Talk:2019 Venezuelan blackouts

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2019 Venezuelan blackouts article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 30 days

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

A news item involving 2019 Venezuelan blackouts was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 14 March 2019.

Wikipedia

Disaster management Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Energy Low‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Venezuela Top‑importance

	Venezuela portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Venezuela, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Venezuela on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VenezuelaWikipedia:WikiProject VenezuelaTemplate:WikiProject VenezuelaVenezuela articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

"Wikipedia ya reseña el mega apagón en Venezuela". La Patilla. 14 March 2019. Retrieved 14 March 2019. Wikipedia reseña en inglés y en español el mega apagón que dejó a oscuras a toda Venezuela durante cinco días seguidos desde la tarde del jueves 7 de marzo, y que hoy al cumplirse 7 días afecta a varias ciudades, y ha dejado sin atención médica, sin alimentos y sin agua a millones de venezolanos.

un otro mas?[edit]

24 mayo Kingsif (talk) 08:19, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like this blackout only affected Maracaibo. I would love to include this in a sequels or aftermath section, but a source summarizing the blackouts in other cities and states would be excellent. --Jamez42 (talk) 09:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zulia deserves his own 2019 crisis article. --MaoGo (talk) 10:19, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest expanding the Zulia energy collapse article. --Jamez42 (talk) 10:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On news outage[edit]

A recent article by Deutsche Welle (June) seems to address the lacks of news during the blackouts. [1] --MaoGo (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Project to repare electric grid[edit]

A project to repair the electric grid with an UN commission and members of Guaidó and Maduro team has been announced [2]. To be updated soon. --MaoGo (talk) 11:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And.... it was scrapped [3]--MaoGo (talk) 12:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

verifikado.com appears unreliable and spam[edit]

I've tried to get editors to explain how we could possibly consider verifikado.com as reliable. ~~After three weeks, I'm treating it as spam.~~ Hipal (talk) 00:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Strikeout last sentence above). It's been over three weeks, and there's no consensus that it's reliable. --Hipal (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that no explanations have been given to support the sources reliability is demonstrably false: I have stated that "Verifikado is a fact checker"([4]) and that "the website is not a blog, a self-published reference or has any indications that suggest that it is unreliable, particularly without examples." [5][6]). User SandyGeorgia has also commented this, pointing out at Verifikado's status as a fact checker and commenting on how she thinks that the source should be used ([7]). The edit summaries of the restorations go into further details regarding this, and the complaint in the edit warring noticeboard reflects many of these things as well.

Another point I have stated is that [the reliability] it has otherwise remained undisputed for years (WP:SILENT). Not only the cart is effectively being put before the horse, shifting where the onus lies, but the lack of explanations on the dispute of the reliability also makes it harder to offer satisfactory responses. No examples or reasons have been given for the removal of otherwise referenced content ([8]); When discussing the reliability of sources, what's common is to at least give examples on why it should be put into question. ([9]). Even the title of this comment, "verifikado.com appears unreliable and spam", suggests that this assessment is based on personal feelings rather than on policy.

Now the claim has been shifted from saying that not only the reference is unreliable, but spam, which is equally confusing considering how little presence on the project it has (9 pages to be precise, 6 of which are talk pages) and considering that the source's domain is currently dead.

Considering all of this, I kindly ask you to remove the inline tag and leave the text as it was before you started editing. --NoonIcarus (talk) 02:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:FOC.

I pointed you to WP:RSP and WP:RSN and WP:RS to get you to address the policy and see how to demonstrate that a reference is reliable. I see no responses based upon these policies and procedures. --Hipal (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Centralizing thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#Verifikado. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CANVAS SYNTH (and fringe)[edit]

@WMrapids: Hi. I have reverted your last edit because it is synthesis and the primary source ([10]) doesn't mention the 2019 blackouts, being published in 2010 (Le Monde diplomatique's source [11] doesn't even mention Venezuela at all).

This addition only gives weight to the fringe theory that the opposition could be related to the blackouts, when experts already say that the causes were lack of maintenance and lack of technical expertise. Let me know your thoughts. Regards, NoonIcarus (talk) 10:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NoonIcarus: The Le Monde diplomatique source mentions both the 2019 blackout and the 2010 CANVAS document. WMrapids (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WMrapids: Can you specify where? I can see that there are at least three related pages, but I don't see a mention of any. Regardless, the relevance of a 2010 document in a 2019 blackout still needs to be considered. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]