or should it not be removed. These are fact you can not deny and claiming WP:SPA is jump to conclussion by you and others that you desire. RBL2000 (talk) 16:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for righting great wrongs that you perceive; text is based on reliable sources. Did you look at the information about FAIR that I linked to you above, at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources? FAIR is not a reliable source. You want to change text based on other sources that have not been discussed, and you edit warred to instate that. I am encouraged that you are indenting your posts correctly now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for proving me the list to see what is or isn't considered to be reliable sources by users of Wikipedia though I need to point out you labeled TASS as unreliable source when it isn't labeled as such and for that matter in fact it isn't on the list thus your reason for removal which is unreliable/not reliable source is invalid. I encourage you to discuss removal of sources and reach concensus about removal than removing it without such. RBL2000 (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Morocco and Ukraine have recognized Guaidó. If they describe him as "President of the National Assembly", it is not untrue because he is the head of National Assembly.----ZiaLater (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

If? Seems you haven't checked the sources. They describe him as such, they do as per content in sources. RBL2000 (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

REQUEST (insist): There is a difference between recognition of Guaidó as President (inter) of Venezuela (Executive branch) and Presidente of the National Assembly (Legislative branch). When a country recognizes him as Presidente of Venezuela, it means that anyone, except him, can be The Presidente of Venezuela. On the other hand, when a country recognizes the National Assembly and Guaidó as its Presidente/leader, it doesn't explicitly mean that a country recognizes Guaido as Presidente of Venezuela, according to the Venezuelan constitution. I used the OFFICAL sources because of both, Morocco and Ukraine, had not recognized formally and explicitly to Guaidó as President (inter) of Venezuela, only as Presidente/leader of National Assembly. If you have any doubt, you can ask their MFA. — Lavelletta (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC).

Again, those country recognize Juan Guadó as Presidente of the National Assambly of Venezuela, not as Presidente (inter) of Venezuela.

The constitution of Venezuela says: "Art. 233: [...] When an elected President becomes permanently unavailable to serve prior to his inauguration, a new election by universal suffrage and direct ballot shall be held within 30 consecutive days. Pending election and inauguration of the new President, the President of the National Assembly shall take charge of the Presidency of the Republic." There are different scenarios of recognition: 1. Recognize Maduro as Presidente of Venezuela 2. Not recognize Maduro as Presidente of Venezuela 3. Recognize the National Assembly is the only democratic institution of Venezuela and Guaidó as its leader 4. Recognize Guadí as Presidente (inter) of Venezuela (according to art. 233). Morocco and Ukraine are in the third scenario. It means that They don't recognize Maduro as President, but without a recognition of Guiado as Presidente (inter) of Venezuela.

There is a difference between recognition of Guaidó as President (inter) of Venezuela (Executive branch) and Presidente of the National Assembly (Legislative branch). When a country recognizes him as Presidente of Venezuela, it means that anyone, except him, can be The Presidente of Venezuela. On the other hand, when a country recognizes the National Assembly and Guaidó as its Presidente/leader, it doesn't explicitly mean that a country recognizes Guaido as Presidente of Venezuela, according to the Venezuelan constitution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavelletta (talk • contribs) 16:59, February 21, 2019 (UTC)

Morocco, Switzerland and Ukraine

Again, those country recognize Juan Guadó as Presidente of the National Assambly of Venezuela, not as Presidente (inter) of Venezuela.

The constitution of Venezuela says: "Art. 233: [...] When an elected President becomes permanently unavailable to serve prior to his inauguration, a new election by universal suffrage and direct ballot shall be held within 30 consecutive days. Pending election and inauguration of the new President, the President of the National Assembly shall take charge of the Presidency of the Republic."

There are different scenarios of recognition: 1. Recognize Maduro as Presidente of Venezuela 2. Not recognize Maduro as Presidente of Venezuela 3. Recognize the National Assembly is the only democratic institution of Venezuela and Guaidó as its leader 4. Recognize Guadí as Presidente (inter) of Venezuela (according to art. 233).

Morocco, Switzerland, and Ukraine are in the third scenario. It means that They don't recognize Maduro as President, but without a recognition of Guiado as Presidente (inter) of Venezuela.

There is a difference between recognition of Guaidó as President (inter) of Venezuela (Executive branch) and Presidente of the National Assembly (Legislative branch). When a country recognizes him as Presidente of Venezuela, it means that anyone, except him, can be The Presidente of Venezuela. On the other hand, when a country recognizes the National Assembly and Guaidó as its Presidente/leader, it doesn't explicitly mean that a country recognizes Guaido as Presidente of Venezuela, according to the Venezuelan constitution.

I want to explaing case by case: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavelletta (talk • contribs) 14:41, February 21, 2019 UTC (UTC) — Lavelletta (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Morocco

The last statement of the Government of Morocco, through its Ministry of Culture and Communication, says: Foreign Minister Nasser Bourita held a phone conversation, on Tuesday, with Juan Guaido, President of the National Assembly of Venezuela, at the request of the latter, said the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (29 JAN 2019). This statement doesn't say "Presidente (inter) of Venezuela". It means that Morocco recognizes him only as the leader of the National Assembly, but they are not recognized him as Presidente (inter) of Venezuela. The source is official, so it could be the most truthful source for an official statement of a Country (http://www.maroc.ma/en/news/foreign-minister-meets-juan-guaido-speaker-venezuelas-national-assembly). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavelletta (talk • contribs) 14:41, February 21, 2019 UTC (UTC) — Lavelletta (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Switzerland

The statement of Head of the Americas Division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Switzerland says: "#Venezuela #Switzerland considers the National Assembly als legitimate as a result of the democratic elections of 2015, as well as its newly elected president # JuanGuaidó. Their freedoms and powers must be respected and their security guaranteed. @EDA_DFAE." When he says "newly elected president", he's talking about the President of the National Assembly of Venezuela not of the Presidente (inter) of Venezuela. Switzerland had been removed from this section before. (https://twitter.com/SwissMFAamerica/status/1088397932397776896?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1088397932397776896%7Ctwgr%5E363937393b636f6e74726f6c&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.el-nacional.com%2Fnoticias%2Feuropa%2Fsuiza-reconocio-juan-guaido-como-presidente-interino-venezuela_268008) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavelletta (talk • contribs) 14:41, February 21, 2019 UTC (UTC) — Lavelletta (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

 Done Fixed. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Ukraine

The statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine says: "Ukraine recognizes Juan Guadio as the head of the single democratically elected Venezuelan government - the National Assembly [...]" As before, this is a recognition of the Presidente of the National Assembly, not as Presidente (inter) of Venezuela. (https://mfa.gov.ua/ua/press-center/briefing/1317-vidpovidy-rechnici-mzs-ukrajini-katerini-zelenko-dlya-zmi-shhodo-politichnoji-krizi-u-venesujeli).

I used the OFFICAL sources because of both, Morocco and Ukraine, had not recognized formally and explicitly to Guaidó as President (inter) of Venezuela, only as Presidente/leader of the National Assembly. If you have any doubt, you can ask their MFA. Lavelletta (talk • contribs) — Lavelletta (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

We have to be more precise with the position of countries and try to filter better the sources of Media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavelletta (talk • contribs) 14:41, February 21, 2019 UTC (UTC) — Lavelletta (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Ukraine recognizes Juan Guaidó as the head of the single democratically elected Venezuelan government is a recognition of Guaidó as leader of Venezuela. At best (I do not think so), the sentence is ambiguous and another source has to be found to clear this up. --MaoGo (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I just made these six edits to try to get this post in the right place, correctly formatted, add unsigned templates, and to remove the small tag that was whacking out the rest of the talk page. I have not attempted to address the concerns, out of time, will leave that to others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Help

I am constantly fixing, re-threading, formatting, and adding unsigned templates to Lavelletta's posts. I do not know what this editor wants done. I have reached out to them on their talk page, to no avail. Could someone else help here? I have done all I can, and it is time consuming. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Move Ukraine and Morocco from Support Guaido to Support National Assembly as he said time and time again, I don't see how his simple request backed by sources is hard to understand for you not to get what he wants to be done when he repeated this over and over again. Does he have to repeat it yet again? RBL2000 (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

This is what is meant by the warning to stop soapboxing. I welcome anyone to read the walls of text above and try to extract sources and content suggesitons; I have spent so much time trying to keep the posts in order that I have been unable to decipher. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

What he said is explictly clear, Ukraine and Morocco should be moved from recognizing Guaido to recognizing National Assembly as stated explictly in sources. RBL2000 (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

All I am able to decipher from the walls and walls of text above is that Lavelletta reads the text in the sources differently than I and some others do. Perhaps some other sources could be provided, without the walls of text that I have to constantly reformat, replace and add sigs to, that would be more clear to everyone. Clear source, clear proposal, resolution, get this done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Don't ask him for what he has already done, it doesn't make sense to ask such at all to anyone to repeat the same which yet he did to you and others. Anyway how is this hard to understand what he wrote? "The statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine says: "Ukraine recognizes Juan Guadio as the head of the single democratically elected Venezuelan government - the National Assembly [...]" As before, this is a recognition of the Presidente of the National Assembly, not as Presidente (inter) of Venezuela." There is nothing to "decypher", its plain english. Source: (https://www.unian.info/politics/10433733-mfa-ukraine-backs-venezuelan-opposition-leader.html) It is plain and simple what is being stated. RBL2000 (talk) 11:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Source for Antigua and Grenada being placed in Neutral section seems to be very shaky.

The source for ALBA's support for Maduro have already clearly stated that "Our countries only recognize as representatives of Venezuela, in the multilateral and bilateral spheres, the diplomatic officials appointed by the Executive Power of Venezuela, which is headed by its President Nicolás Maduro Moros, and we will not recognize the presence within the multilateral organizations of representation of any product of the violation of current Venezuelan legal regulations by a supposed parallel government." - http://www.portalalba.org/index.php/areas/integracion-regional/alba/19511-alba-reitera-su-apoyo-y-reconocimiento-al-presidente-nicolas-maduro-comunicado

Thus this naturally includes Antigua, Grenada as well as Saint Lucia which was not included. Neither of the sources placing Antigua and Grenada under the "Neutral" banner has any explicit quotes about the countries being neutral, in fact in the source for Antigua (http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/antigua-pm-says-caribbean-could-be-destabilised-as-a-result-of-situation-in-venezuela_155794?profile=1373) it is very explicitly mentioned "Browne, who said his administration will not support Guaido, warned that the unfolding situation in Caracas could cause serious problems for the Caribbean." This plus the ALBA statement makes it 100% clear that Antigua supports Maduro. As for Grenada's source (http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/grenada-worried-about-instabality-in-venezuela_155880?profile=1373) it does not even remotely mention any shred of clear evidence that Grenada is neutral.

Therefore I will be editing the section in an hour to place them all under "Supporting Maduro" if there is no valid objection. Nebakin (talk) 10:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Nebakin not sure what time zone you're in, but in the Americas (where the crisis is located), it is the middle of the night. Announcing an hour deadline to change something in the middle of the night does not seem very collegial. There is no deadline. I have tried to avoid following this map closely (in fact, I wish it were not part of this page, as it detracts from writing the article), so I generally do not have a strong opinion on every country (unless I see faulty sourcing), and I suggest that you give other editors time to weigh in. I do not agree that an overall position taken by a group of which a state may be a member overrides what individual member states say. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I have things to do also, and it's 7pm for me. So if there is no preliminary valid objections, I am going to edit first. Simple as that. We all have our own personal lives, so giving a deadline for the first editing is very reasonable. If someone finds better evidence to disprove it, they are free to discuss it here and we reach some agreement. Also, while you may not agree that "an overall position taken by a group of which a state may be a member overrides what individual member states say", it has been very clearly quoted in the statement from ALBA that "Our countries only recognize as representatives of Venezuela, in the multilateral and bilateral spheres, the diplomatic officials appointed by the Executive Power of Venezuela, which is headed by its President Nicolás Maduro Moros, and we will not recognize the presence within the multilateral organizations of representation of any product of the violation of current Venezuelan legal regulations by a supposed parallel government.". There is no other interpretation for this statement. "Our countries" is a very,very clear indication that the individual members agree with this statement. Nebakin (talk) 11:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

They are speaking for the group; individual countries may override. If you edit an individual country based on the ALBA statement, and override a statement from that country, it is likely you a) have no consensus and b) will be reverted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Nebakin do you have a source explicitly stating, for example, that Antigua supports Maduro? I have just searched and do not find one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I do, but I'm very sure it won't be readily accept it since "it's biased" just because it's from an OFFICIAL ministry of the Venezuelan government.

For Antigua http://mppre.gob.ve/en/2019/01/07/antigua-and-barbuda-venezuela-bilateral-relations/

For St. Lucia http://mppre.gob.ve/en/2019/01/22/venezuela-and-saint-lucia-strengthen-bilateral-cooperation-relations/

Besides that the Venezuelan government cannot speak for other countries, there has already been a case where it lied (the African Union). Do you have a source stating that Antigua, for example, supports Maduro that is reliable for that content? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I will give my two cents and provide this chart of the OAS vote declaring the illegitimacy of Maduro. Both Antigua and Grenada abstained, like half of the ALBA members. Just like with the SADC, the Lima Group and the European Union, each country has an individual stance. --Jamez42 (talk) 11:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Jamesz42's information gives a pretty good reason that there is not a case for changing the stance of these countries. Nebakin, you must provide a source reliable for the content you want to add. Unless you have one, I do not agree with your proposed change.

Also, Nebakin, even if we were to accept the Venezuelan government as a reliable source for what the position of other countries (we don't), your two Venezuela government sources above DO NOT say that those countries support Maduro or reject Guaido in the presidential crisis. They say nothing close.

Further, what you call "shaky", I call "responsible editing"; these are small countries in the Caribbean, that depend on tourism dollars. If we put them in a position without solid sources supporting that position, we (Wikipedia) could be affecting their tourism revenues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia I can also argue that those nations hasn't come out to deny those claims therefore they are valid. Also, there have also been many cases where sources like WSJ, BBC and so many other sources used here have lied even more times before too, should we exclude them now then? Also, the Alba statement, as you both are making me repeat, made it clear that their countries statement are represented through this joint statement. More over abstaining from a vote means nothing at all. And don't try and kid me with we will affect their tourism, this article is already destroying Venezuela's tourism by that logic, should maybe we should remove the entire article then? Or how about everything related to either Maduro or Guaido in the article can easily be used for evidence as slander? Seriously? Also, Wikipedia did specifically say that sources doesn't have to be neutral, sources can be biased, it's in your rules.

"The countries of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America - Treaty of Trade of the Peoples (ALBA-TCP), we reiterate our support and recognition of the elected government of President Nicolás Maduro Moros, as expressed by our Heads of State and of Governments in the Declaration of the XVI ALBA-TCP Summit held in Havana, Cuba on December 14, 2018." - there we go. Nebakin (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The Venezuelan government does not speak for other countries, and your source does not say what you say it does. I'm done here. You will need to gain consensus for the edits you propose: as of now, you have not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and we should avoid whataboutism arguments. If understand correctly, the ALBA statement took place on December 2018. Countries positions have also shifted greatly after Maduro's inauguration and Guaido's proclamation, and the sources in the article are more recent than the ones provided here. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The ALBA statement is from 24th Jan, the 2 sources for Antigua and Grenada are 29th and 30th Jan. None of the sources also either mention these countries are explicitly neutral, in fact for Antigua's case, it is explicitly mentioned Antigua DOES NOT recognise Guaido, this plus the fact that ALBA statement clearly shows Antigua's position, plus the fact that Antigua has not denied any of those statement either. Therefore they do not contradict the earlier ALBA statement. It REITERATES "support and recognition of the elected government of President Nicolás Maduro Moros" that has been expressed "by our Heads of State and of Governments in the Declaration of the XVI ALBA-TCP Summit held in Havana, Cuba on December 14, 2018". it's a reiteration, a reconfirmation. Nebakin (talk) 12:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The "two sources" are not reliable sources for this content. You have no consensus; please move on and come back to this when you have a reliable source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Current events portal

Editors here should be aware of Portal:Current events (with its information about the Venezuela crisis) and the AFD at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/RfC: Ending the system of portals. The thing requires daily attention, eg, Portal:Current events/2019 February 23 (edit | [[Talk:Portal:Current events/2019 February 23|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and so on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Turns out the RFC/AFD was old. There is still a problem with POV pushing on the current events portal, which gets 50,000 hits per day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Current events noticeboard is still going strong~! (for those who are interested in this sort of subject) ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 01:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Red Cross falsification of emblem

Bezet, why did you remove this? [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I've moved it to a different section (explained in edit summary), you could have asked me directly instead of here. BeŻet (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, as you can see, I was here anyway, responding to the above.

So ... I agree that it is better placed at the other article, simply because there don't seem to have been further fallout that we report in this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Nations of the SADC should be included under "Supporting Maduro"

Content moved to Talk:Responses to the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done --Jamez42 (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

On Friday

Content moved to Talk:Responses to the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done --Jamez42 (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Article split proposal

See WP:SIZE and WP:SIZERULE and WP:SUMMARY

We have not yet begun to update the events of 23 February, the article is growing to grow considerably when we do, and the article size is at the point where splitting is recommended because the article has become too long to read, and difficult to load on slow connections.

As of 24 February, before the events of 23 Feb are added, in this version, we have:

• Document statistics:

Wiki text: 253 kB

Prose size (text only): 60 kB (9444 words) "readable prose size"

References (text only): 2231 B

My test edit would split all of the sections "Recognition", "Reaction" and "Public opinion" to a new article, Recognition and response to 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis. It results in article looking like this, which is different only in this section. It trims 100 KB from the file, results in a 30% cut to readable prose size, giving us room to grow the new content.

• Document statistics:

Wiki text: 153 kB

Prose size (text only): 45 kB (7182 words) "readable prose size"

References (text only): 1586 B

I propose we make this split. The added benefit is that this article can focus on writing content, and those who want to focus on where to place various countries on the map can take those discussions to the other talk page, and we can actually get some work done in here. The vast majority of effort on this talk page goes not towards generating content, but towards dealing with positions taken by countries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• Support split as proposed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

  On implementation, I suggest we wait until we get all of 23 Feb fallout dealt with, and that we sandbox the proposed summary of the new article back to this article, and get it worked out before we implement. I have set up User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox2, which I will invite anyone to edit once/if we start this work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment – I can support the creation of the response article, we just have to make sure that the info linked to the recognition section is properly transfered. Also, we could shorten the section about humanitarian aid as well. Most of the section is rhetoric, so I support keeping the information about demonstrations and events.----ZiaLater (talk) 06:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support, per Wikipedia guidelines. Also to be able handle country alliances discussions appropriately. --MaoGo (talk) 12:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support, although it’s not the same I like the split articles at the page for the Syrian Civil War. Way easier to deal with. Bohbye (talk) 02:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support: seems like a good idea. Other than the United States, Russia and China, and perhaps Argentina and Brazil (as regional neighbors) and the ones with national frontiers (in case this grows into an armed conflict), most countries' reactions are testimonial and have little or no influence in the actual outcome of the crisis. --Cambalachero (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

READY

I have the mock-up ready at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox2, where you can see first the WP:SS summary that will be left in this article, and second, what the new article will look like.

I can't invite people to edit my sandbox, or I won't be able to db-author it. I'd like to make the move quickly, so that we can keep working. If people have quibbles, they can fix those once I do the split, but please tell me if you see anything major that prevents me from doing the split. Depending on how quickly I hear from all of you, I'd like to do it tonight, so that we aren't stalled on future work.

My suggestion for this article is that the summary be kept intentionally as brief as possible, so we don't have to keep the two articles constantly in sync.

On the new article, I put narrative at top, and map/list below that, really only for esthetics (it looks awful to go straight into a list). And I suggest NO infobox or crisis tempalte at the top, as they will disrupt the look, but that's up to others once the article is up.

For now, unless I've done something dreadful, I'd like to install quickly.

@ZiaLater, Jamez42, MaoGo, Bohbye, Cambalachero, BeŻet, RBL2000, Power~enwiki, Fenetrejones, MattLongCT, Kingsif, Oscar, ParadiseDesertOasis8888, and Cyfraw:

Remember, please don't quibble the little stuff that can be adjusted once the split is done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Support – @SandyGeorgia: Looks good.----ZiaLater (talk) 01:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Support – @SandyGeorgia:Fenetrejones (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Support – Sounds good. However, I suggest that the name of the article be "Responses to the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis" to keep it short and because recognitions are a form of response. ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 02:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm OK with that new proposed title ... @ZiaLater and Fenetrejones: ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is fineFenetrejones (talk) 03:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Support the summary here will be changing dramatically over the next few weeks. Moving the in-detail per-country list off this page is a good idea. Responses to the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis is a good enough title for now. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Support Added categories. --Jamez42 (talk) 03:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Support Article looks improved. cyrfaw (talk) 04:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Support. Oscar_. (talk) 06:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Allright, enough of us are in that I'm going for it. I will put the article in use for a bit, and please don't make any changes 'til I'm all done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Next I will move talk page threads that belong to new page, leaving a link here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

All aid prevented from entering

@ZiaLater:, re this edit:

• Fernando Rincon (CNN en espanol) reported live tonight that they were definitely (according to him) in Venezuelan territory when the fire occurred, and he was there. I can't get that interview to load.
• Guaido said they were in Venezuelan territory. [2]
• A woman interviewed in this source has them in Venezuela.
• Miami Herald says they crossed

If we place the trucks in Colombia, rather than Venezuela, in Wikipedia's voice as fact ("All aid shipments from Brazil, Colombia and Puerto Rico were prevented from entering Venezuela"), without attribution, we are taking a position on whether Venezuelan forces burned the trucks once they were in Venezuela. Or even possibly suggesting that Venezuelan forces crossed into Colombia to burn the trucks. If sources disagree on whether the trucks were in Colombia or Venezuela, we have to discuss both, but we have to be careful not state in Wikipedia's voice where the trucks were. They are numerous sources saying that some trucks were ordered back ... but from where, we have to take care. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: From what I am seeing, many sources are saying that no large shipments of aid entered into Venezuela and that Guaidó was repeating initial reports from AN deputies that turned out to be false. All aid that was technically across the border and in Venezuela, was returned. So, I do not see how large shipments of aid successfully entered. Maybe a few small packages made it across, but the majority of the caravans returned to their departure points. I will look for more sources.----ZiaLater (talk) 07:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I know they returned, but were the trucks burned in Colombian territory or Venezuelan? That is a delicate question. If sources disagree, we have to work that out in the text with attribution. Maybe you are able to load a CNN espanol live report from Rincon? They won't load for me; I can only see the clip on Instagram. If you have the source that says Guaido was mistaken, then we should mention both, with attribution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: This CNN video? I will work on those sources. ----ZiaLater (talk) 08:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

No, the one I saw, they had re-crossed, it was later in the day, he was re-telling the events of the day, and he had no mask on. I am still trying to locate it, but perhaps he will put something in print by tomorrow. For now, I weasled the wording in the article a little bit to avoid mention of exactly where they were, so we can keep working while we sort that part out. And, as long as we attribute who claims what, we're OK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Well, it looks like something made it through? We cannot confirm what is on that truck from a tweet, though. I am still digging.----ZiaLater (talk) 08:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I suggest not taking too much time on this yet, as more and better sources will come out. We could lose days on the detail here, trying to sort it ourselves, when sources might discuss the matter within a few days for us. There is so much to do in this article now, that I needed a day to regroup :) Second wind tomorrow! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I need to point out that GNB only fired tear gas canisters towards the "aid" convoy. (https://streamable.com/6gh7w) Also you had Venezuelan opposition supporters coming from Colombian side of the border with molotov cocktails as recorded by this woman. (https://twitter.com/OrlenysOV/status/1099398805391400960) Some of them masquaraded as Red Cross. (https://twitter.com/Federation/status/1099374815394308102) RBL2000 (talk) 11:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@ZiaLater:, it occurs to me that there are numerous drone shots of the trucks burning, and those shots are high enough quality that one can determine in what country that is happening relative to the border (which I believe is the center of the river?). So, at some point, a reliable source is going to do this analysis for us, simply by looking at the images. I think we should forge forward with the work to be done here, and dance around that point for now by not explicitly stating one way or another, and carefully attributing whatever we do say. We do have to take great care, because for Venezuelan troops/paramilitaries to come into Colombian territory and cause trucks to burn could be interpreted as an act of war. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Act of war it isn't as it was done by pro-aid protesters, here's video showing how the molotov ended up falling on the aid truck. (source:https://twitter.com/ConflictsW/status/1099723433875853312) RBL2000 (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

This came from Colombian TV, whole report and you can see on 3:18 the footage where it shows molotov veering off course towards the humanitarian truck. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLkVGnVVnz0 RBL2000 (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

That is quite a wonderful report from Colombian TV. But again, you are drawing your own conclusions, not supported by the video. Back to work for me ... @ZiaLater: this comprehensive report also has the trucks crossing the border, and then Venezuelan troops firing tear gas cannisters (per the usual-- point-blank). Worth watching the whole thing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, I am drawing the conclussion like the media drew conclussion that trucks were set on fire by Venezuelan government. RBL2000 (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

War on the Rocks

@ParadiseDesertOasis8888: re this edit and this source, the piece is a commentary/opinion article, not a reliable source for this kind of content; we can't use an opinion piece to source a hard fact about the positions those countries have taken. War on the Rocks claims, though, to be getting its information from the "New York Times, Hurriyet Daily News and other news reports", so maybe you can locate the same information in news reports that are not opinion pieces/commentary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Tabloid-like statement?

In the article we have the following statement:

While violence was unfolding on Venezuela's borders, Maduro danced salsa with his wife at a rally (...)

I'm wondering, do we feel like this is slight "tabloidisation"? It is true that Maduro was "dancing salsa" at the time but when included in the article it is fulfilling a certain purpose, namely purposefully showing that Maduro is "having fun" while the violence is happening. I am wondering whether this is a neutral point of view? BeŻet (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Multiple high-quality reliable sources reported it, there are videos, and it was specifically highlighted in today's Lima Group meeting. Why do you think it tabloid? For an alleged world leader to be dancing during a crisis, while aid is burning and people are dying is quite newsworthy. If it's newsworthy for high-quality reliable sources, why not for Wikpedia? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't doubt that it happened and I've already explained why I think it is tabloid-like. BeŻet (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

No, you have not explained in terms of Wikipedia policy why you object. What you have given amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. WP:UNDUE would be the policy you need to address. And the fact that you consider him dancing to be "tabloid" news kinda makes the point about why this inappropriate action was news. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Sources (not even close to a complete list, just samples): LA FM, La Tribuna, El Comercio, La Verdad, Uno TV, Tribuna Mexico, El Universal Mexico, WPLG, Fox, CNN ... ok, there are too many google hits to even begin to list them, including even sputnik news ... that's with a google time restriction on last 24 hours, and there are many more if we sort through without time restrictions on google search ... so, your tag on the article is not a demonstration of good faith, and I suggest you remove it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

It feels like you don't fully understand my point. I am not questioning whether it has happened. I believe it to be true, in fact, it must be true. I am questioning whether the inclusion of that news story is giving undue weight. The sentence implies that Maduro is somehow indifferent to violence, and consequently suggests that Maduro somehow knew the clashes would turn violent. Therefore, I am questioning whether this snippet is neutral, as I feel it isn't and it is tabloid-like, and it doesn't matter how many sources mention it. BeŻet (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I do understand your point. It doesn't appear that you have read the sources. Your response is not policy-based. Please frame a response that is based on Wikipedia policy, if you can. If Maduro's behavior was tabloid-like, then Wikipedia reports it as it is reported in reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

You don't understand if you're saying "Maduro's behavior was tabloid-like", which is completely not what I'm talking about. I'd like for some other Wikipedian to contribute to this discussion who might understand what is being discussed. Meanwhile, since you're referring to Wikipedia policy, please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and imagery." BeŻet (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Would it help if we change the sentence? It can be something like Parallel to the conflict on the Venezuelan border, national TV broadcasted a rally where Maduro and wife danced salsa (...) --MaoGo (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

It's still not addressing undue weight that is created by the juxtaposition of the statements. BeŻet (talk) 22:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Ukraine and Morocco, again...

Content moved to Talk:Responses to the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done --Jamez42 (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

25 Feb list

1. Will Guaido return? https://www.infobae.com/america/venezuela/2019/02/25/juan-guaido-regresara-esta-noche-a-venezuela-pese-a-las-amenazas-de-detencion-del-regimen-de-nicolas-maduro/
2.  Donehttps://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/eu-says-military-intervention-in-venezuela-must-be-avoided-11288140 RBL2000 (talk) 14:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

   Used a different source below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

3.  Done Sanctions [3]--MaoGo (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

   http://time.com/5537438/sanctions-venezuela-maduro/

   New sanctions on governors who supported Maduro on 23 Feb (LaCava–Carabobo, Prieto–Zulia, Garcia Carneiro–Vargas, Carrizalez–Apure) https://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-venezuela-pence-20190225-story.html https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm616

4.  Done FAA advisory https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/faa-tells-pilots-caution-flying-venezuela-61302473
5.  Done Brazil accuses regimen of violent acts in border. https://www.elnuevoherald.com/noticias/mundo/america-latina/venezuela-es/article226712674.html
6.  Done Statements from Lima Group:

   https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-politics-brazil/brazil-will-not-allow-u-s-use-its-territory-to-invade-venezuela-vice-president-idUSKCN1QE2DS

7.  Done Venezuelan National Guard fires into Colombian territory (Covered at 2019 shipping of humanitarian aid to Venezuela
8.  Done Jorge Ramos
9.  Done United States military officials tell CNN that the U.S. military has flown reconnaissance flights in international airspace off the coast of Venezuela during the last several days to gather classified intelligence about President Nicolás Maduro. (CNN)

25/02 Lima Group meeting in Bogota

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/eu-says-military-intervention-in-venezuela-must-be-avoided-11288140 RBL2000 (talk) 14:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

RBL, thanks for that-- it will be best worked in when we update all of whatever comes out of Lima Group meeting today. For now, not sure where to put it, and we will end up with a whole new 24 Feb section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Used source below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Summary of the Lima Group meeting in Colombia:

1)Guaido has not requested a military intervention. (In Italian): https://mobile.ilsole24ore.com/art/mondo/2019-02-25/venezuela-maduro-denunciato-per-crimini-contro-l8217-umanita/AB7Jm8XB

2) EU and Brazil have expressed their strong opposition to any military intervention in Venezuela.

 Done https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/02/25/eu-warns-against-military-action-venezuela-mike-pence-juan-guaido/

http://www.arabnews.com/node/1457816/world

3) The Lima Group have urged the ICC to sentence Maduro for crimes against humanity.

 Done https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/government-economy/lima-group-urges-icc-to-declare-venezuela-aid-blockade-crime-against-humanity

(37.160.81.4 (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC))

China meets with other parties

Just dropping some links here in case they become useful: Chinese reps say they have been meeting with multiple political parties in Venezuela. Obviously no statement of neutrality, but if that does happen, this might be a step in the process we could add. Or it could be written into the China reaction paragraph if anyone has the time/effort. Observador (Portuguese), ANSA Agency (Italian), Prensa Latina (Spanish). Kingsif (talk) 12:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

If I recall correctly this was added. Marking as  Done --Jamez42 (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

China's neutrality

An editor in the Spanish Wikipedia offered an article that mentions that China has now taken a more neutral stance in the crisis.[4] --Jamez42 (talk) 03:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

There are English, and Chinese sources for this as well. I put it in a different article. It does require a bit of reading between the lines however: A Chinese foreign ministry spokesman came out and said that China was willing to work with whomever, and was in talks with both sides, when asked if China supports Maduro a government spokesman responded that his inauguration was attended by China, also a Chinese/Hong Konger news paper, The South China Morning Post, (wholly owned by Ali Baba; important because Ali Baba won't tolerate political controversy see Southern Weekend) posted an article about Guaidó and how he wanted to work with China. These do show a much more neutral stance, than what was originally had, but it's hard to add to wiki. I'll list some of the articles for you though:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-counts-the-costs-of-its-big-bet-on-venezuela-11549038825 https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/2184773/exclusive-self-declared-leader-venezuela-juan-guaido-extends https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/2183519/wary-china-offers-support-embattled-venezuelan-president Alcibiades979 (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I found a great article on this so I went ahead and added a bit: https://www.americasquarterly.org/content/change-coming-chinas-venezuela-policy Alcibiades979 (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Alcibiades979: Thank you very much for adding the info. Just today I listened to an interview explaining that China cancelled a long term project with PDVSA owrth billions of dollars due to its unability to pay, but I haven't had time to check, so I wanted to leave the note here. Best wishes! --Jamez42 (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

China did not meet with opposition

China's MoFA Spokesperson just came out to clarify that any reported meeting with Venezuelan opposition is "fake news", please update.

From China's MoFA: https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/xwfw_665399/s2510_665401/t1637635.shtml "Q:[...] Secondly, reports say that China has been holding talks with Venezuelan political opposition to safeguard its investment in the country. Can you confirm?" "A:[...] On your second question, I believe the reports you cited were made by the Wall Street Journal. I want to point out that some media has been churning out false information lately. I wonder why it has been acting like this. We hope that it could make media coverage in an objective and unbiased way. As for the Venezuelan issue, China believes that a political solution should be sought out through dialogue and consultation."

Other Sources: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia/china-says-report-of-talks-with-venezuela-opposition--fake-news--11238670 https://www.rt.com/news/451366-venezuela-china-fake-news-opposition/?fbclid=IwAR0HcB9xqOTzoyrRetXQbKo9BQytgX5xQa3dDoJVcsa-JoaHETdaLUbOuMA https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/2186003/no-talks-between-china-and-venezuela-opposition-beijing-says http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1138772.shtml http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-02/13/c_137818964.htm Nebakin (talk) 10:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I have already updated it, marking as  Done. Nebakin (talk) 10:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Added according to the WSJ. As a side note of course China is going to deny having secret meetings with Guaidó's diplomats concerning the Chinese financial exposure to Venezuela. Wiki now carries both sides. The Wall Street Journal is a rock solid source, however, and the Chinese Foreign Ministry has already stated that they are in contact with all parties as per SCMP. Alcibiades979 (talk) 14:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I disagree having the denial by the Chinese MoFA being reduced to nothing more than a practical footnote, therefore I am reverting cum re-wording that entry. Also, not going to argue about the claim the WSJ is a more "rock solid source" than the Chinese foreign ministry itself, or that WSJ is a "rock, solid source". Nebakin (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Two sources state different facts, as per Wiki:NPOV_Due_and_undue_weight, both should be included, which is what I've done. I specifically cited the Wall Street Journal in the article as stating that meetings have taken place, then added that the Chinese Foreign Ministry has denied that it took place, giving weight to both sources as per wiki policy. Alcibiades979 (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Rewording have been completed and this version gives a more complete story while still remaining brief and representing both sources equally, both in quantity and quality. Nebakin (talk) 14:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

China denied having meetings with Guaidó over Chinese investments, however if you read she never mentions that no meetings have taken place, and Geng Shuang another spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry has stated that China has been in touch with representatives from Guaidó: "A Chinese foreign ministry spokesman, Geng Shuang, said on Friday that China’s deals with Venezuela should not be affected “no matter how circumstances change”. When asked at a press conference if Beijing had contacted Guaido, Geng said China has been in touch with “all sides” in different ways." https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/2184773/exclusive-self-declared-leader-venezuela-juan-guaido-extends Alcibiades979 (talk) 14:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

As stated above:

"Q:[...] Secondly, reports say that China has been holding talks with Venezuelan political opposition to safeguard its investment in the country. Can you confirm?"

"A:[...] On your second question, I believe the reports you cited were made by the Wall Street Journal. I want to point out that some media has been churning out false information lately. I wonder why it has been acting like this. We hope that it could make media coverage in an objective and unbiased way. As for the Venezuelan issue, China believes that a political solution should be sought out through dialogue and consultation."

https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/xwfw_665399/s2510_665401/t1637635.shtml

I believe your article is also already half a month old, moreover it is clearly stated that all parties are kept in touch in different ways, this does not contradict anything from the press conference from yesterday (13th feb), having no meetings (as clearly evident by the statement from yesterday) doesn't mean not being in touch at all, even a single phone call is also considered keeping in touch. As mentioned, all parties are kept in touch in different ways. There is no contradiction at all since the term "been in touch" is so broad in definition and does not restrict it to meetings/talks only. Nebakin (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

"On your first question, in recent days, in order to promote the peaceful settlement of the Venezuelan issue, China has been in close contact and communication with all parties." Secondly, reports say that China has been holding talks with Venezuelan political opposition //to safeguard its investment in the country.// Channel News: "BEIJING: China said on Wednesday (Feb 13) a newspaper report that Chinese diplomats had held talks with Venezuela's political opposition to protect its investments in the Latin American country was "fake news"." SCMP: "China has dismissed a newspaper report that its diplomats held talks with the political opposition in Venezuela to protect its investments in the Latin American country as “fake news”." Global Times: "The Chinese foreign ministry on Wednesday refuted foreign media reports which claimed that China has been holding talks with Venezuela's political opposition to safeguard its investments, and called the reports "false."" etc. Anyhow I really need to get back to work. Alcibiades979 (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The part about the meeting for investment have already been mentioned in the first half of the sentence, no point repeating it. Nebakin (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

It is necessary, these two sentences state two different things. This one states that according to Hua Chunying China has never meet with Guaido's representatives to discuss Chinese investments: "however Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Hua Chunying denied any meetings with the Venezuelan opposition to discuss Chinese investments when asked about WSJ's claims in a press conference, stating that it is "false information"." This one states that China has never had meetings with Venezuela period, which is not supported by the references: "however Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Hua Chunying denied any meetings with the Venezuelan opposition when asked about WSJ's claims in a press conference, stating that it is "false information"." Do you see the difference? If in your mind there's no difference, then humour me, I've written all of China's and Russia's sections, and supplied all the references. Alcibiades979 (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

There is no difference, there is only a difference because you are taking it out of context by only quoting the second part, quote the whole thing then tell me there is a difference. So what if you written all of it? It's not your property to claim someone is edit warring when you unhappy about it not fitting your narrative. Also, save your warning for yourself, I am officially warning you as well for edit warring, you are the who REFUSES to settle it in here before making all those edits. Nebakin (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Venezuelan National Guard fires into Colombia

@SandyGeorgia: NTN24 is reporting that the GNB fired tear gas into Colombia. In this video at 4:20pm, you can see where Colombian authorities barricaded the border on their side. A second video at 4:30pm shows the GNB firing over Colombian border personnel into Colombia, with Colombian authorities taking cover behind barricades. Just thought that you would be interested in this due to previous discussions.----ZiaLater (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Saw that on instagram, was waiting for a source, will add to list above. I hope someone else can write today's developments (above), as I am trying to work in sandbox to set up the split. Will advise when ready for more eyes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Greyzone

Find an unbiased source, or remove:

While some politicians blame the arson attack on the Venezuelan National Guard, journalist Max Blumenthal pointed at video footage allegedly showing an opposition guarimbero throwing a molotov cocktail at the truck.

References

First, this is one interpretation from a most decidedly biased author, and second, an author who does not likely understand that pro-Maduro forces do things like that so they can blame it on the opposition. Third, unless many other unbiased sources say this, WP:UNDUE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

From this edit (Bezet, it is very strange that you make an edit this UNDUE, while arguing UNDUE above ?!) Please produce any other sources that make this claim (that aren't copying Blumenthal, Telesur, VA, et al) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Will remove. Blumenthal is not the best source regarding this controversial topic, especially when using Telesur's allegedly manipulated reporting as an argument.----ZiaLater (talk) 05:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Amazing. Legit photojournalist takes a picture, Telesur allegedly steals it and alters it, and it's on Wikipedia before a few days have gone by. Now THAT folks is why we don't use marginal or biased sources. [5] I am so sorry I did not realize this was the altered photo, or I would have deleted it hours ago. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@BeŻet: having thought about this overnight, and in light of one of the medics helping at the border losing his job yesterday and being detained by Venezuelan police after he got home and because his photo was on social meda, it is disturbing that we had state propaganda in this article in mere days from the time the propaganda was generated. Using marginal or biased sources has real implications for real people in Venezuela. You have a responsibility to use higher quality sources when making implications in a situation where people's livelihood-- indeed lives-- depend on it. I am asking you to think of this issue in the same terms we would think of a WP:BLP violation, and avoid shoving marginal information into this serious and high-profile issue from sources with a known bias, and in the case of Telesur, known to lie. This is serious. And you have made implications about protesters, real live people, based on piss poor sources. You hopefully now know why you should use higher quality sources. You are on notice: do not do that again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Rocks and molotov

And this; careful reliable sources cover when rock throwing began relative to when trucks burned and do not claim rock throwing or molotov before burning. Please balance, remove undue, and correct accuracy with unbiased sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

BeŻet ditto here.[6] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I really don't like your style, it is very confrontational, authoritarian and biased. Is either your way or the highway, and only occasionally you put things up for discussion. Every source you don't like is "biased" and "unreliable". You really need to improve as your behaviour is unacceptable. There is no problem with balance when we mention that protesters threw rocks and molotovs - period. You constantly and relentlessly try to censor anything that makes the opposition look bad. Both sides are doing bad things and we need to mention everything so that this isn't some US-backed propaganda. Please learn about what makes sources reliable, how EVERY source is biased and conveys an opinion. Everything should be open for discussion, you cannot be the self-declared president of the Venezuelan crisis articles. BeŻet (talk) 14:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

As I don't like having BLP problems in our articles, so take care. (Rest of personalization ignored.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:CRYBLP, but most importantly, assume good faith. BeŻet (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@BeŻet: Please read WP:CONSPIRACY and stop the WP:PA. We are all doing our best to keep these articles accurate and factual.----ZiaLater (talk) 15:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I am also doing exactly the same, however with you removing important details you are reducing the accuracy of the articles. You don't seem to understand the point I am trying to make and I have already explained it to you. BeŻet (talk) 15:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@BeŻet: I understand you are trying to keep things neutral, but please read WP:FALSEBALANCE. Sources are saying that these are conspiracy theories.----ZiaLater (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, sources say these are conspiracy theories in contradiction on footage available including from Colombian TV UNO which recorded and has shown one of protesters throwing molotov cocktails. Convenient. RBL2000 (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

There is undeniable evidence that a molotov cocktail has been thrown towards the truck. It may have started the fire. What is a conspiracy theory is claiming that they did it on purpose. Not sure how many times I need to explain this before you understand. BeŻet (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

It is kind of pointless when they're likely to assert WP:FALSEBALANCE WP:RS WP:OR WP:(something), etc... For all I care they could claim X killed Y yet video to show Z killed Y, but because what is considered reliable source, that must mean it is true. Let alone political angle such as with this one being Colombia and Venezuela, extreme bias to be expected, as is to be involving Taiwan and China, South Korea and North Korea, United States and Russia, etc... RBL2000 (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

RBL2000, I highly recommend placing <s></s> around (aka striking) your comments. I am sorry you feel that way, but it will only increase the likelihood that you receive a block. We'd rather have you here constructively contributing that see any alternative. ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 01:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Thesaurus (skirmish)

I put in the word "skirmish" to avoid using "border clash" three times in two sentences. But the word "skirmish" disrespects the Pemon deaths. Could someone improve that word? I am fresh out of ideas. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done--MaoGo (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Collapsible sidebar

With this edit, I switched the {{Crisis in Bolivarian Venezuela}} template to a collapsed version of same, {{Crisis in Bolivarian Venezuela short}}. The infobox stuff at the top of the article was overwhelming. The content is identical, but with a show/hide button. What do others think? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok. --MaoGo (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Better.----ZiaLater (talk) 09:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

US history of interference in Latin America

WP:NOTAFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The US has a very poor record in Latin America, responsible for damage due to years of sanctions and interference. US meeting with and then supporting the opposition prior to assumption of the presidency degrades the case for the the opposition being the will of the people. https://www.veteransforpeace.org/our-work/position-statements/veterans-call-resist-us-coup-venezuela/venezuela?fbclid=IwAR1fFW4gwthhySEwWTadHX1TX5swgxfe02tjBuqj7gEKYvcA5Ah0NxXAVG8 Chas1956 18:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capker (talk • contribs) Darn gringos, causing problems everywhere! Please see WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:RS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

"Controversies"

Is there any better title than "controversies" for that section? Tempted to remove that heading and make all 6 sub-headings be top-level headings, until a better idea comes up. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this is a problematic heading (the entire affair is a "Controversy"). But I am at a loss for a new title for that section. Perhaps, yes, level two headings for all of them, unless someone has a better term. In other words, I agree with you, but don't know how to solve the problem. It is complicated by the fact that the top of the article (Events) attempts to follow a timeline, which IMO is not the best way to organize an article, and makes it harder to solve the "Controversy" problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I moved some to the "Recognition" section; still not perfect. Will try to come up with better headings tomorrow. Off to the next two articles to copy-edit. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

As of this version, we have this:

1 Background

2 Events

3 Recognition, reactions, and public opinion

4 Controversies

4.1 Censorship and media control

4.2 National military, official, and political recognition and defections

4.3 Foreign aid

4.4 Threats and intimidation

My suggestions are @Power~enwiki::

1. Ditch "Controversies" heading entirely.
2. Censorship and media control become a level 2 heading
3. Separate article on people who switched sides; haven't done it because I don't know what term to use (they are not "defectors" or "desertors"). What is left can either be summarized to "Recognition and reactions ... " or be a separate Level 2 heading, indifferent.
4. Foreign aid should be part of humanitarian aid, under "Events"-- unsure why they are separate.
5. Threats and intimidation could either be level 2 or become part of "Reactions", I am indifferent ...

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Reactions sounds too much like responses (to 2019 Venezuelan crisis).--MaoGo (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I was using a shortcut :) I meant the whole "Recognition, reactions, and public opinion" SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Which part is becoming "reactions"? Aside from threats. --MaoGo (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, the more I look at it, the more I'm thinking everything left should just be a level 2 heading, with Foreign Aid roled in to Humanitarian. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Fmr U.N. Special Rapporteur on U.S. sanctions

According to The Independent, the fmr U.N. rapporteur Alfred de Zayas, who was the first U.N. rapporteur to visit Venezuela in 21 years, said in an interview that the U.S. sanctions against the Venezuelan government are "illegal" and "possible crimes against humanity". Is that worth mentioning and, if so, where? MrClog (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

That would be worth discussing at the UN section of the article at Responses to the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis. (But I suggest there's a reason that not even the do nothing-UN pays attention to him.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I did mean to point to the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

"Despite being the first UN official to visit and report from Venezuela in 21 years, Mr de Zayas said his research into the causes of the country’s economic crisis has so far largely been ignored by the UN and the media, and caused little debate within the Human Rights Council." So his opinion is basically just his own, and is not endorsed by the UN. I wouldn't list it as a reaction. Cambalachero (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Alfred de Zayas is part of the international lobby of the government. In 2017 he was invited to Caracas to be part of the propaganda machine denying food shortages and human rights violations.[7] Untrustworthy comes short. --Oscar_. (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry the original poster thought I was pointing where to add it; I meant to point where to discuss it. Oops! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Cambalachero: @Oscar .: We could definitely add to the article that his report has been disputed, but the fact that a rapporteur with a mandate of the HRC reported this is in my opinion relevant to the article. Also, UN Watch is not a reliable source and using that to accuse Mr. De Zayas of being part of a "propaganda machine" doesn't seem WP:NPOV to me.

"Alfred de Zayas, former UN special rapporteur to Venezuela, who was the first UN rapporteur to visit Venezuela in 21 years, said that US's economic sanctions against Venezuela were "illegal" and possible "crimes against humanity", though his report is disputed and has been largely ignored by the members of the Human Rights Council." Would this work? MrClog (talk) 13:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@IntegralPython: please sign your posts with four tildes, and it you are adding ref tags to a talk page, please use the reflist-talk template. Your proposed text can be discussed in the article where it would potentially belong (Responses to the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis). Before initiating a discussion there, I suggest you read WP:UNDUE, and locate many more and higher quality sources that give any credence to a person who admits that not even the UN pays attention to him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about that, someone seems to have taken my computer or account for a second, because I did not type that out. I don't even agree with what it says I said, and of course I know that one should sign their posts; maybe the sign bot messed up or maybe an edit conflict happened and broke something I don't know, but for now I'm just striking through that (fake?) comment _{Integral Python} ^{click here to argue with me} 13:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Yikes ! I hope you will be changing your password-- that's scary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@IntegralPython: @SandyGeorgia: That was my proposal (I forgot to sign it). Note that the UN gave him the mandate to investigate and report on Venezuela, so the UN did pay attention, but later on the UNHRC ignored the report. It doesn't seem like UNDUE to me considering the view is shared by, for example, the Kremlin. I will put a proposal on the relevant talk page later today. MrClog (talk) 13:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

AH, so it seems that I attached a faulty unsigned; my apologies to both! MrClog, when you put a proposal on talk there, please be sure you find sources to deal with the WP:UNDUE weight situation of this person's opinion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Glad that's cleared up _{Integral Python} ^{click here to argue with me} 13:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

References

100% bias

Pages like this are a perfect example of wikipedia's biggest weakness. How many editors are ideologically compromised? How many editors are from the USA? How many are from Venezuela? This subject matter is about a psychological operation, a carefully planned propaganda blitz to convince US citizens even more than Venezuelans of a humanitarian and political crisis requiring benevolent military intervention by the US government. Wikipedia is what it is. Where powerful interests are at stake it becomes whitewash, a propaganda masterpiece, a fairytale. 101.184.119.149 (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS and WP:NOTAFORUM. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Espacio público

• @SandyGeorgia: how reliable is Espacio público [8]?, these are some reports on jounalist violence and about censorship. --MaoGo (talk) 09:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

  It's concerning that their "About us" page [9] gives no information about journalistic credentials or editorial oversight, which argues against reliability, and it seems to be more of an advocacy organization, so that would depend on what you want to cite. Have you tried El Nacional or El Universal to see if they cover same info? I see they do have offices in Caracas, so I have pinged Jamez42 and ZiaLater for more info. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

  On the other hand, an organization that deals with lack of press freedom in Venezuela can't exactly put out their names. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

  Got it, I found some through El Nacional, I will work on that later. [10],[11].--MaoGo (talk) 10:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

You pinged me just in time, the last I wasn't able to edit. Espacio Público is one of the NGOs by excellence that documents freedom of the press violations and censorship, and it has participated several times in regional bodies such as the Inter-American Comission of Human Rights. There are other sources that I can recommend, such as the Sindicato Nacional de Periodistas de Venezuela, and that I'm expecting to include in the future, but I expect to do the latter in a couple of hours. --Jamez42 (talk) 10:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC) (edit conflict)

Got it. If they have credibility as an NGO, we might be able to use them then, but always with attribution, and ideally backed up by a news source (that is, if we can complement their info with El Nacional, etc, it's better). It would be much easier to attribute them if they had a Wikipedia article (hint ... hint ... ) @Jamez42 and MaoGo: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I forgot to compare it with Foro Penal and arbitrary detentions and with Observatorio Venezolano de Conflictividad Social with protests. I'll see if I can lend a hand later on. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@MaoGo: are we done with this section yet (in terms of archiving)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I think we are, we determined that Espacio Público is reliable. --Jamez42 (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done --MaoGo (talk) 08:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

United Nations

Does the United Nations recognize Maduro?----ZiaLater (talk) 04:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

"The secretary general of the United Nations, António Guterres, has offered to help mediate the political crisis in Venezuela. But as far as the United Nations is concerned, Mr. Maduro’s government is still the legitimate representative of Venezuela.

"While Mr. Guaidó has named his own ambassador to the United States, he has not taken steps aimed at unseating the Venezuelan Mission to the United Nations. Diplomats have said such a change would require a vote of the 193-member General Assembly that Mr. Guaidó’s side would most likely lose".Burrobert (talk) 06:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Burrobert: Yes, but is their an official United Nations opinion? I seem to have been corrected because I cannot find a declaration, statement, etc. Other have argued that due to the secretary general's political background, they are sympathetic towards Maduro. I do not know if the secretary general speaks for the entirety of the UN.----ZiaLater (talk) 06:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there has been any resolution about this dispute from the Security Council or the General Assembly. There was a Security Council meeting in late January, but it was seriously divided and did not pass any substantial resolutions. Maduro's foreign minister took part in that meeting, and not even the US tried to have him excluded. Anyway, the UN continues to host a Venezuelan Mission loyal to Maduro, a situation which Guaido and his allies seem powerless to change.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Kalidasa 777: I may try to create a note about this regarding sources saying that the United Nations still recognizes Maduro. This is a good explanation.----ZiaLater (talk) 09:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

As noted above, the United Nations continues to recognize Maduro (in practice, even if they have not made a special statement, same as they haven't made a special statement to continue recognizing any other country's government that hasn't had an official change). The lack of acknowledgement of this on this page, including listing the United Nations in the 'vocal neutrality' section when they do recognize Maduro's government representatives and have not acknowledged Guiado as having any official legitimacy in their membership, is disappointing. 173.206.223.7 (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

We still have this section here, unarchived, and I can decipher no explanation of a desired change to the article. Please provide one, or we should archive this section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Santa Elena de Uairén

Writing from a mobile; I can't edit at the moment, but I wanted to mention that reading the news it seems lile the Pemon section needs attention. There are dissapearances, kidnappings abd further attacks. Foro Penal confirmed a fifth death, while deputy Guzamana reports there are 25. Colectivos took control of the location's hospital, kidnapped the son of a cacique and fired at the hospital of Santa Elena. The injured attended are being taken to the military fort of Escamoto, turning it into a concentration camp of political prisoners. So yeah, there are a lot of news and it's possible that attention is needed in the following days. I don't want to overwhelm the talk page with content yet to be added since I haven't been able to contribute recently, but at least I want to keep track of the recent events. While I'm at it, I would also like to ask if a Timeline is recommendable at this point. Best wishes. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry you can't edit, Jamez42 :(

Are you suggesting a separate Timeline article? It seems that would take a lot of work to tease out, since most of this article is a timeline. Maybe we could focus on that when there isn't so much other editing to do? The "Responses to" split was less work, because it involved taking entire sections, but to split a "Timeline of" article, it seems there would be more work to decide what stays here and what goes.

I am uncertain about writing in the Pemon area, because I'm still not sure which sources to believe. Within the week, we had multiple sources saying there were 25 dead, but then that went back to 5; where are the 25 dead? I don't feel confident to write about the Pemon situation. Does anyone know what's up with 25 vs. 5 dead? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

No worries :) It's only temporary. I'm only recommending another separate article because I thought it was suggested in the Spanish Wikipedia, but I think with the reactions article is sufficient.

The situation with the Pemon is easily answered: The largest estimate was first reported by former governor Andrés Velásquez, which was quoted by Luis Almagro. Foro Penal confirmed four deaths, but that is because the NGO personally goes to the morgues and hospitals, identify the persons and make sure that they have died; in other words, they really really confirm that the deaths have taken place, and today they confirmed the death of one of the Pemons that was badly injured. However, sources indicate that it is very unlikely that only five deaths have happened, and this has been admitted by Foro Penal. If a body isn't taken to the morgue, it isn't accounted for. Quoting deputy Guzamana from yesterday's Assembly's session: "I doubt there were only four deaths, because I saw them. I saw at least ten deaths." Guzamana is confirming the estimate, explaining that they don't have the name of all of the deceased, but once they have them they will be published. The most important thing may be differentiating, if needed, indigenous from non indigenous. Foro Penal estimates that three of the five deaths are Pemon. Luckily, many of the news don't need to report the deaths. --Jamez42 (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Over citation

In this section, there is overcitation of non-controversial text. Please reduce to two or three.

At the Colombia–Venezuela border, the caravans were tear-gassed or shot at with rubber bullets by Venezuelan personnel as they crossed bridges.[169][170][165][171][172][173]

Also, those citations might be incorporated at 2019 shipping of humanitarian aid to Venezuela if they are really needed (maybe they are already there). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

IPYS Venezuela reliable

Can anyone confirm the reliability of IPYS (Instituto de Prensa y sociedad)? They published a nice article that could be helpful to update Block of Wikipedia in Venezuela [12]. The rest of the censorship cases could also be expanded too. --MaoGo (talk) 14:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

The determination of whether a source is reliable depends on the text being sourced, and in that sense, internet-related text respects different content and topic sources than, for example, mainstream media. We would not expect The New York Times to have coverage of an internet or computer issue on par with, for example, PC World. For example, you can browse some of the Featured articles at Wikipedia:Featured articles#Computing; I promoted many of those to FA, and you can look at the article FAC pages, linked on talk, to see discussion of sourcing in the internet or computer topic area.

So, looking at that source:

• Their staff looks professional.
• I don't see any indication that they use user-generated content.
• They seem to be staffed by journalists; do we have any indication these are not respected journalists? (That is, are there any nutcases on board :)
• This is their mission; if they had a Wikipedia article, it would be easier for the reader to decide when we cite and attribute their opinions (their opinions should be attributed).
• In any other realm, we would expect to find a real address. In the area of press freedom in Venezuela, obviously, people can't print their name and address unless they want a vacation at El Helicoide.
• The article gives its sources. I believe it can be used, but in their Conclusion section, if you use that, it needs careful attribution. Again, if they had a Wikipedia article, that would help.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Sandy, I will use it carefully then. Let's add this in the mental list of articles to create along Espacio Público.--MaoGo (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

If we're gonna be careful, the primary source is a technical report of VeSinFiltro of weeks ago. IPYS is only reposting the content. Another good source documenting the day-to-day censorship is Netblock.org. --Oscar_. (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah NetBlocks is the main source for the censorship section in this article, that's ok I guess. I have my bias againts VeSinFiltro as source due to their repetitive tweets and their clunky website. Reposting is not a problem when their sources are cited.--MaoGo (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done --MaoGo (talk) 08:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Electricity blackout request

Content moved to Talk:2019 Venezuelan blackout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Unclear edit

@Rms125a@hotmail.com:, it is unclear what you did and what you want in this edit. First, this article consistently uses US, UK and UN, but you changed to U.S. Second, I have asked you before to please not remove spaces in citations; I find it very hard to read, edit and format citations that are run together, but you ran them together. Third, you put a clarification needed tag on a sentence with no explanation of what you wanted clarified. And fourth, you removed 260 bytes with the edit summary "rv OR", but you did it in a way that it is impossible to tell what you deleted or what was the text you claimed was OR. Fifth, you left an undefined ref name. I am inclined to revert the lot unless you can explain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Foreign aid text

A lot of text was removed in power en wiki's trim. I lost some, too! This text was removed for reasons as good as the rest. The dust has not yet settled on the story of the alleged Russian aid, and the Red Cross is playing politics as much as they decry it (ever seen Venezuela's president of Red Cross anywhere anytime do anything?). So, I agree with the power en wiki's deletion of that text for now, and we can re-write stuff like this if/when the dust settles. Power removed, Burrobert restored it, and then MattLongCt accidentally removed and restored. Confusing ... but I removed. I am inclined towards accepting most of Power's trimming, unless we all discuss and override. Except, well, of course I want back everything I wrote !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I didn't plough through all the edits to see where it got removed. I re-added it as I thought it showed that the government was making arrangements to provide the necessary medical and other aid that the population needs. I am not sure that the article has made that clear as it stands. I thought the text I added provided balance by showing that the blockade at the border was not about the government denying aid to the population. It also indicated which nations were showing solidarity with Venezuela and how they were doing that in a substantial way. Anyway I'll leave it removed for the moment and await further developments. If other editors have opinions on this I would be interested in hearing them.Burrobert (talk) 02:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Burrobert, my thinking is that we first need to get through how to restructure the article (see threads above), and that may guide us more on what to include and not. In another week, we'll all have a new perspective :) My other thought is that, since power en wiki visits the article infrequently, and does no writing here (meaning has no vested interest), it's good to sit on it for a while and see what we all think. He mentioned he'd be back tomorrow with new thoughts ... thanks for understanding! I felt like some of what I had written was Ever So Essential, but I like having "eyes from afar" to keep us real and with perspective. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

No problem. I realise that there is an issue of article size which needs to be taken into consideration and that it is impossible to include everything. Providing balance within those parameters is even harder. Having an uninvolved editor making the cuts is a good plan. In fact it would be nice if more uninvolved editors took an interest in the article. Burrobert (talk) 02:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Will the person who wrote this please source it correctly?

Moved to talk for correct sourcing; having spent days sorting out inappropriate globbing of sources at the end of synthy, original research paragraphs, will the person who wrote this please source it correctly? It is not OK to come up with broad paragraphs and conclusions, globbing on a list of sources at the end. Please source each piece.

Further, I disagreee that this text as written belongs in this particular article, and not with this level of background explanation. Do we not have an article on sanctions?

Also, the word is petroleum (as to distinguish from cooking oil, baby oil, bath oil ad so forth). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Petroleum

Petroleum has been described as the lifeblood of the Venezuelan economy. In January 2019 the United States imposed sanctions on the Venezuelan state-owned oil and natural gas company PDVSA in order to put pressure on Maduro to resign. Prior to the sanctions the US was the main outlet market for Venezuelan oil. US national security adviser John R. Bolton has said that he expects that Venezuela will lose more than $11 billion in exports in 2019 due to the sanctions. The sanctions have also frozen $7 billion of PDVSA’s U.S. assets and prevent U.S. firms from exporting heavy naphtha to Venezuela. Heavy naphtha is used to thin Venezuelan crude so it can move through pipelines to the coast and be upgraded to refinery-ready oil. Under the sanctions Venezuela can continue selling petroleum to US entities but payments for the petroleum must be paid into a blocked account to which PDVSA does not have access. The sanctions are expected to reduce Venezuela’s ability to purchase food and other imports resulting in further shortages and worsening its economic position. Venezuela’s oil inventories have swelled to a five-year high as a result of reduced sales of petroleum. PDVSA announced in February that it will relocate its European office to Moscow because of high risks of potential confiscation of oil revenues and PDVSA assets as a result of the US sanctions. In order to gain access to cash and foreign facilities the Venezuelan congress has been investigating Venezuela’s overseas assets and bank accounts.

In February the Russian oil company Rosneft sent two tankers with 1 million barrels of heavy naphtha to Venezuela to partly relieve the shortage. Rosneft has also continued to buy oil from Venezuela though it has said this is through contracts which pre-date the US sanctions. Rosneft has extended loans to PDVSA, which are redeemed in crude oil supplies. PDVSA’s outstanding debt to Rosneft is $2.3 billion to Rosneft. Rosneft also has five joint upstream projects with PDVSA in Venezuela.

Citgo is a US-based refiner and marketer of fuels and other petrochemicals. it is majority-owned by PDVSA. Citgo is Venezuela’s main foreign asset and the eighth largest U.S. refiner. Citgo announced in February that it is formally cutting ties with PDVSA in order to meet U.S. sanctions on Venezuela. As a result it halted payments to PDVSA. In February Guaido appointed a new Citgo board of directors under Chairwoman Luisa Palacios. Despite not having physical control over PDVSA assets in Venezuela Guaido also named his own board to PDVSA.

In response to the US sanctions Russia said it will use “all available legal mechanisms” to defend its interests in Venezuela and said the sanctions against PDVSA were illegal, a sign of unfair competition and an attempt to interfere with Venezuela’s internal affairs.

References

Continued

I tried to trim and clean up, but there are still citations attached in this version that do not verify text. Please, peeps, when adding new text make sure that each piece is verified. For example, the naphtha text ... please check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

A copyvio check is needed once the citations are added correctly. For example, this version had a "lifeblood" statement that was directly lifted from one of the sources without quotes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Too close parphrasing: this is taken too closely from the source: The compound is used to thin the sludgy Venezuelan crude so it can move through pipelines to the coast. Without it, crude gets stuck in the fields, unable to be upgraded into refinery-ready oil. The whole thing needs a copyvio check. We have to paraphrase in our words. WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes it must have slipped through and need to be rephrased. Overall the text seems fine but we should expect developments over time. It is of course a very important aspect of the struggle between the two sides.Burrobert (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Here'a another direct copyvio: people, this is plagiarism. Fix it quickly, please, or remove the section until it is fixed. Despite not having physical control over PDVSA assets in Venezuela, ... If you leave plagiarism in the article, it then has to be scrubbed and oversighted revdeleted by an admin. I will wait an hour or two, and remove text if not cleaned up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree there are copy-editing issues with this section - that I don't have time to fix today or tomorrow. Regarding content of the article - There should be reliable primary sourcing of Venezuela oil imports and exports. There are multiple organizations that regulate international trade and regularly issue primary sources on the topic. Analysis (why did Venezuela's oil exports drop) requires secondary sourcing. If it's plagiarism, kill it and leave a one-sentence stub. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

the withdrawal of US diplomatic personnel is concerning to peace AP Report, but there are probably WP:CRYSTAL violations in reading too much into that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Note for admins: even if this is a copyvio (I have not checked) it doesn't require WP:OVERSIGHT: ordinary WP:REVDEL is sufficient for copyright violations that were good-faith errors by inexperienced contributors. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Is it better just to remove it again so there is less work, and have it rewritten off page? The first version was obviously a problem, and now I fear that by trying to fix it, I have just left more that needs to be scrubbed, because there is text lifted everywhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I cut it down to one (sourced, referenced, and NPOV) sentence. It can be fixed at a "leisurely" pace now (hopefully this week). power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks; I expended a lot of valuable time on that :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

This page, put together by WP:FAC regulars back "in the day", still has the best advice available on Wikipedia; I hope it will help guide future inserts here. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I have rebuilt the section. It isn't as detailed as before so e.g. there is no explanation of the importance of naphtha or why sanctions apply to it. I have left out most of the dollar figures. However I think the important points are there.Burrobert (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Burrobert:, which source cites this sentence? The sanctions prevent PDVSA from being paid for petroleum exports, freeze $7 billion of PDVSA’s US assets and prevent US firms from exporting heavy naphtha to Venezuela. Are you sure about the word "heavy"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

That sentence is my summary of the sanctions. "The sanctions prevent PDVSA from being paid for petroleum exports" is my interpretation of the need to use a blocked account for payments, an account to which PDVSA has no access. It is mentioned in the yahoo article that is linked there. "freeze $7 billion of PDVSA’s US assets" also comes from the yahoo article. However it appears that "prevent US firms from exporting heavy naphtha to Venezuela" is not mentioned in the yahoo article so I will add another source to that sentence to support that part. It is mentioned in the Bloomberg article which is cited later and "heavy naphtha" is the term used there. It is also mentioned in an oilprce.com article but someone objected to that source. I am not a chemist so I don't know if "heavy" is technically correct.Burrobert (talk) 03:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't this go against WP:SYNTH and possibly WP:OR? --Jamez42 (talk) 12:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

If anybody wants to expand this and other articles on Russia-Venezuela relationships and petroleum, this is a good special report How Russia sank billions of dollars into Venezuela quicksand (Reuters).--MaoGo (talk) 13:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Second checklist

Hi!! Thank you so much to the editors that have been able to keep the article updated since February 23! I noticed a checklist was started to keep track of the news that had to be included. I think there are a couple more, so I'll start this section in order to add them one by one. Later the source should be found, and at last included in the article. Happy editing! --Jamez42 (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

1. Andrés Velásquez declared that "many of the (people killed) has gunshots in their heads, which shows action by snipers" and that "many havedied because the hospital didn't have medical supplies to attend them" --Jamez42 (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
2. From the list above, I did not get to:

   Guaido return to Venezuela (will they arrest him, etc; can do that tomorrow)

   Italian source saying Guaido did not ask for use of force-- need to find that in English source.

   So, with those two here, earlier section can be archived. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

   I understand that Guaidó will be travelling this week. I'll also move here the news left in the previous checklist:

   • Massive protest in Caracas
   • Very large protests at least in Maracay and Barquisimeto[13]
   • Harassment of deputies caravan inside Venezuela
   • Removal of barricades by protesters --Jamez42 (talk) 22:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

   Guaidó entered Venezuela. --Jamez42 (talk) 08:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

   My bad, first entered Brazil. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

3. PD: Deputy Pizarro: a President in exile is not planned. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
4. Two ambulances cross the border between Venezuela and Brazil y Venezuela, taking injured to the General Hospital of Roraima, in Boa Vista (if I recall correctly, against Maduro's orders. Roraima's governor has been thanked for his actions).

   I just noticed this is included, but could have more details. 20 Venezuelans in two days, according to local government.--Jamez42 (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

5. Américo de Grazia denounces armed government supporters in military outposts in the Bolívar state.
6. Colectivos attacked protesters in Ureña and San Antonio.
7. Colectivos attacked deputy José Manuel Olivares.
8. Marco Rubio declared that Cuban agents directed repression in Ureña.
9. Inter-American Commission of Human Rights: Armed Forces should abstain to use force and allow circulation (most suitable for the reactions section)
10. Order to arrest Gran Sabana's mayor. The mayor warned not to "wake up the Pemon's blood".
11. Maduro lied about Russian aid, initially claiming the amount was 300 tons and later 7 tons. Russian spokesman declared he didn't have information regarding the aid. European Parliament member Beatriz Becerra also dismissed similar comments.
12. National Assembly will take the burning of the trucks with aid to the International Criminal Court.
13. John Bolton cancels trip to South Korea to focus in the Venezuelan crisis.
14. Juan Carlos Varela, president of Panamá: "Maduro reminds us of Noriega's last days".
15. A National Guardsman killed another one when the latter asked for a discharge in the border, according to the latter's sister.
16. 13 violations to freedom of expression on 23 February, according to the IPYS

    National Assembly updated this estimate for the whole February, number is higher

17. Conatel censored FM Center for covering the shipping of humanitarian aid and carried out a out of schedule inspection. TVN 24 and Caracol Radio were censored too for transmitting the shipping. (suitable for the Aggression towards press personnel)
18. CANTV blocks El Tiempo of Bogotá (suitable for the Aggression towards press personnel)

    I haven't been able to confirm this one. --MaoGo (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

    Sources:[14][15] It seems local internet watchdog VE sin Filtro confirmed the block. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

19. Maduro's forces siege the hotel where journalists in Ureña where they were staying. Swedish journalist Annika Rothestein denounced that she was robbed and attacked by government colectivos. National Guardsmen robbed the equipment of Telemundo and Associated Press. Attacks in Táchira, Zulia and Lara. Paramilitares attack and steal press equipment of Venevisión in San Antonio del Táchira. (suitable for the Aggression towards press personnel)
20. Journalist Ingrid Caribay was censored and fired from Globovisión.
21. Guaidó defied a prohibition to exit the country. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC) (edit conflict)

    Already included, started "Guiado's regional trip" section. --Jamez42 (talk) 00:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

    (24 February news)

22. Both Delcy and Diosdado declare that what was seen was only "a little piece" and "the point of the iceberg", respectively, of what they were capable of doing.
23. Diosdado's children travel to Russia; each plane ticket was worth over 5,000$. Other high ranking military officers take their relatives away from the country, fleeing to the Caribbean, Miami and Spain
24. Brazilian patrols watch the border to prevent territorial violations (can be used to expand Continued tension section)
25. Reports of prisoners released to repress in the border, namely in Santa Elena de Uairén. Detainees were encouraged to defend Maduro. Iris Varela was seen in the border along armed civilians. Varela declared that "Chávez's dream was accomplished"
26. I think we haven't included that Pemons set a National Guard outpost in an airport and captured a female soldier in retaliation of their attacks. The soldier was recorded crying and asking Maduro to stop the repression.
27. Guaidó has met the officers that have defected, I think this hasn't been included. Antinarcotics officers also defect along with their dogs.
28. AFP: There isn't food in the barracks, according to defected sargeant.
29. Guterres "shocked" by the deaths in Venezuela, asks to avoid lethal force. Bachelet: it's alarming to see paramilitary forces to operate freely in Venezuela (should be included to the Responses article).
30. Reports of colectivos arresting people. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

    (25 February news)

31. Venezuelan National Guardsmen shoot with firearms at Colombian policemen
32. Nine Pemons dissapeared, according to Foro Penal
33. Eight tons of gold Less, reported by Reuters

BICHO! Yo no! ZiaLater I'm not really clear on what the criteria is for deciding what goes here and what goes at 2019 shipping of humanitarian aid to Venezuela, so I pinged Zia. I am worn out-- hope you all can sort what goes where. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

No worries :) One of the reasons why I'm adding these to the talk page is to see what other editors are interested and because it will take some time. Hopefully it will help us to cover the events thoroughly. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

To any who might be interested: it seems a Twitter account was created to keep track of military defections --Jamez42 (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Over citation throughout

It is this sort of thing that results in the Venezuelan suite of articles being citation bombed. The person who removed the "pro-Maduro" could have easily clicked on the link right there to see four citations already in the lead of National Electoral Council (Venezuela). Or easily looked for a citation themselves, as there are hundreds. Or asked on talk that someone explain or cite that text. Much better than just removing text that is easily cited. (The next problem is that the CNE article is not fully developed, and someone should take the time to explain just how the CNE came to be stacked. Most editors here know this info, but it still needs to be written.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

propose new page section: "journalism crackdown"

So Censorship in Venezuela has been going on for a long time, but it seems in the last week or so that there has been a lot more action against journalists in the country, be they Venezuelan or foreign. Would a section on either this page or the censorship one be appropriate? Kingsif (talk) 07:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I think @MaoGo: has it covered already, here. I am not sure this "crackdown" is any worse than it has always been; just getting more attention. And I think "jouralism crackdown" as a heading would invite problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with what Sandy says with the intensity, usually the worst crackdowns have been during protests waves (2014 and 2017). --Jamez42 (talk) 10:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Sandy and Jamez, the section is there. If eventually, we have to split the article again, we could consider a new article on censorship and journalism. Speaking of journalism, Billy Six (detained in November) was released, but it is unclear to me if the release has anything to do with the extreme right party of Germany AfD, to treat carefully. DW video and article.--MaoGo (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@MaoGo:, CNN reporter apparently in Helicoide ... http://talcualdigital.com/index.php/2019/03/16/rafael-gonzalez-esta-detenido-en-el-sebin-del-helicoide-segun-informan-a-familiares/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• Glad to see there's already a section that I clearly skimmed (oh no). Perhaps noting there's more reports; I am certain that during protests there's a lot more censorship, but it's as if they're not trying to hide it anymore... ay Kingsif (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I think more foreign journalists have been arrested/detained than in previous years. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I would like to say that even if recently I have kept the section up to date, everybody is free to add more info. I think Jamez42 has added more to than I have.--MaoGo (talk) 08:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Developing: Roberto Marrero detained

• http://efectococuyo.com/politica/detenido-diputado-roberto-marrero-durante-la-madrugada-de-este-21mar/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• Venezuela's Guaido says intelligence agents detained his chief of staff (Reuters) --MaoGo (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Added at Portal:Current events/2019 March 21, but am thinking we might wait for the story to develop before adding to articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Roberto Marrero. Also attorney for Leopoldo Lopez and part of national team directing Popular Will. It will be better to develop this topic at his bio, to be able to add a brief summary here. (Note there is a female Roberta Marrero on es.wiki. @Kingsif: ??? I will be out most of the day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Started, Roberto Marrero, but barely a stub, needs work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Ping didn't seem to work, but I have a big location load in this weekend anyway, I'll be back when I don't have much work after Wednesday at the latest for a few weeks. Kingsif (talk) 18:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Size again

We were again approaching readable prose limits, with still more content to write. From this version yesterday to this version, I reduced almost 1,000 words-- all of it moved to 2019 shipping of humanitarian aid to Venezuela. (A reminder to folks of Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia; whenever you copy text from one article to another, you should provide an edit summary with a wikilink to the article from which you copied the text-- I am noticing this is rarely done in Venezuelan articles.)

And then I tried to reduce WP:PROSELINE and convert 2019 shipping of humanitarian aid to Venezuela to a fully contained readable article; could others please have a look at it?

For the longer term, I am thinking we may eventually end up with two other sub-articles (but not yet): one for the press and censorship issues that occurred during the pres. crisis, and one for the defections (where we could use text like the section just above this one). But for now, we have room to grow, and we can cut to new sub-articles only if/when the need arises. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Seems like a good job :) I thought about moving information in the press attacks sections to the censorship article, but it seems like it currently doesn't cover attacks on press workers or detentions. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I am thinking we can re-visit that whole thing in a week or two, and that we should keep a list of things we might add should we need to create a separate article which deals only with press/censorship during the crisis (same for defections). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Too many changes to look at. May we have a summary? Where did the last sections go?--MaoGo (talk) 07:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

A whole lot of the "Humanitarian aid" and "February confrontations" is moved to 2019 shipping of humanitarian aid to Venezuela, mostly here.

The rest of "February confrontations" rolled in to "Humanitarian aid" here, with a new split for February: Lima Group meeting.

The "Foreign aid" section moved there also, here.

"Petroleum sanctions" is generalized and expanded to "Sanctions" and is now in the "Reactions" section.

@MaoGo: So this article now has about 800 words on Humanitarian aid, where the earlier version had 1,700 in three sections: "Humanitarian aid", "February confrontations" and "Foreign aid". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. --MaoGo (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)