Talk:Venezuelan presidential crisis/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Media and other countries refer Guaido as Interim President, not Acting President.

Here's how the media(reliable sources) refers to him: https://www.france24.com/en/20190204-venezuela-europe-france-spain-guaido-interim-president https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-politics-spain/spain-recognizes-guaido-as-interim-president-of-venezuela-idUSKCN1PT0OR https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-politics-spain/spain-recognizes-guaido-as-interim-president-of-venezuela-idUSKCN1PT0OR The US government too refer to him as Interim President: https://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2019/03/289874.htm Is he Acting President? No, he is Interim President according to media, other government including that of the USA the main backer/supporter. RBL2000 (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

And he's acting president to the National Assembly, and thus to a body elected by the Venezuelans.--Jamez42 (talk) 23:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC) (edit conflict)

• Jamez42, why should we take SandyGeorgia's word for it? Why not that of the mainstream media/reliable sources along that of various goverments that support Guaido as Interim President, not as acting President. RBL2000 (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Sandy's??? I stated a discussion in Guaidó's article regarding the difference between acting and interim, I recommend you to read it before making further changes. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC) (edit conflict)

I wasn't aware of that discussion thus this came out of blue to me the change. RBL2000 (talk) 23:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

• @RBL2000:, you started the same discussion on multiple pages, creating a tonna work. On which page do you want to have the discussion? Could you please pick one, and make a post on the others pointing to the discussion page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

We can do it in this one, I made multiple as to point that out at how mainstream media and various countries that support Guaido that refer to him as Interim President. RBL2000 (talk) 23:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@RBL2000: will you please go to all the other places where you started the discussion, and put a post stating that the discussion is here, with a link to this page? We cannot hold three different discussions on the same topic. If you want to have the discussion here, please read Statute Governing the Transition to Democracy. He is Acting President by Venezuelan Statutory Law. For the purposes of the rest of the world, what's the difference between interim and acting? In practicality, it's the same thing, so we should call him what he is called in the country where he is called that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I did that though it one it was closed by editor MJL(administrator/moderator?). The issue I am having is that it contradicts what the mainstream media and goverment that support Guaido as they refer to him as Interim President of Venezuela. RBL2000 (talk) 23:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. But what is your specific objection to acting vs. interim ... in practicality, it's the same thing, so why can we not respect the Venezuelan statutory term? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @SandyGeorgia and RBL2000:, yes I saw this and closed it for you. (Not an admin though.) For my part, I will say that I fully agree with RBL2000 here. Calling him "Acting President" feels so unnatural. The translation might be off, but that's how English WP:RS have referred to him. As a non-spanish speaker, I think that is probably what we should go with. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

To me, the words mean the same thing, but if you all want to argue over a triviality, have at it. Just please respect work that others are trying to do, keep your discussion in one place, and please don't ping me to such a silly discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes to you yourself yet according to the mainstream media and countries that support Guaido including the US refer to him as Interim President and not Acting President which changing that on English language part of Wikipedia would and will cause confusion among readers along with editors as no English language media nor statement from countries refer to him as Acting President, again they refer to him as Interim President which also makes more sense since the post Guaido takes is temporary. IIRC his post should last 1 month after announcement and then elections be held which expired long ago and there has not been change between regimes/goverments. RBL2000 (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Guaidó is a deputy, self-declared interim president. There are plenty of sources: CNN, Reuters, Euronews, Aljazeera. emijrp (talk) 09:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Following the discussion in the Guaidó talk page, the National Assembly has been clear on the steps to transition: cessation of the "usurpation", transitional government and free elections, in that order. Before Maduro steps down, there's not transitional government, thus no interim president, only acting president. It's one of the reasons elections have not been summoned, a responsability of an interim president, because it is the third point and Guaidó has established that the Electoral Council must be renewed. Yes, there are many sources that have referred to him as "interim president", most likely for the sake of simplicity and the complexity of the situation, as well as just president of the National Assembly or even dictator, but plenty of other sources also refer to him as acting president: Aljazeera, CNN, Voice of America, EFE, France24, Japan Times, New York Post, SCMP, to name some, sometimes with the word being used exchangeably. That said, the question is if we should add content based on perception or in facts that have been presented here. --Jamez42 (talk) 06:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

And the problem with our incorrect terminology now is that, should this go to another level, then we will have even greater confusion, since the new title would need to be clarified. We should get it right now; the only reason we didn't is that no one had translated the transitional statute until this week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Redirects

Started discussion on the 2019 Venezuelan coup d'état and the 2019 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt redirects. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of protests in lede

I've just removed this paragraph from the lede: Mass demonstrations throughout Venezuela and the world occurred on 23 January when Guaidó called for Venezuelans to protest against Maduro. Demonstrations in support of Maduro and Chavismo took place as well.

References

Not quite sure what to do with it. Is there a better way of saying "there were street demonstrations but no violence or political progress occurred"? power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

IMNSHO, that text is there to show the "massive" (word used by sources) amount of support that Guaido had for the oath sworn, and in that sense, "political progress" did occur. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to also describe the scope of either military defections or international support for Guaido. "Massive" is an incredibly vague term here. And, ideally, non-controversial enough to not need inline sourcing. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I am still intending to fix this ... as soon as I have a free moment LOL !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality Point of View Issue

After going through the page I have noted that several areas seem biased towards each of camps. Kindly when adding content, adhere to WP:NPOV guidelines. This is easier said than done but effort to make the article neutral is needed. Shadychiri (talk) 08:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Shadychiri: anything in particular that you want to point out? Some users have claimed NPOV without pointing to the issues, and some have been solved already.--MaoGo (talk) 09:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Justification

I think the legal argument for Guaidó is somewhat lost in the details of § Justification for the challenge. Basically, it's that although the constitution did not explicitly forsee the situation where valid elections cannot be held, Articles 333 and 350 impose a duty to do something, and filling the position with the President of the National Assembly until they can be best fulfils the intent of Article 233.

I'm trying to work out the overall phrasing... something like:

---

The Venezuelan opposition bases its actions on the 1999 Venezuelan Constitution, specifically Articles 233, 333 and 350. The first paragraph of Article 233 states: "The President of the Republic shall become permanently unavailable to serve by reason of any of the following events: death; resignation; removal from office by decision of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice; permanent physical or mental disability; ... abandonment of his position, duly declared by the National Assembly; and recall by popular vote."

Later paragraphs describe what to do in the event of a vacancy due to "permanent unavailability to serve", depending on when the vacancy occurs:

• Prior to elected President's inauguration, "a new election ... shall be held within thirty consecutive days ... The President of the National Assembly shall take charge of the Presidency of the Republic".
• During the first four years of President's six-year term, "a new election ... shall be held within thirty consecutive days ... The Executive Vice-President shall take charge of the Presidency of the Republic".
• During the last two years of President's six-year term, "the Executive Vice-President shall take over the Presidency of the Republic until such term is completed".

Article 233 was invoked after death of Hugo Chávez, which took place soon after his inauguration, and extraordinary elections were called within thirty days.

Article 333 calls for citizens to restore and enforce the Constitution if it is not followed. Article 350 calls for citizens to "disown any regime, legislation or authority that violates democratic values".

In 2019, the National Assembly invoked Article 233, declaring the President's position abandoned due to the lack of valid elections, arguing that "de facto dictatorship" means there is no democratic leader. Although the constitution did not forsee the present circumstances where there has been no valid election, and holding one within 30 days does not appear to be possible, the National Assembly argue that Articles 333 and 350 impose a duty to act, and having the President of the National Assembly fill in until valid elections can be held best upholds the intent of Article 233.

The contrary argument is that Article 233 only allows such a substitution "prior to elected President's inauguration" and Maduro's inauguration on 10 January preceded the National Assembly's actions. The response is that Maduro was not elected and so the inauguration was invalid.

Invoked by the National Assembly, Guaidó was declared interim president for thirty days until elections could be held; Diego A. Zambrano, an assistant professor of law at Stanford Law School, says that "Venezuelan lawyers disagree on the best reading and of this provision. Some argue Guaidó can serve longer if the electoral process is scheduled within a reasonable time". The National Assembly announced that it will designate a committee to appoint a new National Electoral Council, in anticipation of free elections.

The National Assembly argues that both the national and international community must unite behind a transitional government that will guarantee humanitarian aid, bring the restoration of Venezuela's rule of law, and will hold democratic elections.

---

Any opinions? I'm trying to present the argument fairly, without imposing a POV on it. 209.209.238.189 (talk) 18:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, it looks a little long and a bit POV; if there was a way to compress it just a little and make the paragraph starting with "The contrary argument" a little cleaner, I think it would be a good replacement. I would also remove the paragraph break between "Article 233..." and "Article 333..." and remove the last 2 paragraphs as they don't seem to fall under the "Justification" (more of like the logistics of following through, which are talked about in much greater detail elsewhere). _{Integral Python} ^{click here to argue with me} 12:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Justification proposal

I suspect this proposal has been ignored because the wall of text is too hard to sort. Here is the current text, and the proposal, side-by-side. I don't have too much of a problem with it, other than, it is unsourced. I agree with IntegralPython that it is long, but I disagree that it is POV. It is moving in the direction of providing more balance, as it provides a counterargument which is not now in the article. But the new material would need to be sourced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

 CURRENT
The Venezuelan opposition bases its actions on the 1999 Venezuelan Constitution, specifically Articles 233, 333 and 350. The first paragraph of Article 233 states: "The President of the Republic shall become permanently unavailable to serve by reason of any of the following events: death; resignation; removal from office by decision of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice; permanent physical or mental disability; ... abandonment of his position, duly declared by the National Assembly; and recall by popular vote."

Later paragraphs describe what to do in the event of a vacancy due to "permanent unavailability to serve", depending on when the vacancy occurs:

• Prior to elected President's inauguration, "a new election ... shall be held within thirty consecutive days ... The President of the National Assembly shall take charge of the Presidency of the Republic".
  
• During the first four years of President's six-year term, "a new election ... shall be held within thirty consecutive days ... The Executive Vice-President shall take charge of the Presidency of the Republic".
  
• During the last two years of President's six-year term, "the Executive Vice-President shall take over the Presidency of the Republic until such term is completed".
  

Article 233 was invoked after death of Hugo Chávez, which took place soon after his inauguration, and extraordinary elections were called within thirty days. In 2019, the National Assembly invoked Article 233 due to abandonment of [President's] position, arguing that "de facto dictatorship" means no democratic leader. Invoked by the National Assembly, Guaidó was declared acting president until elections could be held; Diego A. Zambrano, an assistant professor of law at Stanford Law School, says that "Venezuelan lawyers disagree on the best reading of this provision. Some argue Guaidó can serve longer if the electoral process is scheduled within a reasonable time". The National Assembly announced that it will designate a committee to appoint a new National Electoral Council, in anticipation of free elections.

Article 333 calls for citizens to restore and enforce the Constitution if it is not followed. Article 350 calls for citizens to "disown any regime, legislation or authority that violates democratic values". The National Assembly argues that both the national and international community must unite behind a transitional government that will guarantee humanitarian aid, bring the restoration of Venezuela's rule of law, and will hold democratic elections.

 PROPOSED
The Venezuelan opposition bases its actions on the 1999 Venezuelan Constitution, specifically Articles 233, 333 and 350. The first paragraph of Article 233 states: "The President of the Republic shall become permanently unavailable to serve by reason of any of the following events: death; resignation; removal from office by decision of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice; permanent physical or mental disability; ... abandonment of his position, duly declared by the National Assembly; and recall by popular vote."

Later paragraphs describe what to do in the event of a vacancy due to "permanent unavailability to serve", depending on when the vacancy occurs:

• Prior to elected President's inauguration, "a new election ... shall be held within thirty consecutive days ... The President of the National Assembly shall take charge of the Presidency of the Republic".
  
• During the first four years of President's six-year term, "a new election ... shall be held within thirty consecutive days ... The Executive Vice-President shall take charge of the Presidency of the Republic".
  
• During the last two years of President's six-year term, "the Executive Vice-President shall take over the Presidency of the Republic until such term is completed".
  

Article 233 was invoked after death of Hugo Chávez, which took place soon after his inauguration, and extraordinary elections were called within thirty days. Article 333 calls for citizens to restore and enforce the Constitution if it is not followed. Article 350 calls for citizens to "disown any regime, legislation or authority that violates democratic values".

In 2019, the National Assembly invoked Article 233, declaring the President's position abandoned due to the lack of valid elections, arguing that "de facto dictatorship" means there is no democratic leader. Although the constitution did not foresee the present circumstances where there has been no valid election, and holding one within 30 days does not appear to be possible, the National Assembly argue that Articles 333 and 350 impose a duty to act, and having the President of the National Assembly fill in until valid elections can be held best upholds the intent of Article 233.

The contrary argument is that Article 233 only allows such a substitution "prior to elected President's inauguration" and Maduro's inauguration on 10 January preceded the National Assembly's actions. The response is that Maduro was not elected and so the inauguration was invalid.

Invoked by the National Assembly, Guaidó was declared acting president until elections could be held; Diego A. Zambrano, an assistant professor of law at Stanford Law School, says that "Venezuelan lawyers disagree on the best reading and of this provision. Some argue Guaidó can serve longer if the electoral process is scheduled within a reasonable time". The National Assembly announced that it will designate a committee to appoint a new National Electoral Council, in anticipation of free elections. The National Assembly argues that both the national and international community must unite behind a transitional government that will guarantee humanitarian aid, bring the restoration of Venezuela's rule of law, and will hold democratic elections.

—Article 01:28 March 21 —Article talk 18:14 March 4

References

TO DO list

Personally, I think we can begin filtering out the political talk from those who are not major parties to the crisis. The article should start to focus on the events and facts surrounding them. Things look good for now, but I would like to avoid the endless comments from deputies and ministers. Organizations like Foro Penal, the OAS and other observers who monitor the conflicts are notable enough to be included though.----ZiaLater (talk) 01:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Same thoughts, I decided not to include a lot of declarations which are better in the Responses article. --Jamez42 (talk) 08:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@ZiaLater and Jamez42: ... some of the bulk here could be solved by addressing the problem of one editor's narrow interpretation and personal opinion about what belongs in Guaido's article versus what belongs here. I believe some text that is here, relating to the policies and actions of Guiado's team, belongs there rather than here, as in any presidential article (eg Chavez, Maduro). I have been stalled on that front, and stopped working on Guaido, hoping for that to be resolved, but it has not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Also before we write about the potential arrest of Guaidó, we should wait before anything happens per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Yes Maduro and Diosdado have said that they will have him arrested and suggested that General Carneiro will be there waiting at the airport. We will see though.

As for events I think should be included include:

• Arrest warrant for Pemon leader
• Maduro's claims of Russian aid
• Release of prisoners on the border
• Any act of censorship
• 8 tons of gold

Out of the list, these seem to be the most notable and appropriate.----ZiaLater (talk) 09:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I have added about half of the events in the checklist, mostly about the 23 February events.--Jamez42 (talk) 13:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I have a gut feeling that it would be better to mark this as  Done, archive the half of the items that have been done and keep the other half along with the info about the snipers, so we can consider further the creation or expansion of sub-articles. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

1. Juan Carlos Varela, president of Panamá: "Maduro reminds us of Noriega's last days".
2. 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

3. 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)
4. 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:[1][2] It seems local internet watchdog VE sin Filtro confirmed the block. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

5. 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)
6. Journalist Ingrid Caribay was censored and fired from Globovisión.
7. 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
8. 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"
9. 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.
10. Guaidó has met the officers that have defected
11. 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).
12. Nine Pemons dissapeared, according to Foro Penal

Thank you Zia! If I recall correctly, the gold missing was sent to Uganda. This could be updated since it seems that the gold arrived incomplete and Ugandan authorities started an investigation on the matter. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Gold is in. A lot of the rest of the list above now may belong at 2019 shipping of humanitarian aid to Venezuela. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Snipers

I am moving this to talk because the article as of now only mentions top military people; perhaps these could be added if we eventually need a sub-article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

On 17 February, five military personnel and snipers were arrested by the Directorate General of Military Counterintelligence in Ureña, Táchira state, after publishing a video in which they declared support for Guaidó.

• https://www.npr.org/2019/03/21/705464149/1-000-venezuelan-armed-forces-have-fled-across-border-says-colombian-government SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Sanctions against Venezuela and negative impact on nations depending on cheap Venezuelan oil

This article by Miami Herald puts a spotlight on consequences of the US sanctions on Venezuela that have hard impact on fuel supply and economic balance of Caribbean nations that depend/depended on affordable oil from Venezuela under PetroCaribe which oil sales for made under generous deal. One of nations that fell victim is St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Antigua and Barbuda PM Browne criticized "politicized aid" and to free up Venezuela's billions in order to be able to feed themselves. Source; https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/haiti/article228172349.html RBL2000 (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not seeing how that fits in this particular topic. If we were to explore that in this article, then for balance, we would also have to explore how much those countries benefitted from free oil in the last 20 years, and we'd end up way off topic. I am wondering if PM Browne criticized the "politicized aid" when he was on the receiving end ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I would like to point out too that the 2019 Haitian protests are related to mismanagement and possible corrupt deals between the Haiti government and Maduro's regime. Also according to The Economist, the 2018 Nicaraguan protests seemed to occur when Venezuela stopped giving aid to Nicaragua. The oil of Venezuela is important to the region. It seems that countries allied with Maduro's regime are surely being affected by the low productivity of Venezuela, even back then before this crisis. --MaoGo (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

RBL, I gave it a try, with this addition. The Miami Herald article is paywalled and not available at my library, but I suspect (per the title) that the Haitian Times is the same content. I was able to justify adding this content because the Reuters article drew the connection to the Presidential crisis, that your post did not make clear (and I couldn't see the Miami article), and because the CBC article deals with the topic mentioned by MaoGo (production cuts also affected PetroCaribe, so we can't present it as only a sanctions issue). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Guaidó image

Could people please weigh in over at Talk:Juan Guaidó#Main image? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Copyvio, overlinking, poorly formatted citations, overdefining, etc

Some editing habits that are causing a lot of unnecessary work. Cyfraw it is essential that we WP:PARAPHRASE content in our words, and avoid WP:COPYVIO. If we do not immediately remove copyvio, the article history later has to be scrubbed. This applies also to translations-- a direct translation is copyvio. Every entry I have checked lately has been cut-and-paste; I encourage other editors to be on the lookout, check for copyvio, and to quickly remove it when found-- leaving it for later creates a real nightmare.

Some other things: we do not need to relink and redefine every person in the political world every time they are mentioned. Pompeo, Rubio, Abrams, Arreaza, Maduro, Gauido, etcetere are all already defined and linked in the article. Please review WP:OVERLINK.

FInally, please complete your citations (eg add accessdates and authors); I would like to write content rather than clean up citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I will avoid such copyvio when adding new information. --cyrfaw (talk) 05:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Cyfraw! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Reckless escalation

U.S. calls Russian military presence in Venezuela 'reckless escalation' of situation (reuters).--MaoGo (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

There's kind of a shouting match going on between US and Russia ... how about we give them each a day to get out their worst insults, and then add them ? LOL ... just a thought :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure. --MaoGo (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Russia's planes are in the National Assembly's tomorrow agenda, we should add their position after it's released. --Jamez42 (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The planes are already in the article but depending on how the "escalade continues" this could become an "event".--MaoGo (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• Diosdado confirms two planes landed from Russia (Reuters) --MaoGo (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

CNN's Rafael Gonzalez

@MaoGo: http://elpitazo.net/politica/dictan-privativa-de-libertad-para-rafael-gonzalez/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I got the articles. But I am busy right now, I may update it tomorrow if you do not mind. --MaoGo (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia:I am maybe overthinking this, but this is what I got

Press worker Rafael González was detained at El Helicoide after working in a CNN coverage on 14 March. According to SNTP, he was charged of rebellion, conspiracy and false statement. On 18 March he was indicted with 45 days of custodial sentence. According to Efecto Cocuyo his house was also raided. His wife and journalist Evelys Flores considered that the detention was 'arbitrary', and his sister denounced the process as irregular.

There are other non reliable sources out there that are claiming he is just the driver of a security team for press workers [3]. Also I do not have a main statement about irregularity of the case aside from his family statements. Let us procede with caution, what should we keep? --MaoGo (talk) 13:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I will look later today, MaoGo. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Censorship and media control split

@MaoGo, Jamez42, and Kingsif:, maybe it's time for 2019 Venezuelan censorship and media control? That would allow for more in-depth exploration, and could be summarized back to here as well as to Censorship in Venezuela. We are constantly brushing up to size limits on this article, with no end in sight, so maybe just do it? It will also make it easier to keep Censorship in Venezuela updated, since everything for 2019 will be in one article. It does appear, as others have indicated, that there is a journalism crackdown (see section above), sources have mentioned that, so 2019 probably deserves its own article. Putting detail there, and summarizing back to here, will give us more room to develop content here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I have to say that I think expanding the article of the Censorship in Venezuela article, although I'm interested in a separate article. The problem I see is that I can't find articles with similar names, and I wouldn't like to limit the attacks to just 2019, including also all the attacks in the 2014 and 2017 protests, for instance. Media freedom in Russia has an interesting estructure, I would suggest to start the section "Attacks and threats against journalists" in the censorship article.--Jamez42 (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Created the section, without 2019 for the time being. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I am indifferent to whichever route you all decide (in the Censorship article, or in an article exclusive to 2019); I just think we will need a separate place, since the issue seems to be increasing rather than abating in 2019. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I would prefer a separate article too. --MaoGo (talk) 23:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

If a separate article is created, I'd suggest it not to be only of 2019, like for example "Venezuelan censorship and media control", "Venezuelan censorship and media control under Nicolás Maduro" or something similar. --Jamez42 (talk) 11:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: I mildly disagree. The positive side of having this section in 2019 Presidential crisis is that we can make people aware of the political repercussions of this event. I think a 2019 Censorship in Venezuela or even a 2019 Censorship during the Venezuelan presidential crisis would be slightly better than a censorship and media control article, because the latter will eventually distract people out of the main on-going conflict. --MaoGo (talk) 11:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

My fear is that the scope of the article is small and if this pattern continues in 2020, which would be a problem for the name. However, I agree there's enough content to start a separate article. --Jamez42 (talk) 11:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC) (edit conflict)

I think either a separate article that relates back to the crisis, or an appropriately titled section at Censorship in Venezuela would be best. Kingsif (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42 and MaoGo: to address your concern that the scope will grow into 2020, how about Venezuelan censorship and media control since 2019 or Venezuelan censorship and media control beginning 2019 or Venezuelan censorship and media control during presidential crisis? Let's pick something and get moving! We can always move it if the situation worsens into 2020. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

The date is not a problem. If the article has "2019" in the title it can easily be changed to "2019-2020" if needed. Any of the three mentioned by @SandyGeorgia: solves this problem anyway. By order of preference: third,first,second.--MaoGo (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Whatever works for you :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I have to midly disagree with using 2019 as a starting year, but Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. If we find out that is the best alternative, I would agree with it. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I am also mildly disagreeing, but again the most important thing is to create the article, no matter the title (and only if it is necessary to split it from this one). I propose to use Censorship and media control during the Venezuelan presidential crisis. No need of dates, there are no other presidential crises.--MaoGo (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

If an article is to be created, I think this is a good title. I fear other editors disagree or raise NPOV questions, but a rename can be considered later. Forgot to mention, I copied the attacks on journalists information to the censorship article, but I haven't trimmed it here. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Censorship and media control during the Venezuelan presidential crisis works for me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Cabinet review

So ... what ever happened with Maduro's famous plan to restructure his entire cabinet? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Nothing I have seen. Either it has not taken place or was just a meaningless announcement during a crisis. What happened to the Russian wheat and aid? --MaoGo (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Has Guaido appointed his cabinet yet? TFD (talk) 03:56, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I have seen nothing else on that front since his announcement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Red Cross update

@SandyGeorgia: time for the Red Cross update? Reuters Washington Post The Guardian--MaoGo (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I have had a hard time keeping up ... been accompanying my sister-in-law (cuñada) in hospital all week. Home in a few hours. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: take your time, health and family first. --MaoGo (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@MaoGo and Jamez42:; ok, here's my idea. For now, we have promises from the Red Cross, and lots of back-and-forth charges and claims, about aid that may be delivered in April. And we have 2019 shipping of humanitarian aid to Venezuela#Foreign aid over in the other article. What if we develop the whole Red Cross International thing over there (since the article is pushing size limits anyway), and then summarize it back to here with a few sentences, along with whatever else happens in April? I can see it as being somewhat tangential to the actual presidential crisis, so we may as well fully develop the content in the humanitarian aid sub-article ... let me know what you think. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Please take care, Sandy. Sounds like a good idea, I was thinking that starting the section "Aftermath" would be appropriate for the recent events. --Jamez42 (talk) 09:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Good idea. --MaoGo (talk) 11:16, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, I think I can work on this today, as she has to stay another day in hospital. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42 and MaoGo: I will work on updating Red Cross to the shipping-humanitarian article over the course of the day; if I am interrupted by medical, will resume, but I may not get all done in one sitting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia:Let us know if you need any help; please don't overwhelm yourself. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Jamez42; I am done as much as I can be on putting Red Cross into the shipping article now. I am not sure what else I may have fallen behind on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

PS, @Jamez42 and MaoGo:, I have just come across LatinoBarometro, which one source says is highly respected. There is info there that needs to go into many different articles, and is more than I can take on right now, in case either of you want to work on that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Next to summarize

After summarizing Censorship and media control during the Venezuelan presidential crisis to a sub-article, we are still at 8,500 words of readable prose, per WP:SIZERULE. It doesn't have to happen just yet, but I suggest the next section to summarize to a sub-article should be defections, here. Any ideas for article name, when we get to that? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I just realized that the sanctions section is also quite lengthy. I want to remind that there's an article in the Spanish Wikipdia named Sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis, which in turn was based in the article List of people sanctioned during the Ukrainian crisis, and includes individual sanctions that date back to 2008. On the other hand, for the defections content I'd suggest a name like Venezuelan crisis defection, with a similar structure to Eastern Bloc emigration and defection. Unlike the Censorship article, there doesn't seem to be an existing page covering this topic, so it would make a good opportunity to cover the events before 2019. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Jamez42; when size starts creeping up again, I'll check in with the idea of whether we would be better to spin off Sanctions before Defections. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, let me know if you need any help :) --Jamez42 (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Sanctions

I am starting to work in Sandbox on a sanctions article. We have two WHOLLY UNCITED lists at:

• https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Sanciones_durante_la_crisis_en_Venezuela#Unión_Europea and
• User:Cyfraw/International sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis

What the heck? All that work, and not a single citation to back them up, so not usable. So, I will start over I guess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

As the creator of the article, the lists are sourced; it's only that the references are not included as a column in the list, and rather they are a synthesis of the paragraphs above. There are discussions regarding the individuals in the respective talk page. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I have been working all day, and finding errors. Both of the lists above appear to have used a list from Marco Rubio of people he said *should* be sanctioned, but were not. There are dozens of names on those lists for which I can locate no source except Marco Rubio's wish list. So, I have pretty much started over.

It makes no sense at all to put up a page that amounts to a serious BLP issue with no sources !!!! Those pages need to be scrubbed.

Also, there are no sources on either talk page. I don't mean the text, Jamez, which is fine: I mean the lists of people sanctioned-- the text was in very good shape, but the list is a mish-mash mess. It would be easier to deal with if the names had been standardized so they could be alphabetized.

I am working at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox2. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I just saw your sandbox, amazing work! What can we help with? --MaoGo (talk) 11:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I think I may try to sleep now :) I still have to finish Canada, but there are a couple dozen names on the two other lists for which I can find no sources. I will make a list of them tomorrow! Then, when I move it in to mainspace, there will be a lot of work for all! For now, I have to keep track of what I have done and what I have left to do, so after I get caught up, I will put out a list of help that is needed! Saludos, SandyGeorgia (Talk)

I didn't know that some of the names in the list had that trouble. I will also have to take a look at the Spanish version. It's important to note that the article is kinda outdated with the 2019 sanctions. Best wishes! --Jamez42 (talk) 13:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42:, yes ... just getting the article to a state where I can put it up has been a MUCH larger task than I envisioned. When I finish getting through the sources that are there, there is still work to be done! Once I get all the sources in, I will put up a list of the people sanctioned that I can't source ... will let you know. Then I will ask for help, too :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• International sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis. That was a haul, and I ran out of steam. There are good sources in the Non-US section that can be used for expansion, and there is a list at User talk:SandyGeorgia/sandbox2. When I started in to that, I didn't realize how much work was needed, so you will all see places where I just got exhausted and gave up, but there is info in the sources for expansion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

  @SandyGeorgia: amazing work! bravo. --MaoGo (talk) 07:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

  Thank you, MaoGo, most appreciated. I think that was the most dejecting project I have every undertaken on Wikipedia :( No fun, just unpleasant work, and I went through Every Single Entry at the US Treasury website to build that damn chart from scratch; unpleasant reading to say the least ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Telegram updates

If anyone here uses Telegram and speaks Spanish, I would like to suggest several news channels that I use to keep myself informed of the situation:

• @laceiba: (t.me/laceiba) My personal favorite and the one I've been reading for the longest. It is managed by former mayor Ramón Muchacho, and gives a list of the day before headlines, along with a brief analysis at the end.
• @efectococuyo: (t.me/efectococuyo) Official Telegram channel of the outlet. It doesn't always make announces daily, but it also offers a link to their respective news articles.
• @runrunes: (t.me/runrunes) Official Telegram channel. of the outlet. If often shares photographs, infographics, and audios. It's the channel that updates more often, more than I like, but it's very detailed and updated.
• @queestapasando: (t.me/queestapasando) Offers a briefing a couple of times daily, along with images and sources used.
• @jguaidom: (t.me/jguaidom) Guaidó's official Telegram channel. Useful for being updated with rallies, speeches and announcements.

There are probably more, but I think those are the most important. Having so much info on the Internet, I think it was important sharing these outlets to any who might be interested. Best wishes :) --Jamez42 (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The internet here doesn't like Telegram, but it would be nice if you could keep us updated Kingsif (talk) 20:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what Telegram is, but I follow dozens of Instagram channels which I think keep me up to date; does Telegram offer something Instagram does not? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Not in Telegram, but I could give it a try ^{(but its Wikipedia article advices cautioness)}. Maybe I am the only one here that is just refreshing Reuters, El Nacional and the Guardian, it seems to me quick and reliable enough. Twitter is also a good developing story alarm. --MaoGo (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Cut and paste

In preparing to add new text, I found cut-and-paste copyvio in this edit; need to check all edits from that editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I see we noticed this back in March, and removed some, but I am finding more, that may have propagated to the Shipping article: to check. (Reminder: this is one of the reasons why, when copying text from article to another, you should always include a link to the original article in edit summary-- that way, if copyvio is found in the future, it can be traced back to where it occurred and not blamed on the editor who moved the text.) I will work more on this later; a slowdown in my plan to add the new gold and IMF reserves text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

There was more, but most those edits were reverted or fixed when the copyvio was found in March. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Source request

Hi @SandyGeorgia:, may you please provide a quote for the Financial Times and the IMF reserves of Venezuela from 2009. I cannot access it. --MaoGo (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Will do; lost power, on my iPhone, remind me later if I forget. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done MaoGo, is that what you need? That's my last free Bloomberg article this month, and I'm now out of Financial Times as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: thanks for the info. I am actually trying to keep the French article up to date and the information could come out handy. --MaoGo (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Buzzfeed

Not a source I would use, but:

• Russia Asked To Dock A Warship Heading For Venezuela In The Mediterranean. Then Things Got Weird. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

And more from Malta:

• [WATCH Russia hits back: ‘Solution of Malta government is not friendly’] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I forgot this section was started before adding the information. This new has been published by other sources:

• • El Nacional
  • La República
  • Noticiero Digital
  • RT
  • Sputnik News

I decided to cite 2001 before the two last ones. I also understand that a Russian ambassador specified that Russia asked for permission to enter in the airspace, as it is customary. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: the problem is that all of the sources I could find mentioning Malta were attributing the story to BuzzFeed, which is a very unreliable source. We need a high quality source to report it independently of Buzzfeed. It is interesting that no English language or high quality source has picked up this story. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I see now that El Nacional is giving us something to work with, not dependent on Buzzfeed; we could use that if we stick to that verified part. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Precisely my thoughts, El Nacional refers to this ABC article, which is a major Spanish newspaper. --Jamez42 (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Are we good now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Of course we are :) We can mark this as  Done --Jamez42 (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Caro

We should update on Gilber Caro detention when more info is available. Also his article may need some care. --MaoGo (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: shouldn't Caro be in the main events? --MaoGo (talk) 13:00, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

His case has never been on my radar: I am unaware of how significant it is? Perhaps I am uninformed, but I just haven't seen it in major media, and his article doesn't give me enough to go on. Could you give me an idea of what you want included and I will work on it? SandyGeorgia (Talk)

It theory it is very significant because he's a member of the National Assembly, and it's an important violation of the rule of law. However, Caro hasn't had as much coverage as, for example, Requesens, specially since the uprising started. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

It is so not on my radar, that I don't even know what happened. And if even I don't know ... could you all point me to some important sources? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Here you go @SandyGeorgia: Reuters, WP, Bloomberg. He is a member of Voluntad Popular, he has immunity due to being member of AN, international bodies call for his release and he has already being imprisoned unjustly. --MaoGo (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Ah, OK, now it comes back to me! Yes, he should have, say, two sentences maybe ?? But hard to do unless his own article is better developed for linking. I am swamped today; do you want to work up an idea of text you want to add? If not, I can't get to it until maybe tomorrow. Because I have a number of appointments and houseguests, I am barely keeping up with the events unfolding now ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Two sentences is ok for me. Let me work on that. --MaoGo (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Done. @SandyGeorgia: what do you think? --MaoGo (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done --MaoGo (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Reminder

Need to update to "as of May" ... one of the sources in the article will have it ... too tired tonight.

• but top military command has not broken ranks with Maduro as of mid-April 2019.[282]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Russian mitigation act

This is not law until/unless the Senate passes it; I submit it should be added to the article only if it is passed and signed, and then the text will change and it will be sourced to something better than Wasserman Schultz herself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• On 25 March 2019, the United States House of Representatives passed a bill called the Russian–Venezuelan Threat Mitigation Act, which imposes sanctions and visa bans on individuals or entities that provide support to Venezuelan security forces on behalf of Russia. The bill still needs to be passed by the Senate and signed by the President in order to become law.

References

I was tempted to submit this to WP:AFD, but asked first at the Law WikiProject. My concern is that this "act" is not a thing until/unless it is passed by the Senate, and since it asks for nothing the US government isn't already doing anyway, it seems unlikely that it would ever become law, and it's not clear to me if the article should exist. I understand that Florida Democrats have reason to want to have press time, and it concerns me that most of this article is sourced to the congresswoman who introduced the unnecessary bill. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I think it depends how much traction and news it gets. It's not one of the more important Bills to go through the House, though. Kingsif (talk) 23:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I think it's just a matter of time before it is passed as law. It'll surly have bipartisan support in congress. It should be included in the article as everyone needs as much information possible as regards this topic Plugstuck (talk) 12:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Nothing happening yet; [4] it would not be unusual for the House to pass a bill for the sake of publicity, and so far, all the publicity is coming from the Democrats who sponsored the bill and stand to benefit from it at Florida polls. As of now, it's barely notable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Blackwater plan

I removed this text because the source makes it pretty clear that although Blackwater is pushing the plan, there is no indication Venezuela is buying. Unrelated, undue. Perhaps belong in Blackwater's article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Too many images

... being shoved in where they aren't even relevant. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a children's story book. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Operation Freedom

While I disagree with calling it an "uprising", using the highly POV charged Guiado branding as a section title is not at all appropriate. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I apologize @LaserLegs: I think I mistook another user comment with yours. A lot of heat in the Uprising article. --MaoGo (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

All good, thanks MaoGo. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Is anyone else concerned about how NPOV the cited reports of how many supporters each group had? There's a line about how only 500 people showed up for Maduro and "10's of thousands" for Guaido, when this is clearly and obviously wrong. There are videos taken which show massive crowds in support of Maduro, taken from aerial drones showing streets packed with people supporting him. How can these outlets that repeat American propaganda be considered credible on this? Additionally, there are NPOV lines about calling people "protesters", when they were actually participants in a US backed armed coup or uprising. Clearly the Guaido supporters were vastly outnumbered because otherwise they have actually taken over the Government, instead of failing. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources that are not included? Government videos are known to be falsified and photographs photoshopped; we can't really include something without a source. There is a lot of personal opinion in your post; if reliable sources call them protesters or demonstrators, so do we. As to who might have done what based on numbers, only one side has guns.

Also, curious that what Wikipedia calls reliable sources, you label as sources that "repeat American propaganda", but you appear to want Wikipedia to accept Venezuela state propaganda. So, please provide sources for content you believe is excluded. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

So, I didn't write that text, but I have corrected it to reflect all sources. Interestingly, your "American propaganda" came partially from the British Guardian. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

May Day 2019

In the page it is claimed that Guaido had tens of thousands of supporters in the May Day demonstrations while Maduro had "more than 500" and then it goes on speculating how the pro Maduro demonstrators are coerced due to them being public workers. Obviously no mention goes to the class composition of the pro-Guaido demonstrations. Obviously the claim that the pro-Maduro demonstrators were more than 500 isn't technically wrong in the same way it wouldn't be wrong to claim that the US Army has more than 10 thousand soldiers. It is definitely misleading however further reinforcing the already big bias of the wikipedia coverage of Venezuela. This video shows the pro-Maduro demonstrations Red Greek Revolution (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

References

1. Últimas Noticias is a "pro-Maduro tabloid"
2. YouTube is not a reliable source; don't believe everything you see (Wikipedia doesn't)
3. You have misstated the text that is actually in the article.
4. Reliable sources well understand and report (as does everyone in Venezuela) that government employees are required to attend marches or they may lose their jobs, and people in need of food and medicine or who are dependent on government food supply may lose food if they don't attend. That's how it becomes relevant, and that's why sources mention it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

FAQ needed

I will put up in a day or two (when I have time) an FAQ on my talk about the outlandish and false allegations on Reddit about paid editing on Venezuela topics. For now, discussion on my talk will have to suffice, although it is rambling and incoherent since I was furious when I wrote it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Why not the vice president?

Has the opposition provided any justification for why Guaidó was chosen as the interim president, instead of the vice president? The constitution [5] (as quoted in the article) states that when the president becomes unavailable to serve after inauguration, "the Executive Vice-President shall take charge of the Presidency of the Republic". Why was the president of the National Assembly chosen instead? If the opposition has provided any justification for this, it seems like it should be added to the article (with a source, obviously), as I'm sure I'm not the only one with this question. Cmonghost (talk) 02:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Justification for challenge section, third para. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

That paragraph doesn't address the issue that 233 was invoked after Maduro's inauguration, and thus the presidency should pass to the VP per the constitution (or if it does, it needs to be made much clearer). Cmonghost (talk) 03:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Read the sources. I assure you the information is easy to find. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

My contention is not that the information doesn't exist, but that it should be incorporated into the article (not left for the reader to find in the sources, if they choose to click through). Do you disagree? If so, why? Cmonghost (talk) 03:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Have you read this source? Do you feel like it answers the question you have (and that I agree others will have)? If so, then do you feel like we can make the kinds of statements needed for clarification based on a law blog from a Stanford professor, or would you prefer we seek the information from an alternate source? In other words, if that blog satisfies, and if you feel OK using a law professor opinion, attributing it as such, the easiest/fastest way to address this is to use that source.

I feel like the info we need to clarify is in there, and I would feel comfortable using a blog to explain it, but some may not. And God forbid I should express a preference for Freedom over Liberty and have to spend all day discussing a triviality. So please advise if you are comfortable sourcing that kind of info to a law professor opinion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I have read the post (and I'm fine with it being used as a source if properly attributed, of course). I'm sorry if I'm being obtuse here, but I still don't see a direct answer to my question in it—is the idea that the inauguration itself didn't really happen, legally speaking, so the National Assembly proceeded as if it hadn't occurred, thus following the procedure for if Maduro had become unavailable before it? That's the only explanation I can think of, but it seems a little OR to include that in our article since it isn't directly stated in that source (again, I could well be missing it). — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 22:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Cmonghost: The legal explanation is that the last presidential elections, in which Maduro reportedly won, were not legal, not to mention free or fair, as simple as that. The reasons are extensively explained in the Conduct section, as well as in its talk page. Since there isn't a specific provision that states what to do if a candidate assumes the presidency through fraudulent elections, Article 233 is the closest interpretation. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

To reiterate, I understand why Article 233 was invoked, but not why it was invoked as if the inauguration had never happened (as it says that the VP should assume the presidency if the president becomes unavailable after inauguration). Pasting the relevant portion from above: "is the idea that the inauguration itself didn't really happen, legally speaking, so the National Assembly proceeded as if it hadn't occurred, thus following the procedure for if Maduro had become unavailable before it?" — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure if I understand the question, but I think it's clearer. I wouldn't say the inauguration was considered "not to happen", just being void, while the date was elected since the end of Maduro's presidency was 10 January 2019. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Cmonghost: Ah, I somehow misread, I'm sorry. I have to admit I'm not sure in which cases the Vice President assumes the presidency, this was actually a controversial issue during Chávez sickness since Maduro, who was Vice President, assumed the presidency, while the constitution established it should have been Diosdado Cabello, who back then was President of the National Assembly. Before that, when president Carlos Andrés Pérez was "impeached", Octavio Lepage the position as acting president being president of Congress and afterwards succeeded by Ramón José Velásquez, elected by Congress. In any case, I see the most important thing is that elections have not taken place, meaning that Guaidó is still acting president, strictly speaking. In any case, Maduro supporters haven't argued either that the Vice President should assume the presidency instead of Guaidó. -Jamez42 (talk) 01:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I could have this completely wrong (and Jamez42 is more knowledgeable), but here's why I think the blog is a starting place for explaining it. Average gringo or European comes here and thinks VP or second in line should take over. And wonders what happened. But the idea is that there were no legal elections, so not only is there no pres, there is no vice-pres or anything else either. And I think the blog is the starting place for covering that. Cmonghost, is that the gist of your question, and Jamez42 is my response correct. (Sorry I was much too tired and discouraged last night to type even this para :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Another place to come up to speed on this topic, Cmonghost is Statute Governing the Transition to Democracy. I didn't do a great job in the writing because I was mostly dealing with translating legaleze, which is tough. If you can read the article and any of the sources there, it may help us hone in on how to fix this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Anything that may be said about the legitimacy, or lack thereof, of Nicolas Maduro as president, can be equally said about his vicepresident. They were both elected in the same elections. Cambalachero (talk) 23:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

That was more or less my understanding, and why I think it can be clarified by sourcing the blog. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Venezuela doesn't have running mates or presidential tickets. The Vice President is elected by the sitting President, and Maduro has done it many times like with his ministers. --Jamez42 (talk) 00:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Russia

Temeku, thank you for this fix. Russia was always there. A few days ago, someone expanded the list to include everyone and the kitchen sink, and I think when I cut it back again, to conform with the source, and re-alphabatized them, I lost Russia. Thank you for getting that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• You're welcome SandyGeorgia, I had looked in the edit history and noticed that laundry list of countries you mentioned. Thanks for your work on the page. :) Temeku (talk) 05:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Jurubith Rausseo's death

There are several sources (example 1, example 2) clarifying that she died while driving a motorcycle with her partner on her way home back from work, as also seen on video evidence. This is in reference to @Jamez42:'s revert of my request to clarify this when mentioning that all people dead "were shot", as this implies people were purposefully shot while she clearly wasn't involved in the protest. I will reintroduce my request to clarify the deaths as it is important to be precise here. BeŻet (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I removed the whole thing; we can explore that kind of detail at the sub-article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I do think it makes more sense to do it that way. BeŻet (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Maduradas is not a reliable source and the tweets quoted refer to her as a protestor, but since there's doubt regarding the circumstances I agree that it could be elaborated later. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Presidential terminology

Statute Governing the Transition to Democracy

The Constitution of Venezuela, separate from the Statute, states that the President of the National Assembly becomes President of the country when there is a presidential vacancy. The Statute was enacted by the National Assembly to define the transitional process; it outlines presidential terminology.

• Acting president is the name given to the period Venezuela is in now according to the NA interpretation: an "usurpation" exists, but free elections can't be called within 30 days, because there is no independent electoral body and the "usurpation" has not ended.
• A provisional president holds the presidency during the 30 days while elections are being convened.
• An interim president is the elected person who holds the position until the transitional term in completed, and regularly scheduled free and fair elections are next held.

So, there are two problems with referring to Guaido as "interim president" now (no matter how many reliable sources sloppily do that):

1. The Statute provides for an "interim president" during the time after special elections are called, and until the next regularly scheduled elections. In theory, Guaido could be Acting, Provisional, and Interim; we need to distinguish.
2. Maduro was interim president in the time between when Chavez died and the next regularly held elections (which weren't, because they were moved up, but that's another story). Referring to Guaido now as "interim" confuses two distinct sets of circumstances: one defined within the Constitution, the other in which the Constitution requires citizens to restore constitutional order but is silent on how they are supposed to go about doing that.

   The "interim" matter is also complicated by the absence of checks on presidential power in Venezuela. When Chavez died, according to the Constitution, his vice-president Diosdado Cabello should have become president, but Maduro was chosen. How and why? That is also a whole 'nother story, and best I can tell, Wikipedia doesn't deal with it, or the Havana factor, anywhere. I was not actively editing Venezuela articles at that time, so if this is covered somewhere, I don't know where to find it.

If we use the wrong terminology now, we have a mess depending on what future events transpire.

@Jamez42: understands this better than I do, so Jamez, please check. This is my interpretation based on both the primary and secondary sources. Separately, I understand that editors who follow Venezuelan articles are extremely busy and working to keep gazillions of articles updated, that pinging helps them know when advice is needed, but I do not intend to continue to ping people to discussions. We have an important discussion about altering the lead of this article that no one except David Tornheim and I have contributed to; if people are not watchlisting, following, and adding to talk page discussions, they should be. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm still a little confused between the differences between interim and provisional, mostly because how they have been used interchangeably, but this is an excellent summary. In my opinion I think the most important thing is to distinguish "acting" from the former two, since 30 days period is another thing that has been cited to dispute the legitimacy of Guaidó. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I see what you mean, and the sources aren't that clear (to me, at least) when "provisional kicks in". (I was going by this, from Tal Cual: "Por otro lado, se establece que los activos de la República que hayan sido recuperados por los mecanismos establecidos en el Estatuto no podrán ser dispuestos ni ejecutados hasta tanto cese la usurpación y se haya conformado un Gobierno provisional (art. 36).") At any rate, whenever "provisional" kicks in, "interim is a term for a different defined period than the current situation. If we were to ever get to a "provisional" period, than it is likely that English language sources will start using that term. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

First line of Lede

I made this bold edit with edit summary:

Change first sentence to be WP:NPOV and reflect sources. All of the sources I have seen say that Guaido proclaimed himself to be president and swore himself in. None the sources I reviewed say that the National Assembly authorized this. I asked for such sources at the Juan_Guaidó talk page that say that the National Assembly authorized it, but none were provided: Talk:Juan_Guaidó#Bias

I welcome discussion. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: The edit doesn't help much balancing the lead either. Sorry. The wording "proclaimed himself" is strongly contested by the opposition and Guaidó supporters, as it intrinsically denotes lack of legitimacy and has been further used y critics to delegitimize or even mock him, along with the fact the he took the oath in a public square. The agreement to declare Maduro as illegitimate was approved on 15 January and is available on Commons. Before that, on 11 January, the National Assembly publicly invoked Article 233 and showed its support to Guaidó, and the president of the Supreme Tribunal in exile asked Guaidó to assume the presidency per this article. On 5 February 2019 the Statute Governing the Transition to Democracy was approved by the National Assembly, ratifying in Chapter III, Article 14, that the acting presidency is held by the President of the National Assembly, Juan Guaidó. The legitimacy of the interpretation may be in question, but the support that Guaidó had to take oath should not. I'm sorry if I personally didn't see the request for said sources, but the disucssions have been increasingly hard to follow. Best regards. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Self-proclaimed: Those are not my words. It is in the WP:RS: CNBC, Time, LA Times, Business Insider; or self-declared: CNN, Guardian, China Morning Post, Al Jazzera, CBC--Canadian Broadcasting. I'm sure there is plenty more like this. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I know they aren't, what I mean is that the wording is disputed and controversial, several outlets from Venezuela refer to him as acting or interim president. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Many reliable sources continue to refer to Guaido as interim president, even though that is a legally incorrect term per Venezuelan laws, and in ways that matter. Wikipedia doesn't have to get it wrong because English-language sources are deficient when we have Spanish-language secondary sources that give the full and accurate picture, and we can read the primary sources to see that they sync. I can see we've got lots of educatin' to do here, because I am seeing several discussions where the basic basics are not understood. That "interim" and "self-proclaimed" make a nice soundbite that non-Venezuelans can wrap their brains around doesn't make either correct, per Venezuelan law and per sources that take more time to use terms that correctly reflect Venezuelan law. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

National Assembly approval: Thank you for providing more information. Although some documents you provided above are WP:PRIMARY and would require secondary sourcing, I believe the article Statute Governing the Transition to Democracy may have the secondary sourcing required to show that the National Assembly had a large part in Guaido's claim to the presidency, rather than as a unilateral action as seems to be described in the WP:RS which I have read. The sourcing in Statute Governing the Transition to Democracy is lacking in this article in the sections I checked and was not mentioned in the talk page where I had asked before. Thank you for clarification now.

Some work may be required to make sure that all assertions that the National Assembly acted in its official capacity to back Guaido's claim to the presidency are properly referenced with WP:SECONDARY sourcing. The more than can be read in English the better, notwithstanding that we have no prejudice against WP:RS written in other languages.

It's certainly possible that many of the English language sources are biased. Unfortunately, our policy of WP:NPOV requires us to use WP:DUE weight based on the sources considered most reliable, and many of the sources I have provided--biased or not--have, for better or worse, long been deemed reliable. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

On the legal topics, the secondary sources are there but may take some time to locate; it's a bit harder to find them in English, because a) the search terminology is known in Spanish, and b) the nitty gritty of the legalities is rarely covered by the English-language media. Sorry it took so long to understand what you were asking for in edit summaries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Support revert. Nor did I understand this was precisely what David Tornheim was seeking; now it is more clear.

Putting unsourced opinion into the lead of a fully cited article, based on "all the sources you've seen", is the kind of thing I was mentioning about the problems of inserting changes into a lead without working them first through the body. And without presenting a single source.

"Swearing himself in" is a literalism in the absence of a recognized Supreme Court to do the honors. The public "swearing of himself in" occurred after the National Assembly had already appointed him president days earlier, according to an interpretation of the Constitution, so it is misleading (false) and disingenuous to state that in the lead without context, which is developed in the body. (It is developed and sourced in the body of the text).

"Swearing himself in" makes a nice sound bite, not appropriate for the lead without context, when the more complete portrayal is explored in the body of the article. We can find additional sources if English is an issue, or adjust wording to work more specifics in to the lead.

"Vigorous opposition by Maduro who did not relinquish the presidency" is redundant to him still being there in spite of the hemisphere holding his election to be illegitimate, so we may need to add a few more sentences beefing up the lead to cover more of how he came to be viewed as illegitimate by almost all of his neighbors. There's not a lot of text in the lead now detailing how this situation came to be.

David T, we need to start seeing sources from you; I understand your time is not unlimited. Neither is anyone else's, so please provide sources for discussion to save us all time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

CNBC, Time, LA Times, Business Insider, CNN, Guardian, China Morning Post, Al Jazzera, CBC--Canadian Broadcasting.

These sources and sources like them are in this and the article Juan Guaidó. Unfortunately, this article, like Juan Guaidó, frequently does not represent what is actually in the cited sources but creates new facts not found in the sources. Those facts may be in other sources, such as those found in Statute Governing the Transition to Democracy. If the text of the WP:BODY reflects what is in the WP:RS, then the WP:LEDE will also summarize what is in the WP:RS. The article has the same defects as Juan_ Guaidó.

I made a WP:BOLD change to the language to this article, in hopes that it would be simpler than the overly long and needlessly complicated discussion (WP:VERBOSE) that resulted from my rather simple explanation of the problem of Bias at Juan Guaido article. I can see why editors like Kashmiri [6] and Huldra [7] walked away from this subject in frustration when they saw the bias here and tried to address it. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

We have heard your position on Kashmiri several times; he himself introduced some of what you criticized as bias. (Removes mention that Guaido's presidency is rejected by some countries from the lead, removes mention that his presidency is contested from the body, says balance doesn't belong here, take it elsewhere.) Let's shorten verbosity by avoiding repetition. Several days in, it is now apparent that you want a better picture of how and by what mechanisms (legal and other) Guiado went from young assembly deputy to an interpretation as acting president. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I strongly support David Tornheim's change, except for the part starting "despite vigorous..." (editorialising) - unlike the previous one, his version is explicitly based on sources. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. To be clear, I do not believe I was editorializing when I added that Maduro vigorously opposes Guaido's claim to be President of Venezuela. That can be found in WP:RS:

• “President Maduro vigorously disputes that Mr. Guaido is the president of the Republic, and asserts that he remains the rightful leader,”Bloomberg 2/22/19,Bloomberg 3/1/19
• “Do we want a coup in Venezuela? Will we legitimise a puppet government imposed from abroad? Will we allow our constitution to be violated? No!” Maduro said. Guardian 1/24/19

[Note: Quotes like these are found at the end of the WP:LEDE.]

Even without these quotes, I would hope that for anyone who has been following the events as portrayed in the WP:RS, including Maduro's official statements, the defense minister's statements, and the mobilization of the military to suppress protests, that all of these put together can be summarized as strong opposition by Maduro (and his government) to Guaidó's claim to the Presidency. If, instead, Maduro agreed with Guaidó--by saying the elections were faulty, by congratulating him, by acknowledging him as the new Venezuelan President, and by handing him the keys to the palace--there would probably be no "Presidential crisis".

That Maduro strongly objects to Guaidó's claim to the Presidency almost goes without saying; however, I think it is worth saying early in the WP:LEDE, because some readers may come to this article with no knowledge whatsoever about Maduro or Maduro's recent actions. If Guaidó is the one and only Venezuelan claiming to be President, the reader might reasonably be puzzled as to how that could be a crisis. So, the point of the remainder of the sentence is to immediately answer that question that there are two people who claim to be president, not one. Some readers many not read to the end of the WP:LEDE.

Is there another way to answer the question--Why is there a "presidential crisis"?--in the first two sentences, so that you do not feel it is editorializing? --David Tornheim (talk) 08:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Basically, I had an issue with "vigorously opposed" – objectively, Maduro refused to accept/recognise the claim; dismissed it. I will propose a new text in the next few days (unless editors here come up with a consensus version), sorry can't really engage on WP until weekend. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I look forward to seeing that. I am supporting the revised first sentence by SandyGeorgia in the mean time. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

ZERO feedback outside of David Tornheim and myself; having allowed time for commentary, I will go ahead and install the change to the first line, with the rest of the minor adjustments detailed below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:ONUS, I think Kashmiri hits the nail on how they put it. Other than that, showing his refusal is in order. --Jamez42 (talk) 10:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for first line

Proposal. Again, "vigorously opposed" is d'oh and redundant (or as David Tornheim said, "goes without saying"). Introducing Maduro "vigorously opposing" would then require balancing it with most of the Western hemisphere and 85% of Venezuelans "vigorously opposing" the legitimacy of his presidency. Sourceable or not, it sounds more tabloid than encyclopedia (which is what Wikipedia pretends to be).

Get all detail out of the first line, neuter it to "there is a conflict, with support for both sides". Tell the reader there is a dispute, let the reader decide. Just the facts m'aam, flesh it out in later paras. Less is more. Then a much-needed re-organization of paras 2, 3 and 4 should flow more easily. The third paragraph that is in the article now is dated. The second paragraph should do a better job on the history/nature of the conflict, a third para could generalize who stands where, and (perhaps?) a fourth para might reflect more recent developments (the lead is too focused now on how the conflict started, there is nothing on what it has caused).

If Kashmiri will now accept the reintroduction of the same construct he objected to back in February, I suggest we can use it to solve the first line problem.

• A crisis concerning who is the legitimate President of Venezuela has been underway since 10 January 2019, with the nation and the world divided in support for Nicolás Maduro or Juan Guaidó.

Separately, it is painfully apparent that we need some definitions of terms somewhere in these articles; Venezuelan law and terms are not understood by people participating in these discussions, the media doesn't always get it right either, and we sure can't expect the average reader to click on or even digest the Statute article. I keep trying to find time to work on this problem, but the approach that has been taken here (vs organized discussion) is a hindrance to actually getting any content work done, and there are not enough fluent Spanish-speaking people to help in the areas where the best sources are not in English.

If there is agreement for entirely neutering the first line, then I suggest we re-work the lead in sandbox. An orderly approach to solving the issues in these articles is a better use of everyone's time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Support revised line #1 -- This is a big improvement over the current first line. If you want to put this in right now as a WP:BOLD change, that's fine with me. I am curious if Kashmiri will come up with something even better. I have read the rest of what you wrote. I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing. One step at a time here; looking for common ground first. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I Am All About Patience :) Putting it in right away might make for sloppy adjustments to the rest of the content (if we leave the rest of that sentence in the first para, we still have bias), and lead to edit warring. While I thought trimming an infobox was a no-brainer; others disagreed. We don't have to do this without waiting to hear from others. How about we evaluate this idea at the end of the day? I am headed over to your talk page now to expand so as not to clutter this discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia Please do not discussion this on my talk page. I will just move it back here. Thanks. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

There is a problem with my proposed wording. Guaido does not pretend to be President of Venezuela. The National Assembly considers him "Acting President" per Statute . The first line I proposed makes them appear to be equivalent; wordsmithing is still needed. Am I picking a nit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

"Putting this in right away" vs patient collaboration

Ok, David Tornheim. An issue on Venezuela topics is what Mr. Reddit with his elementary school piechart and sophomoric conspiracy theory[8] notices but misinterprets (a small number of editors who know the topic and know what Spanish-language sources provide), compounded by variable levels of Wikipedia experience, varying levels of Spanish and English fluency, made worse by having the articles subjected to three months of mainpage exposure with the attendant ill-informed edits. All of this creates a time management problem.

We can all work faster in a less hostile environment and with concerns presented in a more organized format. I am spending a lot of time (which is precious given everything that needs attention) answering repetitive posts and going on wild goose chases to see what is on other shit-crap Wikipedia articles; that was a timesink. I see the concerns, some priorities are needed. Do I work first on sandboxing this lead, sorting the ref name error over at Guaido, getting some of the legal basics to a more comprehensible place? While there is no deadline, there are some pressing issues here; adding this to the mix does not create an environment conducive to getting the work done.

I hope that you and others are willing to proceed in a way that we can all get this work done more efficiently (no, I can't agree with plopping in my proposal without hearing from others, slow and steady wins the race). I am not talking about lengthy delay; I am pointing out that the hostile, shotgun approach has not been conducive to addressing the concerns. I make a gazillion typos and take ten edits to do what others do in one (eyesight issues) and have sucky prose; I need to be able to calmly spread out in sandbox, and we need to determine priorities and get to work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm confused as to what this has to do with working on the WP:LEDE.  Why not move it to another section on this or one the other Venezuelan articles and give it an appropriate title and direct editors there? (You have my permission to move this comment with yours and fix indentation).  I drafted a longer response, but I’m putting that on hold. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

That's why I said I was headed to your talk page; you said to put it here. I don't know where I would move it to ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

That Reddit stuff has nothing to do with me and doesn't interest me, so it definitely doesn't belong on my talk page. I have made a separate section here to separate it from the substantive discussion about the WP:LEDE. You can move it to somewhere on this talk page or any page about Venezuela where you think people who are interested in it and will read it, or your talk page, or maybe discuss it on Reddit if you feel they don't get it, or maybe some COI noticeboard saying the Reddit people are falsely accusing you of COI and invite them to make their case. I don't know. Probably the best place is to move it to Talk:Juan_Guaidó#FAQ_needed_about_false_allegations_of_paid_editing where you also complained about Reddit. Like I said, I'm not interested in Reddit, and I don't know why you are either--but please don't try to convince me I should care about Reddit. I am interested in Wikipedia.

You'll have to choose a title you like because it's not clear to me what the issue is that holds the paragraph together. I think it is about Reddit, but I don't know. Please don't expect me to comment further on this. I'm much more interested in making this article WP:NPOV and this Reddit stuff seems like a distraction that is not worth my time. Sorry. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I've chosen a title, and see that either I did not make my point clearly enough, or it was missed.

SHORTENING: There are few editors. There is much work. No, altering the lead based on feedback from two editors "right away" is not an efficient way to work. Please understand and respect the time management aspect of the issues in the articles. I would like to get to work.

Given that no one but you and me has responded, maybe we should proceed. Except that I already see a problem in how I have worded it. Will add above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I support patient collaboration. I saw no problem with a WP:BOLD change, because it moved things forward and was IMHO collaborative, having gained additional support over the original version which had--IMHO--less support and more challenges. It could easily have been reverted and discussion continued. Regardless the change has been added and it has survived--at least for now--it appears to have more consensus than the old version did. Good work.

Also, I'm sorry if I sounded a little harsh in my response above about Rededit, which I wrote quickly. I was irritated that you seemed to presume I would be interested in the Reedit drama, when I am far more interested in NPOV issues and I have a full plate with things that I do on Wikipedia, like vandalism reversion. In hindsight, saying, "I don't care about Rededit" was a bit crude. One might read it as, "I don't care about what you have to say about Rededit." I certainly did not mean the later, and I am sorry if you (or anyone else) read it that way: Anyone on Wikipedia who expresses concerns has a right to be heard, and it would be inappropriate to say, "I don't care about your concerns." So, please don't think I meant that. I was instead expressing a matter of priority to focus on NPOV issues. And yes, I do agree completely that cooperative editing is important. Hopefully, we have that all figured out. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, David Tornheim. I guess it was you and me alone on this change, so we'll see if it sticks. I'd like to move forward somewhat methodically, so as not to find everything reverted by people who don't come to the talk page until they see something they don't like, and not even then (as we saw in the infobox case at Guaido). I next want to tackle the aspects of Venezuela law and Constitution re "self-proclaimed". Do you agree that is the next most pressing item? I am not happy with the rest of the lead, which is vague and stale, but with the first line addressed, that does not seem so pressing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it is "the most pressing". I see many problems with bias in this article, which can be worked on concurrently, by creating separate sections on the talk pages. Also, there are multiple editors, and we can and should expect their collaboration and ability to take on multiple tasks independently of anything you or I choose to focus on. They are free to make changes and hopefully feel empowered to make improvements to any all parts of the article, regardless of what you or I might focus on. I see good work coming in from Kashmiri and Huldra and look forward to more of the same.

If you want to focus in on adding the text that Guaido is "self-proclaimed" reflecting the WP:RS, I support that. Or you could help add the material from that article in The Nation "Once Again, Mainstream Media Get It Wrong on Venezuela" mentioned at Talk:Juan_Guaidó#Bias_of_Mainstream_Media. There are plenty of things to help improve the article and keep it from having the same problems mentioned in The Nation. Lots to do to improvement the articles. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I am starting on the "self-proclaimed" notion, because from that (I sense) stems one of your main concerns of bias. Unsurprisingly, there seems to be no accurate or updated text anywhere on Wikipedia about the offices of the President or the President of the National Assembly, so I will have to build some supporting information ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Is there any particular point in The Nation article to be quickly addressed? Are you suggesting that we should cover it somewhere in the article?--MaoGo (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Full (temporary) lead proposal

Ok, here's my full proposal for a temporary lead (subject still to revision per the list I gave above). I have juggled text to a better chronological order, and I re-jigged the wikilinking to first occurrence of each term but have not changed content except for one word. There IS a difference in statute between an interim president and an acting president in Venezuela, and no matter what term reliable sources have used, by statute, Gauido is "acting", not "interim". So I changed that word and will explain that separately. I propose we install this for now, to at least deal with the first line, and address the rest as soon as we can. If you all agree to this, I have to make sure there are no referencing errors, from me juggling text (and I will have to alter some of the sources to ones that more correctly use "acting" instead of "interim". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

A crisis concerning who is the legitimate President of Venezuela has been underway since 10 January 2019, with the nation and the world divided in support for Nicolás Maduro or Juan Guaidó.

The process and results of the May 2018 Venezuelan presidential election were widely disputed. The opposition-majority National Assembly declared Maduro's presidency illegitimate on the day of his second inauguration, citing the 1999 Constitution of Venezuela enacted under Hugo Chávez, Maduro's predecessor. The body declared that his reelection was invalid, and declared its president, Juan Guaidó, to be acting president of the country. The pro-Maduro Supreme Tribunal of Justice said the National Assembly's declaration was unconstitutional.

Minutes after Maduro took the oath as president of Venezuela, the Organization of American States (OAS) approved a resolution in a special session of its Permanent Council declaring Maduro's presidency illegitimate and urging new elections. Special meetings of the OAS on 24 January and in the United Nations Security Council on 26 January were held but no consensus was reached. Secretary-General of the United Nations António Guterres called for dialogue.

Maduro's government states that the crisis is a "coup d'état led by the United States to topple him and control the country's oil reserves." Guaidó denies the coup allegations, saying peaceful volunteers back his movement. As of March 2019, Guaidó has been recognized as the acting president of Venezuela by 54 countries. AP News reported that "familiar geopolitical sides" had formed with allies China, Cuba, Iran, Russia, Syria, and Turkey supporting Maduro, and the US, Canada, and most of Western Europe supporting Guaidó as acting president.

References

Quoted, attributed replaced

@Neutrality: thanks for the cleanup in this series of edits. Two questions:

1. The BBC used the exact words "controlled by Chavismo"; you rephrased to "controlled by Maduro loyalists". I wonder what other editors think, since not all chavistas are fond of Maduro.
2. Your text on the "usual geopolitical sides" per AP is more elegant than attributing it, but the reason I attributed one succinct source is to avoid the pile-on of editors wanting to expand the list to every country and the kitchen sink. As an example, see the lead of the Spanish Wikipedia on Guaido (you'll see the problem even if you don't speak Spanish). The idea is to use one source that tightly focuses the conflict, to avoid the urge to expand. Perhaps there are other ideas of how to handle this.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:14, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandy. For point #1, I added another cite that makes the point more directly (this NPR cite). For point #2, I know there's a desire to avoid the pile-on, but I think we can handle that through the course of editing without the need for the in-text attribution. Neutrality^talk 14:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Neutrality; I'm happy with that, as long as we are vigilant that we not end up with a laundry list in the lead. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Article size

@SandyGeorgia: Before I forget, are we doing alright with the current article size? My sidebar tool tells me that we have approached 60 kB of readable prose, which I understand is a little above what is advisable. Now that the Foreign involvement during the Venezuelan presidential crisis article was created, we may trim down the section in this article. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:29, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Noob here, how do you measure the size of the readable prose?--MaoGo (talk) 21:42, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I would say it is a little advanced, it's a script that I think I installed back when I participated in a Women in Red contest. If I'm not mistaken it should be this one, once installed it should appear in the left sidebar along with other tools, such as "What links here" and "Page information". --Jamez42 (talk) 21:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I have a script from Dr pda; you have to set up a monobook in your own userspace, like User:SandyGeorgia/monobook.js, and install Dr pda's prose size script.

We are pushing the WP:SIZE limits with 9,500 words of readable prose. I have been meaning to trim some of the older content, that is already well summarized to sub-articles, but I had a crazy busy week.

I can do some trimming on Monday because I have a good sense of what has already been moved to sub-articles; we need to make room for the things we've been talking about on Gauido-- better explanation of how things got to where they are. It has been discouraging to think about moving forward with all the missing text. Sources need to be found for CSE, TSJ, ANC, AN, Pres of Venezuela, vice pres ... so many building blocks that aren't done ... and we can't build ALL of that content within this article. That is why I have been stalled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Let us know if you need any help! Maybe something can be organized. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:41, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42 and MaoGo: I will trim today. You mentioned trimming Foreign involvement, but I was thinking of focusing on other sections that are well summarized to sub-articles. Foreign involvement is a hot topic right now, so I will go gently in that area, where some of the older sections, viewed from the perspective of time and distance from the events, have taken on less prominence. Saludos, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Not yet done, but I need to get to my garden while the sun is shining, so will stop momentarily.

Before I started trimming, as of this version, we had:

• File size: 84 kB
• Prose size (including all HTML code): 103 kB
• References (including all HTML code): 18 kB
• Prose size (text only): 60 kB (9457 words) "readable prose size"
• References (text only): 2141 B

As of this version, we have:

• File size: 84 kB
• Prose size (including all HTML code): 90 kB
• References (including all HTML code): 16 kB
• Prose size (text only): 51 kB (8132 words) "readable prose size"
• References (text only): 1887 B

So far, nothing has been lost, as everything trimmed is in a sub-article somewhere. Back later, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia and Jamez42: thanks for the prose size script, it is very cool. I feel less noob now. --MaoGo (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I didn't finish trimming; just ran out of time. I will catch up this weekend. (I miss dear Dr pda every day ... at FAC, I depended on his scripts for ... everything.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

As of this version, 7,900 words (which leaves little room to grow, but good enough for now). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)